Kennedy Brooke P A, Brown Wendy Y, Butler James R A
School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2353, Australia.
CSIRO Land & Water, GPO Box 2583, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia.
Animals (Basel). 2021 Feb 26;11(3):613. doi: 10.3390/ani11030613.
Companion animal management in Australian remote Aboriginal communities (rAcs) is a complex problem, with multiple stakeholders involved with differing needs, knowledge, power and resources. We present our CoMM4Unity approach, a participatory systemic action research process designed to address such problems. In the first step, frame analysis is used to analyse stakeholders' perspectives, knowledge types and power dynamics to determine their relative roles in animal management. Twenty individuals were interviewed from stakeholder groups involved in animal management in the remote, island rAc of Wurrumiyanga, Tiwi Islands. Frame analysis indicated that stakeholders aligned into four groups with distinct identity frames, knowledge types and power frames: Indigenous Locals, Indigenous Rangers, Non-Indigenous Locals and Animal Managers. All four groups shared overlapping perceptions about companion animals in Wurrumiyanga, and agreed that dog overpopulation was the primary issue. However, the groups differed in their strength of opinions about how dogs should be managed. Therefore, the situation is not one of diametrically opposing frames but more a misalignment of goals and values. Our application showed that frame analysis can reveal subtle variations in stakeholder groups' identities, goals and values, and hence how they prioritise management measures.
澳大利亚偏远原住民社区(rAcs)的伴侣动物管理是一个复杂的问题,涉及多个利益相关者,他们有着不同的需求、知识、权力和资源。我们介绍了我们的CoMM4Unity方法,这是一种参与性系统行动研究过程,旨在解决此类问题。第一步,框架分析用于分析利益相关者的观点、知识类型和权力动态,以确定他们在动物管理中的相对角色。我们从位于提维群岛乌鲁米亚扬加偏远岛屿rAc参与动物管理的利益相关者群体中采访了20个人。框架分析表明,利益相关者分为四组,具有不同的身份框架、知识类型和权力框架:原住民当地人、原住民护林员、非原住民当地人以及动物管理者。所有这四组对乌鲁米亚扬加的伴侣动物都有重叠的看法,并一致认为狗的数量过多是主要问题。然而,这些群体在关于如何管理狗的意见强度上存在差异。因此,情况并非是完全对立的框架,而更多的是目标和价值观的不一致。我们的应用表明,框架分析可以揭示利益相关者群体在身份、目标和价值观方面的细微差异,从而了解他们如何对管理措施进行优先排序。