Evidence-based decision-making in Canada’s protected areas organizations: Implications for management effectiveness

Protected areas are a cornerstone of biodiversity conservation and are acknowledged as a key tool for the protection of biodiversity under Article 8 of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (United Nations 1992; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2014a). In 2010, parties to the CBD responded to growing concerns over biodiversity loss by adopting an updated Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, including 20 “Aichi Biodiversity Targets” for the 2011–2020 period (decision X/2) (UNEP 2010). Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 (UNEP 2010) calls on parties to ensure that 17% of terrestrial area and 10% of marine area “are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascape”. Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 (UNEP 2010) attempts to shift management practice beyond simply measuring the number and extent of protected areas to measuring success in terms of achieved biodiversity conservation outcomes. This shift means that management “effectiveness”, or the extent to which management is protecting values and achieving goals and objectives (Hockings 2006), will be a critical criterion for assessing progress on conservation goals under the CBD (e.g., Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2014b).

The expansion of protected areas called for under Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 (UNEP 2010) will create a suite of complex implementation challenges for policy-makers, planners, and managers. In this paper, we argue that a sound evidence base is needed to enable Canada’s protected areas community to select the most appropriate collective actions to implement this target. Evidence shows that appropriately located and managed protected areas can help reduce the risk of species’ extinctions and can reverse negative population trends (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2014a; UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2016). Establishing an “ecologically representative” and “well-connected” network of protected areas will place comprehensive informational demands on organizations and decision makers (see Di Minin and Toivonen 2015), necessitating collaboration between conservation organizations and other land/marine stewardship groups (e.g., private organizations, Indigenous peoples) operating at adjacent and (or) different administrative levels.

A stronger focus on the management effectiveness of protected areas is key to meeting Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 (UNEP 2010). As Legge (2015, pp. 113–114) aptly stated, “…while our investment in conservation is growing, and our efforts to measure and report on conservation ‘activity’ are increasing, our ability to report the ecological outcomes is not”. More and better quality information to support sound management actions and related conservation outcomes is necessary (see Geldmann et al. 2015). Comprehensive decision support is required throughout the ongoing planning and management cycle of collecting and analyzing information, decision-making, monitoring, and evaluating to effectively conserve biodiversity. This may include one or more of the following:

Most Parties to the CBD currently report that an absence or difficulty in accessing scientific information is a major obstacle to the implementation of the goals of the CBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2018). The need for more and better information to support decision-making is also recognized in Aichi Biodiversity Target 19 (UNEP 2010), which states that “[b]y 2020, knowledge, the science base and technologies relating to biodiversity, its values, functioning, status and trends, and the consequences of its loss, are improved, widely shared and transferred, and applied”. At the scale of most protected areas, it has been found that the information required to assess management effectiveness is currently missing (Di Minin and Toivonen 2015).

Although no national assessment of management effectiveness has been conducted for Canada’s protected areas sector, independent audits by government and assessments by science-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have observed that ministries responsible for species at risk and protected areas have not been able to meet their legislated goals and responsibilities (e.g., British Columbia Office of the Auditor General 2010; Office of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario 2013; Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society 2016). This includes a report from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada (2013) that concluded Parks Canada has struggled in its efforts to maintain or restore ecological integrity in national parks due to a lack of information for decision-making (e.g., monitoring data), decreased spending, and significant declines in staffing (including a decline in scientific staff by one-third).

The goal of this paper was to provide an initial assessment of the state of evidence-based decision-making in Canada’s protected areas organizations. We used a survey that assessed (1) the value and use of different forms of evidence among protected areas managers and (2) the extent to which institutional features (such as human resources, information management systems, and partnerships) enable or challenge the integration of evidence into decision-making. We proceeded on the implicit assumption that better access and use of various forms of evidence for decision-making is fundamental to management effectiveness, and that the need for evidence-based decision-making will become even more important as the global conservation community transitions from an emphasis on establishing protected areas to a focus on effectively managing the protected areas estate. We provide recommendations to enhance evidence-based practice in protected areas management.

Our research methodology paired a literature review on evidence-based decision-making with a national survey of Canadian protected areas managers. Following Bennett (2016) and Adams and Sandbrook (2013), our survey considered evidence and its application in decision-making broadly by assessing multiple forms of evidence in policy-making, management planning, active management, education and outreach, and other efforts to enhance protected areas management effectiveness (see Introduction). We reviewed more than 30 publications (including journal articles, books, and organizational documents) covering biodiversity conservation, protected areas management, and management effectiveness evaluation¹. Although our review was extensive, our primary aim was not to be exhaustive. Rather, we sought to develop a representative framework describing evidence-based decision-making that would inform our survey and recommendations.

There is little clarity in the protected areas community about the different factors that affect evidence-based decision-making, and no formal, standardized evaluation mechanisms exist. Our review revealed that evaluations of the value and use of evidence in decision-making vary by context and stakeholder interests as well as the stated purpose of the research (e.g., climate change, threatened species, and spatial planning). Evaluation objectives in the literature that we reviewed ranged from broad information use (basic research application) to directly informing accountability, transparency, program improvement, status/impact assessment, and resource allocation. To address this complexity, we analyzed the literature to identify the different conditions (or factors) that influence evidence-based decision-making. We identified 18 conditions (or factors) and organized them under the broad themes of “regulatory and operational”, “informational”, “human resource capacity”, “contextual”, and “cultural and behavioural” (Table 1, see also Supplementary Material 1).

Using these factors and other results from the literature review we developed an online survey tool to measure managers’ perceptions of evidence-based decision-making within their agency. We targeted managers who are responsible for decisions about protected areas management, including day-to-day decisions at a local level (e.g., protected areas specific management activities) and long-term, strategic decisions (e.g., guiding policy, resource allocation for management activities). Perceptions refers “to the way an individual observes, understands, interprets, and evaluates a referent object, action, experience, individual, policy, or outcome” (Bennett 2016, p. 4).

The survey was pretested with four managers who coordinate monitoring and evaluation activities for several different conservation organizations. Ethical approval was provided by the Trent Research Ethics Board to the project, “Biodiversity science and conservation in southern Ontario: historical, contemporary, and spatial dimensions,” (REB #21713) which included this survey. A key objective for the distribution of our survey was to ensure responses from organizations whose management responsibilities cover protected areas across Canada. Our sample covered all governmental protected areas in Canada, as well as several NGOs. We did not anticipate that an understanding of evidence use would be equally distributed among staff within these organizations. Accordingly, we worked with the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas (CCEA)² Directors and Jurisdictional Representatives to identify personnel who could best speak to the status of evidence-based practice within organizations across Canada. Using this purposive sampling strategy within each organization allowed us to identify the “unique cases” that would provide the most relevant information about an organization and to avoid collecting data from a random, but potentially uninformed, sample (Teddlie and Yu 2007). Given the sampling strategy used to identify participants within organizations, our results provide an informed assessment of the status of evidence-based decision-making in Canada’s protected areas organizations, but may not be representative of all managers in Canada.

Given the clear advantages of a web-based survey to the research team (e.g., broad geographic coverage and limited costs, faster distribution and response time, ease of data collection) and to participants (e.g., ample time to consider responses unimpeded by the presence of an interviewer or limited space often provided in paper copies), an online protocol (SurveyMonkey) was the sole mode of survey distribution and response, even though the options of PDF and paper copies of the survey were offered to participants. The survey was forwarded to CCEA Jurisdictional Representatives and other relevant senior staff within NGOs (e.g., directors, managers, and coordinators) who forwarded the survey onto appropriate personnel. Participation was voluntary, and participants were made aware that they would not be identified by name (and that their responses would remain confidential to other participants). When responding to questions, we asked participants to think in terms of their recent experiences within their organization (i.e., up to the past 5 years). Finally, participants were informed of the knowledge transfer activities associated with the research, including publications and presentations reporting the results of the research.

The final survey included both closed-ended and open-ended questions. First, participants indicated the extent to which they value and generally use different forms of evidence on four-point Likert scales ranging from “not valuable at all” to “very valuable” and from “never used” to “always used”. Participants also evaluated the extent to which they agreed with statements about potential barriers to evidence-based decision-making in their organization using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Participants were provided a description indicating that “evidence” might include quantitative or qualitative ecological or social data as well as local knowledge and Indigenous knowledge. Participants were also given a description of each form of evidence they evaluated. For instance, peer-reviewed scientific research was described as “information derived from published studies found in peer-reviewed journals”. Several questions on participant employment experience, gender, and training were also included.

Finally, as suggested by Dillman (2007), a statement of endorsement for the study by the CCEA was included to encourage participation and to acknowledge the value of the study. The survey was sent to 175 potential respondents and was completed by 121 participants. Responses amenable to quantitative analysis were analyzed in SPSS version 23 (IBM, Armonk, New York) using factor analysis, and basic inferential and descriptive statistics.

The response rate for the survey was 69.1% (n = 121), which is notably higher than other studies of conservation managers, where time constraints have often limited participation (e.g., Cook et al. 2012). In addition to participants representing government agencies, several managers from “special purpose” NGOs and land trust programs with science-based management planning mandates participated (Table 2). To identify any potential non-response bias, we used paired sample t tests to compare the distribution of respondents and non-respondents according to the types of protected areas managed and found no significant differences.

The gender split of our sample included a slightly higher proportion of males (55%) and, on average, respondents were highly educated (>50% with a graduate degree), had been involved in protected areas management for 11 years, and had been employed by their current organization for 13 years (minimum = 1; maximum = 38). Most had an educational background in natural sciences (65%), with lower representation from the social sciences (<12%) and other relevant fields including business and economics (<6%) and humanities (<3.9%) (Table 3). Current involvement in protected areas management was well dispersed in all program areas, including legislation, strategic planning, selection and design, management, research and monitoring, and education and outreach.

Like other studies conducted in different political and socio-economic contexts (see Pullin and Knight 2005; Cook et al. 2010; Giehl et al. 2017), Canadian protected areas managers rely primarily on evidence developed within their organization to make management decisions. Managers rely heavily on internal staff assessments and institutional knowledge, and use other sources of information like Indigenous knowledge and (or) peer-reviewed research less frequently. This pattern reveals a clear tendency in what managers value and use in their decision-making. Reasons for this are difficult to discern with certainty, and additional qualitative research is needed to explore the “why” aspects of many of these findings. However, our results indicate a skeptical or unreceptive perception of Indigenous knowledge among managers, as it is both valued and used much less than other forms of evidence. This presents a potentially concerning disconnect in the management of protected areas, which increasingly involve co-management with local Indigenous peoples. As Tipa and Welch (2006, p. 389) argue, Western management and knowledge utilization approaches have generally failed to yield sustainable outcomes regarding resource management. As such, whether in the context of co-management or not, “Indigenous environmental knowledges, predicated on sustainability principles, would appear to be especially valuable resources in their own right. The issue for governments therefore is not so much whether to engage Indigenous knowledge but how best to go about this”.

Beyond the value and use of forms of evidence, our findings point to a more general pattern of decision-making that is deeply entrenched in the settings that Canadian protected areas managers work in, especially in the case of experienced managers. This is not to say that there is not an important role for individual experience and expertise in interpreting information for decision-making. However, as Dicks et al. (2014, p. 611) state, the personal experience of a decision-maker, often essential for effective action, can also lead “…to the propagation or entrenchment of poor or untested practice, a risk that is reduced if the sources of evidence and experience used to inform decisions are transparently recorded”.

To make a real difference for biodiversity conservation, efforts to produce multiple forms of evidence, including Indigenous knowledge and peer-reviewed research, must be paired with efforts to understand how staff procure evidence, apply it, and monitor outcomes effectively within the context of their organizational culture. The wide variation in the valuation and use of various forms of evidence revealed in our results, as reflected in the diverging appetites for evidence among the three respondent clusters identified in our study (Supplementary Material 2), suggests that notwithstanding financial constraints, managers currently have a lot of latitude in selecting and applying information. This suggests that there may be little shared sense of the value for utilizing diverse forms of evidence in decision-making and no norm across the protected areas sector that dictates best practices for the procurement and application of research and information to ensure a “culture of excellence” in management effectiveness.

Although we did not directly assess scientific literacy among managers, our results suggest that there may be a level of comfort among a specific cohort of highly educated practitioners in managing the challenge of procuring and utilizing a diverse evidence base in decision-making. The second cluster of respondents demonstrated a deeper appreciation for the use of multiple forms of evidence to support decision-making, including peer-reviewed scientific research (Supplementary Material 2). While this finding contrasts with the results of other studies conducted in the conservation domain (e.g., Cook et al. 2010 who found that managers use mostly past experience and personal opinion rather than scientific literature), it should be recognized that practitioners who know how to access and deploy information in a timely manner will be better positioned to deal with uncertain management issues like climate change (see Lemieux et al. 2011). Encouraging this potential organizational sub-culture may prove important to increasing the use of planning and management tools (e.g., scenario planning) that can help agencies address uncertainty by setting goals that improve the effectiveness of conservation decision-making and outcomes across a range of possible futures.

Beyond agency ranks, perhaps more effort is also needed to facilitate collaboration between the research community and the protected areas fraternity. At a national level, the CCEA facilitates collaboration between researchers and protected areas practitioners, and counterparts to the CCEA support a similar function at a provincial scale (e.g., the Centre for Applied Science in Ontario’s Protected Areas (CASIOPA, casiopa.mediamouse.ca), the Parks and Protected Areas Research Forum of Manitoba (PPARFM, pparfm.org/index.html), and the BC Protected Areas Research Forum (BCPARF, unbc.ca/bc-protected-area-research-forum). These forums stage conferences, workshops, and other initiatives that link researchers and conservation practitioners, and offer an established space where collaborative efforts to improve the generation, procurement, and utilization of scientific research for protected areas and associated conservation efforts can be enhanced.

It seems clear from the survey results that Canadian protected areas managers face a suite of complex barriers in the use of evidence-based information. Even if evidence appropriate to their scale of management is available and accessible, it does not seem that all managers perceive themselves to be empowered to use information due to a lack of time, staff, and financial resources. The finding that managers do not perceive access to evidence as a key barrier is contrary to other studies (e.g., Matzek et al. 2014), and we argue that a recent history of austerity at the federal and many provincial levels of government in Canada has resulted in a shortage of capacity to mobilize evidence in support of effective management (see Introduction).

In the context of effective protected areas management, these findings suggest that it cannot simply be assumed that more evidence is always a benefit to managers. Increased availability and access to evidence may be beneficial in capacity-rich organizational settings, where there are resources to interpret and act on new information. However, in capacity-poor settings evidence overload may overwhelm the management process, and paradoxically, further stress already limited human and financial capital as staff sift and sort to find evidence that is relevant to their purpose and regional context. While our results support the finding that managers increasingly look inward to their institutions for evidence the longer they are with an institution, there is a possibility that this pattern is part of a coping mechanism that allows managers to deal with information overload in times of capacity constraints. Exploring how managers cope with information overload in capacity poor settings seems an important area for future research.

Beyond future research, we argue that new avenues must be sought to help shift the dialogue about management effectiveness toward coordinated practices that increase the transparent reporting of management results. One venue might be to develop a small suite of indicators of the application of evidence-based information that could be incorporated into national/provincial/territorial reporting on protected areas. Reference has been made to reports issued by the Auditor General regarding resourcing of National Parks. Subsequent editions of reports such as the Canadian Protected Areas Status Report 2012–2015 issued by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) (2016) might also include more content on management effectiveness. Likewise, the Conservation Areas Reporting and Tracking System (CARTS), jointly administered by CCEA and ECCC, could consider adding new fields to this national database to reflect efforts to enhance evidence-based practice in the protected areas sector.

Evidence-based protected areas management requires the collection and analysis of valid, objective, and impartial data regarding past activities, ultimately with the goal of applying this knowledge to decision-making about the future. This is the essence of adaptive management, which involves a cycle of planning, implementing, monitoring, evaluating, and adapting actions to improve outcomes. While evidence-based decision-making is regarded as beneficial to adaptive management (Allan and Stankey 2009), our results strongly suggest that the potential benefits (i.e., enhanced management effectiveness) of evidence-based approaches and information are not being maximized in Canada’s protected areas organizations. Consequently, inappropriate or inefficient management practices may be implemented. Aichi Biodiversity Target 18 (UNEP 2010), for instance, calls for full integration of Indigenous knowledge relevant to conservation and sustainable use in the implementation of the United Nations CBD. However, our findings identify a lack of use of Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge among protected areas managers in Canada, with potentially disadvantageous consequences for the implementation of conservation policies, plans or actions, including weaker protection of cultural, social, and ecological assets.

While it is beyond the scope of this article to address the comprehensive suite of future needs for evidence-based decision-making in Canada’s protected areas organizations, we conclude by proposing several essential factors that need to be introduced or improved to remove institutional barriers and enable a more widespread use of the many forms of evidence required for effective management.

First, there is a clear need to enhance funding for research, monitoring, and knowledge mobilization activities related to conservation management and practice within the protected areas community. We recognize that effective protected areas management involves a broad and dynamic community, including government institutions and personnel (those with formal and legal responsibility for managing protected areas), land and marine stewards (primarily non-governmental actors engaged in managing protected areas, such as Indigenous peoples and community groups), and influencers (entities or groups who influence the capacity to manage protected areas, such as the academic research community). Funding will be essential to enhance capacity at all levels, and ideally research will seek to bridge the knowledge of these different communities.

We recognize that the recommendation to enhance funding for management and practice research is not new. However, it is highly relevant in the Canadian conservation context. Understanding ecosystem conditions and the impact of protected area management interventions on conservation outcomes has been impeded by a lack of data (Federal, Provincial, and Territorial Governments of Canada 2010; Coad et al. 2015). Spending on conservation practice in Canada is very low in terms of relative public investment, and funding available for research is lower still. Currently, there is no national leadership for conservation research, and funding is fragmented across sponsors with poor communication and coordination, including between and within levels of government and the broader community defined above. Geldmann et al. (2015) found that when funding and resources are targeted at protected areas under greater “threat” (e.g., road and human population density), they have a greater impact on conservation outcomes, potentially including slowing the loss of biodiversity. While costs for producing evidence may be high, it is imperative that organizations allocate more funding for research that creates evidence relevant to agency conservation objectives and by extension management effectiveness.

Second and relatedly, to be more effective the research community must quickly redirect research to better match conservation priorities (Lawler et al. 2006). Our results indicate that managers perceive a significant disconnect between the production of evidence and their ability to utilize evidence in a timely fashion to inform management (Supplementary Material 2) (see also Cvitanovic et al. 2016). The communication of research and monitoring data between conservation stakeholders has generally been regarded as poor (e.g., Gibbons et al. 2008), and some have even claimed that the science–policy relationship is “dysfunctional” (Sutherland et al. 2012). While a significant proportion of the research funded in Canada, through Canada’s tri-council funding agencies for instance, is intended to be management relevant, evaluation of evidence uptake and impact on policy and management has been neglected in academia (see Gibbons et al. 2008; Arlettaz et al. 2010 for useful discussions). Some have argued that academics tend to miss the chance to influence policy and management with their findings (Dicks et al. 2014). For instance, academic results are often communicated on a timeline that responds to academic norms rather than the needs of the policy cycle or lack a long term, consistent monitoring and reporting framework—all of which limit the transferability of key lessons. Furthermore, Canada does not have a single Research Chair who focuses on protected areas management and there are no Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) with a protected areas management focus⁴. This lack of action is somewhat perplexing given Canada’s international commitment to conserve 17% and 10% of terrestrial and marine area, respectively, by 2020. If these goals are achieved, protected areas would represent the largest land use designation in Canada.

For adaptive management to be effective, scientists, managers, and the public need to better understand one another’s perspectives. Timely partnerships, frameworks, and models of consultation to facilitate knowledge exchange will be required to encourage greater participation of “end-users” in defining the scope and objectives of research programs (Pullin and Stewart 2006; Gibbons et al. 2008; Cvitanovic et al. 2014, 2016; Reed et al. 2014). Scientists need to move beyond simply critiquing existing policy to framing and communicating evidence in terms of practitioners’ needs. Built on a model of evidence-synthesis associated with the “effectiveness revolution” in the medical sciences, the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) supports the development and dissemination of open-source systematic reviews that examine the effectiveness of conservation interventions (Keene and Pullin 2011; Collaboration for Environmental Evidence 2017). The CEE is an example of how researcher–practitioner partnerships can contribute to the synthesis of existing research in support of conservation practice. Similar collaboration earlier in the research chain will help increase the body of primary research that is designed to collect evidence relevant to practice (Berkes 2007; Armitage et al. 2012; Cvitanovic et al. 2013).

Finally, we support the conclusion of Armitage et al. (2011) who found that managers may be overly cautious about how they react to Indigenous knowledge. Canada has stated that Indigenous protected areas will be used to help meet the international goal of conserving 17% of its terrestrial area by 2020, signaling a greater role for Indigenous peoples in creating and managing protected areas. However, at present our results indicate a relatively low perceived value and use of Indigenous knowledge across the protected areas sector. Addressing this gap in organizational mandates and organizational norms is an important priority. Effective collaboration in the design and management of protected areas can serve an important role in Canada’s ongoing reconciliation efforts. Moreover, evidence suggests that the process and linkage functions of co-management with Indigenous peoples can build adaptive capacity at multiple levels by accessing place-based knowledge, fostering shared understanding and sense-making, and increasing dialogue and interaction (Tipa and Welch 2006; Armitage et al. 2011). Some efforts on this front are being made at the federal level, where the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) has prepared Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge: Process and Protocols Guidelines. The guidelines outline an approach as well as specific steps to facilitating access to and the gathering of the available Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (ATK) as well as the incorporation of that knowledge into the COSEWIC species status assessment process (COSEWIC 2018).

To contribute to reconciliation and adaptive capacity, processes must begin with an acknowledgment of the high value of Indigenous knowledge to effective conservation practice, and an understanding of and commitment to the principles and protocols that are specific to Indigenous people’s history, territory, and people (Tipa and Welch 2006; Matunga 2013). Of particular note is the recent development of the Conservation 2020: Pathway to Canada’s Target 1, which is a national forum of federal, provincial, and territorial protected area organizations, and environment and Indigenous peoples (Canadian Parks Council 2016). This forum has been convened to provide leadership and guidance on Canada’s efforts to achieve its commitment to Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 (UNEP 2010), and Indigenous leaders will provide key recommendations for achieving this target to federal, provincial, and territorial ministers. Seven expert task teams will generate reports on topics including “defining protected areas”, “Indigenous conservation areas”, “ecological representation”, “connectivity”, “equitable management” and “measuring management effectiveness”. The template adopted for the Pathway signals a desire to engage a broad constituency to tap knowledge and expertise beyond the protected areas sector and could provide a model for longer-term engagement and collaboration (Canadian Parks Council 2016).

Protected areas are critical to conserving biodiversity on terrestrial and in marine areas when they are managed effectively (e.g., Edgar et al. 2014). However, conservation decision-making in support of management effectiveness is extremely complex. Our results suggest that reform is required to improve use of multiple forms of evidence in decision-making aimed at securing conservation outcomes. If protected areas management truly seeks to be effective, adaptive, and informative, then various forms of evidence must be used at the outset and throughout planning and management processes (Holling 1978). There is a role for research in the task of outlining how to best pursue this complex task. However, it will ultimately be up to the leaders of protected areas organizations to push for an organizational culture where managers are motivated and enabled to apply multiple forms of evidence to advance decisions that yield meaningful conservation outcomes.

The authors would like to express sincere gratitude to all those who participated in the survey—without their participation and input this project would not have been possible. We thank the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas (CCEA) Board, Directors, and Jurisdictional Representatives for their input and financial support of the project. Joyce Gould and Paul Gray are acknowledged with thanks for their advice and guidance on the development of the survey. We would like to thank both reviewers for their insightful comments on the paper, as these comments led us to an improvement of the manuscript. Funding for this study was provided by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Research Grant (564-2008-0034).