Environmental Conservation 34 (4): 334–341 © 2008 Foundation for Environmental Conservation doi:10.1017/S037689290700433X Local knowledge and environmental management: a cautionary tale from Lake Ainsworth, New South Wales, Australia JOHN TIBBY 1 ∗ , MARCUS B. LANE 2 AND PETER A. GELL 1 1 Geographical and Environmental Studies, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, 5005, Australia and 2 CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, 306 Carmody Road, St Lucia, Queensland, 4067, Australia Date submitted: 3 March 2006 Date accepted: 10 October 2007 SUMMARY Local knowledge is increasingly seen as a critical infor- mation source for environmental management and habitat restoration, particularly in Australia. To assess the reliability of this information source, community perceptions of the salinity history of Lake Ainsworth (New South Wales, Australia) were investigated. Lake Ainsworth is a coastal dune lake classified as ‘perma- nently’ freshwater, although diatom evidence indicates a saline phase that ended in the 1930s. Local accounts of the Lake’s history rarely reached consensus and local perceptions frequently contrasted with alternate evidence, including that derived from historical maps and aerial photographs. Given there was an inconsis- tent and unreliable local perspective about a relatively simple environmental issue, calls for environmental management and restoration to be based on local priorities should be viewed with scepticism. Keywords: aerial photographs, diatom, habitat restoration, historical maps, lake sediments, local knowledge, management targets, salinity INTRODUCTION So-called ‘bottom-up’ approaches to environmental planning and management have been widely advocated as being more functional and democratic than ‘top-down’ approaches (Kellert et al. 2000; Li, 2001; Carr 2002). This discourse is closely associated with a global movement concerned with the decentralization of governance and the transfer of state assets or powers to subordinate (local or regional) decision- making bodies, including non-governmental organizations (Agrawal & Gibson 1999; Ribot 1999). ‘Bottom-up’ environ- mental management is said to be more sensitive to local circumstances, involve direct participation of local actors and deploy local knowledge in management (Scott 1998; Leach et al. 1999). While these approaches to environmental management have been heavily promoted in developing regions (e.g. sub- Saharan Africa, see Ribot (2002), Indonesia and Thailand), ∗ Correspondence: Dr John Tibby Tel: +61 8 8303 5146 Mobile: +61 434 950 861 Fax: +61 8 8303 3772 e-mail: john.tibby@ adelaide.edu.au the enthusiasm with which Australian jurisdictions have embraced the approach (see Lane et al. 2005 for a review) is probably unique among developed western nations. Local-centric approaches to environmental management have emerged to combat the so-called ‘rational-compre- hensive’ model of planning and management that dominated in the post-war years (Sandercock 1998). In environmental planning, the emphasis has long been on rigorous scientific assessment for developing management strategies, because objective measures were assumed to lead to better understanding of highly complex and dynamic environments. Scott (1998) attacked this approach in great empirical detail and with real theoretical power by reviewing some of the grand plans of modern history, including German scientific forestry, collectivization in Russia, the Great Leap Forward in China and agricultural ‘modernization’ in the tropics. In Scott’s (1998) analysis, the great failure of rationalism is not the use or application of technical knowledge, but its failure to acknowledge or incorporate other forms of knowledge. His research shows how these ambitious plans either failed or had catastrophic consequences for local peoples because the scientific tools that planners and designers deployed did not adequately deal with the nuanced complexities of localities (Scott 1998). Hence, while technical or scientific knowledge helps us understand some features of environment, it might also obscure or fail to recognize other aspects (Lane et al. 2003). Overcoming such limitations by incorporating local knowledge systems has become an agenda for improving environmental management around the world (Berkes & Folke 1998; Robertson & McGee 2003). The problem of how both local and technical systems of knowledge may be effectively used in environmental decision- making has bedevilled recent and contemporary approaches to management. Complaints about the marginalization of local knowledge are common (see for example Howitt 2001). Others highlight the deep divide between a managerial language which emphasizes scientific expertise and a ‘communitarian alternative’ primarily focused on direct community action and influence (Williams & Matheny 1995, p. 69). Recently local environmental management and restoration has been vigorously pursued in Australia through institutional and administrative decentralization (see Lane et al. 2004). For example, in phase 1 of the Australian Federal Govern- ment’s Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) programme, over 40% of c. A$ 1.5 billion in grants was allocated to (often recently formed) local community organizations, compared with 36% directed to State Government agencies (Hassall