Evolving Co-Management Practice:
Developing a Community-Based Environmental Monitoring Framework
With Tl'azt'en Nation on the John Prince Research Forest
Deanna K.Y. Yim
B.Sc, University of British Columbia, 2004

Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of
The Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies
in
Natural Resources and Environmental Studies

The University of Northern British Columbia
August 2009

© Deanna K.Y. Yim, 2009

1*1

Library and Archives
Canada

Bibliotheque et
Archives Canada

Published Heritage
Branch

Direction du
Patrimoine de I'edition

395 Wellington Street
OttawaONK1A0N4
Canada

395, rue Wellington
Ottawa ON K1A 0N4
Canada
Your file Votre r6f6rence
ISBN: 978-0-494-60832-6
Our file Notre r6f6rence
ISBN: 978-0-494-60832-6

NOTICE:

AVIS:

The author has granted a nonexclusive license allowing Library and
Archives Canada to reproduce,
publish, archive, preserve, conserve,
communicate to the public by
telecommunication or on the Internet,
loan, distribute and sell theses
worldwide, for commercial or noncommercial purposes, in microform,
paper, electronic and/or any other
formats.

L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive
permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives
Canada de reproduce, publier, archiver,
sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public
par telecommunication ou par I'lntemet, preter,
distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le
monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur
support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou
autres formats.

The author retains copyright
ownership and moral rights in this
thesis. Neither the thesis nor
substantial extracts from it may be
printed or otherwise reproduced
without the author's permission.

L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur
et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni
la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci
ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement
reproduits sans son autorisation.

In compliance with the Canadian
Privacy Act some supporting forms
may have been removed from this
thesis.

Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la
protection de la vie privee, quelques
formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de
cette these.

While these forms may be included
in the document page count, their
removal does not represent any loss
of content from the thesis.

Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans
la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu
manquant.

1+1

Canada

ABSTRACT
This thesis describes a community-based research project that was conducted in
partnership with TFazt'en Nation and the co-managed John Prince Research Forest. The
purpose of the research was to identify, develop, and verify TFazt'en environmental
measures for five traditional use activities: talo ha 'hut'en - fishing salmon
(Oncorhynchus spp.), huda ha 'hut'en - hunting moose (Alces alces), tsa ha tsayilh sula trapping beaver (Castor canadensis), duje hoonayin - picking huckleberries (Vaccinium
membranaceum), and yoo ha ningwus hunult'o - gathering soapberries (Shepherdia
canadensis) for medicinal use. Our participatory research approach was evaluated
throughout the project; these results revealed how participant satisfaction, personal
development, independence, and the building of relationships contributed to sustained
participation and to the achievement of project objectives. Overall, 252 TFazt'en
environmental measures were developed. A prioritized subset of these measures will be
applied in the future through a TFazt'en community-based environmental monitoring
initiative on the John Prince Research Forest.

methods and principles. A prioritized subset of these measures will be applied in the
future through a Tl'azt'en community-based environmental monitoring initiative on the
John Prince Research Forest. Applying these Aboriginal environmental measures
through community-based environmental monitoring can strengthen the co-management
partnership between Tl'azt'en Nation and the University of Northern British Columbia;
community-based environmental monitoring builds the community into management and
decision-making processes- ultimately contributing to co-management success.

in

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT

II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IV

LIST OF TABLES

IX

LIST OF FIGURES

X

LIST OF ACRONYMS

XII

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

XIII

CHAPTER 1-INTRODUCTION

1

1.1
Thesis Topic Introduction
1.2
Case Study Description
1.2.1 Tl'azt'en Nation
1.2.2 The John Prince Research Forest
1.3
The Tl'azt'en Nation - University of Northern British Columbia Community
University Research Alliance Project
1.4
Tl'azt'en Nation Criteria and Indicators Framework
1.5
Rationale for Researching the Process and Development of Tl'azt'en Nation
Environmental Measures
1.6
Research Purpose and Objectives
1.6
Thesis Structure and Overview

1
5
5
8

13
14
14

CHAPTER 2- EVALUATING THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING ABORIGINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES FOR A CO-MANAGED FOREST

16

2.1
Abstract
2.2
Introduction
2.3
Tl'azt'en Nation and Study Area
2.4
Methods
2.4.1 Community-Based Approach
2.4.2 Tl'azt'en Nation Environmental Measures Development Approach
2.4.2.1 Phase 1- Personal Transformative Process
2.4.2.2 Phase 2- Tl'azt'enne Environmental Measures Generation
2.4.2.2.1 Establishing the Research Teams
2.4.2.2.2 Information Session
2.4.2.2.3 Pre-Testing Research Events

16
17
20
21
23
24
24
24
24
26
26

10
11

IV

2.4.2.2.4 Recording Methods
2.4.2.2.5 Forest Team Focus Groups
2.4.2.2.6 Forest Team Focus Group 1
2.4.2.2.7 Elders Team Workshop
2.4.2.2.8 Forest Team Focus Group 2
2.4.2.2.9 Community-Product Development Workshop
2.4.2.3 Phase 3- Tl'azt'en Environmental Measures Verification
2.4.2.3.1 Data Analysis
2.4.2.3.2 Forest Team Focus Group 3
2.4.2.3.3 Project Wrap-Up Celebration
2.4.3 Research Framework Evaluation
2.4.3.1 In-Progress Evaluations
2.4.3.2 Final Project Evaluation
2.4.3.3 Methodological Evaluation Comments
2.5
Results
2.5.2 Participation Rates
2.5.3 Empowerment Evaluation
2.5.3.1 Satisfaction
2.5.3.2 Independence
2.5.3.3 Personal and Professional Development
2.5.3.4 Relationship Building
2.5.3.5 Conduct of Researchers
2.5.3.6 Recommended Improvements
2.5.4 Evaluation of Central Participatory Methods
2.6
Discussion
2.6.1 Participation
2.6.2 Qualities of a Meaningful Aboriginal Research Framework
2.6.2.1 Satisfaction
2.6.2.2 Personal and Professional Development
2.6.2.3 Independence
2.6.2.4 Relationship Building
2.6.2.5 Participatory Methods
2.6.3 Building an Enduring Research Framework
2.6.3.1 Developing Community Products
2.6.3.2 Involving the Community
2.6.3.3 Evaluating the Process
2.6.3.4 Recommendations for Collaborative Aboriginal Research Processes
2.7
Conclusion

27
27
28
31
32
33
34
34
36
37
37
39
40
40
40
41
41
41
44
45
46
46
47
48
50
51
51
52
53
54
54
55
56
56
57
57
58
59

CHAPTER 3- ABORIGNAL ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES: CONNECTING
FIRST NATION COMMUNITIES AND CO-MANAGEMENT THROUGH
COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

60

3.1
3.2
3.3

60
61
64

Abstract
Introduction
Tl'azt'en Nation and Study Area

v

3.4
Tl'azt'en Nation Local-Level Criteria and Indicator Framework
65
3.5
Five Traditional Use Activities of Tl'azt'en Nation
66
3.5.1 Talo ha'hut'en- Fishing Salmon
67
3.5.2 Huda ha'hut'en- Hunting Moose
68
3.5.3 Tsa ha tsayilh sula- Trapping Beaver
68
3.5.4 Duje Hoonayin- Picking Huckleberries
69
3.5.5 Yoo ba ningwus hunult'o- Gathering Soapberries for Medicinal Use
69
3.6
Methods
69
3.6.1
Phase 1: Personal Transformative Process
70
3.6.2 Phase 2: Tl'azt'enne Environmental Measures Generation
70
3.6.3 Phase 3: Tl'azt'enne Environmental Measures Identification and Verification74
3.7
Results
76
3.7.1 Inter-Rater Reliability Testing
76
3.7.2 Tl'azt'en Environmental Measures
77
3.7.2.1 Tl'azt'en Habitat-Related Environmental Measures
77
3.7.2.2 Tl'azt'enne Abundance-Related Environmental Measures
78
3.7.2.3 Tl'azt'enne Health and Quality Related Environmental Measures
78
3.7.2.4 Measures for Monitoring Environmental Change Across Tl'azt'en Nation
Traditional Territory
79
3.7.2.5 Measures for Monitoring Adherence to Tl'azt'en Traditional Environmental
Land Use Methods and Principles
83
3.8
Discussion
83
3.8.1 Formulating Aboriginal Environmental Measures
84
3.8.2 Habitat-Related Aboriginal Environmental Measures
87
3.8.3 Abundance-Related Aboriginal Environmental Measures
88
3.8.4 Health and Quality-Related Aboriginal Environmental Measures
89
3.8.5 Aboriginal Environmental Measures Related to Monitoring Environmental
Change
90
3.8.6 Aboriginal Environmental Measures Related to Monitoring Traditional
Environmental Practices and Principles
90
3.9
Conclusion
91
CHAPTER 4: THE APPLICATION OF TL'AZT'EN NATION ENVIRONMENTAL
MEASURES: COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
PROTOTYPES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
93
4.1
Introduction
93
4.2
Methods
93
4.2.1 Applied Community-Based Environmental Monitoring Prototypes
93
4.2.2 Evaluating the Applied Community-Based Environmental Monitoring
Prototypes
95
4.3
Results
96
4.3.1 Results of the Applied Community-Based Environmental Monitoring Prototype
Evaluations
96
4.4
Discussion
98

VI

4.4.1

Next Steps for Tl'azt'en Nation Community-Based Environmental Monitoring
98
4.4.2 Recommendations for Tl'azt'en Nation Community-Based Environmental
Monitoring
100
4.5
Conclusion
102
CHAPTER 5-COMMUNITY PRODUCTS

114

5.1
Introduction
5.2
CURA-Related Community Products
5.2.1 CURA Community Updates and Newsletters
5.3
Project-Related Community Products
5.3.1 Poster Presentations
5.3.2 Information Brochure
5.3.3 Forest and Elders Team Community Updates
5.3.4 Project Extension

114
115
115
121
121
127
128
137

CHAPTER 6- THESIS OUTCOMES AND CONCLUSIONS

142

REFERENCES

145

APPENDIX A

159

A.l- Quantitative summary of the total number of Tl'azt'en environmental measures
summarized by traditional use activity, critical local value (CLV), and method
type
159
A.2- Quantitative summary of resultant Tl'azt'en environmental measures corresponding
to each traditional use activity's abundance related critical local value (CLV). 160
A.3- Quantitative summary of resultant Tl'azt'en environmental measures corresponding
to each traditional use activity's health and quality related critical local value
(CLV)
161
A.4- Summary of resultant Tl'azt'en environmental measures related to monitoring
change across Tl'azt'en Nation's traditional territory and adherence to Tl'azt'en
traditional environmental land use methods and principles
162
APPENDIX B

163

B.l- Quantitative summary of initial and final percent agreement scores for our inter-rater
reliability tested transcripts
163
APPENDIX C

164

C.l- Forest Team Member Invitation Package, June 2007
C.2- Elders Team Member Invitation Package, June 2007

164
170

vn

APPENDIX D- FOREST TEAM MEMBER COMMITMENT TO THE FOREST TEAM
176
APPENDIX E- FOREST AND ELDERS TEAM MEMBER UPDATES
E.l- Forest Team Member Update August 2007
E.2- Elders Team Member Update, September 2007
E.3- Forest Team Member Update, September 2007

177
177
178
179

APPENDIX F- TL'AZT'EN NATION BAND COUNCIL RESOLUTION

180

viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1- In-progress evaluation results examining six empowerment evaluation topics
from the research events: FTFG1 (n=7), FTFG2 (n=12), FTFG3 (n=9) and ET
Workshop (n=10). Dashes indicate questions that were not asked at a particular
research event. Responses not marked as 'yes' or 'no' are indicated as nonresponse (NR)
43
Table 2.2- Final project evaluation results examining five empowerment evaluation
topics. Responses include both ET and FT member responses (n=14). Responses
not marked as 'yes' or 'no' are indicated as non-response (NR)
44
Table 2.3- Evaluation results related to the central participatory methods: Photovoice, FT
focus groups (FTFG), one-on-one interviews, and the ET workshop. Dashes
indicate questions that were not asked at a particular research event. Questions
left blank by respondents are indicated as non-response (NR)
49
Table 3.1- Summary of Tl'azt'en environmental measures that correspond to each
traditional use activity's habitat related critical local values (CLV) and subsequent
thematic topics. One Tl'azt'en measure was selected as an example for each
topic. Tl'azt'en environmental measures are written, where possible, with the
words used by FT and ET members
80
Table 3.2- Summary of Tl'azt'en environmental measures that correspond to each
traditional use activity's abundance related critical local values (CLV) and
subsequent thematic topics. One Tl'azt'en measure was selected as an example
for each topic. Tl'azt'en environmental measures are written, where possible, with
the words used by FT and ET members
81
Table 3.3- Summary of Tl'azt'en environmental measures that correspond to each
traditional use activity's health and quality related critical local values (CLV) and
subsequent thematic topics. One Tl'azt'en measure was selected as an example
for each topic. Tl'azt'en environmental measures are written, where possible,
with the words used by FT and ET members
82
Table 4.1- Applied CBEM prototypes were developed for the Tl'azt'en measures
resulting from each traditional use activity's most frequently identified code 94
Table 4.2- Summarized group responses from the evaluation of the Tl'azt'en Nation
CBEM prototype's applied format
97
Table 4.3- Summarized group responses from the evaluation of the mocked Tl'azt'en
Nation CBEM prototypes
99

IX

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1- Community-based environmental monitoring (CBEM) can foster the
complementary use of TEKMS and SBRM in cross-cultural co-management
partnerships
4
Figure 1.2- A portion of Tl'azt'en Nation traditional territory including the four
communities of Tache (Tachie), Binche (Pinchi), Dzitl'ainli (Middle River), and
K'uzche (Grand Rapids), and the co-managed John Prince Research Forest (JPRF)
6
Figure 1.3- Hierarchical structure of the local-level Tl'azt'en Nation C&I framework
(Sherry et al. nd-a.)
11
Figure 2.1- Three phases of the Tl'azt'en Nation environmental measures development
framework. Research events highlighted in grey indicate where information was
collected, for analysis purposes, through audio and video recordings. All phases
maintained a community-based approach and contributed to the development of
community products
22
Figure 2.2 - Sequential timeline and process for using Photovoice to complete the
Tl'azt'en Nation Environmental Measures Development Framework. Caption
headings appearing in italics indicate an event not associated with the explicit
collection of data
30
Figure 4.1- Community-based environmental monitoring prototype for hunting moose 104
Figure 4.2- Community-based environmental monitoring prototype for fishing salmonl06
Figure 4.3- Community-based environmental monitoring prototype for trapping beaver
108
Figure 4.4- Community-based environmental monitoring prototype for picking
huckleberries
110
Figure 4.5- Community-based environmental monitoring prototype for gathering
soapberries for medicinal use
112
Figure 5.1- Book Cover: Tl'azt'en Nation Community-Based Environmental Monitoring,
Science and Tradition: Respect for our Elders, Respect for our People, Respect for
our Land (Tl'azt'en Nation and Yim 2008b)
122
Figure 5.2- DVD Cover: Tl'azt'en Nation Community-Based Environmental Monitoring,
Science and Tradition: Respect for our Elders, Respect for our People, Respect for
our Land (Tl'azt'en Nation and Yim 2008a)
123
Figure 5.3- Poster presented at the UNBC Natural Resources and Environmental Studies
poster session, Prince George, BC, October 2006
124
Figure 5.4- Poster presented at the Tl'azt'en Nation-UNBC CURA Community Day,
Tache, BC, May 2007
125
Figure 5.5- Poster presented at the UNBC Natural Resources and Environmental Studies
Institute poster session, Prince George, BC and at the 14th International
Symposium on Society and Resource Management, People and Place: Linking
Culture and Nature, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont USA, March
2008
126
Figure 5.6- Project Information Brochure, July 2007
127
Figure 5.7- Forest Team Community Update Issue 1, August 2007
129
Figure 5.8- Elders Team Community Update Issue 2, August 2007
131

x

Figure 5.9- Forest Team Community Update Issue 3, December 2007
Figure 5.10- Forest Team Community Update Issue 4, November 2008

133
135

XI

LIST OF ACRONYMS

BC
C&I
CBEM
CBR
CD
CIAC
CLV
CPDW
CRC
CURA
DVD
ET
FPE
FT
FTFG1
FTFG2
FTFG3
JPRF
NGO
NR
SBRM
SSHRC
TEKMS
UNBC
USA

British Columbia
Criteria and Indicators
Community-Based Environmental Monitoring
Community-Based Research
Compact Disc
Criteria and Indicators of Adaptive Co-Management
Critical Local Values
Community Product Development Workshop
Chuzghun Resources Corporation
Community University Research Alliance
Digital Video Disc
Elders Team
Final Project Evaluation
Forest Team
Forest Team Focus Group 1
Forest Team Focus Group 2
Forest Team Focus Group 3
John Prince Research Forest
Non-Governmental Organization
No Response
Science Based Resource Management
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Traditional Environmental Knowledge and Management System
University of Northern British Columbia
United States of America

Xll

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Snachailya to Tl'azt'en Nation. Snachailya to Forest and Elders team members:
John Alexis, Elizabeth 'Lizzie' Alexis, Michael Aslin, Doreen Austin, Harry Austin,
Betsy Dennis, Isaac Felix, Marie Hanson, Mary Ann Hanson, Pierre John, Gloria
Johnnie, Helen Johnnie, Geraldine Joseph, Mary Lebrun, Seraphine Mattess, Joseph
'Willie' Mattess, George Morris, Violet Prince, Celestine Thomas, and Nathaniel Tom.
Without the dedication and commitment of the Forest and Elders team members, this
project would not have been possible. The knowledge, experiences, and teachings that
each of you shared with me and this project will forever enrich my life. Snachailya to
Mr. Bruce Mckay's 2007-2008 grade 5, 6, 7 class at Eugene Joseph Elementary School
for your participation and contributions to this project.
I would like to deeply thank my two supervisors, Dr. Christopher Johnson and Dr.
Erin Sherry, for their support, expertise, and never ending energy. From helping to
design project vest logos, to persevering through long distance thesis editing and
countless hours of data analysis, Chris and Erin have demonstrated relentless
commitment and dedication. I am extremely grateful to have had the opportunity to work
with and learn from each of them.
I would like to sincerely thank my amazing research team for their hard work and
unwavering support. This team includes Annie Anatole, Theresa Austin, Susan Grainger,
Dexter Hodder, Dr. Christopher Johnson, Beverly Leon (nee John), Dr. Erin Sherry, and
Amelia Stark. Annie and Theresa were amazing research assistants who surpassed all
expectations with their work ethic, enthusiasm, and effort. Bev and Amelia were

xm

exceptional community researchers and mentors; their professionalism, perseverance,
kindness, and dedication were integral to this project.
I am also extremely grateful to my committee members, Karyn Sharp and Dr.
Pamela Wright, for their innovative feedback and thoughtful guidance. Each of you
played an instrumental role in this project's success and accomplishments. I would also
like to thank the Tl'azt'en Nation - University of Northern BC (UNBC) Community
University Research Alliance (CURA) team for their inspiring work and CURA graduate
students, Christopher Gall, Shane Hartman, Diana Kutzner, and Leona Shaw, for all of
their help, good times, and office fun over the past 3 years. I would like to acknowledge
and thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)
through their CURA program, the BC Real Estate Foundation Partnering Fund Grant, and
the John Prince Research Forest for their financial contributions to this research.
And last, but definitely not least, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to
my family and friends. Thanks so much for all the phone calls, visits, and get togethers!
My mom and dad, Carol-Anne and Alex Yim, have encouraged and believed in me for
every moment of this experience. They have taught me to work hard, pursue my dreams,
and laugh along the way. I am so thankful for your incredible generosity and support.
From the bottom of my heart, I would like to extend my loving thanks to my partner
Douglas Higginson for his constant support and for always being able to see the bigger
picture. This journey would not have been the same if I had not been able to share all of
its challenges and accomplishments with you.

xiv

CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION
1.1

Thesis Topic Introduction
An international mobilization of Indigenous rights has furthered the role of

Indigenous peoples in the management of their traditional lands and resources (Natcher
and Hickey 2002). The Tsawwassen First Nation made history on April 3rd, 2009, when
the first modern treaty negotiated under the British Columbia Treaty Commission process
took effect (Office of the Premier April 3, 2009). This precedent is significant to
resource management in Canada, as the assertion of Aboriginal and treaty rights
contributes to the increased participation and involvement of Aboriginal peoples
(Bombay 1996: 14). Such treaty rights and other shared management relationships are
also environmentally significant; the participation of Indigenous people in natural
resource management has been established as a fundamental factor for the achievement
of sustainability (Brundtland 1987). Considering that over 80% of Aboriginal
communities in Canada are situated in productive forest areas, this development is
particularly important for Aboriginal forestry (Bombay 1996). Parsons and Prest (2003)
state that an integral component of furthering the development of Aboriginal forestry in
Canada is understanding, respecting, and applying the cultural values of Aboriginal
people.
The meaningful inclusion of Aboriginal peoples in resource management requires
cross-cultural understanding and respect of Aboriginal values and knowledge systems.
Traditional environmental knowledge and management systems (TEKMS) are the
dynamic and unique knowledge systems that each Aboriginal community has evolved
and uses as a basis for their resource management decision making and planning (Berkes

1

1999b; Hawley et al. 2004). The TEKMS differs from science based resource
management (SBRM) as the latter uses "the application of the scientific method to
address issues involving a wide range of species and environmental features, their
ecosystems, the underlying ecological processes, and the working of humans" (Hawley et
al. 2004: 38). Furthermore, TEKMS is not just a type of management system, it also
represents a Aboriginal philosophical approach to life. To appropriately use these two
knowledge systems in complement requires more than an understanding of their
operative definitions; it requires that supporting social and cultural structures are also
considered and incorporated (Wyatt 2008).
Resource management paradigms are increasingly adopting a combination of
traditional and science-based knowledge systems to achieve the goal of environmental
sustainability (Keith 1994; Parsons and Prest 2003; Durie 2004a; Allen 2005). Future
resource management initiatives should focus on the linkages between TEKMS and
SBRM (Freeman and Carbyn 1988; Michel and Gayton 2002). The traditional use
practices and governance systems embodied in TEKMS offer teachings and knowledge
that can enhance aspects of SBRM (Roberts 1996). Likewise, TEKMS can benefit from
an exchange of SBRM knowledge. Integrating complementary aspects of traditional and
science-based knowledge systems in resource management promotes the use of multiple
perspectives, methods, values, and ethics to generate new knowledge without
compromising the integrity of either system (Durie 2004a, b). Ecologically and socially
progressive resource management is being facilitated by an array of progressive
management arrangements that respect and support the complementary use of these two
systems. Specifically in Canada, co-management has become one of the recognized

2

types of forest management for incorporating TEKMS and SBRM (Sherry 2002;
Grainger et al. 2006).
Co-management is an institutional relationship between local and state-level
management systems (Rusnak 1997; Mulrennan and Scott 2005). Co-management
regimes facilitate the sharing of power, responsibility, and control of natural resources
between Aboriginal communities, non-aboriginal resource users, and government in a
particular geographic area (Berkes 1994; Roberts 1996; Sherry and Myers 2002; Goetze
2005). Co-management offers communities the ability to incorporate their local
knowledge, worldview, values, and beliefs into the management regime (Roberts 1996).
This approach allows cross-cultural partnerships to use the complementary features of
TEKMS and SBRM, while maintaining each individual knowledge system. However, an
examination of co-management in practice, reveals that a spectrum of arrangements and
complexities exist (Rusnak 1997; Sherry 2002; Mulrennan and Scott 2005; Berkes 2007).
Co-management partners are faced with the challenge of working together to
identify a common vision and then of developing a process to judge the achievement of
shared goals (Sherry 2002). One identified requirement for proper implementation and
continual improvement of co-management is effective monitoring and evaluation
(Natcher and Hickey 2002). This may be achieved by decentralizing the role of the state
and engaging the involvement and knowledge of local communities, through communitybased environmental monitoring systems (Pomeroy and Berkes 1997).
Community-based environmental monitoring (CBEM) is a community-centered
approach by which local knowledge, observations, and experiences are systematically
recorded and used to inform land management processes and decisions (Kofinas et al.

3

2002a; Nickels et al. 2002). These CBEM systems are useful for evaluating and
supporting the development of effective co-management partnerships (Figure 1.1; Berkes
1995; Natcher and Hickey 2002; Moller et al. 2004).

Traditional environmental
: knowledge: management
:s.ystems

: Traditional environmental
knowledge management
Systems:
'////SSSS/s
'////S/SS/////S,
'/////SSS/S/S/Si

'///////S/SS///S/S////SS

f/S//SSS/SS/S/S/S/S//S/SWf/f/////SS///SSSSS////Sl
f/S/S//S////////S/S////SSS/////S//S///S/S///S////,
'//////////////////////S/S/S//S///S/////////S////,

rs////s/s/ssss/ss/s//////ss///ss//s/s//s/s/s/s/s/s
•*+*4£S,
'/S/S///////f/////f//////S///S£Ct

t******* ift&fSf//

Figure 1.1- Community-based environmental monitoring (CBEM) can foster the
complementary use of TEKMS and SBRM in cross-cultural co-management
partnerships.
CBEM systems also serve as frameworks for developing visions of local and regional
sustainability (Berkes et al. 2000; Parkins et al. 2001; Parlee et al. 2005a; Pagdee et al.
2006). The Inuit Tapirrit Kanatami, a national Inuit organization explains why they are
using CBEM as a tool in their response to climate change in the Arctic:
through individual's time on the land and discussions among each other, this monitoring
and oral record is already in place. However, in order to ensure the recording and sharing
of this knowledge in a manageable way and to collect information on critical aspects of
the environment that are changing, some formalization of this process is helpful to allow
collective understanding and action to occur (Nickels et al. 2002: 325).
Establishing CBEM systems allow communities to systematically evaluate environmental
conditions to ensure that local socio-economic and biophysical processes are maintained
to meet current and future needs (Parkins et al. 2001; Natcher and Hickey 2002; Prince

4

2002; Moller et al. 2004; Parlee et al. 2005b). The incorporation of Aboriginal TEKMS,
values, and beliefs in CBEM frameworks demonstrates bottom-up natural resource
management; this can promote environmental stewardship, community empowerment,
and cross-cultural understanding (Rusnak 1997; Santiago-Rivera et al. 1998; Berkes
2004; Parlee et al. 2005b). Although the benefits are substantial, few formal studies have
explored, assessed, and recommended appropriate methods for developing communitybased monitoring, and even fewer have involved the participation of First Nation
communities (Rusnak 1997; Carr and Halvorsen 2001; Natcher and Hickey 2002).
1.2

Case Study Description

1.2.1

Tl'azt'en Nation
Tl'azt'en Nation is located in north central British Columbia, approximately 65

km north of Fort St. James (Figure 1.2). Translated, the word Tl'azt'en means "people by
the edge of the bay" (Tl'azt'en Nation 2009a). Tl'azt'enne identify themselves as
Dakelhne, but are also known as 'Carrier' (Tl'azt'en Nation 2009a). Hall (1992: 4)
explains that the term, 'Carrier' is a translation from Aghelh Ne which means "ones who
pack," and was originally adopted to describe how Carrier people traditionally
transported goods. Hall (1992: 4) also explains that Dakelh means "on water travel."
The Dakelh language is the traditional language of Tl'azt'en Nation and is a part of the
Athapaskan Language group (Tl'azt'en Nation 2009a).
Since time immemorial, Tl'azt'en Nation's 651,600 ha of traditional territory has
sustained and provided for their needs. Justa Monk recounts that
unlike some of the Carrier bands [who] had to travel many miles from their villages to
reach their hunting territory and their traplines, our traditional hunting grounds were all
around us. The animals - moose, deer, bear, marten, lynx, coyote - were just outside our
door(Moran 1994:35).
5

Figure 1.2- A portion of Tl'azt'en Nation traditional territory including the four
communities of Tache (Tachie), Binche (Pinchi), Dzitl'ainli (Middle River), and
K'uzche (Grand Rapids), and the co-managed John Prince Research Forest (JPRF)
Historic events, such as the establishment of Fort St. James as a trading post in 1806 had
a fundamental influence on Tl'azt'en Nation and their traditional way of life (Moran
1994). From the introduction of tea and sugar into the Tl'azt'enne diet to the monthly
publication known as "The Paper that Relates", or Test'les nauhwelnek, by Father Morice
in 1891, Fort St. James brought many profound changes to Tl'azt'en Nation (Johnnie and
O'Hara 1992; Moran 1994). For instance, Hall (1992) discusses how the Hudson's Bay
Company at the Stuart Lake Post contributed to changing the practice of hunting; it

6

became an activity that was no longer solely concerned with sustenance, as Tl'azt'enne
were offered money in exchange for furs (Hall 1992: 70).
More recently, over the past 50 years, Tl'azt'en Nation has seen many significant
changes as a result of the hard work of community leaders, such as Sebastion Anatole,
Edward John, Justa Monk, and Harry Pierre (Moran 1994). Some of the developments
that resulted from their efforts are the installation of electricity and a water and sewage
system in Tache (Moran 1994). In the 1960's, the government provided funding for a
road from Fort St. James to Tache (Moran 1994). The direct access that this road offered
was the first of its kind on Tl'azt'en territory; "when the road was built everything
changed" (Moran 1994: 20).
Today, Tl'azt'en Nation has a total population of approximately 1500 people
living in its three main communities: Tache (Tachie), Binche (PinchiJ, Dzitl'ainli (Middle
River), and one seasonal village, K'uzche (Grand Rapids) (Figure 1.2; Moran 1994;
Quinn 2007; B. Leon and A. Stark, personal communication, July 2009). The largest
village, Tache, is located on the shores of Stuart Lake and is where Tl'azt'en Nation's
elementary school, health centre, and administrative offices are located. The Tl'azt'en
Natural Resource/Treaty Office is the administrative department that oversees issues
related to resource management. Traditionally, natural resources were managed solely
through local governance systems such as balhats (potlatch), keyohs (family territories)
and the clan system (Morris and Fondahl 2002). Justa Monk's statement, "every family
had its territory - its reef or sand bar for fishing, its area for hunting and trapping, its
meadow for hay," illustrates how Tl'azt'enne TEKMS worked to organize resource use
(Moran 1994: 33).

7

The territory and people of Tl'azt'en Nation were significantly affected by
industrial developments in the latter half of the 20th Century including: the establishment
of a mercury mine on Pinchi Lake in the 1940's; the construction of a railroad line by the
Pacific Great Eastern Railway company in the 1970's; and, the development of the
forestry industry (Morris and Fondahl 2002). Despite the broad-scale changes that these
developments have brought, Tl'azt'en Nation is striving to achieve environmental
sustainability. Tl'azt'en Nation states "we, Native people, will carry out our tradition of
doing what is good and right for the land and its resources that is for us to use and not
abuse" (Tl'azt'en Nation 2009b: http://www.tlc.baremetal.com/Treaty.htm). Tl'azt'en
Nation's co-managed research forest is an example of one partnership that is contributing
to its ecological and social sustainability objectives.
1.2.2

The John Prince Research Forest
The John Prince Research Forest (JPRF) was officially established in 1999, six

years after the co-managed research forest was initially envisioned by a University of
Northern British Columbia (UNBC) administrator and the Tl'azt'en Nation band manager
(Grainger et al. 2006). The JPRF is comprised of 13,000 ha of forestland in north central
British Columbia, and is the only First Nation-University co-managed research forest in
North America (Grainger et al. 2006). The JPRF is located on the traditional territory of
Tl'azt'en Nation, and UNBC acknowledges that Tl'azt'en Nation asserts Aboriginal title
and other rights to this area (Figure 1.2; Richard B. Krehbiel Consulting 2000). The
JPRF aims to be "internationally recognized...for both its ecological approach to forest
stewardship and its leadership in building successful partnerships between Aboriginals
and non-Aboriginals" (Grainger et al. 2006: 486). The broad objective of the JPRF is to

8

"learn to bring together different ways of understanding and using the land as a means to
integrate multiple resource values and to enhance the ecological and social sustainability
of the region" (Grainger et al. 2006: 485). Aside from serving as a research and
educational facility for the Tl'azt'en community and UNBC, the JPRF is also a working
forest (Grainger et al. 2006).
Chuzghun Resources Corporation (CRC) was established in 2001 to manage and
direct the activities of the research forest (Grainger et al. 2006). The CRC is a selfsupported, non-profit organization that is equally owned by Tl'azt'en Nation and UNBC.
The CRC Board of Directors has six voting members and two alternates, and is
comprised equally of Tl'azt'en Nation and UNBC representatives. Tenured through a
Special Use Permit , the CRC oversees the logging of 13,000 m of softwood annually
(Tl'azt'en Nation and the University of Northern British Columbia CURA 2009).
Logging on the JPRF provides local employment and is the primary funding source for
the research forest's management, research, and educational programs; these programs
are contributing to the JPRF's co-management success.
Sherry and Fondahl (2004) identified nine criteria of successful forest comanagement partnerships: institutional structure, decision-making, capacity, comanagement representatives, communication, community support, partnership building,
knowledge and planned process. The JPRF explicitly identified four of these elements as
being of particular importance in the initial development of the Research Forest:
partnership building, institutional structure, decision-making, and capacity (Grainger et

' The co-management partnership between Tl'azt'en Nation and UNBC is a condition of the Special Use
Permit held by the JPRF, enshrined in schedule B of the tenure. In the case that this co-management
partnership dissolves, tenure of the land will revert to the Crown. (British Columbia Special use Permit No.
S22194, date: August 23, 2001)

9

al. 2006). Within each of these elements, sub-categories were identified with specific
provisions to ensure that important details of this partnership were not overlooked. For
example, under 'decision making', the rights, involvement, and benefits for those
Tl'azt'enne who hold their keyohs on the JPRF landbase were discussed and formalized.
This example demonstrates how the JPRF is promoting the integration of multiple values,
worldviews, and management approaches to achieve a balanced co-management
partnership. Implementing CBEM complements the JPRF's recognition that comanagement processes are adaptive. Monitoring can provide the JPRF with valuable
feedback to assess co-management goals and to adjust programs and processes to ensure
future co-management success.
1.3

The Tl'azt'en Nation - University of Northern British Columbia Community
University Research Alliance Project
The Tl'azt'en Nation - UNBC Community University Research Alliance (CURA)

project (http://cura.unbc.ca), "Partnering for Sustainable Resource Management," was a
collaborative, five-year project (2004-2009) funded by the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) (Fondahl et al. 2009). The four
streams of research involved in this project were Improved Partnerships, Tl'azt'en
Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Tl'azt'en Ecotourism, and Science/Environmental
Education. The Improved Partnership stream focused on strengthening the existing comanagement partnership between Tl'azt'en Nation and UNBC. This thesis was
conducted within the Improved Partnership stream and contributed to the overarching
purpose of CURA:
to enhance the capacity of Tl'azt'en Nation to effectively engage in culturally and
ecologically sustainable natural resource management, and to enhance the capacity of

10

UNBC researchers and their students to effectively contribute to First Nation community
needs through collaborative research (Tl'azt'en Nation and the University of Northern
British Columbia CURA 2007).
1.4

Tl'azt'en Nation Criteria and Indicators Framework
The local-level Tl'azt'en criteria and indicators (C&I) framework (Figure 1.3)

was the product of numerous years of research conducted in partnership between
Tl'azt'en Nation, UNBC, and the JPRF (Booth 1998; Morris 1999; Karjala 2001; Karjala
and Dewhurst 2003; Karjala et al. 2003; Sherry and Fondahl 2003; Karjala et al. 2004;
Sherry et al. 2004; Sherry et al. 2005; Quinn 2007).
T

»

^

—
I

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ V

£nterm

(•indicators

J

Q

:^«

Criteria

Criteria: : : : : j

indicatorsi-.-.-.j

..^gjf.ya'jfu^g...;...:J

m-6titikiri--ii<S
—Q

Measure

J

—Q

M(jasure

)

—Q

Measure

J 1—(

M<;asure

)

1

^;<;bat^le*iehKs : ;<
' '

' • • • { • •

^//-//,vS©ncniijaF*^^V'-v-,-^

€ iAcsfoii^trates^:^^

<^:iActi6:n/Strate^y'xxv)

Figure 1.3- Hierarchical structure of the local-level Tl'azt'en Nation C&I
framework (Sherry et al. nd-a.)
Booth's (1998; 2000) research with Tl'azt'en Nation investigated First Nation
community forestry and initiated many research projects concerned with improving
Aboriginal and community-based natural resource management processes, including the
co-management arrangement with the JPRF. Of those works, Karjala's (2001) thesis
research and follow-up studies are noteworthy. She worked with Tl'azt'en Nation and

11

explored methods for integrating local Aboriginal values into forest planning processes.
Karjala et al. (2003) developed an associated community-based planning framework, The
Aboriginal Forest Planning Process. In a following project, five Tl'azt'en and two
university researchers conducted a grounded theory content analysis of more than 100
interviews with Tl'azt'en Nation members; this resulted in the development of the locallevel Tl'azt'en C&I framework (Sherry et al. 2005).
The Tl'azt'en C&I framework has served as the foundation for a number of
proceeding studies, including the Tl'azt'en Nation - UNBC CURA project. The adaptive
Tl'azt'en C&I framework represents a bottom-up process that invokes meaningful
community involvement and recognizes critical local values (CLV) (Sherry et al. 2004;
Sherry et al. 2005). This framework differs from other local-level C&I frameworks as it
seeks to direct, monitor, and evaluate co-management; furthermore, it fully incorporates
local values (Sherry et al. 2005). The inclusion of CLV in the Tl'azt'en C&I framework
reifies its bottom-up approach that seeks to involve the community in a management role,
as compared to top-down, state-directed resource management (Sherry et al. 2004).
There is a growing recognition that top-down, broad scale monitoring approaches do not
translate well to the local level (Wright et al. 2002). Contributing to this C&I framework,
Quinn's (2007) thesis research developed Tl'azt'en measures of cultural revitalization for
the JPRF.
My research builds on the on-going study, Criteria and Indicators of Adaptive CoManagement (CIAC), led by Dr. Erin Sherry, Ms. Susan Grainger, and Ms. Beverly
Leon. The original purpose of the CIAC project was to develop and evaluate methods for
local-level C&I development and to generate an adaptable C&I framework used to direct,

12

monitor, and evaluate forest co-management arrangements, particularly those involving
First Nations (Sherry et al. 2004: 4). The CIAC project identified CLV of comanagement success and then categorized results into processes and outcomes; these
were further organized into principles, criteria, indicators, and critical local values
(Sherry et al. 2004). I used these CIAC findings in my thesis research to develop
Tl'azt'en environmental measures for the Tl'azt'en traditional use activities of hunting,
trapping, fishing, medicinal plant gathering, and berry picking.
1.5
Rationale for Researching the Process and Development of Tl'azt'en Nation
Environmental Measures
Many previous research endeavors have contributed to the Tl'azt'en Nation C&I
framework (Booth 1998; Morris 1999; Karjala 2001; Karjala and Dewhurst 2003; Karjala
et al. 2003; Sherry and Fondahl 2003; Karjala et al. 2004; Sherry et al. 2004; Sherry et
al. 2005; Quinn 2007); however, only the top four hierarchical levels have been
developed with a specific environmental focus. Through the development of Tl'azt'en
environmental measures, the local-level C&I framework will be further realized. In
addition, these measures will provide the basis for establishing an applied Tl'azt'en
CBEM initiative that will further the community's involvement in JPRF co-management.
The process of working in partnership with Tl'azt'en Nation will also be investigated and
evaluated in order to assess appropriate and effective methods for engaging the
community in co-management and CBEM.

13

1.6

Research Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of this thesis was to further the Tl'azt'en C&I framework through the

development of Tl'azt'en environmental measures for application on the co-managed
JPRF. The four central objectives of this study were to:
Objective 1 - develop and evaluate a community-based process for identifying Tl'azt'en
environmental measures;
Objective 2 - identify and verify Tl'azt'en environmental measures;
Objective 3 - select representative measures for each of the five traditional use activities
and implement a set of corresponding measures for field testing through
the development of an applied environmental monitoring method; and,
Objective 4 - assess the challenges and opportunities involved in community-based
environmental monitoring and recommend improvements for the future
implementation of Tl'azt'en CBEM and other cross-cultural partnerships.
1.6

Thesis Structure and Overview
This thesis was written in an article-based format. Chapters 2 and 3 were each

written as independent articles; thus, such redundancies as definitions and case study
introductions were inevitable. Each of these chapters is currently being submitted to
journals for publication. I am the primary author of both articles, which were coauthored by my supervisors Dr. Christopher Johnson and Dr. Erin Sherry. The plural
voice was used in these chapters to represent my co-authors and the project's research
team (Annie Anatole, Theresa Austin, Susan Grainger, Dexter Hodder, Beverly Leon
(nee John), Amelia Stark). Dakelh words are italicized throughout the thesis.

14

Chapter 2 presents the study's methodology and addresses the first research
objective. This chapter describes the community-based research framework and an
analysis of the successes and limitations of the methodological approach. Chapter 3
represents the Tl'azt'en environmental measures that were developed and verified in this
study. The results and discussion for this chapter address the second research objective.
In Chapter 4,1 address the third research objective by presenting applied Tl'azt'en
CBEM prototypes and corresponding examples for each traditional use activity. These
were evaluated by Tl'azt'en project team members. I use the prototype evaluation results
and associated discussion of the challenges and opportunities for Tl'azt'en Nation and
other Aboriginal communities in developing and implementing CBEM initiatives to
address the fourth and final research objective. Community products from this research
are presented in Chapter 5. These products were integral to this project's successful
achievement of our four central research objectives, and to upholding a community-based
research approach. This thesis draws to a close with a concluding chapter that
summarizes major thesis results and outcomes.

15

CHAPTER 2- EVALUATING THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING ABORIGINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES FOR A CO-MANAGED FOREST
2.1

Abstract
To facilitate effective cross-cultural CBEM, participatory methods and processes

need to be developed in partnership with Aboriginal communities. This research was
designed to develop Tl'azt'en environmental measures and contribute to the successful
co-management of a First Nation - university research forest. In partnership with two
teams of Tl'azt'en Nation community members, we used four participatory methods,
focus groups, workshops, one-on-one interviews, and Photovoice, to structure a
community-based research process. In this paper, we report the results of a series of
iterative participatory evaluations designed to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the
environmental measures development process. Results illustrated how key indicators of
success, participant satisfaction, personal development, independence, and the building of
relationships, were supported by the research process we developed. Significant
achievements included sustained participation of Tl'azt'en community members through
the 15-month project, the development of 252 Tl'azt'en environmental measures, and the
adaptation of culturally relevant methods to facilitate successful cross-cultural
collaboration. Outcomes of the project were applied to a prototype for an applied
community-based environmental monitoring system, and collaborative research products
captured the knowledge and experiences of participants and communicated the goals and
outcomes of the research to the broader community. The Tl'azt'en Nation environmental
measures development framework is a tested, community-centered approach for engaging
cross-cultural partners in community-based environmental monitoring.

16

Keywords: Aboriginal; community-based environmental monitoring; community-based
research; cross-cultural research partnerships; First Nation; participatory evaluation;
Photovoice; Tl'azt'en Nation
2.2

Introduction
Natural resource managers are tasked with monitoring and evaluating

environmental change while balancing multiple values and involving local communities
in the management process (Westley 2002). The complexity of these objectives require
managers to use tools that will integrate both environmental and social considerations
(Blumenthal and Jannink 2000; Beckley et al. 2002; Olsson et al. 2004). These tools
must work to identify and evaluate environmental change, and to apply resultant
information within a broader socio-ecological context (Selin and Chavez 1995).
Although managers increasingly appreciate the value of adopting interdisciplinary
approaches to environmental monitoring, few applied examples of such tools exist (Fox
2002; Bennett and Zurek 2006).
Community-based environmental monitoring (CBEM) is an approach to
documenting trends in environmental indicators, which explicitly recognizes important
local values and knowledge, and engages communities as partners in the monitoring
process. In doing so, CBEM contributes detail to local, regional, and national scale
sustainability directives and enhances our understanding of these complex interrelationships (Berkes 1999a; Kofinas et al. 2002a). Community-based environmental
monitoring can capture valuable local information, thereby facilitating a better
understanding of socio-ecological phenomena (Nickels et al. 2002). The adaptive,
iterative nature of CBEM frameworks allow managers to tailor this tool to a community's
unique character and to its current and future management goals (Natcher and Hickey

17

2002). Specifically, government and industry can use CBEM frameworks to work with
Aboriginal communities and their cultural values, knowledge, and beliefs (Parlee and
Lutsel K'e First Nation 1997; Lutsel K'e Dene First Nation-Wildlife, Lands &
Environment Department 2005).
Aboriginal communities, like all communities, are continually evolving and
adapting to the present ecological, social, and economic circumstances (Pinkerton 1998;
Berkes 2004; Fast et al. 2005). Through CBEM, Aboriginal communities can realize
local visions of environmental health and contribute to the sustainable management of
resources through culturally relevant means (Manseau et al. 2005; Parlee et al. 2005b).
Community-based environmental monitoring promotes the active involvement of
communities in local and regional resource management decision-making and planning
processes (Roberts 1996; Berkes 2004; Manseau et al. 2005; Parlee et al. 2005a).
Furthermore, local knowledge collection and ownership provides Aboriginal
communities with the opportunity to decide how to best complement their Traditional
Environmental Knowledge and Management System (TEKMS) with Science Based
Resource Management (SBRM) to meet their resource management objectives and
community goals (Tipa and Teirney 2003; Hawley et al. 2004; Moller et al. 2004; Berkes
and Seixas 2005). In this paper, we use the term TEKMS to describe the dynamic and
unique knowledge system that each Aboriginal community has evolved and uses as a
basis for resource decision making and planning (Hawley et al. 2004). We define SBRM
as the "the application of the scientific method to address issues involving a wide range
of species and environmental features, their ecosystems, the underlying ecological
processes, and the working of humans" (Hawley et al. 2004: 38).

18

Past efforts at developing environmental monitoring focused almost exclusively
on non-indigenous communities, top-down approaches, and the use of science-based
monitoring protocols (Usher 2000; Nicholson et al. 2002). As the vast majority of
community environmental monitoring programs occur in southern, developed regions of
North America with non-Aboriginal communities, there is a need to develop, apply, and
evaluate cross-cultural CBEM frameworks appropriate for northern communities (Michel
and Gayton 2002; Canadian Community Monitoring Network 2004). Though applied
examples of CBEM which demonstrate effective methods of engaging and working with
Aboriginal communities are beginning to emerge (e.g., Lutsel K'e First Nation 1997;
Krupnik and Jolly 2002; Parlee et al. 2005d, 2006; Lutsel K'e Dene First NationWildlife, Lands and Environment Department 2005; Arctic Borderlands Ecological
Knowledge Co-op 2008), few have been systematically evaluated (Estrella and Gaventa
1998; Carter 2008).
In this paper, we describe and evaluate the ability of a community-based,
participatory research framework to meaningfully engage project team members in the
process of developing Aboriginal environmental measures based on Tl'azt'en Nation
TEKMS. Participants from Tl'azt'en Nation and community researchers iteratively
identified the strengths and weaknesses of our framework through written and oral
evaluations. We used focus groups, interviews, workshops, and Photovoice to facilitate
mutual learning, trust-building, and the development of environmental measures (Hoare
et al. 1993; Santiago-Rivera et al. 1998; Berkes 2004; Castellano 2004; Kirby et al.
2006). A Digital Video Disc (DVD), book, newsletters, and open meetings allowed us to

19

communicate the objectives, successes, and results of the research project and engage the
broader community in the process of initiating Tl'azt'en CBEM.
2.3

Tl'azt'en Nation and Study Area
Tl'azt'en Nation is located in north central British Columbia Canada. Members

of Tl'azt'en Nation identify themselves as Dakelhne but they are also known as Carrier
(Hudson 1983; Tl'azt'en Nation 2009a). The current population of Tl'azt'en Nation is
approximately 1500, with half of its members living in three main communities: Tache
(Tachie), Binche (Pinchi), Dzitl'ainli (Middle River), and one seasonal village, K'uzche
(Grand Rapids) (Figure 1.2; Moran 1994; Quinn 2007; Tl'azt'en Nation 2009a; B. Leon
and A. Stark, personal communication, July 2009). Tl'azt'en Nation's 651,600 ha of
traditional territory has always been rich with natural resources:
unlike some of the Carrier bands that had to travel many miles from their villages to
reach their hunting territory and their traplines, our traditional hunting grounds were all
around us. The animals- moose, deer, bear, marten, lynx, coyote- were just outside our
door(Moranl994:35).
Located on two percent of Tl'azt'en Nation traditional territory is the 13,000 ha
John Prince Research Forest (JPRF) (Grainger et al. 2006). The JPRF was officially
established in 1999 and is co-managed by Tl'azt'en Nation and the University of
Northern British Columbia (UNBC) (Figure 1.2). This partnership was further
strengthened in 2004 through a Community-University Research Alliance (CURA)
project (http://cura.unbc.ca/), of which this study was affiliated. Research completed by
the JPRF and the CURA project has promoted the JPRF's vision to use multiple values
and knowledge systems in the collaborative management of the land (Grainger et al.

20

2006). The Aboriginal environmental measures developed in this study furthered the use
of the Tl'azt'en TEKMS in directing, applying, and evaluating JPRF management plans.
2.4

Methods
Development of Tl'azt'en Nation environmental measures was a three-phase

process. A participatory, community-based research approach shaped all facets of the
framework, including research methods, events, and community products (Figure 2.1).
The initial phase of the framework, personal transformative process, involved the period
of time that the lead researcher spent in the community prior to beginning research. This
was followed by two research phases that led to the generation and verification of
Tl'azt'en environmental measures and included five rounds of evaluation. The Tl'azt'en
Nation Chief and Council formally approved this research design with a Band Council
Resolution (Appendix F).
This project builds on research with Tl'azt'en Nation, by considering the
challenges and strengths of previous methods used for delineating local criteria,
indicators, values, and measures and by utilizing the Tl'azt'en Nation C&I framework
(Karjala et al. 2004; Sherry et al. 2005; Quinn 2007; Fondahl et al. 2009). The Tl'azt'en
environmental measures developed in this project extend from and correspond with this
C&I framework. As all Aboriginal communities are inherently unique, this present
measures development process cannot be transposed onto other communities. Rather,
our detailed methodological description and evaluation provides insight for those
communities and resource managers working to develop their own Aboriginal
environmental measures and community-based processes.

21

r

r

en S . 3 3 en o
C«
3
3 3

Community Products

Evaluation

7
T^
—
In-progress

* 5
en 3
C
3

n>

8v?

* 5
en 3

S 5.
IV!

0> 3

4

Pre-test,

*-sv;

Ss.

fT) C

CD a

Community
Product
Development
Workshop

'in±

Pre-tes
Forest
Team
Focus
Group 2

In-progress
Evaluation

in±

Pre-tes

Elders
Team
Workshop

In-progress
Evaluation

Forest
Team
Focus
Group 1

Pre-tesSn^

Phase 2:
Tl'azt'en Environmental Measures
Generation

3
.
en 5 '

cn

o'v: "o
cr.3
oa y=,•

£5 C

§i

en a

rf o

en

C
3

3

o g
c

8f

*Ur
In-progress
Evaluation

Pre-tesL-^j.

^

3

c

4

iv;

^5
S3.

ft a

Final Project
Evaluation

"^

Phase 3:
Tl'azt'en Environmental Measures
Verification

O
3

3

SB.

4-1
3
63

22

Figure 2.1- Three phases of the Tl'azt'en Nation environmental measures development framework. Research events
highlighted in grey indicate where information was collected, for analysis purposes, through audio and video recordings. All
phases maintained a community-based approach and contributed to the development of community products.

a

i-t

ofi.

Information
Session

Pre-tes

tns

Phase 1:
Personal Transformative Process

CD

3 3

3 ct>

4
fl> a £: 3
en SLfo c

I

o o a

Community-based approach

2.4.1

Community-Based Approach
Transparency, respect, and reciprocity are three attributes of a legitimate and

meaningful research process (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000a). Collaboration with project
partners was initiated from the outset with the formation of a project steering committee
(Figure 2.1). The steering committee consisted of equal numbers of representatives from
UNBC, Tl'azt'en Nation and the JPRF. This ensured that each partner's goals and needs
were represented in the project design, implementation, evaluation, and results. This
committee also worked to ensure that our research process coincided with Tl'azt'en
Nation norms, values, and protocols (Magninn 2007). Project initiatives that
demonstrated our community-based approach included: holding a project information
session for the community; selecting experts based on community criteria and peer
nomination; producing newsletters that updated the broader community of project
progress; working iteratively with Tl'azt'en Nation researchers and participants to direct
our framework through participatory evaluations; involving community members as
partners in the data analysis and verification process; holding a final community thesis
presentation; and, publishing a community book (Tl'azt'en Nation and Yim 2008b) and
DVD (Figure 2.1; Tl'azt'en Nation and Yim 2008a). This community-based approach
contributed to evolving an effective cross-cultural partnership that fostered mutual
learning and knowledge generation (Zamparo 1996).

23

2.4.2

Tl'azt'en Nation Environmental Measures Development Approach

2.4.2.1 Phase 1- Personal Transformative Process
Establishing a genuine rapport with the community is a necessary component of
successful research processes (Suzuki et al. 2007). The lead researcher became critically
conscious that such personal traits as being female, non-Aboriginal, and having a SBRM
background were shaping her research perspective. Becoming critically conscious of,
familiar with, and situated in the Tl'azt'en Nation community enabled the lead researcher
to appropriately adjust her cultural lens (Kidd and Krai 2005; Savin-Baden and
Wimpenny 2007). Examples of actions undertaken during the transformative process
were: spending time in the community through repeated visits and extended stays,
participating in community activities, attending community events, and developing
personal and working relationships with community members. Phase 1 fostered a
dialogue and the beginning of a meaningful relationship between the lead researcher and
the Tl'azt'en Nation community prior to the project's first research event in Phase 2.
2.4.2.2

Phase 2- Tl'azt'enne Environmental Measures Generation

2.4.2.2.1 Establishing the Research Teams
A systematic, peer-reference method was used to identify and nominate Tl'azt'en
experts to participate in the project (Davis and Wagner 2003). The term 'expert' was
used to describe an individual actively involved in one of five Tl'azt'en traditional use
activities in either the past or present: hunting, fishing, trapping, medicinal plant
gathering, and berry picking (Sherry and Fondahl 2003; Sherry and Fondahl 2004; Sherry
et al. 2004; Sherry et al. 2005; Sherry et al. nd-a.). Non-probabilistic, purposive
sampling methods were used to nominate team members (Palys 1997; Kirby et al. 2006;

24

Sherry et al. nd-a.). This involved working with Tl'azt'en community researchers and
assistants to identify Tl'azt'en community members who could fulfill four participant
selection criteria. First, participants had to be a member of Tl'azt'en Nation. Second,
participants had to demonstrate knowledge, through teaching and/or practice, of one or
more of the focal traditional use activities. Third, participants were recognized as
authorities or experts by a minimum of two other Tl'azt'en community members. Lastly,
participants were representative. For hunting and trapping, this meant that a participant
was recognized as a representative keyoh2 holder. For fishing, medicinal plant gathering,
and berry picking, this meant that a person was representative of the pool of experts
within the Tl'azt'en Nation community. As familiarity with and details of our project
were introduced to the Tl'azt'en Nation community through the information session, the
project brochure, and word of mouth, the snowball technique worked to foster additional
participant interest (Cote-Arsenault and Morrison-Beedy 1999; Sherry and Myers 2002;
Kirby et al. 2006; Sherry et al. nd-a.). Individuals identified through the snowball
technique were also required to fulfill the four participant criteria.
Project participants were invited to join one of the two research teams: the Elders
Team (ET) or the Forest Team (FT). Invitations included a detailed information package
describing the project's purpose, timeline, number and nature of research events, and
participation expectations. The ET included only Tl'azt'en Elders, whereas the FT was
comprised of any individual who met the four participant criteria. We use the term Elder
to describe Aboriginal community members who hold traditional knowledge, wisdom,
and experience and are willing to share and teach others (Cajete 2000). The community
2

Keyoh is a Dakelh word that describes traditional family territories passed on paternally from generation
to generation. Keyohs are now legally recognized in Canada as traplines.

25

denotes the deeply respected designation of Elder, which is usually associated with an
individual's age.
2.4.2.2.2

Information Session

The research project and research team were introduced to the Tl'azt'en Nation
community at the information session (Figure 2.1). It served as a forum for interested
community members to ask questions, prior to committing to participate. A community
lunch was provided after the information session.
Each prospective participant reviewed the project's written informed consent with
the lead researcher before joining one of the research teams. Forest Team members also
orally reviewed and signed a separate commitment letter to the FT (Appendix D). During
the information session, researchers explained that participants could not be compensated
for the true value of their time, but they would receive gifts in appreciation of their
commitment and contributions to the project. Forest team members received a digital
camera and accessories. Elders team members received honoraria. All team members
received a vest embroidered with the project's logo, a copy of the project's final products,
and publications. Team members were thanked for their contributions with a
handwritten, handmade card following every research event.
2.4.2.2.3

Pre-Testing Research Events

We intended to pilot test each research event to ensure that the methods would
achieve the proposed objectives (Cote-Arsenault and Morrison-Beedy 1999); however,
given the small size of the Tl'azt'en Nation community it was not possible to pilot test
materials on a representative group of non-project participants. Pre-testing was

26

conducted by the lead researcher with two Tl'azt'en Nation community researchers and a
research assistant (except for the third FT focus group where only two Tl'azt'en
community researchers were available). In each pre-testing session, Tl'azt'en community
researchers and assistants reviewed and suggested modifications to research questions,
methods, materials, and/or research event plans, if necessary. In addition to constructive
methodological feedback, pre-testing established a common, clear understanding of
research materials, methods, and goals amongst research team members (Vissandjee et al.
2002; Halcomb et al. 2007).
2.4.2.2.4

Recording Methods

All focus groups and workshops were audio and video recorded for data analysis
(Sim 1998). Researchers discussed the recording devices at each event, and asked
participants if they were comfortable with the recording methods. Audio recordings were
used to create verbatim transcripts. Video recordings aided transcription and were used
for community products. Audio and video recording research events can make
participants feel uncomfortable; however, video recording focus groups was particularly
valuable for including the inputs of less vocal participants (Joseph et al. 2000). As per
Tl'azt'en community norms, team members expected research events to be recorded for
archival and educational purposes. All audio and video recordings were archived at the
Tl'azt'en Nation and UNBC archives (Sherry and Fondahl 2004).
2.4.2.2.5

Forest Team Focus Groups

Tl'azt'en community researchers and assistants played a significant role in
coordinating focus groups. Coordination responsibilities included announcing focus

27

groups with detailed letters delivered to the homes of team members, coordinating
transportation, and providing reminders to team members. Forest team focus groups took
place in Tache at the Elders Center. All focus groups were co-facilitated by the lead and
Tl'azt'en community researchers using a semi-structured group interview format (Fisher
and Ball 2003). Focus groups consisted of morning and afternoon sessions separated by
a one-hour break. Refreshments, snacks, and lunch were provided. Seating and tables
were arranged in a U shape to promote a team oriented atmosphere (Strickland 1999). A
prayer led by a Tl'azt'en team member signified the beginning and end of every FT focus
group. At each focus group, team members received their own binder of materials
providing all of the event's information (i.e. agenda, objectives), feedback and results of
previous participant evaluations, and instructions to collectively guide the team through
the research event.
2.4.2.2.6

Forest Team Focus Group 1

The three main objectives of the first FT focus group (FTFG1) were to select
representative species for the five focal traditional use activities, to identify each FT
member's area(s) of expertise, and to train FT members in the Photovoice method (Figure
2.1). The FT selected moose (Alces alces), beaver {Castor canadensis), salmon
(Oncorhynchus nerka and Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), soapberries (Sherpherdia
canadensis), and huckleberries (Vaccinium membranaceum) as species of particular
importance. Forest team members then self identified the traditional use activities in
which they were experts. Each FT member focused on developing environmental
measures for their identified area(s) of expertise. We used the participatory research

28

method known as Photovoice (Wang et al. 1996) to engage FT members in a process that
allowed them to share their expertise in a culturally relevant manner.
Photovoice uses photography to engage the knowledge and creativity of
participants (Wang et al. 1996; Wang et al. 2000; Wang and Redwood-Jones 2001;
Mclntyre 2003; Wang et al. 2004). Photovoice has three main goals (Wang and Burris
1997). The first two goals of Photovoice allow "people to record and reflect their
community's strengths and concerns" and "promotes critical dialogue and knowledge
about important community issues through large and small group discussion of
photographs" (Wang and Burris 1997: 369); like Moffitt and Vollman (2004), this study
only focused on these two Photovoice goals. Photovoice has been applied in other
Aboriginal community-based participatory studies and was found to be a culturally
appropriate method (Moffitt and Vollman 2004; Department of Justice Canada 2007;
Castleden et al. 2008). This method has also been used in the field of participatory
monitoring and evaluation (Estrella and Gaventa 1998).
At the first FT focus group, team members received Photovoice equipment (e.g.,
digital camera, digital memory card, camera accessories) and approximately three hours
of training in the use of digital cameras and the Photovoice method (Figure 2.2). Forest
team members were given seven weeks to use Photovoice to capture images on the land
related to the environmental health of the plant(s) or animal(s) representing their areas of
expertise. Participants were instructed to take as many photographs as necessary, but to
select a minimum of three photos to discuss in detail at the second FT focus group.

29

j

— •

f

-FT members
independently
took photos on
the land
-Research team
developed and
returned copies
of photos taken

7 Week ^
Photovoice
Assignment
Period

V
J

-FT members
selected a
— •
-•
minimum of 3
photos related to
their area(s) of
expertise
-FT members
discussed their
selected photos

' Forest Team
Focus
Group 2
-Directed
content
_
analysis of
verbatim
transcripts
-Developed
Tl'azt'en
environmental
measures

' Data Analysis

Community
Product
Development
Workshop

(

i r

-Group
verification of
resultant
Tl'azt'en
environmental
measures

' Forest Team ^
Focus Group
3

Photovoice-related products
i
- Photovoice-based book
- Tl'azt'en environmental measures for
application in Tl'azt'en communitybased environmental monitoring

J

-FT and ET
members
_
partnered to
develop pages
for their
CBEM book
using their
Photovoice
photos and
stories

V

'

30

Figure 2.2 - Sequential timeline and process for using Photovoice to complete the Tl'azt'en Nation Environmental Measures
Development Framework. Caption headings appearing in italics indicate an event not associated with the explicit collection of
data.

V

-Photovoice
training
-Photovoice
assignment

f Forest Team^
Focus Group 1

We provided a Photovoice logbook for each FT member to record the date, location,
focus and importance of each photo taken.
During this seven-week period, research team members met periodically with FT
members. At these brief informal meetings, researchers borrowed the digital memory
cards of FT members in order to print their photos. The lead researcher kept digital
copies of all FT photos in a secure password protected computer file (Moffitt and
Vollman 2004). These digital copies were used in the data analysis, in the development
of community products, and to provide each FT member with a compact disc (CD) copy
of their photos. All FT members received printed copies of their Photovoice photos and a
one-page newsletter prior to the second FT focus group (Appendix E. 1). This newsletter
reminded FT members that assistance with Photovoice was available from the research
team, and introduced the objectives for the second FT focus group.
2.4.2.2.7

Elders Team Workshop

The ET workshop was held at a small, rustic research station located on the JPRF
(Figure 1.2). This workshop occurred over two days and consisted of six one-hour, semistructured, group interviews specific to each traditional use activity and the importance of
CBEM. The four main objectives of the ET workshop were to: further our understanding
of Tl'azt'en Nation's culture, beliefs, and values related to each traditional use activity
and their representative species; explore reference values, such as benchmarks, norms,
and standards, for each representative species; discuss if and how Elders have observed
environmental change related to each of the representative species; and, document the
CBEM goals that Elders would like to achieve. Food, refreshments, and

31

accommodations were provided. Each day began and concluded with an Elder leading a
prayer in Dakelh.
Every ET member received a booklet with written information that included
copies of the informed consent, the agenda, and the workshop objectives. A projector
continuously displayed photographs throughout each of the group interviews, as a nonverbal means of stimulating and focusing discussions. The lead researcher co-moderated
the group interviews with Tl'azt'en community researchers. This ensured that the
interviews were culturally appropriate and respectful of Elders (Fisher and Ball 2003).
For instance, moderators kept interjections to a minimum during group interviews in
order to allow Elders to discuss topics in a culturally meaningful way (Strickland 1999).
Conducting portions of the ET group interviews in Dakelh, serving such traditional foods
as salmon and bannock, and going out on the land for a group activity also contributed to
the cultural relevance of our methodology. The ET workshop also provided an
opportunity for team members to informally spend time together.
2.4.2.2.8

Forest Team Focus Group 2

During the second FT focus group (FTFG2), FT members selected a minimum of
three photos that best demonstrated important aspects of the representative plant or
animal's environmental health (Figure 2.1). Forest Team members were asked to reflect
on and describe each of their selected photos. While presenting their photos, FT
members addressed three topics: the subject of the photo; the importance of the photo;
and, the depicted signs and/or signals that illustrated the environmental condition of the
featured plant, animal, or environment in the photo.

32

Due to scheduling difficulties, only five FT members attended the second FTFG2.
The remaining seven FT members met with the lead researcher at a later date to conduct
one-on-one, semi-structured interviews using the same Photovoice procedure as outlined
above. Interviews began with a review of other FT member's Photovoice results. This
review process kept all FT members informed of team developments and helped to
maintain a cohesive team atmosphere.
2.4.2.2.9

Community-Product Development Workshop

The community product development workshop (CPDW) was a joint ET and FT
event (Figure 2.1). The primary objective was to provide an opportunity for both teams
to collaboratively work on the development of a book and DVD that chronicled their
TEKMS in the context of CBEM. The workshop was conducted during the analysis
phase of the project to maintain project momentum amongst team members. Pairs of FT
and ET members worked together to select Photovoice photos and to write corresponding
stories or descriptions for inclusion in the book. Each page was arranged on a poster
board and presented at the workshop. These presentations promoted group discussions,
learning, and the verification of presented results. A class of students from the local
Eugene Joseph Elementary School were invited to take part in the presentation portion of
the workshop. The participation of these students contributed to the intergenerational
transmission of Tl'azt'en TEKMS and initiated their involvement in the project; the
project's book included pictures drawn by students from this class.

33

2.4.2.3

Phase 3- Tl'azt'en Environmental Measures Verification

2.4.2.3.1

Data Analysis

Verbatim transcripts of FTFG1, FTFG2, and the ET workshop were transcribed
manually by the lead researcher and Tl'azt'en research assistants. When Dakelh was
spoken, the Dakelh words and English translations were included in the transcript. A
team of Dakelh language experts were hired to ensure that translations were accurate and
correctly spelled. Contextual information was also incorporated during the transcription
process. All transcripts were edited for accuracy by the lead researcher or Tl'azt'en
research assistants before they were returned to FT and ET members for verification.
This verification process gave team members the opportunity to modify and confirm their
contributions prior to analysis. Team members either reviewed their written transcripts
independently or orally with a research team member. Any changes were incorporated.
Our content analysis used a bottom-up, grounded theory approach (Sherry et al.
2004; Dick 2005). The lead researcher conducted the initial content analysis manually
without computer software (Mosavel and Thomas 2009). A coding framework provided
the basis for the identification of Tl'azt'en environmental measures, as codes were the
unit of analysis used to inform measure development. From each code, one or more
Tl'azt'en environmental measures were identified. Codes were characterized by a
description, measurement method, and other related environmental information, such as
data elements, benchmarks and attributes (i.e., type, source). The description was a short
directive statement that specifically defined the focus of subsequent measures. The
measurement method provided the specific protocols to inform each measure. The data
element described the expected data, including measure type that would result from each

34

measure. The five measure types used to describe the evaluative character of each
measure were: presence/absence, opinion, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
quantitative/qualitative (Quinn 2007). Benchmarks are a reference value that a measure
can be evaluated against. All resultant Tl'azt'en environmental measures were developed
in consideration with the previously established characteristics of effective Tl'azt'en
measures (Quinn 2007); for example, mixed methods (qualitative/quantitative) were used
in the design of measurement approaches (Appendix A.l, A.2, A.3). These
characteristics also provided confidence that our resultant environmental measures would
be effective and appropriate for the Tl'azt'en community.
We also conducted a parallel analysis of methodological evaluation comments. A
methodological evaluation comment was a remark made by a FT or ET member in
reference to an aspect of our methodology or research process. This analysis also
followed a grounded theory approach (Sherry et al. 2004; Dick 2005) using a separate
coding framework. Methodological evaluation comments were used in combination with
in-progress and final evaluation results to assess our Tl'azt'en Nation environmental
measures development framework.
Other types of information identified in our analysis included the Dakelh
language and Tl'azt'en TEKMS-related knowledge. Dakelh words and phrases were
translated and included in a glossary in the project's book. This promoted the use of the
Dakelh language- a priority for Tl'azt'en Nation. Tl'azt'en TEKMS-related knowledge
was identified for community product content; thus, facilitating the transmission of some
Tl'azt'en TEKMS knowledge outside of the project's focus and scope.

35

To ensure rigor, quality, and validity, inter-rater reliability testing was conducted
with Tl'azt'en Nation community researchers and members of the project steering
committee (Kolbe and Burnett 1991; Lombard et al. 2002; Marques and McCall 2005).
Coded transcripts were randomly selected for inter-rater reliability testing by type (i.e.,
FT member one-on-one interviews, FT focus groups, ET workshop). Of the 15
transcripts, one was used to pilot our group content analysis procedure and 10 were
tested. Due to time and budget constraints, the remaining four transcripts were only
tested by a subset of our group analysts. A percent agreement index [(number of
agreements) * (number of agreements + number of disagreements)] was used to calculate
a coefficient of reliability for each transcript (Lombard et al. 2002). A 90% coefficient of
reliability was our minimum acceptable level of power (Palys 1997). All transcripts with
an initial coefficient of reliability below 90% were re-coded through group analysis until
consensus was achieved. In this reflexive group analysis procedure, every coding
difference was discussed extensively amongst analysts (Barry et al. 1999). These
discussions promoted an exchange of knowledge, the development of shared
understanding, and ultimately, coding consensus.
2.4.2.3.2

Forest Team Focus Group 3

Results of the content analysis were presented and given to team members for
review and verification at the third FT focus group (FTFG3). Team members validated
the resultant Tl'azt'en environmental measures as a group (Barbour 2001). An overhead
projector was used to add, remove, and clarify information related to each environmental
measure. Every traditional use activity's environmental measures were verified at this
focus group. The environmental measures developed for monitoring environmental

36

change across Tl'azt'en Nation traditional territory and adherence to Tl'azt'en traditional
environmental land use methods and principles were not verified due to time and budget
constraints.
2.4.2.3.3

Project Wrap-Up Celebration

The project wrap-up celebration brought participants together to celebrate their
contributions and accomplishments. At this event, team members completed a final
project evaluation. Applied CBEM prototypes with corresponding mocked examples for
each representative plant and animal were also provided for evaluation and feedback.
These prototypes applied the most frequently identified codes from each traditional use
activity in a CBEM format. Corresponding mocked examples were also provided to
demonstrate how prototypes might be used in the field. Each team member was then
presented with a copy of the book (Tl'azt'en Nation & Yim 2008b) and DVD (Tl'azt'en
Nation & Yim 2008a) that highlighted the contributions of the team members. Following
the project wrap-up, complimentary copies of the book and DVD were given to Tl'azt'en
community members, Tl'azt'en Nation's Eugene Joseph Elementary School, and to the
JPRF's culture and science education camp program- the Chuntoh Education Society.
2.4.3 Research Framework Evaluation
Tl'azt'en Nation FT and ET members, community researchers and assistants
evaluated the methods and outcomes through in-progress evaluations, evaluation
comments shared during research events, and a comprehensive final project evaluation
(Figure 2.1). We used a process of empowerment evaluation to increase the success of
the project and enhance the capacity of team members to "plan, implement, and evaluate

37

their own programs" (Wandersman et al. 2005: 27). The 10 principles of empowerment
evaluation are: improvement, community ownership, inclusion, democratic participation,
social justice, community knowledge, evidence-based strategies, capacity building,
organization learning, and accountability (Wandersman et al. 2005; Fetterman and
Wandersman 2007). These 10 principles shaped the development of this study's six
empowerment evaluation topics: participant satisfaction, independence, personal
development, conduct of researchers, relationship building, and needed improvements.
We used five formal participatory evaluations to assess these six empowerment
evaluation topics throughout the course of the project.
Participant satisfaction was a broad evaluation topic which identified possible
factors contributing to continued project participation. Evaluating participant satisfaction
is important, as dissatisfaction may result in attrition. The evaluation topic,
independence, is related to the empowerment evaluation principle of democratic
participation. This topic allowed us to assess if participants had the opportunity to
meaningfully and appropriately participate to their desired capacity. The third evaluation
topic, personal and professional development, was correlated with the empowerment
evaluation principle of capacity building. Personal development and capacity building
are important components of culturally appropriate frameworks (Lafrance 2004). The
fourth evaluation topic, conduct of researchers, allowed us to assess the delivery and
implementation of the research. Reviewing research practices is important for
conducting culturally grounded evaluation (Lafrance 2004). We used the topic
relationship building to identify if participants felt valued as members of the project. A
team oriented approach in interdisciplinary, collaborative research can provide social and

38

methodological benefits (Barry et al. 1999). Lastly, the evaluation topic, needed
improvements, allowed participants to provide constructive feedback to the research team
leading to improved processes (Fetterman 2001; Conley 2003).
2.4.3.1

In-Progress Evaluations
The one-page, written in-progress evaluations followed a yes/no response format

and provided space for team members to include additional comments. Responses not
marked as 'yes' or 'no' were considered as a 'non-response.' Written in-progress
evaluations were completed anonymously. If preferred, team members conducted the
evaluation orally with a community researcher who anonymously noted their responses.
Elders evaluated their workshop orally as a group, facilitated by community
researchers. In response to evaluation questions, the ET responded with a consensus
'yes' or 'no' response; ET members identified this to be the most appropriate and
comfortable evaluation format for them. Both teams evaluated the same six evaluation
topics described above, with the exception of an additional set of questions related to
translation for the ET. This topic was added because the Dakelh language was
commonly used throughout the ET workshop.
In-progress evaluation results were immediately summarized following every
research event. Results and any subsequent modifications were then presented to FT and
ET members at the following event. This oral presentation was accompanied by written
handouts summarizing the results. Results of the participatory evaluation were used to
inform project management, instill organizational learning, and improve co-management
partner understanding (Estrella and Gaventa 1998; Estrella 2000).

39

2.4.3.2

Final Project Evaluation
The three-page final project evaluation (FPE) allowed us to examine the six

evaluation topics, our central research methods, and the overall project. The three
response formats used for this evaluation were yes/no, short answer, and a Likert scale
(i.e., 1-unsatisfactory, 2-slightly unsatisfied, 3-satisfied, 4-very satisfied, 5-extremely
satisfied, or 6-did not use).
2.4.3.3

Methodological Evaluation Comments
Feedback related to aspects of our research methods and process was inductively

identified from FT and ET transcripts during the content analysis. These methodological
evaluation comments complimented the results of the in-progress and FPE.
Methodological evaluation comments were organized according to empowerment
evaluation topic or participatory method.
2.5

Results
The environmental measures development process resulted in 252 Tl'azt'en

environmental measures. Specifically, 39 measures were developed for salmon, 69
measures for moose, 31 measures for beaver, 26 measures for soapberries, and 33
measures for huckleberries. In addition to the environmental measures for monitoring the
health of representative plant and animal species, 36 measures were developed for
monitoring environmental change across Tl'azt'en Nation traditional territory and 18
measures were developed for monitoring adherence to Tl'azt'en traditional
environmental land use methods and principles.

40

We also evaluated the participatory methods and processes that constituted the
research framework throughout the course and at the end of the research project. These
results were grouped across evaluation events and summarized by empowerment
evaluation topic and central participatory method. As a further finding supporting the
success of our methodological framework, we also summarized the attendance of team
members at research events and the project's overall attrition rate.
2.5.2 Participation Rates
A total of 19 community members took part in this project, and three Elders
participated as members on both teams. All eight community members who committed
to joining the FT participated in FTFG1. The FT grew by 33% (n=4), to a total of 12 FT
members, between FTFG1 and FTFG2 due to the snowballing technique. All 12 FT
members participated in one of the two formats of FTFG2, achieving a 100%
participation rate. The participation rate for FTFG3 was 58% (n=12); participants were
unable to participate in this third focus group for a variety of personal reasons unrelated
to the project, including work and appointments. The average participation rate for all
three FT focus groups was 86%. A 100% participation rate (n=10) was achieved at the
ET workshop. No FT or ET members withdrew from the project, resulting in a 0% rate
of attrition. At our two non-data collection research events, the CPDW (63%
participation rate, n=19) and the project wrap-up celebration (42% participation rate,
n=19), lower participation rates were achieved.
2.5.3 Empowerment Evaluation
2.5.3.1 Satisfaction

41

The satisfaction of ET and FT members was evaluated throughout the course of
the project (Table 2.1, Table 2.2). Team members revealed that they were highly
satisfied with all FT focus groups (FTFG1: 100%; FTFG2: 92%; FTFG3: 100%), the ET
workshop (ET workshop: yes), and with being a member of the project (FPE: 100%).
Team members consistently felt valued at all research events and throughout the project
(FTFG1: 100%; FTFG2: 92%; FTFG3: 89%; ET workshop: yes; FPE: 100%). Their
expectations were also consistently met at research events and throughout the project
(FTFG1: 100%; FTFG2: 92%; FTFG3: 78%; ET workshop: yes; FPE: 100%). When
asked if satisfied with the amount of time given to complete a meeting's activities, FT
members indicated that they were (FTFG1: 100%; FTFG2: 100%). All 14 respondents
were satisfied with the project's community products. Elders team members indicated
that they were satisfied with the format of group interviews, their ability to participate
and engage extensively in the group interviews, and, how group interviews were
controlled and directed by the team and researchers (Table 2.1). Though 9 of 13 team
members felt that participating in this project required a large time commitment, all 14
respondents felt that the benefits of participation were worthwhile (FPE: 100%). These
results are further supported by our FPE, where the 10 respondents rated project
satisfaction as 4.44 out of 5, between the categories of 'very satisfied' and 'extremely
satisfied.'3

3

Four respondents did not respond (NR) to this question.

42

Improvements

Relationship
Building
Researchers

3

3

0

0
1

0

0

Have any suggestions to improve the
next meeting?

0

0

Satisfied with the facilitation and co- 7
ordination provided by the community
and/or principal researcher?
Researchers clearly communicate the 7
events objectives?
Comfortable with recording
7
methods? (e.g., audio, video)

0

0

7

future?
Feel valued as member of the team?

1

12

12

12

12

11

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

9

8

9

9

9

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

-

10

10

10

10

43

-

Table 2.1- In-progress evaluation results examining six empowerment evaluation topics from the research events: FTFG1
(n=7), FTFG2 (n=12), FTFG3 (n=9) and ET Workshop (n=10). Dashes indicate questions that were not asked at a particular
research event. Responses not marked as 'yes' or 'no' are indicated as non-response (NR).
FTFG2
FTFG1
FTFG3
ET Workshop
In-Progress Evaluation Questions
Topic Area
No NR Yes No NR
Yes
No
Yes No NR Yes
Satisfied with meeting/workshop?
7
0
0
11
0
1
0
0
10
9
Satisfaction
0
0
11
0
1
0
1
10
Feel valued as a team member?
7
8
Expectations met?
7
0
0
11
0
1
0
2
10
7
Enough time to complete today's
7
0
0
12
0
0
activities?
0
0
12
0
1
10
7
0
8
0
Independence Able to express your ideas?
Have the freedom to participate when, 7
0
0
12
0
0
8
0
1
10
where and how you wanted to?
Learn anything new?
7
0
0
12
0
0
10
9
0
0
Personal and
Professional
Any skills/knowledge learned or
7
0
0
12
0
0
0
10
9
0
Development
used today useful to you for the

Table 2.2- Final project evaluation results examining five empowerment evaluation
topics. Responses include both ET and FT member responses (n=14). Responses
not marked as 'yes' or 'no' are indicated as non-response (NR).
^__^_
Topic Area
Final Project Evaluation Questions
Yes No NR
Were you satisfied with being a team member on this
14
Satisfaction
0
0
project?
Did you feel valued as a team member throughout this
14
0
0
project?
Were your expectations for participating in this project 14
0
0
met?
Did you feel that participating in this project required a 9
4
1
large time commitment on your part?
Were you satisfied with the community products
14
0
0
developed in this project?
Did you feel that the benefits of being a part of this
14
0
0
project were worth your time commitment?
13
0
Independence Did you feel that you were able to express your ideas
appropriately and fully throughout the project?
Did you feel that you had the freedom to participate
13
0
when, where, and how you wanted to throughout this
project?
0
Personal and Did you learn anything new through your involvement
13
Professional in this project?
Development
Do you think that any skills learned or used throughout 13
0
the project would be useful to you in the future?
13
0
Researchers Were you satisfied with how the lead researcher
maintained contact with you throughout the project?
Were you satisfied with the facilitation and co13
0
ordination provided by the community researchers
and/or the lead researcher throughout the project?
0
Relationship Did you feel like you were working as a valued
13
member of a team throughout the project?
Building
Did you feel that you built stronger working
12
0
2
relationships with team members throughout the
project?

2.5.3.2 Independence
We posed two questions to evaluate the perceived independence of FT and ET
throughout the project. First, team members revealed that they were able to express their
ideas at the FT focus groups (FTFG1: 100%; FTFG2: 100%; FTFG3: 89%), at the ET

44

workshop (ET workshop: yes), and throughout the course of the project (FPE: 100%,
n=13). Second, participants indicated that throughout the course of the project they felt
free to take part when, where, and how they wanted (FPE: 100%, n=13), including FT
focus groups (FTFG1: 100%; FTFG2: 92%; FTFG3: 89%), and the ET workshop (ET
workshop: yes).
2.5.3.3 Personal and Professional Development
In terms of personal and professional development, when asked if they had
learned anything new at project research events, FT and ET members responded
positively (FTFG1: 100%; FTFG2: 100%; FTFG3: 100%; ET workshop: yes). Learning
was voiced as an important component of the research framework. Thirteen team
members also indicated that they had learned something new from their overall
involvement in the project (FPE: 100%). One team member wrote, "I learned a lot from
the Elders and other FT members." Another team member stated that they learned about
"different [traditional] medicines." All FT and ET members indicated that they had
either used or learned skills at each FT focus group that would be useful to them in the
future (FTFG1: 100%; FTFG2: 100%; FTFG3: 100%; ET workshop: yes). This result
was echoed in the FPE, with 100% (n=13) of team members affirming that individual
learning resulted from their participation. The capacity of our collaborative community
products to promote learning, to involve the larger Tl'azt'en community, and to share our
project with other Aboriginal communities were also identified as important elements of
the project. Involving youth in the development of our collaborative book was satisfying
for team members and was an important component of the research framework that team
members would like to see expanded in future phases of the project.

45

2.5.3.4 Relationship Building
Participants reported a strong sense of relationship building with research and
fellow team members. All FT and ET members responded that they felt valued as
members of the team (FTFG1: 100%; FTFG2: 100%; FTFG3: 100%; ET workshop: yes;
FPE: 100%, n=13). In the FPE, 100% (n=12) of team members reported that they had
built strong working relationships with all of the team members throughout the course of
the project. For the ET, the use of Dakelh contributed to relationship building. The ET
in-progress evaluation revealed that having conversations in Dakelh helped members to
better express their knowledge, to better understand discussions, and to participate more
actively in group interviews. Through the methodological evaluation comments, team
members also revealed that building relationships and developing trust amongst
participants was important. Achieving consensus amongst team members in decisionmaking processes was identified as an important component of relationship building.
2.5.3.5 Conduct of Researchers
All team members indicated that they were satisfied with the facilitation and coordination provided by both the lead and Tl'azt'en Nation community researchers at each
FT focus group, the ET workshop, and throughout the overall project (FTFG1: 100%;
FTFG2: 100%; FTFG3: 100%; FPE: 100%, n=13). Team members also indicated that
they felt researchers had clearly communicated the objectives of each FT focus group and
the ET workshop (FTFG1: 100%; FTFG2: 100%; FTFG3: 100%; ET workshop: yes).
All team members were comfortable with how information was audio and video recorded
(FTFG1: 100%; FTFG2: 100%; FTFG3: 100%; ET workshop: yes). In the FPE team
members were asked if they were satisfied with the amount of contact that the lead

46

researcher had maintained with them throughout the 15-month project; all respondents
indicated that they were satisfied.
Methodological evaluation comments provided further insight into the conduct of
researchers and the development and application of the research process. Team members
reported that they were satisfied with the interpersonal skills, flexibility, and organization
of research team members. The use of culturally appropriate research methods, such as
land-based activities (e.g., boat ride at ET workshop), were also identified as an area of
satisfaction. The facilitation of research events could be improved by using more Dakelh
(via translators and interpreters), by having maps available to facilitate discussions, and
by using audio equipment to aid those with hearing difficulties. Team members revealed
their satisfaction with how project progress was continually shared with the community
through newsletters and amongst team members through in-progress evaluation and
summaries of Photovoice results.
2.5.3.6 Recommended Improvements
The nature of recommended improvements varied across research events. Many
recommendations were acted upon during the course of the project to improve the
research process. For example, at FTFG1 some participants suggested that future
research events should be open to members of both teams; at FTFG2, team members
suggested that Photovoice photographs should be shared with youth in the community.
Team members also suggested that research events should be open to youth in the
community to promote further intergenerational learning. Elders team members
remarked that overall we should, "improve everything as we go," and specifically that
involving more youth and hiring translators would improve future research events. When

47

asked how future events could be improved, Tl'azt'en Nation community researchers and
research assistants suggested that a full-time translator could be employed for ET
members and that a consistent start time be adopted for all research events.
Additional improvements were identified from the methodological evaluation
comments. Team members expressed the importance of conducting research related to
CBEM activities during each activity's appropriate season, rather than during one shortterm period in the summer.
2.5.4 Evaluation of Central Participatory Methods
In the FPE, team members used a Likert Scale to rate their overall satisfaction
with the four central participatory research methods. These participatory methods were
FT focus groups, one-on-one interviews, ET workshop, and Photovoice (Table 2.3).
Forest team focus groups received a mean satisfaction score of 4.1 (n=10), close to the
satisfaction score of 4- Very satisfied.. The ET workshop received a mean satisfaction
score of 4.43 (n=7) between 4- Very Satisfied and 5- Extremely Satisfied. The research
method, one-on-one interviews, received a mean satisfaction score of 4.2 (n= 9). Of the
five research methods, Photovoice received the lowest mean satisfaction score of 3.33 or
Satisfied, from the relatively small sample of six respondents. However, satisfaction with
the Photovoice method was reported as high amongst FT members at the second FT focus
group (FTFG2: 100%, n=12).
Most FT members liked the format of the photo sharing circle (FTFG2: 92%,
n=l 1) and were comfortable using Photovoice to share their knowledge, expertise,
stories, and photos (FTFG2: 100%, n=l 1).

48

A total of nine respondents rated their satisfaction with 'one-on-one interviews,' though only eight FT members used this method. The anonymous nature of
our participatory evaluation prevents us from identifying and removing the evaluation that was accidentally completed.
5
One FT member who attended FTFG2 also conducted a one-on-one interview; therefore eight one-on-one interviews were conducted.

4

49

Table 2.3- Evaluation results related to the central participatory methods: Photovoice, FT focus groups (FTFG), one-on-one
interviews, and the ET workshop. Dashes indicate questions that were not asked at a particular research event. Questions left
blank by respondents are indicated as non-response (NR).
Final Project Evaluation (n=14)
FTFG2 (n==12)
Evaluation
2456Topic Area
13Questions
Very
Extremely Did not NR
Yes No NR
Slightly
Unsatisfactory
Satisfied
unsatisfied
Satisfied Satisfied
use
12
Satisfied with the
0
0
Photovoice
Photovoice method?
Like the Photo Sharing 11
1
0
Circle format?
Comfortable sharing
11
0
1
knowledge, expertise,
stories, & photos in the
Photo Sharing Circle?
Like working
12
0
0
independently with the
Photovoice method?
Developed any skills
12
0
0
by using Photovoice?
Rate your satisfaction
0
1
3
1
1
4
4
Rate your satisfaction
0
0
3
4
FTFG
3
3
1
1
One-on-one Rate your satisfaction
0
0
5
3
4
1
45
interviews
0
4
ET workshop Rate your satisfaction
0
0
3
5
2

All FT members enjoyed the independent nature of using Photovoice between
FTFG1 and FTFG2 (FTFG2= 100%, n=12) and felt that they had developed new skills
through the use of this method (FTFG2= 100%, n=12). During research events,
participants spoke to the strengths and improvements of the Photovoice technique. For
example, the photo sharing circle format and the intergenerational teaching capacity of
Photovoice were areas of satisfaction for team members. However, participants reported
that a verbal, rather than written, logbook for recording important environmental
information would improve the Photovoice method. Team members also indicated that
Photovoice guidelines should be clarified. In addition to our four central participatory
methods, the CPDW was also evaluated. Its mean satisfaction score was 4.08 (n=l 1).
2.6

Discussion
A community-based research project's ability to achieve valid results depends on

the qualities that characterize its processes, and the degree and quality of participation
that it invokes (Hankins and Ross 2008). Effective collaborative processes are
characterized by the ability to successfully achieve objectives, meaningfully engage
partners, and institutionalize collaboration (Selin et al. 2000; Wondolleck and Yaffee
2000a). Cheng et al. (2008: 164) used the term "collaboration within collaboration" to
describe how collaborative partnerships should utilize adaptive participatory processes to
engage meaningful community participation and achieve shared goals. Communitybased research approaches can facilitate this collaborative process.

50

2.6.1

Participation
The sustained participation of community members in cross-cultural

environmental research projects is a sign of successful collaboration (Williams and
Ellefson 1997; Carter 2008). High sustained FT (86%) and ET (100%) participation
indicate that the participatory methods and processes involved in our Tl'azt'en Nation
environmental measures development framework were meaningful and motivating to
participants (Rotondi and Gustafson 1996). Our team member participation exceeded the
67% participation rate expected from expert-based participatory studies (Goldschmidt
1996). In the FPE, respondents unanimously (n=14) indicated that the benefits of
participation were worth their time commitment (Table 2.2). The benefits of
participation influence the quality and degree of a participatory process (Arnstein 1969;
Wilmsen et al. 2008). Participant satisfaction, personal development, independence, and
relationship building were four benefits that motivated participants and promoted their
meaningful engagement in this research.
2.6.2 Qualities of a Meaningful Aboriginal Research Framework
Mutual reciprocity is an important component of native science (Cajete 2000) and
Aboriginal collaborative research (Hankins and Ross 2008). This principle has guided
the development of numerous applied Aboriginal research frameworks (Fox 2002; Jolly
et al. 2002; Nickels et al. 2002; Thorpe et al. 2002). We used a number of tools and
approaches to ensure reciprocity including facilitation of mutual learning, participant
benefits, and community research products.

51

2.6.2.1

Satisfaction
Participant satisfaction is influenced by multiple factors. Furthermore, assessing

participant satisfaction is challenging, as dissatisfaction is more commonly
communicated (Rotondi and Gustafson 1996); thus, questions evaluating satisfaction
were shaped by indicators of dissatisfaction (i.e., expectations not met). As Tl'azt'enne
prefer to be asked questions with a positive focus (Quinn 2007), we adapted this
orientation to best suit Tl'azt'enne and to assess an overall goal of participant
satisfaction. Overall, during the FPE, project satisfaction was rated 89% by the 10 FT
and ET respondents. Feeling valued, having expectations met at meetings, and
participating in timely events contributed to participant satisfaction. Using a culturally
relevant research approach was also identified as a factor contributing to participant
satisfaction. One team member stated "I feel special, because I can show my talents in
culture," and another member wrote, "I really enjoyed this. I am not employed at present
and this makes me feel special to do something for Tl'azt'enne." Culturally relevant
research methods foster satisfying and engaging processes.
Elders Team members also rated their participation and engagement as extensive.
Three factors likely contributed to this result. First, the remote research station provided
a retreat setting in the heart of Tl'azt'en Nation traditional territory, emphasizing the
strong connection between team members and the land. Struthers (2001) described the
significance that the research setting plays in the dynamic between team members and
researchers, when working with Indigenous knowledge. For instance, during a boat tour
of an adjacent lake, ET members guided researchers to specific locations, such as
spawning areas, to share stories and knowledge out on the land; this was a rich learning

52

experience for all involved. Second, research methods were culturally appropriate
(Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies 2003; Willgerodt 2003).
Semi-structured group interviews were not heavily facilitated, which allowed for a more
meaningful, culturally appropriate exchange of knowledge (Strickland 1999; Halcomb et
al. 2007). Elders Team member, Joseph Mattess, remarked, "the Elders, they used to
gather like this and talk." Also, by having portions of the group interview in Dakelh, ET
members had an increased ability to share and understand. Sherry (2002) also found that
translators and interpreters played an important role in meaningfully involving Elders.
Lastly, scheduling time for informal interaction, discussions, and activities significantly
contributed to a better understanding of one another and the development of lasting
relationships (Gustafson et al. 1992; Napolitano et al. 2002; Huntington et al. 2006).
2.6.2.2

Personal and Professional Development
Personal development is a positive outcome and motivation for participation

(Rotondi and Gustafson 1996). Meaningful participatory processes can facilitate
opportunities for learning (Sinclair et al. 2008). In the FPE, 100% (n=13) of team
members felt that they had learned new knowledge and/or skills that would be beneficial
to them in the future. One team member explained that through their involvement in the
project they "learned a lot about their culture." This finding is particularly significant as
Abbot and Guijt (1998: 33) state that "community-based monitoring will only work if it
contributes to local understanding and empowerment" Culturally relevant research
frameworks can promote personal and collective cultural knowledge through their
participatory processes (Sims and Sinclair 2008; Berkes 2009). Another team member
expressed how valuable it was that, "all the knowledge of community members was

53

shared and used by all- this is a very important tool for keeping our culture." This
exchange of information is a leading motivation for participation (Williams and Ellefson
1997) and an important mechanism for reinforcing collective learning (Sims and Sinclair
2008; Berkes 2009). Social learning is important for the cultural revitalization of
Aboriginal communities, the development of social capital, and more effective crosscultural co-management partnerships (Plummer and FitzGibbon 2007; Quinn 2007;
Berkes 2009).
2.6.2.3

Independence
Participant independence requires space within a research process for members to

participate in an autonomous and inclusive fashion (Narayan 2005). Through written
evaluation comments, participants revealed how independence also contributed to the
development of self-confidence and capacity. These attributes are important components
of research frameworks that empower and facilitate community ownership. By fostering
community ownership in a research process, more relevant results will likely be produced
(Barnsley and Ellis 1992).
2.6.2.4

Relationship Building
Strong team relationships and cohesiveness amongst team members likely

enhanced the value of participation and contributed to our framework's overall
effectiveness (Buller and Bell 1986). DeCremer and vanVugt (1999) found that an
increased group identity encourages individuals to contribute and cooperate. All team
members (n=12) felt that they had built stronger working relationships through their
involvement in the project (Table 2.2). Conducting numerous events throughout a project

54

has been found to strengthen participant commitment by increasing team cohesion and
solidarity (Webler et al. 1995). Some team members remarked that attending research
events was a highlight for them. In an in-progress evaluation, one team member wrote
that their favorite part of the project was "meeting people and learning from Elders,"
while another remarked that they enjoyed "the FT meetings with Elders and spending
time together as a team." The research approach played a strategic role in facilitating a
conducive process for relationship building. Fostering strong relationships amongst
project members added resilience to the research process and to future participatory
environmental applications.
2.6.2.5

Participatory Methods
Photovoice was one of the four central participatory methods used in our study.

This method facilitated and engaged the traditional knowledge of team members, but was
rated with only a moderate satisfaction level. We suggest three improvements for
increasing the overall satisfaction of participants in future applications of this method.
First, the amount of Photovoice training and ongoing support provided to team members
should be increased. We provided only one afternoon of training for team members.
During this training, team members familiarized themselves with the concept of
Photovoice, and with their new digital cameras and accessories. Second, the format of
the 'Photovoice logbook' should be changed. The Photovoice logbook was developed
and given to each FT member as a means of recording important information related to
the photos that they took. Methodological evaluation comments revealed that the
logbook could be improved by using an oral feedback format. Lastly, evaluation results
suggested that Photovoice may be more satisfying if guidelines were clarified to allow

55

team members to take images of other environmental features or themes not directly
related to the representative species of their focal traditional use activity. Our initial
guidelines may have unintentionally limited participants as they worked to document and
share their knowledge through photos. Though areas of improvement were identified,
team members also recognized the utility and strength of Photovoice as an important
intergenerational teaching tool for Tl'azt'en TEKMS. Sharing photos and knowledge
through Photovoice was found to be highly satisfactory for FT members and an important
source of content for the development of environmental measures and collaborative
community products.
2.6.3 Building an Enduring Research Framework
An enduring research framework signifies successful collaboration (Wondolleck
and Yaffee 2000a). Collaboration is institutionalized by establishing structures,
motivating continued participation, and maintaining the interactions and benefits of
partners (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000a). Developing community products, involving
the larger Tl'azt'en Nation community, and conducting participatory evaluations were
three central institutionalizing structures critical to this research.
2.6.3.1 Developing Community Products
A collaboratively written book and DVD were our project's main community
products. They were an innovative means of communicating about the project and its
achievements to the larger community, as well as verifying results. Fox (2002) also
found that using video recording was an effective means of communicating and teaching
about CBEM. Other Aboriginal environmental studies have also used books and

56

audiovisual presentations to share TEKMS (Bonny and Berkes 2008). The development
of community products provided opportunities to work with youth in the community and
marked the cumulative achievements of all those involved, including the Tl'azt'en Nation
community researchers and research assistants.
2.6.3.2

Involving the Community
Community centered research should demonstrate a transparent approach that

involves the entire community (Parlee and Lutsel K'e First Nation 1997). This approach
was applied throughout our framework by such initiatives as a project information
session, project information brochures, and community newsletters. When FT members
were asked if they liked being recognized through the community newsletters 100% of
respondents (n=12) indicated that they did. Public recognition and appreciation is a
source of pride for individuals (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000b). The involvement of the
Tl'azt'en community in our research strengthened our collaborative partnership.
2.6.3.3

Evaluating the Process
Participatory evaluation is a systematic process which collaboratively and

iteratively assesses and guides the course of a project in order to foster continual
improvement, learning, and capacity building (Narayan 1993). Cross-cultural
participatory environmental research needs to be evaluated and directed in partnership
with Aboriginal communities (Lewis 2004; Carter 2008). Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal
partners may interpret the concept of 'meaningful' community participation differently;
thus, research is best assessed by the community itself (Natcher and Hickey 2002). Such
an assessment can improve project effectiveness, increase support and participation from

57

Aboriginal communities, promote researchers to be publicly accountable, contribute to a
lateral power structure amongst researchers and participants, and facilitate the inclusion
of project findings in decision making (Alzate 2000; Lafrance 2004).
The Tl'azt'en Nation environmental measures development framework was
iteratively directed by ET and FT members through empowerment evaluation. This gave
team members voice and power to explicitly influence the research process. In addition
to the direct benefit of providing methodological feedback, in-progress evaluations
characterized the framework's adaptive process of continual improvement (Fetterman
2001). Reporting all evaluation results and subsequent modifications to team members
promoted project ownership, demonstrated equal partnership, fostered participant
empowerment, and helped to maintain transparency. Tl'azt'en Nation community
researchers and research assistants also completed in-progress evaluations; this worked to
yield honest, reflexive perspectives from those who wore both community member and
researcher hats (Guba and Lincoln 1989).
2.6.3.4 Recommendations for Collaborative Aboriginal Research Processes
We have drawn three central recommendations from our experience and
evaluation results that can help guide collaborative Aboriginal research processes. First,
research processes should be flexible and adaptive. It is important to be considerate of
participants and community events. Efforts were made to schedule research events
around such functions as salmon runs and the berry picking season. We also adaptively
conducted one-on-one interviews in response to the changing schedules of participants.
Second, research processes should incorporate participatory evaluation. These
evaluations allow the research team to continuously assess and adjust methods to ensure

58

that the research objectives are satisfied, and that the process is culturally appropriate and
effective for participants. In-progress evaluations led to a number of adaptive changes
for this project including the invitation for ET members to participate in FT events.
Lastly, research processes should engage the broader community. This is
particularly important to CBEM related projects, as the eventual application of research
results is dependent on the involvement of a larger number of community members. Our
community products were particularly effective at engaging Tl'azt'en Nation. These
products worked to educate community members about the objectives and outcomes of
the project and future applications of the knowledge shared by participants.
2.7

Conclusion
Dynamic, innovative research processes need to co-evolve with the ever changing

nature of communities. Through participatory evaluation, the evolving needs and goals
of a community can be identified and addressed during the research process not after
completion and summary of findings. The Tl'azt'en Nation environmental measures
development framework offers an effective and enduring collaborative process for
partnering with Aboriginal communities. Our research experience provides insight and
understanding into the workings of effective collaborative partnerships. Results from our
methodological evaluation demonstrate a robust and resilient approach for other
partnerships to adapt in the process of shaping their own participatory research
framework. As we demonstrated, cross-cultural, participatory research can be used to
develop community-based environmental monitoring initiatives and shape shared natural
resource management goals.

59

CHAPTER 3- ABORIGNAL ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES: CONNECTING
FIRST NATION COMMUNITIES AND CO-MANAGEMENT THROUGH
COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
3.1

Abstract
Aboriginal environmental measures are a tool for assessing environmental

change, according to the traditional environmental knowledge management system of
Aboriginal communities. In combination with community-based environmental
monitoring, Aboriginal measures may improve the effectiveness of cross-cultural comanagement partnerships by connecting Aboriginal communities to the co-management
process. As a result, Aboriginal communities become a part of the co-management
feedback loop that informs and guides management decisions. Using participatory
research methods, we worked with two teams of Tl'azt'en Nation community members to
generate and verify Tl'azt'en environmental measures for five traditional use activities
and their representative species: fishing salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), hunting moose
(Alces alces), trapping beaver {Castor canadensis), picking huckleberries (Vaccinium
membranaceum), and gathering soapberries (Shepherdia canadensis) for medicinal use.
Tl'azt'en environmental measures were also inductively developed for monitoring
environmental change across their traditional territory and monitoring community
adherence to Tl'azt'en traditional environmental land use methods and principles.
Working within the context of an existing local-level criteria and indicator framework,
we developed and verified a total of 252 Tl'azt'en Nation environmental measures. The
majority of these measures coincided with three critical local values: habitat quality and
quantity; abundance of berries and populations of animals; and, the health and quality of
representative species for consumption or use. The large number of measures requires

60

further field verification and prioritization. However, the framework we developed and
the associated measures will serve as the foundation for community-based environmental
monitoring to be applied across Tl'azt'en Nation's co-managed research forest.
Keywords: Aboriginal; co-management; community-based environmental monitoring;
Criteria and Indicator; environmental measures; First Nation; Tl'azt'en Nation
3.2

Introduction
Natural resource professionals are increasingly seeking approaches that

effectively and meaningfully combine science based resource management (SBRM) and
traditional environmental knowledge and management systems (TEKMS) in a
complementary fashion (Keith 1994; Parsons and Prest 2003; Allen 2005; Wyatt 2008).
Although there are a number of accepted definitions, TEKMS are the dynamic and
unique knowledge systems that each Aboriginal community has evolved and uses as a
basis for their resource management decision making and planning (Berkes 1999a;
Hawley et al. 2004). Science based resource management (SBRM) can be defined as
"the application of the scientific method to address issues involving a wide range of
species and environmental features, their ecosystems, the underlying ecological
processes, and the working of humans" (Hawley et al. 2004: 38). Applying
complementary aspects of TEKMS and SBRM in natural resource management can
promote the use of multiple perspectives, methods, values, and ethics to generate new
knowledge without compromising the integrity of either system (Knudtson and Suzuki
1992; Mauro and Hardison 2000; Durie 2004a, b; Stevenson 2005). Local goals of
environmental sustainability may be realized through innovative management approaches
that facilitate knowledge co-production with Aboriginal communities (Kofinas et al.
2002a)

61

The successful application of TEKMS and SBRM in natural resource
management requires a flexible and adaptive approach that can accommodate the
individual needs, values, and beliefs of Aboriginal communities and their TEKMS. Comanagement is one governance and decision making framework with the ability to
facilitate the complementary application of both knowledge systems (Olsson et al. 2004).
These adaptive, institutional relationships can facilitate shared power, responsibility, and
control of natural resources between Aboriginal communities and other stakeholders
(Berkes 1994; Roberts 1996; Sherry and Myers 2002; Goetze 2005); though in practice,
co-management has met qualified success (Berkes et al. 1991; Roberts 1996; Rusnak
1997; Sherry 2002; Hawley et al. 2004). One of the barriers impeding effective comanagement is the inability of Aboriginal partners to contribute equally to the decisionmaking process (Castro and Nielsen 2001; Grainger et al. 2006). More equitable
decision making is facilitated by the shared control of co-management processes, a sense
of community ownership, and the incorporation of TEKMS (Sherry and Fondahl 2003;
Grainger et al. 2006).
Criteria and Indicator (C&I) frameworks can improve shared decision-making by
providing a structured approach for co-management partners to contextualize, translate,
and define their key goals, values, and knowledge into discrete manageable parameters
(Wright et al. 2002; Pokorny et al. 2004; Sherry et al. 2005). Across Canada, a number
of national- and local-scale frameworks have demonstrated how C&I can be used by
Aboriginal peoples to represent their TEKMS within contemporary forest management
systems (National Aboriginal Forestry Association 1995; Bombay 1995; Rusnak 1997;
Natcher and Hickey 2002; Smith 2002; Karjala et al. 2003; Parsons and Prest 2003;

62

Sherry et al. 2005; Harshaw et al. 2007). However, improvements to existing C&I
frameworks are required (Wyatt 2008). At a local level, developing unique sets of C&I
based on the TEKMS of individual Aboriginal communities will help to alleviate
differences that arise from applying elements of one knowledge system within another
(Berkes 1995). Community-centered approaches are most appropriate for working with
TEKMS-based C&I. As the practitioners and experts of their TEKMS, the community
can best assess how their knowledge, values, and beliefs should function within their comanagement partnership.
Community-based environmental monitoring (CBEM) is an approach by which
Aboriginal communities can apply their TEKMS, track the health of their environment,
and implement locally relevant sustainability objectives. Through active information
collection and ownership, CBEM can build Aboriginal communities into the feedback
loop that informs, directs, and evaluates adaptive natural resource management processes
and decisions (McDonald 1988; Natcher and Hickey 2002; Tipa and Teirney 2003; Fast
et al. 2005; Stevenson 2005). Although CBEM is a relatively new approach, case studies
demonstrate its ability to foster meaningful co-management partnerships with Aboriginal
communities and their TEKMS, as well as effective bottom-up resource management
practices (Berkes 1995; Pinkerton and Weinstein 1995; Tipa and Teirney 2003; Berkes
2009). Olsson et al. (2004) found that the social dimension of ecosystem management is
essential to developing resilient adaptive co-management systems; CBEM reflects this
understanding.
In this paper we describe how environmental measures can be developed and used
in a CBEM context to identify the values of Aboriginal communities engaged in co-

63

management arrangements. A measure is the direct or indirect method that provides
information about the state of a specific environmental attribute. We describe how we
partnered with a First Nation community, Tl'azt'en Nation, to generate, develop, and
verify local-level Tl'azt'en environmental measures for five focal traditional use
activities. The Tl'azt'en environmental measures developed in this project will be
applied through a CBEM initiative on the co-managed John Prince Research Forest
(JPRF). We begin by introducing the local-level Tl'azt'en Nation C&I framework and
our environmental measures development framework. We then present our resultant
environmental measures and discuss the challenges and opportunities involved in their
application to co-management, through CBEM.
3.3

Tl'azt'en Nation and Study Area
This study was developed and completed in partnership with Tl'azt'en Nation and

their co-managed JPRF (Figure 1.2). Translated from their traditional Dakelh language,
Tl'azt'en means "people by the edge of the bay" (Tl'azt'en Nation 2009a). Tl'azt'en
Nation is located in north central British Columbia, Canada and currently has a
population of approximately 1500 people, with half living in three main communities:
Tache (Tachie), Binche (Pinchi), Dzitl'ainli (Middle River), and one seasonal village
K'uzche (Grand Rapids) (Figure 1.2; Moran 1994; Tl'azt'en Nation 2009a; B. Leon and
A. Stark, personal communication, July 2009). Amidst such industrial developments as
the forestry industry, Tl'azt'en Nation developed partnerships and research initiatives as
part of its adaptive effort to achieve sustainable resource management (Morris and
Fondahl 2002). One of Tl'azt'en's most significant research and education partnerships
is the JPRF. The Research Forest was officially established in 1999 and is co-managed

64

by Tl'azt'en Nation and the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC).
Comprised of 13,000 ha of forestland on Tl'azt'en Nation's traditional territory, the JPRF
is the only First Nation-University co-managed research forest in North America.
3.4

Tl'azt'en Nation Local-Level Criteria and Indicator Framework
The Tl'azt'en Nation local-level C&I framework was developed prior to our study

and includes principles, criteria, indicators, critical local values, measures, data elements,
actions and strategies in its hierarchical structure (Sherry et al. 2004; Sherry et al. 2005).
This local-level framework incorporates increased local knowledge, values, and beliefs
through added levels of detail. A distinguishing feature of the Tl'azt'en Nation C&I
framework is its ability to work with both SBRM and TEKMS (Sherry et al. 2005).
Previous research between Tl'azt'en Nation and UNBC has focused on different stages of
this framework's development (Karjala et al. 2003; Sherry and Fondahl 2003; Sherry et
al. 2005; Quinn 2007).
Our study focused on developing environmental measures for the Tl'azt'en
Nation C&I framework. All five of our study's focal traditional use activities shared the
same principle - Land use and management, and criterion - Maintain forest ecosystem
condition and function. The indicator - Maintain biological diversity - was shared by all
animal-based traditional activities, while the indicator - Maintain botanical diversity was shared by all plant based traditional use activities. In the context of the Tl'azt'en
C&I framework, criteria are the conditions/processes that allow co-management to be
assessed at multiple scales (Sherry and Fondahl 2004; Sherry et al. 2004). Indicators
correspond to specific criteria, and are the measurable (quantitative, qualitative, both)
attributes (Sherry and Fondahl 2004; Sherry et al. 2004). Critical local values (CLV)

65

provide specific local detail to indicators, and facilitate the incorporation of community
values and priorities into the monitoring framework; this level is unique to the Tl'azt'en
C&I framework (Sherry and Fondahl 2004; Sherry et al. 2004). Measures are the,
indirect/direct, methods that act as a source of information for an indicator (Wright et al.
2002; Sherry and Fondahl 2004). Data elements are the resultant information from
measures (Wright et al. 2002; Sherry and Fondahl 2004). Benchmarks are the standards
that data elements are compared against (Wright et al. 2002; Sherry and Fondahl 2004).
Actions/strategies are the directives that are adapted (may include activities, policies,
etc.) once results are interpreted (Sherry and Fondahl 2004).
3.5

Five Traditional Use Activities of Tl'azt'en Nation
In this study, environmental measures were developed for five traditional use

activities identified from previous research with Tl'azt'en Nation (Sherry et al. 2005).
Each traditional use activity is an inherent component of Tl'azt'en Nation's culture,
spirituality, well-being, and TEKMS. For each traditional use activity, Tl'azt'en project
team members selected a representative species for developing measures and subsequent
monitoring. These species were not chosen solely on the basis of value or worth to
Tl'azt'enne; such considerations as the timing of the research (e.g., seasonality of
species) and abundance (e.g., density and distribution) of species also shaped the
selection process. Our focal traditional use activities and representative species were:
talo ha'hut'en- fishing salmon, huda ha'hut'en- hunting moose, tsa ha tsayilh sulatrapping beaver, duje hoonayin- picking huckleberries, and yoo ba ningwus hunult'ogathering soapberries for medicinal use. Aboriginal environmental measures should not

66

be separated from their rich cultural foundation, thus, we provide a brief introduction to
each focal traditional use activity (Spak 2005; Stevenson 2005).
3.5.1

Talo ha'hut'en- Fishing Salmon
Tl'azt'en Nation's four communities are located along sockeye salmon migration

routes, reflecting the important cultural and subsistence role of salmon (Hudson 1983;
1997; Nepal 2004). Most Tl'azt'enne fish salmon at camps or locations specific to their
family groups. The processes involved with catching and preparing salmon are essential
to the transmission of TEKMS knowledge from generation to generation. Tl'azt'en
project team member, Violet Prince explains, "...we sit together in the smokehouse and
cut salmon. There's a lot of storytelling and history that is shared in the smokehouse..."
(Tl'azt'en Nation and Yim 2008b: 38).
Aside from the inherent qualities that characterize this traditional use activity,
fishing salmon was distinguished from other representative species by three unique
characteristics. First, Tl'azt'enne fish salmon in two different watersheds located on
Tl'azt'en Nation traditional territory, the Skeena and the Stuart-Takla. The variety and
type of salmon species differ between the watersheds. To narrow the scope of this
traditional use activity, we focused on developing environmental measures related to
salmon caught in Stuart Lake, which is located within the same Stuart-Takla watershed as
the JPRF. Second, three species of salmon are found within Stuart Lake: sockeye
(Oncorhynchus nerka), chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and kokanee
(Oncorhynchus nerka). Though Tl'azt'enne are aware of the different salmon species
within Stuart Lake, they are typically characterized by run or time of year in which they
are fished (e.g., first run of salmon). Lastly, due to low returns of sockeye salmon, the

67

Canadian government has placed restrictions on fishing this species (Fishery Notice, July
24, 2009). This is the only traditional use activity that faces legal harvesting restrictions.
3.5.2 Hilda ha'hut'en- Hunting Moose
Moose (Alces alces) axe, the most commonly hunted animal by Tl'azt'enne. This
large mammal is a staple in the community's diet (Hudson 1983). One Tl'azt'en project
team member stated, "...we share all of the moose that we hunt together. We do it the
Indian way. Each one of us will get portions of the meat to take home. That's what we'll
keep for going hunting together" (Tl'azt'en Nation & Yim 2008b: 50); thus, hunting
moose is not only important for sustenance, it is also an integral to Tl'azt'en culture,
practices, and principles. Furthermore, Tl'azt'enne use moose for such things as shelter,
clothing, and tools (Tl'azt'en Nation and Yim 2008b).
3.5.3 Tsa ha tsayilh sula- Trapping Beaver
The instrumental role of beaver (Castor canadensis) to Tl'azt'en culture and
TEKMS is demonstrated by its use as a representative animal of one of Tl'azt'en
Nation's four clans - the Beaver Clan (Lhts'umusyoo). Tl'azt'enne trap beaver (Castor
canadensis) for food, fur, and medicinal purposes (Hudson 1983). Tl'azt'enne use, but
are not restricted to, their keyohs for trapping and other resource uses. Though keyohs are
legally recognized in Canada as traplines, the meaning of the Dakelh word 'keyoh' does
not translate directly to the definition of a 'trapline.' Where traplines are legally defined
territories owned by individual family members, keyohs are traditional family territories
that are passed on paternally from generation to generation. Tl'azt'en land use methods
and principles are integral to the use and functioning of keyohs.

68

3.5.4 Duje Hoonayin- Picking Huckleberries
Huckleberries (Vaccinium membranaceum) "are the most picked" berry by
Tl'azt'enne. One Tl'azt'en project team member stated, "you can dry it, you can freeze
it, you can can it for jam," demonstrating the wide range of methods commonly used to
preserve huckleberries. Huckleberries are an important source of nutrients for
Tl'azt'enne who preserve the berry for use throughout the winter. This traditional use
activity is an important part of the Tl'azt'enne diet and seasonal way of life.
3.5.5

Yoo ba ningwus hunult'o- Gathering Soapberries for Medicinal Use
Soapberries (Shepherdia canadensis) are an important medicinal plant for

Tl'azt'enne. In addition, soapberries are commonly picked and eaten fresh or as 'Indian
ice-cream.' This traditional use activity is intimately linked to Tl'azt'en Nation's culture,
beliefs, and TEKMS. Recognized experts within the community play an important role
in gathering and preparing soapberries for medicinal use. The knowledge that these
experts hold is sacred and is only passed on to those who are chosen. One Tl'azt'en
Elder and project team member, Pierre John, reflects, "anybody who uses traditional
medicine has got to pray about it before they use it.. .if you don't believe in it, it's just
like drinking water. It won't do nothing for you."
3.6

Methods
The Tl'azt'en Nation environmental measures development framework is

comprised of three phases (Figure 2.1). Each phase contributed to the iterative,
participatory process of generating, developing, and verifying Tl'azt'en environmental
measures. The participatory processes involved in each phase worked to identify and

69

incorporate the holistic environmental values and goals of Tl'azt'en Nation in the
development of measures. We recognize that every community and co-management
partnership is unique; therefore, other partnerships should adapt our methodological
framework to best suit their needs.
3.6.1

Phase 1: Personal Transformative Process
This phase encompassed the personal and professional initiatives that the lead

researcher undertook in preparation for conducting this research (Quinn 2007). During
this phase, the lead researcher initiated a dialogue and cultivated a rapport with the
community through repeated visits and participation in community events and activities.
Through this personal transformative process, the lead researcher adjusted her cultural
lens and became critically conscious of, familiar with, and situated in the Tl'azt'en
Nation community (Kidd and Krai 2005; Savin-Baden and Wimpenny 2007). This phase
initiated the development of a meaningful, trusting relationship with the community
before research events began.
3.6.2 Phase 2: Tl'azt'enne Environmental Measures Generation
Tl'azt'en environmental measures were generated for each of the five focal
traditional use activities and their representative species during the second phase of the
research. Measures were generated through a series of linked and progressive research
events (Figure 2.1). All research events were pre-tested with Tl'azt'en Nation
community researchers and research assistants. At each pre-testing session, the lead
researcher presented the event's agenda, objectives, methods, activities, and written
materials for review and modification. Following most research events, team members

70

and Tl'azt'en community researchers and assistants completed in-progress
methodological evaluations (Figure 2.1). These results were used to iteratively adapt the
Tl'azt'en Nation environmental measures development framework throughout the course
of the project. We recorded, audio and/or video each research event for the purposes of
transcription, analysis, and the development of community products.
The first research event, the information session, was open to the Tl'azt'en Nation
community. The purpose of this event was to introduce the project and the research team
to the community (Figure 2.1). This event was announced to the community through
invitation packages (Appendix C) and an information brochure (Figure 5.6). Following
an introduction of project members, an overview of the project, and a question and
answer period, lunch and refreshments were served. At the information session, we
described the formulation of the project's two community participant teams: the Forest
Team (FT) and the Elders Team (ET).
The ET was comprised only of Tl'azt'enne Elders. An Elder holds traditional
knowledge, wisdom, and experience and is willing to share and teach others (Cajete
2000). The deeply respected designation of Elder is denoted by the community and is
usually associated with an individual's age. The FT included any person who fulfilled
four participant criteria. First, participants had to be a member of the Tl'azt'en Nation
community. Second, participants had to be recognized by their peers as knowledgeable,
through teaching and/or practice, in one or more of the focal traditional use activities.
Third, participants had to be a recognized authority. This was defined as an individual
who was recognized as an expert by a minimum of two other Tl'azt'en Nation
community members. Lastly, participants had to be representative of the experts in the

71

Tl'azt'en community that used and were knowledgeable of the respective traditional use
activity. For an individual to be a representative hunter or trapper they needed to be a
keyoh holder.
Team members were nominated to participate through non-probabilistic purposive
sampling or were identified using the snowball technique (Palys 1997; Cote-Arsenault
and Morrison-Beedy 1999; Sherry and Myers 2002; Kirby et al. 2006). A total of 19
team members participated in this project, 12 FT members and 10 ET members; three
Elders participated as members of both teams. Participatory methods and the
involvement of each team varied among research events (Yim et al. 2009). Team
members were given honoraria and gifts in appreciation of their participation. The
accomplishments and contributions of team members were also recognized through
community newsletters, presentations, and community-focused research products (Figure
2.1).
The first FT focus group (FTFG1) had three main objectives. The first objective
was to select a representative plant or animal species for each of the five focal traditional
use activities. These species were selected by the FT through group discussions. The
second objective was for FT members to self identify their areas of expertise relative to
the focal traditional use activities. Each FT member focused measure development on
their area(s) of expertise. The third objective was to train FT members in the Photovoice
method. Photovoice is a participatory research method that we adapted to directly engage
FT members in the process of generating environmental measures (Wang et al. 1996).
Using digital cameras that we supplied as a component of their honorarium, participants
took photographs that illustrated their knowledge, experiences, and concerns about the

72

environmental health of representative plant and animal species. Forest team members
had seven weeks (August - September), to take photographs of the signs and signals of
environmental health for each of the representative species and their environments.
Team members then shared the meaning and importance of their selected photographs at
the second FT focus group.
The ET workshop was a two-day research event at a small, remote research
station managed by and located on the JPRF (Figure 2.1). The workshop was comprised
of a series of six, one-hour group interviews. An open-ended, semi-structured, group
interview format was used to facilitate discussions which focused on each traditional use
activity and the importance of CBEM. The ET workshop had four main objectives.
First, we wanted to develop a deeper understanding of Tl'azt'en Nation's culture, beliefs,
and values related to each of the focal traditional use activities and their representative
species. Second, we explored reference values, such as benchmarks, norms, and
standards, for each representative species. Third, we discussed if and how Elders have
observed environmental changes related to each of the representative species. And lastly,
we documented the CBEM goals that Tl'azt'en Elders would like to achieve.
Forest team members presented their selected photos at the second FT focus
group (FTFG2) (Figure 2.1). Each FT member selected a minimum of three photos that
they felt best communicated the signs and signals related to the environmental health or
condition of a representative species. Forest team members discussed the subject of the
photo, the importance of the photo and the specific signs and/or signals that illustrated the
environmental condition of the featured plant, animal, or environment in the photo. Due
to scheduling difficulties, only five of the 12 FT members were able to attend FTFG2.

73

One-on-one interviews, using the same open-ended semi-structured interview format,
were conducted with the remaining seven FT members at a later date. An additional FT
member who attended FTFG2 also had a one-on-one interview, as they had not been able
to capture their desired images by FTFG2.
Together, the ET workshop and FTFG2 provided the necessary information to
generate Tl'azt'en environmental measures. At the end of the second phase of the
measures development framework, we held the Community Product Development
Workshop (Figure 2.1). This research event provided an opportunity for the ET and FT
to work collaboratively to develop the project's community products- a book and a digital
video disc (DVD).
3.6.3 Phase 3: Tl'azt'enne Environmental Measures Identification and
Verification
The third phase of the project focused on the identification and verification of
Tl'azt'en environmental measures. We adapted an existing content analysis procedure
(Sherry and Fondahl 2004; Sherry et al. 2004) to code FT and ET transcripts for
environmental measure development. Measure-related statements were coded by
traditional use activity or environmental theme. Codes were the unit of analysis used to
inform the development of Tl'azt'en Nation environmental measures. From each code,
one or more environmental measures were developed. The lead researcher conducted the
initial coding of all transcripts. To ensure rigor, quality, and validity in our data analysis,
the research team members, including our Tl'azt'en Nation community researchers,
conducted inter-rater reliability testing (Kolbe and Burnett 1991; Lombard et al. 2002;
Marques and McCall 2005). Transcripts were randomly selected for inter-rater reliability

74

testing by type (e.g., focus group, ET workshop, one-on-one interview). We used a
percent agreement index [(number of agreements) * (number of agreements + number of
disagreements)] to measure inter-rater reliability (Lombard et al. 2002). A 90%
coefficient of reliability was our minimum acceptable level of power (Palys 1997). All
transcripts with an initial coefficient below 90% were re-coded through a group content
analysis procedure until consensus was achieved. The number of analysts participating in
each content analysis session varied between three and six.
Following coding and testing, qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
measures were formulated. These measures were developed in consideration of preexisting criteria for effective Tl'azt'en measures (Quinn 2007). Resultant measures were
then presented to team members at FTFG3 for verification. This member checking
process contributed to the transactional validity of our results (Creswell 1998; Cho and
Trent 2006).
At the last research event, FT, ET, and research team members celebrated the
project's accomplishments and the team member's contributions (Figure 2.1). Each
participant was presented with our community products, a book (Tl'azt'en Nation and
Yim 2008b) and a DVD (Tl'azt'en Nation and Yim 2008a), in appreciation of their
involvement and commitment to the project. Also, FT and ET members evaluated
examples of Tl'azt'en environmental measures, presented in an applied CBEM prototype.
Feedback from team members focused on the effectiveness of the applied CBEM
prototype. Lastly, FT and ET members completed a comprehensive final project
evaluation (FPE).

75

3.7

Results
Environmental measures were developed from the codes identified during the

content analysis and grouped by traditional use activity or by environmental monitoring
theme. To ensure a functional connection with the Tl'azt'en C&I framework, resultant
measures are presented below with their corresponding CLV. Within each CLV,
thematic topics were identified. A thematic topic represents a related collection of
measures that focus on one characteristic, use, or threat for a plant or animal species.
Below, we define these CLV in the context of each of the five traditional use activities
and provide a qualitative comparison of measure frequencies. We also provide a
description of the ecological differences and management considerations of sets of
measures as they vary within traditional use activities and among representative species.
We identified a large number of measures; thus, for brevity, we present only single
examples relative to each CLV thematic topics.
3.7.1 Inter-Rater Reliability Testing
Of the project's 15 transcripts, we used one to pilot the group content analysis
procedure and we evaluated 10 with inter-rater reliability testing. The four remaining
transcripts were tested by a subset of our group analysts due to time and budget
constraints. All 10 tested transcripts received an initial percent agreement coefficient
lower than our 90% acceptable level of power (Appendix B). Our initial percent
agreement coefficient average was 50% (SD=22.44, range=73.26). Analysts represented
different educational and cultural backgrounds, which contributed as initial sources of
non-agreement. A group content analysis procedure was then used to discuss and recode
these 10 transcripts until consensus was achieved.

76

3.7.2 Tl'azt'en Environmental Measures
Using our environmental measures development framework, we identified and
verified a total of 252 Tl'azt'enne measures. This included 39 measures for fishing
salmon, 69 measures for hunting moose, 31 measures for trapping beaver, 33 measures
for picking huckleberries, and 26 measures for gathering soapberries. All resultant
measures were organized by thematic topic within their respective CLV in the Tl'azt'en
C&I framework. Three common CLV were identified amongst each of the traditional use
activities; these were: habitat, abundance, and the health and quality of focal species for
consumption or use. We identified two additional themes of environmental measures
through our inductive content analysis: monitoring environmental change across
Tl'azt'en Nation traditional territory and monitoring adherence to Tl'azt'en traditional
environmental land use methods and principles, resulting in an additional 36 and 18
measures, respectively. As a result of budget and time constraints, measures for these
latter two monitoring themes were not verified by FT and ET members. Out of respect
for project participants and their TEKMS, we do not present examples of those unverified
measures.
3.7.2.1 Tl'azt'en Habitat-Related Environmental Measures
We developed 64 habitat-related environmental measures across the five focal
traditional use activities. These measures are related to monitoring the condition or
health of the habitats of the representative plant and animal species. The largest number
of habitat-related measures were developed for beaver (n=18), followed closely by moose
(n=17), salmon (n=l 1), huckleberries (n=l 1), and soapberries (n=7). Thematic topics for
habitat-related measures differed amongst the five activities. For example, water

77

temperature, water levels, water quality, and spawning areas were prevalent topics when
considering measures of salmon habitat (Table 3.1). Alternatively, habitat loss, human
displacement, lodges, and abundance of habitat characterized the habitat-related measures
for beaver (Table 3.1). The topics of herbicide/pesticide and food sources were identified
for beaver and moose habitat measures (Table 3.1). Relative to plant-based traditional
use activities, thematic topics differentiating measures of huckleberry habitat included:
herbicide/pesticide, habitat condition, burns, logging, shade, soil, and mountain pine
beetle; whereas, topics for soapberry included herbicide/pesticide, habitat availability for
medicinal use, and habitat condition (Table 3.1).
3.7.2.2 Tl'azt'enne Abundance-Related Environmental Measures
We identified 54 measures related to the abundance of the representative plant
and animal species. We defined abundance as the quantity of plants, animals, or parts
thereof, that Tl'azt'enne use for subsistence, health, spiritual, and/or cultural purposes.
Specifically, these measures refer to the whole animal for salmon (n=12), moose (n=18),
and beaver (n=10), and to the plant's fruit or berries for huckleberries (n=9) and
soapberries (n=5). Some commonalities were observed between the thematic topics for
salmon and moose, including numerical abundance, subsistence harvest, and sex ratio
(Table 3.2).
3.7.2.3 Tl'azt'enne Health and Quality Related Environmental Measures
We identified 75 measures that could be used by Tl'azt'enne to monitor the health
and quality of plants and animals for human consumption and/or use. We developed the
greatest number of measures for moose (n=34), characterized by the following thematic

78

topics: color of fur, pus on body, behavior, body size, ticks, lumps/boils under skin and in
meat, color of meat, scent of hunted game, overall body fat and in specific body
locations, and health of internal organs (Table 3.3). Health and quality related measures
were highly specific to each representative species. For example, topics for salmon
measures (n=16) included the color and firmness of flesh, color of skin, body size, fat
content, taste, and texture, whereas body fat and the color of fur were thematic topics for
beaver (n=6) (Table 3.3). Measures also varied between the two plant species assessed
by the Tl'azt'en team members. While thematic topics for huckleberry (n=12) included
berry size, berry color, and berry taste, topics for soapberry (n=7) included appearances
of leaves and branches (Table 3.3).
3.7.2.4 Measures for Monitoring Environmental Change Across Tl'azt'en Nation
Traditional Territory
We identified a group of measures that were not directly related to a
representative species, but captured broad environmental changes across Tl'azt'en Nation
traditional territory. These 36 measures were related to seven critical local values;
thematic topics of measures included human disturbance (e.g., logging), natural
disturbance (e.g., insect outbreaks), applications of herbicides and pesticides,
environmental contaminants originating from a closed mercury mine, road development,
unusual weather, and water quality. Most of these measures were related to
environmental change resulting from anthropogenic causes.

79

80

Table 3.1- Summary of Tl'azt'en environmental measures that correspond to each traditional use activity's habitat related
critical local values (CLV) and subsequent thematic topics. One Tl'azt'en measure was selected as an example for each topic.
Tl'azt'en environmental measures are written, where possible, with the words used by FT and ET members.
CLV
Tl'azt'en Environmental Measure
Thematic Topic
Maintain viable
Description of body condition of salmon caught from Stuart Lake, by run
Water temperature
salmon habitat in Water levels
Description of physical injuries observed on salmon caught in Stuart Lake due to water levels, by
Stuart Lake
run
Absence of pesticide contaminants in Stuart Lake (ppm) water
Water quality
Description and number of salmon at spawning habitats
Spawning habitat
Maintain viable
Habitat availability
Description of whether swamp/riparian habitats are increasing/decreasing
moose (ungulate) Habitat use
Number of clearings used to hunt moose
habitat
Herbicide/pesticide
Description of any moose habitat that is thought to be affected by pesticide spraying
Mountain pine beetle Description of how bug kill wood (insect killed forest) has/has not affected moose behavior
Food sources
Description of the willow habitat where moose are hunted
Maintain viable
Habitat loss
Description of changes in beaver habitat (increasing/decreasing/not changing)
beaver (furHuman displacement Proportion of beaver damns observed to be lost to natural and man-made factors
bearer) habitat
Number of beaver lodges encountered that were not inhabited by beaver
Lodges
Abundance of habitat Description of beaver food source- poplar abundance and availability
Description of any signs of herbicide contamination in beaver habitat
Herbicide/pesticide
Food sources
Description of the abundance and availability of food for beaver
Maintain viable
Herbicide/pesticide
Description of any signs of herbicide contamination in huckleberry picking habitats
huckleberry
Habitat condition
Description of habitats used for picking huckleberry
habitat
Burns
Number and description of habitats used for picking huckleberry, that were burned in the past
Logging
Number and description of habitats used for picking huckleberry, that were logged in the past
Shade
Description and proportion of huckleberries picked in areas of shade
Soil
Description of soil moisture in huckleberry picking areas
Mountain pine beetle Description of how bug kill wood (insect killed forest) has affected huckleberries and habitat
Maintain
Herbicide/pesticide
Description of herbicide contamination in soapberry picking habitats
soapberry habitat Habitat for medicinal Number and description of soapberry picking locations appropriate for medicinal use
use
Habitat condition
Description of soapberry picking locations in the mountains

Maintain viable
soapberry abundance

Maintain viable beaver
(fur-bearer) population
Maintain viable
huckleberry
abundance

Maintain viable moose
(ungulate) population

Maintain viable
salmon abundance in
Stuart Lake

CLV

Moose
abundance
Subsistence
harvest
Age structure
Sex ratio
Beaver
abundance
Abundance
Shade
Huckleberry
cycle
Seasonality
Soapberry berry
abundance

Spawner
abundance
Fecundity

Thematic
Topic
Salmon
abundance
Subsistence
harvest
Supplemented
salmon
Sex ratio

81

Description of seasonality of huckleberry picking season
Description of soapberry abundance on Tl'azt'en Nation traditional territory per picking season

Description of the number of calves and type of calves (single, twin, triplet) observed on the land
Number of sexually mature male moose hunted over a particular time span
Description of beaver abundance observed (through tracks, sign, observations) in a particular area
(i.e. keyoh), over a particular time span
Description of general abundance of huckleberries per season
Number of pounds of huckleberries picked per season in shaded areas per picking period
Description of huckleberry cycle stage on Tl'azt'en Nation traditional territory

Satisfaction of amount of moose available for consumption per household/family per year

Number of gravid (with eggs) female salmon caught in Stuart Lake per catch: with a particular net,
over a particular time span, in a specific location, by run
Number of moose seen in a particular area (i.e. keyoh), over a particular time span

Number of female salmon caught in Stuart Lake per catch: with a particular net, over a particular
time span, in a specific location, by run
Number of salmon returning to spawning areas in Stuart Lake

Number of salmon received per salmon season to supplement salmon catches from Stuart Lake

Number of salmon caught in Stuart Lake per catch at a family fishing area: with a particular net,
over a particular time span, at a family fishing area, by run
Number of salmon being consumed per household/family per week

Tl'azt'en Environmental Measure

Table 3.2- Summary of Tl'azt'en environmental measures that correspond to each traditional use activity's abundance related
critical local values (CLV) and subsequent thematic topics. One Tl'azt'en measure was selected as an example for each topic.
Tl'azt'en environmental measures are written, where possible, with the words used by FT and ET members.

82

Table 3.3- Summary of Tl'azt'en environmental measures that correspond to each traditional use activity's health and quality
related critical local values (CLV) and subsequent thematic topics. One Tl'azt'en measure was selected as an example for each
topic. Tl'azt'en environmental measures are written, where possible, with the words used by FT and ET members.
Tl'azt'en Environmental Measure
CLV
Thematic Topic
Description of the degree of redness observed in salmon flesh caught from Stuart Lake, by run
Maintain health
Color of flesh
& quality of
Description of the firmness of salmon flesh of salmon caught from Stuart Lake, by run
Firmness of flesh
salmon in Stuart Color of skin
Number of salmon caught from Stuart Lake (by run), that exhibit a skin color considered healthy
Lake
Length of male salmon caught from Stuart Lake, by run
Body size
Description of the degree of richness (fat) of salmon caught from Stuart Lake, by run
Fat
Taste & texture
Description of the taste and texture of salmon consumed from Stuart Lake, by run
Fur
Description of the color of fur of male moose hunted and specific date of hunt
Maintain health
& quality of
Number of moose hunted per season with pus on body
Pus
moose (ungulate) Behavior
Description of moose behavior prior to hunting
population
Description of body size of moose hunted
Body size
Ticks
Proportion of moose observed to not be negatively affected by ticks
Number of lumps/boils under skin of hunted moose
Lumps/boils
Color of meat
Description of moose meat color during butchering of hunted moose
Description of smell emitted from moose during butchering process
Scent of game
Fat
Description of the fat around the organs (kidneys) of male moose hunted and specific date of hunt
Health of organs
Absence of spots on lungs of hunted moose, and specific date of hunt
Maintain health
Fat
Description of the degree of fatness of beavers trapped, in a specific place, over a specific time span
& quality of
Fur
Description of the quality of fur of beaver trapped, in a specific place, over a specific time span
beaver (furbearer)
population
Maintain
Berry Size
Number of huckleberries picked considered to be large, per picking period
huckleberry
Berry Color
Description of huckleberry color
health & quality Berry Taste
Proportion of huckleberries picked considered to have optimal taste for consumption
Maintain
Leaves
Description of soapberry leaf health for medicinal use
soapberry health Branches
Description of soapberry bush branches for medicinal use
& quality

3.7.2.5 Measures for Monitoring Adherence to Tl'azt'en Traditional Environmental
Land Use Methods and Principles
In FT and ET transcripts, participants explicitly recognized the linkages between
environmental health and the community's adherence to traditional land management
practices and principles. Using this information, we identified 18 resultant measures that
coincided with two CLV. The CLV 'incorporate and apply traditional land management
practices' represented 12 measures that included thematic topics of fire, wasting hunted
animals, fishing for sport, selective hunting and trapping, rest and rotation of harvest
areas based on animal population health, and hunting practices. We identified six
measures for the CLV of 'incorporate and apply traditional beliefs.' These measures
were grouped according to two topics: respect for all life and land, and reciprocity.
3.8

Discussion
Sustainability is the desire to preserve a particular environment in a state that can

meet present and future needs (Wright et al. 2002). Due to differences in cultural beliefs,
knowledge systems, and worldviews, cross-cultural co-management partners may not
share a similar interpretation of this concept. This disparity may challenge cooperative
relationships, as different understandings of 'sustainability' will inevitably influence
management decisions and actions (Treseder and Krogman 2008). Wright et al. (2002: i)
states, "the things we decide to sustain have value only because we do value them";
therefore, if co-management partners can use Aboriginal environmental measures as a
tool to further their understanding of Aboriginal environmental values, then more
culturally appropriate and effective resource management may develop. Aboriginal

83

environmental measures connect communities with co-management by translating local
Aboriginal values into the language of natural resource management.
3.8.1 Formulating Aboriginal Environmental Measures
Our low, initial inter-rater reliability testing scores demonstrate the necessity of
involving community researchers, research assistants, and participants in the data analysis
process. Differing understandings of data can arise from the cultural background,
worldview, and reality of research team members (Smith 2006). Cho and Trent (2006)
explain how the transactional process of member checking can identify misinterpretations
in the analysis and allow discussion and adjustment. This process builds capacity,
promotes mutual learning and contributes to ensuring that results are accurate and valid.
Previously published criteria for 'effective Tl'azt'en measures' (Quinn 2007: 97)
guided the development of our environmental measures. Although these 10 criteria were
originally developed for socio-cultural monitoring, they were adapted to suit an
environmental context as follows. According to the first criterion, we employed an
empowerment methodology to develop and define measures. For example, each stage of
the research process required collaboration amongst members of the research and
participant teams (Figure 2.1). Our resultant environmental measures also embodied an
empowerment methodology, as each measure respected and furthered the cultural values,
practices, and principles of Tl'azt'en Nation TEKMS. Second, informed by Tl'azt'en
experts, we identified a mixture of subjective (e.g., description of seasonality of
huckleberry picking season) and objective (e.g., number of female salmon caught in
Stuart Lake per catch) environmental measures. The third criterion required that
measures assess management efforts as well as community conditions. Developed within

84

the local-level Tl'azt'en C&I framework (Figure 1.3), the environmental measures were
intended to inform the co-management efforts of the JPRF. As these environmental
measures are based on the Tl'azt'en TEKMS, resultant data will provide a culturally
relevant perspective for Tl'azt'en Nation to assess their co-management partnership and
community conditions. Fourth, we developed measures that were premised on
qualitative, quantitative, and mixed assessment methods. The fifth criterion speaks to the
wording of measures, suggesting positive rather than negative language. Our verified
measures assessed positive environmental outcomes, if possible. Sixth, the development
and wording of measures should build capacity within a community. We met this
criterion whenever possible by using the actual words of team members when writing
environmental measures. This was done in order to maintain the original meaning and to
promote community understanding and accessibility. The final criteria, including
validity, trustworthiness, practicality, and the sensitivity of measures to change, were
confirmed through our analysis process, which included measure verification by team
members.
Additional criteria will be considered when the effectiveness of the Tl'azt'en
environmental measures is re-evaluated after field testing. For example, Parlee and
Lutsel K'e First Nation (1997) suggest assessing indicators and measures according to the
ease of use; the scale of monitoring results; the cost of the measurement activity; the
number of measures required to accurately monitor environmental change; and, whether
the measure will allow the community to anticipate change. Although these criteria are
important, community acceptance and trust are paramount. If measures are perceived as

85

ineffective and inappropriate at a local level, then the sustainability of the monitoring
system is at risk (Parlee and Lutsel K'e First Nation 1997).
The development of Aboriginal environmental measures should coincide with the
seasonality during which each traditional use activity occurs to capture relevant cultural
practices and environmental conditions. Parlee and Lutsel K'e First Nation (1997) found
that timing is an important consideration influencing monitoring processes. In our study,
all five traditional use activities were informed by photos taken during a seven-week
period over August and September. This included the salmon and huckleberry seasons,
but was not ideal for other activities such as hunting moose and trapping beaver which
generally occur later in the year. This is a weakness of the study. Future testing and
development of measures should coincide with the season of each focal traditional use
activity.
The proposed 252 Tl'azt'en environmental measures provide a foundation for
prioritizing and field testing a smaller subset of measures to be incorporated within a
long-term Tl'azt'en CBEM initiative. Like Parlee and Lutsel K'e First Nation (1997),
not all of the generated measures will be applied or monitored. Field testing will provide
a better understanding of which measures are premised on techniques that are acceptable
to the community and provide the most useful information for monitoring.
Current Aboriginal community-based monitoring programs can provide some
guidance for testing and implementing measures identified in this study. In the Nihat'niWatching the Land community-based monitoring program, workshops are held with
community participants to interpret monitoring results (Lutsel K'e Dene First NationWildlife, Lands and Environment Department 2005). Information is discussed and

86

important indicators are classified as no change, natural change, potential unnatural
change, or definite unnatural change (Lutsel K'e Dene First Nation- Wildlife, Lands and
Environment Department 2005). The Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-op
uses CBEM to monitor the effects of climate change on communities, amongst other
applications (Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Society 2008). The Little Red
River Cree Nation uses their CBEM results to assess forest management practices and to
adapt their measures to accommodate dynamic ecosystem and community processes
(Natcher and Hickey 2002).
Aboriginal environmental measures may play an important role in identifying and
managing culturally defined keystone species. These are "plant and animal species
whose existence and symbolic value are essential to the stability of a cultural group over
time" (Cristancho and Vining 2004: 155). The CBEM of species representing traditional
use activities may provide a direct link between culturally defined keystone species and
resource management practices. Tl'azt'en Nation has not confirmed that the plants and
animals used in this study are culturally defined keystone species; however, some species
have been confirmed by other First Nations. As examples, the Gitga'at Nation has
identified five species of salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and the Shuswap Nation has
identified soapberries (Shepherdia canadensis) as culturally defined keystone species for
their respective Nations (Garibaldi and Turner 2004).
3.8.2 Habitat-Related Aboriginal Environmental Measures
Other Aboriginal CBEM initiatives have identified habitat-related environmental
measures and indicators as important (Fox 2002; Natcher and Hickey 2002; Lutsel K'e
Dene First Nation- Wildlife, Lands and Environment Department 2005). These measures

87

allow communities to observe and monitor specific environmental conditions that are
essential for supporting the distribution and abundance of important plant and animal
species. For example, observations of salmon body condition will allow Tl'azt'enne to
indirectly monitor water temperature in Stuart Lake. Habitat-related measures also
provide environmental information about specific site characteristics needed for
maintaining traditional use activities, such as gathering medicinal plants. The topic of
'habitat availability for medicinal use' (Table 3.1) included measures that monitor
culturally appropriate habitat for soapberry gathering. Managing for the habitats of
medicinal plants is a concern shared by traditional ecological knowledge experts from
other First Nations, including the Little Red River Cree Nation (Schramm et al. 2008).
3.8.3 Abundance-Related Aboriginal Environmental Measures
A relatively large number of abundance-related environmental measures were
developed for each traditional use activity. This CLV is prevalent across Aboriginal
CBEM initiatives (Fox 2002; Natcher and Hickey 2002; Lutsel K'e Dene First NationWildlife, Lands and Environment Department 2005). Aboriginal people use measures of
abundance to track variability in population numbers or density and to help maintain the
plant and animal populations necessary for sustenance and cultural purposes (Parlee et al.
2005b; Parlee et al. 2006). For example, the James Bay Cree and the Saanich First
Nation, use environmental signals and feedback to maintain viable fish populations,
important dietary staples for both communities (Berkes 1999a; Paul 2006). In a one-year
bush harvest study with the Cree speaking Metis of Pinehouse Alberta, 55% of the
community's diet was observed to depend on fish, and 14% on moose (Tobias and Kay
1994). This study demonstrates the substantial role that these two animals play in many

88

Aboriginal communities and illustrates the need to accurately monitor abundance in the
context of management plans (Berkes 1990). The topic subsistence harvest, identified for
both salmon and moose, represents the significant contribution of these two animals to
the diet of Tl'azt'enne (Table 3.2). Practices such as supplementing salmon with sources
from outside of the community (Table 3.2) and sharing moose meat amongst families
were strategies identified by FT and ET members for coping with low abundance.
3.8.4 Health and Quality-Related Aboriginal Environmental Measures
The health and quality of animal and plants for human consumption and/or use is
an important CLV consistent with the values of other Aboriginal communities (Fox 2002;
Natcher and Hickey 2002; Lutsel K'e Dene First Nation- Wildlife, Lands and
Environment Department 2005). This group of measures provides valuable guidance on
when a plant or animal should be consumed. For animal-based traditional use activities,
participants reported that body fat was an important attribute to measure (Table 3.3).
Other Aboriginal people have used fat content as a measure of animal health (Kofinas
1998; Berkes and Folke 2002; Kofinas et al. 2002b; Lyver and Lutsel K'e First Nation
2005; Gordon et al. 2007). Huckleberry measures of health and quality were related to
berry size, color, and taste (Table 3.3). For example, Tl'azt'enne use huckleberry color
to indicate different stages of ripening and to monitor huckleberry seasonality; "the red
[huckleberries] are the first.. .before they turn.. .purple." In addition to informing
huckleberry quality and health, these environmental observations may be used with other
CBEM results to generate a better understanding of cumulative, large-scale processes
(Cohen 1997).

89

3.8.5 Aboriginal Environmental Measures Related to Monitoring Environmental
Change
Unpredictable environmental change can cause emotional, cultural, and spiritual
stress for Indigenous communities (Fox 2002). This group of measures recognizes the
importance of anticipating broad changes in environmental quality and services. In
particular, these measures represent the observed effects of anthropogenic activities and
natural disturbance: logging, application of herbicides and pesticides, trees killed by
pathogens, contamination from a closed mercury mine, road development, weather, and
water quality. Other Indigenous communities have identified synonymous topics related
to environmental change (Fox 2002; Furgal et al. 2002; Kofinas et al. 2002a). Learning
how to identify environmental change through the use of Aboriginal measures can inform
an understanding of ecosystem processes and adaptive responses.
3.8.6 Aboriginal Environmental Measures Related to Monitoring Traditional
Environmental Practices and Principles
The environmental health of Tl'azt'en Nation's traditional territory is intimately
linked to the well-being of their culture and community, as their value system is central to
their traditional approach to resource management (Turner et al. 2000). In TEKMS,
people are considered as part of, not separate from, the environment (Manseau et al.
2005). Aboriginal people do not 'manage' natural resources with their TEKMS, as is
done with SBRM; rather, they use their TEKMS to direct how they interact and relate to
the natural environment and its resources (Sherry and Myers 2002; Stevenson and Webb
2003; Stevenson 2005). This group of integrated measures capture this holistic
relationship (Parlee and Lutsel K'e First Nation 1997).

90

The two main topics identified by Tl'azt'enne as important for monitoring were
respect for all life and land, and reciprocity. These were also identified as significant
principles embedded in other First Nations' TEKMS (Turner et al. 2000; Sherry and
Myers 2002; Lewis and Sheppard 2005). The incorporation of cultural values in
management is required to achieve environmental sustainability, as our values govern our
actions (Knudtson and Suzuki 2006; Adam and Kneeshaw 2008). Thus, monitoring
adherence to traditional management principles and practices will allow Tl'azt'en Nation
to continue managing natural resources through culturally relevant means (Lewis and
Sheppard 2005).
3.9

Conclusion
Though Aboriginal environmental measures offer many potential benefits for

improving co-management, there are a number of important considerations. Practitioners
of CBEM must ensure that Aboriginal environmental measures are representative,
accurate, and appropriately communicated to maintain the inherent truth of the
knowledge they present (Ferguson and Messier 1997; Stevenson 2005). Relative to
application, Kofinas (2002a) discusses the challenges involved with sharing the results of
Aboriginal environmental measures amongst CBEM programs. Networked programs can
lead to the co-production of knowledge with beneficial outcomes including monitoring
results that span larger geographic areas revealing broad-scale processes such as climate
change.
Identifying commonalities between SBRM and TEKMS is a positive feature of
CBEM; however, differences must be respected. Each knowledge system is equally valid
for managing the health of the natural environment (Zamparo 1996; Durie 2004a, b;

91

Hawley et al. 2004; Knudtson and Suzuki 2006). The Aboriginal environmental
measures identified in our study do not necessarily differ from SBRM in what they seek
to monitor, but differ in how they are implemented and interpreted. Tl'azt'en
environmental measures require Tl'azt'enne with lived experience, worldview, and
knowledge of the Tl'azt'en Nation TEKMS. By applying Aboriginal environmental
measures through CBEM, communities and community values become intrinsically
linked to management processes. As CBEM results are continually used to evaluate,
adjust, and direct co-management goals, an adaptive co-management partnership evolves
(Berkes 2009). Through CBEM, Aboriginal environmental measures provide the
necessary connection between communities and co-management resulting in culturally
and ecologically sustainable resource management.

92

CHAPTER 4: THE APPLICATION OF TL'AZT'EN NATION
ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES: COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL
MONITORING PROTOTYPES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1

Introduction
In this chapter, applied CBEM prototypes for each of the focal traditional use

activities are presented; these were developed from a subset of the 252 Tl'azt'en
environmental measures. The development of these applied CBEM protocols is
significant to the future implementation of Tl'azt'en environmental measures, as over
80% of C&I projects never achieve the stage of implementing their developed measures
(P. Wright, personal communication, March 29, 2009). Also, these prototypes provided a
preliminary opportunity for team member feedback and evaluation. Future development
of comprehensive Tl'azt'en CBEM protocols can use these results to improve design and
application. The next steps, recommendations, and challenges and opportunities for the
implementation of Tl'azt'en CBEM are also discussed.
4.2

Methods

4.2.1 Applied Community-Based Environmental Monitoring Prototypes
We selected the most frequently identified codes to develop an applied CBEM
prototype for each representative plant and animal species (Table 4.1). Applied CBEM
prototypes and corresponding mocked examples were developed for monitoring: the fat
of moose (Figure 4.1), the abundance of salmon caught at particular locations in Stuart
Lake (Figure 4.2), beaver abundance (Figure 4.3), huckleberry abundance (Figure 4.4),
and soapberry abundance (Figure 4.5). The primary researcher developed these
environmental monitoring prototypes in consideration of the measurement methods
identified during the content analysis.

93

Huckleberry
abundance

Soapberry
abundance

Gathering
Soapberries

Salmon
abundance:
amount of
salmon caught
in a particular
area
Health of
moose: fat
Health of
beaver: lodges

Code

Picking
Huckleberries

Trapping
Beaver

Hunting Moose

Traditional
Use Activity
Fishing
Salmon

35

24

12

30

Coding
frequency
65

3

4

5

2

Number of
measures
2

94

Description of the fat on body of male moose hunted, over a specific period of time
Description of the fat on body of female moose hunted, over a specific period of time
Number of beaver seen in a particular area, over a particular amount of time
Description of beaver abundance observed (through tracks, sign, observations, etc.) in
a particular area (i.e. keyoh), over a particular amount of time
Description of whether beaver abundance is increasing/decreasing/not changing from
last year to this year
Number of beaver trapped in a particular area, over a particular amount of time
Number of beaver pups observed in a particular area, in the spring
Description of general abundance of huckleberries per season
Description of huckleberry cycle stage on Tl'azt'en Nation traditional territory
Description of presence/absence of huckleberries on bushes on Tl'azt'en Nation
traditional territory
Description of effort required to pick a specific amount of huckleberries, in a specific
area, at a particular date (seasonality), over a specific amount of time, per picking
period
Percentage and description of soapberry bushes in a particular area that have leaves,
branches, berries, and size in healthy condition
Description of soapberry abundance on Tl'azt'en Nation traditional territory per
picking season
Description of presence/absence of berries on soapberries bushes located on Tl'azt'en
Nation traditional territory per picking season

Number of salmon caught in Stuart Lake per catch: with a particular net, over a
particular time span, in a specific location, by run
Number of salmon caught in Stuart Lake per catch at a family fishing area: with a
particular net, over a particular time span, at a family fishing area, by run

Tl'azt'en Measures

Table 4.1- Applied CBEM prototypes were developed for the Tl'azt'en measures resulting from each traditional use activity's
most frequently identified code

We were unable to apply and present all of our resultant measures, because of budget and
time constraints. Prototypes followed a written format and were intended to be
completed by a Tl'azt'enne CBEM team (including a youth member, FT member, and ET
member). Each prototype incorporated photographs, a map, and a variety of question
types (e.g., short answer, Likert scale, yes/no, fill-in-the-blank) to inform the measures.
Corresponding mocked examples were provided with each applied CBEM prototype to
present a better understanding of how it may be used. Both applied prototypes and
corresponding mocked examples were evaluated by FT and ET members at the projectwrap up celebration.
4.2.2 Evaluating the Applied Community-Based Environmental Monitoring
Prototypes
Four research team members and two CURA graduate students assisted the
primary researcher in leading an evaluation of the applied CBEM prototypes and their
mocked examples. Working with a researcher, groups of FT and ET members evaluated
a prototype for one focal traditional use activity. Team member responses and comments
were recorded by the group's research team member. Each group answered two sets of
evaluation questions. The first set of questions evaluated the overall format of the
applied CBEM prototype. These questions were: what works well, what is
tricky/difficult, and what would you do differently to improve the CBEM prototype? The
second set of questions focused on evaluating the mocked prototype example. Together,
these sets of questions allowed us to assess whether the prototypes would be a culturally
appropriate format for recording monitoring results. First, team members were asked,
"Do you think that this example of the CBEM method is a good tool for gathering

95

important information about the health of plants/animals and changes seen on the land?"
This question was followed by an evaluation of the effort, validity, and trustworthiness of
the mocked prototype. Successively, we asked the following questions: "Do you think
that this example of the CBEM method, would be hard/easy to complete (Effort)?";
"would the CBEM method provide important information (Validity)?"; "would the
CBEM method accurately and appropriately represent the knowledge of community
monitors (Trustworthiness)?" Lastly, each group was asked, "How would you like the
community-based environmental monitoring results provided to the community?" (e.g.,
report, slideshow, book, dinner, story, etc.).
4.3

Results

4.3.1 Results of the Applied Community-Based Environmental Monitoring
Prototype Evaluations
Our evaluation began by asking team members what worked well with the CBEM
prototypes. Team members reported that the map of Tl'azt'en traditional territory, the
incorporation of photos, and the documentation of traditional use activity locations were
three of the features that were effective (Table 4.2). Team members also indicated that
the prototype's overall format was easy to understand and conducive to sharing
information with others (Table 4.2). We also found that the proposed structure of the
monitoring team (made up of a youth member, FT member, and ET member) was well
received, and that the team members felt that it was important to write the names of
monitors on the front page of the prototype.
We then asked team members to identify what was difficult about the CBEM
prototypes.

96

Table 4.2- Summarized group responses from the evaluation of the Tl'azt'en Nation
CBEM prototype's applied format
Questions
Responses
a) What
'documenting locations, as each family has own location for different
worked
traditional use activities,
well?
'incorporation of photos
'being given space to describe setting
•good format to share information with others
•easy to understand
•monitoring team format- with the 3 team members (i.e., ET, FT, and youth) is
important
•having monitoring team names on front page
•map of traditional territory
•think that form is okay, looks good
b) What
•make more check boxes &fill in the blank type questions and less written
was
questions
tricky?
•written answers
•areas that people use for specific traditional use activities may vary from year
to year; thus may be hard to monitor the exact same locations every year
•unit of measurement used to quantify the amount of berries picked and hard to
know weight
•being able to explain normal, natural cycles of abundance
•good to include elders boxes, specifically for information shared by ET
c) What
would you member
•add weather description box
do
differently •use Dakelh names and language where possible
to improve •larger size prototype (book is too small)
the CBEM •include a introductory section describing what CBEM is
prototype? •involve young people, community
Team members indicated that answers requiring lengthy written responses were difficult
and that the prototypes could be improved by using more Likert scale, yes/no, and fill-inthe-blank type questions. Team members also remarked that standardizing quantities,
recording specific monitoring locations, and defining terms such as 'normal' might be
difficult (Table 4.2). Team members were then asked to tell us what they would do
differently to improve the CBEM prototypes. One group suggested that exclusive areas
should be created in the prototype for recording the ET member's knowledge. Other

97

suggestions included using Dakelh names and language as much as possible and
including an area to record weather information (Table 4.2).
When asked, "Do you think that this example of the CBEM method is a good tool
for gathering important information about the health of plants/animals and changes seen
on the land?" all five groups responded yes (Table 4.3). When asked about the ease of
completing the CBEM prototype, and if the prototype would provide important
information all five groups responded positively (Table 4.3). Four of the five groups felt
that the CBEM prototypes would elicit trustworthy results and appropriately represent the
knowledge of the Tl'azt'en CBEM team (Table 4.3). The group evaluating the prototype
for measuring soapberry abundance was unsure if results would be trustworthy, due to the
challenge of standardizing quantities and describing specific berry picking locations
(Table 4.3). In response to the question, "How should CBEM results be presented to the
community?" groups suggested newsletters, meetings, slideshows, collaborative
storybooks, and Elders gatherings (Table 4.3). The results of the prototype evaluation
were summarized and presented to FT and ET members at the primary researcher's
community thesis presentation.
4.4

Discussion

4.4.1 Next Steps for Tl'azt'en Nation Community-Based Environmental
Monitoring
The next step for Tl'azt'en CBEM on the JPRF is the field testing of select
measures. Field testing in combination with the results of the prototype evaluation will
further inform appropriate environmental monitoring protocols. Considering that we
developed and verified 252 measures, a smaller subset will need to be selected from each
traditional use activity and environmental monitoring theme for field testing.
98

Table 4.3- Summarized group responses from the evaluation of the mocked Tl'azt'en Nation CBEM prototypes
Trapping
Picking
Gathering
Fishing Salmon
Hunting
Moose
Beaver
Huckleberries
Soapberries
for Medicinal Use
• yes, especially for the • yes, hard to track
Do you think that this
• yes, good tool
•yes
• yes, good
way to track future to teach student
with logging and
example of the CBEM method for: monitoring
is a good tool for gathering
fish populations,
animals
in preschool
beetle kill, so this
guiding fishing,
is important
important information about
the health of plants/animals
and, for teaching
and changes seen on the land? youth
• relatively easy
• easy to
• it would be very easy • easy to complete
Effort: would this CBEM be
• easy
hard to complete?
• should be
complete
for huckleberries
• people would be
• completing the form
willing to fill it out
anonymous (with
regards to catch
on-site would make it
information)
easy to record
Validity: would this CBEM
• yes, because it
•yes
•yes
• yes, when something
• yes, to know how
provide important
comes from the
is wrong (pesticide) it
much you pick t •
information?
community
will be noted and
don't know if it will
• good data for
shared with community be easy to know
future generation
members
amount
Trustworthiness: would this
• yes, quantitative •yes
• yes, good
• yes, providing that
• not sure about
CBEM accurately and
measures would
way to get
recorded information
quantity and
appropriately represent the
work
base info,
includes details of
location
knowledge of community
• anonymity is
go back for
each picking location,
monitors?
important for
more info if
and who picked
necessary
sensitive info
How should CBEM results be • newsletters
• meetings • slideshow • easy to understand
• get together and
presented to the community?
(written)
report to each house
make a book with
• meetings (oral)
• storybooks
everyone's answers
• Elders gatherings

99

This selection process can be guided by a number of criteria, including time and cost
(Parlee and Lutsel Ke First Nation 1997; Wright et al. 2002). Most importantly,
however, selected measures should fit the particular skills, capacity, and resources of
Tl'azt'en Nation and the monitoring teams. The empowerment evaluation criteria
presented in Chapter 2 should be used to guide the application of candidate measures in a
way that fosters participant satisfaction, independence, personal development, and
relationship building.
Over the long term, results from environmental monitoring should provide
continual feedback to assess and refine Tl'azt'en measures and CBEM protocols. These
results will also provide the necessary information to complete the other levels of the
Tl'azt'en Nation C&I framework, including data elements, benchmarks, and
actions/strategies. This information will contribute to the adaptive approach of Tl'azt'en
Nation's CBEM through continual critical evaluation of the monitoring program, its
results, and co-management implications (Figure 4.6). This will ensure that protocols
and environmental measures provide useful results for maintaining land based activities
and making land management decisions across Tl'azt'en traditional territory. These
results will also provide a foundation to expand Tl'azt'en CBEM to include additional
species and traditional use activities; this future expansion will ultimately provide a more
detailed understanding of the ecosystem and its processes.
4.4.2 Recommendations for Tl'azt'en Nation Community-Based Environmental
Monitoring
Tl'azt'en Nation can draw on the insight and innovation from other Aboriginal
CBEM studies in the development and continual improvement of their CBEM. For

100

example, partnerships, producing and sharing meaningful information, and inclusiveness
are three of the attributes that the West Kitikmeot Slave Study has found to be essential to
their CBEM program (Blondin 2008). Furthermore, Burn (2008) states that a good
monitoring program has a clear purpose, is designed to answer a specific question, has a
regular measurement schedule, and uses measures that are consistent and repeatable.
Examining the recommended actions and improvements of other Aboriginal CBEM
studies and how they have conducted monitoring, interpreted and communicated results
can help to guide the development of Tl'azt'en CBEM on the JPRF. As examples of
guiding frameworks and potentially applicable methods, the Arctic Borderlands
Ecological Knowledge Co-op has designated monitors in each participating community
to conduct interviews with respective experts. They then share and interpret CBEM
results each year at an annual gathering (Tetlichi et al. 2004).

Revise,
modify, and
verify
measures
Developing
indicators and
measures of
environmental
health

t
Tl'azt'en
Nation
Community

Apply
monitoring
method

I

Evaluate results
and adjust
environmental
goals
(if necessary)
Figure 4.6- Schematic diagram of how Tl'azt'en CBEM could work with the
Tl'azt'en Nation community and the JPRF to foster improved adaptive comanagement

101

In the Ni hat'ni - Watching the Land CBEM program, information is collected through
semi-directed, informal interviews with land users and Elders. Interpretation workshops
allow Elders and land-users to analyze and interpret CBEM data (Lutsel K'e Dene First
Nation- Wildlife, Lands and Environment Department 2005). The Ni hat'ni program has
found that these workshops are integral to furthering the community's collective
environmental knowledge. Interpreted CBEM results are also shared with the Chief and
Council, community, and other local agencies (Lutsel K'e Dene First Nation- Wildlife,
Lands and Environment Department 2005).
Results of CBEM can be communicated through a variety of methods. The
Pikangikum First Nation's Whitefeather Forest Initiative has used maps and landscape
models to share findings (O'Flaherty et al. 2008). Parlee and Lutsel K'e First Nation
(1997) state that newsletters, reports, visual presentations and community workshops are
potential formats for sharing CBEM results, but that catering reporting tools to each
community is critical. They also note the importance of involving the appropriate people
when recommending subsequent actions after results have been analyzed. In the
Whitefeather Forest Initiative, a steering group of Pikangikum Elders are involved in
decision-making processes (O'Flaherty et al. 2008).
4.5

Conclusion
The applied CBEM prototypes and corresponding mocked examples represented

select measures from each traditional use activity in a field testable format. Forest and
Elders Team members provided valuable feedback and information that will contribute to
the future development of Tl'azt'en CBEM. Together, these evaluation results and the
insight gained from other Aboriginal CBEM studies serve as the next steps for the

102

Tl'azt'en CBEM. Working in partnership with the JPRF, Tl'azt'en Nation can begin to
implement and test select measures leading to an improved co-management relationship.

103

i •,:

tcnrs ~« r

... AMft

Figure 4.1- Community-based environmental monitoring prototype for hunting moose

DMeafMontlDrtng:.

•

$•!

.IV -her

'eh" ••Vlllitx- i •

Assessment of
Moose Health

Tl 'azt "enne Environmental

•

.----i
'•>•

Lorstlc-i c" Mct':o"lrii --

•

•

MIII.
1 1 !"•'< Ill• • • • i

•[71

~

~

2-4 yr> old

Less then 1 yT

—

zz

Eksl'-moose

4-6 yrs old

Pregnant Cow

zz

Dry Cow

Very healthy,
lot. of 'at

6yrs-or older

zz

Cutting Bu'.rjnco=e

~

(Date)

Please describe the shape/fatness of the moose:

Hot healthy.
Very litt:e fat

a

Calf

zz

Moose was:

Moose is:

Moose is a:

Moose was observed:

Attach picture of observed moose here:
(before butchering)

Fat of moose:

Maintain healthy and quality of moose
(ungulate) population

Moose kidneys were:
Ho* hea.thy.
Stofat

very healthy.
Lots of fat

Vore fat
Than expected

.(Date)

Attach picture of moose kidneys:

Less fat
Than expected

Moose had: zz

Moose was hunted:

Attach picture of hunted moose here:
(during or after butchering)

105

. (Elders Tean Merrier) Z
. (Forest "earn Wg-nber? —
("'"cjthTeam Msnnser) Z

,Wt-r •

•-

*V»._

Figure 4.2- Community-based environmental monitoring prototype for fishing salmon

Date of Monitoring;_
Time of day:

££T

Location of .S'.O'-.itonrrJ: is.esii ;*;:r:e ?"-.sr,!+.

Monitoring Team:

Tl'azt'enne Environmental
Assessment of Salmon
Health in Stuart Lake

"rcore^tri. vorr.on

TTazt'en ll:-.::or

First sun:
Second fcjn:
Thiro Ru?:

N-rroer cf hours tiiat T?et *cs set

Please mark the location on the rrap on the previous page and describe
the location below:

Attach picture of particular fishing location here

Location that net was set:

Net was set:

Day:
i :
Ovenfght:
I .
Over 2 nights: l '

3 4 5 Idrde)

Number of nets used: 1 2

Lazy Net:
i '
Traditional Ket:. l

Salmon were caught with:

Beginning of: ;
Middle of:
I .
End of:
f.

Salmon were caught:

-- Salmon abundance in Stuart Lake:

Maintain viable salmon popuiation
in Stuart Lake
N (dciei

Have you fished in this location before: Y

Z
Z
Z

Please describe fishing in this location, by the
Elders Team Member's:

There are more sa'.mcn:
There are the same amount c* salmon:
There are less salmon:

Compared to fishing in this location last year:

More sa'.mon than expectec:
Z
The number of salrron that you *'ere expecfng: Z
Less sa.mon than expected:
Z

Did you catch:

Number of salmon caught at this location:

Attach picture of salmon caught from one catch here

If YES, how many years have you fished at this location:

N ir-:ie;

Y

Is this location a family fishing area:

Same

pcreasng

U~.:ure

~

(Youth ~earr Member) Z

. (roies: Team Member! —

.(Elders Team Merrier)

•

-

-

;

.

i

i

m

•

k

•

=

-

Date of Monitoring:.
Time of day:

•

,

•

- '

T*.**.

'." :""'*''''
""*.

Location of Mo-itanns;: !:>«;•= ^.:zr:s r:~nrf..:r, r

.Mo-wv'riiig Team;

Tl'azt'enne Environmental
Assessment of
Beaver Health

Figure 4.3- Community-based environmental monitoring prototype for trapping beaver

Please describe your choice above:

Decreasing

Compared to last year, do you think beaver abundance is:

Attach picture of beaver trapped here

Attach picture of beaver trapped here

•i"o - re"t"-i. '.'oniorrs

TTAZt'f - Iteior

YES
t)
CJ
Q
Q
D

MO
c
CJ
CI
Li
O

{Describe)

Described environment where beaver sign was observed:

Attach picture of beaver sign observed here

Other sign observed:

Tracks:
Scat:
Trees:
InhaWtated lodge:
Dam:

Beaver sign observed:

- Beaver abundance:

Maintain viable beaver (fur-bearer)
population

Y

N lordei

d
G
C
—
~

Please describe how beaver was trapped (conibear trap,
snare, other):

Lass than one day (less then 24hrs):
One day, one night (24 hours):
More than 24 rrs:

Number of days that trap was set:

Female beaver:
Maiebeaver:

Did you trap:

Number of beaver trapped at this location:

Number of beaver pups observed at this location:.

Number of beaver observed at this location:

Attach picture of environment
where beaver sign was observed here

Have you trapped in this location before: Y N (didei
If YES, how many years ago have you fished at this location:

Is this area located on your keyoh:

. (Elders Tsan Msrrser) CZ
_ ("ores" "esrr. Member; ~
O'sjtn "eerr Merrier) 3

Figure 4.4- Community-based environmental monitoring prototype for picking huckleberries

Time of day:

Date of Monitoring:.

Location of to~itcnn?: 13.. ^.:= i=M''r4 ~ •z£r:.l-: en r;o;

M.ontorins Team

Tl'azt'enne Environmental
Assessment of Huckleberry
Health

•i-ir'.reita. w i t o r r o

Tl'azt'en ils:ior

Ju~e:
July:
August:
SKtemier:

i ;
"'
:
. '.

wor

Good

Pretty Good

Were there huckleberries on the bushes:

Y

N

Attach picture that represents the
overall abundance of huckleberries here

Please describe your choice above:

Net good

pate:

(circle)

Excellent

The overall abundance of huckleberries on Tl'azt'en
Nation traditional territory is:

Beginning of: :
Middle of:
I
End of:
(.

Huckleberries were picked:

~ Huckleberry abundance:

Maintain huckleberry abundance

~
C
C

_
—•
—

Please describe huckleberry picking in this location, in
the past, by the Elders Team Member's:

There are more huckleberries:
There are the s-arrre air-oum of huckleberries:
There are r.ess h'jckleberries:

Compared to picking huckleberries in this location last
year:

More huckleberries tha.n expected:
The number of huckleberr'es that ycu were expecting:
Less huck.eberries then expected:

Did you pick:

picked, (attache Dhoto erectly atcve to illustrate this:

{njTter o* pc^ni-'l

pails or

speed
iHow. rrediun, fasti

pounds of huckleberries were

hours, picking at a
I'ruirbe' c* ^.^u';.;

:n-rrfc.er'r pa'.s'

In

Attach picture showing huckleberry abundance here

111

. (Elders Team Memser) ZZ
_ (Forest ''"earr. Ve-nben Z
(Vcjfi Te«n- MemDer) ~

Figure 4.5- Community-based environmental monitoring prototype for gathering soapberries for medicinal use

L o c a t i o n of M o - l l t o r i n ? : iD.e:^ :te:r:e *• -:~nvf: en r

Monitoring Team:

Tl'azt'enne Environmental
Assessment of Soapberry
Health

Tl'azt'e" Iterior
Co:~in'i."itv-Baiec
•ro-renta. •.'oritorrs

112

Sejtexier:

Jure:
July:
Augur.:

i i
. I

Poor

Grad

=retty Gcod

Y

N

Were there soapberries on the bushes: Y N
Were there soapberries on the bushes last year:

Attach picture that represents the
overall abundance of soapberries here

Please de-scribe your choice above:

No: good

(circle)

(dree)

E>:ce.lenl

The overall abundance of soapberries on Tl'azt'en Natior
traditional territory is:

3eginn ng of: :
Middle of:
i .
End of:
: .

:

Soapberries were picked:

- Soapberry abundance:

Maintain soapberry abundance

-;nu nr«T of p:> -rid; I

C
—
~

Please describe soapberry picking in this location, in the
past, by the Elders Team Member's:

There are more soapberries:
There are the same amount o ' soapberries:
There are .ess soapberries:

Compared to picking soapberries in this location last year:

More soapberries than expected:
The number of soapberries -.hat you were expecting:
Less soapberries than expected:

—
C~
~:

(attache photo directly above t o 'Uustrate this!

Did you pick:

picked,

speed
l.-lj*. radium, fasti

pounds of soapberries were

hours, picking at a
pails or

i n u r b e ' o-" feu's]
i n^TCer"" pa- .<•'•

In

Attach picture showing soapberry abundance here

113

CHAPTER 5- COMMUNITY PRODUCTS
5.1

Introduction
Meaningful and informative community products are important components of

co-management related research, as they contribute to social learning and to a two-way
knowledge exchange (Bonny and Berkes 2008; Berkes 2009). We define a community
product as a research outcome or extension activity that is meant to recognize the
contributions of the research team and transmit findings in a format that is accessible to
the participants, their peers, and their community. Working in partnership with the
community is key to ensuring that products are appropriate and well suited. Though
products may differ depending on the intended audience, type of research, and stage of
completion, all help to communicate progress and achievements, build support for current
and future research, and recognize and reward the efforts and contributions of community
participants (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000a). Community products are a tangible
demonstration of collaborative success; Wondolleck and Yaffee (2000b) state that this
demonstration fosters hope and motivates involvement. We developed numerous
community products that reported progress, communicated results, and highlighted the
collaborative contributions of FT and ET members. Products were developed both as
part of the larger Tl'azt'en Nation - UNBC CURA project and as a component of this
research project. These products are presented in this chapter in their published format, if
possible.

114

5.2

CURA-Related Community Products
The Tl'azt'en Nation - UNBC CURA project used community updates,

newsletters, a website, and CURA community days to communicate the progress and
findings of individual research projects associated with its four research streams.
Community updates were short, semi-annual publications produced for Tl'azt'en Nation.
These updates used language appropriate for a broad community audience and were hand
delivered to every household in Tache, Binche, and Middle River. Newsletters were
published semi-annually for a larger audience, including Tl'azt'en Nation, academics,
government, and non-governmental organizations (NGO). These newsletters provided a
more detailed look at ongoing research and related events. The CURA website
(http://cura.unbc.ca) was an electronic forum for people to learn about the objectives and
progress of the broader project, the people involved, and ongoing graduate research. All
CURA publications were available at this site. The CURA community days were one
day annual events held in the Tl'azt'en Nation community of Tache. These community
days provided an opportunity for CURA researchers and Tl'azt'en Nation community
members to interact through oral presentations, poster presentations, group activities, and
a community lunch. The CURA research products associated with this project included
written contributions to community updates, newsletters, and the CURA website.
5.2.1

CURA Community Updates and Newsletters
In this section, we present the excerpts that were written for CURA community

updates and newsletters. These brief communications provided a means for us to
communicate on a regular basis with a broad audience, including the general Tl'azt'en
Nation community. Furthermore, CURA community updates and newsletters reinforced

115

our project's role and contributions to CURA's overarching project goal- to partner for
sustainable resource management.
Community Update - Winter 2007
Hi, in September I moved from Vancouver to Prince George to begin my masters
at UNBC in the Improved Partnerships Stream of the CURA project. I am very excited
for this opportunity to work on community environmental monitoring research with
Tl'azt'en Nation. My research will involve working closely with Tl'azt'enne to develop,
apply, and evaluate methods for identifying indigenous measures of co-management
success for monitoring particular plants and animals of interest to the Tl'azt'en Nation
within the following five categories: medicinal plants, berries, trapping, fishing, and
hunting. This project is of particular interest to me because of how this project will
involve working closely in partnership with Tl'azt'en Nation; I know that I will learn a
tremendous amount by working with community members. I am looking forward to
being a part of and contributing to the meaningful research that is ongoing in CURA.
Newsletter - Winter 2007
The purpose of this research project is to develop, apply, and evaluate methods
for identifying Indigenous measures of co-management success, which support
meaningful local involvement and give voice, respect, and legitimacy to traditional
knowledge and values. Communities may define sustainability differently from each
other and from experts, requiring a unique set of progress measures (Beckley et al. 2002).
Community-based environmental monitoring is an approach by which First Nation
communities can apply traditional knowledge, track the health of their environment, and
implement locally relevant sustainability objectives.

116

In partnership with two teams of Tl'azt'en Nation community members (the
Forest Team and the Elders Team), we are developing a Tl'azt'en community-based
environmental monitoring method that incorporates the knowledge, needs, beliefs, and
concerns of the community through the development of an integrative, flexible
framework that applies both Indigenous and scientific knowledge. Knowledge coproduction can generate a more holistic understanding of the environment than either
scientific or Indigenous knowledge can alone (Berkes 1999a).
Various research events that have taken place over the past summer and fall
include: Forest Team focus groups, an Elders Team retreat, and a Community Product
Development Workshop. The knowledge shared at these events will contribute to the
formulation of Tl'azt'en measures of co-management success, specifically related to
environmental sustainability.
In addition to academic products, team members are working together to develop
community products, such as a book and a DVD.
Community Update - Summer 2007
Hello! My name is Deanna Yim and I have been working on my project titled,
Evolving Co-Management Practice: Community-based Environmental Monitoring with
Tl'azt'en Nation on the John Prince Research Forest, throughout the summer. I have
really enjoyed spending time in the community this summer and I look forward to getting
to know you all better in the future.
Three project events have taken place so far. In late July, we held a welcome
information lunch for community members to come and learn about this project and join
if interested. In early August we held our first Forest Team meeting and just recently we

117

held our Elders Team retreat at Cinnabar. Please stay tuned for community updates
detailing the progress of this project. If you are interested in knowing more, please feel
free to email me at deannayim@yahoo.ca.
Community Update - Spring 2008
Graduate student Deanna Yim (project: Evolving Co-Management Practice:
Community-Based Environmental Monitoring with Tl'azt'en Nation on the John Prince
Research Forest) is currently working on her data analysis. She is analyzing transcripts
from different research events conducted with Forest Team and Elders Team members
over the past summer and fall. Results from this analysis will be used to develop a
Tl'azt'en community-based environmental monitoring framework. The framework will
be presented to Forest Team members later this spring at the final Forest Team meeting
for their feedback and input. This framework will serve as the basis for an applied
Tl'azt'en community-based environmental monitoring method that can be used on the
John Prince Research Forest.
Team members are currently working together with Deanna, Tl'azt'en Research
Assistant, Theresa Austin, and the children from Mr. McKay's Gr. 5,6,7 class at Eugene
Joseph Elementary School to develop a book for the community that shares a collection
of their photographs, stories, and knowledge gathered throughout this project. Another
community product that will be developed from this research is a DVD. This DVD will
use video footage taken from different research events to highlight themes, people, and
knowledge shared in this project.

118

Newsletter - Summer 2008
Objectives of this research project include the development, application, and
evaluation of methods for identifying local Tl'azt'enne measures of co-management
success, in the context of environmental sustainability. These measures were formulated
from the work done in partnership with two teams of Tl'azt'en community members (the
Elders Team and the Forest Team) over the course of several research events during 2007
and 2008. A qualitative analysis of transcripts transcribed from audio and video
recordings at research events provided the material from which measures were
developed. These measures will be presented to the Tl'azt'en Team members to be
evaluated and verified before they are applied in a Tl'azt'en community-based
environmental monitoring method on the John Prince Research Forest.
The progress of this project has been shared recently at two symposiums. On
May 8th and 9th, 2008 Deanna Yim (lead researcher), Bev John, and Amelia Stark
(Tl'azt'en community researchers/CURA stream leaders) gave an oral presentation
together at the Community Based Research (CBR) Symposium at Douglas College in
Coquitlam, BC. This presentation focused on sharing the project's community-based
methodology and provided a unique opportunity to present the perspectives of both the
university and community researchers. Deanna also presented her research at a poster
session during the 14' International Symposium on Society and Resource Management at
the University of Vermont in Burlington, Vermont USA. The theme of this year's
symposium, held June 10-14, 2008, was 'People and Place: Linking Culture and Nature.'
Many of the presentations and projects being shared at the symposium offered Deanna

119

great insight into this field of study. She really appreciated the opportunity to share her
research with an international audience and learn from the work being done by others.
In the upcoming months, it is anticipated that this project's main community
products (a collaborative book and the production of a DVD highlighting some of the
knowledge, stories, and events that have taken place throughout the project) will be
completed and the project's focus will be concentrated on the writing of academic papers
and thesis.
Community Update - Winter 2008
My graduate research project is nearing completion and many exciting
accomplishments have been achieved by the project and its team members since the last
community update. Below is a diagram of the project's participatory research
framework, which shows all of the events that have been conducted over the past year
and a half. All research events have been completed and Tl'azt'en Environmental
Measures for the project's five focal traditional use activities and their representative
plant and animal species have been developed and verified by Forest and Elders Team
members. The last box, (or most right handed box), is the stage that the project is
currently in; this is the stage of writing the project's thesis and papers. There will be a
final community presentation in early 2009 once the thesis and papers are complete. We
look forward to sharing these final products with everyone!
The research team and I were really excited to have held the project's celebration
wrap-up dinner in Tache on October 16th, 2008. It truly was a day of celebration, as the
project's DVD and book were distributed to the project's Elders Team and Forest Team
members, as well as to the Tl'azt'en Nation community. The DVD and book titled,

120

Tl'azt'en Nation Community-Based Environmental Monitoring Science and Tradition:
Respect for our Elders, Respect for our People, Respect for our Land, were this project's
community products which were created collaboratively with all of the project's team
members. We hope that everyone enjoys the DVD and book.
If you would like a free copy of the book and DVD, and have not yet received a
copy, please phone Amelia Stark or Bev John at the John Prince Research Forest (250996-0028).
5.3

Project-Related Community Products
We developed a number of community research products over the course of this

project. These products included a collaborative book (Figure 5.1) and DVD (Figure
5.2), posters (Figure 5.3, 5.4, 5.5), an information brochure (Figure 5.6), and several
community newsletters (Figure 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10). All products were made available or
delivered to every household in the Tl'azt'en Nation community. The collaborative book
was written in partnership with members of the FT and ET. Extension products were also
developed for a grade five, six, and seven class from the local Eugene Joseph Elementary
School (Figure 5.11) and for the JPRF's Chuntoh Education Society (Figure 5.12).
Products are presented in this chapter in their published format, where possible.
5.3.1

Poster Presentations
Posters were presented at various forums, including academic conferences,

academic poster sessions, and community presentations (Figure 5.3, 5.4, 5.5). Following
presentations, copies of presented posters were often given to Tl'azt'en Nation and/or the

121

JPRF to display. In addition, handouts of presented posters were given and made
available to Tl'azt'en Nation community members.
Figure 5.1- Book Cover: Tl'azt'en Nation Community-Based Environmental
Monitoring, Science and Tradition: Respect for our Elders, Respect for our People,
Respect for our Land (Tl'azt'en Nation and Yim 2008b)

Tl'azt'en Nation
Community-Based Environmental Monitoring
-Science and TraditionRespect for our Elders
Respect for our People
Respect for our Land
<<?*X
*
Irk' '

Written by
Tl'azt'en Nation and Deanna Yim
Fran the Cawmumty-University Research Aliance project
Evolving Co-Management Practice: Coawnmity-Based Bmirorarneraini Mambc
with 71 'azFca Nation an thf John Prince iBgjgui IJJ forest

By: Tl'azt'en Nation and Deanna Y i n
T Chuzghun Resources Corporation 2008
httpi.-Vcura.unoc.ca

This DVD was generously funded t y :
- Social Sciences and Humanities Resea-cn Council of Canada through
their Community-University Research Alliance sCURAt Progran
- Real Estate Foundation of BC
- John P r n c e Research Forest
and supported by the University of Northern British Co.umbia.

"^wo teams of Tl'azt'en Nation community members, a Forest Team and
an Elders Team worked to shape and inform the developnent OF the
Tl'azt'en Nation Community-Based Environmental Mentoring Method,
"This method was developed for five Tl'azt'en Nation traditional use
activities and their representative plant or aninal species. Tnese
were: Fishing Salmon- Taio ha'but'en; Hunting Moose- rluda
ha'niit'en; Trapping Beaver- Tsa ha tsayilh sula: Gathering Soapberries
f o - MedK'nai Use- Yoo ba ningwus tiunulht'o; and, Picking Huckleberries- 0'j.ie hoonayin. This DVD shares ou~ experiences, and the voices,
knowledge, and wisdom of the team menders.

This DVD shares the knowledge and experiences of team members
during the course of a research project titled, 'Evolving
Co-Management Practice: Community-Based Environmental Monitoring
witn Tl'azt'en Nation on the John Prince Research Forest/ which tack
place i n Northern British ColLmbia, Canada.

-Science and TraditionRespect f o r o u r Elders
Respect for our People
Respect f o r o u r Land

T l ' a z t ' e n Nation
Community-Based Environmental Monitoring

£C

u

_

„^;LJ\

) i

'

'

'^^^-c''4^'-'%\

From the Comrnunffty-ilniversity Research Alliance project
Evolving CoAiana$pment Practice: Community-Boned Environmental
Monitoring
_. ¥fith Tl'azt'en Nation on UmJotm Prince Research Forest

i

"rJtmitii>^^m*j»

C".Sfe§rosie5 fe- omftMM

~S~ktMjxyci for "O'ur EM-sris

Tl'azt'en Nation
Community-Based Environmental Monitoring

Figure 5.2- DVD Cover: Tl'azt'en Nation Community-Based Environmental Monitoring, Science and Tradition: Respect for
our Elders, Respect for our People, Respect for our Land (Tl'azt'en Nation and Yim 2008a)

Evolving Co-Management Practice:
Community-Based Environmental Monitoring with Tl'azt'en Nation on the John Prince Research Forest

Figure 5.3- Poster presented at the UNBC Natural Resources and Environmental Studies poster session, Prince George, BC,
October 2006

i t j d y Ove*vtew

\

:ie JNEC greriiiBSB stucSe-it '.eafi-ig
t i l s research project?
rti, T J rans "5 Dearr-a 'rim
aia iTirejI.y iScWra-crwa*2
ta " v j r i i i j • A i the :»T.TLrrty!
in -J": zrc-KT. t v : j j r i r e r .

Th:s Ti'earti *iT, levslcp :iT!Ti.r".yfca"«d
• r v i m r e r t i . r-crrtirira r t K i i i s ard
T.'art'ei r e c j - s t* ervircrnffita.
siStaTabc.ity -"cr a jatciric p s i : tr ar-Ta; < I
» * : I c" ->e fs.^cv'rs •.-adhicraJ lane x s
arri •tiss: K m g . t-srcxB i r r-r.§. -neicTal
rlar*. jatie'-iig. s n j berv l a r - e i t ^ i j . I V.TIL
;srtrsr•,.T'J- •Mrbe-*"; c* ".'sc-.'er ' a v s i aie
tie .»crr 3 riics Res-ar: l Firsst :.<?KF| ard LSC
t i e i e T«e3:jre: -.0 levslop a r i T n j i i t y b i j e a
•.•rviiiirerts.. syster

WID

-wapvWltrill***

*-Mwian

< * •

inj>HV,

r i n

^-]

*.**

•*•**«. liaallM
• I t l a r 11 ! • I|
W
t«-rf.-i
l < l K l t « M j

|

k.«UM%

f;ahSiPri»&MK*»JF1

I I U H M J t a l i l .I'a.'Jaaaat hi fetan taut swima a U

r I - * > M M l an«n< aajftfhaiui.fc, h • t k h w
n • l ' n » W l w i » ' i > fjtajaafaaail m

- t e « p f * * — . » • • > • Mill
M MH f M t f c t a
— - ' •
ria* T id ' i f n a M a>aaaapiiaaa. <•»

*T

•aaaum a t M n j w h l n J i w u h . l a i
M W N * ; aUi*
*m H n t B - a w l <laa*4aa-« M I « h * h - * * M

-«Mrtn>.*>BN«i

aMlVia
haahal

ta-.<- • . " • * . • •
•Ifl»- •
•41.

• » ' • « * * • * total-aj t i t *¥•*.**»•.* . a r t e

,.l

rwrifaiiAnil

O

M i a ' * * * * * * 4 - a A n a a i c a. • # • * • * tihaim*il
I*a* U 1 r « - * i t i t a r-1 i d M « . f e R M M H B t » j .

•)

|

F.aVviuzlaeiiiaiil.rild

•i. JF

LatHVi u f ) A * b - '

•1.*

i i f l - l t f i ' : and

..;

*uiwiir<>-tfil

-Si

A u t l M I M N

Jkmanv-Hifii

, ~ V : cjilibs'itf.e 'ssearci par-re-— lir. v:tr TTa=:'*i
Naticr JS»S par-.-c-piiary rsssarrt ire-hods ard a
x-.esraf.e adsptiJJe fran-e'. .o+: to amly -lJiaerEL: s.u
:£ier-.,,r,c -.no-, .ledje tc ccnTji ; ty:assc - i r > a i T « " j ,
ron-priia.

' Pesssrch Freraewcr* 6r 'tAessir* Cexelcpmeit Process"'•

3etnna rim. c l n 5ieriy. and Chris Jahmcn

'^«»j=-. %B»^ r^a*»fti:=«;sj*ai
Id SL-ai* "«»-*•:»' Zvt 3 v - . Sd*i JLY=« r : ra " KM- *U2- ft:i?r ^Biry

_- - --

• Mes»jr» fBrniLfiflun: di-rf^cp i:OTTLr'W•
sasei 3 ' « e i ; f i r rdeitifcig T.'srt s i
e i . - i s i T e r ' j . Teaitre:: a- .ve.i a;, Ti ar-'er
s i - r a i T e r - j . • ; . j « : ard sxaectxicr: J e r t i ! T coitaiajei JF3-r;
»> Msa'<jr« asMssnerft: Se'Hre s f - i i w . ,-»-••, t3
a^es: ard ss'eei reaaj^e: z' cc-Taraaer-eit
j j : i e : ' f'oit a n ' i t f senx.'s lenpecvve:
••ffteasures a : p l l « t l o i : c;;labo-a.T e.j,' aip.y a.
ariirity :«•- :f Tl'sct s i neasjr-3 ard assess -he
cKi.eraes ard eppot Jiitie: :n 15. -ed:
*-Carpsrt»r with other stadtes: cenia-e
Tl'ars'er T e x u B v , " . i ctf-er :ciTTLr-.v^ta*ed
ei'roiTerTa. Tcr*tc<'igprcsrar: * r : . j i i r g nrzt
'• aval! ard icr-First hafers r r n i K e s : a i i
•• Wethudalea-c^ eve'/jatlcn: «-. axate ar d a::e::
t i e cialve-^es anc arccrtLr—.-e: rrvslvsc ' I
cciiTij-r.'-tased -r^iriirerta.. rrer^iaHia e"ttti
.aid r e c c r r w i i • T;rcv«Ter" fo"fJtaTs pisjeit:

Tr ; : cs:e 5tiC> :L3-Mrts n»nninglJ bcal fr.steirwnl
and gf.?i voce, respect, and ledjtiiTCKy to Ihe
tradHcnal hny^k-dfc and vdueco-'Tl art'en " J i r - i .
ta aicresi t i e J o..5-i-lij i:-Ktive::

i'-ur.'3bJ«r vs:

JjJhfeC

Evolving Co-Management Practice:
Community-Based Environmental Monitoring with TPazt'en
Nation on the John Prince Research Forest

Figure 5.4- Poster presented at the TTazt'en Nation-UNBC CURA Community Day, Tache, BC,JVIay

-?n

W.

.-ir< :•:•>•'-•. :r

^ tr«*'-«»nfl.

'

y

,

&->tit(:

art 't'-tflrit -v. iiitof.rablf
"r:.-*v.-ar. to - r o . . -A
I «t c f r c m ar«1 .vicri'l'fI R&JCCQC •• , c i - . ' i . * t>
r a i e e i - - -iMfiirfiiTj

I -"t

M «••;•;: \'irli ' .'ayivr sah;m
>.;f i l..-.r*.[> ir.al^'f « < : A I "

Li- ".-ii 3tif lenwl .Vcasues
Ucvccpmc. t Mfccc-;;

i YIVWJI • n I ' a i t

\

(

;

Research Oeslgt*

.<]Fa - . c - p i t i r v ti>?;ca(cr

y

to*

TTazT'cn Erwirowneivtal Itanltorvig

j ___

5

5

bs• r.-j|;l!l3i

--•s.-sam

] £nylrzn?r.enta, Measures D e v a b p T e n t 3 ro:es5"~|

le:*:^.*'.*

•J.«l3l

i-,^

•*
w

a?

i

' K«"i Cft,H.f ft j
' r ; ^r**.

>J

•>P:--

-*

/

:oi>;.1.' k V J W < t i t total p l a n .-we ; - - T . -.ff-l;-. i w r w i t v ' •L>*y,iJi-,|r^uii.'i-.icti.it*.-1-.. Ih*i?trA3iHii>j;us**act!••:•« -.c
o"»e*.cr"ari.i.,« i[".*vi,\.ic-

I

e.^tECir«.t3r»' Research r a r r s w o r k

B

.i •>i,i:<lh «crMry'"«* vi. s r <rc ni.^Jj.'Ji.*" ? - i x v . p j j ; . . ;.yX-wz:*.,-.
ivi-ixiM*.
, I I . 1 ; > - , I , - X . \ M ' tfe

• „:*.*> '• .iri.ir-.-ti.iia.-w.: • i . i v > i i i c H i . > / . . ^ n

• w ^ i H i i k - c.i"r'».r : cv lir-> tfr- t o raraq^fi rot
I ; >:v..f-. ."< ' i f ' . ^ T j t l : ; f.•<nsf.ni'ft*' ;J i v r . v l w : kf.t. Tt-ii" ' r v . t m CJ- v " . : . v (.: - *• '•&•*.««"'<("

• (1 J'.i.ali CJ-L1* •' ":*.A"itfl-:r.itir«.r'"'cr •.•.IHK.IITO
It.-.-.. .•-.!> v. i l - i - - u f r <•-:•-.• V t . t - ;i.1i-*--:-":.-«-to
rti.- t'.;Mlft.iMc I--11a<p fUMtt ;,i r > » j v c t ?l m.ifti
M . t j • ., v- > ,inr r ' C i i ;

t r.f., ,- • :» ttz:?l en.lv.---i:-ir.v n^nirflili^ i>'.LLM< \*
in jj.r.i.,,v t " -:h:v-1nflfitcvrh.'*.-"i-jir'.iij}.'' , n. , »it r-wt
w.f, U.":,a j . t .'>T>.ntt*';fr:cr<*.1 i"<thc»v :•-:
rr-. i i ^ t o .::M --ii-s- : v twin-'-, in";. '.:• n-*. ftm"f.firtii
i -•i-i:-'.v.-.t .-.»-»•: ct-tf-rir-t.-ro- -c :r :• tfr.-fi ror.i^.'Tirnt

/ ^

k'^{ula.u<iiiUl'

/ ^ C o n v n u n t t y - B a s e d Erwlronnrientfll M e n t w r l r w j X

,it,1tt ^4*j'i H

Dearna Yin , Crirs Johnson', and Erin Sherry-

It.

•c^'it lvifi£ U\i—>n n.fr.'n-fir-nta. n cakurn e* '.•»

L :•• 'x(..ii .-".vcri..;* ii r.i >:c , f L p ar«t -•;):. j > <.i:*i r i.i •:
>r,o: TY.--t-i.v-, r-ct ..-1 >.!;>. .r, t.t l.1oriril. a v. i» vL.r. >'.rt'c-' TKV.J-O- si o i - ' i t v i - T ^ i f l "c.ii4J- ••* -*.
. 5 M T J M . ly "w tji.ori J ca'*-» iru.1< «• *J. *. :rr .^I'-.-r.
r r == . v ( K w j x h l i r « » > i W ! ; . . o . - i " .
arc :•*•>*• .f.rr

Research Qbjeccves

* u:i,4:*ia..'J

U K I . J J I ^

X..

.:••*»•.

iS-f-..-!..

-r *p<n i t - - *

" t a r p i ; - T I i^'p- • T * i v r ' f : i .
l l ' l a 5". V?lf] ItAE l^-fff'fti t",'

y

-it

U|-<U iU^i^.Tn i.ka LL^a^f,

^pSp^

V,

V

j IT'IT •(::;' ir^nr—r :*. i n

V T .'ast f

i i.if '*iu Kiilai: i-'r.-^Btija--—

1

1

1 : ' , w . f i . - . n> «;* n c * ; - c fMipr.rrj'iitl.^ in-, x-'cit n
t-f.frn.r*v '••-•>" . ^ i - ' t f r c M i T»jnit;» "i^.i v, -•.' i
".ri.irjo?r.vc>:ti
i t •*>• ci-vi •• -„r
i . i r j i- ^r.->'ft.'ti

i .-t.tt .. t I f i i r i * r .*X'-: to j>i.it a.i,1 fli i . J i k - 1 ; ' i . '
CCL'-'.TaTfi^-.al -.•*'ViCci I I i r . .*m*canir.' k i f.t
-- -ii.*.nn-fnt,->l f c . i i : ! .ire ; j ^ * - . 3 t r .it, an*;.

*'. i l r f i r i l - ", ;,-r v i ,vi • 'ijf • v a i T i ^ i i . v-.l>> -. ;-.: •
.'j- -.-i.-.s.'-, c-: t i j : .-'i,.->Tr'iih.*c"A !f<:cv--tio(:-v

\

T <-'-&

•tor a

t tuk% i t m > . ' i l n , > U j m » fa,

Evolving Co-Management Practice: Community-Based Environmental Monitoring
w i t h T l ' a z t ' e n Nation on the John Prince Research Forest

Figure 5.5- Poster presented at the UNBC Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Institute poster session, Prince
George, BC and at the 14th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management, People and Place: Linking
Culture and Nature, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont USA, March 2008

5.3.2 Information Brochure
The project information brochure was developed to introduce the project and
participants to the Tl'azt'en Nation community. This brochure provided context and an
overview of the project. Copies of the information brochure were distributed at the
information session (Figure 2.1) and were available at such Tl'azt'en community venues
as the Tl'azt'en Nation Education Center in Tache.
Figure 5.6- Project Information Brochure, July 2007
How are we going to

0

Project Introduction

achieve this projects goals;'
"Photovoice: .jse<; photographs and

P i o j e c t HisLoiy-

Project Objective
-To d e v e l o p s c o m m u n i t y based

took the photo . i ; A "•-.••j.v tor people
Ut r. ijit.jK- nicl ,-.IMK-J I J I H I l i i i " ' . ^ ^ ! ^

^nVir an ms-Mil j l iticinilai inti irwIlKiil

and experiences.

'This project b j l l d s on 5 years ol
r c i c i u c i t dor*.- between r l ' i u t ' e n
I . I I K . M . .tpkt-, iiul i.i-br..

the words/stones of the person who

and Aboriginal measures of
!

' P r c v i o j s v.-ork done =vithTt D2

environmental sustainability

I ' e n M U o n indicated th-H the
c o m m j m t v is very conc£t"i*?..1

Why is this project

s b o j t protecting the environ

import ?a nC?

menL wid Lhe health ol pljnU,ind i i u n n K (ill I h«-lt 11 tc'il IOIM i

We ..vilt j'ic Tl'-it t e n k no * I ed i-e

t e m tory .

and ivisdom t o create a r,vay to
monitor and protect important

' i r a i t ' e n nation i d e n t i l i e d the

plynI^ .and iiriimnh on r r . H i l ' e n

f i v r I rc-t.ilil iaii^l ii<?" c u l ivi lie",

I f 1 ! 11 < • f V •

chosen for this sf j d y :

f

Group discussions: ..vj]| y|lo«- mem
hi-*is lo sli^-we- }iii(itA,le-dv,s-. ] f , i i n I K H I I
one another, and CA press Ti"32t'cnnc
perspectives on envhonrnoriU'l 'wI HIIMIII'IIV.

" T e a c h i n g f r o m Elders: tvill be an
iriviUjiible c o n L r i b j l i o n ol k n o t t e d fp
:iiid (,visd<>it'i I li'il V-J 11] e n | n IIC «- Hie-expertise of Forest Team members.

We will develop 3 cornrnjraty based
HUNTING

TRAPPING

]

I ..:
MEDICINAL
PLANTS

'^

-yf\
' ; 7 -.

BERRIES

' A c t i v i t y ' s o n t h e land:

)li;it i tie ci por -fl f s Ihs-1 iie-ccta, i i H i H \,

km"?, k-*rfyf <ittd ..K'hvil. it"- CI.JIS ids- <iii

and concerns of the <.:orr.m.jnity

the JPRF.

while Vu-orkinc, to protect the
environment,
We f-ill c o r t t n h j t e to imp roving t h*

. ,
<-••(. i

environmental rronitoring, method

FISHING

-V'i

•'^4

^

^

SJCCC5S of the co managed JPRF by
de^eiopini- a -vav to monitor and

r

0£ltralnH

lathe'

y

4-VH 1.1-tie L - I K I 5 O i l 11 ( H i I i l l 4 C>9K it I f<»I* r -

toens.jre that TT-apt'en's c.jrrent
and f j t j r e needs arc met.

K'uzche

/ .JPRf

Blnshs

Share

Want to join the team?

PROJECT
INFORMATION

( Community Products
Tl'azt'enne environmental
m c i i i i U i i i n ^ i n H hen I

• Wake the commitment- came fill
out an acceptance package and ber.cirr: a iricinlxT ct this piajw.t.

Evolving Co-Management
Practice:

"DVD nude* f i o i n 1 c 0inpii.1l ion of

Talk to us for more
information!

Lhh p r o ; e e l * ' • c w n l - i
' P h o t o b o o k l e t made t r a m
p h o t o g r a p h s find n o n e s -M
hdK-sl

I <HI in m ^ t i i h^ i -

i(
Community-based
\\ Environmental Monitoring
\>-^_
wjtix,Tl'azt'en Nation on the
John Prince Research
Forest

:

P h o t o p a m p h l c U d h U i b . i U - d to
r h e ca m m J rn t y a fl" e r ^v «• ry
i r ^ i r ( ii f « j n l •'..Jiuiii i n . ' i i i r ' , .%
' iio
•vyj i n v o l v e d :Jiid '.-ihiil l o o k
pi SCO
'Posters 6

presentations

A u g u s t 2: F u s t Forest
m e e t i n^

Team

A I U J I I S I ?!) ft ? 1 : Hclf-i-.
l e j m s e U e : . i l Jt : . i n n j b - i r

frio.Htc

S e p t e m b e r : Second F o r e s t T e a m

I I n t e l h:'re'->l

Etev John

y^

* * r < n l Upcoming dates

CJ c: I o b t * I :

Cteanna Yim

Amelia Stark

Others involved in this project!
Erin
Sherry

•Chris

S p r i n g 1 0 0 6 : P r o j e c t i w n p -ip
celebration dinner

Annie Jean Anatole

Phone: 250=996-0028

I e-.l In

mc.'linF,

fe-

Johnson

i

tj M i l i a r

Li

Hodder

Sue

Ifc

L
•

• ~ '

/

»

• *

Dexter
£,r5f

July 30"', 2007

.,- > t

^

5.3.3 Forest and Elders Team Community Updates
Forest and Elders Team community updates were one-page newsletters that
summarized and shared project information and photos with Tl'azt'enne. These
community updates were distributed to households in Tache and Binche and mailed to
the other Tl'azt'en Nation communities shortly after most research events (Figure 2.1).
The purpose of these updates were to actualize our transparent and inclusive research
approach, and to inform the community of the project's progress.

128

Figure 5.7- Forest Team Community Update Issue 1, August 2007

Forest Team Update
F"r cIT' the p- r o;e:en; i r s i i n i f c t . 1 ! m miff CM- r.'ic wi;r. T l ' c z t ' e / i .'l'jti'of) Cn fhe Johr
Pi i<'ii". e Research Forest

Project information This :omm-nity-ba;ed env-i'cmerta. rrroYtori-g project i j ' + o r - i - g + i t - t'*o group; of TV a ~ er
Nation cornmt-ity me"-De-: -c crea-e a w i y to '-oni:o' and p'ctert • imports-t slant; a ' d a n ' i - a . j
en t i e Joh- Prince F.ei-ea'ch "orest a oart of Tl az-'er te.' _ tory.
The t'±'o group; cf Tl'arr'en cc— "• jivty
meT.be'"s 'j-'or^i-g on tn-s prc-ect are:
> the Fores-"earn :F~:
»

the E.des "earn :E~i

Toget-er witn the T ard ET. 'jne wril. de.e.co a comm. ntybi.jsc en-iornmental "oni:orng method -hat irco- oorates

~ nenbe-: at the ft-: T-3-eit

•:be needs, oe.iefs and c c : e r a > o" t i e comm.Yty.

" n n retti-i; ;T 4LJ. 2, i:;?

This p-crec- is fc:_sed o i de-,e,op-ng eivi.'c.-r.erts. "'OYtoring

m T«:he etthe Elde-: Certer.

-

metnoc f c c -= p.a~t c- animal in each cf "he fc..c *T-g traditional use a:ftr-.'i-er:

Rjr.ting

Trapping

Fishing

Medicinai plant

Berry

garnering

picking

Forest Team Progress Update...
*£-. t h e f i v t "orestTea" "eeting. Fo'est Team me^he 1 ; di;c.;;ed a _ d se.ected one olart o r a - i ma. tc foci,; envi'cnmerta. Txn'toring or •> each o" the 5 -racirorraj -;e activi-ies. These we r e
Hunting-- moose

iMedicinal p i a n t g a t h e r i n g - soapberries

T r a p p i n g - beaver

B e r r y p i c k i n g - huckleberries

F i s h i n g - salmon
^ c e s t "earn meroers rece-'ved ^nctcvcice tra'nng a^d became -"amilia' '*ith jsing t n i ; ^ethcd
a; a way cf expressing tneir knowledge End eioe^i.-e -hiOLg- photographs that t<-ey take or the
iard. Forest "earn me^oers w'l. oe u.-i'g t~e came-a; to ta<e phcto; cf. or relatec to. -he nea.:h
cf plants anc animal.; selectee tc- f e e ; environmental Toni-.c-na c- i:- each cf the t'acirico.al jse
aefvitie*. Forest Team ?nsr.bs:'s wi.l then esp.aii- t'-e s-gnificarce of t - e i : ohcto; wit'- tr.eT own
words and stories at t - e seccd F c e ; t Tea'? rseev'ng.

sPS M e e t t h e Forest T e a m i i ^Jdl: f.f.l v amber; r v v join r n t -j-.*
;

1,1 L?

Photo not
available
MfcntreJ >4si'JrT

Darren Austm

Horry Austin

(sacc Fe'jx

IS*?

Alury-^rtn HtT.njon

^ rp
J

Geralaine Joseph Gloria Johnnie Mory Lehrua

George Morris

Vioiet Prince

Nathaniel

Tom

Elders t h a t c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e f i r s t Forest Team
m e e t i n g , * „«

John Aiexis

Marie Hanson

Pierre John

Talk to us for more
information!

7- ne Forest Team greatly appreciates the knowledge, guidance, and positive contributions that
the Eiders brought to the first Forest Team meeting. Both the Forest Team and project leaders
locx forward to and welcome their presence at f u ture FT meetings, and we are a5l very excited to
learn and share with them at the Elders Team Retreat at
Cinnabar on August 20 and 21• s4.

Pictures from the First
Forest Team Meetine

D

Deanna Yim

Getting Photovoice
training with the
cameras I

Bev John

bsv-jp'f hjifss

K T

FT members working
together during our
group discussions

r
Amelia Stark

Annie-Jean Anato.e
coir

j n : t - ; f - ' fijane: ; s n

Phone: 250-996-0020 (JPRF)

Enjoying talking with each
other at lunch

Figure 5.8- Elders Team Community Update Issue 2, August 2007

This can'7-in'ty-basec e i ' i ' c i m e : * t a l ^ o n i t o r h g project is working with two groLos o * ^ . ' a z t ' e Nation c o m r - i i t y r-embe'v tc c:eate a way to m o m t c a-d protect important p.a~t; a i d a^i'-a,;
en -he J e n Fr'rxe Research Fores':, a oart o-"Tt'ait's- ts r n-ory.
The two groupi of Tl a i t ' e r c c r "•.unity
nembeiv working on "his p'o;ect are:
» the Forest Tea ^ IP")
•

the Side": Tear; IETI

Together wren the FTa:-d ET we v'U de-e.cp a cc.r r?jnitybased env'orn cental monitc'ing inethoc that i.-.torporate*

ET n-svberj *t ; i s E'.dera

the need;, be.iefs, anc concerns cf the CC.TT"? Jnity.

T«e«- Retreat st C-nea*' or.

This project •'$ fecjsee en ce,'etaping an epviroirttsnta. matitenna

Arjg.io a 21 200?.

.rrsthod f c one p.; a i t or animal in each of the fc-Uowing trad - tiona. use actitVitie;:

Hunting moose

i rapping beaver

Fishing salmon Gathering soapberries
for medicinal j s e

Picking
huckleberries

Eiders Team Progress Update.».
»The Elder; T e a " - e f e a t was he.d on Ai«3^.:t 20 5 21' at Ci-iabar. At the retreat, member; cf
t.*e E.cers —earr: drscussee each of the plants and anuria.? se.e:ted •or envron:nentai. monitcr'ng
ir, tii.- project.
»0n t!-e ft-st day of the -etreat. 3 group d'scussions tec*, place regarding hjnr'ng mccje, trapping
beaver, and fishing sa.mcn. On the second day of the ' e f e a t . 2 group d'sejssions about pic<-ng
hucklebernes a i d gathering ,-capberries fcr med - ci-al use tcck place.
•The Elder.' teachings heipec us to understand hex things w e chaxgec ever time anc the
importance of p'cteotingt'*e health of f o o s e . beaver, sa.me hjcLebe'des. and soapberries for
t!Te -"jture of T r a z t ' e i Nafon a i d for envrorrxrenta. sustains 3i;ity.
•"he Elder.- shared th.sir i«:"Ow{edge, *i. : dom, and expe-lise eve' the cou'se cf trr's two cay
i'et r eat. Tieir invaluable contrioLtic-s to this project are deep.y appreciated.

131

Meet the Elders Team!
• Ls't to r j-i-.. ts:-: is -rev.;: Betsy Dennis.
Doreeri Austin. Pie-re John. Seraphiie
Wattess, Willie Mattess, Celesthe Thomas, Helen Johnnie, Lizzie A.exis, Ma^y
Lebrun i"/::rs: John Alexis;

*7. Special moments from the Eiders Team Retreat '*»
|Left :o -ah-., back i : *-:r^;:

Leon a Sfiaw, Ame.ia Stark.
Betsy Dennis, Doreen Aust i n , Pierre i o ' i n , Seraphine
.M^ttess, Willie Mattess, Bev
John, Deanna Yim, Celestine Thomas. Helen
Johnnie, Lizzie Alexis. iMary
Lebrun. Annie Anatole
i'.',i::-rs: John Alexis;

132

Figure 5.9- Forest Team Community Update Issue 3, December 2007

Forest Team Update
From the project:
Evolving Co-management Practice: Community-Based Environmental.
Monitoring
with Tl'aifen
nation on the John Prince Research Forest

~ Project information •*

Issue 3, Decenoer 2007

"his t o r iK-nty-bass: en, ir:n re^ts. ncntorra pr;je-:t •; wo'king » - h' t»--: c.-o,.p; of "Tazt'er Nat"- corinurity n e r i - i ' s t:< create 5 way to ncnittr sri prote:: i r : ; - t a n t p.3*t; and annals ;.- v 5 j ; h n Prrce : .e.~ar:h
Fee". 3 part : f Tl'azt'en terrttory.
"he tW'2 G/OUP; of "Tazt'er c t r i n . r r t y
rter:-; - ; w k i n g on tlr; prcj~:t are
» the Fore;" Tear :=T:
•

the E.ders Tea T I ET'I

~oaet~er + th f e FT and ET. *~r *f.l de.e.op a sor nunityba;ed e-vicr-nertai r o-it>: -ing method that --corporate;
the rem,

beliefs, a - : ccnos'nso" f s c i T n u n i t y .

This project •; fo:usedcn devel>;p-rg erv'omental moritctrg

2nc FT nc*nng T 7ACI

met-vod •or ousting rmose trepp&s beaver, fishing SPI'IKC.?.

: n SeDt.lO 1007.

p'cJt'.ig huckleberries, a ' : harvesting soapberries for mertkuia1. use

Forest Team Progress Update...
• :vr;e the < • FT r e e f - 3 F7" nerbe'.- have :*en bL-.:y ta<--,g picture; o^t o* •.*••= La - : re.ated to huiiiwj /noose:
fruijprijs freiver, /lifting sp'rea1?. jD.'dt'Yi; huckleberries a - : ftarveiriflj soapberries /c. r nrerficroa.' use.
•At f e I" ; FT n e e f r j , F~ ner"be:v se.ected ; c r e of the-" p-i.to; and ;hared the - ' *ncw.ede« ard ;t>:;-i« about
ther. T-':- T*=*.i-g * a ; a rpeciai ".IT* C"' leading and tea.fr-g * - th z>-~ ar other.
•Tr-s photos and «no*.ede.= s'a'ed a". tris ; ' ' =T re-sting 'as helper us to :ett«- ^der^a-d * - , at ".re s'jn; ard
=tg™aL? are that people u.-s tc te.l whether a slant, annal. •;- ar.iro-x-e-t is 'salth/ or not. ~h:.= •••fo'ration * i .
be used to :r.=at£ a Tl'3zt'sn tormurity-tssed envirr-Te-tal mciitori-g "ethed.

Community Products Development Workshop...
• Or So-,erbe' 1, 20C7 E.der; - eam a~d Fo'est r e3TI
I r-e nbers met "_•; wo-k togefer an the develep r e n of
c: rnun'ty pritucts frax •.ris p'oject ione of the
e s r f - g corxL-ity product; be;~g :e.veloped by team
rembers are a bwk and a DVD ;see •:-••=' rde -i* ".'is
update for a jnea-; peak -J f e book;. T*-s;e fodi.:-.;
are e-pected to be complete in the ;p ring 0" ;r.C3. ET
ard ~ ws'e 'eal.y e/cited fo' th - ; oppo't.—ty to ;hare
ard .ea/n *-'th fir. Vcoy s grade 4,f,fc,7 c!.a;s frcx
Eugene .o;eph E.erenta/y :ch'c.

133

-Sorre Pictures f r o m Forest Team Members,., a fa:--k:hiHr,a the knowledge, :tories. a?d
photos :f Er and FT merrbers will be rrade H 2D08. "The photos bslc* are a ghnp:e of scTie of £ne F~':
photos taken on ITS land showing different aips-flt: of eniHronTie^tal health.

John AJexis

Michael Aslin

Doreen Austin

Harry Austin

saac Felix

Mary-Ann Hanson

Geraldine Josepfi

Gloria Johnnie

Mary Lebrun

George Morris

Violet Prmce

Kathaniei Tom

134

Figure 5.10- Forest Team Community Update Issue 4, November 2008

r--^=4

Final Project Update
jue 4. fcoveni'&r 2D03

«u/-

- Project information-

F r o n t~e project:
£ve-i.•;,',§• Cc-p?ic,'-,'aj!?rieiif .p.'cctJce: comiMLVii'ty-flrsed fTci'froflroefifo,1 M ^ n i J s c i n j
wi'fH 7/'<j2t'eii Notion JO t,*;e JO,1!!! Pr-nce <le$e<3r:h Fcrest
T'is >:snr."tv-ba;ed ervronnenia. n o r k s " - g project * " * e d *-'"• V+o a - : . : : :<f Tlr3zf>sn
Nation • r r n r j i ' t y iienber; to ;~eate a *a> to nririt-::- and arc:—:" •npor.a"t Diant.- 3^d aririals •:- t-e John -'•-;=• ^ r e a r c " Forest, a ;a-t of "I'azt's" t*'rte-y.
T'5 t*io j-Ou:; of T i ' a z f ^ M-.-:n : o r Twrity n e r : e r ; working on th\ : prcject are
« the Fo~e;t Tsar ;=r;
• r e Eb=\ : Tear ™ ;
Tsgefei" •••th the FT and ET. * e 3/e zsvelcpTg a c-nrnun/ty- rased envircnT-r'ta. rin'tcrina
nethod that T.-iorporate; f e nee:.= , beliefs, ard cs^tems -z" t-e csnrrun'ty. T?:s project •;
fzcuss: on revelop—3 e*v - i'oniertal. T^-itcri-g Tsthcd tor tainting mocie* huds
te'hut'e.i, trapovij oeaver» isa ha Jsayi!,1! SUI'CI, /fs/ijug fsirna.TJ ta.'c i"ia:,r>ut'eo, pizkio$
k'jzkieberries^Qiije hxtneyjn. isz harvesting soapberries fcr rpsdtcna.' use-* yoo 6a
m'ttgwas nunui'nfo.

Elders 6c Forest Team Progress Update...
•T-.e 3VI ard final clds's and ror=5t Tsar r — t r g * a ; helz T Tac^e or August 2;''. 2C0S.
• * t "his 3" ireet-^g, ET and FT nenber; *=*e I'e.'srr.e: w t h the Ti'szt'en Nation e r v o r nertal reas^res zsve.cped t ^ i - g the analysis stags o"' t-~ project. E~ a-d FT nerber- ws'e
: 'e;ented w t h the neajure.3, arc group discusror; tcck z'.ate to e"."uret"at they *«re accu'ate a"d otrplete. T--e tcllaboratr-s vsrificsrcn precis that took pl3-:e a*, ttis neet^na was
thorough ar-i ensued that t?e ~V azt'er Nat-j'" envronrr-snta. nea.^-e; v*"6*e 'ea:y to be ap;-.-K f ' o u a h a T.'azt'en Nation conT-^ty-bass: envTcnrents1. nonitorx.3 n e f e d .

A » V S : Picture; from the wrap-up celebration dirmer. October 1 s, 1003 in Tache,

135

Project Wrap-Up Celebration dinner...
«Cn c>;-.s:=-16"'. IOCS the project'? *?3:- k p celeb;-3".':n dinner WB; "eld • ' " a c e . Th\: i n r e ' narked and -eUr'ated the s.cievs'ner.ts c* tr-r i l s s ' i and ror£."- Tear r e n t e r s
and tho— o-' f.-e project. It *as a special day "u.l o" rerz'z:
3'd -'un and •fts.: f = - lasl
" " f i d a l e - e - t of the - ' O ; K " .

<H-. the * " 3 : - ^ ; ce.ebrs-.icn dinner, ~ ax: ~ r e r : - = r s csiipUted 3 -T3. ^reject
^•••3.U3t:.-, and*e~e p^rentsd •*rivm applied e^anp^s- of t ^ e " ! azi'e- I'Jat'Drcrnuivty: s j e : e n v r : n r e n : 3 . n o i r t o r ' n ne-.r.jc ••;- *es"3c-: 3-d review.
«The project'scorununity prcducts, a r<ook a~d OVC, were pre:ented :o ET and FT
members at tHs dinner T^eprc;ect': boo^ and DVD aTe alio available free o: charge to
the Tl'azt'en Nat-on csimuunty. P.ease sho-:e Arrelia scar* or Bev John a: the Joh^
P r r r e Re:ea~ch Forest >;250-396-C023! to receive y c r copy today!

Final community project presentation,.*
• Once c-5 prcjecfj r_-esi.- 3'd pao&'i are tc roiete, there wi'.l be a "'ins., c c r nurhy
:'e. : en"3:ian in ea'ly 2C0i. :'tay tuned!!

136

5.3.4

Project Extension
Our project's extension activities included working with a grade five, six, seven

class from the local Tl'azt'en Nation Elementary School, Eugene Joseph, and with the
JPRF's Chuntoh Education Society. Working with these groups provided a unique
opportunity to share the project with Tl'azt'enne youth. Forest and Elders team members
were aware of these extension activities, and many were directly involved. Efforts were
made to include as much Dakelh as possible in these extension materials to promote
Tl'azt'en Nation's traditional language with its youth.

137

Figure 5.11- Mr. McKay's Gr. 5, 6,7 Class Information Bulletin, November 1,2007

Mr. McKay's Gr. 5,6,7 Class
'cei
t v c I v r ••> j i- :• - t'li ;•> >i ,T j ^ - ^ i if r, t

'»:*•

CO.'J^.-MI.'I: ' ly-Srse;","

f ••!,•?>:e Rt:St - ,i,"ir h .-.">'est

.is^-

- Project information ~

This com-'.Ttybs.'sd e-rrc-ime-ta, " c v t o i h g oioject r; Mori.i-g •*•[(- two groLO.; or'Tt r.zt'er
r.ticT comniL-rty -*e-'-oe--; TC create a^vay tc —or->(r ard p'cte;t -nip arts i t aiartf a-d ari-'a,:
CT t h e - c M F ~nce T e s i ' c - Forest a osrt ofTI a ~ ' = r te- -toiy.
T h e t i s ^roup; cr'TI szt'?r cc " * " jrv tj>- " enib 51; •*, ori.ng or t b i ; p-c;e:t a e :

Netso whudJlhdzulhrje 'ilhozdflme, Eiders Team
'?f• * *

i

£

1 -111'

i

"*-a
'V

%

54"

.Jl

fiters*'De.:.-i's. Z-'A-eer, * y j t : i i , Pierre j j n . ? , Sempiviie .Vsriess, ^''iVi'e .Vnrte-ss, Ce!ssii'te
rho.'??flf, rtcleii JCI'V?.'!i:e, Lrzc'e^iVjf.'i, .Vary is.crii.-?. ••-•LL- : j'sfci MIVX'S.I

Chuntoh 'ilhoziJilne, Fcwst Team
*y<*
PiC'to r o t
available

X4i .. .
jcnx Mex:s

^ate*.

.V.rcnjif! js.'i.'i

1 ' ^ H , fed
0 c r K . " A.'sli.'i

He try AiiH'i>

JJSJI: Fei.'x

Atoy-i'a'Ai.'is;,,

V'oi'er f.-f>r:e

/.'ntii^fe.' 7C.«K

^
Geriita'i.'ii? j j s s p h

Gis.'riijoiwnie tf:vy ie-hrM

George .Vs.-r:?

138

~ Objective of the Project ~
Together wish "he Elders and Forest Team, we wi.L develop a TV'azt'en communitybased envirortTtsntal monitoring method that ic-corporaies the needs, be.fefs, and
concerns cf the communis/. This praise- is focused on developing an environmental
monitoring method for f-he foi.cwing traditional use activities:

Jevo 'uka/ut'en-' Bail moose he is hunting
Hun tins Moose

Tsa 'uka'uf/en- Beaver he is trapping
Trapping Beaver

Taio ba te'un$e~ Salmon for he/she sets net
Fishing Salmon

Duje ooma viif Huckleberries she is picking
Picking Huckleberries

Yoo ha ningwus 'uleh- Medicine for soapberries she makes
Harvesting Soapberries for Medicinal Use

139

Figure 5.12 Chuntoh Education Society Information Bulletin, May 2008

Chuntoh Education Society
Project:
EvcVvf.'ip Co-mann;ertieni fiiicr••:.?• Co<r>tr.ur,f i^-3csed
Environmental Aloniisc inf w'<th Ti'azt'en Nation on the John
Prince Research Finest
May 2QC8

~ Project information ~

This conT'-iity-bj.'sd ei.TO-ime-ta; " O T t o r h g project i." * p orki-g <vit- 17*0 resv: of Tl r 3r">n
'.-.tion commu'ity ; ' W ! K ' S :c create s. ••vay to "om'-.c- ard p c t e c t mp-orta-it plant; a'd arii-a,:
on the John P-nce Researc- Forest, a part of TTsr-'sr te-—tory.
The t'-vo groupj of Tl/az-.'ep cc.rv-jrr'"/ "•embsri working OP t r i ; p-c;e>;t a'e:

Netso whudifhdzulhne 'ilhozdtlne, Eiders Team

(Betsy Deiw.'s. Sireer, Austin. Pierre John, Seraphine Mattes*. W'llie Mattess. Celesti.ne
Thomas, Helen Johnnie. Lizzie Aiexh, Mar/ Lehrun, .mm...: j'ofoi A'ex.'sj

Chuntoh 'ilhozdilne. Forest Team
f

Jon/? Alexis MkhceiAslin

Qcreen 4I;S£IJI

Merry .Austin

Jsatfc Fsi'ix

Mary-Ann Hn.nior:

r

Geralo'i.'W Joseph

t*^

Gloria Jon.«?nie A! ivy is*.™ Pr; George Atorris V'si'et P.-firre "athenie! Tcm

~ Objective of the Project ~
Together w'sh the Elders and Forest Team, we •*,!,'. ds-fisiop a TV'azt'en corfrriunitybased envirorcTonSaL monitoring method that incorporates the needs, be.refs, and
concerns af the ccrrrrainicy. This project is focused on develop: ng an environmental
rfom'toring method fc;' -he following traditional use activities:

Jevo 'uka'ut'en-' BuSi moose he is hunting
Hunting Moose

Tsa ^uka'uit'en- Beaver he is trapping
Trapping Beaver

Talo ba te'unite - Salmon for he/she sets net
Fishing Salmon

Duie ooraa yin-* Huckleberries she is picking
Picking Huckleberries

Yoo ha ninewys ^ulehi- Medicine for soapberries she makes
Harvesting Soapberries for Medicinal Use

141

CHAPTER 6- THESIS OUTCOMES AND CONCLUSIONS
This project's research process, findings and products support the application of a
CBEM system on the JPRF. I addressed my first central research objective by
developing and evaluating a measures development framework that used a range of
community-based methods. Through repeated and systematic evaluations with project
participants the community-based process for developing, identifying, and verifying
Tl'azt'en environmental measures evolved to better meet the project goals and provide
guidance to other CBEM initiatives. Sustained FT and ET member participation and a
0% rate of attrition reaffirm our community-based approach and our adaptation of
culturally relevant research methods.
I identified and verified 252 Tl'azt'en environmental measures, thus achieving the
second central research objective. Specifically, we developed 39 measures for Talo
ha'hut'en - fishing salmon, 69 measures for Huda ha'hut'en - hunting moose, 31
measures for Tsa ha tsayilh sula - trapping beaver, 33 measures for Duje hoonayin picking huckleberries, 26 measures for Yoo ba ningwus hunult'o - gathering soapberries
for medicinal use, 36 measures for monitoring environmental change across the Tl'azt'en
Nation traditional territory, and 18 measures for monitoring adherence to Tl'azt'en
traditional environmental land use methods and principles.
As the final step in my research, five applied CBEM prototypes and
corresponding mocked examples were developed and evaluated. These prototypes were
developed for each traditional use activity, using the most frequently coded measures.
The prototypes demonstrated a field testable format, thus serving as a starting point for
the next phase of this research. Elders Team and Forest Team participants reported that

142

the applied format was useful and provided suggestions for improvement. The
participant evaluations of CBEM prototypes provided important guidance for the
implementation of Tl'azt'en environmental measures that I identified in this research.
A number of opportunities and challenges involved with CBEM were identified
through the process of developing Tl'azt'en environmental measures and its respective
framework; these will contribute to the improvement of cross-cultural partnerships,
including Tl'azt'en CBEM. One significant challenge was engaging 19 Tl'azt'en
community team members over the course of the 15-month project. Meaningful
engagement of the Tl'azt'en team members required strong project organization,
communication, and commitment. Our measures development framework provided team
members with a clear methodological process and a defined set of goals that marked the
project's progress and achievements. Having numerous research events facilitated the
development of meaningful relationships and strong working teams. We met the
challenge of maintaining a transparent research process by continually communicating
with project team members and by distributing research products to the broader
community. Team members received numerous written and oral updates throughout the
course of the project; newsletters documenting findings and progress were distributed to
the broader Tl'azt'en community. Other research products, including a book and DVD,
as well as the involvement of a local elementary school class also enhanced the
transparency of the research process.
This research project provided a number of opportunities for the growth and
empowerment of Tl'azt'en community members. As discussed in Chapter 2, we fostered
independence, personal and professional development, and relationship building.

143

Extension activities provided team members with the opportunity to work and share
knowledge with Tl'azt'en youth (Section 5.3.5). Team members presented their
contributions to the project book (Figure 5.1) to a local grade 5, 6, 7 class at the
community product development workshop. This class also played a role in the project
by contributing art work for the book. Informing youth of traditional practices and values
was important to ET and FT members. The lead researcher contributed to the curriculum
of a youth focused Chuntoh Education Society overnight camp. Such extension activities
facilitated invaluable learning and teaching opportunities beyond the scope of the
research project. The knowledge of team members and project findings were shared
through community products such as a collaboratively produced book (Figure 5.1) and
DVD (Figure 5.2). These products were designed to be accessible to a broad audience
and were focused on Tl'azt'en TEKMS, rather than the theory or methods of CBEM.
The book and DVD will be a valuable teaching and learning tool for the Tl'azt'en
community. Ultimately, the lessons learned through our project's challenges and
opportunities will contribute to building long-term local support for Tl'azt'en CBEM on
the co-managed JPRF.
In addition to the direct findings and application of my research, the Tl'azt'en
C&I framework has been furthered by the results and achievements summarized above.
The future application of Tl'azt'en CBEM will further the active involvement of the
Tl'azt'en Nation community and their TEKMS in the co-management of the JPRF.
Ultimately, this will contribute to culturally and environmentally sustainable management
practices on the JPRF and to the success of a vibrant and equitable co-management
arrangement.

144

REFERENCES
Abbot, J., & Guijt, I. (1998). Changing views on change: participatory approaches to
monitoring the environment. International Institute for Environment and
Develoment (IIED): SARL Discussion Paper, 2.
Adam, M. C , & Kneeshaw, D. (2008). Local level criteria and indicator frameworks: A
tool used to assess aboriginal forest ecosystem values. Forest Ecology and
Management, 255, 2024-2037.
Allen, S. D. (2005). Using perceptual maps to communicate concepts of Sustainable
Forest Management- Collaborative research with the Office of the Wet'sewet'en
Nation in British Columbia. The Forestry Chronicle, 81(3), 381-386.
Alzate, R. D. E. (2000). Monitoring and evaluating local development through
community participation: The experience of the Association of Indigenous
Cabildos of Northern Cauca, Columbia. In M. Estrella, J. Blauert, D. Campilan, J.
Gaventa, J. Gonsalves, I. Guijt, D. Johnson & R. Ricafort (Eds.), Learning from
change: Issues and experiences in participatory monitoring and evaluation (pp.
95-108). Ottawa: IDRC.
Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Society. (2008). Proceedings of the Arctic
Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-op 11' Annual Gathering- Inuvik,
Northwest Territories March 29lh and 30th, 2008. Arctic Borderlands Ecological
Knowledge Co-op 11 th Annual Gathering- Inuvik, Northwest Territories.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, 35 (4), 216-224.
Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies. (2003). Ethical Principles for
the Conduct of Research in the North. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Association of
Canadian Universities for Northern Studies and Department of Indian and
Northern Development.
Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of
the tail wagging the dog? British Medical Journal, 322(May 5), 1115-1117.
Barnsley, J., & Ellis, D. (1992). Research for Change: Participatory Action Research for
Community Groups: The Women's Research Center.
Barry, C. A., Britten, N., Barber, N., Bradley, C , & Stevenson, F. (1999). Using
Reflexivity to Optimize Teamwork in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health
Research, 9(1), 26-44.
Beckley, T., Parkins, J., & Stedman, R. (2002). Indicators of forest-dependent community
sustainability: The evolution of research. The Forestry Chronicle, 78(5), 626-636.
Bennett, E., & Zurek, M. (2006). Integrating Epistemologies through Scenarios. In W. V.
Reid, F. Berkes, T. J. Wilbanks & D. Capistrano (Eds.), Bridging Scales and
Knowledge Systems: Concepts and Applications in Ecosystem Assessment (pp.
275-294). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Berkes, F. (1990). Native Subsistence Fisheries: A Synthesis of Harvest Studies in
Canada. Arctic, 43(1), 35-42.
Berkes, F. (1994). Co-managing: Bridging the two solitudes. Northern Perspectives,
22(2-3), 18-20.
Berkes, F. (1995). Indigenous Knowledge and Resource Management Systems: A Native
Canadian Case Study from James Bay. In S. Hanna & M. Munasinghe (Eds.),

145

Property Rights in a Social and Ecological Context (pp. 99-109). Washington,
DC: The World Bank.
Berkes, F. (Ed.) (1995) Encyclopedia of Environmental Biology (Vols. 1). Academic
Press.
Berkes, F. (1999a). Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource
Management. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Berkes, F. (1999b). Role and significance of 'tradition' in indigenous knowledge.
Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, 7(1), 19.
Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking Community-Based Conservation. Conservation Biology,
18(3), 621-630.
Berkes, F. (2007). Adaptive Co-Management and Complexity: Exploring the Many Faces
of Co-Management. In D. Armitage, F. Berkes & N. Doubleday (Eds.), Adaptive
Co-Management (pp. 19-37). Vancouver: UBC Press.
Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging
organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 1-11.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological
Knowledge as Adaptive Management. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1251-1262.
Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (2002). Back to the Future: Ecosystem Dynamics and Local
Knowledge. In L. H. Gunderson, & Holling, C.S. (Ed.), Panarchy: Understanding
Transformations in Human and Natural Systems (pp. 121-146). Washington:
Island Press.
Berkes, F., George, P., & Preston, R. J. (1991). Co-management: The Evolution in
Theory and Practice of the Joint Administration of Living Resources.
Alternatives, 18(2), 12-18.
Berkes, F., & Seixas, C. S. (2005). Building Resilience in Lagoon Social-Ecological
Systems: A Local-level Perspective. Ecosystems, 8, 961-91 A.
Blondin, T. (2008). West Kitikmeot Slave Study 'Lessons Learned' and Directions for
Future Monitoring Programs. Paper presented at the Science in the Changing
North 2008- Environmental Monitoring and Community Involvement 'Walking
the Talk', Tree of Peace, Yellowknife, NT.
Blumenthal, D., & Jannink, J.-L. (2000). A Classification of Collaborative Management
Methods. Ecology and Society, 4(2).
Bombay, H. (1995). Discussion Paper: Co-management and Other Forms of Agreement
in the Forest Sector. Ottawa: National Aboriginal Forestry Association.
Bombay, H. (1996). Aboriginal Forest-Based Ecological Knowledge in Canada. Ottawa:
National Aboriginal Forestry Association.
Bonny, E., & Berkes, F. (2008). Communicating traditional environmental knowledge:
addressing the diversity of knowledge, audiences and media types. Polar Record,
44, 243-253.
Booth, A. L. (1998). Putting 'forestry' and 'community' into First Nations' resource
management. Forestry Chronicle, 74, 347-352.
Booth, A. L. (2000). A Case Study of Community Forestry in the Tl'azt'en Nation:
University of Northern British Columbia.
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press.

146

Buller, P. F., & Bell, C. H. J. (1986). Effects of Team Building and Goal Setting on
Productivity: A Field Experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 305328.
Burn, C. (2008). Science, Monitoring and its Relationship with Community Based
Approaches. Paper presented at the Science in the Changing North 2008Environmental Monitoring and Community Involvement 'Walking the Talk', Tree
of Peace, Yellowknife, NT.
Cajete, G. (2000). Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Sante Fe: Clear
Light Publishers.
Canadian community monitoring network. (2004). Partnership of Environment Canada's
Canadian Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network Coordinating Office
and the Canadian Nature Federation.
Carr, D. S., & Halvorsen, K. (2001). An Evaluation of Three Democratic CommunityBased Approaches to Citizen Participation: Surveys, Conversations with
Community Groups, and Community Dinners. Society and Natural Resources, 14,
107-126.
Carter, J. L. (2008). Thinking outside the framework: equitable research partnerships for
environmental research in Australia. The Geographical Journal, 174(\), 63-75.
Castellano, M. B. (2004). Ethics of Aboriginal Research. Journal of Aboriginal Health,
98-114.
Castleden, H., Garvin, T., & Huu-ay-aht First Nation. (2008). Modifying Photovoice for
community-based participatory Indigenous research. Social Science and
Medicine, 66, 1393-1405.
Castro, A. P., & Nielsen, E. (2001). Indigenous people and co-management: implications
for conflict management. Environmental Science & Policy, 4, 229-239.
Cheng, A. S., Bond, K., Lockwood, C , & Hansen, S. (2008). Calibrating Collaboration:
Monitoring and Adaptive Management of the Landscape Working Group Process
on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests in Western
Colorado. In C. Wilmsen, W. Elmendorf, L. Fisher, J. Ross, B. Sarathy & G.
Wells (Eds.), Partnerships for Empowerment: Participatory Research for
Community-based Natural Resource Management (pp. 147-165). Sterling, VA:
Earthscan.
Cho, J., & Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative
Research, 6(3), 319-340.
Cohen, S. J. (1997). What If and So What in Northwest Canada: Could Climate Change
Make a Difference to the Future of the Mackenzie Basin? Arctic, 50(4), 293-307.
Conley, A., & Moote, M. A. (2003). Evaluating Collaborative Natural Resource
Management. Society and Natural Resources, 16(5), 371-386.
Cote-Arsenault, D., & Morrison-Beedy, D. (1999). Practical Advice for Planning and
Conducting Focus Groups. Nursing Research, 48(5), 280-283.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Traditions. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Cristancho, S., & Vining, J. (2004). Culturally Defined Keystone Species. Human
Ecology Review, 11(2), 153-164.

147

Davis, A., & Wagner, J. R. (2003). Who Knows? On the Importance of Identifying
"Experts" When Researching Local Ecological Knowledge. Human Ecology,
31(3), 463-488.
DeCremer, D., & vanVugt, M. (1999). Social identification effects in social dilemmas: a
transformation of motives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 871-893.
Department of Justice Canada. (2007). Aboriginal Justice Strategy Summative Evaluation
Final Report: Department of Justice Canada.
Dick, B. (2005) Grounded theory: a thumbnail sketch. [On line] Available at
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/grounded.html
Durie, M. (2004a). Exploring the Interface Between Science and Indigenous Knowledge.
Paper presented at the 5th APEC Research and Development Leaders ForumCapturing Value form Science.
Durie, M. (2004b). Understanding health and illness: research at the interface between
science and indigenous knowledge. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33(5),
1138-1143.
Estrella, M. (2000). Learning from Change. In M. Estrella, J. Blauert, D. Campilan, J.
Gaventa, J. Gonsalves, I. Guijt, D. Johnson & R. Ricafort (Eds.), Learning from
change: Issues and experiences in participatory monitoring and evaluation (pp.
1-14). Ottawa: IDRC.
Estrella, M., & Gaventa, J. (1998). Who counts reality? Participatory monitoring and
evaluation: a literature review: Institute of Development Studies.
Fast, H., Chiperzak, D. B., Cott, K. J., & Elliot, G. M. (2005). Integrated Management
Planning in Canada's Western Arctic: An Adaptive Consultation Process. In F.
Berkes, R. Huebert, H. Fast, M. Manseau & A. Diduck (Eds.), Breaking Ice:
Renewable Resource and Ocean Management in the Canadian North (pp. 95117). Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
Ferguson, M. A. D., & Messier, F. (1997). Collection and Analysis of Traditional
Ecological Knowledge about a Population of Arctic Tundra Caribou. Arctic,
50(1), 17-28.
Fetterman, D., & Wandersman, A. (2007). Empowerment Evaluation: Yesterday, Today,
and Tomorrow. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(2), 179-198.
Fetterman, D. M. (2001). Foundations of Empowerment Evaluation. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Fisher, P. A., & Ball, T. J. (2003). Tribal Participatory Research: Mechanisms of a
Collaborative Model. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(3/4), 207216.
Fishery Notice, July 24, 2009. FN0549 - Salmon: Fraser River Sockeye Update - July
24 - South Coast (Areas 11-29). Available at: http://www-ops2.pac.dfompo.gc.ca/xnel7content/fns/index.cfm?pg=view_notice&lang=en&DOC_ID=118
771 &ID=recreational
Fondahl, G., Wright, P. A., Yim, D., Sherry, E., Leon, B., Bulmer, W., Grainger, S., and
Young, J. (2009). Co-Managing Research: Building and Sustaining a First
Nation-University Partnership. UNBC Community Development Institute, 96
[online]. Available at:
http://www.unbc.ca/assets/cdi/publications/unbc_tlazten_cura_cdi_publication_ap
r_2009.pdf

148

Fox, S. (2002). These are Things That are Really Happening: Inuit Perspectives on the
Evidence and Impacts of Climate Change in Nunavut. In I. Krupnik, & Jolly, D.
(Ed.), The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental
Change (pp. 13-53). Fairbanks, Alaska: Arctic Research Consortium of the
United States.
Freeman, M. M. R., & Carbyn, L. N. (1988). Traditional Knowledge and Renewable
Resource Management in Northern Regions: IUCN Commission of Ecology and
the Canadian Circumpolar Institute.
Furgal, C. M , Martin, D., & Gosselin, P. (2002). Climate Change and Health in Nunavik
and Labrador: Lessons from Inuit Knowledge. In I. Krupnik, & Jolly, D. (Ed.),
The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental
Change (pp. 267-299). Fairbanks, Alaska: Arctic Research Consortium of the
United States.
Garibaldi, A., & Turner, N. (2004). Cultural Keystone Species: Implications for
Ecological Conservation and Restoration. Ecology and Society, 9(3), 1 [online].
Goetze, T. C. (2005). Empowered Co-management: Towards power-sharing and
Indigenous Rights in Clayoquot Sound, BC. Anthropologica, 47, 247-265.
Goldschmidt, P. (1996). A Comprehensive Study of the Ethical, Legal, and Social
Implications of Advances in Biomedical and Behavioural Research and
Technology. In M. Adler & E. Ziglio (Eds.), Gazing into the Oracle: The Delphi
Method and its Application to Social Policy and Public Health (pp. 89-132).
London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Gordon, A. B., Andre, M., Kaglik, B., Cockney, S., Allen, M., Snowshoe, A., & Tetlichi,
R. (2007). Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-op Community Reports
(2005-2006). Whitehorse: Arctic Borderlands Society.
Grainger, S., Sherry, E., & Fondahl, G. (2006). The John Prince Research Forest:
Evolution of a co-management partnership in northern British Columbia. The
Forestry Chronicle, 82(A), 1-12.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park,
California: Sage Publications.
Gustafson, D. H., Cats-Baril, W. L., & Alemi, F. (1992). Systems to Support Health
Policy Analysis. Ann Arbor: Health Administration Press.
Halcomb, E. J., Gholizadeh, L., DiGiacomo, M., Phillips, J., & Davidson, P. M. (2007).
Literature review: considerations in undertaking focus group research with
culturally and linguistically diverse groups. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16,
1000-1011.
Hall, L. (1992). The Carrier: my people. Cloverdale, BC: Friesen Printers.
Hankins, D. L., & Ross, J. (2008). Research on Native Terms: Navigation and
Participation Issues for Native Scholars in Community Research. In C. Wilmsen,
W. Elmendorf, L. Fisher, J. Ross, B. Sarathy & G. Wells (Eds.), Partnerships for
Empowerment: Participatory Research for Community-based Natural Resource
Management (pp. 239-257). Sterling: Earthscan.
Harshaw, H. W., Sheppard, S. R. J., & Lewis, J. L. (2007). A review and synthesis of
social indicators for sustainable forest management. BC Journal of Ecosystems
and Management, 8(2), 17-36.

149

Hawley, A. W. L., Sherry, E. E., & Johnson, C. J. (2004). A biologists' perspective on
amalgamating traditional environmental knowledge and resource management.
Journal of Ecosystems and Management, 5(1), 36-50.
Hoare, T., Levy, C , & Robinson, M. P. (1993). Participatory Action Research in Native
Communities: Cultural Opportunities and Legal Implications. The Canadian
Journal of Native Studies, 13(\), 43-68.
Hudson, D. R. (1983). Traplines and Timber: Social and Economic Change Among the
Carrier Indians of Northern British Columbia. University of Alberta, Edmonton.
Huntington, H. P., Trainor, S.F., Natcher, D.C., Huntington, O. H., DeWilde, L., Chapin
III, F. S. (2006). The Significance of Context in Community-Based Research:
Understanding Discussions about Wildfire in Huslia, Alaska. Ecology and
Society, 11(1), [online].
Johnnie, M. M., & O'Hara, W. R. (1992). The paper that relates: Father Morice's
syllabic newspaper for the Carrier Indians of New Caledonia. Prince George, BC:
Province of British Columbia through the British Columbia Heritage Trust.
Jolly, D., Berkes, F., & Castleden, J., Nichols, T., & the community of Sachs Harbour.
(2002). We Can't Predict the Weather Like We Used to: Inuvialuit Observations
of Climate Change, Sachs Harbour, Western Canadian Arctic. In I. Krupnik, &
Jolly, D. (Ed.), The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic
Environmental Change (pp. 93-125). Fairbanks, Alaska: Arctic Research
Consortium of the United States.
Joseph, D. H., Griffin, M., & Sullivan, E. D. (2000). Videotaped Focus Groups:
Transforming a Therapeutic Strategy Into a Research Tool. Nursing Forum,
35(\), 15-20.
Karjala, M. K. (2001). Integrating Aboriginal Values into Strategic-Level Forest
Planning on the John Prince Research Forest. The University of Northern British
Columbia, Prince George, BC.
Karjala, M. K., & Dewhurst, S. M. (2003). Including Aboriginal issues in forest planning:
a case study in central interior British Columbia, Canada. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 64, 1-17.
Karjala, M. K., Sherry, E. E., & Dewhurst, S. M. (2003). The Aboriginal Forest Planning
Process: A Guidebook for Identifying Community-Level Criteria and Indicators.
Prince George: Forest Renewal BC & Forestry Innovation Investment.
Karjala, M. K., Sherry, E. E., & Dewhurst, S. M. (2004). Criteria and indicators for
sustainable forest planning: a framework for recording Aboriginal resource and
social values. Forest Policy and Economics, 6, 95-110.
Keith, R. F. (1994). The Ecosystem Approach: Implications for the North. Northern
Perspectives, 22(1), 1-8.
Kidd, S. A., & Krai, M. J. (2005). Practicing Participatory Action Research. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 187-195.
Kirby, S. L., Greaves, L., & Reid, C. (2006). Experience Research Social Change:
Methods Beyond the Mainstream (2 ed.). Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview
Press.
Knudtson, P., & Suzuki, D. (1992). Wisdom of the Elders: Native and Scientific Ways of
Knowing about Nature. Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre Publishing Group.

150

Knudtson, P., & Suzuki, D. (2006). Native and Science Ways of Knowing about Nature:
Wisdom of the Elders. Vancouver: Greystone Books: Douglas & Mclntyre
Publishing Group.
Kofinas, G. P. (1998). The Costs of Power Sharing: Community Involvement in Canadian
Porcupine Caribou Co-Management. University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Kofinas, G., Aklavik, Arctic Village, Old Crow, & McPherson, F. (2002a). Community
Contributions to Ecological Monitoring: Knowledge Co-Production in the U.S.Canada Arctic Borderlands. In I. Krupnik & D. Jolly (Eds.), The Earth is Faster
Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change (pp. 55-91).
Fairbanks: ARCUS.
Kofinas, G., Russell, D. E., & R. G. White. (2002b). Monitoring Caribou Body
Condition: Workshop Proceedings, February 16-18, 2000. Paper presented at the
Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Conservation Branch, Whitehorse,
Yukon, Canada.
Kolbe, R. H., & Burnett, M. S. (1991). Content-analysis research: an examination of
applications with directives for improving research reliability and objectivity.
Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 243-250.
Lafrance, J. (2004). Culturally Competent Evaluation in Indian Country. New Directions
for Evaluation, 102, 39-50.
Lewis, J. L. (2004). A framework for developing locally relevant criteria of sustainable
forest management with First Nation communities: Forest Investment Account
(FIA) Report (2003-2004). Prepared for Slocan Forest Products.
Lewis, J. L., & Sheppard, S. R. J. (2005). Ancient Values, New Challenges: Indigenous
Spiritual Perceptions of Landscapes and Forest Management. Society and Natural
Resources, 18, 907-920.
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass
communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human
Communication Research, 28(4), 587-604.
Lutsel K'e Dene First Nation- Wildlife, Lands and Environment Department. (2005).
Ni hat'ni-Watching the Land: Results of 2003-2005 Monitoring Activities in the
Traditional Territory of the Lutsel K'e Denesol ine: West Kitikmeot/Slave Study
Society (WKSS).
Lyver, P. O'B., & Lutsel K'e Dene First Nation. (2005). Monitoring Barren-Ground
Caribou Body Condition with Denosoline Traditional Knowledge. Arctic, 58(1),
44-54.
Magninn, P. J. (2007). Towards more effective community participation in urban
regeneration: the potential of collaborative planning and applied ethnography.
Qualitative Research, 7(1), 25-43.
Manseau, M., Parlee, B., & Ayles, G. B. (2005). A Place for Traditional Ecological
Knowledge in Resource Management. In F. Berkes, R. Huebert, H. Fast, M.
Manseau & A. Diduck (Eds.), Breaking Ice: Integrated Ocean Management in the
Canadian North (pp. 141-164). Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
Marques, J. F., & McCall, C. (2005). The Application of Interrater Reliability as a
Solidification Instrument in a Phenomenological Study. The Qualitative Report,
10(3), 439-462.

151

Mauro, F., & Hardison, P. D. (2000). Traditional Knowledge of Indigenous and Local
Communities: International Debate and Policy Initiatives. Ecological
Applications, 70(5), 1263-1269.
McDonald, M. (1988). Traditional Knowledge, Adaptive Management and Advances in
Scientific Understanding. In M. M. R. Freeman, Carbyn, L.N. (eds.) (Ed.),
Traditional Knowledge and Renewable Resource Management (pp. 65-71).
Edmonton: Boreal Institute for Northern Studies.
Mclntyre, A. (2003). Through the Eyes of Women: photovoice and participatory research
as tools for reimagining place. Gender, Place, and Culture, 10(1), 47-66.
Michel, H., & Gayton, D. V. (Eds.). (2002). Linking Indigenous Peoples' Knowledge and
Western Science in Natural Resource Management: Conference Proceedings.
Kamloops, B.C.: Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership.
Moffitt, P., & Vollman, A. (2004). Photovoice: picturing the health of Aboriginal women
in a remote northern community. Journal of Nursing Research, 5(5(4), 189-201.
Moller, H., Berkes, F., Lyver, P. O., & Kislalioglu, M. (2004). Combining Science and
Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Monitoring Populations for Co-Management.
Ecology and Society, 9(3), 1-15.
Moran, B. (1994). Justa: A First Nations Leader, Dakelhne Butspwhudilhzulh'un.
Vancouver, B.C.: Arsenal Pulp Press.
Morris, P., & Fondahl, G. (2002). Negotiating the production of space in Tl'azt'en
territory, Northern British Columbia. The Canadian Geographer, 46(2), 108-125.
Morris, P. K. (1999). Negotiating the production of space in Tl'azt'en territory, 19691984. University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC.
Mosavel, M., & Thomas, T. (2009). Daughter-initiated health advice to mothers:
perceptions of African-American and Latina daughters. Health Education
Research Advance Access published April 1, 2009, doi: 10.1093/her/cypOl5.
Mulrennan, M. E., & Scott, C. H. (2005). Co-management~An Attainable Partnership?
Two Cases from James Bay, Northern Quebec and Torres Strait, Northern
Queensland. Anthropologica, 47, 197-213.
Napolitano, M., McCauley, L., Beltran, M., & Philips, J. (2002). The Dynamic Process of
Focus Groups With Migrant Farm workers: The Oregon Experience. Journal of
Immigrant Health, 4(4), 177-182.
Narayan, D. (1993). What is Participatory Evaluation? In Participatory Evaluation: Tools
for Managing Change in Water and Sanitation (pp. 9-19). Washington: The
World Bank.
Narayan, D. (2005). Conceptual Framework and Methodological Challenges. In D.
Narayan (Ed.), Measuring Empowerment: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (pp. 338). Washington: The World Bank.
Natcher, D. C , & Hickey, C. G. (2002). Putting the Community Back Into CommunityBased Resource Management: A Criteria and Indicators Approach to
Sustainability. Human Organization, 61(A), 350-363.
National Aboriginal Forestry Association. (1995). An Aboriginal criterion for sustainable
forest management. Ottawa: The Association.
Nepal, S. K. (2004). Indigenous Ecotourism in Central British Columbia: The Potential
for Building Capacity in the Tl'azt'en Nations Territories. Journal of Ecotourism,
5(3), 173-194.

152

Nicholson, E., Ryan, J., & Hodgkins, D. (2002). Community Data- where does the value
lie? Assessing confidence limits of community collected water quality data. Water
Science and Technology, 45, 193-200.
Nickels, S., Furgal, C , Castleden, J., Moss-Davies, P., Buell, M., Armstrong, B., Dillon,
D., & Fonger, R. (2002). Putting the Human Face on Climate Change Through
Community Workshops: Inuit Knowledge, Partnerships, and Research. In I.
Krupnik, & Jolly, D. (Ed.), The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of
Arctic Environmental Change (pp. 300-333). Fairbanks, Alaska: Arctic Research
Consortium of the United States.
O'Flaherty, R. M., Davidson-Hunt, I. J., Manseau, M. (2008). Indigenous Knowledge and
Values in Planning for Sustainable Forestry: Pikangikum First Nation and the
Whitefeather Forest Initiative. Ecology and Society, 13(\).
Office of the Premier, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. (April 3, 2009). First Urban
Treaty in B.C. History Takes Effect Today. Available at:
http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2009OTP0060000606.htm
Olsson, P., Folke, C , & Berkes, F. (2004). Adaptive Comanagement for Building
Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Environmental Management, 34(1), 7590.
Pagdee, A., Kim, Y. S., & Daugherty, P. J. (2006). What Makes Community Forest
Management Successful: A Meta-Study From Community Forests Throughout the
World. Society and Natural Resources, 19, 33-52.
Palys, T. (1997). Research Decisions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives (2 ed.).
Toronto, Canada: Harcourt Brace & Company, Canada.
Parkins, J. R., Stedman, R. C , & Varghese, J. (2001). Moving Towards Local-level
Indicators of Sustainability in Forest-Based Communities: A Mixed Method
Approach. Social Indicators Research, 56, 43-72.
Parlee, B., Berkes, F., & Teetl'it Gwich'in Renewable Resources Council. (2005d).
Health of the Land, Health of the People: A Case Study on Gwich'in Berry
Harvesting in Northern Canada. EcoHealth, 2, 127-137.
Parlee, B., Berkes, F., & Teetl'it Gwich'in Renewable Resources Council. (2006).
Indigenous Knowledge of Ecological Variability and Commons Management: A
Case Study on Berry Harvesting from Northern Canada. Human Ecology, 34,
515-528.
Parlee, B., Manseau, M., & Lutsel K'e Dene First Nation. (2005a). Understanding and
communicating about ecological change: Denesoline indicators of ecosystem
health. In F. Berkes, R. Huebert, H. Fast, M. Manseau & A. Diduck (Eds.),
Breaking Ice: Integrated Ocean Management in the Canadian North (pp. 165182). Calgary: University of Calgary.
Parlee, B., Manseau, M., & Lutsel K'e Dene First Nation. (2005b). Using Traditional
Knowledge to Adapt to Ecological Change: Denesoline Monitoring of Caribou
Movements. Arctic, 58(\), 26-37.
Parlee, B., & Lutsel K'e First Nation. (1997). Community Based Monitoring in the Slave
Geological Province, Annual Report 1996/1997: Part One: Lutsel K'e First
Nation.

153

Parsons, R., & Prest, G. (2003). Aboriginal forestry in Canada. The Forestry Chronicle,
79(A), 779-784.
Paul, R. (2006). Counting on their Migration Home: An Examination of Monitoring
Protocols and Saanich First Nations' Perspectives ofCoho (Oncorhynchus
kisutch), Chinook (O. tshawytscha) and Chum (O. keta) Pacific Salmon at
Goldstream River and Saanich Inlet, Southern Vancouver Island, British
Columbia. University of Victoria, Victoria.
Pinkerton, E. (1998). Integrated management of a temperate montane forest ecosystem
through holistic forestry: a British Columbia example. In F. Berkes, C. Folke & J.
Colding (Eds.), Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices
and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Pinkerton, E., & Weinstein, M. (1995). Fisheries That Work: Sustainability Through
Community-based Management. Vancouver: The David Suzuki Foundation.
Plummer, R., & FitzGibbon, J. (2007). Connecting adaptive co-management, social
learning, and social capital through theory and practice. In D. Armitage, F. Berkes
& N. Doubleday (Eds.), Adaptive Co-Management: Collaboration, Learning, and
Multi-Level Governance (pp. 38-61). Vancouver: University of British Columbia
Press.
Pokorny, B., Prabhu, R., McDougall, C , & Bauch, R. (2004). Local Stakeholders'
Participation in Developing Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest
Management. Journal of Forestry (January/February), 35-40.
Pomeroy, R. S., & Berkes, F. (1997). Two to Tango: The Role of Government in
Fisheries Co-Management. Marine Policy, 21(5), 465-480.
Prince, L. (2002). What is community-based forestry? Paper presented at the Linking
Indigenous Peoples' Knowledge and Western Science in Natural Resource
Management, Chase, B.C.
Quinn, S. E. (2007). Locally Defined Measures of Successful Forest Co-management: A
Case Study ofTl'azt'en Nation and the John Prince Research Forest.
Unpublished Master's Thesis., University of Northern British Columbia, Prince
George, BC.
Richard B. Krehbiel Consulting. (2000). Compensation Issues in the John Prince
Research Forest: A Discussion Paper.
Roberts, K. (1996). Circumpolar Aboriginal People and Co-management Practice. Paper
presented at the Circumpolar Aboriginal People and Co-management Practice
Workshop, Inuvik, Northwest Territories.
Rotondi, A., & Gustafson, D. (1996). Theoretical, Methodological and Practical Issues
Arising out of the Delphi Method. In M. Adler & E. Ziglio (Eds.), Gazing into the
Oracle: The Delphi Method and its Application to Social Policy and Public
Health (pp. 34-55). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Rusnak, G. (1997). Co-Management of Natural Resources in Canada: A Review of
Concepts and Case Studies. Ottawa: Minga Program Initiative.
Santiago-Rivera, A. L., Morse, G. S., & Hunt, A. (1998). Building a Community-Based
Research Partnership: Lessons from the Mohawk Nation of Akwesasne. Journal
of Community Psychology, 26(2), 163-174.

154

Savin-Baden, M., & Wimpenny, K. (2007). Exploring and Implementing Participatory
Action Research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 31(2), 331-343.
Schramm, T., Krogman, N. T., & Hudson, R. J. (2008). Traditional Environmental
Knowledge of Critical Ungulate Habitat of the Caribou Mountains-Lower Peace
River Region. In D. C. Natcher (Ed.), Seeing Beyond the Trees: The Social
Dimensions of Aboriginal Forest Management (pp. 145-165). Concord: Captus
Press Inc.
Selin, S., & Chavez, D. (1995). Developing a Collaborative Model for Environmental
Planning and Management. Environmental Management, 19(2), 189-195.
Selin, S. W., Schuett, M. A., & Carr, D. (2000). Modeling Stakeholder Perceptions of
Collaborative Initiative Effectiveness. Society and Natural Resources, 13, 735745.
Sherry, E. E. (2002). Constructing partnership: a Delphi study of shared resource
management in the north Yukon. University of Northern British Columbia, Prince
George.
Sherry, E. E., & Fondahl, G. (2003). Criteria affecting the success of co-management:
new directions for improved forest management partnerships in British Columbia.
Forestry Innovation Investment Project.
Sherry, E., & Fondahl, G. (2004). Methods for Developing Local-Level Criteria and
Indicators of Joint Forest Management. Prince George: University of Northern
British Columbia.
Sherry, E. E., & Myers, H. (2002). Traditional Environmental Knowledge in Practice.
Society and Natural Resources, 15, 345-358.
Sherry, E., Fondahl, G., Halseth, R., Parsons, S., & Leon, B. (2004). Local-level Criteria
and Indicators of Sustainable Co-Management. Prince George, BC: Community
University Research Alliance Program.
Sherry, E. E., Halseth, R., Fondahl, G., Karjala, M., & Leon, B. (2005). Local-level
criteria and indicators: an Aboriginal perspective on sustainable forest
management. Forestry, 78(5), 513-539.
Sherry, E. E., Quinn, S. E., Fondahl, G., Leon, B., & Grainger, S. (nd-a.). Participatory
monitoring and evaluation of resource co-management: A method for generating
locally defined criteria and indicators of co-management success (in preparation).
Sim, J. (1998). Collecting and analysing qualitative data: issues raised by the focus
group. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(2), 345-352.
Sims, L., & Sinclair, A. J. (2008). Learning through Participatory Resource Management
Programs: Case Studies from Costa Rica. Adult Education Quarterly, 58(2), 151168.
Sinclair, A. J., Diduck, A., & Fitzpatrick, P. (2008). Conceptualizing learning for
sustainability through environmental assessment: critical reflections on 15 years
of research. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28, 415-428.
Smith, L. T. (2006). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples.
New York: Zed Books.
Smith, P. (2002). Aboriginal Peoples and issues in forestry education in Canada:
Breaking new ground. The Forestry Chronicle, 78(2), 250-254.
Spak, S. (2005). The Position of Indigenous Knowledge in Canadian Co-management
Organizations. Anthropologica, 47, 233-246.

155

Stevenson, M. (2005). Traditional Knowledge and Sustainable Forest Management.
Edmonton, Alberta: Sustainable Forest Management Network.
Stevenson, M., & Webb, J. (2003). Just another stakeholder? First Nations and
sustainable forest management in Canada's boreal forest. In P. J. Burton, Messier,
C , Smith, D.W., Adamowicz, W.L. (Ed.), Towards Sustainable Management of
the Boreal Forest (pp. 65-112). Ottawa, ON: NRC Research Press.
Strickland, C. J. (1999). Conducting focus groups cross-culturally: experiences with
Pacific Northwest Indian people. Public Health Nursing, 16, 190-197.
Struthers, R. (2001). Conducting Sacred Research: An Indigenous Experience. Wicazo Sa
Review, Spring, 125-133.
Suzuki, L. A., Ahluwalia, M. K., Arora, A. K., & Mattis, J. S. (2007). The Pond You Fish
in Determines the Fish You Catch: Exploring Strategies for Qualitative Data
Collection. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 295-327.
Talo "the first run." (1997). Tl'azt'en Nation. Canada.
Tetlichi, R., Andre, M., Macleod, A. M., Gordon, A. B., Gruben, C. A., Sharpe, M.,
Greenland, B., Allen, M., & Pascal, E. (2004). Arctic Borderlands Ecological
Knowledge Co-op: Community Reports 2003-2004. Whitehorse: Arctic
Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Society.
Thorpe, N., Eyegetok, S., Hakongak, N., & Kitimeot Elders. (2002). Nowadays it is Not
the Same: Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, Climate and Caribou in the Kitimeot Region
of Nunavut, Canada. In I. Krupnik, & Jolly, D. (Ed.), The Earth is Faster Now:
Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change (pp. 201-239).
Fairbanks, Alaska: Arctic Research Consortium of the United States.
Tipa, G., & Teirney, L. (2003). A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways:
Indicators for recognizing and expressing Maori values. Wellington, New
Zealand: Ministry of the Environment.
Tl'azt'en Nation. (2009a, August 11, 2006). About Us. Retrieved May 11, 2009 at
http://www.tlc.baremetal.com/About%20Us.htm
Tl'azt'en Nation. (2009b). Treaty Biographies. Retrieved May 11, 2009 at
http://www.tlc.baremetal.com/Treaty.htm.
Tl'azt'en Nation and the University of Northern British Columbia CURA. (2007). What
are the goals of the partnership? Retrieved May 11, 2009 from
http://cura/unbc.ca/about/htm.
Tl'azt'en Nation and the University of Northern British Columbia CURA. (2009). Study
Area: John Prince Research Forest. Retrieved May 11, 2009 at
http://cura.unbc.ca/jprf.htm.
Tl'azt'en Nation, & Yim, D. (2008a). Tl'azt'en Nation Community-Based Environmental
Monitoring: Science and Tradition, Respect for our Elders, Respect for our
People, Respect for our Land. Canada.
Tl'azt'en Nation, & Yim, D. (2008b). Tl'azt'en Nation Community-Based Environmental
Monitoring: Science and Tradition, Respect for our Elders, Respect for our
People, Respect for our Land. Prince George: UNBC Copy Services.
Tobias, T. N., & Kay, J. J. (1994). The Bush Harvest in Pinehouse, Saskatchewan,
Canada. Arctic, 47(3), 207-221.
Treseder, L., & Krogman, N. T. (2008). Forest Co-Management in Northern Alberta:
Does it Challenge the Industrial Model? In D. C. Natcher (Ed.), Seeing Beyond

156

the Trees: The Social Dimensions of Aboriginal Forest Management (pp. 209223). Concord: Captus Press Inc.
Turner, N. J., Igance, M. B., & Ignace, R. (2000). Traditional Ecological Knowledge and
Wisdom of Aboriginal Peoples in British Columbia. Ecological Applications,
10(5).
Usher, P. J. (2000). Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Environmental Assessment and
Management. Arctic, 53(2), 183-193.
Vissandjee, B., Abdool, S. N., & Dupere, S. (2002). Focus Groups in Rural Gujarat,
India: A Modified Approach. Qualitative Health Research, 12(6), 826-843.
Wandersman, A., Snell-Johns, J., Lentz, B. E., Fetterman, D. M., Keener, D. C , Livet,
M., Imm, P. S., & Flaspohler, P. (2005). The Principles of Empowerment
Evaluation. In D. M. Fetterman & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Empowerment
evaluation principles in practice (pp. 27-41). New York: Guilford.
Wang, C , & Burris, M. (1997). Photovoice: Concept, Methodology, and Use for
Participatory Needs Assessment. Health Education and Behavior, 24(3), 369-387.
Wang, C , Ling, Y. Y., & Ling, F. M. (1996). Photovoice as tool for participatory
evaluation: the community's view of process and impact. Journal of
Contemporary Health, 4, 47-49.
Wang, C , Morrel-Samuels, S., Hutchison, P. M., Bell, L., & Pestronk, R. M. (2004).
Flint Photovoice: Community Building Among Youths, Adults, and
Policymakers. American Journal of Public Health, 94(6), 911-913.
Wang, C. C , Cash, J. L., & Powers, L. S. (2000). Who knows the Streets as Well as the
Homeless? Promoting Personal and Community Action through Photovoice.
Health Promotion Practice, 7(1), 81-89.
Wang, C. C , & Redwood-Jones, Y. A. (2001). Photovoice Ethics: Perspectives from
Flint Photovoice. Health Education & Behavior, 28(5), 560-572.
Webler, T., Kastenholz, H., & Renn, O. (1995). Public Participation in Impact
Assessment: A Social Learning Perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 15(5), 443-463.
Westley, F. (2002). The Devil in the Dynamics: Adaptive Management on the Front
Lines. In L. H. Gunderson, & Holling, C.S. (Ed.), Panarchy: Understanding
Transformations in Human and Natural Systems (pp. 333-360). Washington:
Island Press.
Willgerodt, M. A. (2003). Using Focus Groups to Develop Culturally Relevant
Instruments. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 25(1), 798-814.
Williams, E. M., & Ellefson, P. V. (1997). Going into partnership to manage a landscape.
Journal of Forestry, 95(5), 29-33.
Wilmsen, C , Elmendorf, W., Fisher, L., Ross, J., Sarathy, B., & Wells, G. (2008).
Participation, Relationships and Empowerment. In C. Wilmsen, W. Elmendorf, L.
Fisher, J. Ross, B. Sarathy & G. Wells (Eds.), Partnerships for Empowerment:
Participatory Research for Community-based Natural Resource Management (pp.
259-284). Sterling: Earthscan.
Wondolleck, J. M., & Yaffee, S. L. (2000a). Crafting Meaningful, Effective, and
Enduring Processes. In Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in
Natural Resource Management (pp. 99-117). Washington, DC: Island Press.

157

Wondolleck, J. M., & Yaffee, S. L. (2000b). Partnerships are People. In Making
Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management
(pp. 157-173). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Wright, P. (2002). General Guidelines for Measurement of Indicators for Model Forests
(No. GCP/RAS/177/JPN): FAO/Government of Japan.
Wright, P. A., Alward, G., Colby, J. L., Hoekstra, T. W., Telger, B., & Turner, M.
(2002). Monitoring for forest management unit scale sustainability: the local unit
criteria and indicators development (LUCID) test (Technical Edition) (No. 4).
Fort Collins, Co: USDA Forest Service
Wyatt, S. (2008). First Nations, forest lands, and "aboriginal forestry" in Canada: from
exclusion to comanagement and beyond. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research,
38, 171-180.
Yim, D., Sherry, E., & Johnson, C. (2009). Evaluating the process of developing
Aboriginal environmental measures for a co-managed forest, (in preparation)
Zamparo, J. (1996). Informing the Fact: Inuit Traditional Knowledge Contributes
Another Perspective. Geoscience Canada, 23(4), 261-266.

158

APPENDIX A
A.l- Quantitative summary of the total number of Tl'azt'en environmental
measures summarized by traditional use activity, critical local value (CLV), and
method type.
Traditional Use
Measures
Critical Local Value
Activity
Method type
Total
Quantitative Qualitative Both
Fishing Salmon
3
3
11
Maintain viable salmon
5
habitat in Stuart Lake
Hunting Moose
Maintain viable moose
4
13
0
17
(ungulate) habitat
Trapping Beaver Maintain viable beaver
11
7
0
18
(fur-bearer) habitat
Picking
1
5
11
Maintain viable
5
Huckleberries
huckleberry habitat
Gathering
Maintain soapberry
3
1
7
3
Soapberries for
Habitat
Medicinal Use
64
Total
20
35
9

159

A.2- Quantitative summary of resultant Tl'azt'en environmental measures
corresponding to each traditional use activity's abundance related critical local
value (CLV).
Measures
Traditional
Critical Local Value
Use
Method type
Total
Activity
Qualitative
Quantitative
BOTH
Maintain viable salmon 12
0
12
Fishing
0
Salmon
abundance in Stuart
Lake
Maintain viable moose
Hunting
10
8
0
18
Moose
(ungulate) population
Maintain viable beaver
Trapping
5
3
2
10
(fur-bearer) population
Beaver
Maintain viable
4
Picking
2
3
9
huckleberry abundance
Huckleberries
Maintain soapberry
2
2
1
Gathering
5
Soapberries for abundance
Medicinal Use
17
Total
31
6
54

160

A.3- Quantitative summary of resultant Tl'azt'en environmental measures
corresponding to each traditional use activity's health and quality related critical
local value (CLV).
Traditional Use
Critical Local Value
Measures
Activity
Method type
Total
Quantitative Qualitative BOTH
Fishing
Maintain health &
8
8
0
16
Salmon
quality of salmon in
Stuart Lake
Hunting Moose Maintain health &
9
24
34
1
quality of moose
(ungulate) population
Trapping
2
4
Maintain health &
0
6
Beaver
quality of beaver (furbearer) population
Picking
Maintain huckleberry
4
12
3
5
Huckleberries
quality
4
Gathering
Maintain soapberry
3
7
0
Soapberries for quality
Medicinal Use
44
Total
25
75
6

161

A.4- Summary of resultant Tl'azt'en environmental measures related to monitoring change across Tl'azt'en Nation's
traditional territory and adherence to Tl'azt'en traditional environmental land use methods and principles
Critical Local Value
Measures
Method type
Thematic topic
Quantitative
Qualitative
Consider the impacts of logging
Logging
0
2
2
2
Consider the impacts of herbicides
Herbicides; pesticides
and pesticides
Address forest health issues
Mountain pine beetle
0
3
Closed mercury mine
Restore or remediate damaged or
0
6
degraded sites
1
Manage access
Road development
0
Conduct environmental monitoring
Temperature; late seasons; snowpack; rainfall;
3
12
weather conditions
Protect water quality for human
Water quality of lakes; Water quality of rivers;
3
3
Water quality of groundwater
consumption, for fish, and for
wildlife
Incorporate and apply traditional land Fire, no waste of hunted animals, no fishing for
6
6
sport;
hunting/trapping
selectivity;
rest
and
rotation
management practices
of harvest areas based on animal/population health;
hunting
Incorporate and apply traditional
Respect for all life and land, reciprocity
3
3
beliefs
17
38

3
6
1
15
6

12

6
55

0
0
0
0
0

0

0
0

162

2
4

Total
Both
0
0

APPENDIX B
B.l- Quantitative summary of initial and final percent agreement scores for our
inter-rater reliability tested transcripts
Number of
Transcript
Initial Agreement
Final Agreement
Number.
analysts
N/A- pilot
1
5
N/A- pilot
2
80.95%
100%
5
74.50%
100%
3
5
52.63%
4
100%
6
58.8%
100%
5
6
64.29%
100%
6
6
31.58%
100%
7
6
34.25%
3
100%
8
60.00%
100%
9
3
35.59%
100%
10
3
7.69%
11
3
100%
Average= 50.03%
Average= 100%

APPENDIX C
C.l- Forest Team Member Invitation Package, June 2007

Forest Team
-Invitation PackageTo participate in the project:
Evolving Co-Management Practice:
Community-based Environmental Monitoring with
Tl'azt'en Nation on the John Prince Research Forest

^VAZT'^y
UflbC

UNIVERSITY OF
NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA

TTaztw Nation and the IWvercity of Northern British Colunta

Community-University Research Alliance
Partnering for Sustainable Resource Management

NATION

4touv?f^"

Fast Facts
On this research project

If I am interested in participating as a member in this
research project, what do I need to do, and when?
•

Review this invitation package
Come to our Welcome information luncheon in Tache on July 24th,
2007 at the Elders Centre from 10am-1pm where you will:
• meet the researchers (Deanna Yim, Mrs. Amelia Stark, Annie
Anatole)
• hear more about this project and what it involves,
• learn about the community products that will develop from this
research
• ask questions
• decide whether you would like to accept our invitation to be a
member in this project.

Who is supporting this research project?
•
•
•
•

Tl'azt'en Nation
John Prince Research Forest (JPRF)
Community-University Research Alliance (CURA)
University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC)
BC Real Estate Foundation

What is the timeline for this project?
•
•

The specific timeline of this project will be jointly created between
Deanna and those members who commit to participating in this project.
The entire project is expected to be completed by May 2008.

165

Why was I selected to be a member of this research
project?
Because your peers identified you as a member of the Tl'azt'en
community who:
is knowledgeable about traditional activities: hunting, trapping,
fishing, medicinal plant gathering, and/or berry picking.
is respected as an expert and has been nominated by a minimum
of two Tl'azt'en community members who have identified you as
an expert.
is representative of important groups of people in the
community.

What is asked of Forest Team members?
•

•
•
•
•

Attend 3 gatherings in Tache or Cinnabar, which will involve
photography, storytelling, a focus group, group discussions, and lunch.
All meals and transportation to these events will be provided.
Go out on the land with cameras to capture photos that can help to
communicate my knowledge and expertise. (Training, cameras, and
other materials will be provided)
Participate in an Elders Workshop Retreat at Cinnabar (optional)
Verify your transcripts
Review research findings (optional)
Attend a celebration/thank-you dinner in Tache at the completion of
this project (optional)

Why should I participate as a Forest Team member?
•

•
•

I will share my knowledge and expertise with others through community
products such as: a DVD, a photobooklet, community photopamphlets,
newsletters; and, academic products such as a thesis, papers, and
presentations
I will receive a digital camera and training on how to use the camera for
environmental monitoring purposes
Contribute to the development of a Tl'azt'en community-based
environmental monitoring that will be used to help protect the health of
plants and animals on the JPRF
Contribute to improving co-management success

Letter of Invitation
Hello, my name is Deanna Yim and I am leading this research
project titled, "Evolving Co-Management Practice: CommunityBased Environmental Monitoring with Tl'azt'en Nation on the John
Prince Research Forest." I am a graduate student at the University
of Northern British Columbia (UNBC). I am doing this research as a
part of the Community-University Research Alliance (CURA) project
between Tl'azt'en Nation and UNBC.
I invite you, on behalf of myself and a larger team of research
partners, to participate in this research project. This project is
supported by CURA, and is part of the Improved Partnerships
Stream. Research is supervised by Ms. Beverly John, Ms. Susan
Grainger, Mrs. Amelia Stark and Mr. Dexter Hodder of the John
Prince Research Forest, Dr. Chris Johnson of UNBC, and Dr. Erin
Sherry of the BC Integrated Land Management Bureau.
We are exploring ways to evaluate the co-management of the John
Prince Research Forest (JPRF), through community-based
environmental monitoring. We hope our research will provide
approaches that Tl'azt'en Nation and the JPRF can use to monitor
and assess the health of important plants and animals.
We will be focusing on developing ways to measure the health of
specific plants and animals from the following traditional use
categories of hunting, trapping, fishing, medicinal plants, and
berries. We will be using exciting methods such as photography,
storytelling, forest walks, outdoor activities, an overnight Elders
retreat at Cinnabar, and group discussions to identify and develop
Tl'azt'enne measures of plant and animal health. Ultimately, we
hope to develop an actual monitoring tool that is created from
Tl'azt'en traditional knowledge and wisdom and that can be used
by Tl'azt'en to monitor the health of plants and animals on the
JPRF and perhaps other parts of your traditional territory.
To carry out this study, we invite you to consider participating in
our Forest Team. This will involve 3 gatherings in Tache or
Cinnabar that involve a 2-3 hour focus group, an outdoor activity,

168

and lunch. Meals and transportation to these meetings will be
provided. It is impossible to compensate experts such as yourself
for the full value of your time; however, each person's contributions
will be recognized with gifts. Findings will be shared through
community products, such as a DVD movie, a photo booklet,
community photo pamphlets; a community presentation; JPRF and
CURA newsletters, updates and website; as well as academic works.
Results will help the JPRF better understand, respect, and
incorporate Tl'azt'en perspectives and methods of monitoring the
health of plants and animals.
Ms. Beverly John, Mrs. Amelia Stark, or I will contact you by July
31st by phone or in person, to answer any questions about the
research and find out if you would like to attend a welcome
information session introducing the people, methods, and
objectives involved in this study. I look forward to hopefully seeing
you soon at the Welcome information luncheon in Tache at the
Elders Centre on July 24th.
Sincerely yours,

Deanna Yim,

Bev John,

Annie Anatole,

Graduate Student,
University of Northern BC

CURA Research Coordinator,
Tl'azt'en Nation

CURA/JPRF Research
Assistant,
Tl'azt'en Nation

Amelia Stark,

Sue Grainger

CURA Ecotourism Stream leader,
Tl'azt'en Nation

CURA co-investigator, &
JPRF manager

169

C.2- Elders Team Member Invitation Package, June 2007

Elders Team
~ Invitation PackageTo participate in the project:
Evolving Co-Management Practice:
Community-based Environmental Monitoring with
Tl'azt'en Nation on the John Prince Research Forest

^VAZT'^y
Ufl&C

UNIVERSITY OF
NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA

IVazten Nation and the IMiversrty of Northern Brifeh Columbia

Communtty-Universlty Researdi Alliance
Partnering for Sustainable Resource Management

^O/lVrA ***"

NATION

Fast Facts
On this research project

If I am interested in participating as a member in this
research project, what do I need to do, and when?
•

Review this invitation package
Come to our Welcome information luncheon in Tache on July 24th,
2007 at the Elders Centre from 10am-1pm where you will:
• meet the researchers (Deanna Yim, Mrs. Amelia
Stark, Annie Anatole)
• hear more about this project and what it involves,
• learn about the community products that will develop from this
research
• ask questions
• decide whether you would like to accept our invitation to be a
member in this project.

Who is supporting this research project?
•
•
•
•

Tl'azt'en Nation
John Prince Research Forest (JPRF)
Community-University Research Alliance (CURA)
University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC)
BC Real Estate Foundation

What is the timeline for this project?
•
•

The specific timeline of this project will be jointly created between
Deanna and those members who commit to participating in this project.
The entire project is expected to be completed by May 2008.

171

Why was I selected to be a member of this research
project?
Because your peers identified you as a member of the Tl'azt'en
community who:
is knowledgeable about traditional activities: hunting, trapping,
fishing, medicinal plant gathering, and/or berry picking.
is respected as an expert and has been nominated by a minimum
of two Tl'azt'en community members who have identified you as an
expert.
is representative of important groups of people in the community.

What is asked of Elders Team members?
•
•
•
•
•
•

Attend a two day, one night retreat in late summer (August 20 6t 21) at
Cinnabar which will involve storytelling, photography, group discussions,
and outdoor activities.
All meals, transportation, and accommodations to this event will be
provided.
Elders are encouraged to invite their families to participate in evening
activities.
Verify your transcripts
Review research findings (optional)
Attend a celebration/thank-you dinner in Tache at the completion of
this project (optional)

Why should I participate as an Elders Team member?
•

•
•

I can share my knowledge and expertise with others through community
products such as: a DVD, a photobooklet, community photopamphlets,
newsletters; and, academic products such as a thesis, papers, and
presentations
Contribute to the development of a Tl'azt'en community-based
environmental monitoring method that will be used to help protect the
health of plants and animals on the JPRF
Contribute to improving co-management success

Letter of Invitation
Hello, my name is Deanna Yim and I am leading this research
project titled, "Evolving Co-Management Practice: CommunityBased Environmental Monitoring with Tl'azt'en Nation on the John
Prince Research Forest." I am a graduate student at the University
of Northern British Columbia (UNBC). I am doing this research as a
part of the Community-University Research Alliance (CURA) project
between Tl'azt'en Nation and UNBC.
I invite you, on behalf of myself and a larger team of research
partners, to participate in this research project. This project is
supported by CURA, and is part of the Improved Partnerships
Stream. Research is supervised by Ms. Beverly John, Ms. Susan
Grainger, Mrs. Amelia Stark and Mr. Dexter Hodder of the John
Prince Research Forest, Dr. Chris Johnson of UNBC, and Dr. Erin
Sherry of the BC Integrated Land Management Bureau.
We are exploring ways to evaluate the co-management of the John
Prince Research Forest (JPRF), through community-based
environmental monitoring. We hope our research will provide
approaches that Tl'azt'en Nation and the JPRF can use to monitor
and assess the health of important plants and animals.
We will be focusing on developing ways to measure the health of
specific plants and animals from the following traditional use
categories of hunting, trapping, fishing, medicinal plants, and
berries. We will be using exciting methods such as photography,
storytelling, forest walks, outdoor activities, an overnight Elders
retreat at Cinnabar, and group discussions to identify and develop
Tl'azt'enne measures of plant and animal health. Ultimately, we
hope to develop an actual monitoring tool that is created from
Tl'azt'en traditional knowledge and wisdom and that can be used
by Tl'azt'en to monitor the health of plants and animals on the
JPRF and perhaps other parts of your traditional territory.

174

To carry out this study, we invite you to consider participating in
our Elders Resource Team. This will involve a two day, one night
retreat at Cinnabar. Meals, transportation, and accommodations to
this retreat will be provided. It is impossible to compensate
experts such as yourself for the full value of your time; however,
each person's contributions will be recognized with an honorarium.
Findings will be shared through community products, such as a DVD
movie, a photo booklet, community photopamphlets; a community
presentation; JPRF and CURA newsletters, updates and website; as
well as academic works. Results will help the JPRF better
understand, respect, and incorporate Tl'azt'en perspectives and
methods of monitoring the health of plants and animals.
Ms. Beverly John, Mrs. Amelia Stark, or I will contact you by July
31 st , by phone or in person, to answer any questions about the
research and find out if you would like to attend a welcome
information session introducing the people, methods, and
objectives involved in this study. I look forward to hopefully seeing
you soon at the Welcome information luncheon in Tache at the
Elders Centre on July 24 th .
Sincerely yours,

Deanna Yim,

Bev John,

Annie Anatole,

Graduate Student,
University of Northern BC

CURA Research Coordinator,
Tl'azt'en Nation

CURA/JPRF Research
Assistant,
Tl'azt'en Nation

Amelia Stark,

Sue Grainger

CURA Ecotourism Stream leader,
Tl'azt'en Nation

CURA co-investigator, &
JPRF manager

175

APPENDIX D- Forest Team member commitment to the Forest Team

Commitment to the Forest Team
I,
(name) understand and agree that
as a valued member of the Forest Team, that I am expected to
attend all three Forest Team gatherings and to produce photographs
that will contribute to the development of a Tl'azt'en communitybased environmental monitoring method. If circumstances arise
which prevent me from attending one of these gatherings I will
make time to meet with Deanna to make up for the time that I
missed. I,
(name) understand that I will
return the digital camera, camera case, digital memory card,
battery charger, and rechargeable batteries if I do not fulfill my
commitment as a Forest Team member.
Date:
Signature:

176

E.2- Elders Team Member Update, September 2007

Dear Elders Team Member,
Each and eveiry member of our Elders Team has made invaBuable contributions to this project.
Because of the rich amount of information thai has been shared at the 1 " and l"4 Forest Team
meetings and at the Elders Team retreat, i t is going to take more time than I originality anticipated bo: transcribe, translate,, analyze, and verify your information, as weSE as to app!y a selection of the community-based environmental measures you generated. ACl of the above steps
MUST be taken before we can proceed with the l'~ and final Forest Team meeting. The 3'" Forest Team meeting was originally planned to take place on Nov. A, 2007. Because of the time required to thoughtfully and rigorously conduct the above steps, 3 wouCd like to change this date
from November 1st t o February 2003.
This change of events has given us the opportunity to ho!d a workshop for both Forest and Elders
Team members. The focus of this workshop is to further develop this project's community products. Forest Team members will select & verify which pictures they would Cake to contribute to
the Photovoiee booklet and select & verify the stories that they would Cake to share about each of
their photos. Forest and Elders Team members w i l l work together t o develop the vision of the
DVD (produced from footage of this project's events) and to share their knowledge and experiences i n this project with each other and with Mr. McKay's gr. 4/5.'&/7 class. This workshop is an
optional event for both Forest and Elders Team members, but members are encouraged to come
and share in this time together.

CommunSty product workshop: November 1, 2037
Location: Tache
Please feel free to contact me sf you have any questions about the community product workshop.
I deepEy appreciate your understanding and look forward to seeing you soon!
Sincerely,

E.3- Forest Team Member Update, September 2007

Dear Fonest Team Member
Each and eve"/ member o f our Forest Team has made invaluable contributions to this pro-eet.
Because of the ricln a™-.c jr.t o- information that you shared at the 1 ''• and 2" J Forest ""eaTi meetings and at the Elders Team "-etreat, it is going to take more time than I originally anticipated to:
transcribe, translate, analyze, and verify your information, as well as to apply a selection of the
coTim jnity-based environmental measjres you generated. All of t i e above steps MUST be ta'<te;n
be r cre we can proceed with tne 3 , J and final Forest—ea™^ meeting. The 3' 1 Forest—ea—i meeting
was originally planned to take place on Nov. 1, 2007. Because of the time req Jired to thoughtful.1,' and rigorously conduct tne above steps, I would like to change this date f r c - j November 1 ! "
to F ebr ja^y 2003. I understand that this timeline is different from the scned j . e o f everts that
was cHginaliy given to you and I sincerely apologize *or any inconvenience that this change may
cause.

New date for the I"1 anc final Forest T eair nesting: February 2008
This change of events has given JS tne opportunity to h o d a workshop for both Forest and Elders
Team members. Tne focus of this workshop is to fu""tner develop this project's community products. Forest Team members will select & verify which pictu r es they wiould ^ike to contribute to
the Photovcice booklet and select & verify the stories that they would .ike to snare about each of
their phoios. Forest and Elders Team members will work together So develop tne vision of the
DVD (produced Jrc**i footage of this project's events) and to share t h e i ' Knowledge and expediences in this project with each other and with Mr. McKay's g r . 4f5.'6/'7 class. This workshop is an
optional event x o ' both Forest and Elders TeaTi members, but members are enco jraged to come
and share in this t r a e together.

Community product workshop: November 1, 2007 |
Location; Tachs
Please feel free to contact me if yo j have any q jesticns about the date change or tne community
product workshop. I deeply appreciate your understanding and loo* forward to seeing you soon!
Sincerely,