Institutional Change and Learning for Sustainable Development

This paper is an interim outcome of Land and Water Australia Project ANU-24 'Implications for Australian natural resource management of international experiences in institutional change and reform arising from sustainable development' being undertaken through the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, The Australian National University. In summary, the aim of the project is to explore operational institutional lessons of relevance to Australia, gleaned from institutional change in other countries driven by the post-WCED (1987) and UNCED (1992) policy agenda of sustainable development. The primary output of the project is a brief (~20 page) report with a target audience of the NRM policy community, stakeholders and NGOs, supplemented by explanatory material, background papers, case studies, data bases, etc. as required. Clearly a review of institutional change around the world over the period 1987-2001 represents a mammoth task, and thus this study must scan widely and then scope more narrowly

Enhancing Science Impact in the Coastal Zone through Adaptive Learning

The impact of science to support coastal management may be reduced through social and institutional barriers. Some of these barriers include ineffective community engagement, lack of interaction between scientists and decision makers, and institutional decision-making tradition related to hierarchical mandates. A three-year project has commenced to examine the role of adaptive learning in overcoming some of these barriers to maximize pathways for science and improve decisions made in the coastal zone. Adaptive learning is one of five project areas targeted to enhance science impact, being undertaken by a consortium of nine Australian universities funded through the CSIRO Collaboration Fund. Two of the strategies being explored to maximize adaptive learning to improve science impact include: (i) development of an on-line toolkit for embedding adaptive learning within coastal organizations; and (ii) development and testing of monitoring and evaluation frameworks to improve adaptive learning interventions. While focused on an Australian context, the project addresses broad issues of social and institutional barriers that have relevance for many coastal scientists and decision makers around the globe

Kaitiakitanga - Active guardianship, responsibilities and relationships with the world: Towards a bio-cultural future In early childhood education

The world is a vast family, and humans are children of the earth and sky, and cousins to all living things. Such unity means that nature is the ultimate teacher about life (Royal 2010, p. 9). For Māori (indigenous peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand) the term kaitiakitanga (pronounced, kye-tee-ah-key-tar-ngah) is often used to refer to the active guardianship and management of natural organisms and their environments. Mātauranga Māori or Māori knowledge positions humans within nature and focuses on ways in which cultural understandings and intergenerational connections between people and their biophysical contexts assist in the retention and protection of biodiversity and ecologically sustainable ecosystems. This entry critically reflects notions of kaitiakitanga and bio-cultural connectivity as important and meaningful contributors for young children and their relationships with and for the world

The Western Australian regional forest agreement: economic rationalism and the normalisation of political closure

This article explores the constraints imposed by economic rationalism on environmental policy-making in light of Western Australia\u27s (WA) Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) experience. Data derived from interviews with WA RFA stakeholders shed light on their perceptions of the RFA process and its outcomes. The extent to which involvement of science and the public RFA management enabled is analysed. The findings point to a pervasive constrainedness of WA\u27s RFA owing to a closing of the process by the administrative decision-making structures. A dominant economic rationality is seen to have normalised and legitimised political closure, effectively excluding rationalities dissenting from an implicit economic orthodoxy. This article argues for the explication of invisible, economic constraints affecting environmental policy and for the public-cum-political negotiation of the points of closure within political processes

Sustainable Urban Systems: Co-design and Framing for Transformation

Rapid urbanisation generates risks and opportunities for sustainable development. Urban policy and decision makers are challenged by the complexity of cities as social–ecological–technical systems. Consequently there is an increasing need for collaborative knowledge development that supports a whole-of-system view, and transformational change at multiple scales. Such holistic urban approaches are rare in practice. A co-design process involving researchers, practitioners and other stakeholders, has progressed such an approach in the Australian context, aiming to also contribute to international knowledge development and sharing. This process has generated three outputs: (1) a shared framework to support more systematic knowledge development and use, (2) identification of barriers that create a gap between stated urban goals and actual practice, and (3) identification of strategic focal areas to address this gap. Developing integrated strategies at broader urban scales is seen as the most pressing need. The knowledge framework adopts a systems perspective that incorporates the many urban trade-offs and synergies revealed by a systems view. Broader implications are drawn for policy and decision makers, for researchers and for a shared forward agenda

Realizing resilience for decision-making

Researchers and decision-makers lack a shared understanding of resilience, and practical applications in environmental resource management are rare. Here, we define social-ecological resilience as a property of social-ecological systems that includes at least three main characteristics — resistance, recovery and robustness (the ‘three Rs’). We define socio-economic resilience management as planning, adaptation and transformational actions that may influence these system characteristics. We integrate the three Rs into a heuristic for resilience management that we apply in multiple management contexts to offer practical, systematic guidance about how to realize resilience