Weaving ways of knowing in practice: a collaborative approach to prioritizing community knowledge and values in wildlife camera monitoring with Magnetawan First Nation
Abstract
There is not one singular way to weave together Indigenous and Western knowledges; creating meaningful cross-cultural collaborations requires a foundation of relationships rooted in the context of specific people and place. As interest in working across knowledge systems increases, our goal is to provide an example of respectful and appropriate cross-cultural collaboration within environmental practice. We demonstrate our collaborative, mixed-methods approach to developing a community-based wildlife monitoring program with Magnetawan First Nation that prioritizes community knowledge and values. Through community interviews and a youth sharing circle, participants highlighted values (respect, interconnection, reciprocity, collaboration, and relationship) as well as research priorities, providing examples of what each may look like in practice, to inform our monitoring approach. These examples, paired with reflections from the research team, are shared to explore the process of weaving together knowledge and values to co-create a community-based wildlife monitoring program, applying wildlife cameras as much more than simply a tool for data collection. This research provides tangible examples of weaving together knowledges and values in the context of environmental monitoring, helping guide future cross-cultural collaboration to ensure this work is being done in a good way.
Author positionality and research approach
Our research team is comprised of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous scientists, all of whom contribute unique knowledge, skills, and experiences to enhance the strengths and balance of our collective team. Three authors are Indigenous women—SN is Anishinaabe from Magnetawan First Nation (MFN) and is the Lands Manager for the Magnetawan First Nation Department of Lands, Resources & Environment (from here on referred to as MFN Lands Department); JP is Anishinaabe from Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory; and AM is of Red River Métis and Settler descent from Treaty 2 and the homeland of the Métis Nation. The remaining four authors (CK, KY, NP, and JN) are settlers of mixed European ancestry—one of whom (NP) works for the MFN Lands Department as a Conservation Biologist & Wildlife Specialist. Since the lead author (CK) is non-Indigenous, this work was grounded in a journey of both learning and unlearning, confronting hard colonial truths, and sitting in discomfort to navigate a way forward that centers community rather than a research agenda. Collectively, our research team acknowledges that both Indigenous science and the act of weaving knowledges require the leadership and active participation of Indigenous Peoples. Therefore, throughout all stages of this project, we have worked to center the interests of MFN and follow the guidance of our Indigenous authors. The settlers on our team recognize that while we have a role to play as allies in this space, it requires a willingness to decenter ourselves, confront privilege, grow in discomfort, and come together with respect and humility.
Over the last several years, the MFN Lands Department has partnered with JP on various projects (see Popp et al. 2019; Menzies et al. 2022; Patterson 2023), each of which has created opportunity for further collaboration and deeper partnership—including the work described here. Therefore, it is important to note that the partnership and collaborative spirit of this project are built upon several years of relationship-building and trust established between MFN and JP’s research group. As new researchers are invited into this partnership, each of us carries the responsibility to uphold and honour the trust and respect upon which these relationships were founded. In many ways, learning what it looks like to carry out these responsibilities throughout the research process is what this project was all about.
Our research team devoted time to understanding what the process of doing research “in a good way” meant in the context of our specific research and partnerships (as described in Reid et al. 2022). Though it may have looked different for each of us as individuals, we all embraced our own personal commitment to genuine and respectful relationship-building throughout all stages of research (Reed et al. 2020b). As important as our research outcomes may be, we want to highlight that we thought about the way we approached our work just as much as we thought about the end result. Working in direct partnership with MFN, community partners were not just involved but prioritized in all decision-making, ultimately working towards community self-determination and benefit. Our approach was to lead with community values—actively weaving respect, reciprocity, relationship, and interconnection into every part of the research process, as discussed throughout this paper.
Finally, we emphasize that this research is not about “creating” or “discovering” new knowledge but rather sharing the generational knowledge that has been held within MFN across millennia and present wildlife camera data that further conveys and supplements what is already known by community. In doing so, we aim to honour the stories, lived experiences, and memories in which this knowledge was generously shared with us by community members in conversations on front porches, kitchen tables, and picnic benches. Just as our research team was invited into the community and people’s homes, you are invited to share in these conversations—and we ask that you do so with an open mind and good intentions.
Introduction
Humans are altering the natural environment at an unprecedented rate, leading to extreme rates of biodiversity loss (Steffen et al. 2015; Maxwell et al. 2016; World Wildlife Fund 2020). It is becoming increasingly clear that conservation practices focused on Western science alone are insufficient to curb such losses (Tengö et al. 2017; Bennett and Roth 2019; IPBES 2019). Indigenous Peoples have stewarded the Land for millennia through practices that actively support and supplement natural processes and have successfully maintained biodiversity levels on their traditional territories at equal or higher levels when compared to otherwise managed “natural” or protected areas (Garnett et al. 2018; IPBES 2019; Schuster et al. 2019). The value and effectiveness of Indigenous-led conservation have gained global recognition and have led to an increased interest in weaving together Indigenous and Western knowledges worldwide to overcome environmental challenges (Convention on Biological Diversity 2022; Reed et al. 2022).
Etuaptmumk, or Two-eyed Seeing, is an approach to weaving knowledge systems described by Mi'kmaq Elder Albert Marshall as the process of seeing the world with the strengths of both Indigenous and Western knowledges, while still allowing each to maintain their individual integrity and validity (Bartlett et al. 2012; Reid et al. 2020). This approach cannot be applied without the participation and leadership of Indigenous Peoples—those who have lived experience with both ways of knowing (Whyte 2013; M's-it No'kmaq et al. 2021; McKay and Grenz 2021; Menzies et al. 2022). As said by Anishinaabe scholar Deborah McGregor (2021), “Indigenous Knowledge is not just “knowledge” (a noun) but a way of life, something that must be lived (a verb) to be understood. Indigenous Knowledge is inseparable from the people who hold and live this knowledge”. In this way, the act of weaving Indigenous and Western knowledges requires consideration to action and the process of doing things, rather than focusing on outcomes alone (Liboiron 2021; Reid et al. 2022).
Doing work “in a good way” also calls upon a universal and collective responsibility to the Land, and to honour distinct place-based knowledges and relationships (Ball and Janyst 2008; Menzies et al. 2022; Reid et al. 2024). As such, there is no “one way” to do work “in a good way”, but rather a need for community-specific approaches to working on and with the Land grounded in place-based generational knowledge. Community-based monitoring (CBM)—a collaborative approach to monitoring that is driven by community-specific interests and concerns (Whitelaw et al. 2003)—provides opportunities for Indigenous communities to address their own environmental concerns in a way that is relevant, culturally appropriate, and aligned with community knowledge, values, and is rooted in place (Arsenault et al. 2019; Popp et al. 2020; Reed et al. 2020a). Communities can explore—on their own terms—ecological monitoring methods that provide “robust” data and can be used to support community priorities, decision-making, and sovereignty (Wilson et al. 2018; Reed et al. 2020a). CBM can also create opportunities for meaningful collaboration between Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners and researchers, in which mutually beneficial priorities and research questions can be created (Ball and Janyst 2008; Johnson et al. 2016). In necessitating active collaboration between community and researchers, extractive research processes or “data-mining” can be avoided (McGregor 2014; Arsenault et al. 2019), instead laying the groundwork for meaningful relationship building (Castleden et al. 2012; Lafferty et al. 2022). In this way, partnerships can be established that go beyond legislative or funder-imposed obligations and instead lead to reciprocal research practices in which community, researchers, and the Land all benefit.
While CBM allows communities to identify specific research questions and can serve as a foundation for relationship building between Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners, it does not guarantee meaningful collaboration. This is because both historical and ongoing colonialism have severely impacted the ability of Indigenous communities to access, share, and celebrate their distinct knowledges (Lertzman 2010; Joseph 2018), leaving space for power imbalances, colonial processes, and privileges that may or may not be addressed within the partnership (Styres and Zinga 2013; Reed et al. 2021). With an increasing desire to work across knowledge systems, there comes a growing need for people to learn how to appropriately and respectfully collaborate with Indigenous Peoples and Knowledges (Castleden et al. 2012; Wong et al. 2020; Reed et al. 2021). In the context of environmental sciences, this requires supporting a resurgence of Indigenous stewardship practices, revitalizing deep place-based relationships with the Land (Salmón 2000; Turner and Bhattacharyya 2016; Cajete 2018; Martinez 2018), and using on-the-ground programming (i.e., research and monitoring) as a vehicle to do so.
Given the diversity amongst Indigenous Nations, creating meaningful cross-cultural collaborations requires building relationships based on the unique context of people and place. Here, we provide a case-study that took such an approach to develop a community-based wildlife monitoring program with Magnetawan First Nation (MFN)—a small, Anishinabek Nation located in the Robinson-Huron Treaty Area east of Georgian Bay, Ontario, Canada. In collaboration with the MFN Department of Lands, Resources & Environment (from this point referred to as MFN Lands Department), we developed a wildlife camera monitoring program founded on community knowledge and values to help answer ecological questions set by MFN. We have used a mixed method approach to illustrate how community-specific knowledge and perspectives—as shared through qualitative interviews (section A)—have been applied to informing a community-led approach to wildlife monitoring—using wildlife camera methods (section B)—within MFN. Through this work, we aim to provide a practical example of engaging in research with an Indigenous community partner “in a good way” by sharing how community knowledge, values, and priorities were woven into the wildlife monitoring process, and how this is translated into an ongoing collaborative effort.
Section A: identifying community-specific values and priorities for environmental monitoring
Methods
Rationale for case study
Within community-centric research specifically, a case study methodology provided the opportunity to focus time and energy on a single community or “case”, which allowed for meaningful discussions, relationship building, and reflections specific to the context of MFN (Yin 2017; Sadowsky 2019). Through this case study we applied a mixed-methods approach (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007) to investigate the “how” and “why” (Yin 2017) when it comes to conducting wildlife monitoring and research “in a good way”. However, as a single case study, this work is specific to the social, cultural, and geographic context of Magnetawan First Nation. Therefore, it is important to recognize that there are limitations to applying emergent themes or ideas within other contexts. Future case studies following a similar approach may be useful as replicates—allowing for commonalties amongst cases to emerge (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007).
Context
Efforts described throughout this paper were components of two MSc degrees, led by two graduate students (CK and KY), who frequently visited Magnetawan First Nation and worked closely with the MFN Lands Department on expanding terrestrial wildlife monitoring in MFN territory. However, this research is built upon pre-existing, long-term relationships between the research team (namely, JP) and the MFN Lands Department, allowing for collaboration founded in mutual respect and trust. The objectives of this paper were driven by the MFN Lands Department and their interest in expanding their wildlife monitoring program, which previously focused on reptilian species at risk, to include broader biodiversity monitoring. Conversations from the work of Menzies et al. (2022) indicated a need to speak directly to community members about how to approach wildlife monitoring and research within MFN’s territory to inform not only the work of external researchers but also the goals and priorities of the Lands Department moving forward. These conversations were rooted in the need for change, recognizing that to create a better future for the next generations we need to come together to find new, creative approaches to conservation that place values and relationships at the forefront, as described by Richard Noganosh, an Elder from MFN:
“You're not going to do what things your father or your grandfather did for 100 years. When it comes to you, if you want the change, you know what's going on, you see what's going on. So, it's you that's got to change too so you can fix this, what your forefathers done. …Because you can't keep on doing the same things and hope everything's going to heal.” – Richard Noganosh
It is important to note that this work started in 2021, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, the only way we were able to move forward with this work was by taking the lead from the MFN Lands Department and allowing them to determine COVID safety protocols for any researchers entering the community. Initially, community interviews and engagement activities were delayed until it was deemed safer, and we were, ultimately, invited to conduct research under community-led COVID protocols. In following these protocols, and through collaborative decision-making across the research team, some activities were adjusted or rescheduled as needed to best suit the health, safety, and comfortability for community members and all involved.
Interview procedures
Institutional ethics permissions were obtained, as required for research involving people (University of Guelph, REB #20-10-014). In addition, as per the principles of Ownership, Control, Access, & Possession (OCAP; First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC) 2023) and in recognition of the importance of multi-level consent (Brugge and Missaghian 2006; Harding et al. 2012; Kelley et al. 2013), it was important for us to receive approval not only from the MFN Lands Department, but also from individual community members and interview participants. Prior to all interviews, participants were given written consent forms and were able to give either written or oral consent. In addition, throughout the interviews, we reminded participants that interviews were completely voluntary, and that they could withdraw their consent at any time. In accordance with OCAP principles, the audio files and transcriptions of all interviews were given to MFN Lands Department (i.e., to be “owned” and “controlled” by participants and/or MFN), but we emphasized that it could be withdrawn at any time. As a final step toward ethical and respectful exchange of knowledge, we presented each participant with an offering of tobacco, as per Anishinaabe customs, and gifted an honorarium in appreciation for their time and the knowledge they contributed to the project. To select interview participants, we asked representatives from the MFN Lands Department to suggest youth (under 30 years of age) and Elders/Knowledge Holders from MFN who could provide the most relevant perspectives and expertise about community values and how they can be woven into the wildlife monitoring process. In total, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 people (youth > 18 years old and Elders/Knowledge Holders), and held a sharing circle with 8 youth under 18 years old to increase their comfort and participation. In total, this represented ∼25% of community residents (n = 100).
All interviews took place in person in Magnetawan First Nation, either at the Lands Department office or participants’ homes, depending on the preference of each participant. Most interviews took place individually, though some participants preferred to do their interviews in pairs. We combined interviews with a pre-planned, multi-day community visit (i.e., “intentional visiting”; Tuck et al. 2022), which gave us the flexibility to schedule interviews that worked with participants’ schedules and provided opportunities for opportunistic interviews and follow-up discussions. A Lands Department employee (NP) was available, but not necessarily present, for all interviews to provide a familiar face to participants who may have otherwise been uncomfortable meeting directly with an external researcher, especially in their homes. Interviews lasted between 0.5–2 h, depending on how much each participant shared.
In addition to semi-structured interviews, we held a youth sharing circle (Kovach 2009) during a youth event hosted by the MFN Lands Department. The sharing circle occurred in two spaces: (1) gathered around a fire in a public outdoor space within the community, and (2) outside of the MFN Lands Department office where youth painted a mural representing biodiversity and their relationships to the Land. It was important to community members that we ask the youth the same questions as adult participants, as to not diminish or “patronize” the wisdom and experiences of the youth. In place of an honorarium youth participants were entered into a prize raffle and were provided with pizza and snacks.
Interview questions
To gain insight into the values and priorities that are important to MFN and find ways to practice them within environmental monitoring in the community, we asked the following questions, which were developed in partnership with the MFN Lands Department:
1.
What is your relationship to the Land?
2.
Do you get out on the Land as much as you would like to?
a.
Is there anything that would help you spend more time on the Land?
3.
Do you think there are opportunities for youth to spend time on the Land with Elders and knowledge holders?
a.
If there are opportunities, would you mind sharing what these look like?
b.
Is there anything else you would like to share about Elder-youth engagement on the Land?
4.
Are there specific values or ideas that you think are important to consider in environmental monitoring?
a.
Are there any specific ways you would like to see the community give back to the Land?
While these questions set the themes we discussed in our interviews, the semi-structured approach allowed participants to guide the direction of our discussions based on what they wanted to share (Kovach 2009). Starting with broad questions about personal relationships to the Land and opportunities to be on the Land allowed us to ease into discussions in a more comfortable and natural way before asking more directly about research and monitoring. This also allowed us to better understand how participants related to different values—as these were evident in many of the stories participants shared throughout.
Coding
All interviews and sharing circles were audio recorded and later transcribed using Otter AI Pro (version 3.20.0; https://otter.ai) and then manually reviewed by CK. Interview participants were anonymized unless they wanted their name (in English or Anishinaabemowin) associated with quotes they shared, whereas all sharing circle participants remained anonymous.
NVivo (release 1.7, QSR International) and Microsoft Excel were used to code interview transcripts (by CK) through deductive coding (using codes based on pre-determined themes stemming from interview questions; Fereday and Muir-Cochrane 2006). However, the conversational nature of semi-structured interviews also required inductive coding (extracting new themes based on participant answers; Boyatis 1998) to account for unplanned themes. To create a rich, single case study, representative quotes have been used to illustrate emergent themes and ideas (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007); some quotes have been edited for brevity and clarity though the intent and message were left intact. Here, our pre-determined themes were based upon previous research between the MFN Lands Department and some members of the research team (see Menzies et al. 2022). Given that conversational interviews were directed by participant responses and therefore did not always follow a particular structure or order, each interview was coded in its entirety to detect emergent and pre-determined themes rather than coding for specific questions in isolation.
Results sharing with community
As suggested by the MFN Lands Department, prior to community-wide sharing participants were visited one-on-one to go over any direct quotes that were being used from their interview. This was also used as an opportunity to confirm how participants wanted their name to be presented (in either English, Anishinaabemowin, or as anonymous). While no participants opted to remove their name from their contributions at this time, several participants did choose to switch from being anonymous to having their name represented after being able to see their quotes and the context in which they were used.
To facilitate results sharing, we invited community members to join us for food, wildlife photo viewing, and a presentation on our research results at the MFN Community Hall. Invitations were sent out as flyers, through in-person visits and word-of-mouth, and on the social media accounts of the MFN Lands Department. Attendees were invited to share feedback throughout the presentation, be it something to change or a topic for discussion, as well as confirm if/how their knowledge and identity were shared. In addition, all attendees were provided with a feedback form to share their thoughts or commentary related to the results, as well as provide insights for future research directions. There was no explicit need for changes identified within our results; however, there was a lot of fruitful discussion about data interpretation and how it can be used by the community going forward. Following our results sharing event, a summary report was made for the MFN Lands Department including discussion from the event for them to have and disseminate as they wish.
Results
Exploring values to guide environmental monitoring
When we asked participants about the specific values that should and do guide environmental monitoring and stewardship, many were shared, including: respect, interconnection, reciprocity, collaboration, knowledge transfer/communication, relationship, mindfulness, support, responsibility, spirituality, humility, understanding, adaptability, openness, trust, gratitude, and transparency. Each of these values was identified in relation to caring for the Land by at least one person, either directly or indirectly, through a story, for example. Below, we highlight the five most frequent values, respect, interconnection, reciprocity, collaboration, and relationship; share how they were defined by participants; and describe how participants would like to see them reflected in Lands-based work within MFN in the future (Fig. 1). Note that although knowledge transfer/communication was also one of the most common values, it is not included independently because it was often embedded within the other values and is, therefore, described within those.
Fig. 1.
Respect
Respect was the most commonly discussed value in relation to environmental monitoring, and it was expressed in a variety of ways. Primarily, participants spoke about the need to have respect for the Land, respect for people, and respect for knowledge. Several participants also mentioned the inherent value and spirit of animals, and the need for research methods that consider and respect them as such. For example:
“That's part of who we are as a people…I don't see them [wildlife] as turtles or chipmunks or birds. They're spirits. And, we're supposed to help those spirits. We're supposed to all get along. And, how do I know that spirit isn't the spirit of my son?… He's probably a chipmunk because he's fun… He was always funny. That's part of that – the values that I see coming out of the Lands Department – is that respect for all of these creatures. The respect for the Land.” – Anonymous
Having respect for knowledge—both in itself and in the way it is shared and received—was also brought up as an important consideration, especially because of the lack of respect given to Indigenous Knowledges, historically. In many ways, respecting people and knowledges go hand-in-hand, and is reflected in the interactions that take place within community, as described here:
“Having a respect of knowledge, having a respect of people, of time, of place, of tone.” – Samantha Noganosh
Knowing that those who are entering into the community have respect for both people and place, and that they will share what they learn with the community, was also very important to many participants.
“Let us know what you see out there. Especially people that come in there, you don't know who they are, or what they're looking for, and they kind of don't have respect for what we have. They want to destroy [the Land].” – Tina Pitawanakwat
While there are many different ways respect could be expressed in research, some of the main tangible examples were listening to community knowledge, following community research priorities and questions, opting for non-invasive monitoring methods, and sharing knowledge and data with community members.
Relationship
The importance of creating and maintaining meaningful relationships with both people and the Land was highlighted by many participants. When we asked participants about their own relationship with the Land, and how they show respect for it, there was a wide variety of responses, but one commonality was the element of care. Participants expressed a deep connection with the Land, and many highlighted the importance of those working on the Land in the community to share this element of care. It was also important to many participants that community members have opportunities to meet those who will be working on the Land in the community's territory—so that they can see the level of care for the Land, and for the community—themselves.
“You know, when [biologists] come in here, they become part of that community too. So I mean, you have to start talking to people and whatnot, try to get along. …I don't mind people coming here, as long as they're doing their business, what they're supposed to, and you don't damage the place. You know? I mean, this is the only Land we have as people - we certainly don't want to get rid of it in that way.” – Anonymous
Ultimately, participants expressed that relationships are an important part of working both on the Land and within community, and that time should be taken to build these relationships.
Reciprocity
The idea of giving back and expressing gratitude was described as an important part of being in relationship, both with people and with the Land. When asked about giving back to the Land, many participants spoke about cleaning up garbage and ensuring things are always left the same—or better—than they were found.
In terms of reciprocal relationships between people, simply listening and having respect for what people have to say was brought up by many participants. Approaching questions in a culturally appropriate way was also discussed by several people, referencing being offered tobacco and having an opportunity to decide if they want to, or should, engage in what they are being asked. For example, one participant said:
“You know, if somebody wants something, they have to come and ask me…They give you the tobacco and you give them the answer…And that's the other thing about it, is you have to know the person to say, well, is this person really, honestly, truly…do they really need this? You know, because you can't just give them something that they could use to harm somebody else, so you have to think about that, too.”- Anonymous
In terms of enacting reciprocity in the research process, participants suggested a number of things. Several people mentioned the value of simply sharing knowledge back to the community—making sure that results are communicated with community members, especially in a way that is accessible and can be used for community benefit. For example, one participant spoke about their excitement for having reports and compilations of community interviews and knowledge prepared as a research outcome:
“I know that there'll be such huge value in a collective stories. So, I really look forward to all this being put together. And for us to have…a collection of community knowledge, it will just be really cool to have.” – Samantha Noganosh
One of the main takeaways from our conversations was that the specific acts of giving back are less important than the intention and reflection behind them. The meaning lies in taking the time to understand who has contributed, who benefits, and working to express appropriate gratitude to those involved.
Collaboration
The importance of collaboration and working together was also highlighted, thinking about the difference between meaningful and performative examples. Some people referred to the value of bringing in subject experts to assist with specific challenges or questions identified by community, seeing opportunities for learning within the community as well as for those being invited in. However, participants also shared stories of experiences working with external parties—including government, researchers, and consultants—where a lack of understanding or shared values was a barrier to successful collaboration. For example, one participant spoke about being at a conference at which representatives from various Indigenous communities expressed a disconnect between how they want work to be done and how consultants were approaching them:
“So, at the end of the conference…one of the [consultants] got up…and he says, “We didn't know we were doing wrong. And now we know. So now when we write up a proposal or try to get a job someplace on the reserve…now we know what your values are. We didn't know that before because nobody told us.’" – Richard Noganosh
Moreover, participants described the need for everyone to play their part, working together for the collective good, and to ensure there is space for others to live up to their own responsibilities. One important aspect brought up by several participants was the need for collaborations to be built on transparency and knowledge sharing:
“Working together too, unity, working in conjunction with each other. Lands should let us in the office know what they're doing…that's the only way things are gonna work, is that we have that information at hand. I know it's a word that's been overused so much, transparency, but it's true. There's got to be real transparency…not just words.” – Lloyd Noganosh
When it comes to establishing meaningful collaboration, participants emphasized the need for being guided by a foundation of shared values from the start, and to ensure that everyone involved has the knowledge and ability to make their contribution.
Interconnection
When talking about the Land, participants stressed how interconnected everything is. They emphasized the connection between current and future generations, and the need to make good decisions now to leave a healthy environment for those to come. This also led to discussion about the need for more holistic monitoring and research that asks questions not just about a single species or change on the Land, but looking more broadly to better understand and account for how species interact and coexist. For example:
“We're interconnected with everything. So, you take something away, it's going to impact. The moose need the beaver - they eat those roots in the swamp, that's medicine to them, that's their main diet. They're very connected. So, if the beaver's healthy, the moose are healthy. Look at the animals that are around and see how they're doing.” – Janis Smith
When thinking about how interconnected the Land is, participants also voiced concerns about things that cause disruption to this natural connectivity—specifically the railway and two main highways (highway 529 and highway 69, the latter of which is planned for a four-lane expansion) that cut directly through MFN Lands. For example:
“[An Elder] used to take me up on the trail there, up two-foot trail, and he used to say that they never used to go any more, any further than a mile to hunt. And once they put that highway there the animals disappeared. So, there must be a lot of things the highway does to animals. Maybe they're just…don't want to live in the area where there's, maybe noise, or whatever it may be. Or maybe they're getting run over more than anything." – Theodore Pitawanakwat
Accordingly, participants expressed that the community has a lot of questions about wildlife and how they are impacted by things that disrupt connectivity—like the highways and railway—and how to best mitigate the negative impacts.
Identifying community research priorities
In addition to thinking about values that are essential for guiding environmental monitoring, participants had a lot of ideas for future research priorities in the community. When it came to discussing wildlife monitoring and better understanding changes on the Land over time, the main considerations participants brought up were choosing research and monitoring methods that are non-invasive, creating a baseline of information about the presence and location of different species on the Land over time, finding opportunities for outreach and community engagement, and collecting data related to the highways and railway. These research priorities were shared by participants in the context of what they would like to see in current and future environmental partnerships, with emphasis on the impact for future generations.
Non-invasive methods
Participants expressed an interest in non-invasive research methods where possible, allowing for data collection that is respectful of the agency and spirit of the Land. For example:
“Progress affects everything…you need to have some, but you need to do it with less impact. And have that forethinking ahead, and think of…the next Seven Generations, all the children to come. Because we have to think about that, and people aren't.” – Janis Smith
Collecting reference information
Many participants spoke about the importance of understanding what is on the Land to inform future plans, ensuring things will be sustainable for future generations. This was discussed both in the context of gathering data now, as well as continuing to gather data over time.
“Now's the time, because in a five year feasibility study, you don't want to…figure out we should have done this five years ago because it takes five years. It's an absolute plan to come together and acknowledge what's happening in our environment.” – Anonymous
Multi-species approaches
In addition to thinking long-term, many participants spoke about the importance of looking at all species through more holistic approaches. There was interest in monitoring that would help inventory and produce documented records of wildlife within the community, to supplement the knowledge and oral histories that already exist within MFN.
“[We] have all kinds of interest…people in the community saying, “Well, what's really here?” There's a lot of things here that we still don't know that are here…there's other animals that are probably here.” – Jerry Smith
Outreach and engagement
Many participants expressed that while they love being out on the Land, many community members face challenges actually getting out because of accessibility or time constraints. Despite many people not getting out on the Land as much as they would like to, many participants expressed how much they love to see what is happening on the Land—big or small, such as:
“I think life is so important…even to watch what's on [the] Land, it's exciting to see. You see a rabbit running along and you kind of stop to watch it. Same with partridge, they sit up on the tree and they keep moving their head.” – Theodore Pitawanakwat
Some participants explicitly mentioned interest in wildlife cameras for outreach, saying:
“I think it'd be nice to have deer cameras. And then like, the random pictures that it takes just put up on a community page, or something.” – Neil Salt
Impacts of highways and railway
Better understanding how the highways and railways impact wildlife was specifically identified as a major priority for many participants. There was not only interest in a general baseline of quantitative data, but to compare wildlife data before and after the expansion of highway 69 to supplement the species at risk data that the MFN Lands Department has been collecting over the years:
“In the years to come, what's happened to the highway with the animals and that, once we put a four-lane highway through here, we need to keep an eye on it. That was one of the intentions of the original species at risk [program] was get some baseline information where we are on the highway here…Let's figure out how we're going to monitor this over the years of the highway.” – Jerry Smith
There is also a lot of community interest in new mitigation efforts along the highways that cut through MFN, such as wildlife overpasses, and participants expressed that they want to see monitoring that can support this advocacy:
“[Changing migration habits has] been my biggest concern about this new highway coming through…how to get them under or over the highway. So those are big things we're keeping in mind when we talk to [the Ministry of Transportation] in regards to that. And your work here is going to help with giving us support in that 100%.” – Angela Noganosh
It was important to hear directly from community to understand and identify research priorities that do not stem from an external research agenda. Knowing that participants want to see community-wide, multi-species monitoring that utilizes non-invasive approaches and prioritizes outreach and engagement was essential to developing a community-based monitoring program with MFN. Further, hearing that the community wants to know about impacts of the highway and railway, in addition to species inventories, was important in developing our corresponding research questions.
Section B: creating a community-based wildlife camera monitoring program that prioritizes community knowledge and values
Methods
Context
This portion of the project is based upon the shared desire to weave community knowledge with Western scientific techniques to expand capacity for more holistic biodiversity monitoring, beyond the already established species at risk program in MFN. Building upon this shared vision, we developed a community-based wildlife monitoring program spanning the entire MFN reserve (∼47 km2) to monitor medium to large mammals. In this section, we describe how the ideas, implementation, and outcomes of our co-developed wildlife monitoring program embody the values and priorities that interview participants shared with us in Section A. As such, many of the detailed camera methods (e.g., deployment, photo processing, analyses) are in the Supplementary Materials (S1).
Wildlife cameras
Wildlife cameras were selected as the primary tool for our community-based wildlife monitoring program not only because of their vast potential for data collection (e.g., abundance, density, and distribution of species—see Burton et al. 2015), but also because they allowed us to prioritize the values and interests outlined by MFN community members. For example, wildlife cameras provide a non-invasive monitoring method that shows respect for the Land and causes minimal disruption to wildlife. As a tool, cameras can be used to provide more holistic data, capturing information about multiple species as well as the surrounding environment (e.g., temperature, snow conditions). In this way, they are able to convey the interconnectedness of the natural world more so than any individual data point—pulling together different elements of the “story” over space and time, even across large areas and long periods of time. Beyond their data potential, cameras provide opportunities for community engagement and outreach, getting people out on the Land and providing photos that can be interacted with to experience the Land in a more accessible way.
Camera set-up
There are many ways wildlife cameras can be used, depending on overall objectives and focal species. Here, we opted to use a systematic grid design in alignment with MFN’s desire to create a long-term, multi-species monitoring program that would provide consistent data while being adaptable to the evolving goals and priorities of the community over time. Ultimately, we felt that this would be “robust” as defined by Western science, while also being relevant to MFN. To ensure comparability between sites, cameras were all the same model, used the same settings, and were set up with the same specifications to target medium to large mammals (∼70 cm high, north facing); further details can be found in Supplementary Materials (S1.1). Wildlife cameras were deployed across the MFN territory in 1 km intervals for a total of 56 sites. An important element of our program design was to ensure coverage across the entirety of MFN (∼47 km2; Fig. 2) to produce a data set that could inform MFN’s management, decision-making, and Land-use planning over generations. This level of coverage also provided opportunities for youth and community members to visit areas within their territory that they otherwise may not spend time in because of the additional planning and resources required to access them, such as across the Magnetawan River.
Fig. 2.
Cameras were active as of July 2021, and the data explored here reports on the period between July and December 2021. During camera deployments and maintenance checks, data was collected through MFN’s “Survey123” platform using templates standardized for the longevity of this project (Supplementary Materials S1.2 and S1.3), and was immediately available to the MFN Lands team. The process of deploying cameras was an opportune time to collaborate with community members and knowledge holders, specifically when determining how to navigate the Lands across the territory. We worked with youth, Elders, and Land-users to access each designated camera site across the territory, contributing greatly to our efficiency when navigating remote or challenging terrain, as well as facilitating relationship building and reciprocal knowledge sharing.
Photo processing
Once downloaded, photos were manually tagged in Timelapse Image Analyzer (version 2.2.5.0; Greenberg 2019). While there are automated image sorting tools that use artificial intelligence to sort wildlife camera photos, our desire to ensure data ownership was held solely by MFN (following OCAP principles; First Nations Information Governance Centre 2023) outweighed the benefits of AI programs that would require public release of photo data.
For the purposes of this paper, we focused on medium to large mammals as an initial proxy for biodiversity (see Supplementary Materials S1.4 for selection criteria and processing details). We excluded semi-aquatic species because they were less likely to be detected by cameras set up on land.
Data analysis and mapping
Camera photos can be analyzed in a multitude of ways, depending on the goals and research questions of interest. Here, we provide only a sample of what information can be obtained from wildlife cameras through analysis and data visualization—rather than focusing on detailed technical methods, we aim to emphasize the ways in which our methods contributed to doing this work “in a good way” by aligning with the priorities and values of MFN. More information about methods used for our analyses of camera photos can be found in Supplementary Materials (S1.5).
Independent observations of each species (≥60 min apart; Tobler et al. 2008; Rovero et al. 2014; Cusack et al. 2015; Simpson et al. 2020) were used to create an inventory of detected species—including both target and bycatch—across each site. The creation of a species inventory was a specific outcome requested by the community, providing a “robust” baseline of species found across the territory. Independent observations were also used to create maps indicating the presence of medium and large mammals across each site, both over the entire sampling period as well as each month, providing visualization of land-use patterns and movement over time.
Species richness, defined as the number of unique species detected at each site, was used as a measure of biodiversity. We calculated species richness as an overall rate of species detection per day (Nspecies/Ndays to max richness) to account for variable sampling periods. We then mapped the species richness across each site by sampling month, providing a visual for how species richness changed over time and space, as well as highlighting “hotspots” to support the community's capacity to for informed decision-making and environmental decision-making.
To assess the influence of highways and the railway on the occurrence of each target species—one of the primary priorities of MFN—we fit a suite of negative binomial models using R (R Core Team, 2023). We fit a separate model for each of the target species using the number of independent observations at each camera as the dependent variable and the distance to each of the highways and railway as covariates, offset by the number of camera days. This allowed us to provide species specific insights to the community to help determine where mitigation efforts may be most needed, supporting their ongoing and future negotiations related to highway expansion and development.
Results
Sampling effort
The window for our analysis spanned from initial deployment dates (5–23 July 2021) until 31 December 2021. Across all 56 cameras, there were some challenges with cameras malfunctioning, being damaged by wildlife, or other disruptions/errors resulting in data loss; overall our analysis window included 7591 trap days. Further detail can be found in Supplementary Materials (S2.1).
Species inventory & richness
Based on our criteria, seven target species/groups were detected; this includes Makwa/Black Bear/Ursus americanus, Mooz/Moose/Alces alces, Wiisagi Ma'iingan and Ma'iingan/and/grouped as Canis sp., Waawaashkeshi/White-tailed Deer/Odocoileus virginianus, Ojiig/Fisher/Pekania pennanti, Waagosh/Red Fox/Vulpes vulpes, and Esban/Raccoon/Procyon lotor. Figure 3 shows the number of independent observations per species, relative to month of detection, across all sites. In Fig. 4, we show example photos for each detected mammal species, named in both Ojibwe and English, as used for outreach and knowledge sharing with community. While we focused on medium–large terrestrial mammals, cameras also detected other animals that were included in our inventory as bycatch (Supplementary Table ST2).
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Species richness was found to be relatively homogenous across the landscape throughout the sampling window. However, species richness and presence were also calculated and mapped per month to provide MFN with information about seasonal patterns and relational land-use between different species (Fig. 5 shows richness for month of August; see Supplementary Materials S2.2 for more information and SF1-3 for additional maps).
Fig. 5.
Relationship between species, highways, and railway
Of the species we detected, the impact of the highways (69 & 529) and railway were varied (see Supplementary Materials Table ST3 for more detailed analyses). We observed some species being significantly impacted by all three of these features (e.g., makwa & waagosh detection increased when closer to features; waawaashkeshi detection decreased when closer to features). We also observed varying impacts of each feature across different species, with mooz detection significantly decreasing with proximity to highway 529, but no significant changes noted based on highway 69 or the railway at this time.
Discussion
By outlining our journey towards creating a community-based wildlife monitoring program with MFN, we aimed to provide an example of what meaningful collaboration and the centering of community knowledge, values, and priorities can look like in practice. Through semi-structured interviews, we spoke to participants about their personal relationship to the Land, as well as the values and priorities that should guide environmental monitoring and research in their territory, and beyond. Rather than focusing on the meaning of each value expressed in interviews (as in Menzies et al. 2024), conversations were centered around finding practical examples of what each value could look like in practice. This allowed us to, subsequently, apply what was shared by participants to develop a wildlife camera monitoring program to address the research questions and priorities of MFN, while placing community values—specifically respect, interconnection, reciprocity, collaboration, and relationship—at the forefront. In this way, we ensured that the monitoring program was born of the community's values, priorities, and needs.
Values in practice
Respect
Respect guided the way that we interacted with the Land, people, and knowledge. In all aspects, humility and openness were fundamental to meeting our project objectives. In the arena of Western science, there is a common mentality in which “expertise” is exalted—but this is a potentially troublesome way of thinking, because it can lead to an implicit assumption that there is nothing new to be learned (Bartlett et al. 2012). Recognizing that community members are experts on their own experiences and knowledge, and that this expertise may be different than that of Western scientists, created opportunities for meaningful conversations and knowledge exchange on both ends (Cajete 2018; Lafferty et al. 2022). Following OCAP Principles (First Nation Information Governance Centre 2023) also allowed us to show respect for community knowledge, actively involving participants as having control and advocacy over what is shared.
Relationship
Relationships were both the foundation and glue that held everything together in our partnership. Although this project was built upon pre-existing relationships within the research team, it was critical that we took the time to build new relationships. Contrary to the historical ideals of “objectivity” within Western science (Little Bear 2000; Kimmerer 2018), acknowledging our relationality as researchers helped us to understand how our identities, beliefs, and worldviews would ultimately shape our work (Reano 2020). A big part of this journey was coming together as people first, without a rigid, pre-set research agenda, and recognizing that community members would have different levels of openness to engagement (Castleden et al. 2012). It is important to recognize that relationships take effort, and it is unrealistic to think that they will grow on their own without the investment of time and energy. Acts of intentional visiting, both through being invited and reaching out, were an important aspect of fostering and growing relationships (Tuck et al. 2022) across our research team; regular and frequent visits to MFN were made for both scheduled research activities and opportunities to just be present and spend time with community and on the Land (see Supplementary Materials Table ST4 for table of visiting). To ensure this actually happened in practice, it was important for our team to have funds and time set aside specifically for visiting, and to be mindful to not let these visits fall through the cracks when schedules got busy. While flexibility was important, so was accountability. It was always less important for us to know what exactly we would be doing on each visit as it was for us to know that we would make the time to be there.
Reciprocity
Reciprocity, the balance of give and take, is an important reflexive practice. Throughout all stages of research, it was important for us to consider who was sharing and what had been shared with us to assess what we could share or “give back” in gratitude. Acts of reciprocity can look drastically different across contexts because they are guided by relationships (Styres and Zinga 2013). As such, “giving back” may differ by person and the unique relationships they hold—and can change over time as relationships grow, as was the case here. For example, at the start of the project, one of the main ways our team expressed reciprocity was by doing garbage clean-ups in MFN; over time, as our relationships grew, reciprocity became helping the MFN Lands Department with extra field work, community outreach and events, and various other tasks that emerged. Simply by being present and willing to jump in as needed, our team was able to “give back” beyond just the scope of our specific research—and in the process, received countless opportunities to learn, grow, and participate in many amazing things.
Collaboration
Collaboration is the process of how people come together to work towards a collective goal. While this can be a challenge when working through colonial governance and institutional structures that uphold inequitable power dynamics (Ball and Janyst 2008; Reed et al. 2021), the personal accountability of everyone involved can make a profound difference. As in relationship building, meaningful collaboration requires coming together as people first—a willingness to come together in ethical space (Ermine 2007) regardless of how uncomfortable or busy things may get (Styres and Zinga 2013). Only once everyone comes together in this collaborative space can communication happen freely and openly, creating opportunities for new ideas and growth. For us, it was important for team members to plan a visit to MFN early on, with the focus being on getting to know people and the Land. In this way, conversations about the project happened naturally, as people had the opportunity to navigate how they fit into the project and what they could contribute. For example, several of our team members’ first visit to MFN involved getting out on the Land with the MFN Lands crew and community members. Without these initial discussions and the ongoing involvement of the community—including youth, Elders, and the Lands team—it would have taken significantly longer to get all of our cameras set-up—many of which we may not have been able to get to without intimate knowledge of the Land and different access points.
Interconnection
Interconnection reminds us to consider how everything fits together. Specifically, in the context of environmental monitoring, it is important to remember that nothing on the Land exists in isolation (M's-it No'kmaq et al. 2021). Here, we have demonstrated a biodiversity and landscape-level approach that acknowledges the connectedness of the Land to help tell a more complete story about how things are changing (Galindo-Leal and Bunnell 1995; Bellard et al. 2015; Menzies et al. 2022). Encompassing multiple species, ecosystems, and environmental conditions, this method of data collection is similar to storytelling—where each photograph tells us the story of each camera site at a particular point in time and can be interpreted in the context of different questions, interests, and priorities.
It is also important to recognize how both community and researchers are connected to the Land (Reano 2020), allowing this to guide research and how it is done. Here, we specifically asked community members how they wanted to see us, as researchers, conduct this work on MFN territory. For those on our team who are guests on these Lands, part of our learning journey was figuring out how we, collectively and as individuals, could embody these values and teachings both personally and professionally. We encourage other researchers to embrace the practice of reflexivity to better understand their own positionality and relationality, and to be intentional about the what, why, and how you do things.
Wildlife camera results: value beyond data
Wildlife cameras continue to gain popularity as a tool for wildlife monitoring and research, but here, we demonstrate how they also align very well with values identified by MFN. This alignment enabled us to work towards addressing different questions and research priorities while upholding respect, reciprocity, relationship, interconnection, and collaboration throughout the process. As a research tool, cameras are non-invasive and can provide a more holistic form of monitoring that can explore entire landscapes and several species at once. In our work, however, cameras became more than just a tool for wildlife monitoring—they were a vehicle for outreach and connecting with people, a way to share the Ojibwe language, a way to get out and spend time on the Land and an opportunity for those who are no longer able to get out on the Land to still see what animals are up to. Going beyond the potential for data collection—which is certainly vast—wildlife cameras provide the flexibility to truly work in a way that suits communities and partners, which is necessary in maintaining the integrity of Indigenous methodologies and ways of knowing when weaving knowledges (Kovach 2009; Tengö et al. 2017; Reano 2020).
Community-based monitoring efforts, despite having strong potential for uplifting Indigenous self-determination, are often considered less robust than government or “expert”-driven data (Reed et al. 2020a); this is something our collaborative camera program seeks to combat. While the camera data presented here is relatively simple, this represents a baseline—the beginning of a long-term monitoring effort that will continue to provide MFN with information to inform environmental management and decision-making. This foundational information about mammalian diversity across the landscape can be used to supplement existing species at risk data, traditional land use records, and the local knowledge and histories carried throughout MFN. Better understanding animal occurrences across MFN can help guide further investigation and case-making for future mitigation efforts, especially respective to highway construction (Hamr et al. 2022)—a prominent priority for the community at the time of this work.
Based upon community concerns about the highways and railway, independent observations of each target species were modeled by the shortest distance between each site and the railway, highway 529, and highway 69, respectively. While this approach does not account for imperfect detection, it can still help detect changes in animal behaviours related to the highways and railway. Our preliminary data suggests a significant influence of both highways and the railway on several of the medium-large mammals we looked at—makwa and waagosh were more frequently detected closer to these features, while waawaashkeshi and mooz were more likely to be detected further away. This is reflective of what interview participants noted, as well as existing literature (Popp and Donovan 2016; Dickie et al. 2017; Lendrum et al. 2018). Analyses like these will enable MFN to continue monitoring the impacts of development within their territory, informing future research priorities and decision-making. This is not only important from a conservation perspective, but also in supporting the community’s advocacy for the health and wellbeing of their territory while exercising their self-determination and sovereignty as a Nation.
As our program was designed with medium to large mammals in mind, the data reported here, as well as all future data produced by the camera program, can be considered broadly—such as with biodiversity—or narrowed to better understand impacts on particular species. In this way, the continued use of cameras will help MFN to monitor changes to their territory over time as a result of climate change, development, and other events impacting biodiversity, as well as providing the community with a valuable dataset that can be used—at their own discretion—to contribute to larger biodiversity studies on a regional or global scale (Chen et al. 2022).
Call to action
We hope that this case study—through the application of a mixed method approach to community-based research—can provide inspiration and guidance for future research collaborations with Indigenous community partners to take place in a good way (Ball and Janyst 2008; Menzies et al. 2022; Reid et al. 2024), reflecting not just on the methods we used but more so on the process and spirit of collaboration. While this work is in the context of wildlife cameras, the application of respect, interconnection, reciprocity, collaboration, and relationship can be used in a myriad of different settings when working to build meaningful partnerships in weaving Indigenous and Western sciences. It is important to emphasize that what is outlined here worked within the context of our specific relationships; given the diversity of Indigenous communities and significance of place, there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to weaving ways of knowing (Ball and Janyst 2008; Buffalo et al. 2019; Wong et al. 2020; McKay and Grenz 2021). Therefore, we stress the importance of engaging with individual communities to hear their unique needs, priorities, and values, and then working together to come up with mutually beneficial, creative approaches to caring for the Land. In the face of climate change and rapid biodiversity declines, we all have a shared responsibility—to both the Land and to each other—to advocate for and enact change for a better future. It is time to move past talking about uplifting Indigenous-Land relations and put words and ideas into action together.
Acknowledgements
This work would not be possible without all of the community members who saw the value in this project and shared their time, knowledge, and love for the Land with us—especially interview participants Angie Noganosh, Janis Smith, Jerry Smith, Leslie Noganosh, Lloyd Noganosh, Neil Salt, Richard Noganosh, Samantha Noganosh, Theodore Pitawanakwat, Tina Pitawanakwat, Wanda Noganosh, and all those who wished to remain anonymous—chi-miigwech. Special thanks to the MFN Lands Department for providing ongoing support for all aspects of this work—from dealing with cameras to helping establish relationships with the community, it would not have been possible without this great team. Chi-miigwech to Richard Noganosh, our Elder Advisor and friend, for not only sharing his vast knowledge of the Land, but for helping to guide this project in a good way right from the start—helping us to learn, grow, be accountable, and have some fun.
This research was supported by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Canada Research Chair, Canadian Foundation of Innovation, Indigenous Community-Based Climate Monitoring Program, Natural Sciences, Engineering, and Research Council Discovery Grant, and the Ărramăt Project. Throughout this work, CK was supported by Arthur D. Latornell Graduate Scholarship, MacSon Entrance Scholarship, RIC Engaged Scholarship, and Queen Elizabeth II Graduate Scholarship in Science and Technology; KY was supported by Ontario Graduate Scholarship and Morwick Scholarship; and AM was supported by a Liber Ero Postdoctoral Fellowship and University of Guelph Indigenous Postdoctoral Award.
References
Arsenault R., Bourassa C., Diver S., McGregor D., Witham A. 2019. Including indigenous knowledge systems in environmental assessments: restructuring the process. Global Environmental Politics, 19(3): 120–132.
Ball J., Janyst P. 2008. Enacting research ethics in partnerships with indigenous communities in Canada: “do it in a good way”. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3(2): 33–51.
Bartlett C., Marshall M., Marshall A. 2012. Two-Eyed Seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4): 331–340.
Bellard C., Bertelsmeier C., Leadley P., Thuiller W., Courchamp F., Fourier J. 2015. Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecology Letters, 15, 365–377.
Bennett N.J., Roth R. 2019. Realizing the transformative potential of conservation through the social sciences, arts and humanities. Biological Conservation, 229, A6–A8.
Boyatis R.E. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Transforming Qualitative Information, (800).
Brugge D., Missaghian M. 2006. Protecting the Navajo People through tribal regulation of research, 12(3): 491–507.
Buffalo M., Heinzmann J., Kenyon D.Y.B., Blindman K., Bordeaux S., Frederick A., et al. 2019. Not a one-size-fits-all approach: building tribal infrastructure for research through CRCAIH. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 26(2): 42–70.
Burton A.C., Neilson E., Moreira D., Ladle A., Steenweg R., Fisher J.T., et al. 2015. Wildlife camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52(3): 675–685.
Cajete G. 2018. Native science and sustaining indigenous communities. In Traditional ecological knowledge: learning from Indigenous practices for environmental sustainability. Edited by M.K. Nelson, D. Shilling. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. pp. 15–26.
Castleden H., Morgan V.S., Lamb C. 2012. “I spent the first year drinking tea”: exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community-based participatory research involving indigenous peoples. Canadian Geographer, 56(2): 160–179.
Chen C., Brodie J.F., Kays R., Davies T.J., Liu R., Fisher J.T., et al. 2022. Global camera trap synthesis highlights the importance of protected areas in maintaining mammal diversity. Conservation Letters, 15(2): 1–14.
Convention on Biological Diversity. 2022. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Cusack J.J., Dickman A.J., Rowcliffe J.M., Carbone C., Macdonald D.W., Coulson T. 2015. Random versus game trail-based camera trap placement strategy for monitoring terrestrial mammal communities. PLoS ONE, e0126373, 10(5).
Dickie M., Serrouya R., McNay R.S., Boutin S. 2017. Faster and farther: wolf movement on linear features and implications for hunting behaviour. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54(1): 253–263.
Eisenhardt K.M., Graebner M.E. 2007. Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 25–32.
Ermine W. 2007. The Ethical Space of Engagement. Indigenous Law Journal, 6(1): 193–203.
Fereday J., Muir-Cochrane E. 2006. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1): 80–92.
First Nations Information Governance Centre. 2023. OCAP. Available from: https://fnigc.ca/ocap-training/.
Galindo-Leal C., Bunnell F.L. 1995. Ecosystem management: implications and opportunities of a new paradigm. The Forestry Chronicle, 71(5): 601–606.
Garnett S.T., Burgess N.D., Fa J.E., Fernández-Llamazares Á., Molnár Z., Robinson C.J., et al. 2018. A spatial overview of the global importance of indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability, 1(7): 369–374.
Greenberg S. 2019. Pity the analyst: designing software for image inspection. Canmore, AB: In Remote Cameras Workshop.
Hamr J., Lieske D.J., Martin M., Nickel C.B., Popp J.N. 2022. The efficacy of highway wildlife collision mitigation in preventing elk mortality in central Ontario. Journal of Wildlife Management, 86(3): 1–15.
Harding A., Harper B., Stone D., O'Neill C., Berger P., Harris S., et al. 2012. Conducting research with tribal communities: sovereignty, ethics, and data-sharing issues. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(1): 6–10.
IPBES. 2019. In Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Vol. 45. Edited by S. Díaz, J. Settele, E.S. Brondízio, H.T. Ngo, M. Guèze, J. Agard, et al. Bonn, Germany.
Johnson N., Behe C., Danielsen F., Krümmel E.M., Nickels S., Pulsifer P., et al. 2016. In Community-based monitoring and Indigenous Knowledge in a changing arctic: a review for the sustaining arctic observing networks. Final Report to Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks. Vol. 1. Ottawa, ON.
Joseph R.P.C. 2018. 21 things you may not know about the Indian act. Indigenous Relations Press.
Kelley A., Belcourt-Dittloff A., Belcourt C., Belcourt G. 2013. Research ethics and indigenous communities. American Journal of Public Health, 103(12): 2146–2152.
Kimmerer R.W. 2018. Mishkos Kenomagwen, the lessons of grass: restoring reciprocity with the good green earth. Edited by D. Shilling, M.K. Nelson. In Traditional ecological knowledge: learning from indigenous practices for environmental sustainability. Cambridge University Press. Available from http://www.joi.isoss.net/PDFs/Vol-7-no-2-2021/03_J_ISOSS_7_2.pdf.
Kovach M. 2009. Indigenous methodologies: characteristics, conversations and contexts. (University of Toronto Press, Ed.). Scholarly Publishing, Toronto, Ontario.
Lafferty A., Gonet J., Wasilik T., Thompson L., Ertman S., Bandara S. 2022. Navigating the shifting landscape of engagement in Northern research: perspectives from early career researchers. The Northern Review, 1–27.
Lendrum P.E., Northrup J.M., Anderson C.R., Liston G.E., Aldridge C.L., Crooks K.R., et al. 2018. Predation risk across a dynamic landscape: effects of anthropogenic land use, natural landscape features, and prey distribution. Landscape Ecology, 33(1): 157–170.
Lertzman D.A. 2010. Best of two worlds: traditional ecological knowledge and western science in ecosystem-based management. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management, 10(3): 104–126.
Liboiron M. 2021. Pollution Is Colonialism. Duke University Press Books. 216p.
Little Bear L. 2000. Jagged worldviews colliding. Edited by M. Battiste. In Reclaiming Indigenous voice and vision. UBC Press, Vancouver. pp. 77–85.
M's-it No'kmaq, Marshall A., Beazley K.F., Hum J., Joudry S., Papadopoulos A.M's-it No'kmaq, et al. 2021. “Awakening the sleeping giant”: re-indigenization principles for transforming biodiversity conservation in Canada and beyond. Facets, 6(1): 839–869.
Martinez D. 2018. Redefining sustainability through kincentric ecology: reclaiming indigenous lands, knowledge, and ethics. In Traditional ecological knowledge: Learning from Indigenous practices for environmental sustainability. Edited by M.K. Nelson, D. Shilling. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. pp. 137–174.
Maxwell S., Fuller R., Brooks T., Watson J. 2016. The ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature, 536, 143–145.
McGregor D. 2014. Traditional knowledge and water governance: the ethic of responsibility. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 10(5): 493–507.
McGregor D. 2021. Indigenous knowledge systems in environmental governance in Canada. KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies, 5(1): 1–10.
McKay A., Grenz J. 2021. Healing the land and the academy. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 5(9): 1190–1192.
Menzies A.K., Bowles E., Gallant M., Patterson H., Kozmik C., Chiblow S., et al. 2022. “I see my culture starting to disappear”: anishinaabe perspectives on the socioecological impacts of climate change and future research needs. Facets, 7, 509–527.
Menzies A.K., Bowles E., McGregor D., Ford A.T., Popp J.N. 2024. Indigenous values, practices, and priorities as guidance for transforming Human-environment relationships. In press at People and Nature(accepted on 12 July, 2024).
Patterson H. 2023. Environmental and socio-cultural impacts of glyphosate-based herbicides: Insights from Indigenous Knowledge and Western Science. M.Sc. thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario. Available from https://hdl.handle.net/10214/27470.
Popp J.N., Donovan V.M. 2016. Fine-scale tertiary-road features influence wildlife use: a case study of two major North American predators. Animal Biology, 66(3–4): 229–238.
Popp J.N., Priadka P., Kozmik C. (2019). The rise of moose co-management and integration of Indigenous knowledge. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 24(2): 159–167.
Popp J.N., Priadka P., Young M., Koch K., Morgan J. 2020. Indigenous guardianship and moose monitoring: weaving Indigenous and Western ways of knowing. Human–Wildlife Interactions, 14(2): 17.
Reano D. 2020. Using indigenous research frameworks in the multiple contexts of research, teaching, mentoring, and leading. Qualitative Report, 25(11): 3902–3926.
Reed G., Brunet N.D., Natcher D.C. 2020a. Can indigenous community-based monitoring act as a tool for sustainable self-determination? Extractive Industries and Society, 7(4): 1283–1291.
Reed G., Dagli W., Hambly Odame H. 2020b. Co-production of knowledge for sustainability: an application of reflective practice in doctoral studies. Reflective Practice, 21(2): 222–236.
Reed G., Brunet N.D., Longboat S., Natcher D.C. 2021. Indigenous guardians as an emerging approach to indigenous environmental governance. Conservation Biology, 35(1): 179–189.
Reed G., Brunet N.D., McGregor D., Scurr C., Sadik T., Lavigne J., et al. 2022. Toward indigenous visions of nature-based solutions: an exploration into Canadian federal climate policy. Climate Policy, 22(4): 514–533.
Reid A.J., Eckert L.E., Lane J.F., Young N., Hinch S.G., Darimont C.T., et al. 2020. “Two-Eyed Seeing”: an indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management. Fish and Fisheries, 22, 243–261.
Reid A.J., Young N., Hinch S.G., Cooke S.J. 2022. Learning from indigenous Knowledge holders on the state and future of wild Pacific salmon. Facets, 7, 718–740.
Reid A.J., McGregor D.A., Menzies A.K., Eckert L.E., Febria C.M., Popp J.N. 2024. Ecological research ‘in a good way’ means ethical and equitable relationships with indigenous Peoples and lands. In Nature Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 8. Nature Research, 595–598.
Rovero F., Martin E., Rosa M., Ahumada J.A., Spitale D. 2014. Estimating species richness and modelling habitat preferences of tropical forest mammals from camera trap data. PLoS ONE, e103300, 9(7).
Sadowsky H. 2019. Understanding the role of inuit youth engagement in scientific research in Nunavut. M.Sc. thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario.
Salmón E. 2000. Kincentric ecology: indigenous perceptions of the human-nature relationship. Ecological Applications, 10(5): 1327–1332.
Schuster R., Germain R.R., Bennett J.R., Reo N.J., Arcese P. 2019. Vertebrate biodiversity on indigenous-managed lands in Australia, Brazil, and Canada equals that in protected areas. Environmental Science and Policy, 101(June): 1–6.
Simpson B.K., Nasaruddin N., Traeholt C., Nor S.M. 2020. Mammal diversity at artificial saltlicks in Malaysia: a targeted use. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 8.
Steffen W., Richardson K., Rockström J., Cornell S.E., Fetzer I., Bennett E.M., et al. 2015. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223):.
Styres S., Zinga D. 2013. The community-first land-centred theoretical framework: bringing a good mind to indigenous education research? Canadian Journal of Education, 36(2): 284–313.
Tengö M., Hill R., Malmer P., Raymond C.M., Spierenburg M., Danielsen F., et al. 2017. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—Lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26-27, 17–25.
Tobler M.W., Carrillo-Percastegui S.E., Leite Pitman R., Mares R., Powell G. 2008. An evaluation of camera traps for inventorying large- and medium-sized terrestrial rainforest mammals. Animal Conservation, 11(3): 169–178.
Tuck E., Stepetin H., Beaulne-Stuebing R., Billows J. 2022. Visiting as an indigenous feminist practice. Gender and Education, 35, 144–155.
Turner N.J., Bhattacharyya J. 2016. Salmonberry bird and goose woman: birds, plants, and people in indigenous peoples’ lifeways in northwestern North America. Journal of Ethnobiology, 36(4): 717–745.
Whitelaw G., Vaughan H., Craig B., Atkinson D. 2003. Establishing the Canadian Community Monitoring Network. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 88, 409–418.
Whyte KP. 2013. On the role of traditional ecological knowledge as a collaborative concept: a philosophical study. Ecological Processes, 2(1): 1–12.
Wilson N.J., Mutter E., Inkster J., Satterfield T. 2018. Community-based monitoring as the practice of Indigenous governance: a case study of Indigenous-led water quality monitoring in the Yukon River Basin. Journal of Environmental Management, 210, 290–298.
Wong C., Ballegooyen K., Ignace L., Johnson M.J., Swanson H. 2020. Towards reconciliation: 10 calls to action to natural scientists working in Canada. Facets, 5(1): 769–783.
World Wildlife Fund. 2020. Living Planet Report 2020 – Bending the curve of biodiversity loss. Edited by R.E. Almond, M. Grooten, T. Petersen. Gland, Switzerland.
Yin R.K. 2017. Case study research and applications: design and methods. SAGE Publications.
Supplementary material
Supplementary Material 1 (DOCX / 10.5 MB).
- Download
- 10.59 MB
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
FACETS
Volume 9 • Number 1 • January 2024
Pages: 1 - 17
Editor: Mark Mallory
History
Received: 20 February 2024
Accepted: 19 August 2024
Version of record online: 27 November 2024
Copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement
All relevant data are within the paper and in the Supplementary Material. Out of respect for the nature of knowledge shared throughout this study, additional data are not publicly available. Requests for additional data can be made to the corresponding author, with consideration to the OCAP principles.
Key Words
Sections
Subjects
Authors
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: CK, KY, AM, NP, SN, JP
Data curation: CK, KY
Formal analysis: CK, AM
Funding acquisition: CK, KY, JN, JP
Investigation: CK, KY, NP
Methodology: CK, KY, AM, NP
Project administration: CK, KY, NP, SN
Resources: SN, JN, JP
Supervision: AM, SN, JN, JP
Validation: CK, NP
Visualization: CK
Writing – original draft: CK
Writing – review & editing: CK, AM, JN, JP
Competing Interests
The authors declare there are no competing interests.
Funding Information
Canadian Foundation of Innovation
Indigenous Community-Based Climate Monitoring Program
Ărramăt Project
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Other Metrics
Citations
Cite As
Claire Kemp, Kathryn Yarchuk, Allyson Menzies, Nadine Perron, Samantha Noganosh, Joseph Northrup, and Jesse Popp. 2024. Weaving ways of knowing in practice: a collaborative approach to prioritizing community knowledge and values in wildlife camera monitoring with Magnetawan First Nation. FACETS.
9: 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2024-0030
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
There are no citations for this item