Suchergebnisse

This article focuses on the qualitative methodologies employed in a research project developed in collaboration with Aboriginal advisors and gaining an in‐depth understanding of Aboriginal Victorian peoples'1 connection to their ancestral lands. It outlines why qualitative methodologies were used and highlights the ethical dimensions of working with Aboriginal Victorian communities. A research partnership was developed between Aboriginal Victorian communities and the non‐Aboriginal researcher and this process was emphasised because in the past Australian Indigenous people have been grossly exploited in health research. The methods of semi‐structured interviews and focus groups were used to gain a better understanding of this topic. The novel point of this article is that it provides an honest reflection of the benefits and limitations of this qualitative research process from the perspectives of a non‐Aboriginal researcher and an Aboriginal participant, when emphasis is placed on a collaborative approach. The paper outlines what a successful qualitative research project looks like in Victorian Aboriginal communities. This can be used as a blueprint not only for working with Aboriginal Victorian communities, who have been marginalised within Australian society, but may also be relevant to other culturally diverse communities throughout the world.

Human-driven environmental change has brought attention to the importance of ecosystems in sustaining human health and well-being. There are various schools of thought and fields of inquiry and action that seek to understand health in relation to linked social and ecological phenomena. We describe 18 such fields and outline common elements and incongruities among them. They converge around the application of systems thinking and crossing disciplinary boundaries, while differences are found in methodologies, research foci and problem framing. Although fields encourage sustainable and equitable pathways for health promotion, depoliticized and ahistorical approaches continue to be standard practice. Future research calls for a deeper commitment to examining ourselves as political actors, making space for conversations around power dynamics, and (re)centering participants in research methodologies.

Australia is experiencing mounting pressures related to processes of urbanisation, biodiversity loss and climate change felt at large in cities. At the same time, it is cities that can take the leading role in pioneering approaches and solutions to respond to those coupling emergencies. In this perspective piece we respond to the following question: What are the required transformations for prioritising, valuing, maintaining and embracing nature in cities in Australia? We adopt the mission framework as an organising framework to present proposed pathways to transform Australian cities as nature-positive places of the future. We propose three interconnected pathways as starting actions to steer urban planning, policy and governance in Australian cities: First, cities need to establish evidence-based planning for nature in cities and mainstream new planning tools that safeguard and foreground urban nature. Second, collaborative planning needs to become a standard practice in cities and inclusive governance for nature in cities needs to prioritise Aboriginal knowledge systems and practices as well as look beyond what local governments can do. Third, for progressing to nature-positive cities, it is paramount to empower communities to innovate with nature across Australian cities. Whilst we focus on Australian cities, the lessons and pathways are broadly applicably globally and can inspire science-policy debates for the post COP15 biodiversity and COP26 climate change implementation processes.