Beyond the Wild: A First Nations Perspective on Country, Sensory Knowledge, and Phenomenology Through Arts-Based Explorations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I believe that the article successfully combines the theoretical analysis of ecological thinking concerning the concept of ’wild’ in research literature and the analysis of Dharug art and creative works that also serves as a representative of First Nations and a very close relationship with nature and understanding that could help to broaden theoretical discourse concerning the nature and how to depict/ make it part of art and creative works. In my opinion, the parts concerning and analyzing the Dharug art are the most important and original research contribution of this article - and this part surely does address a specific gap in the field. As for the discussion concerning the ecological thinking I find it balanced and sufficient. It is needed to show how the article adds new perspectives to ecological thinking. 

 

The discussion of Dharug art and creative works includes a selection of representative works and their analysis. Interpretation and analysis of art always is qualitative and selective. Of course, the same applies to philosophy and ecological thinking. In my opinion the types of works selected give a fair idea of the Dharug art and creative works and ecological thinking embodied in them. For an article that has limited length to address issues I find the chosen examples sufficient. In particular, I find the visual representations pleasing.  However, since the analysis of Dharug art is the most original contribution of this article I would have been happy to have a broader selection of works included - and pointed out that this might be something the authors should do in their future work (if that is not what they can/want to do now). 

 

My other recommendation focused on making clear in the title, introduction and conclusions that this article analyses the Dharug art and creative works. Whether it is possible to make generalizations about the First Nations and their art and perspectives falls largely outside the scope of this article. Of course, this article adds to knowledge about the very issue of First Nations art but this article is not really based on comparative or contrastive methodology and does not need to make strong statements about the other First Nations. 

 

Therefore, I glad to recommend publishing the article and hope that the authors and the editor find my comments and recommendations useful. 

Author Response

Address to editors comments

 

Editor comments: a broader selection of works included

Authors adjustments: 2 images included with storylines – one map is also included

 

Editor comments: Line 10: re "wild" add, in Western literature

Authors adjustments:: Changed to western

Editor comments: Line 22: I would remove "new", because as I understand this way is not new, but not prioritized or known in Western societies. If thats not appropriate, perhaps the authors can also use a different term than new?

Editor comments: Removed new and replaced with other

Editor comments: Line 39: after unknown, define by whom?

Authors adjustments: The study concludes that what is commonly described as “the wild” is not unknown or untouched but deeply known through sustained sensory, relational, and creative engagement, demonstrating that ecological reconnection arises through ethical, culturally grounded relationships with living systems and offering implications for more respectful, place-responsive approaches to environmental research and care.

Authors adjustments: This has now been changed to - The study concludes that places often framed as “the wild” are not unknown or untouched, but profoundly known through the enduring sensory, relational, and creative practices of First Nations peoples. It highlights that ecological reconnection emerges through ethical, culturally grounded relationships with living systems, rather than through detached observation. These insights point toward more respectful, place-responsive approaches to environmental research, design, and care.

Editor comments: Line 219: add "western" to conecpt of 'the wild'. In this paragraph I would also like to see the research question clearer presented (Lines 227 ongoing?). 

Authors adjustments: Done

Editor comments: Line 253: I assume a map has been excluded by design. I would be interested to read a bit more about the features of the land here, as appropriate for the Dharug who steward the land. 

Authors adjustments: A map has been included with little detail as tribal lands are often contested.

Editor comments:  Fig1: Picture credit missing, find if it is a collective credit. Fig2: Picture credit missing, find if it is a collective credit. Addressed all credits of images.

Editor comments: Line 329 and ongoing. Does this mean there was no reserach question? If yes, could this study be described as an exploratory reserach?

Authors adjustments: A paragraph has been added - This paper adopts an exploratory research orientation consistent with phenomenological and arts-based inquiry. Rather than testing a predefined hypothesis, the study seeks to generate interpretive and conceptual insight into human–Country relationships. The guiding research question is: How can arts-based, sensory, and phenomenological practices enable ways of listening to Country that extend beyond Western constructions of the “wild”? This framing recognises that the investigation prioritises relational understanding and experience rather than quantifiable outcomes.

Editor comments: Line 471: If appropriate, could the authors draw some comparisons or conclusions on other arts based practices? How is their approach different from ABPR (art based perceptional ecology). One example where this has been commercialized as "Citizen Artist" here http://www.ecoartexpeditions.com/services.html

Authors adjustments: Added this: Comparable approaches appear within arts-based ecological research, particularly in frameworks such as Art-Based Perceptual Ecology (ABPE) and related models like the Citizen Artist approach, where artistic practice is used to extend ecological perception and engage sensory awareness alongside environmental inquiry (Woolery 2017; Woolery 2023). ABPE describes art-making as a way of knowing the “language of place,” enabling embodied, multisensory engagement with landscapes and ecological change rather than simply representing them (Woolery 2017; Woolery 2023). While these practices share an emphasis on perception and experience, the orientation developed here differs in its epistemological grounding. ABPE-type work generally situates art as a methodological bridge for observing or interpreting ecological systems, often alongside scientific protocols, whereas this study situates arts-based practice within First Nations understandings of Country, where sensory engagement and listening are not representational techniques but enactments of ongoing relational responsibilities with living environments. The emphasis therefore shifts from enhancing perception of nature as an external object to deepening phenomenological and relational attunement with Country itself, foregrounding art as a mode of engagement, reciprocity, and knowing rather than ecological supplementation

Editor comments: Re 481: Comparable approaches appear within arts-based ecological research, particularly in frameworks such as Art-Based Perceptual Ecology (ABPE) and related models like the Citizen Artist approach.

Authors adjustments:  artistic practice is used to extend ecological perception and engage sensory awareness alongside environmental inquiry (Woolery 2017; Woolery 2023). ABPE describes art-making as a way of knowing the “language of place,” enabling embodied, multisensory engagement with landscapes and ecological change rather than simply representing them (Woolery 2017; Woolery 2023). While these practices share an emphasis on perception and experience, the orientation developed here differs in its epistemological grounding. ABPE-type work generally situates art as a methodological bridge for observing or interpreting ecological systems, often alongside scientific protocols, whereas this study situates arts-based practice within First Nations understandings of Country, where sensory engagement and listening are not representational techniques but enactments of ongoing relational responsibilities with living environments. The emphasis therefore shifts from enhancing perception of nature as an external object to deepening phenomenological and relational attunement with Country itself, foregrounding art as a mode of engagement, reciprocity, and knowing rather than ecological supplementation.

Editor comments: Discussion: I think this is clearly written and one of the strngest parts of the paper. Becaus 'Wilderness" was introduced as a Western concept in tehe very beginning I would like to challenge the authors to imagine how "Listen beyond the Wild" could be called instead? Just a thought, no editing request. 

Editor comments: Request of title change

Authors adjustments: Beyond the Wild: A First Nations Perspective on Country, Sensory Knowledge, and Phenomenology Through Arts-Based Explorations

Editor comments: Line 535. If possible, pleare reference. 

Authors adjustments: Referenced with Carroll, D. et al. 2025

Editor comments: Line 538: I'd like the authors to exapand on this a bit further and add references. 

Authors adjustments: Paragraph re adapted and changed to this - Seasonal change played a critical role in shaping the observations, revealing ecological knowledge as inherently dynamic, situated, and temporally responsive rather than fixed or universal. Shifts in weather, phenology, water availability, and species behaviours continually reconfigured how Country was perceived and interpreted, demonstrating that understanding emerges through sustained attentiveness to environmental rhythms rather than static baseline conditions. Indigenous seasonal calendars, for example, are co-produced with knowledge holders and reflect detailed, place-specific temporal knowledge that guides ecological practice and resource use across cycles of change rather than assuming fixed environmental states (CSIRO Indigenous seasonal calendars 2022). This temporally responsive logic contrasts with environmental frameworks that prioritise stable baselines or universal ecological truths abstracted from lived experience, instead showing that Indigenous ecological knowledge systems are adaptive, context-specific, and grounded in ongoing relational practice. Such seasonal and relational knowledge practices are increasingly recognised as essential for sustainable environmental management and for bridging Indigenous and scientific understandings of ecological dynamics in the face of change (David-Chavez & Gavin 2024), emphasising that variability and flux are not disruptions to a norm but the very conditions through which ecological meaning and practical knowledge are generated.

Editor comments: Line 544: Re disruption of separation of interpretation and data...academic writing will always demand to presnt methods, results and discussion separately - the conclusions part led me wondering about the next steps? What are the authors recommendations? 

Authors adjustments: While this paper follows the conventional separation of methods, results, and discussion to maintain clarity within academic norms, the study also recognises that arts-based, phenomenological, and relational inquiries complicate any strict division between data and interpretation. In sensory and arts-based engagements with Country, knowledge does not emerge as discrete observations awaiting later analysis, but through iterative, embodied processes in which perception, meaning, and response are co-constitutive. Alternative approaches, therefore, may involve more integrative analytic structures, reflexive narrative forms, or layered accounts that explicitly acknowledge how understanding unfolds through engagement rather than extraction. Such approaches do not replace conventional academic organisation but extend it by making visible the relational and interpretive dynamics inherent in situated, experiential research.

The findings point to several directions for future research and practice. Further work could explore the application of sensory and arts-based methods across diverse Country contexts, examine how temporality and seasonal variability shape ecological perception, and refine methodological frameworks capable of accommodating Indigenous epistemologies within environmental and design research. More broadly, the study highlights the need for ecological and spatial disciplines to engage approaches that foreground relationality, embodiment, and temporal responsiveness, particularly in contexts where Indigenous knowledge systems offer critical insights into human–environment relations.

Editor comments: Highly appreciate the IRB and Ethics statements. This might be implicing in the cultureal consent statement, but I am wondering if there was a conversation about publishing, and if participants as collective were give the opportunty to review the paper? 

Authors adjustments: Consistent with relational and ethical research practice, participants were engaged not solely as contributors but as knowledge holders with interpretive authority. Participants, as a collective, were given the opportunity to review and comment on the manuscript, ensuring that interpretations, representations, and conceptual framings remained aligned with their perspectives and experiences. This process recognises that knowledge generated through engagement with Country is relational and co-constituted, and that participant review is integral to maintaining cultural and methodological integrity rather than treated as a procedural formality.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, Cameron and Towers present a framework of arts-based research that uses sensory and creative practices to gnereate knowlede. Moreover it provides a framework that offers alternate "ways to think about land, environment, and cretaivity, supporting more respectful, place-based approaches to research and environmental care that recognizes Idigienous knowledge and connection to Country".

I have read the paper with high interest, and I do think it is an important paper that I'd like to see available for other researchers. I appreciate that the authors openly acknowledge that capturing the epistemic outcomes through this arts-based reserach and packaging them as a reserach paper has been challenging. Coming from a community of practice that works with communities comprizing different backgrounds I do have lived experience with this, and I would like to give some suggestions to revise the paper because methods and knowledge productions are so intertwined. I do  believe that with a bit of restructuring and making the reserach questions/and/or hypothesis more clear (if appropriate at all), this paper could be a very important contribution to the field. 

Major points:

- Overall the language is rich, packing in a lot of details and clarifications. I do think it was easy to read. Some sentences were quite log and may be simplified by breaking them into two shorter sentences. 

- Some arguments were repeated multiple times over several sections, sometimes in neraly identical language. I would suggest to introduce arguments once and then paraphrase to avoid the risk of self citation, or simply referringback to the initial argumen. This would help to tighten up the text for the reader. 

Minor points: 

Line 10: re "wild" add, in Western literature

Line 22: I would remove "new", because as I understand this way is not new, but not prioritized or known in Western societies. If thats not appropriate, perhaps the authors can also use a different term than new?

Line 39: after unknown, define by whom?

Line 108 and beyond: This paragraph made me think about bioremediation studies that are quite popular in conservation biology and environmental engineering. The goal of bioremediation is to utilize biological processes to detoxify natural areas from pollution (often human waste) , to get back to "wilderness." This a comment, no a request for a narrative change.

Line 219: add "western" to conecpt of 'the wild'. In this paragraph I would also like to see the research question clearer presented (Lines 227 ongoing?). 

Line 253: I assume a map has been excluded by design. I would be interested to read a bit more about the features of the land here, as appropriate for the Dharug who steward the land. 

Fig1: Picture credit missing, find if it is a collective credit.

Fig2: Picture credit missing, find if it is a collective credit.

Line 329 and ongoing. Does this mean there was no reserach question? If yes, could this study be described as an exploratory reserach?

Line 458: The participant reflection quotes are really powerful and I a wondering if more could be incorporated throughout the text to illustrate the art based research process?

Line 471: If appropriate, could the authors draw some comparisons or conclusions on other arts based practices? How is their approach different from ABPR (art based perceptional ecology). One example where this has been commercialized as "Citizen Artist" here http://www.ecoartexpeditions.com/services.html

Re 481: I agree that the western academic form is quite limited to convey the depth of the results. I was thinking it may also not be the purpose of this knowledge to be captured. I do see a tension between scientific approaches here, where data is captured standardized and immediately, while the communities I work with often prefer to put several days between knowledge production and writing down the results. Has this come up in this study? If yes, I think may be an important point to include, if appropriate for the authors. 

Lines 495 and ongoing. 

Appreciate the table. I would like to see more of the artworks, if appropriate. 

Discussion: I think this is clearly written and one of the strngest parts of the paper. Becaus 'Wilderness" was introduced as a Western concept in tehe very beginning I would like to challenge the authors to imagine how "Listen beyond the Wild" could be called instead? Just a thought, no editing request. 

Line 535. If possible, pleare reference. 

Line 538: I'd like the authors to exapand on this a bit further and add references. 

Line 544: Re disruption of separation of interpretation and data...academic writing will always demand to presnt methods, results and discussion separately, like teh authods did in this paper. I am wondering if the authors could describe a bit more how alternatives could look like? 

The conclusions part led me wondering about the next steps? What are the authors recommendations? 

Highly appreciate the IRB and Ethics statements. This might be implicing in the cultureal consent statement, but I am wondering if there was a conversation about publishing, and if participants as collective were give the opportunty to review the paper? 

References: Appropriate, but could be expanded. 

Line 604 needs to be updated. 

 

Author Response

Address to editors comments

 

Editor comments: a broader selection of works included

Authors adjustments: 2 images included with storylines – one map is also included

 

Editor comments: Line 10: re "wild" add, in Western literature

Authors adjustments:: Changed to western

Editor comments: Line 22: I would remove "new", because as I understand this way is not new, but not prioritized or known in Western societies. If thats not appropriate, perhaps the authors can also use a different term than new?

Editor comments: Removed new and replaced with other

Editor comments: Line 39: after unknown, define by whom?

Authors adjustments: The study concludes that what is commonly described as “the wild” is not unknown or untouched but deeply known through sustained sensory, relational, and creative engagement, demonstrating that ecological reconnection arises through ethical, culturally grounded relationships with living systems and offering implications for more respectful, place-responsive approaches to environmental research and care.

Authors adjustments: This has now been changed to - The study concludes that places often framed as “the wild” are not unknown or untouched, but profoundly known through the enduring sensory, relational, and creative practices of First Nations peoples. It highlights that ecological reconnection emerges through ethical, culturally grounded relationships with living systems, rather than through detached observation. These insights point toward more respectful, place-responsive approaches to environmental research, design, and care.

Editor comments: Line 219: add "western" to conecpt of 'the wild'. In this paragraph I would also like to see the research question clearer presented (Lines 227 ongoing?). 

Authors adjustments: Done

Editor comments: Line 253: I assume a map has been excluded by design. I would be interested to read a bit more about the features of the land here, as appropriate for the Dharug who steward the land. 

Authors adjustments: A map has been included with little detail as tribal lands are often contested.

Editor comments:  Fig1: Picture credit missing, find if it is a collective credit. Fig2: Picture credit missing, find if it is a collective credit. Addressed all credits of images.

Editor comments: Line 329 and ongoing. Does this mean there was no reserach question? If yes, could this study be described as an exploratory reserach?

Authors adjustments: A paragraph has been added - This paper adopts an exploratory research orientation consistent with phenomenological and arts-based inquiry. Rather than testing a predefined hypothesis, the study seeks to generate interpretive and conceptual insight into human–Country relationships. The guiding research question is: How can arts-based, sensory, and phenomenological practices enable ways of listening to Country that extend beyond Western constructions of the “wild”? This framing recognises that the investigation prioritises relational understanding and experience rather than quantifiable outcomes.

Editor comments: Line 471: If appropriate, could the authors draw some comparisons or conclusions on other arts based practices? How is their approach different from ABPR (art based perceptional ecology). One example where this has been commercialized as "Citizen Artist" here http://www.ecoartexpeditions.com/services.html

Authors adjustments: Added this: Comparable approaches appear within arts-based ecological research, particularly in frameworks such as Art-Based Perceptual Ecology (ABPE) and related models like the Citizen Artist approach, where artistic practice is used to extend ecological perception and engage sensory awareness alongside environmental inquiry (Woolery 2017; Woolery 2023). ABPE describes art-making as a way of knowing the “language of place,” enabling embodied, multisensory engagement with landscapes and ecological change rather than simply representing them (Woolery 2017; Woolery 2023). While these practices share an emphasis on perception and experience, the orientation developed here differs in its epistemological grounding. ABPE-type work generally situates art as a methodological bridge for observing or interpreting ecological systems, often alongside scientific protocols, whereas this study situates arts-based practice within First Nations understandings of Country, where sensory engagement and listening are not representational techniques but enactments of ongoing relational responsibilities with living environments. The emphasis therefore shifts from enhancing perception of nature as an external object to deepening phenomenological and relational attunement with Country itself, foregrounding art as a mode of engagement, reciprocity, and knowing rather than ecological supplementation

Editor comments: Re 481: Comparable approaches appear within arts-based ecological research, particularly in frameworks such as Art-Based Perceptual Ecology (ABPE) and related models like the Citizen Artist approach.

Authors adjustments:  artistic practice is used to extend ecological perception and engage sensory awareness alongside environmental inquiry (Woolery 2017; Woolery 2023). ABPE describes art-making as a way of knowing the “language of place,” enabling embodied, multisensory engagement with landscapes and ecological change rather than simply representing them (Woolery 2017; Woolery 2023). While these practices share an emphasis on perception and experience, the orientation developed here differs in its epistemological grounding. ABPE-type work generally situates art as a methodological bridge for observing or interpreting ecological systems, often alongside scientific protocols, whereas this study situates arts-based practice within First Nations understandings of Country, where sensory engagement and listening are not representational techniques but enactments of ongoing relational responsibilities with living environments. The emphasis therefore shifts from enhancing perception of nature as an external object to deepening phenomenological and relational attunement with Country itself, foregrounding art as a mode of engagement, reciprocity, and knowing rather than ecological supplementation.

Editor comments: Discussion: I think this is clearly written and one of the strngest parts of the paper. Becaus 'Wilderness" was introduced as a Western concept in tehe very beginning I would like to challenge the authors to imagine how "Listen beyond the Wild" could be called instead? Just a thought, no editing request. 

Editor comments: Request of title change

Authors adjustments: Beyond the Wild: A First Nations Perspective on Country, Sensory Knowledge, and Phenomenology Through Arts-Based Explorations

Editor comments: Line 535. If possible, pleare reference. 

Authors adjustments: Referenced with Carroll, D. et al. 2025

Editor comments: Line 538: I'd like the authors to exapand on this a bit further and add references. 

Authors adjustments: Paragraph re adapted and changed to this - Seasonal change played a critical role in shaping the observations, revealing ecological knowledge as inherently dynamic, situated, and temporally responsive rather than fixed or universal. Shifts in weather, phenology, water availability, and species behaviours continually reconfigured how Country was perceived and interpreted, demonstrating that understanding emerges through sustained attentiveness to environmental rhythms rather than static baseline conditions. Indigenous seasonal calendars, for example, are co-produced with knowledge holders and reflect detailed, place-specific temporal knowledge that guides ecological practice and resource use across cycles of change rather than assuming fixed environmental states (CSIRO Indigenous seasonal calendars 2022). This temporally responsive logic contrasts with environmental frameworks that prioritise stable baselines or universal ecological truths abstracted from lived experience, instead showing that Indigenous ecological knowledge systems are adaptive, context-specific, and grounded in ongoing relational practice. Such seasonal and relational knowledge practices are increasingly recognised as essential for sustainable environmental management and for bridging Indigenous and scientific understandings of ecological dynamics in the face of change (David-Chavez & Gavin 2024), emphasising that variability and flux are not disruptions to a norm but the very conditions through which ecological meaning and practical knowledge are generated.

Editor comments: Line 544: Re disruption of separation of interpretation and data...academic writing will always demand to presnt methods, results and discussion separately - the conclusions part led me wondering about the next steps? What are the authors recommendations? 

Authors adjustments: While this paper follows the conventional separation of methods, results, and discussion to maintain clarity within academic norms, the study also recognises that arts-based, phenomenological, and relational inquiries complicate any strict division between data and interpretation. In sensory and arts-based engagements with Country, knowledge does not emerge as discrete observations awaiting later analysis, but through iterative, embodied processes in which perception, meaning, and response are co-constitutive. Alternative approaches, therefore, may involve more integrative analytic structures, reflexive narrative forms, or layered accounts that explicitly acknowledge how understanding unfolds through engagement rather than extraction. Such approaches do not replace conventional academic organisation but extend it by making visible the relational and interpretive dynamics inherent in situated, experiential research.

The findings point to several directions for future research and practice. Further work could explore the application of sensory and arts-based methods across diverse Country contexts, examine how temporality and seasonal variability shape ecological perception, and refine methodological frameworks capable of accommodating Indigenous epistemologies within environmental and design research. More broadly, the study highlights the need for ecological and spatial disciplines to engage approaches that foreground relationality, embodiment, and temporal responsiveness, particularly in contexts where Indigenous knowledge systems offer critical insights into human–environment relations.

Editor comments: Highly appreciate the IRB and Ethics statements. This might be implicing in the cultureal consent statement, but I am wondering if there was a conversation about publishing, and if participants as collective were give the opportunty to review the paper? 

Authors adjustments: Consistent with relational and ethical research practice, participants were engaged not solely as contributors but as knowledge holders with interpretive authority. Participants, as a collective, were given the opportunity to review and comment on the manuscript, ensuring that interpretations, representations, and conceptual framings remained aligned with their perspectives and experiences. This process recognises that knowledge generated through engagement with Country is relational and co-constituted, and that participant review is integral to maintaining cultural and methodological integrity rather than treated as a procedural formality.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing all comments, and taking the time to further explain certain concepts and approaches used in this manuscript. I am very excited to see this in print.