Wooltorton, S. and Marinova, D. (Eds) Sharing wisdom for our future.

Environmental education in action: Proceedings of the 2006 Conference of the Australian Association of Environmental Education

Chapter 25 Overlay Mapping A Methodology for Place-Based Sustainability Education Laura Stocker and Gary Burke Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy, Murdoch University 1. Introduction A sense of place is a rich and dynamic dialogue between ourselves and the economic, social, cultural and ecological complexities of life (Beatley and Manning, 1997); places are always political and contested (Hayden, 1995; Stocker and Netherwood, 2006). Almost every place is a cultural landscape with many facets, layers and human expressions (Seddon, 1997) that reflect and maintain power relations (Hayden, 1995). Indigenous commentators like Marcia Langton (1998) have stated that all of Australia is a cultural landscape and that every part of the country has been touched, walked over, hunted on, and dreamt by its traditional owners and occupants for millennia. Consequently, wilderness is a misleading and inappropriate descriptor in Australia. How might we go about reflecting on the sustainability of complexly storied places resulting from relationships among the land and many generations of Indigenous and migrant peoples? The collection and analysis of technical data may describe the decline of species, or the amount of resources and energy used to maintain a society, but they do not account for, nor draw on, peoples experiences of and relationships to place. We suggest in this chapter that one method for deepening sense of place to achieve sustainability is through mapping. Mapping projects are being undertaken in many schools and communities across the globe (Liebenberg, 2003; Parr et al., undated). One example was described by Mark Baldwin (2004); it involves observing the school surroundings, mapping the cultural and environmental features of the area and developing a concept map. His programme called Teaming with Nature is designed to be a unit of study that links into the curriculum in a rigorously educational manner (Baldwin, 2004). One crosscultural study showed that mapping ability can be developed in children from a very early age (Blades et al., 1998), while other studies show that smaller children focus and relate to smaller areas. Blaut (1991) argues that mapping is a natural ability and can be practised by all ages in all cultures. Hence it is applicable to adults and children. In the present chapter, we review the evolution of overlay mapping from a land management tool in the rangelands of Western Australia to its adaptation for use as a method for mapping sustainability values. We reflect on two case studies: one in a primary school setting and the other in a university setting. The essence of the overlay mapping method we present here includes peoples experiences of relationship to place as a part of reflexive sustainability assessment. It offers an inclusive framework that provides scope for deeper understanding of sustainability values and can be used as a complement to more positivist, objectivist methods. It can be used across time and it can encompass the perspectives of a

228

Wooltorton, S. and Marinova, D. (Eds) Sharing wisdom for our future. Environmental education in action: Proceedings of the 2006 Conference of the Australian Association of Environmental Education

highly diverse population. It can variously record: relationships among people; relationships between people and place; and relationships among aspects of a place. 2. Overlay Mapping: History We first saw the overlay mapping process being used in the semi-arid Gascoyne Murchison rangelands of Western Australia (Gascoyne Murchison Strategy Board, 2004). The overlay mapping process was the creation of Ken Tinley and Hugh Pringle. Pringle and Tinley created the EMU (Ecosystem Management Understanding) project in order to enhance pastoralists awareness of rangeland landscape ecology and to encourage them to undertake changes in management practices that lead to more sustainable use of natural resources (Pringle et al., 2003). In the EMU workshops pastoralists were provided with a large (A2) map of their own stations as base maps. Satellite maps were also used to give regional and catchment contexts to these base maps. The pastoralists placed a transparent overlay on the base map and were asked to mark on the overlay their best grazing country. On a fresh overlay they marked their water points and drainage patterns; then on subsequent overlays they marked country types, and biodiversity etc. When each pastoralist (or couple) had completed all the overlays for their own station they were then given a small piece of cardboard with a 10 cm hole cut in it, like a doughnut. They were asked to move the cardboard doughnut over the map with overlays and find the areas with the greatest intersection of coloured markings: that is, the areas with greatest conjunction of interests. These areas were called hotspots: places where multiple production pressures and landscape features, such as intersection country types and high levels of biodiversity, coincided. The pastoralists quickly realised that these hotspots were priority areas for close inspection, monitoring and management. The mapping was followed by walks across the stations and low level flights over their stations for ground validating the process. What impressed us was the impact this workshop had on the pastoralists (see also Braddick, 2005). Before the workshop they were seeing their stations in terms of infrastructure, roads, fences, water points; after the workshop they were seeing stations in terms of vegetation structures, drainage patterns, ecojunctions and landtypes. Overall the EMU process allowed pastoralists to see their stations differently, therefore to understand them differently, and therefore potentially to manage them differently (Burke, 2005). In academic terms it provided a new ontology, epistemology and methodology. In its orientation to participatory knowledge creation, the EMU process has much in common with the community science (Stocker, 1995), which is an emergent praxis with its own politics of democracy and empowerment, and its own epistemology of contextualisation. The overlay mapping process was participatory and relational in its essence: pastoralists drew on their own existing knowledge and experience of their own stations and were supported to combine their existing awareness with scientific ecological understandings. We saw that the method could be applied in a wide variety of situations and used by a diversity of people with or without literacy skills or a shared culture. It can be applied at many scales, and the same maps can be used at different times with different groups, thus extending the diversity and range of input. The process can
229

Wooltorton, S. and Marinova, D. (Eds) Sharing wisdom for our future. Environmental education in action: Proceedings of the 2006 Conference of the Australian Association of Environmental Education

thus incorporate more input than might be organised at a single workshop. We saw that overlay mapping allows participants to see the parts in relation to each other, and to the whole. The method could be used as a consultative exercise to bring together the ideas of a group of people. The method has a special validity because it can include empirical and experiential information in the same framework, and it is marked on a map without having been first prioritised. Because the final composite map includes all participants values and perspectives, the usual problems with finding consensus and domination by loud voices can be mitigated. It could also be used as an in-house land planning/management tool by government or other land managers. In particular, we saw that the overlay mapping method as applied in the EMU workshops could be adapted and extended using four sustainability layers (ecological, social, cultural and economic) as the themes for the overlays in the mapping process. 3. Sustainability Values Mapping The method used in the EMU overlay mapping exercise was adapted and implemented in a broader context of sustainability values by Laura Stocker, Gary Burke, Kathryn Netherwood, Jennie Buchanan and Dave Palmer. This adapted method shares the educational principles of developing an understanding of place through participatory and relational practices. The central questions we ask using this adapted method are How do we sustain a place, and how does the place sustain us? Our purpose is to provide a different way of seeing and understanding the world and our place in it. From this can flow responsible stewardship of place, or caring for country. In this chapter, we use a model of sustainability that accounts for culture as well as the conventional aspects of economy, ecology and society, because culture describes the ways of being and meaning that underpin the values that drive our behaviours. The model enables Indigenous as well as non-Indigenous cultural values to be made explicit. As well as significance within each layer, we also use a model that highlights interactivity among these four dimensions. The term pillars of sustainability suggests silos that do not interact. Even the Venn diagram suggests a very static abstract world, rather than the reality of dynamism and synergism. We begin by developing an understanding of a place in terms of its layers: cultural, social, economic and ecological. A student or scholar of sustainability will quickly recognise these as the four pillars of sustainability. In the early days (as in the EMU project), ecology and economy were seen by some as the two main aspects of sustainable development. Later, the significance of social was noted and incorporated into the models to add to our understanding. Most people have seen Venn diagrams of the three overlapping circles with sustainability in the centre. Many are also familiar with triple bottom line accounting. Thinking of a place in terms of its four layers allows us to develop a visually and analytically powerful method that can be related directly to a map of that place. Naturally a place is not literally made up of these abstract layers. Rather they are used as a means to deconstruct, analyse and reconstruct our understanding of a
230

Wooltorton, S. and Marinova, D. (Eds) Sharing wisdom for our future. Environmental education in action: Proceedings of the 2006 Conference of the Australian Association of Environmental Education

place. It is precisely our relationship to the layers and the relationships among the layers that are of interest. The first case study describes a project undertaken by a group of independent primary schools in Western Australia: Lance Holt School in the West End of Fremantle; Strelley Aboriginal Community School near Port Hedland, Pilbarra; Moerlina School in Mount Claremont; Nyindamurra Family School in Forest Grove, South West; and Kerry Street Community School in Hamilton Hill. The purpose of this action-research study was to deepen the childrens critical awareness of how their place sustains them and how they can in turn care for it. Lance Holt Schools longterm interest in sustainability and values education is documented elsewhere in these proceedings (Netherwood, Buchanan and Stocker, 2006). The second case study is based at Murdoch University in the unit Ecologically Sustainable Development which Laura Stocker teaches at an undergraduate and postgraduate level. The purpose here was to help students understand the four layers of place and how they can synergise to create sustainability, or not. Thus the purpose was to deepen their understanding of concept and practice of sustaining local areas. They would then also have a tool that they could go on to use professionally. Before describing the specifics of the method we will discuss some concepts that underlie the next two case studies. Aims of sustainability values mapping process The specific aims of the sustainability values mapping process are: To map sustainability values To identify sustainability hotspots To share ideas with others. Cultural layer The cultural layer relates to how people make meaning of the world. It is about how they express that meaning to themselves and to others. It may include: Indigenous sites and heritage, places of worship, market places, theatres, art galleries, music clubs, town squares, parks, bushland, cafes, and football ovals. Ecological layer The ecological layer relates to the features and processes of the living world: its ecosystems, plants and animals. It also includes the physical elements such as water, geology and sky. It particularly includes relations and interactions between ecological and physical aspects. On a map it may include: energy resources, beaches, sea, parks, bushland, and farms. Economic layer The economic layer relates to how we generate livelihoods, including where and how we spend money. The economic layer also relates to obtaining and maintaining a quality of life that is the whole cycle of production, consumption, and waste disposal, including the technologies of this cycle. The economic layer includes the resources required to meet our needs and wants. It may include: workplaces, shops, tip sites, ports, art galleries, farms, tourist sites, market places, and factories.

231

Wooltorton, S. and Marinova, D. (Eds) Sharing wisdom for our future. Environmental education in action: Proceedings of the 2006 Conference of the Australian Association of Environmental Education

Social layer The social layer relates to where and how we organise ourselves to provide for our needs, and where and how we create a sense of belonging. It may include: hospitals, libraries, market places, parks, police station, and cafes. The synergy of sustainability The synergist potential of sustainability, and the key to its assessment in this current method, lies in understanding where and how the layers interact to create synergies. Alternatively, there may be missed opportunities for synergies or even a negative interaction. Many aspects of western society, philosophy and thought have developed historically along reductionist lines: we do economics in an industrial site like Kwinana, we do culture in an art gallery or theatre, we do ecology in a national park or reserve, and we do society in at the football club. Although this is a particular and perhaps oversimplified representation, sustainability practitioners seek ways to re-integrate the four layers so that each layer can synergise and reinforce with the others instead of working in isolation or, being treated as being adversarial with each other in the policy formulation process (e.g., economic growth and environmental protection are frequently polarised). For example, we may mark/identify a beach as part of the ecological layer. In doing the cultural layer we may note that each year a festival occurs on this beach. Both of these are important to peoples positive experiences of the place. Now, the festival may actually celebrate the coastal environment in some way: for example, the kite festival at the very windy South Beach in Fremantle or the Festival of the Wind in the even windier Esperance on the South Coast of Western Australia; or the Sea Dragon festival in Cottesloe celebrating the diverse marine life of the reef there. This synergy is a step towards sustainability. The synergy may include an economic dimension like the Blessing of the Fleet festival at Fremantles Fishing Boat Harbour. A community garden may be a site of economic significance if it highlights the research and development of green technologies and practices. It is cultural if it provides participants and users with a sense of meaning, and if it makes a point of honouring Indigenous and other cultures influencing the place. It is social if it hosts enjoyable and productive meetings of diverse people with a shared interest in gardening. It is ecological if respects Indigenous flora and fauna while producing food and/or aesthetic appeal in an environmentally safe manner. Overlay mapping exercise stages The mapping exercise itself consists of several steps presented here as a set of general instructions. 1. Choose a base map of your local place. This can be a street map, a topographic map, or a cultural painting. A2 or even A3 is a good size. 2. Walk or bike around the local place, matching the place to the map so you get well acquainted with the place, if you are not already. 3. Use 4 clear plastic overlays to mark on cultural, social, economic and ecological sites within the place and their values. In addition to sites of obvious significance to the broader community, these sites marked should emphasise those of personal experience to the participants.

232

Wooltorton, S. and Marinova, D. (Eds) Sharing wisdom for our future. Environmental education in action: Proceedings of the 2006 Conference of the Australian Association of Environmental Education

4. When the plastic overlays are all laid on top of the base map, this process reveals the collective values, experiences and knowledge of all the participants. You can see from the compiled maps that there are some sites of very special shared significance, where many cultural, social, economic and ecological values coincide and interact; say parks, or a town beach or a market place. So although we separate cultural, social, economic and ecological layers for critical reflection, in reality they interact and combine. 5. Produce a final map which is a composite, highlights the sites of special sustainability significance with all their values. The map should be annotated with explanations as to the significance of each site. The map can also include photos, drawings, paintings, poems and stories, stuck onto or added to the map as an appendix. 4. Case Studies: Findings Primary schools The application of the above overlay mapping method by the schools varied enormously among them and among classes within the same school. The teachers made the method relevant to the age groups and cultures of their classes. Some teachers stuck to the method fairly closely; others built depth into the core idea of mapping place with sculptural installations, radio plays, visual art or multimedia productions. The results in the form of the above outputs, as well as discussions, written reflections and oral interviews were recorded by teachers and by the project management team1. They can be seen in a complexly interactive website http://www.kidsplacemaps.wa.edu.au/ designed by Gary Burke but created with participation by all the schools many of whom were learning to make web pages and upload them for the first time. Teachers of younger age groups tended to focus on smaller areas that the children were familiar with, such as their own homes e.g, Sam Wynnes Kindy Kids at Lance Holt School. The idea here was to focus on a scale and place that is naturally meaningful to young children. For young kids, abstract ideas of ecology, economy, culture and society are not yet very evocative. Their worldview is much more relational. Older kids mapped the Swan River as a hotspot and, after hearing dreaming stories from an Indigenous elder, went on to produce multimedia representations of the river and its stories. Some classes moved quickly from mapping to stewardship. Having mapped their local beach Bathers Beach, known in Nyungar as Manjaree, as a hotspot or special place, some students initiated a restoration place of a favourite sculptural playground that had fallen into disrepair, demonstrating that mapping values can lead to a sense of stewardship. Nyindamurra School also quickly moved from place-mapping to the idea of stewardship. This movement occurred when as a result of the mapping process the teachers realised that the kids had not identified the school as a hotspot. They set about making the school more meaningful to the kids by negotiating interesting projects based on the school ground such as developing a frog habitat and working through key issues like the loss of a favourite climbing tree deemed a hazard by the local council. They commented that the project had brought the school back to its
1

Kathryn Netherwood, Jennie Buchanan, Dave Palmer, Laura Stocker (see Netherwood et al., 2006) 233

Wooltorton, S. and Marinova, D. (Eds) Sharing wisdom for our future. Environmental education in action: Proceedings of the 2006 Conference of the Australian Association of Environmental Education

roots. (It was established in the 1970s as an alternative school with a focus on community and environment.) Kerry Street Community School took on the mapping project and identified several hotspots such as a local lake, a favourite park, peoples homes, the school environs including the grassed areas, the neighbours chickens and the Kerry Street bus stop, which it then reflected on in a great deal of detail and which was a subject to much interesting values discussion and practice in many interacting layers. Strelley Community School has three campuses in the Port Hedland region; it is an independent Aboriginal school. Their mapping process was presented primarily through a photographic medium and it highlighted: the extremes of their physical world the heat, dust, cyclones, willy-willies1 and floods; their spiritual connections to sites like Mikurrunya; the economic, social and cultural significance of the local roadhouse; and the much loved Cemetery Beach where the campuses meet for school camps. Moerlina School identified the Claremont Showgrounds and the Station Street Markets as hotspots and examined the layers that make up these places. The Markets mapping project concluded by the students putting together all the components of their understanding to construct a physical model of their ideal sustainable market place. Because the schools involved were all small, independent schools they were able to pick up and run with the project and had the freedom to embark on whole-school projects or go out spontaneously on excursions. Any educational methodology whose basis is relationality has to respond to context to fulfil its potential and be meaningful. The context is the class (including age and culture), teacher (particular skills and interests) and the geography, socio-economics and politics of the place where the school is located. From the point of view of the mapping methodology, the key general messages we want to highlight are as follows. Mapping can be 2D or 3D or digitally interactive, literal and metaphorical, visual or more conceptual. One common feature that all the schools shared was the interest in Indigenous culture and people and their relationship to the land. The overlay mapping method was very field-based and suited to small independent schools which are not risk-averse and which can get out and about readily with few administrative restraints. Teachers and children themselves were the key to the methods successful interpretation and adaptation.

Murdoch University: Ecologically Sustainable Development The overlay mapping method has also been used by university students as one of three assessment pieces in Laura Stockers Ecologically Sustainable Development unit (STP212/512) at Murdoch University (Stocker, 2006). Because the project was for assessment, the preparation and presentation of the maps were smaller and more specific in their scope than were the primary school projects. University students
1

A willy-willy is a whirlwind or dust-storm. 234

Wooltorton, S. and Marinova, D. (Eds) Sharing wisdom for our future. Environmental education in action: Proceedings of the 2006 Conference of the Australian Association of Environmental Education

were focusing specifically on a local government area and needed to hand in for assessment the four layers of maps plus a composite map. They could create digital maps if they wished. (Gary Burke ran a workshop demonstrating the digital options.) In 2004, the assignment was a collaborative project to be presented to the rest of the tutorial class. Students thoroughly engaged with the process, enjoyed the time spent in the field with the other members of the team, and delivered, for the most part, lively well-informed presentations1. For students living in a particular area, most reported that they saw it in a new light and learned some new things about it. For many international students it was a crash course in their temporary home, which was beneficial. The downside of the assignment was that tutorials were taken up week after week with presentations in which the marginal increase in learning for the audience was small. This outcome demonstrated the benefits of the process for its value to participants rather than to observers. In 2005, the assignment was done on an individual basis and handed in without being presented orally. While a pleasure to mark, all the collaborative benefits were lost. Many maps were very impressive, however: they ranged in style from creative collages with lots of photos and poems stuck onto the composite map to highly professional technical outputs from Photoshop. As a learning device, the mapping process engaged students through critical reflection on its process as well as the substantive understandings gained. The first concern usually raised is, what if the same item occurs on more than one layer? Say, what if South Beach is both ecological and social? Perhaps it also occurs on the economic layer or the cultural layer? Should you mark the same place on more than one layer? Yes, you should! That is the point of the process, to identify places that occur on more than one layer, and to identify where they actually synergise. A caf can be social, economic and cultural. A synergy with the ecological layer can occur if the cafs trade is enhanced by its location next to the sea, and even more so if it is involved in coastal care like Little Creatures Brewery. There can also be synergies within layers. A caf that sells seafood supports the local seafood industry; it may or may not sell sustainably harvested seafood though! Students quickly realised that, in studying the sustainability benefits of hotspots, scale matters. A site like, for arguments sake, Murdoch University can look like a sustainability hotspot within the city of Melville, with all four layers present on the campus. However, when you look at the university site on its own, at full scale, you can see that the four layers dont necessarily overlap quite so closely. For example, the bushland (ecological) is spatially separated within the campus from the educational sites (social). A separate but related issue is the extent to which layers actually synergise where they do overlap in a place. For example, to what extent do economic, ecological and social layers interact in relation to recycling? To what extent is the Indigenous history (cultural) of the environment (ecological) interpreted to students on campus (social)? Do the departments that teach (social) about environmental issues (ecological) also practise recycling (economic/ecological) in their own offices and teaching resources? What limits these synergistic practices? To what extent is a university that teaches sustainability also sustainable all the way up and down its building design and
1

These and the following conclusions about students projects are based on Lauras personal observations and formal assessments of students presentations and assignments, as well as informal and formal feedback from the students to her. 235

Wooltorton, S. and Marinova, D. (Eds) Sharing wisdom for our future. Environmental education in action: Proceedings of the 2006 Conference of the Australian Association of Environmental Education

business practices (economic)? Students identified hotspots within the university campus like the Environmental Technology Centre where synergies among the four layers have deliberately been enabled. Furthermore, the identification of such hotspots and quasi-hotspots also inspired the students to think about what could be done to create better synergies among the four layers such as having more classes in the bushland (some learning does occur in the bush). Thus the identification of synergies and interactions among layers opens the space for further and deeper analysis, rather than being an endpoint in itself. Another questions raised by students was, is it always desirable to have all four layers? Could three be enough for sustainability? If a town park like the Esplanade in Fremantle served social, cultural and economic functions, did it also have to have ecological value? Or, what if one layer works against the others: a toxic waste dump near South Beach. In fact, the complexities, tensions and ambiguities of contemporary life are such that these situations are more common than ideal hotspots. In these cases, the tensions among the layers serve as talking points for how sustainability could be improved. The mapping process can be a way of visualising and conceptualising the absence of layers and conflicts among the layers, as well as the presence of layers and synergies among them. Some students even identified cold spots on their maps typically sprawling suburbs with few parks and amenities, or unalleviated industrial areas. Some students get overwhelmed when they look at a map and think, Oh, its all social, and its all economic, and oh, everything can be on all the layers! However what is of interest in this methodology, especially to a collaborative, educational version of the process, is not to ensure absolutely everything is marked on the transparencies, but rather to mark what it is that people value the most in a place and to use this as a reflective, inter-subjective tool. 5. Conclusions and Future Directions The sustainability values mapping process, as derived from the EMU overlay mapping process, is a method that compiles and represents the sustainability values of a place. The strengths of the method lie in the following qualities: it can be applied in a wide variety of situations, including communities, schools and universities; it is educative, relational and participatory not just extractive of information; the mapping process can represent all the participants voices; it collects both empirical and experiential information in the same framework; it can be used by people of most ages, cultures and literacy abilities; it can be used at many scales; it allows participants to see the layers of sustainability in relation to each other, and to the synergistic whole; and the mapping process can lead into a planning process.

Further work can be done to translate the results into digital format. The various portions of the process can utilise digital technology: the layers can be compiled electronically within, for instance, a graphics programme such as Photoshop. The completed electronic maps can then be formatted into a GIS programme and correlated and analysed with data collected elsewhere and by different means (e.g.

236

Wooltorton, S. and Marinova, D. (Eds) Sharing wisdom for our future. Environmental education in action: Proceedings of the 2006 Conference of the Australian Association of Environmental Education

ABS census). The availability of personal GPS devices, combined with the ease with which electronic maps can now be created (e.g., from a traditional Indigenous painting of Country), and graphics based, non-literary software programmes such as Cybertracker for PDA/GPS1 devices, means there is greater potential for effective incorporation of information and perspectives from many citizens who are usually marginalised by information gathering processes (Liebenberg, 2003). Until recently, GIS has been much less user-friendly for collaborative, participatory grass-roots work. However there are pilot projects being undertaken in local governments in Europe that involve using internet and GIS to enhance public participation (Parr et al., undated) and in Vermont, USA, there has been a collaboration between the University of Vermont, Shelburne Farms and other partners in mapping the physical, cultural and ecological landscapes and their key attributes of Vermont towns specifically as a place-based community educational process2. The advantages of the GIS approach is that it is very information rich but the disadvantage is that, without the capacity for easy public input via the internet (because of lack of access, for instance) it does not necessarily capture the relational values that were can be so important in education, as at the educational institutions involved in this project. References Baldwin, M. (2004). Teaming with nature. Green Teacher, Fall (74), 2730. Beatley, T. & Manning, K. (1997). The ecology of place: Planning for environment, economy, and community. Washington: Island Press. Blaut J.M. (1991). Natural mapping. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers New Series 16(1), 65-74. Blades, M., J.M. Blaut, Z. Darvizeh, S. Elguea, S. Sowden, D. Soni, C. Spencer, D. Stea, R. Surajpaul, D. Uttal (1998). A cross-cultural study of young childrens mapping abilities. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 23(2), 269277. Braddick, L. (2005). Ecological Management Unit Project: Participant Evaluation, Kalgoorlie, Western Australia: The Rangeland Natural Resource Management Co-ordinating Group. Burke, G. (2005). Overview of the Ecosystem Management Understanding Framework (EMU): Principles and Practice for Ecologically Sustainable Pastoral Management, Video produced for GMS. Fremantle: Production Function. Gascoyne Murchison Strategy Board (2004). Gascoyne Murchison Strategy Annual Report 2003-2004, Western Australia: Gascoyne Development Commission. http://www.gms.wa.gov.au/main%20pages/programmes.html#vla (accessed 04.12.2006).
1 2

PDA is an acronym for Personal Digital Assistant. GPS is an acronym for Global Positioning System http://www.uvm.edu/place/analyze/gis.php 237

Wooltorton, S. and Marinova, D. (Eds) Sharing wisdom for our future. Environmental education in action: Proceedings of the 2006 Conference of the Australian Association of Environmental Education

Hayden, D. (1995). The power of place: Urban landscapes as public history. Cambridge: MIT Press. Langton, M. (1998). Burning questions, emerging environmental issues for indigenous peoples in Northern Australia. Darwin: Centre for Indigenous Natural and Cultural Resource Management, Northern Territory University. Liebenberg, L. (2003). A New Environmental Monitoring Methodology. http://www.cybertracker.co.za/index_environment.html (accessed 04.12.2006). Netherwood, K., Buchanan, J., Stocker, L. and Palmer, D. (2006). Values education for relational sustainability: A case study of Lance Holt School and friends. In Wooltorton, S. and Marinova, D. (Eds). Sharing wisdom for our future. Environmental education in action: Proceedings of the National Conference of the Australian Association for Environmental Education (pp. 250260). Sydney: AAEE. Parr, C.S., Jones, T. & Songer, N.B. (undated). CyberTracker in BioKIDS: Customization of a PDA-based scientific data collection application for inquiry learning. www.cybertracker.co.za (accessed 04.12.2006). Pringle, H., Tinley, K., Brandis, T., Hopkins, A., Lewis, M. and Taylor, L. (2003). The Gascoyne-Murchison Strategy: A people centred approach to conservation in arid Western Australia. African Journal of Range & Forage Science, 20(2), 80 88. Seddon, G. (1997). The genius loci and the Australian landscape. In Landprints: Reflections on place and landscape (pp. 113118). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stocker, L.J. (1995). Community science and community scientists: Their role in conservation. In D.A. Saunders, J. Craig, and E. Mattiske (Eds). Nature conservation 4: The role of networks (pp. 534541). Chipping Norton, Australia: Surrey Beatty & Sons Ltd. Stocker, L.J. (2006). STP 212/512 Ecologically sustainable development unit guide. Perth, Australia: Murdoch University. Stocker, L.J. & Netherwood, K. (2006). Children caring for the coast: A values education project on sustainability in place. In S. Paulin (Ed.). Community voices: Creating sustainable spaces (pp.164185). Perth: UWA Press.

238