A comprehensive analysis of well-being frameworks applied in Australia and their suitability for Indigenous peoples.

PURPOSE: Well-being is a complex, multi-dimensional, dynamic, and evolving concept, covering social, economic, health, cultural and spiritual dimensions of human living, and often used synonymously with happiness, life satisfaction, prosperity, and quality of life. We review the existing key wellbeing frameworks applied in Australia both for the wider public and Indigenous peoples. The aim is to provide a comprehensive overview of various applied frameworks, along with a critical analysis of domains or dimensions comprising those frameworks, and to analyse the role of nature in those frameworks. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a critical analysis of the main frameworks applied in Australia to date to measure the well-being of the mainstream (mainly non-Indigenous) and Indigenous populations. This study is particularly timely given the Australian Government's interest in revising the well-being frameworks as mentioned in the Government "Measuring What Matters" statement. RESULTS: The existing well-being frameworks in Australia either overlook or hardly consider the role of nature and its services which are important to support human well-being. Likewise, for Indigenous peoples "Country" (Indigenous clan land) is vital for their well-being as their living is imbued with "Country". The role of nature/"Country" needs to be considered in revising the well-being frameworks, indicators and measures to inform and develop appropriate policies and programs in Australia. CONCLUSION: To develop appropriate welfare policies and programs for achieving socio-economic and other wellbeing outcomes, it is essential to evolve and conceptualize wellbeing frameworks (and related indicators and measures) in line with people's contemporary values, particularly considering the role of nature and its services.

Conservation benefit-sharing mechanisms and their effectiveness in the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem: local communities' perspectives.

Benefit-sharing mechanisms have been instrumental in securing the support of local communities living on the edge of protected areas to implement protected area goals and enhance biodiversity conservation outcomes. Understanding the acceptability of the types of benefit provided among diverse communities is crucial for co-designing benefit-sharing approaches that accommodate local perspectives. Here, we used quasi-structured questionnaires and focus group discussions (FGD) to assess the acceptance of the types of benefit received by the communities in the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem (GSE) in Tanzania and the effectiveness of the benefits in securing community support for conservation reserves. We found that the categories of social service provision, livelihood support, and employment described all the benefits provided across conservation institutions operating in the GSE. However, the types of benefit within these categories varied significantly among conservation institutions, in terms of level and frequency of benefits received by communities. Overall, student scholarships were highly rated by respondents as the most satisfying benefit received. Respondents who were dissatisfied with the benefits received thought that the benefits did not compensate for the high costs arising from wildlife incursions onto their land. Communities' acceptance of the benefits received varied greatly among villages, but only a small proportion of pooled respondents (22%) were willing to support the existence of a protected area without benefit. This study suggests that local people are willing to support conservation outcomes but require conservation institutions to give greater consideration to the costs incurred by communities, their livelihood needs, and access to natural resources or other benefits. We recommend that benefit-sharing be tailored to the local circumstances and cultures of people living close to protected areas, particularly communities expressing more negative views, to ensure adequate and appropriate compensation is provided. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10531-023-02583-1.

Empowering Indigenous natural hazards management in northern Australia.

Northern Australia is prone to recurring severe natural hazards, especially frequent cyclones, flooding, and extensive wildfires. The region is sparsely populated (≪ 0.5 persons km-2), with Indigenous (Aboriginal) residents comprising 14% of the population, and typically the majority in remote regions. Despite national policy committed to addressing emergency management (EM) in vulnerable Indigenous communities, implementation remains unfunded. We synthesise participatory intercultural research conducted over seven years exploring core challenges, opportunities and potential solutions towards developing effective EM partnerships. Similar EM engagement and empowerment issues face First Nations and local communities in many international settings. In search of solutions, we explore developing effective partnership arrangements between EM agencies and culturally diverse Indigenous communities. Observing that government already provides substantial investment in cultural and natural resource management programmes conducted by over 150 Indigenous Ranger Groups (IRGs) nationally, we demonstrate that expansion of IRG roles to incorporate EM community engagement and service delivery can provide multiple cost-effective community and business development benefits for many remote communities.

Ecosystem health, ecosystem services, and the well-being of humans and the rest of nature.

An ecosystem is healthy if it is active, maintains its organization and autonomy over time, and is resilient to stress. Healthy ecosystems provide human well-being via ecosystem services, which are produced in interaction with human, social, and built capital. These services are affected by different ecosystem stewardship schemes. Therefore, society should be aiming for ecosystem health stewardship at all levels to maintain and improve ecosystem services. We review the relationship between ecosystem health and ecosystem services, based on a logic chain framework starting with (1) a development or conservation policy, (2) a management decision or origin of the driver of change, (3) the driver of change itself, (4) the change in ecosystem health, (5) the change in the provision of ecosystem services, and (6) the change in their value to humans. We review two case studies to demonstrate the application of this framework. We analyzed 6,131 records from the Ecosystem Services Valuation Database (ESVD) and found that in approximately 58% of the records data on ecosystem health were lacking. Finally, we describe how the United Nations' System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) incorporates ecosystem health as part of efforts to account for natural capital appreciation or depreciation at the national level. We also provide recommendations for improving this system.