LINKING SCHOOL BASED MONITORING TO LAND AND WATER DECISIONMAKING IN THE NECHAKO WATERSHED by Eleanor Buchan Parker BASc Quest University Canada, 2017 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA August 2022 © Eleanor Buchan Parker, 2022 Abstract Climate change is compounding existing threats to waters from land use activities such as forestry, agriculture, and mining, requiring alternative approaches to caring for watersheds. Community science and school-based monitoring are gaining attention as processes for communities and youth to become involved in decision-making by collecting data about the health of their lands and waters. However, due to the complexity of socialecological systems, connecting community science to decision-making is a recognized challenge requiring more qualitative research that engages various actors. In response, this action-research project aimed to co-design water monitoring tools with students, teachers, and decision-makers to explore potential avenues for school-based monitoring to inform decision-making. The project focused on the case study of the “Koh-learning in our Watersheds” education initiative on Saik’uz First Nation Territory near Vanderhoof, British Columbia. Research activities took place with high-school classes from the Nechako Valley Secondary School at locations along Murray Creek, a tributary to the Nechako River. Phases of water monitoring actively shaped and informed qualitative research interviews and workshops to bring together youth, teachers, and decision-makers. Pathways identified for school-based monitoring to inform decision-making include: 1) increased attention on waterways, 2) identifying issues and imagining solutions, 3) filling gaps and providing new data, 4) behaviour change and stewardship, 5) contributing to reconciliation, and 6) conversations for action. The findings highlight that the strengths of school-based monitoring lie in its ability to contribute imaginative solutions to local problems that perplex decisionmakers and, when attuned to and aligned with Indigenous governance, can meaningfully support truth and reconciliation. Informed by these findings, an adapted version of the framework for a ‘social learning approach to monitoring’ is proposed and may serve as a tool in the design of future school-based monitoring that can target multiple pathways to influence decision-making. This research underscores that when connecting across knowledges, generations, and linking with decision-making, school-based monitoring can support a paradigm shift in water management. i Table of Contents Abstract i Table of Contents ii List of Appendices v List of Tables vi List of Figures vii List of Acronyms viii Acknowledgements ix Locating Myself as a Researcher x Chapter One: Introduction 1 1.1 Research Background and Objectives 1.1.1 Research Goal, Questions and Objectives 1 4 1.2 Key Concepts and Definitions 1.2.1 Land and Water Decision-Making 1.2.2 Community Science and School-Based Monitoring 1.2.3 A Commitment to Cyclical Learning 5 5 6 7 1.3 Outline of Chapters 8 Chapter Two: Literature Review 9 2.1 Introduction and Approach 9 2.2 Community Science and Decision-Making, Water and Youth 2.2.1 Public Participation in Land and Water Decision-Making 2.2.2 Community Science and Social Learning 2.2.3 Ecological and Water Monitoring and Community Science 2.2.4 Youth Participation in Community Science 9 10 11 16 19 2.3 Connecting Community Science to Decision-Making 2.3.1 Pathways for Community Science to Inform Decision-Making 2.3.2 Community Science Characteristics for Informing Decision-Making 23 24 26 2.4 Conclusion 30 Chapter Three: Study Context 32 3.1 Introduction 32 3.2 Nested Research Setting: The Nechako Watershed and School-District 91 32 ii 3.2.1 The Nechako Watershed: Social-Ecological Context 3.2.2 Governance and Research Networks in the Nechako Watershed 33 36 3.3 Case Study: Koh-learning at the Nechako Valley Secondary School 38 3.3.1 Koh-learning: A Project within a Watershed 39 3.3.2 Nechako Valley Secondary School: A School Nested within a Community and a Watershed 41 3.4 Who Makes Decisions about Land and Water? 44 3.5 Conclusion 48 Chapter Four: Research Design, Methodology and Methods 50 4.1 Introduction 50 4.2 Methodology 4.2.1 Theoretical and Philosophical Assumptions 4.2.2 Methodological Influences 50 50 52 4.3 Research Process and Phases 4.3.1 Research Phases 4.3.2 Participation and Recruitment 56 59 61 4.4 Methods: School-Based Monitoring Trials 4.4.1 Steps in Designing Monitoring Trials 64 64 4.5 Methods: Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis 67 4.5.1 Interviews: Format, Questions, Transcription and Member Checking 67 4.5.2 Field Observations & Journaling 69 4.5.3 Group Workshops 69 4.5.4 Demographic and Feedback Questionnaire Following Interviews and Workshops 70 4.5.5 Qualitative Data Analysis 70 4.6 Research Ethics, Rigour, and Iterative Design 4.6.1 Research Ethics and Adaptations 4.6.2 Ongoing Engagement with Community Partners 4.6.3 Qualitative Case Study Methods 4.6.4 Water Monitoring Design and Trials 72 72 73 74 75 4.7 Conclusion 76 Chapter Five: Findings 77 5.1 Introduction 77 5.2 ‘Do what is possible’: School-Based Monitoring Trials 5.2.1 Realizing School-Based Monitoring Plans and Protocols 5.2.2 Monitoring Sites 5.2.3 Adapting the Monitoring Trials Based on Interviews 5.2.4 Progress Towards Meeting the Monitoring Objectives 5.2.5 Discussion of School-Based Monitoring Trials 78 78 84 85 86 93 iii 5.3 ‘What could be?”: Interviews 5.3.1 Increased Attention on Waterways (Pathway One) 5.3.2 Identifying Issues and Imagining Solutions (Pathway Two) 5.3.3 Filling Gaps and Providing New Data (Pathway Three) 5.3.4 Behaviour Change and Stewardship (Pathway Four) 5.3.5 Contributing to Reconciliation (Pathway Five) 5.3.6 Conversations for Action (Pathway Six) 5.3.7 Discussion of Interview Findings 94 96 99 101 103 105 107 110 5.4 ‘What next?’: Collective Learning 5.4.1 Next Steps with Koh-learning at the Nechako Valley Secondary School 5.4.2 Discussion of Collective Learning Findings 111 111 113 5.5 Bringing it all Together: A Process for School-based Monitoring to Inform DecisionMaking 115 5.6 Conclusion Chapter Six: Discussion and Conclusion 120 121 6.1 Introduction 121 6.2 Synthesis: Revisiting the Research Questions 6.2.1 Pathways and Characteristics: Bridging the SBM-Decision-Making Gap 6.2.2 Many Voices, Many Pathways to Inform Decision-Making 6.2.3 Social Learning: A Model to Overcome School-Based Monitoring Dilemmas 121 121 123 124 6.3 Discussion: Key Insights and Implications for School-Based Monitoring: 6.3.1 Beyond ‘Data’ for Influencing Decision-making 6.3.2 A Shifting Mindset on School-Based Monitoring 6.3.3 Imagination: Opportunities for School-Based Monitoring 6.3.4 Pathways for Youth to Engage in Truth and Reconciliation 6.3.5 False Dichotomy: Localized vs. Standardized Protocols 125 125 126 127 128 131 6.4 Research Lessons, Limitations and Recommendations 6.4.1 Lessons from Combining Water Monitoring, Interviews, and Workshops 6.4.2 Limitations of the Research 6.4.3 Recommendations and Implications 132 132 136 139 6.5 Conclusion 141 Bibliography 143 Appendices 165 iv List of Appendices Appendix A: Tables of characteristics for informing decision-making. 165 Appendix B: Summary of monitoring parameters suitable to school-based monitoring. 170 Appendix C: Research ethics approval 171 Appendix D: Summary of interview and workshop participant groups, roles, and types of interviews. 172 Appendix E: Participant feedback on interviews and workshops (gathered in conjunction with demographic questionnaire). 173 Appendix F: Links to summary reports. 174 v List of Tables Table 2.1 Concepts used in the literature to articulate learning outcomes of school-basedmonitoring. 21 Table 2.2 Summary of characteristics for community science to inform decision-making. 27 Table 4.1 Research phases, activities, dates and types of data gathered and analysed. 60 Table 4.2 Participation types and roles in the research. 62 Table 4.3 Objectives of monitoring trials and rationale for their selection. 66 Table 5.1 Monitoring plans vs. the reality for monitoring trials # 1 and # 2. 83 Table 5.2 Percent error, absolute error and average difference of student collected data as compared to NALS laboratory analyzed data. 87 Table 5.3 Suggestions to improve student engagement in school-based monitoring. 112 vi List of Figures Figure 2.1 A social learning approach to monitoring. 14 Figure 2.2 Two pathways for citizen science to inform conservation decision-making. 25 Figure 3.1 Overlapping boundaries within the Nechako Watershed: School District 91, Communities, Waterways, and Watershed boundaries. 33 Figure 3.2 A representation of federal, First Nations, provincial and local government responsibilities for water-related decision-making. 46 Figure 4.1 Research activities in relation to a pluralist paradigm. 58 Figure 4.2 Steps in designing and redesigning school-based monitoring trials. 65 Figure 5.1 Monitoring locations on Murray Creek. 85 Figure 5.2 Interconnected pathways for school-based monitoring to inform decision-making based on the case study. 97 Figure 5.3 A social learning process for school-based monitoring to inform decision-making. 116 vii List of Acronyms B.C.: British Columbia CS: Community Science SBM: School-Based Monitoring SD91: School District 91 NALS: Northern Analytical Laboratory Services NEWSS: Nechako Environment and Water Stewardship Society NVSS: Nechako Valley Secondary School NWR: Nechako Watershed Roundtable IWRG: Integrated Watershed Research Group UNBC: University of Northern British Columbia REB: Research Ethics Board RDBN: Regional District Bulkley-Nechako viii Acknowledgements This research would not have been possible without the Koh-learning in our Watersheds project team members, including staff from the University of Northern B.C. and School District 91. Particularly, team members Barry Booth, Casey Litton, Mia Moutray and Jordan Cranmer have actively fueled and shaped this project as advisors to the research, bringing wise insights, enthusiasm, curiosity, and friendship. My ultimate hope is that something useful comes from this work for you. Many thanks also to Barry and Tavia McKinnon for your assistance with water monitoring sessions and for always being willing to share research ideas and a laugh. I also thank team members Diana Kutzner, Deb Koehn, David Peterson, Patty Borek, Scott Emmons, Manu Madhok and Leona Prince, whom I have had the privilege of learning with and from over the past years. I have fond memories with many of you from our drives back and forth to Vanderhoof discussing land-based learning, water, and health. I hold deep gratitude for the Saik’uz First Nation for the opportunity to conduct this work on your territory and to connect at key points in the research. Thanks especially to Kasandra Turbide for your support as a liaison during the research project. Additionally, this project was greatly improved thanks to the support and encouragement of many other partners living and working in the Nechako Watershed, many of whom are members of the Nechako Watershed Roundtable. I also hold deep respect and gratitude for the youth engaged in this research, who brought energy, humour, vulnerability, bravery, and brilliant ideas to make the research what it is. Special thanks to youth in the Waterways Mentorship Program: Jorja, Jason, Niki, Ashley, Maddie, Ronan, Kayla, Ava, Avery, and Paige. You continue to inspire me. Of course, I will forever be thankful to my supervisor Dr. Margot Parkes, for introducing me to the Nechako Watershed and supporting my growth and learning over the years. I will carry your nuggets of wisdom and watershed metaphors in my meanderings wherever I go. I am also indebted to my committee members, Dr. Mark Groulx and Dr. John Rex, for being willing to join me on this research journey and for all your ideas, support, and lively discussion at committee meetings. Thanks finally to the waterways of the Nechako for being an ongoing source of learning. From the little streams in the forest behind UNBC where I would often go to think, to the creeks near Vanderhoof at the heart of this research, to the mighty Nechako itself, I am grateful for the chance to know you. ix Locating Myself as a Researcher My personal motivation for conducting this research stems from previous life and research experiences. Both my grandpas moved to Canada from Scotland to practice as doctors, and my grandpa on my mom’s side moved to Whitehorse, Yukon, where my family still lives. Living in the Yukon, I had the opportunity through family trips to canoe, hike, ski, and snowshoe in remote intact ecosystems, and I developed a strong connection to and appreciation for the land and water. In high school, I took part in experiential environmental science programs, seeing first-hand the value of hands-on, place-based learning connected to local-science initiatives. Based on these experiences, I became interested in both environmental and social sciences and pursued an interdisciplinary Bachelor of Arts and Sciences from Quest University in Squamish, B.C. My degree at Quest culminated in a final project investigating the risks associated with naturally occurring radiation in Tombstone Park (in the Yukon, Canada) using both quantitative measurement and local knowledge interviews. During this project, I confronted important ethical issues around doing research in the north and with First Nation communities. I began navigating the tensions associated with the harmful legacies of extractive western scientific research as well as its potential to be a venue for reconciliation (Wong et al., 2020). I became exposed to literature on the precautionary principle, environmental monitoring and risk, Indigenous Knowledge, and public participation. This learning journey changed my perspective long-term and taught me to value community involvement and partnership when doing land-based research. After my undergraduate degree, my interests in water systems and interdisciplinary research led me to the Integrated Watershed Research Group (IWRG) at UNBC. For seven months in 2018/19, I held a MITACS-funded internship working with one of the IWRG lead x researchers, Dr. Margot Parkes and gained experience working in the Nechako watershed. This project builds on existing partnerships and research interests held by Dr. Margot Parkes (who became my thesis supervisor). As an intern, I supported the Secretariat of the Nechako Watershed Roundtable (NWR). I learned about the value of collaborative water governance for convening decision-makers and became familiar with the stakeholders and rights holders in the watershed. I also supported the high school education project called “Koh-learning in our Watersheds”, a partnership between School District 91 and UNBC. The word ‘Koh’ means river or waterway in the Dakelh Indigenous language (Parkes, 2021). I worked as part of a team to liaise with teachers and assist with water monitoring field sessions. I also provided support to a group of senior high school students who decided to make a film about stream stewardship called “Stream Monitoring for Change in School District 91” (Cranmer, 2019), which was a profound experience for me (Parker, 2018). One day in October of 2018, when I was out with a group of Grade 8 students and teachers on the side of a small stream in Vanderhoof’s agricultural belt, a teacher confided in me, “you know, we can spend hours out here, but until we can really help kids understand why we are here, this won’t be meaningful in the long term”. We had just spent 2 hours collecting water samples to test water chemistry and had gathered, identified, and counted species of stream invertebrates to test the health of the stream. The comment struck me, how can we make the link between what was happening at the stream that day with broader watershed governance and decision-making processes? Through my paired interactions with the Nechako Watershed Roundtable and the Koh-Learning project, I recognized that there was a unique and exciting graduate research opportunity presenting itself to me at the intersection of these two projects: looking at the role of school-based monitoring in land and water decision making. xi Chapter One: Introduction 1.1 Research Background and Objectives Water management in Canada is at a critical juncture. Past water management practices often took a ‘command and control’ approach to deal with issues such as flooding, eutrophication, and urban and agricultural water demands (Holling & Meffe, 1996; PahlWostl et al., 2007). While effective in the short term, these approaches were designed for well-bounded, predictable systems and were applied with little foresight to long-term consequences for ecosystem resilience or consideration of the complexities of climate change. Resultingly, the degradation of our global waters has motivated a paradigm shift in water management towards more integrated approaches (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007). It is now increasingly recognized that broad and diverse participation in water management is critical to understanding the intersection of biophysical processes with the cultural and institutional demands and impacts on water (Anderson et al., 2019; Arthington et al., 2018; Jollymore, 2017). The growing uncertainty of our climate and its ensuing impacts on water systems also continues to provide impetus for increased on-the-ground data collection to enable informed land and water decision-making (Milly et al., 2008). Community science (CS) is gaining recognition as an important venue for diverse participation in water management and decision-making (Behmel et al., 2018; Buytaert et al., 2014) and, as will be described in Section 1.2, has been selected as an umbrella term that encompasses related efforts where communities, volunteers, and members of the public engage in science and research (Ballard et al. 2017). Community science with young people, called school-based monitoring (SBM), provides opportunities for achieving both science and education outcomes. This can include youth being empowered to be agents of change in 1 science and beyond (Ballard et al., 2017; Ruiz-Mallén et al., 2016). However, despite the potential, making linkages between community science and decision-making is a recognized gap (Bonney et al., 2020; Buckland-Nicks et al., 2016; Newman et al., 2017). Bonney et al.’s (2020) call to the academic community exemplifies this: “We suggest continued investigation into the factors that enable citizen science contributions to catchment decision-making as a critical avenue of future research. Such investigations are likely to benefit from in-depth studies using qualitative methods that engage with a wider breadth of actors in citizen science networks” (p. 17). Though much recent work has been done at the confluence of community science and decision-making to address this void, a review of the literature has revealed four priority gaps where more work is required. First, it has been acknowledged that community science can foster impacts on decision-making beyond just filling data gaps (Bonney et al., 2020; McKinley et al., 2017). However, the majority of work on the topic is not paying attention to the ways that community science can inform decision-making through avenues beyond data. This master’s research explicitly seeks to broaden this discussion. Second, recommendations for connecting with decision-making are often focused on either improving standardization of monitoring protocols or the opposite, increasing local relevancy and protocols tailored to specific places (Carlson & Cohen, 2018). More thought and suggestions for how community science programs can navigate this tension are required, and this master’s research seeks to add to the dialogue on the topic. Third, in the community science literature, there is little acknowledgement of the potential contributions of school-based monitoring to decision-making. Some have argued that SBM programs are less inclined to attempt to influence decision-making or succeed in the venture because of a stronger focus on educational rather than policy and management 2 impacts (Stepenuck & Genskow, 2019). However, research also suggests that learning outcomes are optimal when students can see that monitoring data are connected to the broader scientific community (Ballard et al., 2017; Harris et al., 2019). Harris et al. (2019) write about the importance of ensuring that youth can see, value and believe that knowledge users are considering their data. However, building understandings of why data are being collected is a common challenge for SBM programs (Harris et al., 2019) and little research to date has examined how SBM can be connected meaningfully to decision-making (Ballard et al., 2017). This research builds on work highlighting the potential for SBM to inform decision-making (Ady, 2016; Au et al., 2000; Ballard et al., 2017). As a fourth gap, an area little explored in the community science literature is guidance to support CS programs to connect with decision-making that considers both social and scientific outcomes (Ady, 2016). For example, Stepenuck and Genskow (2019) identified more work needs to be done to understand when in the lifecycle of CS is most important to connect with decision-makers. One existing resource is a guidebook titled “Delivering ecological monitoring information to decision-makers” that provides a list of questions to help CS programs to identify their monitoring goals (Wieler, 2006), and yet, more tools are needed. From the SBM literature Ady (2016) provided a planning framework for designing youth-focused citizen science to support federal conservation programs in the United States, and yet the author highlights that more planning tools are needed especially those that are codesigned with teachers and “reflect adaptive management” (p. 150). This research seeks to fill this gap. Across the world, youth are increasingly seeking a voice in decisions that affect their environments and futures. One such a context is the Nechako watershed in north-central British Columbia, Canada (Sloan Morgan, 2020). The “Koh-learning in our Watersheds” 3 project is an SBM-informed project that was launched in the Nechako Watershed in 2017, led jointly led by the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC) and School District 91 (SD91). Koh-learning aims to connect students, communities, and waterways through handson waterways learning (Koh-learning in our Watersheds, n.d.). Decision-making in the Nechako Watershed is rapidly evolving as policies such as the Yinka Dene Water Law (Nadleh Whut’en and Stellat’en, 2016a) and BC’s Declaration Act (B.C. Government, 2019) centre First Nations’ jurisdiction over land and water decision-making. Together, the Kohlearning project situated within the Nechako Watershed creates a dynamic context for exploring how SBM might be connected to decision-making. 1.1.1 Research Goal, Questions and Objectives In response to the gaps outlined above, this study's goal was to co-design community science tools with Koh-Learning project students and teachers, and land and water decisionmakers to explore and test potential avenues for SBM to inform decision-making. Though water and water monitoring have been a focus of the Koh-learning school-based monitoring project, I have chosen to use the combined phrase, ‘land and water,’ in this thesis to acknowledge the interconnectedness between the two and the importance of considering them holistically in decision-making, which has not always been the norm (Gober et al., 2013). The following research questions (RQs) guided the project: RQ1. How is the relationship between community science programs and decisionmaking characterized and how are gaps in understanding being addressed? RQ2. What are potential pathways of influence for school-based monitoring in the Koh-Learning project to inform land and water decision-making in the Nechako Watershed? 4 RQ3. How can we design school-based monitoring programs and protocols to inform land and water decision-making? Nested under each of the research questions are three objectives. Objective 1 links to RQ1 and the intention to explore a specific subset of the community science literature. Objective 2 links to RQ2, with a focus on the commitment to employ a participatory approach focused on collective learning. Objective 3 guides the exploration of RQ3, focusing on learning through action as part of a real-world case study. Objectives are as follows: Objective 1: Characterize the attributes of community science and watershed governance structures that influence their contribution to land and water decision-making. Objective 2: Develop shared understandings among Koh-Learning students, teachers, and decision-makers of the pathways by which school-based monitoring could inform land and water decision-making in the Koh-Learning project. Objective 3: Co-design and trial a community science instrument designed to achieve student, teacher, and decision-maker objectives for informing land and water decisionmaking. 1.2 Key Concepts and Definitions Land and water decision-making and school-based monitoring are key concepts for this project, and the research is informed by a cyclical approach to research and learning. Drawing on various scholars, my definitions for these concepts help to frame this thesis. 1.2.1 Land and Water Decision-Making Land and water decision-making is complex (Newman et al., 2017). At its core, land and water decision-making is about “making choices among alternative actions” (Conroy & Peterson, 2013, p. 4) on the part of “institutions or by individual private landowners 5 regarding the stewardship of property” (Newman et al., 2017, p. 56). Gregersen et al. (2007) consider an even broader definition and describe how “all the users of land, water and natural resources should recognize they need to play the role of watershed manager” (p. x) or decision-maker. Under this broad umbrella, decisions can take place across scales and can include, for example, granting permits for land and water use, determining land-use designations, developing policies, best practices, and guidelines for how to conduct industrial activities, as well as “commitments to intervene, comment, protest, undertake studies,” on land and water (Clermont, 2018, p. 25). 1.2.2 Community Science and School-Based Monitoring In this study, ‘community science’ is defined as monitoring and research that is community-led, place-based and includes elements of social learning and building collective action to improve social-ecological sustainability in some way (Charles et al., 2020). The term is also used as an umbrella term encompassing what others refer to as ‘citizen science’1, which is defined broadly as public participation in research efforts to create data for use by various audiences and subject to the same standards as conventional science (Bonney et al., 2014). Other related activities are distinguished by who is involved, the kinds of science conducted, and who holds power (Conrad & Hilchey, 2011) and include community-based monitoring (Whitelaw et al., 2003) and collaborative monitoring (Cundill & Fabricius, 2009). As noted by Parkes (2016) in reference to health disciplines, but applicable here, “this diversity should not be seen as a problem to be overcome or corrected through unification. 1 There is a discourse problematizing the term ‘citizen science’ and its lack of inclusivity given that some groups are not afforded or do not identify with having ‘citizen’ status (Grandisoli, 2021). As I became aware of this important discussion, I decided to adopt the terminology of ‘community science’ following Groulx et al. (2021). Though it is important to acknowledge this shift, some instances of the term ‘citizen science’ are maintained throughout the thesis when citing or discussing previous work. 6 Instead, the diversity of language should be acknowledged as an expression of complexity” (p. 120). When youth are engaged in community science, this is termed school-based monitoring or youth-focused citizen science (Ballard et al. 2017). The term school-based monitoring is used here as it signals schools as the venue for engaging youth in monitoring, as is the case in the Koh-learning project. 1.2.3 A Commitment to Cyclical Learning This thesis takes an action-oriented, participatory approach. At key moments in the research, I actively coordinated and participated in SBM activities to immerse myself in the research topic (Trochim, 2020). This approach was based on a commitment to cyclic learning, which is a practice that appears in research areas as diverse as natural resource management and public health, where environmental degradation is motivating modes of inquiry that can address cross-cutting issues (Parkes & Panelli, 2001). Participatory approaches that engage with iterative phases of trialling new actions and reflecting on the outcomes are used to reduce the disconnect between knowledge production and knowledge uptake in ways that can benefit society (Bauer et al., 2015; Rushmer et al., 2019). Communities throughout the Nechako watershed, including Vanderhoof – the community that was the main focus of the case study in this research – also have a history of ongoing social learning processes related to the restoration of white sturgeon and salmonbearing tributaries to the Nechako river (Gislason et al., 2018). I structured both my research and this thesis to build from and fuel ongoing learning processes by designing cycles of learning and reflection to benefit the youth, communities, and ecosystems I felt accountable to throughout the research process. 7 1.3 Outline of Chapters The research consisted of phases of action and reflection, with learning about the case study taking place through water monitoring trials, interviews, and workshops. As others have noted, translating the iterative and cyclical nature of action research into the linear format of a thesis can prove challenging (Fisher & Phelps, 2016). The following offers a guide to navigating the thesis 2. In Chapter Two, I review the literature on the characteristics of CS programs that enable them to inform decision-making, and what attributes of the governance landscape enable connection with CS programs (addresses RQ1). This also informed the design of the first round of water monitoring trials, which are described along with the research design and other methods in Chapter Four. Chapter Three discusses the broad context of the Nechako Watershed and then provides a description of the case study at hand, informed by my observations and the voices of research participants. Chapter Four outlines the philosophical assumptions and methodological influences that underpin the research design. It also describes the interview and workshop methods and the adaptive design process for water monitoring trials and objectives. The findings from each research method come together in Chapter Five, which describes the monitoring protocols and lessons learned before presenting interview and workshop findings that define a set of pathways for SBM to inform decision-making (addresses RQ2). Finally, key findings are distilled into a framework for designing SBM (addresses RQ3). Chapter Six provides further discussion on the answers to the research questions and then puts the findings into the context of the literature. The thesis finishes with recommendations and implications of the research. 2 Footnotes are used following the stylistic format of ‘content notes’, to provide supplemental information for interested readers and those unfamiliar with the topic or context being discussed (Purdue University, n.d.). 8 Chapter Two: Literature Review 2.1 Introduction and Approach In this research literature was reviewed in an ongoing manner, including during the data collection phase as new connections emerged. Patton (2002) describes this as the “creative interplay among the process of data collection, literature review and researcher introspection” (p. 226). The literature review for this project began in the fall of 2019 while developing the thesis proposal. Consistent with the snowball method, after key sources were identified, their bibliographies were consulted to source further relevant material. It became clear following the initial review that a more targeted review was needed to understand the traits of community science that enable connections with decision-making. This targeted review became the first objective of the research: Objective 1. Characterize the attributes of community science and watershed governance structures that influence their contribution to land and water decision-making. The targeted review took place in July of 2020 by identifying a set of key search terms 3 and applying them to Google Scholar and the UNBC Geoffrey R. Weller Library databases. Ten (10) papers published between 2000-2020 were included in the targeted review, presented in Section 2.3.2. 2.2 Community Science and Decision-Making, Water and Youth This section provides a broad overview of the concept of community science (CS), starting with a discussion on how public participation in land and water management relates to CS, before highlighting CS outcomes and typologies. Next, I present a review of the literature that has been done on youth-focused CS and school-based monitoring (SBM). 3 Keywords and phrases used included ‘school-based monitoring’, ‘community-based monitoring’, ‘citizen science’, ‘natural resource management’, ‘decision-making’, ‘watershed governance’, ‘integrated watershed resource management’. 9 Throughout this section I also discuss literature that focuses on Indigenous approaches to monitoring and how this relates to community science. 2.2.1 Public Participation in Land and Water Decision-Making Land and water decision-making involves a complex range of processes, activities, policies and legislation to guide the use and conservation of natural resources by institutions or landowners (Newman et al., 2017). Historically, natural resource management conducted by colonial governments operated in isolation for each sector, leading to a lack of understanding of the integrated and cumulative effects across the landscape, as well as local values (Council of Canadian Academies, 2019). There are several alternatives to unilateral resource management and governance, such as community-based natural resource management (Nunan, 2016), integrated watershed management (Gregersen et al., 2007), and polycentric approaches to resource management (Ostrom, 2010). These decentralized approaches open more opportunities for public participation to play a role in land and water decision-making (Paul et al., 2018). Bottom-up approaches and citizen participation were first recognized in sustainable water resource management as a strategy to include more diverse interests and understandings across river basins (Carr, 2015). Around the world, shifts in environmental policy that emphasize collaborative water planning have also coincided with an upswing in CS activities. In New Zealand, recent collaborative freshwater planning processes have resulted in greater demands for environmental data, and a move to engage volunteers to collect complementary data for regional councils (Storey et al., 2016). In the United Kingdom, catchment-based approaches to water management have resulted in multistakeholder ‘Catchment Partnership’ groups, who put water restoration and monitoring into 10 practice through volunteer River Basin Trust groups (Gurnell et al., 2019). The framework of the River Basin Trusts has provided a venue for researchers to develop hydrological studies using community science (Starkey et al., 2017). Though CS projects often work closely with academia and/or government agencies, CS also challenges the power of dominant institutions and their control over data and decision-making (McQuillan, 2014). Early examples of CS were motivated by a mistrust of the government’s ability to appropriately steward the environment (Au et al., 2000) or were a response to government cuts in monitoring (Whitelaw et al., 2003). Public distrust of the government related to toxic pollution and radioactivity motivated some of the initial public participation in environmental monitoring (Au et al., 2000). Community science can also be framed within a larger paradigm shift within the science academy from mainstream reductionist “normal science” to precautionary “postnormal” science, focused on integrating nature, science, and society (Ravetz, 2004). Postnormal science necessarily involves an ‘extended peer community’, including governments and citizens, to conduct research in areas that have been previously ignored (Ravetz, 2004). The adaptive management literature also acknowledges that local monitoring and regular feedback is best suited to tackle complex problems (Overdevest et al., 2004). Peters and Besley (2019) describe this as the scientific system transforming to include a more participative and networked model that allows collaborative knowledge generation. 2.2.2 Community Science and Social Learning As described in the introduction, the practice of involving ‘non-scientists’ in science activities is described by many terms and bodies of literature. The term ‘community science (CS)’ is used in this thesis to describe a range of science and research projects that engage 11 communities, youth, volunteers and members of the public (Ballard et al., 2017). In recent decades, CS has taken off worldwide, with thousands of projects and millions of volunteers contributing to data collection, categorization and analysis for research and monitoring on a wide range of topics 4 (Bonney et al., 2014). To help make sense of the various kinds of CS programs, multiple typologies differentiate programs based on the type of science or monitoring conducted, the program’s purposes and goals, and the governance structure in place (Conrad & Hilchey, 2011). One commonly cited typology divides citizen science projects into the three categories of (i) contributary, (ii) collaborative or (iii) co-created, based on the level of involvement of volunteers (Bonney et al., 2009; Tweddle et al., 2012). While contributory projects require lower effort on the part of citizens, there is a movement towards projects that engage participants in more phases beyond just data collection (Buytaert et al., 2014; Njue et al., 2019; Tweddle et al., 2012). Co-created citizen science, the more participatory kind, is being recognized as necessary for democratic inclusion of groups typically underrepresented in science and to ensure higher relevance of generated knowledge to locally defined issues (Buytaert et al., 2014). One of the major contributions of CS is its ability to enable data collection across large spatial extents or in remote areas where other data does not exist. Some go so far as to say that projects aiming to collect large datasets across vast geographical regions can only be successful by taking a CS approach (Silvertown, 2009). CS is also linked to increasing scientific literacy, social capital, public inclusion in local issues, benefits to governments and 4 The theory, practice and history of CS is well documented in the literature for example in Hecker et al. (2018), Dickinson and Bonney (2012), Conrad and Hilchey (2011), Irwin (1995). For those coordinating CS projects, other resources document best practices to help design, develop and evaluate CS programs such as Pocock et al. (2014), Tredick et al. (2017), Tweddle et al. (2012). 12 benefits to the ecosystems under study (Conrad & Hilchey, 2011). An example of the latter point is that the presence and attention of water monitoring groups on their local waterways has resulted in better overall water quality and decreases in industry violations of environmental regulations (Grant & Langpap, 2018). Community science is also becoming recognized as a process that fosters what several authors have described as ‘social learning’ (Charles et al., 2020; Cundill & Fabricius 2009; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007,). Charles et al. (2020) note that community science can lead to social learning and social-ecological transformation through the opportunities created when bringing together interactive learning, applied research methods, and constructivist epistemologies. One example of this is described by Fernandez-Gimenez et al. (2008) who explore how community-based ecological monitoring in a forestry setting led to learning at three different levels, noting the ways community groups learned about impacts of management practices (single-loop learning) as well as changes in participant assumptions about ecological and social processes (double loop learning). The same authors also noted changed norms and values (triple-loop learning), though this was harder to attribute to monitoring alone separate from collaborative dialogues occurring. As a type of learning that leads to new understandings and changed perspectives, social learning is hailed as a necessary element to enable the transformation to more sustainable environmental management (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007). In the field of environmental management, social learning is defined as “the collective action and reflection that takes place amongst both individuals and groups when they work to improve the management of the interrelationships between social and ecological systems” (Keen et al., 2005, p. 4). In response to a proliferation of varying definitions, Reed et al. (2010) established that social learning necessarily includes two elements. First, a shift in 13 understanding must occur either in gaining new knowledge, worldviews, or beliefs for those involved. Second, learning must occur through social interaction, and extend to the level of a social unit or community (Reed et al., 2010). One framework emerging from the social learning literature is Cundill and Fabricius’ (2009) framework to support the design and adaptation of monitoring initiatives, called the ‘social learning approach to monitoring’ (Cundill & Fabricius, 2009 and Figure 2.1). This cycle provides a series of reflective questions associated with steps in the monitoring process including ‘identify the problem’ and ‘implement the monitoring system and take action’ and can support community science programs to enhance learning, reflection and evaluation of their programs. Figure 2.1 A social learning approach to monitoring. Figure developed by Cundill & Fabricius (2009), based on Babu and Reidhead (2000), Keen et al., (2005) and Stringer et al. (2006). Reproduced with permission, originally published in Journal of Environmental Management, 90, Cundill, G., Fabricius, C., Monitoring in adaptive co-management: Toward a learning based approach, 3205-3211, Copyright Elsevier (2009). 14 Transformative processes in community science are also thought of through the lens of ‘transformative learning’ (Groulx et al., 2021). Transformative learning is a concept with roots in the field of education describing learning that leads to a person’s frame of reference becoming more open, inclusive, and integrated, and is often linked to theory developed by Mezirow (Groulx et al., 2021; Wilner et al., 2012). Wilner et al. (2012) highlight that social learning differs from transformative learning by having an emphasis on learning beyond the level of the individual, and yet they share many similarities. McGreavy et al. (2016) document the transformational potential of CS using the example of a 16-year-long citizen science project studying vernal pools (seasonal pools of water that provide important habitat) in Maine in the United States. They discuss how the process of building networks during the CS project helped to foster adaptive governance and eventually led to higher socialecological resilience: Because the citizen science program featured iterative and inclusive communication among diverse participants and focused on building relationships as part of the data collection process, what started as more of a simple effort to meet the information needs and educate people about vernal pools grew into a multilevel transformative learning process that eventually changed the context (Folke et al. 2009, Pahl-Wostl, 2009) and the stressors. (McGreavy et al., 2016, p. 48) Both the concepts of social learning and transformative learning are mentioned again in relation to outcomes from SBM and linking community science with decision-making. However, for consistency in the rest of the thesis, social learning is adopted as the primary framing. The social learning concept has become particularly helpful in the later phases of the research to synthesize the learning that happened when trialling school-based monitoring and interacting with decision-makers. The framework for ‘a social learning approach to monitoring’ (Figure 2.1) is drawn upon again in Chapters Five and Six. 15 2.2.3 Ecological and Water Monitoring and Community Science Though not all CS involves ecological monitoring, a large subset aims to measure some aspect of environmental health. Fernandez-Gimenez and Ballard (2011) define ecological monitoring as “repeated observations over time of some ecosystem characteristic, with the goal of tracking changes in and interpreting the status of that characteristic in relation to management objectives and activities” (p. 48). Ecological monitoring can be divided into two categories, including observations (e.g., recording streamflow as still, slow, or fast) and measurements (e.g., using an electronic meter to record pH). Both can provide baseline data that inventories some aspect of the ecosystem, shapes understandings of the effectiveness of a management approach, or supports evaluation of a hypothesis about an ecosystem function (Fernandez-Gimenez & Ballard, 2011). In water management, monitoring is typically focused on understanding water quality (Gregersen et al., 2007), or the amount of precipitation and water in lakes, streams, rivers and aquifers (water level and discharge), with a focus on understanding inputs and outputs related to some measured/estimated minimum level required for environmental needs. Two comprehensive review papers argue that CS can contribute to water science by monitoring precipitation, streamflow, and water quality, among other suitable parameters (Buytaert et al., 2014; Njue et al., 2019). For example, precipitation can be measured through manual rain gauges in backyards, where volunteers observe rainfall levels quantitatively each day (Starkey et al., 2017). Other examples describe CS protocols for measuring streamflow (Davids et al., 2019) and changing aquifer conditions due to water extraction (Little et al., 2016). Njue et al. (2019) found that even though water level is easier to measure, most water-based CS projects focus on water quality, and the authors speculate this is perhaps due 16 to a greater public awareness of threats to water quality. Water quality assessments have long been collected by volunteers using simple test kits, or via the proxy of freshwater invertebrate sampling (Edwards, 2016). pH, temperature, and conductivity can be measured using handheld electronic meters such as the Oakton PCtestr 32 (Shupe, 2017). New technologies are also being developed to enable volunteers to easily identify presence or absence of pesticides and other contaminants using test strips (Kolok et al., 2011), with a potential application to early warning systems for pollution. Groundwater quality monitoring can take place by engaging volunteers in retrieving samples from private wells and conducting various water quality tests on the samples (Thornton & Leahy, 2012). Within certain subcultures of CS, and particularly within community-based monitoring, there is an orientation to monitoring by Indigenous communities that centers Indigenous knowledges and approaches to monitoring. In many Indigenous cultures, management of land and water through activities like harvesting and eating traditional foods, tending, and traditional burns were key to daily life and health promotion (Norgaard, 2019). Johnson et al. (2016) note that Indigenous ways of knowing were commonly “developed to sustain reciprocal relationships between culture and nature” (p. 8). Sustaining these relationships relies on long-term observations that are spatially located and place-based, although it should be recognized that defining characteristics of Indigenous ways of knowing are not shared across all Indigenous cultures (Johnson et al., 2016). As Stenekes et al. (2020) write, “Indigenous people who live off the land and its resources witness and experience environmental changes long before scientists. Furthermore, people who rely on local resources for their livelihoods have a vested interest in learning about and assessing ecosystem health in ways not considered by outsiders” (p. 2). Stenekes et al. (2020) further describe how the concept of scientific indicators to monitor environmental 17 change are often abstracted from local values and needs and should be replaced with indicators grounded in local cultural knowledge. Published examples of Indigenous communities identifying and verifying culturally appropriate measures of environmental health and change are increasing (McKay & Johnson, 2017; Stenekes et al., 2020; Tipa & Tierney, 2003; Yim, 2009). Yim (2009) worked with Tlazt’en First Nation using photovoice to identify measures of environmental health to form the basis of a monitoring program to assist with the co-management of the John Prince Research Forest in central British Columbia. In New Zealand, Tipa and Tierney (2003) developed a ‘Cultural Health Index’ to assess stream and river health and better incorporate Maori values into decision-making. The tool is focused on a set of holistic indicators of ecosystem health derived from interviews with Elders and knowledge holders such as river shape, the presence of birds, presence of odours, visible flow, audible flow, taste of the water, water clarity, and the presence of ‘mahinga kai’ species (food and other resources, and the areas where they are collected). Importantly, the assessment of cultural indicators as outlined above requires Maori knowledge and follows a protocol conducted by a team including representatives across three generations (respected Elder, adult, young adult) (Townsend et al., 2004). Townsend et al. 2004) highlight that the intergenerational component is critical to valid assessments of indicators as youth, adults and Elders all have different perspectives and each is needed to establish a balanced assessment. Therefore, within the realm of Indigenous monitoring there is a natural motivation for youth to be involved. 18 2.2.4 Youth Participation in Community Science Community science involving youth is called school-based monitoring (SBM) or youth-focused citizen science. As a demographic that has been typically underrepresented in decision-making, youth are increasingly demanding a role in the environmental decisionmaking processes (Fisher, 2016). CS is a potential venue for this to happen, yet compared to adult-focused CS, school-based monitoring is understudied (Ballard et al., 2017). The limited examples of school-based environmental monitoring documented in the literature include E.coli monitoring by high school students in partnership with community groups (Au et al., 2000; Bae et al., 1997), long-term river quality monitoring (Abbott et al., 2018; Bae et al., 1997; Overholt & MacKenzie, 2005), air quality monitoring (Nali & Lorenzini, 2007), and groundwater monitoring (Thornton & Leahy, 2012). CS in the school setting can help teachers to meet their curriculum requirements for inquiry-based learning and connecting with real-world problems (Overholt & MacKenzie, 2005), however, programs can face trade-offs in prioritizing student educational outcomes versus science outcomes (Zoellick et al., 2012). Science outcomes are often maximized by involving only a small group of well-trained students in the data collection, whereas learning outcomes can be maximized when many students are able to craft their own research projects through scientist-teacher-student interactions (Ruiz-Mallén et al., 2016; Zoellick et al., 2012). The benefits of involving students in CS include increased student motivation after interactions with scientists and deeper engagement with scientific concepts. For scientists, benefits include insights into research questions, pilot data for future research, and larger geographic extent of data (Zoellick et al., 2012). Ruiz-Mallén et al. (2016) further describe how CS with youth can be a venue for transformative learning and define this as: “reframing not only [students’] attitudes and 19 perceptions of science, but also changing how they think about themselves as valid, competent, and knowledgeable actors” (p. 532). However, designing school-based monitoring to foster transformative learning can be difficult. Andrews et al. (2019) describe a project where youth were engaged to conduct interviews about environmental change in the Saskatchewan River Delta during a community festival, and then took part in group reflective exercises. However, when evaluated according to Mezirow’s definitions of transformative learning, evidence of transformative learning was limited. The authors acknowledge that advancement in approaches to assessing transformative learning are needed, and the timescales for evaluation need to be longer than a typical research project. Other scholars also describe transformative and long-lasting educational outcomes of SBM. Ballard et al., (2017) refer to the concept of ‘environmental science agency’ as an outcome of SBM. Environmental science agency arises when youth align themselves with environmental values, leading to personal or collective actions later in life. Harris et al. (2019) refer to the concept of ‘productive agency’ described as the powerful learning that happens when creating something and putting yourself out into the world. A summary of concepts is provided in Table 2.1. Processes that bring youth and scientists/decision-makers together are identified as important across a variety of literature for programs aspiring to transformative learning outcomes. Ruiz-Mallén et al. (2016) speak to the importance of authentic relationships with scientists and engaging youth in a “continuous deliberative process about the meaning and rationality of their actions, decisions, and achievements” (p. 531). Harris et al. (2019) identify that to foster agency, SBM programs need to make the nested uses of data visible, believable, and meaningful to youth. In other words, youth need to be able to clearly 20 understand why data are being collected which is often missing in SBM as reported by Harris et al. (2019): Yet, while participants develop deep understandings of “what, where, and how” data are produced and analyzed, their understandings of “why” are unclear and may differ across individuals and projects. This is understandable, as scientists, educators, participants, and data consumers bring multiple, overlapping, and sometimes conflicting uses to the same dataset (Parrish et al., 2018). (p. 2) To achieve this, Harris et al. (2019) outline the importance of youth taking action based on the data collected, working with those who use the data, and seeing the broader dataset. However, these scholars provide limited tools for prospective school-based monitoring program coordinators to design SBM. Table 2.1 Concepts used in the literature to articulate learning outcomes of school-basedmonitoring. Article Outcome Definition Program Design RuizTransformative When youth start to 1) transparent and trust building Mallén Learning perceive science in relationships between youth and scientists et al. new ways and see 2) youth engaged in deliberative processes (2016) themselves as 3) flexible, long-term approach to the competent actors. project Ballard Environmental When youth align “1) rigorous data collection and analysis et al. Science themselves with 2) disseminating findings and (2017) Agency environmental communicating science and project work values and take and personal or 3) investigating complex ecological collective actions systems.” (p. 65) later in life. Harris Productive Powerful learning “1) youth interacted with end users et al. Agency that happens when 2) youth are exposed to the larger datasets (2019) producing to which they contributed, something and 3) youth take action linked to the data” putting yourself out (p. 2) into the world. To start filling this gap, Ady (2016) developed a design process for youth-focused citizen science to target both data requirements for environmental conservation and educational goals. A key finding reported is that conservation professionals and educators need to work with student volunteers as a learning community to co-design CS projects, and 21 outlines the need for students to be involved throughout the entire process. Ady’s (2016) framework includes the following steps: Frame, Plan, Prepare, Implement, Assess and Adapt and includes activities such as conducting a needs assessment and collaboratively writing a team action plan. A common concern with SBM is a mistrust of the quality of youth collected data. Though many studies have found youth capable of collecting data on par with scientists (Au et al., 2000; van der Velde et al., 2017; Weigelhofer et al., 2018), there are exceptions (Nicholson et al., 2002). In a study that examined professional versus student collected water quality data, Nicholson et al. (2002) found that the accuracy of volunteer data varied from parameter to parameter, with turbidity and phosphorus being much less reliable than pH and electrical conductivity. Studies have highlighted the importance of good training for improving data quality collected by volunteers in general (Fore et al., 2001), as well as building personal relationships with the users of the data to enhance the credibility of the results (Thornton & Leahy, 2012). Emerging statistical tools provide new realms of possibility for youth-focused citizen data (Isaac et al., 2014) and online tools such as DataONE also provide resources for SBM groups to properly document and manage their data including developing quality control and assurance protocols (McKinley et al., 2017).5 Another approach to SBM described in the literature are examples that centre Indigenous science and connection to the land. It is increasingly being recognized that community, cultural and land connections in education are imperative to the success of Indigenous learners (Bridge, 2018), and programs that are aiming to braid Indigenous 5 DataONE (Data Observation Network for Earth) is a platform that works to enhance the interoperability of data repositories and assists in data indexing and replication, while also offering training in data management (What Is DataONE? | DataONE, n.d.). 22 perspectives and knowledge into programming alongside SBM are answering this call (Callaghan et al., 2018; carr & Ranco, 2017; Moewaka Barnes et al., 2019). One example is the Water Warriors project in New Zealand where students experience science through a Maori worldview while upholding western science and Maori knowledge as equally valid knowledge systems (Callaghan et al., 2018). An important element of the program is that knowledge mentoring is reciprocal. As older students provide mentorship in science concepts, younger students share Maori knowledge and stories. Together with many teachers, students learn about their local creek through storytelling, cultural presentations, scientific water testing, and presenting their findings to parents and interested parties (Callaghan et al., 2018). To summarize, the literature presented here covers aspects of SBM programs seeking to inform decision-making including the trade-offs between science and educational outcomes, how to foster long-term meaningful education outcomes, the validity of student collected data, and how mentorship can support SBM. A key contribution presented was Ady’s (2016) suggestion to work together with youth during all stages of the program. Despite this, to my knowledge, no research yet has explicitly asked youth how they envision SBM could best be connected to decision-making. 2.3 Connecting Community Science to Decision-Making As already noted, CS can provide valuable contributions to decision-making, and in the context of SBM, there are benefits to this for enhancing student learning outcomes. Despite this great potential, in 2011 Conrad and Hilchey brought attention to our limited understanding of how best to connect CS to decision-making. They recommended that researchers and practitioners “focus on increasing use of data by decision-makers and 23 scientist and understand how that use influences conservation” (p. 284). Despite this call, the challenges for CS to inform decision-making persist. In a 2018 survey, only 46% of community-based monitoring programs across Canada felt that their data was informing policy at any level of government, despite the fact that 75% of programs followed standardized protocols (Carlson & Cohen, 2018). Similar results were reported in Australia with only half of programs with data priorities reporting some influence on decision-making (Bonney et al., 2020). Buckland-Nicks et al. (2016) point out that the challenge for CS to connect to environmental management is an indication of a need to understand the broader challenge of how science links to environmental management, and the varied roles of monitoring in adaptive water management. Similarly, Newman et al. (2017) point out: We do not fully understand how knowledge gained from citizen science translates into conservation decision making processes- processes often requiring integrated knowledge across many topics related to particular places…the stewardship of any particular place ideally relies on scientifically informed decision making rooted in place in conjunction with continuous monitoring, evaluation, reflection, and management by diverse stakeholders (McGinnis, 2016). (p. 56) 2.3.1 Pathways for Community Science to Inform Decision-Making As mentioned previously, CS programs are generally considered to be useful for land and water decision-making by providing data to increase understandings of what is happening on the land. In 2017, a number of CS practitioners and experts across academia, government and NGO’s gathered to discuss this topic and the potential for citizen science to improve conservation science and decision-making (McKinley et al., 2017). In their resulting publication, authors put forth a general consensus that environmental data is only one of two pathways (Figure 2.2) by which CS can contribute to environmental decision-making and management (McKinley et al., 2017). The second avenue is to instead grow the public’s 24 interest and ability to provide input to natural resource consultation processes (McKinley et al., 2017). Figure 2.2 Two pathways for citizen science to inform conservation decision-making. From McKinley et al., (2017), reproduced with permission, originally published in Biological Conservation, 208, McKinley et al., Citizen science can improve conservation science natural resource management, and environmental protection, 15-28, Copyright Elsevier (2017). In the first pathway (“acquiring science”), citizen science is presented as a tool to help fill diverse information needs, for example, by helping with opportunistic and observational studies. In the second pathway (“fostering public input and engagement”), citizen science can garner public participation by creating a “bidirectional flow of information” (p. 19) between the public, governments, and other organizations. Volunteer training can help to increase understandings of both science and the issues at hand, which helps to foster a “richer, more productive dialogue” (p. 19) which in turn helps to provide decision-makers with information about local priorities and contexts (McKinley et al., 2017). Though the diagram clearly 25 distinguishes between two separate pathways, the authors stress that there are synergies between the pathways which can lead to transformative experiences as people participate in resource management and learn about how science is done and how decisions are made. Thinking from McKinley et al. (2017) is helpful for conceptualizing how CS might inform decision-making generally, and yet they do not provide explicit guidance for those designing and coordinating CS programs, which is addressed below. 2.3.2 Community Science Characteristics for Informing Decision-Making Informed by the broad overview of CS, decision-making and SBM above, a targeted review of ten articles (Objective 1 of the research) revealed that the literature has mapped out several characteristics that foster connections with decision-making. Articles reviewed used various frameworks for defining the ‘types of uptake’ of CS data in decision-making. For example, Stepenuck and Genskow (2019) used four categories, including whether the data helped to change protection status of a waterway, pushed decision-makers to develop new regulations, motivated volunteers to attend natural resource meetings, or whether an agency changed where/how they measure water quality. Similarly, Bonney et al. (2020) categorized whether data was taken up by decision-makers within the adaptative management planning phase, the monitoring and implementation phase or during the reporting and evaluation stage. An initial finding of this review was that there were both characteristics of programs, and characteristics of the governance landscape that were important for enabling the connection with decision-making. Thirty-eight (38) characteristics of CS programs and nine characteristics of the governance landscape were identified. Characteristics are summarized in Table 2.2 and presented in more detail in Appendix A. 26 Table 2.2 Summary of characteristics for community science to inform decision-making. Characteristics of Programs Data Management • • • • • • Data type/focus Format allowing comparison with thresholds and standards Planting seed data Accessible sharing Easily verifiable Have a state-approved quality assurance plan/documentation of protocols Ensure data are geo-located and use geospatial analysis and GIS • • • • • • • Diverse data Unique focus (filling a data gap) Large geographic coverage Redundancies with other monitoring Baseline monitoring Focus on priority stressors and phenomena. Evaluate the impacts of management interventions Funding Volunteers • • • • • • Multiple sources of funding Adequate resources to pursue monitoring goals Larger budget Engaging with Decision-Makers • • • • • • • • Decision-makers engaged in designphase Level of government Trust of volunteers in coordinating organization Trust of decision-makers in data-quality Multiple partnerships Government staff involved in developing quality control and volunteer training Usability surveys Two-way knowledge exchange Number of volunteers Volunteers with specific traits Level of involvement of volunteers in the research • Engage the same volunteers in small scale/diverse short-term projects. • Place identification Other Program Traits • • • • • • • • • Program longevity Internal project evaluation Definition of a problem Having the objective to address an environmental crisis Diverse leadership Alignment between program design and goals Publish results Include opportunities for broader local knowledge to contribute to the project Connection to place Characteristics of Governance Landscape Governance/Management Context • • • • • Polycentric water governance Catchment/watershed level management Decision-context/scale Indigenous-led water planning Existing standards Partnerships and Networks • Presence of CSS bridging organizations/ networks • Willingness and support of decisionmakers • Opportunities to connect with decisionmakers • Strong cross-sectoral partnerships Note: See Appendix A for descriptions of each characteristic and reference information. 27 Characteristics of Programs. The characteristics of programs identified as relevant for informing decision-making related to data management, the data focus, the volunteers, how the program engaged with decision-makers, how the program was funded, and a suite of other miscellaneous characteristics. Related to data management, programs that were informing decision-making ensured that their data was in a format that was easily shareable, easily verifiable (Kim et al., 2011), that was geo-located (Newman et al., 2017), and was in a format that allowed for comparison with thresholds and standards for water quality (Wilson et al., 2018). Data types reported as useful to decision-makers included data that focused on understanding emerging environmental stressors (Newman et al., 2017), data sets that had a large geographic coverage, was focused on smaller waterbodies or that complimented and overlapped with government monitoring (Hadj-Hammou et al., 2017). How volunteers and decision-makers are engaged also influences connections to decision-making. Programs that had more volunteers (Bonney et al., 2020), and programs where the volunteers took on more roles in the research (Stepenuck & Genskow, 2019) were both more successful at informing decision-making. Programs that fostered identification and connection with place retained volunteers and were more successful at informing decisionmaking (Newman et al., 2017). Trust between volunteers and decision-makers is also crucial to enable uptake of CS in decision-making (Castleden, 2016; Wilson et al., 2018). Articles outlined that programs having connections with multiple organizations and agencies, and programs that worked with lower levels of government were more likely to influence decision-making (Carlson and Cohen, 2018). Having a two-way knowledge exchange can help CS programs to know when their data are being used by decision-makers (Carlson & Cohen, 2018; Bonney et al., 2020). When government staff helped to develop the 28 quality control protocols and training, this was also beneficial to programs wishing to inform decision-making (Castleden, 2016). Stepenuck and Genskow (2019) identified that the strongest determinant of CS programs influencing decision-making was when programs were seeking to address a defined problem or an environmental crisis. Programs were also more successful at informing decision-making when they had diverse leadership (McGreavy et al., 2016). This allows for informal networks to form and facilitates the development of adaptative governance. Similarly, having local knowledge contributing to a project makes it more likely to influence decision-making (Newman et al., 2017). This can be accomplished when diverse forms of data are collected, creating space for local knowledges to contribute to the project. Further, when a project is connected and tied to a specific social-ecological context, is it also more likely to inform decision-making. Newman et al. (2017) outline that connecting a CS project to place can be achieved by promoting the “five dimensions of place”, including emphasizing the connectedness of human and natural communities, highlighting local stories and place names, including diverse forms of knowledge, promoting emotional connections to place, and involving participants in shaping the project, place, and relationships. Characteristics of the Governance Landscape. Though CS programs can do their best to foster the characteristics listed in the previous section, unless broader structures and networks are in place, they may struggle to influence decision-making. Characteristics related to the governance context, as well as existing partnerships and networks supported programs to inform decision-making. Similar to literature discussed earlier in this chapter, HadjHammou et al. (2017) identified that polycentric governance models with a focus on watershed-level governance supported CS connections to decision-making by facilitating collaboration across actors. Similarly, Wilson et al. (2018) pointed out that the scale at which 29 decisions are made will also impact how easily CS links to decision-making. In their study, certain baseline water quality data were not useful for or relevant to a specific nation or government but were useful at a watershed scale to understand trends (Wilson et al., 2018). Wilson et al. (2018) suggested that to be more immediately useful, CS program can align themselves with existing Indigenous-led water planning efforts and water standards. Having existing, and various levels of data quality standards and protocols that CS can adopt or work to complement, facilitates CS’s ability to influence decision-making (Kim et al., 2011). Certain kinds of partnerships and mechanisms to convene partners were highlighted for enabling CS to inform decision-making. Multiple authors stressed the utility of bridging organizations for sharing resources, facilitating training, storing, and compiling data, and helping to create new partnerships (Hadj-Hammou et al., 2017; Carlson & Cohen, 2018). Similarly, having events, conferences and meetings that allow decision-makers to meet and interact with volunteers, program managers and other organizations were also helpful for building partnerships and trust (Newman et al., 2017; Wilson et al., 2018). 2.4 Conclusion This chapter has examined what the literature has to say about community science and school-based monitoring and how they can interface with decision-making. As described in Section 2.2.1, there is growing interest in CS as an avenue for increasing public participation in land and water decision-making, however, much remains unknown about how to best design CS programs to target specific outcomes (Groulx et al., 2017). When youth are involved, there is additional motivation to connect CS programs to decisionmaking as many beneficial outcomes (such as transformative learning) are best fostered when 30 youth interact with decision-makers and scientists, supporting them to view their activities as meaningful (Harris et al., 2019). The second half of the chapter explored the connection between CS and decisionmaking through two angles, first by presenting the different pathways to inform decisionmaking (McKinley et al. 2017), and second by addressing Objective 1 with a collated list of characteristics for informing decision-making (of both CS programs and the broader governance landscape they are nested under). As presented in Chapter One, four main gaps emerged from this review to inform understandings of linking SBM to decision-making: 1) the non-data pathways to inform decision-making are poorly described in the literature, 2) more work is needed to address the tension between localized versus standardized monitoring, 3) youth-based monitoring is poorly acknowledged as having potential to connect to decision-making and, 4) work is yet to be done to provide a design process for adaptively working towards SBM that can inform decision making. Together these gaps highlight the potential for this research to bring new understandings of the role of school-based monitoring, the potential pathways to inform decision-making, and how to design school-based monitoring to inform decision-making. The next chapter describes the case study and setting used to learn more about this topic. 31 Chapter Three: Study Context 3.1 Introduction This research project has been deeply influenced by context, especially past and ongoing work in the Nechako Watershed. As noted in Chapter One, my research was informed by my involvement with UNBC’s Integrated Watershed Research Group and its activities in the Nechako and this study is nested within the context of the Koh-Learning in our Watersheds school-based monitoring (SBM) program. Informed by reading, field-notes, observations, and some contextual insights from interviewees who participated in the research, this chapter introduces the nested context of the work, introducing the Nechako Watershed, School District 91, and the Nechako Valley Secondary School. The chapter also provides context to how land and water decision-making currently takes place in B.C., noting changes emerging as we enter a new era of reconciliation. 3.2 Nested Research Setting: The Nechako Watershed and School-District 91 Two different ‘levels’ of geographic ‘scale’ frame the setting of the work following Cash et al.’s (2006) definitions6. First, on the geographic scale the thesis is set at to the level of the Nechako Watershed, adopting the same framing as the Integrated Watershed Research Group. Parkes et al. (2010) describe how scaling learning and research to the level of the watershed is useful because it “provides a place-based unit within which to understand and manage interactions between social systems, ecosystems and health” (p. 696). This includes the interaction between water quality and human health, as well as different levels of water governance and how they can foster social learning. Second, with the focus on SBM, the 6 Scale is defined by Cash et al. (2006) as the various dimensions used to frame a study topic including time, space, and analytical constructs (i.e., jurisdictional boundaries). Levels are the increments at different points along the scale. 32 work was also scaled to the level of the school district and the region surrounding an individual school and community (see more about choosing a case study in Section 4.3.1). Figure 3.1 Overlapping boundaries within the Nechako Watershed: School District 91, Communities, Waterways, and Watershed boundaries. Map produced by Aita Bezzola (2021). 3.2.1 The Nechako Watershed: Social-Ecological Context An overview of key historical, cultural and ecological features helps to deepen appreciation of the Nechako Watershed as a complex social-ecological 7 system. The 7 The term social-ecological is used here following Berkes and Folke’s (1998) use of the term to mean “the integrated concept of humans-in-nature” (p. 4). 33 Nechako Watershed is located in north central British Columbia, and drains an area of 47,200km2 (roughly 1.5 times the size of Vancouver Island), forming the second largest tributary to the Fraser River. The Carrier Sekani Tribal Council notes that the Nechako Watershed region has been occupied by members of the Carrier (Dakelh) First Nation grouping since time immemorial (Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, 2007). Carrier translates to ‘ones who pack’, while Dakelh translate to ‘on water travel’ (Parkes, 2021). As described by Striegler (2014): Historically, the many waterways in this territory enabled easy trading between local Indigenous groups and included a major trading route along the Blackwater River to the west coast Nuxalt peoples (CSTC, 2012). This huge territory provided rich hunting, gathering and fishing grounds that sustained the Dakelh for centuries before colonial settlement. (p. 10) The Carrier-Sekani include many distinct but allied First Nations, who traditionally managed the land through a system of land ownership and responsibility based on extended family groups, clans and hereditary chiefs (RDBN, 2021, p. 2). The region was divided into Keyoh’s, geographic delineations where resources were managed by the Hereditary Chiefs based on Indigenous Knowledge (Picketts et al., 2014). The Nechako Watershed overlaps with the traditional territories of 15 different First Nations and Indigenous Organizations (see community locations in Figure 3.1). This includes (in alphabetical order): Binche First Nation, Cheslatta Carrier Nation, Lake Babine First Nation, Lheidli T’enneh First Nation, Nadleh Whut’en First Nation, Nak'azdli First Nation, Nee Tahi Buhn First Nation, Saik’uz First Nation, Skin Tyee Nation First Nation, Stellat’en First Nation, Takla First Nation, Tl’azt’en Nation, Ts’il Kaz Koh First Nation, Wet’suwet’en First Nation, Yekooche First Nation. The Dakelh language is the most widely spoken Indigenous language that was used throughout the Nechako Watershed (Picketts et al., 2014). The name Nechako comes from 34 the Dakelh name ‘netʃa koh’, meaning big river, and the word ‘koh’ within ‘netʃa koh’ or Nechako, means river or waterway (Parkes, 2021)8. Water within the Nechako Watershed has large importance to Dakelh communities. As described by Chief Robert Michell, the Nechako holds enormous significance to the Stellat’en and other First Nations in the watershed and they continue to advocate for improving its health: Since time immemorial, the Stellat’en people have lived beside and on the Nechako River. The River was our economic and spiritual lifeblood – our grocery store, our highway, our church. It was taken away from us and converted into an industrial canal without any consultation or compensation. We need what was lost to be returned. And when it is - when the River is brought back to health - everyone in the region will stand to benefit. (RDBN, 2021, p. 2) Settlers first arrived in the Nechako region in the 1700’s and established a trading post on Stuart Lake (Picketts et al., 2014). As colonization of Canada and B.C. advanced, Indigenous communities in the Nechako region as with the rest of Canada were impacted by disease, relocation to reservations and the harmful impacts of residential schools. As with other regions in Canada, the history of colonialism has resulted in a complex relationship between settler populations and First Nations communities in the watershed, with a history of racism (Moran, 1988; Striegler, 2014). First Nations have shown resilience despite this history and are leading land-based stewardship efforts across the watershed. Since colonization, the Nechako Watershed has been significantly impacted by resource development (Hartman, 1996) with implications for the “geologic composition of the region, the social fabric of communities, the resilience of ecosystems and therefore, the overall patterns of health for humans, animals, and environments” (Gislason et al., 2018, p. 192). At the beginning of the 1900’s, farmers began to establish themselves in the 8 For the rest of the thesis the word ‘river’ is omitted after Nechako as it is already captured in the name. However, when referring to the watershed, the term watershed is used. 35 Vanderhoof area (Helm et al., 1980). The population in the watershed grew with increased resource development activities such as hydropower, forestry, farming, mining, and oil and gas exploration and transmission (Picketts et al., 2014). In 1952, Kenney Dam was built to redirect two thirds of the Nechako’s flow to supply hydropower to Rio Tinto’s aluminum smelter in Kitimat B.C. This resulted in the flooding that created the 250-mile-long Nechako Reservoir, made up of the Ootsa, Tetachuk, Intata, Whitesail, Chelaslie, Intata and Tahtsa river and lake systems (Robertson, 1991). As a result, drainage patterns, water chemistry, water temperature, sediment levels, flow rates and riparian habitats have been altered (Hartman, 1996). The creation of the Nechako reservoir also resulted in the tragic forcible displacement of communities of the Cheslatta First Nation (Hartman, 1996) as well as many other disproportionate impacts for Indigenous communities who depend on the river. The Kenney Dam and the altered flows of the Nechako have been a source of long-lasting legal battles in the watershed (Proctor, 2022) as well as, more recently, innovative approaches to partnership and collaborations. In June of 2021, Saik’uz, Stellat’en and Nadleh Whut’en First Nations along with the Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako signed a Memorandum of Understanding to “restore the health of the Nechako River, its affected tributaries and its fish populations” (RDBN, 2021). 3.2.2 Governance and Research Networks in the Nechako Watershed The Nechako Watershed is the backdrop for the work of various watershed governance and research organizations, including the Nechako Watershed Roundtable (NWR, n.d.) and UNBC’s Integrated Watershed Research Group (IWRG, n.d.). The Nechako Watershed Roundtable (NWR) formally came together in 2015 after years of collaborative 36 initiatives under other names, with the purpose of working towards improved health of the watershed and its communities (Picketts et al., 2017). The NWR includes members from First Nations, local, provincial, and federal government as well as non-governmental organizations, civil society, and industry (NWR, 2019). The NWR does not have any delegated decision-making authority in the watershed, however it works to influence decisions and improve conditions in the watershed by bringing people together, fostering collaboration, identifying gaps, and bringing attention to issues in the watershed 9. The NWR has been pushing for community science and youth monitoring in the watershed since its 2015 Nechako Watershed Strategy (Fraser Basin Council, 2016). These commitments were renewed again with its recent strategic plan released November of 2021, which highlighted community-based lake monitoring and youth engagement as top priorities (NWR, 2021). Particularly relevant to this project, my thesis supervisor Dr. Margot Parkes has been working with Nechako Watershed community partners (including the NWR) for more than ten years, including as co-chair of the Nechako Watershed Roundtable Core Committee (NWR, 2019). She is also one of four researchers that make up the Integrated Watershed Research Group (IWRG) which focuses on three water research themes: sediment transport, water security and tools for watershed governance (Déry et al., 2021). As part of the latter theme, Dr. Parkes and colleagues have worked on an online geospatial ‘portal’ or database that can allow various groups across the watershed to input and access data, information, and media. Dr. Parkes’ research connections in the Nechako Watershed have also led to a close 9 For example, in 2018 the NWR issued a ‘Statement of Concern’ about the impacts of the devastating wildfire season (NWR, 2021). 37 partnership with School District 91 due to shared interests in fostering healthy watersheds, healthy students and healthy communities. The largely overlapping boundaries of School District 91 and the Nechako Watershed (Figure 3.1, above) within a sparsely populated area of BC offer further motivations for collaboration between different groups in the watershed. School District 91 serves approximately 4,500 students across an area of 70,000km2 (SD91, 2019). Roughly 39% of students in School District 91 are of Aboriginal decent, coming from the 14 different First Nations communities in the district (Aboriginal Education, 2019). Previous research collaborations with SD91 included a research project that identified that youth in the Nechako Watershed are concerned about the state of the watershed and want to engage meaningfully in watershed stewardship efforts (Bale, 2016). Other research looked at the desires of SD91 youth around the future of resource extraction in their communities and found that youth want to “collect data ourselves for our communities so that we can learn about the problems at home” along with many other recommendations (Sloan Morgan, 2019, p. 12). One of the points of connection between SD91 and UNBC is through the Kohlearning in our Watersheds project, a water-focused experiential learning program aiming to connect students, communities, and waterways. The Koh-learning project is discussed next. 3.3 Case Study: Koh-learning at the Nechako Valley Secondary School As described in more detail in Chapter Four, a case study approach was taken to explore the phenomenon of SBM programs and how they can be linked to decision-making. The focus of the case study (the ‘unit of analysis’ as defined by VanWynsberghe and Khan, 2007) was the Koh-learning project at the Nechako Valley Secondary School (NVSS). In case study research, understanding of the unit of analysis is ongoing, and therefore to help 38 situate the reader in the context, this section is informed by the stories, voices and perspectives of students, teachers, and decision-makers. Quotes obtained during research interviews in this study are included where they help to bring elements of the research context alive (for a description of interview methods see Section 4.5.1). 3.3.1 Koh-learning: A Project within a Watershed The Koh-Learning in our Watersheds project (henceforth referred to as KohLearning) began in 2017 with a pilot initiative to have SD91 high-school students conducting water monitoring on stream restoration sites. The program started with teachers doing studies with their classes around watershed health in isolation. This eventually coalesced into the Koh-Learning project when UNBC developed partnerships in the area. One Koh-learning origin story is linked to a day when the IWRG Research Manager was standing out on the banks of Murray Creek, a tributary of the Nechako near Vanderhoof, B.C. with the Chair of a local organization called the Nechako Environment and Water Stewardship Society (NEWSS). The idea occurred to the pair that youth from the high school could be involved to help monitor the stream restoration progress. In conjunction with wider collaborations across environment, education, and health contexts (Gislason et al., 2018), these ideas and relationships sparked the beginning of the Koh-learning in our Watersheds project. The word “Koh” 10 refers to the Dakelh word for ‘waterway’ and – in combination signals the project’s commitment to centering Aboriginal Education within the watershed. 10 The title is also a play on words (‘Koh-learning’ vs. ‘Co-learning’) symbolizing the project’s intent to have students, teachers, community partners and UNBC researchers learning together about, on, and with waterways. This is also a nod and aspiration to embody Bartlett et al.’s (2015) concept of ‘co-learning’ described as bringing a diverse group of people together on a journey of “learning from each other, learning together, learning our commonalities and differences, and learning to see how to weave back and forth between our cultures’ actions, values, and knowledges as circumstances require.” (p. 285/6). Key activities of co-learning include conversations, storytelling, workshops, dialogue and navigating together through a “living laboratory” (Bartlett et al. 2015). 39 Place-based watershed learning connected to local water stewardship efforts were aligned with School District 91’s intentions to better meet the needs of Aboriginal learners and all youth (SD91 Celebrating Aboriginal Education, n.d.). The phrase “what’s good for Aboriginal kids is good for all kids” is one that arose often in conjunction with School District 91 partners during the development of the Koh-learning project. Consistent with this, many elements of the Koh-Learning project design strive to embody the First Peoples Principles of Learning 11 including the focus on “connectedness, on reciprocal relationships, and a sense of place” (BC Ministry of Education, n.d.). Koh-learning is also a program in evolution. By the time I arrived in Vanderhoof in 2018, the program was being championed by a small group of teachers, some UNBC staff and had links to a few community players. At this stage Koh-learning activities consisted of the pre-packaged Pacific Streamkeepers 12 watershed monitoring program. The general model of the program was that youth in Grades 8, 9 and 10 were driven by bus to a local creek (a 15-minute drive from NVSS) to learn Pacific Streamkeepers water monitoring protocols for assessing water quality, physical stream habitat characteristics and invertebrate communities. The trips consisted of either a morning or an afternoon session twice a year (fall and spring). The program has since evolved into a more flexible format as described by Casey Litton during an interview: 11 The First Peoples Principles of Learning were developed to support making space for teaching and learning approaches from First Nations societies into the BC education system. Elders, knowledge holders and scholars contributed to developing the principles (First Nations Education Steering Committee, 2007). 12 The Pacific Streamkeepers Federation (PSKF) is a non-profit organization that works to coordinate local management of aquatic resources in B.C. and the Yukon (Taccogna & Munro, 1995). Supported by the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Streamkeepers program was developed in response to B.C. citizen’s concerns about stream condition. The program includes 14 different modules with protocols for monitoring and taking action to improve aspects of stream health. 40 The problem with [the Streamkeepers] program which we quickly came to understand is although there are things that you would do in that program that were good, it was not a good educational tool, it was a good community monitoring tool. … other schools in the district started looking at ways in which the watershed was important to them, so Fort St. James is engaged with regards to monitoring the First Nations food fishery up there, and engaging from a First Nations perspective. Vanderhoof is engaging from an agricultural perspective and how the streams running through agricultural land are important, and Fraser Lake is engaging from a perspective of lakes rather than streams, and Burns Lake is looking at engaging around wetlands. – Casey Litton (Teacher) Another expression of Koh-learning’s evolution was the emergence of the “Waterways Mentorship Program”. Coinciding with the launch of this research, I worked with teachers Casey Litton and Mia Moutray and a high school student named Jorja Cranmer (a Koh-learning summer student at the time) to develop a plan for how to actively engage youth in leading Koh-learning water monitoring. What emerged from these discussions was the model of the Waterways Mentorship Program, where Grade 11/12 volunteers were recruited and trained in water quality monitoring and then became teachers themselves for younger classes. Mentors also took part in several meetings to design what the monitoring sessions could look like logistically. Though the mentorship program emerged partially through conversations related to this research, it has become a broader and ongoing Kohlearning initiative (Koh-Learning in our Watersheds, 2021). 3.3.2 Nechako Valley Secondary School: A School Nested within a Community and a Watershed As mentioned, the focus of the case study for this research is the Koh-learning program at the Nechako Valley Secondary School (NVSS), during the 2020/21 school year. NVSS is in the community of Vanderhoof, on the Traditional Territory of the Saik’uz First Nation. ‘Saik’uz’ translates to ‘on the sand’ due to the sandy soil in the area (Saik’uz First Nation, n.d.). The main community of the Saik’uz First Nation is located about 15 minutes’ 41 drive from Vanderhoof on the banks of Stoney Creek, and the majority of Saik’uz youth attend high school in Vanderhoof. Vanderhoof is the largest town within School District 91 with approximately 600 students attending the high school (Dowswell, 2020). Vanderhoof is a strongly agricultural community. The farming lands surrounding Vanderhoof are often referred to as the ‘agricultural belt’ and are part of the wider Nechako Agricultural Land Reserve. The Vanderhoof agricultural belt is used predominantly for forage and pasture for beef and dairy operations, as well as grain crops (BC Ministry of Agriculture, 2014). Vanderhoof sits directly on the banks of a braided section of the Nechako and this area has also been designated as a migratory bird sanctuary (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2014). Two watershed characters relevant to this research are Murray Creek and Stoney Creek. Both are tributaries joining the Nechako at Vanderhoof and due to their proximity to NVSS, have been the site of Koh-learning activities in the past (though more so Murray Creek). Murray Creek flows into the Nechako from the north coming from the Blue Mountain hills and makes its way through the agricultural belt. Coming from the south, Stoney Creek flows through a series of lakes (Nulki and Tachick) and through the community of Saik’uz. Stoney Creek used to support an important food fishery for the Saik’uz First Nation. During conversations and interviews with partners, many spoke fondly about both streams and memories they had of fishing, swimming, and playing in the creeks growing up. However, many activities are no longer possible due to water quality concerns, algae, and diminished fish populations. White sturgeon and salmon are fish species particularly affected by water quality and quantity changes in the watershed and are deeply valued by local communities. Insights during interviews underscored this, in that participants described the story of Koh-learning as 42 being intertwined with the story of the Nechako White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative, and small stream stewardship and restoration in Vanderhoof. As one teacher described: My kind of enthusiasm with the Koh-learning project now is that it’s hopefully going to push to the next level, so hopefully it’s not just ‘how many bugs did we find, what kind were they’. What does that mean in terms of the health of the watershed, of the big picture? I guess for me it’s all about the sturgeon too, how do all of these pieces fit into the health of a species that is so at risk and so close to extinction, what are we doing about it? – Teacher F The nechako white sturgeon, one of the most iconic species in the Nechako is in serious decline and is endangered under the Federal Species at Risk Act (Government of Canada, n.d.). Within the Nechako, white sturgeon populations have historically been concentrated in the section between Vanderhoof and the confluence with the Stuart River (French, 2005). However, there are numerous issues with both water quality and bottom sediment quality in this reach (French, 2005) and these changes have been identified as factors negatively impacting sturgeon habitat and populations. However, they have also spurred the community to rally around the Nechako White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative including building a hatchery to restore populations to the river (Nechako White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative, n.d.). Wayne Salewski describes the initiative in this way: We convinced the municipality, the community, to put forward a million dollars out of our community’s monies, to enhance a SARA listed species, that’s never been done in Canada, to my knowledge before, that a community has stepped forward like that. During an interview with Grade 8 NVSS students, youth referenced the importance of the sturgeon hatchery and yet also wanted to see the same level of action for salmon: So I know how we have like the sturgeon centre where they produce sturgeon and let them in the rivers, but chinook salmon are probably lower than the sturgeon so why should, why couldn’t there be both sturgeon and chinook and any other main fish? -Student 8_D Every year, chinook salmon and four different species of sockeye salmon travel thousands of kilometers up the Fraser River to return to the Nechako (Nechako Fisheries 43 Conservation Program, n.d.). Over the past decades, there have been reductions in the number of salmon returning to the Nechako each year, and the Fraser River in general (Levy & Nicklin, 2018). Reduction in the Nechako’s flow regime due to the Kenney Dam results in higher water temperatures which can negatively impact salmon health (Hartman, 1996). Further, the tributaries to the Nechako are important rearing habitat for chinook salmon (Hartman, 1996) and many have been altered due to poor land management practices. The channel of Murray Creek for example has been modified extensively by agricultural activities and for years NEWSS has been championing stream restoration efforts to restore the creek to a state that can once again support rainbow trout, coho and chinook salmon (Salewski, 2013). 3.4 Who Makes Decisions about Land and Water? As well as introducing the Nechako Watershed and Koh-learning as a case study example of SBM, a further important aspect of the study context is how land and water decision-making operates in the Nechako. Based on the ‘Common Law’ legal system brought to Canada by colonizers in the 17th and 18th centuries, the Canadian federal government views itself as responsible for Canada’s natural resources (Government of Canada, 2016). The Canada Water Act is Canada’s federal water legislation which came into force in 1985, and with it, the Canadian Government sets out the mechanism for provinces and territories to gain jurisdiction over managing waters including conducting water monitoring, research, and management of waters on “crown land” 13 (Canada Water Act, 1985). This underscores the importance of recognising our current governance framework is built upon colonial and 13 Crown land is a term used to describes lands that belong to the government. Crown land is in quotations here as this term is controversial as described here: “in large sections of BC, crown land is unceded land meaning that Indigenous title has neither been surrendered nor acquired by the Crown. The Crown doesn’t own the land outright as the term suggests” (Joseph, 2014). 44 western notions of water as a resource to be managed and ‘owned’ by colonial governments however, other paradigms exist (more on this in Chapter Six). With jurisdiction over water handed to the provinces, B.C. legislation asserts guardianship over water (Wei, 2019). For example, section five of the Water Sustainability Act articulates the province’s roles and responsibilities for regulating water use and diversion of waters in streams14 and groundwater (Water Sustainability Act, 2014). As such, British Columbian’s who own properties or businesses do not “own” surface or groundwater on their properties, but they can obtain water rights to use and divert water (Wei, 2019). Other provincial acts that have bearing on water management include the Environmental Management Act, for regulating waste discharges to water, and the Fish Protection Act, for protecting fish and riparian areas, among many others (Fraser Basin Council, 2011). Responsibilities for administering these various acts is fragmented to the point where water governance in B.C. has been described as a “a true patchwork of authorities and responsibilities inherited from days when water was taken for granted, and other resources, such as timber, minerals, and fish, were the main concern” (Campbell, 2004, p. 7). Some aspects of water management and decision-making are further devolved to local government through the Local Government Act and the Community Charter. For example, local government is responsible for providing drinking water supply, treatment and distribution, water drainage and wastewater treatment, as well as conducting local land-use planning and protection of sensitive riparian and wetland habitats (Fraser Basin Council, 2011). Figure 3.2 provides one overview of the numerous agencies with responsibilities for some aspect of water in B.C. 14 The Water Sustainability Act defines “streams” to include all water bodies and water sources including glaciers, lakes, ponds, rivers, ravines, gulches and wetlands etc., with the exclusion of aquifers. 45 Figure 3.2 A representation of federal, First Nations, provincial and local government responsibilities for water-related decision-making. Information source: Fraser Basin Council (2011). Note: the B.C. provincial government undertook a re-organization in early 2022 and some ministries and responsibilities have changed since this diagram was created. 46 The depiction of agencies involved in water-related decision-making in Figure 3.2 needs to be considered alongside recognition that the way that water is managed in B.C. is currently undergoing some major shifts 15. Further this diagram does not communicate the myriad ways that Indigenous nations are asserting and practicing jurisdiction over water and lands through the revitalization of water laws for example. Water management and governance in B.C. and in the Nechako Watershed are quickly evolving with the release of new legislation and signing of novel agreements within the last few years. First, when the Water Sustainability Act (WSA) was put into place in 2014, it included new provisions to: i) enable collaborative and delegated water governance in B.C., (though what this looks like remains to be determined) and ii) improve monitoring and reporting on the state of B.C.’s waters, among others (Brandes et al., 2015). This can be interpreted as creating potential for First Nations, stakeholders, and watershed organizations to contribute to water-related decision-making. Since the WSA came into effect three First Nations in the Nechako Watershed, Nadleh Whut’en, Stellat’en and Saik’uz have enacted and/or adopted their own water law called the Yinka Dene ‘Uza’hné Surface Water Management Policy (Nadleh Whut’en and Stellat’en, 2016a). This policy document outlines an overall narrative objective as follows: “Surface waters within our Territories should remain substantially unaltered in terms of water quality and flow” (Nadleh Whut’en and Stellat’en, 2016a, p. 2). The associated water declaration includes statements that assert the First Nations’ rights and responsibilities to “water, and everything that water touches and gives life to, including the land, animals, air, 15 In early 2022, the B.C. provincial government undertook a re-organization, with implications for the way land and water are managed. For example, this includes the shift of drinking water protection to become the responsibility of the Ministry of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship (Office of the Premier, B.C. Government 2022). 47 plants and humankind” (p. 9), as well as the requirement that all outside users abide by their laws when using water (Nadleh Whut’en and Stellat’en, 2016a). The Yinka Dene Water Policy advances the narrative objective by establishing a waterbody classification system that delineates waters into the following three categories based on their importance and required level of protection: Class 1) high cultural or ecological significance, Class 2) sensitive waters, and Class 3) typical waters. Each category has its own methodology for establishing water management objectives and water quality standards. For class I and II waters, these standards are more stringent than crown government established standards, however, for class III waters, the BC Government and Canadian Council for the Ministers of Environment water quality standards are used (Nadleh Whut’en and Stellat’en, 2016b). In the fall of 2019, B.C. also ratified Bill 41- the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples- which aims to align B.C. legislation with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, with implications for Indigenous rights and title and shared decision-making of natural resources (B.C. Government, 2019). Following on the heels of this, a new government-to-government agreement was signed in 2020 between the provincial government and the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, as well as seven First Nations in the Nechako Watershed (Pathways Forward 2.0 Agreement, 2020). Among other elements this agreement offers revenue sharing and a new era of shared governance and decisionmaking around natural resources with emphasis on “comprehensive reconciliation”. 3.5 Conclusion This chapter has presented a case study of an SBM project, nested within the greater context of the Nechako Watershed and the decision-making frameworks that exist there. 48 Many of the characteristic of the governance landscape described in Chapter Two, including the presence of a bridging organization and strong cross-sectoral partnerships (i.e., the NWR) and Indigenous water laws and water quality standards (i.e., the Yinka Dene Water Policy) are in place in this context. This solidifies Koh-learning as a good candidate to be the focus of the case study. The next chapter discusses the approach used to design a study to addresses the research questions within this context. 49 Chapter Four: Research Design, Methodology and Methods 4.1 Introduction The chapter begins with a description of the methodological influences that were considered best suited for answering the research questions within the context of this study, including sustainability science, Indigenous worldviews and orientations, community-based participatory action research and case study research. The research took an iterative, emergent design and the research phases are outlined along with descriptions of how partners and participants shaped the research. Specific methods for designing the monitoring trials and qualitative data collection and analysis are outlined. The chapter ends with an overview of the strategies employed throughout the research to ensure rigour and robust research findings. 4.2 Methodology The methodology of a research project “sets the framework for combining modes of inquiry and methods, and forms a set of organizing principles, following a logic underlying a particular area of study (or science)” (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2013, p. 2). In this thesis I used both qualitative methods (interviews) and quantitative methods (stream monitoring trials) to explore the linkages between school-based monitoring (SBM) and land and water decisionmaking. This combination of approaches was consistent with theoretical, philosophical, and methodological orientations that are introduced in the following sections. 4.2.1 Theoretical and Philosophical Assumptions All research projects are inevitably influenced by the theoretical and philosophical worldviews held by the researcher, and core beliefs around how knowledge is produced. Conventional natural science and hydrological research falls within a positivist paradigm, where research is viewed as a tool to uncover natural laws through experiments. In this 50 paradigm, researchers are seen as objective and separated from the phenomenon they are studying. This is the dominant paradigm used to gather data about the natural world for natural-resource decision-making. However, many scholars point towards global environmental degradation as proof that western approaches to resource management need to be rethought (Holling & Meffe, 1996; Berkes & Folke, 1998). Scientific monitoring is still seen as a valuable tool, but is viewed as stronger if used alongside tools from other ways of knowing that allow for better understandings of the state of our environment (Keats, 2020). Community science projects are necessarily human-involved and are made of up complex social-ecological interactions and therefore can benefit from qualitative (Bonney et al. 2020) and case study approaches (Ady, 2016; McGreavy et al., 2016) often associated with constructivist paradigms. Adopting a constructivist paradigm assumes that multiple realities exist, and that these realities can be subjectively uncovered through interactions between the researcher and research participants (Taylor & Medina, 2011). A constructivist orientation was used during qualitative phases of this research to gain understanding of the experiences and perspectives of students, teachers and decision-makers involved in the KohLearning project or within the region. Elements of a critical paradigm were also employed due to the nature of the project. A critical paradigm seeks to overtly recognize power inequities in society and subvert them through the research process (von Benzon & van Blerk, 2017). This orientation is core to the origins of community science as a process to re-balance power dynamics or ‘democratize’ science (Peters & Besley, 2019). Similarly, research conducted with youth such as youth participatory action research seeks to redefine who is deemed to be expert and who guides the research agenda (Mirra et al., 2015). Engaging with a critical paradigm challenged me to 51 question assumptions about who holds power in the research process, and who benefits from the outcomes. To accommodate the multiple paradigms described, I have conceptualized my overall research paradigm as “pluralism or multi-paradigmatic” (Taylor & Medina, 2011). Further conceptualization and rationale for how the pluralist paradigm was considered in this research is provided in Section 4.3 and Figure 4.1. 4.2.2 Methodological Influences In addition to the epistemological considerations outlined above, several research traditions were influential in the design of my research process and methods. The following methodological influences pushed me consider research approaches attuned to fostering outcomes for sustainability, equity and the communities involved. Sustainability science is predicated upon scientific warnings about the state of the planet including global change, biodiversity loss, land use change and water scarcity, resulting from anthropogenic disturbances (Jerneck et al., 2011; Olsson & Ness, 2019). Over two decades ago Lubchenco (1998) called for a new social contract for science in light of “urgent and unprecedented environmental and social changes” (p. 491). This social contract compelled scientists to focus time and energies on the most pressing issues in society and to communicate this knowledge to improve decision making of individuals and institutions (Lubchenco, 1998). Sustainability science thus aims to address the disconnect between social and scientific processes, by sharing and producing knowledge across natural and social science disciplinary boundaries (Olsson & Ness, 2019). As introduced in Chapter Three, the Koh-Learning project was designed with an intention to foster both integrative science skills and Aboriginal Education, which is 52 congruent with overt attention to and respect for Indigenous worldviews and orientations. Informed by this context, and my own ongoing efforts to learn about and support truth and reconciliation in my personal and professional efforts, the research was designed with a learning orientation and an openness towards Indigenous worldviews. Reconciliation can have varied meanings, but here I used the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s definition of reconciliation that is also linked to an ongoing engagement with the truth of past harms. Reconciliation is defined as “establishing and maintaining a mutually respectful relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in Canada. In order for that to happen, there has to be awareness of the past, acknowledgement of the harm that has been inflicted, atonement for the causes, and action to change behaviour” (TRC, 2015, p. 13). As Wong et al. (2020) write, attention to reconciliation is particularly important in obtaining social license to conduct research for land and water researchers, considering strong connections to the land are shared with Indigenous communities. My learning on this topic has included reading and thinking about Indigenous science (Cajete, 2000; Johnson et al., 2016), Aboriginal Education (Battiste, 2013), Indigenous perspectives on water (Sanderson et al., 2015; Wilson et al., 2019; Yates et al., 2017), and acknowledging the inherent jurisdiction of First Nations in relation to land and water decision-making (Simms et al., 2016; Wilson et al., 2018). Another consideration for being open to and learning about Indigenous worldviews is described by Johnson et al. (2016) who emphasize the importance of challenging which kinds of knowledge are seen as authoritative. Frameworks such as two-eyed seeing (Bartlett et al., 2012) and the multiple-evidence-base approach (Tengö et al., 2014) offer insights for how to understand diverse knowledge sources together to form an ‘enriched picture’. Bartlett et al. (2012) give recommendations for weaving Indigenous Knowledge and mainstream science, 53 including recognizing that we need each other and must engage in co-learning, and that we must “do things (rather than ‘just talk’) in a creative, grow forward way” (p. 334). Johnson et al. (2016) also note that in Indigenous science, participatory forms of research such as community-based monitoring and participatory education (learners are cocreators of knowledge) are recommended (Johnson et al., 2016). This research was purposefully designed to draw on multiple sources of information and perspectives which has included a commitment to make space for First Nations perspectives in the research and to engage in participatory approaches. Another important methodological orientation for this research is community-based participatory action research. As noted by Hall et al. (2014) “the names community-based research (CBR) and community-based participatory research (CBPR) are often used as catchall or umbrella terms for various action-oriented and participatory approaches to research” (p. 5). The orientation to participation and action, is core to community-based research, which stems from diverse research traditions, such as health research, popular education, Indigenous, youth and feminist research (Hall et al., 2014) and seminal works such as Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participation. An orientation to action implies that the researchers “commit to supporting the community in improving conditions in some way,” while the orientation to participation signals that the “intended beneficiaries of the research (i.e., community members) have significant control over some if not all parts of the research process” (Hall et al., 2014, p. 8). Bradbury (2015) writes how action research is a response to objectivist and fragmented worldviews and can offer a more practical and participatory approach to modern issues. For these reasons, participatory and action-oriented approaches are well suited for studying complex human ecosystem relationships (Parkes & Panelli, 2001). Principles of 54 action research include viewing the self as relational (part of interconnected systems), working towards whole systems, and centering the practical (Bradbury, 2015). The focus on collaborations is key and in the approach titled ‘Participatory Action Research’ the dynamics of the researcher and the researched is conceptualized as a team of co-researchers or the researcher as a facilitator helping a group to identify their own truths (Wadsworth, 1998). The typical phases of a participatory action research project include initiation, developing a partnership, reflection, research design, conducting investigations, and further planning (Parkes & Panelli, 2001). The use of iterative phases in this study is introduced in the next section. Engaging with knowledge to action research and implementation sciences have been instructive when exploring the applied nature of this research. Originating in health research fields, knowledge to action research, and the similar though less action-oriented concepts such as ‘knowledge translation’, and ‘knowledge mobilisation’ aim to reduce the lag between when new knowledge is produced, and when it is implemented by practitioners (Best & Holmes, 2010; Rushmer et al., 2019). Similarly, implementation sciences focus on strategies for increasing the uptake of new research findings into real-world applications and professional practices (Bauer et al., 2015). Bridging this gap takes place through building relationships between those who produce the knowledge and those who use it, and typically follows one of four models (Bennett & Jessani, 2011). In the ‘pull’ model of implementation science, knowledge users outline the research agenda and ask for the kinds of information they need. By contrast, the ‘push’ model involves researchers trying to better use their research to engage with and inform policy. In the exchange model, partnerships are built to co-design and collaborate on research projects with shared understandings, whereas the ‘integrated’ model relies on a bridging organization 55 at a regional level to connect the needs of policy and research (Bennett & Jessani, 2011). This research fits best with the ‘exchange’ model as groups within the Nechako, including the Nechako Watershed Roundtable and Koh-learning, expressed interest in this work, and existing partnerships were leveraged to pursue the research. Teachers and youth were actively engaged in co-design of the monitoring trials, discussed further in Section 4.3.2. The research design was also informed by case study approaches to research. Casestudy research as defined by Yin is “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (Yin, 2003, p. 13). In this study design, I drew on VanWynsberghe & Khan’s (2007) advice to apply case studies for interdisciplinary projects when the goal of the research is understanding complex interactions within a spatially and temporally bounded system. VanWynsberghe & Khan (2007) outline that case study researchers apply a variety of methods and collect multiple types of data to triangulate answers to their research questions such as document analysis, interviews, focus groups, and collection of field observations. The authors further detail that in an interpretivist paradigm, a case study “emphasizes an often story-like rendering of a problem and an iterative process of constructing the case study. A goal of the research is a description that goes deep enough to provide analysis” (VanWynsberghe & Khan, 2007, p. 89). The ‘bounded system’ used in this thesis can be described as the Koh-learning education project at the Nechako Valley Secondary School from 2019-2021, which was introduced in more detail in Section 3.3. 4.3 Research Process and Phases To incorporate many of the theoretical and methodological themes introduced above and to emphasize both participation and action, an emergent, iterative research design was 56 selected. Under the umbrella of pluralism (Taylor & Medina, 2013), the research activities involving water monitoring trials adhered to scientific standards and operated under the positivist paradigm, whereas the qualitative research activities operated under the constructivist paradigm (Figure 4.1). Combining constructivist with positivist paradigms was intended to align with imperatives to pair social data with ecological data to broaden consideration of coupled social-ecological systems (Crain et al., 2014). Further motivation came from sustainability science which highlights the need to combine, rethink, and create new methodological approaches that reconcile false dichotomies of either/or and, instead, aim to connect positivist with interpretive paradigms, and problem solving with critical approaches (Jerneck et al., 2011; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2013). From this standpoint, exploring problems through various epistemologies is seen as necessary to adequately understand and tackle sustainability challenges (Jerneck et al., 2011). Figure 4.1 offers a depiction of the interactions between different research paradigms and specific research activities in this study, and their relationships with ongoing cycles of action and reflection (Parkes & Panelli, 2001). Similar to sequential mixed-methods research, qualitative and quantitative moments were considered as distinct, sequential steps in the research allowing for the research to benefit from the strengths of different kinds of data (Shorten & Smith, 2017). The turquoise area in the Figure 4.1 illustrates a zone of crossover and interaction, where learning cycles took place through reflection and journaling. This reflection included ‘epistemological reflexivity’ which Jerneck et al. (2011) describe as necessary for interdisciplinary dialogue, and where in this study, I contemplated my worldviews and assumptions around how knowledge is built. Arrows between the research activities demonstrates that activities informed each other across the different research paradigms. For example, monitoring trials helped to develop interview questions, and 57 interviews led to adapted monitoring trials. Further, monitoring data helped to provide a lens for re-considering, interpreting, and triangulating qualitative themes emerging from interviews. Figure 4.1 Research activities in relation to a pluralist paradigm. Grey boxes represent research activities and dark blue and yellow areas present positivist, and constructivist paradigms respectively. The turquoise ‘transition’ zone uses the metaphor of a river to illustrate how learning loops, like eddies and river currents, took place during phases of reflection and cross-over between the paradigms. The next section presents the research process as a set of four phases, reflecting how research activities emerged over the course of the project, and their links to the research questions. Specific data collection methods are described in Section 4.4 (water monitoring) and Section 4.5 (qualitative research methods). 58 4.3.1 Research Phases The research was designed to unfold in four phases. Phase I set the scene for the research and Phase II was the first iteration of action and reflection. Phase III was then the second iteration of action and reflection. The project finished with Phase IV involving synthesis and sharing what had been learned. Phases I-III aligned with the three research questions outlined in Chapter One, however, they did not map perfectly onto each other, and each research question was explored across phases. Phases are described in more detail next and in Table 4.1. The research began with an initial phase of scoping interactions with community partners, relationship building and literature review to answer RQ1: How is the relationship between community science programs and decision-making characterised and how are gaps in understanding being addressed? This phase also included the process of selecting the ‘unit of analysis’ for the case study. As Patton (2002) points out, the process of defining the proper unit of analysis for a case study typically occurs during the research design phase, and yet sometimes, “new units of analysis or cases, emerge during the fieldwork or from the analysis after the data is collected” (p. 447). In this research, the scope of the case study was a single school participating in the Koh-learning project (the Nechako Valley Secondary School). The rationale for choosing only one school was being able to spend more time emersed in the research setting. Further the Covid-19 pandemic complicated travel and in-person visits to multiple schools. The Nechako Valley Secondary School was chosen as the school of focus because I had the strongest existing relationships at this school. 59 Table 4.1 Research phases, activities, dates and types of data gathered and analysed. Phase Dates Activities Phase I: Scoping, Dec 2019 – Sep - Meetings with project contacts relationship 2020 - Proposal defense building, and - UNBC Research Ethics Board approval literature review - Field site selection and trialing water monitoring tools -Building relationships -Literature review Phase II: First Water - Recruitment and training of Grade 11/12 waterways water monitoring Monitoring mentors trials with Sessions: -Co-design protocols/plan for water monitoring trials mentorship Sep-Nov 2020 and define objectives program & Interviews: - Conduct four water monitoring sessions with conducting Nov 2020-Feb mentorship program and Grade 8 classes interviews 2021 -Conduct interviews with students and teachers, and also decision-makers Phase III: Water -Adapt protocols/plan for water monitoring trials based Second water Monitoring on interview findings monitoring trial Sessions: - Conduct 12 water monitoring sessions with mentors with mentorship May -June 2021 teaching Grade 8 classes program & group -Host group workshops to develop shared workshops Group understandings of what was learned through the Workshops: June project 2021 Phase IV: July 2021-May -Data analysis, journaling, writing Synthesis 2022 -Continued engagement with Nechako youth activities -Knowledge translation 60 -Meeting notes, observations, journal entries - Field notes, observations, journal entries -Water monitoring dataset (student collected & NALS lab results) -Workshop observations, notes, and virtual whiteboard annotations - Field notes, observations, and journal entries -Water monitoring dataset (student collected & NALS lab results) -Interview transcripts & notes Data Gathered -Field notes, observations, journal entries -Literature review annotated bibliography The second research phase included the first round of water monitoring trials, including the launch of the waterways mentor program, followed by interviews with a set of students, teachers, and decision-makers. Phase II of the research aimed to answer RQ2: What are potential pathways of influence for school-based monitoring in the Koh-Learning project to inform land and water decision-making in the Nechako Watershed? The third phase of the research consisted of a second set of water monitoring trials and group workshops to bring students, teachers, and decision-makers together to discuss the research. Phase III of the research was designed to answer RQ3: How can we design SBM programs and protocols to inform land and water decision-making? Informed by the earlier phases of research, Phase IV was focused on analysis and synthesis across earlier phases. This included writing interview and workshop summary reports, analyzing data, and supporting other youth engagement activities in the Nechako that built on momentum from this research, including volunteering to organize a youth canoe trip with the Nechako Watershed Roundtable (August 2021). Knowledge translation took place while the thesis was being finalized through attending Koh-learning gatherings (July/August 2021, May 2022), meeting with Koh-learning team members, and giving presentations on the findings (March 2022). 4.3.2 Participation and Recruitment In community-based research it is important to clearly define “who will be involved in each step of the research process” (Hacker, 2013, p. 11) and the type, mode and place of their participation (Parkes, 2015). In Table 4.2 I describe the different groups of participants that I have interacted with over the course of the research, and how they participated. 61 Table 4.2 Participation types and roles in the research. Group Group Description Koh-Design The Koh-Learning in our Watersheds project Group is coordinated by the “Koh-design group” that includes UNBC researchers and research assistants, along with teachers, and administrators from School-District 91. This group met weekly to plan Koh-learning project activities and events. KohIn the spring of 2020, a small group of learning ‘research advisors’ was assembled, including Research NVSS teachers Casey Litton and Mia Advisors Moutray, NVSS alumni Jordan Cranmer and Koh-learning team member Barry Booth. Each person was invested, enthusiastic and knowledgeable about the Koh-learning project and was a great resource. Grade 11/12 Ten students in Grade 11 and 12 volunteered Waterways to be mentors. Mentors earned volunteer or Mentors course credit as part of the NVSS work experience program. NVSS Grade 8 Classes & Teachers NVSS teachers recommended that monitoring trials take place with Grade 8 youth (four classes). This decision was made partially due to the availability of teachers and class schedules. Meetings were held with Grade 8 teachers to coordinate logistics for conducting water monitoring sessions. Saik’uz First In June of 2020, I began discussions with the Nation & Saik’uz First Nation to seek their support and Saik’uz participation in the research. A letter Liaison describing the research was sent to Chief and Council and was followed up with several meetings with Saik’uz staff members, and a meeting with Chief Priscilla Mueller. Kasandra Turbide (Manager of the Lands Department) became the liaison between the project and the Saik’uz First Nation. Decision Five categories of decision-makers were Makers included in this group: local government, provincial government, First Nations, NGOs, and landowners. Role in the Research -Advice on how to work with SD91 and best timing for research activities -Review of research plans -Pre-test interview guide -Participant recruitment -Liaison with students -Co-design of monitoring trials -Co-design of monitoring trials -Participated in monitoring trials -Invited to participate in interviews and workshops -Participated in monitoring trials -Subset invited to participate in interviews and workshops as per teacher recommendations -Participant recruitment and advertising mentorship program -Refining research protocols for interviews with Saik’uz -Invited to participate in decision-maker interviews and group workshops -Invited to participate in interviews and group workshops 62 Recruitment: Water Monitoring Trials. Identification of school classes to participate in water monitoring sessions took place through discussions with teacher partners. As part of the Koh-learning project, students were recruited to join the Waterways Mentorship Program in fall 2020, through a presentation for all NVSS Grade 10 and 11 youth, and again in spring 2021, this time by word of mouth. Recruitment: Interviews and Workshops. Recruitment and selection of participants for the interviews (Section 4.5.1) and group workshops (Section 4.5.3) was purposive, meaning that I set out to identify information-rich cases or “those from which one can learn a great deal about the issues of central importance to the purpose of the inquiry” (Patton, 2002, p. 230). Based on my goal to understand how SBM can inform decision-making from the perspectives of diverse players, a ‘maximum variation sampling’ strategy was used (Patton, 2002). With this style of sampling the purpose is not to interview extensively from a homogenous group to achieve saturation, but rather to capture perspectives from a diversity of key players. This enables two types of findings, insights about the specifics from each group, as well as patterns of shared experiences (Patton, 2002). Snowball sampling was used to identify potential interviewees from each group. Snowball sampling involves working with contacts with a strong familiarity of the context to help identify participants and getting advice for further potential participants as you go (Patton, 2002). The perspectives of three overarching groups emerged as important to bring forward through the maximum variation sampling process: students, teachers, and decision-makers. Recruitment criteria for NVSS students and teachers was that participants must have participated in at least one Koh-learning activity. Perspectives of both high-school and middle-years teachers and youth were sought. To be eligible to participate, decision-makers 63 needed to be a part of a land and water decision-making agency or organization with responsibilities in the Vanderhoof/Nechako Region. While recruiting I aimed to identify participants from local government, provincial government, First Nations, NGOs, and landowners. From my review of the literature, these bodies came up as common user groups or supporters of CS. Efforts were made to ensure a diversity of participants across genders. 4.4 Methods: School-Based Monitoring Trials The typical steps in designing a water monitoring program are to “establish a monitoring goal, select appropriate sampling plan, periodically review data to evaluate adequacy of sampling plan, and revise sampling as possible” (Whitfield, 1988, p. 779). However, in a community science context the process includes additional stages including engaging with the local community, mapping and sharing local knowledge, identifying lowcost monitoring options, co-designing action plans and training the volunteers monitors (Starkey et al., 2017; Tweddle et al., 2012; Ady, 2016). Following these examples from the literature an open-ended and participatory process was taken for designing the trials to support the goals of the research to be action and participation oriented. Below I describe the multi-stage process of designing the monitoring trials and the resulting monitoring objectives. 4.4.1 Steps in Designing Monitoring Trials I worked closely with teachers at NVSS to design research activities to coincide with Koh-learning and the pilot “Waterways Mentorship Program” at their school during the 2020/21 school year. The monitoring sessions blended new ideas from my research into the model built up by NVSS teachers in previous years, and followed steps shown in Figure 4.2. 64 Figure 4.2 Steps in designing and redesigning school-based monitoring trials. Each cycle is informed by literature review and past experience. Designing the monitoring trials began with a literature review to identify community science water monitoring parameters (summarized in Appendix B). During the summer of 2020, informed by the options identified in the literature review, some monitoring protocols were trialed without classes to assess suitability to the NVSS/Murray Creek context. Through discussions with Koh-learning team members and NVSS teachers, I made the decision to focus on water quality for several reasons including: 1) teachers were familiar with water quality, and equipment was available 2) funding was available through the UNBC NALS lab to analyze samples and compare student data and, 3) water quality test kits were engaging. After this decision, I had discussions with water researchers and the coordinator of another CS water monitoring program to exchange ideas for appropriate monitoring protocols and equipment. A set of five monitoring objectives emerged at this stage (Table 4.3). 65 Table 4.3 Objectives of monitoring trials and rationale for their selection. Objective Reasoning A) Compare student Validation of data accuracy was commonly cited in the collected water chemistry literature as an important trait for programs wishing to data to laboratory analyzed inform decision-making. Teachers and students were also samples. interested in learning of the accuracy of their data. B) Compare Murray Creek This goal helped to align with the shared community water quality to guidelines priority of responding to the crisis of diminishing salmon for the health of aquatic life populations. Also, the ability to compare to existing (i.e., salmon). standards and thresholds was cited as a trait that helped programs to inform decision-making, as well as the ability to align with First Nations water laws and strategies. C) Compare water quality Learn about how water quality changes above and below across upstream and the agricultural belt. Focusing on small streams is also downstream sites on Murray useful as other agencies rarely have resources to look at Creek. small water bodies (Hadj-Hammou et al., 2017). D) Trial mentoring as a SBM literature describes how mentorship programs offer model for running SBM. leadership and growth potential for youth (Callaghan et al., 2018). F) Trial working with youth Making data available to a range of decision-makers to enter data into the through a commonly accessible map-based database while Nechako Watershed ‘portal’ also supporting youth to interact closely with the data was database. cited as important in the literature (Harris et al., 2019; Newman et al., 2017) Monitoring trials began with a full-day training session with six Grade 11 mentor students. We trialled the water monitoring protocols and brainstormed how the logistics of monitoring sessions could unfold with a full class. Based on this session, we designed a plan for how to rotate students through space and time for the first water monitoring session (see plan in Section 5.2.1). Following the first monitoring session, the groups of mentor students gathered to discuss adaptations to refine the plan for the remainder of the fall 2020 sessions. During the winter of 2020/21, I worked to compile lessons learned from the previous session. Findings from interviews were also incorporated into an adapted plan which was presented to teachers and mentors for input and then implemented in spring 2021. 66 4.5 Methods: Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis Qualitative methods are often used to support understanding the meaning behind social phenomena (Patton, 2002). The methods described next were used to describe and ‘uncover’ the phenomenon in the case study. 4.5.1 Interviews: Format, Questions, Transcription and Member Checking Interviews are a qualitative research method used to gain insight into the perspectives of people, particularly related to things that cannot be observed such as intentions, hopes and stories (Patton, 2002). The strengths of qualitative interviewing lie the ability to obtain indepth and detailed insight into a topic, as compared to quantitative approaches such as questionnaires that aim to gather less nuanced, though more generalizable, information from a greater number of people (Patton, 2002). The interviews (Phase II, Table 4.1) were conducted using a standardized open-ended interview format (Patton, 2002). Compared to less structured interview styles, standardized open-ended interviews can be less flexible and yet they were chosen to minimize variation and keep the interviews focused for more efficient analysis (Patton, 2002). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the interview format was adapted to a virtual delivery method to ensure the safety of participants. Interviews were conducted separately for each of the three groups: i) students, ii) teachers and iii) decision-makers. The interview guide for students and teachers was based on a framework called the “Five-step process for informing decision-making” (developed by Wieler, 2006) to help CS programs connect to decision-making. Questions included, “What is the change you seek through Koh-learning?” and “Who do you see as the decision-makers in the watershed?”. The interview guide for decision-makers was based on a previous study to determine the information and data needs 67 of decision-makers (Kim et al., 2011). Questions included “What is your role and your organization/agency’s role in land and water decision-making?”, “When you need information or data, how do you collect or access it?”, and “How could SBM be potentially connected to your programs and initiatives?”. Interviews were conducted in two formats, group interviews (preferred by student and teacher groups) and individual interviews (preferred by decision-makers). Having the flexibility to conduct interviews in two different formats was helpful to ensure that interviews were convenient and comfortable for participants from different groups. The term ‘group interview’ is often used interchangeably with ‘focus group’ to describe a research method consisting of “organized discussions with a select group of individuals to gain collective views about a research topic” (Gibbs, 2012, p. 186). However, Coreil (1994) argues that focus groups are only one of four types of ‘group interviews’, and are distinguished as being a controlled, formal interview with a group of people who do not know each other. In contrast, Coreil (1994) defines ‘natural group interviews’ as interviews with groups that exist independent of the research study and take a less formal structure. Coreil (1994) notes that some group interviews will be a hybrid of different types. In this research, participants were recruited from existing groups and knew each other beforehand, similar to the ‘natural group’ format. However, the interviews followed a structured format and were audio-recorded consistent with the ‘focus group’ format. To signal the hybrid format and the divergence from a classic focus group, the term ‘group interview’ was selected. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, excluding only ‘um’s’ and ‘uh’s’, as these were determined to be beyond the level of detail that I would be using for analysis 68 (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). Member checking then took place by providing participants an opportunity to review both their transcripts and the interview and workshop summary reports (see Section 4.5.5) to assess the accuracy of the interpretation (Creswell, 2013). 4.5.2 Field Observations & Journaling Throughout the research, observations were made during or shortly after research events using a reflective journal (Ortlipp, 2008). This form of data collection was initiated in the first scoping phase and continued throughout all phases of research, including Phase IV, during data analysis, synthesis, and writing. After each research meeting or activity, the following questions guided the journaling: ‘What happened?’, ‘So what?’, and ‘Now what?’. In participatory research, the researcher’s personal assumptions, experiences and characteristics shape their ability to gather knowledge. Journaling included reflection on personal and biographical attributes, social relationships, and the socio-political context at the time of the research (Bergold & Thomas, 2012). 4.5.3 Group Workshops The final step of the data collection included a set of group workshops with students, teachers, and decision-makers. All participants who had previously taken part in an interview were invited to participate in the workshops. Some additional participants were recruited using the same strategies outlined above to ensure that each workshop included participants from all three groups (students, teachers, decision-makers). Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the workshops took place virtually using the Zoom platform. The workshops were designed to be interactive and provided an opportunity for sharing and exchange across groups. This included break-out and full group discussions answering the four questions from the ‘Collective Social Learning Pattern’ (Brown, 2008), a pattern designed to bring together 69 multiple types of knowledge to enable collaborative thinking. At various points, participants were encouraged to use the Miro Virtual Whiteboard to record their ideas and topics brought forth in discussion. Data collection during the workshop consisted of recording notes and observations, and the anonymous virtual whiteboard annotations (Behmel et al., 2018). 4.5.4 Demographic and Feedback Questionnaire Following Interviews and Workshops Across research fields, there is a growing call to pay attention to demographic considerations when designing and reporting on studies to encourage wider applicability (Tannenbaum et al., 2016). Collecting the demographic information of participants can help to contextualize the research results and to outline which voices may be missing from the study. Following both the interviews and the group workshops, participants were asked to complete a post-interview questionnaire. The questionnaire was sent by email to each participant and delivered through the Survey Monkey platform. The demographic questions posed to interview and workshop participants focused on the age, gender, and ethnicity of participants. Informed by the work of Fetterman et al. (2015), the questionnaire also provided an opportunity for participants to give feedback in relation to how the research interaction fostered learning, inclusive participation, participant satisfaction, and relationship building (see Appendix E). 4.5.5 Qualitative Data Analysis In qualitative research, data analysis “depends on a researcher’s own style of rigorous empirical thinking, along with sufficient presentation of evidence and careful consideration of alternative interpretations” (Yin, 2018, p. 165). This requires researchers to develop an analytical strategy for methodically working through the data, which in this case was informed by Patton (2002), Creswell (2013), Yin (2018) and Ritchie and Spencer (2002). 70 Two characteristics defined the analytical strategy used. First, the analysis employed both inductive (“discovering patterns, themes, categories in one’s data”) and deductive analysis (“data are analyzed according to an existing framework”) (Patton, 2002, p. 454). Second, the analytic strategy was guided by Ritchie and Spencer’s (2002) framework for qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. The steps as described below included, transcribing the data, having it checked by participants, summarizing the data into reports for participants, and going through the five stages of the charting and matrix thematic analysis process (Ritchie & Spencer, 2002). Summary reports. After both the interviews and the final workshops, descriptive summary reports were written to bring the data together to be shared back to participants as an additional technique to check with participants on the analysis (Creswell, 2013; Patton, 2002). Reports were designed to be easily digestible including colourful graphics to convey what each group contributed during the interviews/workshops. This process targeted Objective 2: Develop shared understandings among Koh-Learning students, teachers, and decision-makers of the pathways by which school-based monitoring could inform land and water decision-making. The interview summary report also helped to quickly get a sense of the array of ideas from the interviews to inform the design of the second round of monitoring trials. Creating and sharing summary reports made up the first stage of the thematic analysis. Thematic analysis. As summary reports were being compiled, thematic analysis of the qualitative data was underway. Thematic analysis, sometime called pattern analysis, is a type of analysis where content is reviewed to identify patterns that signal central meanings and consistencies (Patton, 2002). The analysis consisted of an iterative process to surface themes resonating across the perspectives and research interactions, and re-checking themes 71 against original data and particularly fieldnotes (Yin, 2018). Ritchie and Spencer’s (2002) framework for thematic analysis in applied policy research informed the analysis and encourages an efficient, yet robust and systematic analysis of data. The approach was selected for its versatility and ability to target specific information needs and result in actionable outcomes. The approach fit well with the goals of the project, where the interview findings were meant to inform future phases of research and needed to be pulled out with a quick turnaround. The steps of Ritchie and Spencer’s (2002) framework include: 1. Familiarize yourself with the data, 2. Identify a thematic framework, 3. Indexing (coding the data according to the thematic framework), 4. Charting (rearranging the data according to thematic framework), and 5. Mapping and interpretation (identifying patterns and associations). Though these five steps guided the analysis, the process was not linear and involved returning to the data and switching back and forth between steps as necessary. 4.6 Research Ethics, Rigour, and Iterative Design The definition of research rigour differs among disciplines, and yet is fundamentally related to determining the validity of the knowledge being produced. Validity “depends on the kinds of observational tools one uses to collect ‘data’ and on the collective judgment that makes sense of a phenomenon through such observations” (Tengö et al., 2014, p. 583). Strategies to ensure research rigour across different phases of the research are as follows. 4.6.1 Research Ethics and Adaptations Protocols for interviews and workshops underwent ethical review by the UNBC Research Ethics Board (Appendix C). A consent form and information sheet were provided and explained to all participants prior to data collection. Due to the close relation between 72 this research and the Koh-Learning project and School District 91, a letter of support was sought and received from School District Superintendent Manu Madhok to support the ethics application. Additionally, a letter of support was received from Chief Priscilla Mueller of the Saik’uz First Nation. The arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a series of adaptations during the research including shifting timing of research activities, virtual interviews, and alterations to monitoring trials. To mitigate potential concerns around research ethics and validity that arise with virtual interviews (i.e., potential barriers to access, or challenges to ensure confidentiality) research design suggestions from Ravitch (2020) were helpful. This included being highly flexible, approaching the interviews with humility and appreciation and offering multiple options for participating. Ravitch’s encouragement that research design must be: “carefully reconsidered in relation to emergent understandings and realities of participants’ views and experiences” (2020, para 1) was a helpful consideration to mitigate stress and pressure on teachers when coordinating research activities. 4.6.2 Ongoing Engagement with Community Partners Collaborative and community-based research strives for the attributes of transparency, respect and reciprocity to ensure a legitimate and meaningful research process (Yim, 2009). To achieve transparency, efforts were made to communicate the project to both the Koh-learning community (providing project updates in bi-annual newsletters) and the broader community (developing posters to display in the community and providing updates at Nechako Watershed Roundtable events). Research participants were also kept informed of research activities by sending out updates every six months. Reciprocity was achieved by 73 putting efforts towards developing initiatives and opportunities for youth in Vanderhoof during my time in the region through the action-oriented components of the project. Respect was achieved by checking in with community partners at different phases of the research. For example, interview guides were pre-tested with the Koh-learning Research Advisors. After the pre-test, several questions were clarified, added, or removed. Research Advisors requested that the question “Why does Koh-learning matter?” be added. After each interview, time was taken to record initial observations and reflect on “the quality of the information received” and whether I had learned what I was hoping to learn from the interview (Patton, 2002, p. 384). Another example of iterations and feedback across participant groups included preparing summary reports (Section 4.5.5) that were shared with participants and discussed with Koh-learning Research Advisors, providing opportunities for feedback and discussion during analysis. A key trait of quality in action research is the ability to articulate and address objectives (Bradbury, 2015). In keeping with this, objectives of the monitoring activities and progress towards meeting them are presented in detail in Chapters Four and Five. Another tenet of quality in action research is actionability, whereby the research should offer recommendations for next steps and actions, and the researcher should strive for these insights to be relevant and meaningful in other contexts (Bradbury, 2015). This challenge is revisited in Chapter Five where I present a design process for SBM that offers tangible actions for teachers and CS program coordinators to apply to their own projects. 4.6.3 Qualitative Case Study Methods Typically, qualitative methods are scrutinized for validity based on credibility, dependability, and transferability of the research (Taylor & Medina, 2013). In qualitative 74 research, the researcher is the primary research instrument collecting and analyzing data, and therefore the quality of the research depends on the researcher’s skillset and processes. The subjectivity of the researcher is acknowledged and yet attempts are made to reduce bias through reflexivity and creating a “trail of evidence” (Rabiee, 2004). A trail of evidence documents exactly how the analysis has occurred in a systematic, sequential, and verifiable manner (Rabiee, 2004). This was performed in the research by keeping a reflective journal to track the evolving research design and analysis as outlined in Section 4.5.2 (Ortlipp, 2008). Reliability is also achieved through the triangulation of multiple data sources for the analysis (Rabiee, 2004). Group workshop notes, observations of the water monitoring trials, and journal entries, all contributed to the base of information analyzed when generating themes. 4.6.4 Water Monitoring Design and Trials In the process of adapting and trialling stream monitoring protocols, quantitative scientific methods were used, and these methods also informed the overall iterative design of this study. Typically, quantitative methods are judged by their adherence to standards of validity, reproducibility, and objectivity (Taylor & Medina, 2013). When designing water monitoring, quality assurance and quality control procedures must be considered (B.C. Ministry of Environment, 2006). Quality assurance refers to the procedures put into place to control variation in data collection, which often relates to the training of samplers and specification around the protocols and equipment used (BC Ministry of Environment, 2006). Quality control refers to the provisions that are put into place to assess bias (systematic error in the data) and variability of measurements and often has thresholds for inclusion or exclusion of data (BC Ministry of Environment, 2006). 75 4.7 Conclusion This chapter has described the factors influencing research design, including the philosophical influences and approaches to knowledge generation used in this study, the iterative, phased research design, and the methods and modes of participation during each phase. The phased approach to data collection included conducting water monitoring sessions, conducting interviews, adapting monitoring sessions and conducting group workshops. Together these activities helped build connections across multiple voices, generations, and kinds of knowledge and resulted in a rich data set for understanding how school-based monitoring is already and could be further connected to decision-making in the context of the case study and beyond. Together, this research design resulted in findings to answer RQ2 and RQ3, which are presented next. 76 Chapter Five: Findings 5.1 Introduction This chapter presents the combined findings from the various lines of inquiry described in Chapter Four. The findings are presented according to the main stages of the social learning framework for monitoring as outlined in Chapter Two (see: Figure 2.1, and Cundill and Fabricius, 2009). I start with the ‘do what is possible’ phase of the monitoring cycle. The protocols used in the monitoring trials are presented to demonstrate the results of the design process. The description of the monitoring plan and protocols used provides an example of a learning journey in designing an SBM program to inform decision-making, including the extent to which monitoring objectives were met. This sets us up to move into the ‘what could be?’ phase of the monitoring cycle. Here, the qualitative interview findings are presented, starting with an overview of the voices captured in the interviews. The primary thread emerging from the interviews is the description of six pathways for informing decision-making. These pathways provide an aspirational lens to consider how SBM can connect to decision-making. This is followed by the presentation of the findings from the group workshops as they relate to the question ‘what next?’ from the social learning approach to monitoring. Finally, key lessons from the research are distilled to offer a framework for designing SBM to inform decision-making. Throughout this chapter, text boxes and direct quotes from participants are included to strengthen the narrative. Text boxes are used to share short vignettes or reflections that communicate key learnings from field experiences. Quotes from participants are used to help provide evidence for the interpretations that I have drawn with the qualitative analysis (Corden & Sainsbury, 2006). These quotes serve to deepen 77 the understanding for the reader and to enhance the readability of the tex t (Corden & Sainsbury, 2006). The quotes also reflect the different perspectives from the three groups of study participants (students, teachers, and decision-makers), and are shared using the participant’s choice for identifying their quotes. In keeping with REBapproved processes, participant voices are shared according to participant preference: with their real name (non-anonymous), a pseudonym, or an ID code (consisting of their ‘group’ and a letter i.e.: Student A). 5.2 ‘Do what is possible’: School-Based Monitoring Trials As Cundill and Fabricius (2009) described in the social learning approach to monitoring (see Figure 2.1), an important step in the process of developing a monitoring program is to go out and ‘do what is possible’ as a baseline for learning and improvement. The water monitoring sessions provided a ‘living laboratory’ to ground the research. The first set of water monitoring trials occurred in the of fall 2020 (September/October) and the second water monitoring trials in spring 2021 (May/June). This section presents lessons from the water monitoring trials and the extent to which the objectives (see Table 4.3) were met. 5.2.1 Realizing School-Based Monitoring Plans and Protocols The design process for the monitoring trials resulted in a set of five objectives and the decision to monitoring water quality (Table 4.3). From there, ongoing co-design resulted in a set of monitoring plans, protocols, quality control measures, and logistics, described below. Monitoring Plan and Parameters. The monitoring plan developed was informed by the Regional District of Nanaimo’s (RDN) Community Watershed Monitoring Program (Barlak, 2016), and adapted to use the instruments for water quality testing (Hach test kits) already owned by the school. Based on BC Ministry of Environment protocols, RDN’s 78 program engages community members to test water quality during the summer low-flow period (August), and the fall flush period (October). The RDN program focuses on measuring dissolved oxygen, turbidity, temperature and electrical conductivity, plus additional parameters to target potential inputs of concern (e.g., chloride as a proxy for road run-off, and nutrients as a proxy for agricultural run-off). Based on the equipment available, we focused on dissolved oxygen, turbidity, temperature, and pH. Due to the agricultural setting, nitrate and phosphate were added as a proxy for agricultural run-off. The protocol involves taking five separate samples over the period of a month to get an average understanding of water quality (this is necessary because water quality varies naturally from day to day) with the aim of being able to measure trends in water quality if data is collected for several years. To adapt this approach to SBM, four grade 8 classes took a turn to monitor the stream each week for four weeks. Once the decision was made to focus on water quality monitoring (see Section 4.4, and Box 5.1 on the challenges here), interviews also revealed that water quality was interesting to several decision-makers. Water quality was seen as having potential to fill gaps in a watershed-based water quality and quantity monitoring program in the Nechako led by Saik’uz First Nation and other Indigenous groups in the region. It was also deemed to be important to local government as in the following quote: We’ve got Murray creek, Knight creek, Stoney creek, would be the major sort of creeks coming in, so if there is water quality monitoring happening on those sorts of creeks, we can then lobby most of the other areas where there could be better decision-making, lobby different levels of government, lobby different organizations to maybe change practices, to change whatever needs to be changed. – Kevin Moutray (Decision-maker) 79 Box 5.1. Lessons learned about choosing parameters. Choosing what to monitor was one of the most paralyzing moments in designing the SBM monitoring trials. It felt as if there was so much pressure to get it right, especially because for many monitoring programs, data doesn’t become useful until it has been collected for long periods of time, and we also wanted to ensure the data was useful to a range of decision-makers. I have started to think of choosing parameters as a critical decision-moment in the life of a CS/SBM project. Though it is important to think carefully about this, one participant spoke to the importance of not letting this pressure get in the way of moving forward with the project: We shouldn’t be frustrated at this, if it’s not perfect the first time, around, let’s just work at it slowly and find solutions, and understand better and better what we do. I’ll go back to what I said earlier which is that we are so worried about doing it right, we want to make sure that we have all the right data system, all the back-up, and we forget that this is a process, this is an education for these young people, not only is it good for the environment, but it’s also an education for them, which is going to help them whatever field they go into. -Decision-maker B Monitoring Equipment and Protocols. Students used the affordable and easy to use test kits recommended by the Pacific Streamkeepers Federation water chemistry protocols (Taccogna & Munro, 1995). The specific kits used were HACH Kit 146900-CA (Dissolved Oxygen, range: 0.2-20mg/L), LaMotte kit 3110-01 (Nitrate NO3-N, range: 0.25-10ppm), LaMotte 3121-02 (Phosphate PO43–, range: 0-2.0ppm), LaMotte kit 7519-01 (Turbidity, range: 5-200JTU), LaMotte kit 5858-01 (pH, range: 3.0-10.5). Accuracy of the student collected data was determined by collection of paired data for professional lab analysis. To enable this, at each monitoring session water samples were collected for analysis by the UNBC Northern Analytic Laboratory Services (NALS). Samples were collected according to the B.C. Ministry of Environment Protocols for collecting samples in rivers/streams (B.C. Ministry of Environment, 2013b). Quality Control. For laboratory analyzed samples, field duplicates samples were collected for 100% of student samples. Additionally for two sets of samples, another duplicate sample was collected by Koh-learning staff to compare against student collected 80 samples. Field duplicates were assessed using Relative Percent Difference calculations where the acceptability criterion is an RPD under 20%, as outlined in the B.C. Field Sampling Manual Part A: Quality Control and Quality Assurance (B.C. Ministry of Environment, 2013a). During both the spring and the fall monitoring campaigns, blank samples were submitted to the lab (fall: one field blank, spring: two field blanks). Quality Assurance. A primary mechanism for quality assurance was having the older ‘mentor’ students trained and practiced in using water quality tests before the monitoring sessions. The Grade 11 mentor students took part in a full day training course prior to monitoring in the fall of 2020 (September 25 th) and in the spring 2021 (May 5th). At each station, the Grade 8 students were instructed on how to conduct the test from an older grade 11 mentor student who supervised younger students and watched out for mistakes. Laminated copies of instructions for each test kit were printed out and provided at each station. In spring of 2021, each Grade 8 class also participated in a training session with the mentors at the McLeod Wetland, located just across the street from their high school (NVSS). Logistics and timing. During site visits in the fall of 2020, Grade 8 students were divided into six groups and rotated through a separate station for collecting each water quality parameter. This was based on a model used previously by NVSS teachers to ensure there were 3-6 repeated measurements for each parameter during every site visit. The monitoring plan for the spring of 2021 was adapted to trial an invertebrate monitoring protocol (not discussed here), and this reduced the time spent on water quality resulting in less repeated measurements for these sessions. 81 Box 5.2 Lessons learned from youth about logistics and planning. The mentor students played a big role in the planning of successful monitoring trials. Initially, I falsely assumed that youth would not have input related to logistics, and yet I learned that youth hold much knowledge related to how class schedules and group dynamics can be leveraged to accomplish the goals of the project. Mentors identified (and provided solutions for) the challenges of keeping youth engaged and occupied, rotating them through stations effectively, allowing them time and space to connect with the site by themselves, and reducing impacts to nature. One mentor student described in an interview how he enjoyed being engaged in the planning process: At first I thought we were just going to be going out there and doing a couple tests and having to follow a whole plan, but one thing I really like about this is being able to do our own thing... The students got to help out with quite a lot of planning and kind of see that plan get put into action, all by themselves, and we kind of got to just experiment around with this, and it’s really interesting… And when everyone works together as a team it teaches teamwork to students, and it gets them to actually engage in Koh-learning, and they’re really really into it. Jason (Student) Monitoring Plans vs. Reality. As described further in Table 5.1, a range of unforeseen circumstances required changing plans from day to day, a situation that was compounded by conducting the trials during a pandemic. We had to cancel or reschedule water monitoring sessions when there were covid-19 exposures. For example, for during the fall of 2020 monitoring sessions, we compressed the four monitoring sessions into two weeks (as opposed to four) in anticipation of a school shutdown, this could have resulted in missing the ‘fall flush’ related to fall storms that you are hoping to capture by monitoring streams this time of the year. Another common occurrence was that mentor students were sometimes sick or unable to attend monitoring sessions, meaning that we would have less stations than usual and missing data. 82 Some parameters not measured each week due to mentors being sick. What happened in reality? Some parameters not measured each week due to mentors being sick. Benthic macroinvertebrates: EPT to total ratio Adapt Monitoring Water temperature Trials #2 Turbidity Plan pH Nitrate Phosphate Dissolved Oxygen What happened in reality? Monitoring Water temperature Trials #1 Turbidity Plan pH Nitrate Phosphate Dissolved Oxygen Parameters Lower Murray Creek (Silver site)- lab samples only Upper Murray Creek (Toadstone site) Site -Class divided into six groups. - Three groups rotate through stations 1, 2 and 3 (10 mins each), while the other three groups rotate through two out of three of stations 4, 5 and 6 (15 mins each). Then the groups switch. Adapted slightly after first session. Monitoring Logistics Repeated measurements. Lab samples collected for comparison. Mentor students providing instruction. QA/QC Had to compress to two weeks due to covid. Adaptations made to program based on interviews and observations. At both sites, Upper Murray -Class divided into six Mentor students measurements Creek groups. providing repeated each (Toadstone - Two groups rotate instruction. week for four Site) through stations 1 and 2 weeks. (10-mins each). Two Lab samples Lower Murray groups rotate through collected and New class Creek (Cow stations 3 and 4 (10 mins samples collected each week. patch site) each). Two groups spend with Colorimeter 20 minutes at invertebrate Smart 3. station. Then the groups switch until all stations Repeated complete. measurements. Missed one session due to covid exposure. New class each week. Monitoring Plan Measurements repeated each week for four weeks. Table 5.1 Monitoring plans vs. the reality for monitoring trials # 1 and # 2. Opening/closing games to connect to place and each other. Unfortunately not executed due to covid. Invite Saik’uz Knowledge Holders to discuss cultural protocols for being on the land. Closing circle and compare data across groups. Opening circle introduced restoration of Murray Creek. Framing 83 5.2.2 Monitoring Sites The site chosen for the fall of 2020 trials was in Upper Murray Creek (Figure 5.1) where the riparian zone was intact, and there was a good mix of pools, riffles, and some places for youth to access the stream. The site was named Toadstone because on the day we first visited, there was toad sitting in the nook of one of the large boulders in the stream. During the fall of 2020 session, I also collected additional samples (without classes) for comparison from a site in Lower Murray Creek just upstream from the confluence with the Nechako, on the Silver property (this site is referred to as ‘Silver site'). Box 5.3 Lessons learned about site selection. Selecting where to conduct SBM trials was another important learning process. For example, specific to school-based monitoring, we had to ensure that the sites selected were in close enough proximity to the school, and accessible by school bus. We also had to weigh the desire to monitor a reference site with relatively little human impacts, with concerns of having a busload of students impacting fragile forests and streambeds. Similarly, we wanted to choose a site to capture degraded stream sections. However, we had to weigh this against wanting to offer youth an outdoor experience that fostered positive feelings, and a connection with nature, which might be lessened if the site was heavily degraded. Another consideration was having a willing landowner to host the group. Teachers at NVSS did significant legwork to liaise with farmers and slowly build support for having groups of students visit their properties. Safety was another constraint in that sites were excluded if the water was too deep, or any other identifiable risks were present. Sometimes risks could be mitigated however, for example at one of our chosen sites, a large dead tree raised concerns, but luckily a community member with a chainsaw offered to remove the tree. During the spring of 2021 a second site was chosen for youth monitoring activities on Lower Murray Creek on the property of the Reimer family. This site was chosen because the farmers were welcoming of students on their property and the stream was easily accessible by buses. At this site the area by the stream is often used for grazing cows, and subsequently the mentor students decided to call it ‘Cowpatch site’. The NEWSS group has completed several restoration projects on this section of the creek, including adding a wintering pond for 84 fish, adding riprap to prevent erosion of the streambanks and willow planting to stabilize the banks (Nechako Environment and Water Stewardship Society, n.d.). Figure 5.1 Monitoring locations on Murray Creek. Map produced by Aita Bezzola (2022). 5.2.3 Adapting the Monitoring Trials Based on Interviews During interviews, students and teachers had many suggestions as to how to improve monitoring logistically by adapting, for example, the data sheets and the access points to monitoring sites 16. They also provided suggestions for making the program more engaging and meaningful to students, by measuring places that students are familiar with, comparing across different times of the year, and including some active games interspersed with the 16 The interview summary report created during data analysis and shared with participants in June 2021 provides a collated version of the breadth of feedback on program design suggestions (link in Appendix F). 85 monitoring. This same theme of youth engagement was also emphasized in group workshops and is discussed in Section 5.4.1. Of the feedback received, five main pieces were incorporated into the program design for the spring of 2021 monitoring trials. These areas were chosen for adaptation because they were feasible to be implemented, the suggestion was often repeated across individuals or groups, and they helped to trial some aspect of connecting SBM to decision-making. The five changes included: 1) the addition of monitoring benthic invertebrates, 2) adding a monitoring site downstream, 3) adding a training session at the wetland, 4) inviting an Indigenous Elder/knowledge holder to be a part of the session to share perspectives about water (though this unfortunately was not realized due to covid), and 5) including activities/games to support connection to place. 5.2.4 Progress Towards Meeting the Monitoring Objectives Monitoring Objective A. Compare student measured water chemistry data to laboratory analyzed samples. As is common in CS projects, validation of student data took place through a split-sample design, where professional and volunteer collected data from the same time and location are compared (Storey et al., 2016; Jollymore, 2017). Student measured data were compared to samples analyzed by UNBC’s Northern Analytical Laboratory Services (NALS) to determine its validity for pH, phosphate, and nitrate. Temperature was compared to an in-stream data logger in place throughout the monitoring period. The metrics of percent error and absolute error (Davids et al., 2019) and average difference (Storey et al., 2016) were used to compare HACH kit data and lab analyzed samples/logger data. Results are presented in Table 5.2. 86 In the fall session, percent error was lowest for pH and temperature at -3% and -0.2% respectively, while nitrate and phosphate were higher at -26% and -14% each. This was comparable to spring session values where the average percent error for pH was 1%, temperature was 4%, nitrate was -31%, and phosphate was 22%. These results are also comparable to differences that Storey et al. (2016) found between volunteer and professional data, and to Nicholson et al. (2002) who found pH data to be more reliable than phosphorus data. Storey et al. (2016) found an average difference of 0.45oC for temperature, 0.39 for pH, and 49% for nitrate (temperature and pH were expressed as average difference, and nitrate at percent difference). Table 5.2 Percent error, absolute error and average difference of student collected data as compared to NALS laboratory analyzed data. Fall 2020 Variable N Average Percent Average Absolute Average Error % Percent Error % Difference pH 24 -3 5 0.33 Nitrate (ppm) 12 -26 57 0.14ppm Phosphate (ppm) 25 -14 94 0.1ppm Temperature (°C) 25 0.2 7 0.53°C Spring 2021 Variable N Average Percent Absolute error Average Error % Difference pH 21 1 4 0.31 Nitrate (ppm) 17 -31 31 0.09ppm Phosphate (ppm) 21 22 48 0.12ppm Temperature (°C) 14 4 7 0.75°C The quality control samples helped to identify some key methodological issues to watch out for with school-based monitoring. During the fall monitoring period, a number of the duplicate samples did not pass the acceptability criteria (wherein a relative percent difference (RPD) over 20% indicates a possible problem, and an RPD over 50% indicates a definite problem in either contamination or lack of representativeness). In the fall 2020 field 87 sessions, three of the sets of duplicate samples had an RPD over 50% for turbidity. This flags that there was an issue. A likely source was that youth could have been walking upstream of the sampling location prior to taking grab samples while transitioning between stations. To remediate this during the spring monitoring session, we made sure to clarify with mentors that youth should not walk in the stream upstream of the station (despite the temptation as they liked to explore!). After this, RPD values improved for the spring sampling period, though some problems persisted, indicating there was another issue at play that needs to be investigated in future monitoring. Monitoring Objective B. Compare Murray Creek water quality to guidelines for the health of aquatic life (i.e., salmon). We referenced the Yinka Dene Water Quality Standards to interpret water quality results from the UNBC NALS lab. However, since Murray Creek has not yet been classified (see Section 3.4 about classification), we followed the suggestion within the Yinka Dene Water Quality Guide to use the B.C. water quality guidelines or those from the Canadian Council for Ministers of the Environment, whichever are lower. For the Lower Murray Creek sites (Silver and Cowpatch), when averaged over the weeks monitored, there were no exceedances above water quality standards. However, for the Lower Murray Creek sites, on at least two occasions there was elevated nitrite (and there could have been more as the detection limit was 0.1 mg/L, and the guideline is 0.02 mg/L). Based on this, I would recommend that future NVSS monitoring add nitrite to the parameters monitored. For the Upper Murray Creek site (Toadstone), in the spring monitoring period, the average value of aluminum was 0.098mg/L, which exceeds the threshold of 0.05mg/L (this is the B.C. guideline for aquatic health when pH is > 6.5, which was the case in this situation). I would recommend that student independent study could focus on understanding the sources of aluminum in Murray Creek and levels throughout the year. 88 Box 5.5 Aligning with shared community interests to connect to decision-making. During the phases of planning the monitoring trials, there was some concerns communicated to me that we might be perceived as targeting or blaming landowners by trying to link SBM to decision-making. However, it became clear that salmon were a unifying value for everybody. Other Koh-learning projects at the time that were focused on minnow trapping and identifying rainbow trout in the streams had received positive engagement from landowners. Therefore, it made sense to frame the water monitoring as having the goal of comparing the youth data to water quality objectives for the health of aquatic life, i.e., salmon. If some parameters could be linked back to land use practices, then SBM could serve as a community education tool to understand if changing practices can improve trends in water quality. Monitoring Objective C. Compare water quality across upstream and downstream sites on Murray Creek. Paired samples from the same day (or within 24 hrs of each other) were compared to determine if there were significant differences in water quality between upstream and downstream locations. For fall 2020 monitoring data, lab analyzed samples collected from Toadstone site were paired with those from Silver site (collected on the same day). For the spring 2021 monitoring, NALS lab analyzed samples collected from the Toadstone site were paired with those from the Cowpatch site (collected within 24 hours from each other). Means were calculated by batching data for each site together including both spring and fall values. Paired t-tests were then used to assess the null hypothesis that there was no difference between means of upstream and downstream water quality for nitrate, phosphate, pH, turbidity, and chloride. Murray Creek data was inserted into an existing tutorial spreadsheet (developed by BioInteractive) that teaches high school how to use t-tests (Spreadsheet Tutorial 4, n.d.). T-tests indicated that water quality was significantly different between upstream and downstream locations for phosphate (higher downstream, p=0.017), nitrate (lower downstream, p=0.023), turbidity (higher downstream, p=0.000), chloride (higher downstream, p=0.003), but not for pH (p=0.100). In the future classes can reuse this tutorial to learn about t-tests while using local data collected by their peers. 89 Box 5.6 Data leading to better understandings of what to monitor next. While the data collected from Murray Creek shows that there is a difference between upstream and downstream sites, the data we collected cannot speak to why or what is causing the difference. This gives an opportunity for youth to start discussions with community-members and decision-makers around what they are seeing, and what future work might help to answer these questions. These collective reflections could lead to new understandings of what and where to monitor. One interview participant described how their perspective was shifting on what monitoring is needed: Maybe we need to look at and be collecting information on systems that have minimal impacts on them, and try to extrapolate from there to how an unimpacted system might work, and how different that is from some of the systems that we see that have issues that run through part of the land. So that would be helpful.Decision-maker C Monitoring Objective D. Trial mentoring as a model for running SBM. The pilot mentorship program was highly successful on many fronts. First, having older students to teach younger students at the stream was very helpful for enabling the logistics of SBM, where it can be difficult to have enough supervision of the monitoring, and for behaviour management. By instructing grade 8 youth, mentors ensured data was recorded properly, and that youth navigated the stations smoothly. Mentors helped to carry gear, warn youth of risks, and advised them not to damage the creek. Mentors, teachers, and younger students also reported how the peer-to-peer mentorship format enhanced their experience with SBM. For example, during interviews, mentor students described what it was like being a mentor: I think it was a really great opportunity because we have to interact, we got to interact with different students, and we used to be those students, we used to be the ones being taught, and um, it’s just really great to have more of our friendship, as well as being a teacher I guess? I thought that was pretty cool. – Student 11_D As a coordinator watching the mentors over the course of the year, I witnessed the mentors grow their social and leadership skills and watched them take ownership and gain expertise in different aspects of stream monitoring. For example, one mentor running the nitrate station 90 started an independent study in her biology class to assess nitrate up and down Murray Creek. Another student running the dissolved oxygen station was really interested in trying out different education tactics to engage the grade 8’s while monitoring dissolved oxygen. Another mentor became an expert in invertebrate monitoring and started an art practice to work with caddisflies to make jewellery. Teachers also spoke of how the mentorship program was fostering ‘self-actualization’ among the youth, and how powerful it was for them to see their former students taking on this leadership role: I would say that of the students that were out there being the mentors, they are all really different individuals, right, knowing them from in the classroom, in that setting several years back, I would never have projected that that’s where they would be… seeing them in that role was really inspiring. – Teacher C The mentorship program also contributed to increasing capacity for SBM in the school, by having youth at the school competent and capable to train the next round of youth, instead of this only falling on the teachers. As one mentor described: Because then instead of you having to train all the mentors, instead of you having to give them a crash course of what they are going to need to do and stuff like that, they can maybe devise their first plan with the old mentors, and then hand it off to you, and you can read it over and its done. And then you can focus on other stuff while that’s going on, so that’s, it’s kind of a whole other thing to it. – Jason (Student) Monitoring Objective F. Trial working with youth to enter data into the Nechako watershed ‘portal’ database. As a community watershed database under development, ‘the portal’ provided a great opportunity to imagine how such tools can offer a platform for youth data. In 2020, a plug-in was developed by IWRG team members to enable direct data uploads to the ‘portal’ from a digital field application called Geopaparazzi (HydroloGIS, n.d.). Geopaparazzi enables text, photos and sketches to be recorded in the field using tablets or a smartphone. As part of monitoring trials, digital data forms were created, and youth used tablets to record data at one of the monitoring stations. Though the field app helped to 91 expedite data recording, youth also mentioned that part of what they enjoyed about the monitoring sessions was being able to get away from technology: I like how it’s more involved and there’s no technology or anything like that cause then the things we have to use to get this data is just like using chemicals and stuff to help get the data, instead of always constantly checking something or always having to look at something every two seconds.- Maddie (Student) Unfortunately, the plans to work with youth to enter data from the tablets into the portal database were not realized due to time constraints, however this is a task that has been handed over to the Koh-learning team for the future. As a substitute, a portal workshop was held in Summer 2021 to enable Koh-learning summer students and teachers to learn how to use the portal and build capacity for working with the portal database. Summary of monitoring findings. Youth collected monitoring data suggests that water quality in Murray Creek is generally ‘good’ in that it is below the thresholds for aquatic life for the most part. The data also indicates that water quality changes as it moves through the agricultural belt, with chloride, nitrate and turbidity higher downstream, and notably, phosphate lower. Further interaction and discussion between youth, community members and decision-makers would be needed to design plans to examine what is causing these differences. Youth independent studies could further explore and confirm if/why nitrate but not phosphate increases downstream, and what might be driving exceedances of nitrite and aluminum. A possible benefit of finding ‘good’ water quality in Murray Creek is the suggestion that salmon species are likely not facing a toxicity issue from water quality (at least from the parameters measured and more analysis of temperature data is needed). Future work or student independent studies could now prioritize other factors that may be determining the health of salmon populations (or lack thereof) in Murray creek such as stream physical habitat. 92 The monitoring trials showed that student collected data accuracy was similar to previous research that has compared volunteer and professional data (Storey et al., 2016). Through quality control sampling, we were able to identify some data quality issues and Koh-learning could continue learning and improving in this area in future iterations of the monitoring. The logistics, youth engagement and breadth of educational outcomes was increased through having older students mentoring younger students. A key component of knowledge translation from this study yet to come will be to bring monitoring results back to decision-makers. 5.2.5 Discussion of School-Based Monitoring Trials From the beginning, we encountered difficulties in designing a process that met the recommendations for programs to inform decision-making (Appendix A). For example, Carlson and Cohen (2018) point out that the capacity for purchasing monitoring equipment should not dictate the protocols used, as this can lead to fragmented datasets. The decision to use the HACH test kits already owned by the school did not align well with advice from the literature to identify goals first, and then purchase equipment accordingly. And yet, though imperfect, these trials were instrumental in gaining new insights for moving forward, and for prompting spin-offs, including the youth independent studies. Our monitoring trials therefore reinforced the merit of prioritizing a ‘do what is possible’ mentality alongside adopting program design characteristics to inform decision-making (Cundill & Fabricius, 2009). Alongside considerations for connecting to decision-making, we learned that monitoring protocols that are not engaging or educative have little value in an SBM context. This creates a tension as standardized CS protocols are typically designed to be as simple as possible (i.e., downloading data from an in-stream logger) (Nicholson et al., 2002). In the 93 monitoring trials we also found that time and logistical constraints limited our ability to follow the monitoring protocols, a trade-off described by Zoellick et al. (2012) that arises in SBM between educational and science outcomes. However, as described in Box 5.2, presenting these trade-offs to youth and including them in the problem-solving process can be empowering to re-situate everyone involved as a team, and also for generating ideas to balance trade-offs. Similar to mentorship programs described by Callaghan et al. (2018) the model of older youth mentoring younger youth was fulfilling for all involved and reinforces that these programs can add much value to SBM projects. With the mentorship model, smaller group of older students can engage more deeply in the monitoring design, which is more manageable than an entire class At the same time, many younger classes (in this study ~80 youth) can be engaged to carry out the monitoring protocols designed by older youth and can have learning experiences that might spur them to become mentors themselves one day, offering a pragmatic response to what Zoellick et al., (2012) describe as the trade-offs in prioritizing small versus a large number of youth. 5.3 ‘What could be?”: Interviews The “what could be” part of the social learning approach to monitoring aims to surface aspirations for the future, including goals, strategies, and new ideas (Cundill & Fabricius, 2009) and this was a major component of the interviews in this research. In total, 34 participants were engaged in the research via interviews between November 2020, to February 2021, including 12 students, eight teachers, and 14 decision-makers. Based on the demographic questionnaire (completed by 26/34 participants), 16 participants identified as female, and 10 as male. Seventeen (17) participants identified as Caucasian/European, four 94 identified as First Nation, one identified as Metis, and three participants identified as First Nation and Caucasian. Of the 26 participants who completed the questionnaire 24/26 also answered the feedback questions. Of these, all felt satisfied with the interview facilitation and able to express their ideas. The majority (21/24) learned new things, while 11/24 felt they built new relationships. Further summary information is provided in the appendices, including an overview of key characteristics of those interviewed (Appendix D), a summary of responses to the feedback questions (Appendix E), and a link to the interview summary report provided to all participants (Appendix F). The iterative participatory design, described in Chapter Four, was intended to weave multiple voices into defining objectives for SBM and to help address the research questions. When asked about why the Koh-learning project is important, students explained that Kohlearning and taking care of the water is important because everything is interconnected, and streams in their community affect waters downstream. They also mentioned that it was important for learning about potential careers in environmental fields. Teachers described how the program allowed them to develop social relationships and community within their classrooms and to create a more authentic learning environment where different kinds of students could flourish. Teachers described that Koh-learning was important for grounding learning in a connection to place, and an appreciation for place. Decision-makers spoke about the importance of Koh-learning for students to learn to value their watersheds and to build a community that was united around a shared focus. Decision-makers also spoke about the importance of having youth know what life exists in our waterways (fish and invertebrates) and have them be informed about their watersheds to one day contribute to decision-making. Saik’uz First Nation interviewees also spoke about the inherent importance of water and engaging youth: 95 Water has always been an important aspect. And to have children involved is even better, they could learn newer and better ways to actually preserve watersheds and water quality throughout their territory or even out of it. – Decision-maker SF_C Overall, participants identified that the essence of Koh-learning was about building hope that together we can make a positive difference to counter the damage done to our watersheds. Analysis of participant transcripts from interviews and notes from workshops led to identification of six interrelated pathways of influence for SBM to inform decision-making 17. Though some pathways were identified across groups, others were mentioned by only one group, highlighting the variation in how participants view and benefit from CS monitoring networks. Below, I provide an overview of how each of the six pathways were talked about by participants and examples are given for how they are already seeing this unfold with Kohlearning, or how participants envision it could. Although these pathways are depicted in a pathways diagram (Figure 5.2) and numbered to allow for cross-referencing with the text, they are presented in no order. 5.3.1 Increased Attention on Waterways (Pathway One) The idea that SBM can help to bring more attention to waterways came up in several ways during the interviews. First, teachers spoke about how bringing youth out the waterways can raise the community’s collective knowledge of different locations and waterways around town, especially after years of students visiting the site. As one teacher described: So I guess locally, there are several landmarks that are not often connected to the community, but everybody now knows about Murray, those who were paying attention now know where Murray Creek is. Right? And they understand that system. -Teacher C 17 My initial analysis of the interview data identified only five pathways. However, during the final workshops in June 2021, participants had a chance to review an early version of the pathways of influence diagram and some noted that an element was missing. I went back to the data to consider in what ways participants spoke about when and how school-base monitoring linked to action and identified a sixth pathway. 96 Figure 5.2 Interconnected pathways for school-based monitoring to inform decision-making based on the case study. Ovals represent pathways of influence, and boxes indicate outcomes of school-based monitoring that are precursors to pathways. The rounded box indicates an intermediate step before decision-making is impacted. 97 The teachers talked about how they felt compelled to bring youth to, and subsequently to ‘build community pride’ at other locations near to or within the town, including wetlands and other creeks. Participants from the decision-maker category also talked about how engaging students in monitoring of waterways could compel both industry and government to pay more attention. For example, one participant described how when their branch of the government started making data available online to the public, this helped to encourage project proponents to stay in compliance with their permits. The same participant also spoke about how receiving letters from the public had an influence on what their branch paid attention to. From another angle, participants also spoke about how SBM could bring more attention through funding dollars to support restoration work on creeks. This example was given of the how fish trapping data from another Koh-learning project was being used: Well the data is already being used by the New Gold Blackwater, or the Artemis mining company, we have been able to provide that data to the mining company to demonstrate and indicate their mitigation opportunities that they are carrying on will bear fruit will, that there is value to it. -Wayne Salewski (Decision-maker) Students also shared that they could see how their data could help to bring attention to the waterways. As one participant described: I think that the fact that we are even there collecting data is opening the door for that to become a more important part of the decision-making, the fact that we are already out there collecting it, might help for them to make room for that information. -Jorja Cranmer (Student) The student did not expand on the concept of ‘making room’ for the data in terms of where who, or what needed to change to make this room. However, the idea, also connects to another theme mentioned from students about having their voices heard. In both interviews and the final workshops, students expressed that they didn’t feel like their voices carried any weight, and they wanted to know how to be heard by decision-makers. 98 5.3.2 Identifying Issues and Imagining Solutions (Pathway Two) Related to the theme of bringing attention to the waterways was the theme of students being able to reveal and bring forward unique understandings of waterways by visiting and monitoring them. One way this showed up was that some decision-makers were interested to learn about observations that students had for sites they were visiting. As one decision-maker outlined: Students’ observations and ideas, if they are captured and made available to us (would be of interest to us). …if there is a pattern in what’s being seen… that could be observing invasive species, as an example, observing fish kills, a species that wasn’t previously reported for the stream. -Decision-Maker E Student observations were seen as being useful for both helping to identify potential issues, such as the example of fish kills in the quote above, or to help contextualize abnormal monitoring results. In contrast, some decision-makers particularly at the local government-level were less interested in having students document and record issues in creeks but were more interested in having them brainstorm solutions to problems. One participant described how building skills in youth to be able to envision and communicate a better future would greatly benefit the community: They can present their vision of where they want to go. And it can be very minute in what they would like to see better, but they still need to be able to describe that, … I would love to see students sit down and present it. -Decision-Maker B Similarly, decision-makers from the Saik’uz First Nation were also interested in solution driven youth activities. Closely related to this idea of youth designing solutions was the theme that youth, being early in their lives, were uniquely situated to contribute creative and novel ideas and perspectives. As one Saik’uz First Nation decision-maker described: 99 I think by having a multi-generational lens, it provides an opportunity to maybe, to give light to things that others might not notice. Or to utilize different tools to help capture some of the monitoring activities. -Decision-Maker SF_F This highlights an important distinction from youth merely observing things on the land on behalf of those who don’t have enough time to visit themselves, to instead view youth as capable of revealing information about a site that others (and scientific instrumentation) are blind to. This sentiment was echoed by teachers, who remarked on how they have come to see the importance of allowing youth to engage with the land at monitoring sites in diverse ways, and to be given the flexibility to design their own approach for building knowledge about the site. As one teacher described: Whenever I take kids out, I’ve always just been thinking about it from the science and especially the wildlife and the insects, and this year when we went out and we had the inquiry project, and pretty much, you can do whatever you want, and again, in my mind, I was looking through my science lens, because I was thinking they would have to do it on herbariums, or birds. But the kids were coming up with poems, and painted rocks, and stories, and for me it’s like I had an aha moment, that you can see it from different eyes and different patches that still get the same message across, and it was just really neat how having these kids take it to where their levels are, where their passions are, not mine, but what they see when they are there. -Heather Hinz (Teacher) During my time engaging with students and teachers in the Koh-learning program, this theme also surfaced in various ways, and especially through a story recounted to me from one of the Koh-Learning research advisors (Box 5.7). The experience in this story prompted UNBC researchers to consider using different methods to assess fish distribution in Murray Creek and highlights the value of bringing diverse knowledge and creative methods for learning about a site. 100 Box 5.7 Illustrative anecdote of the 'identifying issues and imagining solutions’ pathway. Teacher Casey Litton recounted the following story to me (paraphrased). This story illustrates how when permitted, youth contribute their own form of knowledge that can add to and compliment monitoring data: Casey Litton had designed his Murray Creek studies to consist of two sessions. In the first session Grade 11’s conducted water quality testing at a site. During the next visit they had the opportunity to revisit the site to design and carry out their own inquiry projects. Two students looked at the stream and hypothesized (based on their local knowledge of the area) that the creek would contain rainbow trout. Casey told them that researchers at UNBC had already sampled the area and determined that there were no rainbow trout in the stream, however the students were adamant. They took fishing rods and a variety of hooks and lures and sampled each combination successively. Eventually, to the great surprise of their teacher and the researchers at UNBC, they caught multiple large rainbow trout ( 5-11 inches long). 5.3.3 Filling Gaps and Providing New Data (Pathway Three) Providing data that can feed into decision-making processes is another pathway that participants identified. Among the interviews with students, teachers and decision-makers, it was the decision-makers who put the most emphasis on this pathway. Decision-makers highlighted a range of data needs, from monitoring air quality for local government, to monitoring streams at a scale that was not feasible for the provincial government, to adding monitoring sites to existing networks run by the Saik’uz First Nation or comparing the condition of the environment today with oral histories (for more information see interview summary report Appendix F). Almost all decision-makers interviewed highlighted that in one way of another, they saw that SBM could really benefit their work by filling gaps in monitoring where capacity was lacking. Consider one of many examples given by a participant in provincial government: 101 It takes a long time to drive out to Mackenzie for example and gauge a stream, or do some measurements, so we don’t do it very often. So working with some community group out there, or a school out there… especially during periods of drought, it would be really good to develop a better understanding of certain streams, and then we can look at certain streams that are indicators for others. -Decision-Maker D Based on my review of the literature, I had been expecting for decision-makers to be wary of student collected data, and yet most were very eager about the idea and saw many potential benefits. This sentiment is summarized in the following quote from a decision-maker: If we figured that out, what is within their capacity to collect and how that does link to what is useful to us, then the form will kind of follow that I think, and it might even just be pictures, it could be measurements, it could be a spreadsheet with dates, it could just be downloading data from some sort of datalogger on a stream somewhere. -Decision-Maker C However, in some cases, running throughout discussions there was also a sense of uncertainty around the logistics for connecting SBM to decision-making and the transaction time necessary for making connections with schools. A small number of participants also expressed concern around the ability of school groups to collect rigorous data that could suit their needs. For some decision-makers, even though they believed youth could collect accurate data, they highlighted the challenge of what they described as a “revolving door of training” that would arise to train new youth and teachers each year. One decision-maker also highlighted that it wouldn’t be ‘fair’ to ask youth to collect data to the same standards needed for government decision-making. However, a couple of participants spoke to the topic of data quality and certainty and highlighted that though scientists have high standards for data certainty for what they would deem “usable”, decision-makers are often comfortable with lower levels of certainty and might be more open to considering youth collected data as part of the broader picture of available information, especially in areas where little data exists. Of note, when students and teachers spoke about the data, there appeared to be a lack of confidence in their ability to produce accurate data. 102 Student participants hinted at this on a few occasions by qualifying their answers with statements such as “…well if the data is actual good, and accurate, then…” -Jason (Student). 5.3.4 Behaviour Change and Stewardship (Pathway Four) While decision-makers often focused on discussing the ‘filling gaps and providing new data’ pathway, students and teachers most often focused on the pathway of behaviour change and stewardship. This was emphasized by the fact that during interviews, students were most excited by the idea of reaching their own communities and people of different ages (including younger grades) with the information and data collected. When asked how they would like to share the data, students suggested having community events and getting the word out to the community through billboards, newspaper adds, and radio station interviews. Also in a few instances, youth talked about how they see themselves as some of the most important decision-makers, as they will be taking over in the future. Youth perceived that being involved in the SBM, especially for young kids, would help them grow up into strong community members. As one Grade 11 student put it: We are teaching younger kids that what you do could affect the streams, and when they grow up, they could possibly teach their kids, so it changes people.- Student 11_A. This sentiment was echoed by decision-makers from the Saik’uz First Nation, who placed emphasis on the opportunity for SBM to help build capacity in environmental fields, and to build sustainable leadership for their communities. Some students and teachers also talked about how they noticed that after just a few sessions of creek monitoring, the students were becoming more aware and careful to not damage their surroundings. This linked to the concept of caring – which was brought up a lot – and the idea that SBM can help students to connect to place, and care about it, as a necessary intermediate step to becoming better 103 stewards and future decision-makers. Some of the youth interviewed talked about how the monitoring had influenced their own attitudes: I live pretty close to a creek, so I started to walk there, and I was just thinking, I think there is a lot of junk there because if that gets into the stream it will affect the stream. -Student 8_E Another aspect of this theme that was mentioned across students, teachers and decision-makers was the connection between students and parents, and how the learning at the youth level ripples out into the community through the parents. There was a strong sentiment from some participants that the data collected was secondary to the more important goal of building emotion in the youth and connection to place, and how that could influence parents. As one teacher described: Well for the waterways, it’s sort of an indirect thing, the community sees that their kids are out there, the community cares about their kids, and then so the kids themselves become an advocate for the health of our waterways. So it’s less again about the actual information it’s more about emotion, that our community loves their kids and this is something that their kids will feel. All the data in the world probably isn’t going to convince them that they shouldn’t dump their manure into the creek, but if it’s something that their kids are paying attention to…- David (Teacher) Some of the students interviewed spoke about how this had manifested in their own lives. When asked about how they thought SBM could inform decision-making two students gave examples of how they had influenced their families to manage their agricultural practices differently: And what [other student’s name] said about the fertilizer, my family since two months ago, we went through all our fields and we made a trench all the way around it because, cause we have all this water flowing through our fields at the same time, so we reuse the water as much as we can because it has fertilizer and nutrients in it, so we don’t destroy what we can destroy. -Student 8_F Government decision-makers were also interested in the benefit of SBM for helping them to achieve their own outreach mandates by reaching youth and parents at the same time. As one decision-maker described: 104 Yeah so one of our objectives every year is how we can increase our outreach efforts, so that people manage their activities in and about a stream better, ... trying to educate kids at the same time as educate their parents, so there’s some possibility there. -Decision-Maker D 5.3.5 Contributing to Reconciliation (Pathway Five) Another pathway that participants identified for SBM to inform decision-making was by fostering reconciliation. Although only a small number of participants spoke about reconciliation directly as a pathway, the sentiment that SBM could lead to reconciliation and decolonization also arose in other interviews and from my time spent with the Koh-learning project. Participant SF_F, a decision-maker from the Saik’uz First Nation really emphasized the possible role of SBM in reconciliation, by helping bring people together around a shared value. In their own words: So, to have our young people engaged early on really helps to create sustainable leadership within communities, and to know that, not only First Nations youth are being engaged in this process, but with other non-indigenous youth it really helps to create a greater understanding between two communities, and within this age-group, on the importance on connecting on a single focus area that impacts everybody, that connects everybody. Water is you know, for First Nations communities, our lifeline, in a sense, so when we look at the Nechako River, the mighty river, in our language, you know, we recognize that there are settlers who live in the area, who also share and care about the well-being of this lifeline, for all of us equally. So, really thinking of that advancement of reconciliation through youth engagement, really does move along two leadership tables, to have that important perspective. -Decision-maker SF_F This same participant talked about how SBM could also help to provide information to Indigenous decision-makers that was needed to make informed decisions about their territories. One example given for this was that SBM could help to provide data that could feed into classifying waterbodies as laid out in the Yinka Dene Water Policy (see Section 3.4 for more information). By doing this, SBM could help to uphold the inherent role of First Nations in stewarding their lands and waters. Decision-maker SF_F spoke about how not 105 access to data having (especially the data that was already been collected on their territory by resource developers) was a barrier to effective decision-making and land planning in their territory. In another interview with Saik’uz First Nation participants we started to explore the question, could youth monitoring that was designed to support Indigenous decision-makers help lead a shift here? One Saik’uz decision maker suggested that a simple way to do this would be to provide framing that linked the monitoring back to Indigenous rights: Kind of connecting that healthy ecosystems are connected to our culture, to our rights, so having healthy ecosystems for animals and for fish, that’s important. – Decision-maker SF_A Teachers discussed how choosing where to monitor could be empowering for students to be a part of upholding the work of local First Nations: I think that symbolically, Stoney Creek, you know that’s the First Nations creek that we have in our school, so when you say Stoney Creek, it has different meanings, right so, it’s symbolic to a degree, if we could restore Stoney Creek, that would be empowering. For students who may not see it, it would be a window. You know moving forward I think that would be a really interesting comparison- so if we are talking about chemistry, if we are talking about the health of things, if we are talking about what invertebrates live in certain environments. -Teacher C As mentioned in Chapter Three, racism in Vanderhoof towards Indigenous people is a confronting part of the town’s past and present, but participants suggested that school-based monitoring might be part of building a different narrative for the future. Participants spoke about how SBM could be a “bridge” between the two communities of Vanderhoof and Saik’uz and between Saik’uz youth and Vanderhoof youth. During the final group workshops, participants described that having youth involved helped to lighten the tone of conversations that might otherwise be tense, and provided an entry way for collaboration, hope and partnerships. A final way that participants linked SBM to reconciliation was around the potential for it to help respond to the Truth and Reconciliation Calls to Action for education. During 106 interviews, participants from the Saik’uz First Nation spoke about how they envisioned that SBM could help to enhance understanding and valuing of Indigenous Ways of Knowing in addition to western science, by having an Elder or knowledge holder to present on Traditional Ecological Knowledge. Participants discussed how it could also make a big difference if monitoring began with a ‘cultural orientation to being on the land’ that helped to translate some of the Saik’uz land values: To really make that time to learn about who we are as Saik’uz people, what our values are, and what our cultural practices are, because in our way, people, not from the land itself, you know the land doesn’t know who you are, you’ve got to introduce yourself in certain ways, and we have certain cultural practices that can help individuals do that, to become familiar with territory so that the land knows who that person is, and then I think, reciprocating that respect and taking that time to honour you know the land, I think that would be an important piece for that program to consider as well. -Decision-maker SF_F Saik’uz First Nation participants added that SBM could also be tailored to include learning about traditional medicines, and learning words from the Dakelh language and learning about “all the different types of creatures that are involved in the water” -Decision-maker SF_E. Participants were also very keen about the idea of mentorship and having older students teaching younger students, which they said is “inherently part of our cultures” Decision-maker SF_A. In summary, there was a strong thread across interviews with Saik’uz participants that a more holistic view of the land and the water could be taken, and that if this could be linked back Indigenous rights this may help towards upholding their decisionmaking jurisdiction, including their water law, the Yinka Dene Water Policy. 5.3.6 Conversations for Action (Pathway Six) Some participants saw that though SBM may contribute to decision-making through the avenues above, one of the most valuable outcomes was that it could help to trigger conversations that wouldn’t otherwise happen and that decision-making at all levels could be 107 indirectly influenced as an outcome. The recurring theme of ‘conversations’ was already mentioned in the descriptions of both the ‘behaviour change and stewardship’, and ‘reconciliation’ pathways but I have chosen to describe it as its own pathway as so many participants emphasized the importance of it for leading to action. There are three main ways in which participants spoke about the role of ‘conversations’ in linking to decision-making. First, many participants described how they thought that conversation was the best avenue for sharing student-collected data and findings with decision-makers. From the decision-maker perspective they were eager to interact and learn directly from youth: I would like to see some opportunity to just come down to the school and be able to interact and see how, what they are working on, and just to understand it, I would love to have people explain to me, I don’t need a teacher explaining it to me, I would like to have young people explain to me what they’ve been working on, what they’ve found valuable to it. -Decision-maker B Similarly, teachers expressed that the informal avenue of conversations was likely to be the most effective way of communicating data, particularly if the findings were controversial. Yeah, and kids aren’t seen as threatening, whereas something like a formal letter or a formal presentation sounds like someone who thinks they know better telling you what to do with your land. -David (Teacher) Participants also talked about the importance of conversation for triggering action on multiple levels. Some spoke about how conversations with decision-makers could influence management plans and public campaign messaging, among other topics. The two quotes below illustrate how participants see that conversations triggered by SBM are directly resulting in stewardship activities on streams in Vanderhoof: So having our students both recognize it, catalogue it, talk about it and hopefully at some point in time, working on enhancing it, we’d love to see some students actually working on stream restoration, by planting, by using a hilti gun, and drilling holes into rocks and stainless steel cable to hold logs into place. -Wayne Salewski (Decision-maker) 108 So we are getting more community buy-in, but there’s an education process which leads to a conversation of ‘so what do we want this watershed to look like going forward’, and the farmers are moving to a point where they are starting to engage in that. It’s not perfect, there are times when there are people who are digging their feet in, but what we are finding is that many things that you try that are new as more and more people become comfortable with it, they themselves are becoming less tentative and more excited about it. And so I think that that conversation about the health of the waterways, is brought to the table by a conversation occurring with the learners and the landholders. – Casey Litton (Teacher) Another element of this is that one participant alluded to the fact that having students out on the land is itself a form of a conversation between the students, the land and the farmers: And that conversation sometimes is nonverbal, it’s about being on that piece of land together that is most important for farmers. – Casey Litton (Teacher) Coming together to have collective conversations was also discussed as a key step to catalyzing action for the waterways. During one of the final workshops, a student participant asked decision-makers, “what are the most important issues in the watershed in your mind?”. One of the decision-makers from Saik’uz First Nation talked about how nutrients in their creek, algae growth and poor aquatic health were ongoing issues that they faced. The youth participants then asked, ‘if we were to see something bad in our watershed, what could we do about it?”. Decision-makers described that they also don’t have all the answers for dealing with issues such as algae, and that they see that we all need to come together with all levels of decision-making to tackle these issues. Teachers also talked about how learning to engage in these conversations is fundamental aspect of the program that they hoped youth could learn. Teachers expressed their hopes that Koh-learning could equip youth with the ability to have the kinds of complex conversations needed to find balance for our communities and ecosystems, and to enable youth to be heard and taken seriously by decision-makers. Teachers remarked on the challenge of fostering balanced conversations between youth and adults: 109 Right, so like when and how do you have those conversations, so it’s not just what I want. I want a nice wetland classroom out there, but do they? And if they do, what is their vision? Not mine. I don’t know. How do we create those conversations that are actually equally balanced, and not just ‘we had a conversation’ but actually it was just me teaching, talking to them, that I lead and say to you ‘yep we worked together’. -Teacher A 5.3.7 Discussion of Interview Findings The pathways identified from interviews do overlap with the two pathways described by McKinley et al. (2017) which are i) acquiring data and ii) increasing the ability of the public to inform decision-making. The following three pathways are captured within McKinley et al.’s (2017) framework.: ‘increased attention on waterways’ (pathway 1), ‘filling gaps and providing new data’ (pathway 3) and ‘behaviour change and stewardship’ (pathway 4). For other pathways identified in the interviews, the connections in the literature are less overt. For example, ‘identifying issues and imagining solutions’ (pathway 2) resonates with Au et al.’s (2000) description of how SBM can serve as an ‘early warning system’ of potential issues in a watershed. The theme of ‘reconciliation’ (pathway 5) resonates with Wilson et al.’s (2018) notion of CS “as more than data gathering – as a form of Indigenous governance” (p. 297). As for the pathway 6 ‘conversations for action’, Danielsen et al. (2005) touch on this pathway briefly by asking “Is the dialogue more important than the data? Just how important are the data for decision-making? Is it the stakeholder dialogue prompted by the monitoring activity rather than the monitoring information that encourages action?” (p. 2644). The findings in Danielsen et al.’s study suggest that the data is necessarily underpinning and fueling these conversations to happen so both the data and the conversations are important. These ideas will be revisited in Chapter Six, in relation to SBM’s contributions to an emerging paradigm shift in water management. 110 5.4 ‘What next?’: Collective Learning The ‘what next’ stage of the social learning approach to monitoring moves back into the practical realm, focusing on learning from past experiences and choosing what to do next (Cundill & Fabricius, 2009). The final group workshops were held in June 2021 and built on the interview findings and the monitoring trials by bringing seven students, five teachers, and five decision-makers together to talk about the pathway forward. Of those who answered the survey, 5/10 identified as female. One participant identified as Dakelh, while the remainder identified as Caucasian or Western European. All participants who answered the questionnaire indicated they felt satisfied with the workshop, were able to express themselves, learned new things, and 9/10 said they built new relationships. Themes from the group workshop that relate to ‘next steps’ for Koh-learning at NVSS are presented here. 5.4.1 Next Steps with Koh-learning at the Nechako Valley Secondary School Echoing the theme of ‘conversations’ (pathway six, above) the group workshops were designed to bring together the learnings from the research. Appendix F provides a link to the final workshop summary report for more details. The model of using a virtual whiteboard tool and break-out rooms was effective at generating discussion and identifying shared goals. Informed by analysis of the participant responses to the four guiding questions (What should be? What is? What could be? What can be?), two aspirations emerged for what can be achieved by linking SBM to decision-making, including: 1) improve our place (particularly restore fish habitat through teamwork), and 2) transform education to be more relevant to what is happening in the real world. In addition, through analysis of workshop notes, four areas of priority action along with tangible examples emerged. 111 First, improving student engagement came up as a big theme during both the final group workshops. Students highlighted that they were noticing how some of their peers became very engaged in the water monitoring, while others did not. Youth made suggestions to adapt the program to enable their peers to experience more of the positive benefits of the program, including spending more time going over data, engaging in peer-to-peer discussions and playing a bigger role in the research (Table 5.3). Teachers also emphasized the latter point, by suggesting that students be involved in ‘setting a goal for change’, by looking at the changes in the water and asking: “what do you want to see? what decisions do we want to be made?” and then, “how do we work towards this?”. Teachers envisioned that by engaging in these conversations, youth might take greater ownership over the SBM activities. Table 5.3 Suggestions to improve student engagement in school-based monitoring. 1. Spend more time Students thought that spending more time learning about the going over research design, the scientific method, how the tests work, and the data/results meaning of results would help student see the value of the work. 2. More peer-to-peer One student suggested that more time could be set aside while in discussions about the the field for Grade 8’s and mentors to discuss as a group how the monitoring purpose monitoring applies to their communities and to their lives. 3. Let youth play a Participants suggested that giving youth choices for what to bigger role in monitor and having them involved in outlining a goal set for choosing what to changes they would like to see for the watershed (and decisions monitor they would like to influence) would make them more invested in the monitoring. 4. Youth advisory When grade 8’s were interviewed, they recommended establishing group a ‘Grade 8 Advisory Council’ to help ensure their opinions were included. The following quote highlights this: You have to get the Grade 8’s involved in something before you do it, because something that the adults might think ‘the kids will love this’, they don’t actually have the kid opinion” -Haileigh Pritchard Second, another recommendation was to create more opportunities to connect with decision-makers and increase understandings of decision-making processes. When given the opportunity to ask questions of decision-makers, youth asked, “what decisions do you make?” and “what is most pressing to decision-makers right now?” and teachers asked, “in 112 your role, do you advocate for certain decisions to be made?” Participants expressed gratitude for the chance to interact with those from other groups and hoped for more regular connections with decision-makers to make education more relevant to local realities. The third priority next step was to focus on making space for Indigenous Knowledge and ways of knowing in the SBM program, and generally to work on the reconciliation pathway to inform decision-making (e.g., by continuing the mentor program, inviting Elders in the field, and developing a cultural orientation). To work towards this, participants recommended that funding needs to be identified to enable First Nations community members and government staff to participate. A fourth priority area was to talk about the successes of the Koh-learning program. Participants stressed that even though there wasn’t time to present to the community about monitoring activities during the 2020/21 school year, time needs to be reserved for this as it is a crucial part of the program. 5.4.2 Discussion of Collective Learning Findings Even during the short timeframe of two hours there was clear evidence that decisionmaker, youth and teacher workshops were fostering outcomes described elsewhere in the literature including relationship building (i.e., participants exchanging emails in the chat box, and supported by participant feedback: Appendix E) and building trust (i.e., youth feeling grateful to be heard) (Thornton & Leahy, 2012). Additionally, a major outcome of the workshops was increased understanding of how decisions are made, which is helpful as there are often false assumptions that decisions are made quickly or that all decisions are based on data when they are not. Danielsen et al. (2005) provide the example of park monitoring volunteers who expected the park management council to make decisions based on the data, not realizing that decision-making happened at four different levels, including the 113 management council, local community members, and the municipal and state governments. When brought together in focus groups, this forum led to the biggest number of interventions by local community members (Danielsen et al., 2005), which highlights again the importance of group workshops. The emphasis on youth engagement in the group workshops highlights that more effort in the future could go into the building up the education and youth development elements of the sessions. Ady (2016) described that youth CS programs often include design elements for either quality education, or quality data, but rarely both. Participant insights for how to make sessions more impactful for youth (i.e., engaging with data, having youth set monitoring objectives and having more peer-to-peer discussions), all support what others have found (Harris et al., 2019; Ballard et al., 2017; Ruiz-Mallén et al., 2016). However, students also suggested a variation to previous findings with the idea of setting up a youth advisory committee to help design the sessions. This study re-affirmed that in addition to deliberative processes with decision-makers as a process leading to transformative learning, an important venue is giving opportunities for youth to discuss with each other, and particularly across age groups. Relatedly, youth wanted to have time for games and activities, which relates to Ady’s (2016) reminder that having fun, socializing, and laughing during SBM is important. I was able to work with another Koh-learning team members with expertise in environmental education to bring place connection games into the second round of monitoring, which was well received. 114 5.5 Bringing it all Together: A Process for School-based Monitoring to Inform DecisionMaking Considering the findings presented so far, how can we design SBM to inform decision-making in the future? In this section, learnings are re-packaged into guidance for those interested in designing or adapting school-based monitoring programs. The structure of this chapter demonstrates the ways that the social learning approach to monitoring has become a helpful framing concept for synthesizing the research findings: offering a useful template to inform others interested in designing and refining approaches to SBM. As shared in Section 5.2, coordinating SBM programs requires flexibility to deal with uncertainty. Cundill and Fabricius’ emphasis on reflexive learning in the social learning approach to monitoring is intentional, especially to deal with uncertainty, and “entails a cyclical process of problem identification, visioning, monitoring, taking action, reflection, and redefining the problem” (2009, p. 3209). By considering this cycle in relation to the research findings, Figure 5.3 was developed as an adapted version for a school-based monitoring context and offers a step-by-step guide for planning and designing SBM to inform decision-making. The six steps, outlined below, build from the original seven steps in Cundill and Fabricius’ framework (see Figure 2.1 for original diagram). Associated with different stages of this process, the following questions encourage reflection and learning: what is, what could be, do what is possible, and what next. 115 Figure 5.3 A social learning process for school-based monitoring to inform decision-making. Adapted from Cundill and Fabricius (2009), see Figure 2.1 for the original diagram. Step i: Students engage with decision-makers to learn about issues in their watershed. This step maps onto the ‘identify the problem that needs to be solved’ step in the social learning model for collaborative monitoring (Figure 2.1). The process for SBM could begin with an introductory session for students and teachers to meet and have a discussion with decision-makers about what the current issues are in the watershed. This is an opportunity for two-way learning, as decision-makers can learn about what is important to youth, and youth are able to learn about what issues are pressing in the eyes of decisionmakers. Teachers can use the opportunity to make their lesson plans more relevant to what is happening in broader society. This aligns with the reminder from Stepenuck and Genskow 116 (2019) of the importance for CS programs to contribute to addressing environmental crises. This step of meeting with decision-makers right at the beginning can also serve to legitimize the process, and help youth to ‘see, value and believe’ that the SBM activities have connections beyond their school (Harris et al, 2019). Step ii: Students engage in land-based learning to connect to the social-ecological system through their own passions. This step maps onto the ‘define the system’ step of the social learning for collaborative monitoring cycle. In this step, students and teachers engage in field visits to an accessible location that represents a dynamic learning environment for understanding the specific social-ecological systems they are focusing on within the watershed, such as a stream or a wetland. Considerations (described in Section 5.2.2) to keep in mind when choosing a site include, safety, proximity to the school, monitoring goals, the ‘feeling’ of the site, permission from landowners, and places that matter to youth. For informing decision-making one might consider focusing on smaller waterbodies and choosing to monitor one site where government monitoring is already taking place for comparison (Hadj-Hammou et al., 2017). Following the model of teachers at NVSS, during initial visits students are given the opportunity to build their own methods of inquiry for learning about the site and are encouraged to engage from multiple disciplines. This flexibility leaves room for fostering the creativity and imagination required for the second pathway to inform decision-making ‘identifying issues and imagining solutions’ and allowing youth to share and develop their unique perspectives and knowledge. In this step there is also the opportunity to frame the session by introducing diverse perspectives towards land and water (Callaghan et al., 2018) by inviting an Indigenous Knowledge Holder to share their relationship to water. 117 Step iii: Students work with decision-makers to identify research questions and monitoring plans. This step maps onto the ‘design the monitoring system’ component of the social learning approach to monitoring. This step is one of the key touchpoints for students and teachers to work alongside decision-makers to ensure that monitoring plans are targeting questions and data collection that could feed into decision-making, while also honouring the ideas and interests of youth when choosing what to monitor. In this stage, attention must be given to not get paralyzed by the challenge of the ‘decision-moment’ when one must select which parameters to measure. The social learning approach helps us with the reminder to ‘do what is possible’ and keep moving forward. Kroetsch (2021) advises that in this moment it is important to ensure volunteers are aware and part of the process to select the parameters to ensure they continue to see the value in the data. This step also aligns with the recommendations from the literature review of the need to bring students, teachers, and students together to develop monitoring objectives and plans (Ady, 2016). Step iv: Monitoring is conducted to enable reflection, social interaction, and place connection. This step relates to the ‘implement the monitoring and take action’ step of the social learning approach to monitoring. To ensure that youth understand why the monitoring is taking place, reflective discussions need to be held at the beginning or end of monitoring sessions, as suggested by workshop participants, ideally with youth of different ages. This aligns with Groulx et al. (2021) and Ruiz-Mallén et al.’s (2017) emphasis on critical reflection and deliberative processes as being one of the most important practices to foster transformational learning, and is also a critical element of social learning (Keen et al., 2005). If possible, having community members, landowners and decision-makers attend the field sessions to be a part of the reflective conversations would also bring meaning to the sessions and, may target pathway six: conversations for action. 118 Structuring SBM sessions to allow for social interaction among youth and adults is also important for fostering collective action (Bodin & Crona, 2009), and harnessing the health and well-being benefits of CS (Williams et al., 2022). Participants spoke about how the mentorship program fostered social interaction and built leadership skills in youth. Other important aspects of the monitoring are to ensure that framing is provided to allow youth to connect not only to each other but also to the five dimensions of place (Newman et al., 2017) that can then foster the caring for place required for stewardship action (Duncan & Diprose, 2020). Step v: Youth spend time going over results and engaging in peer-to-peer discussions. Another important element is ensuring there is enough time to allow youth to go over the monitoring results and take ownership over the data, which is something youth recommended during workshops. Examples of suggestions from the youth include understanding how the results can show changes over time (and could indicate climate change trends), how the water quality tests work, how the results are analyzed in the lab, and how to assess the quality of the data (see Table 5.3). This supports findings from Ballard et al. (2017) and Harris et al. (2019) who speak of the value for youth to engage deeply with rigorous scientific processes. Step vi: Students communicate the findings, act on the findings, or adapt the monitoring. This step aligns with the ‘share the information as widely as possible’ and the ‘review the monitoring system’ steps in the social learning approach to monitoring. As part of the group workshops, participants emphasized the value in sharing the story of their monitoring and what had been accomplished, and they saw this step as being a critical next step to support the sustainability of the program. Kroetsch (2021) also talks about this step and developing a data summary report to bring back to decision-makers to ask if the 119 information provided is indeed useful. If not, then adaptations need to be made to how or what information is collected, or how it is shared. Similarly, decision-makers need to be in touch with students and teachers if they are using the data, to help convey the value of the monitoring to youth (Bonney et al., 2020; Carlson & Cohen, 2018). The venue for this kind of information sharing among different groups engaged in SBM can range widely and may differ based on the pathway of influence being targeted. Based on examples mentioned by participants in this study, information sharing may consist of sharing youth perspectives for how a local park could be redesigned via social media, or it could consist of a conventional science report with water quality data, or it could consist of an open house for decision-makers to come and discuss youth projects and findings. 5.6 Conclusion This chapter has outlined findings from the water monitoring trials, the interviews and the group workshops. The monitoring trials tell a story of how water quality monitoring can be done with youth to learn about the health of their local agricultural stream when comparing data to water quality standards and between upstream and downstream sites. Informed by the first round of monitoring trials, the interviews provided a first structured opportunity to engage students, teachers, and decision-makers and gleaned many insights relevant to the research questions. The second rounds of monitoring trials, and group workshops followed and provided another iteration of the action and participation elements of the research. Together these findings formed the basis for an adapted framework for designing school-based monitoring to inform decision-making. The next chapter provides further discussion and interpretation of these findings in relation to the overall study goals and questions, and wider contributions to inform future school-based monitoring efforts. 120 Chapter Six: Discussion and Conclusion 6.1 Introduction As Ady (2016) has identified, the “multiple and varied benefits of engaging youth in citizen science are not fully realized by natural resource agencies or formal and nonformal youth education organizations” (p. 133). This research has aimed to bring attention to, and further the conversation about how school-based monitoring can inform decision-making. However, in this endeavour it is important to consider Keats’ (2020) warning that community science is “at risk of recycling old problems”. This chapter brings together the primary insights from across the research with a particular emphasis on how school-based monitoring can offer an entry point to doing things differently. In Section 6.2, I present and discuss key insights in relation to each research question. In Section 6.3, findings are discussed in relation to the gaps identified in Chapter One. Section 6.4 focuses on lessons learned, recommendations and implications of the research, prior to some concluding reflections. 6.2 Synthesis: Revisiting the Research Questions This section provides an overview of how research questions were addressed. In keeping with the overall structure of the thesis, research questions are presented sequentially, including summaries of how the research activities linked to the findings, and contributed to the overall research. 6.2.1 Pathways and Characteristics: Bridging the SBM-Decision-Making Gap Learning from the existing literature provided an important foundation for the research and a range of insights in response to the first research question: RQ1: How is the relationship between community science programs and decisionmaking characterised and how are gaps in understanding being addressed? 121 The literature review identified conceptual frameworks that were drawn upon to inform the research, including the notion of multiple pathways or avenues to inform decision-making (McKinley et al. 2017), and the characteristics of programs and governance landscapes that enable connections with decision-making (Appendix A). The subsequent research was designed to pick up on threads across the literature that emphasized the importance of bringing youth, decision-makers, and teachers together (Ady, 2016). The design of the monitoring trials was informed by characteristics of programs that enable connections with decision-making – including the recommendation for CS to address an environmental crisis. The literature review also emphasized the importance and potential of watershed-level decision-making, and Indigenous-led water governance for connecting CS to decisionmaking. My research helps expand understanding of what SBM could look like in contexts where these factors are in place, such as the Nechako Watershed Roundtable (collaborative watershed entity) and the Yinka Dene Water Policy (Indigenous water law) that are important elements of the case study. Reviewing literature on youth-focused community science in combination with literature on CS to informing decision-making identified the relevance of targeted attention to youth within research focused on making links with decision-making. An important influence on this study was literature that highlights the kinds of SBM activities that foster transformational learning in youth (Harris et al., 2019; Ballard et al., 2017; Ruiz-Mallén et al., 2016), which proved helpful when interpreting the observations and interviews of this study. Considering the CS literature alongside literature on Indigenous monitoring has also reinforced the imperative articulated by Charles et al. (2020) to view ‘science’ as inclusive of diverse modes of scientific inquiry. Mentorship programs and cross-cultural youth monitoring activities have been flagged as a venue to break down barriers between 122 Indigenous knowledge and science (Callaghan et al. 2018) and my research reinforces this potential, an opportunity discussed further in Section 6.3. 6.2.2 Many Voices, Many Pathways to Inform Decision-Making Analysis of the interviews with students, teachers and decision-makers identified six pathways by which SBM can inform decision-making. These were described and depicted in Chapter Five (Figure 5.2) and offered a direct response to the second research question: RQ2: What are potential pathways of influence for school-based monitoring in the Koh-Learning project to inform land and water decision-making in the Nechako Watershed? Interviews with participants challenged and broadened my expectations for how decision-making works by highlighting that the SBM at NVSS was already influencing decision-making through multiple pathways. These findings reinforce the themes raised by Bonney et al. (2020) and Charles et al. (2020) about the value of engaging with diverse players and case study research to better understand CS links to decision-making. Importantly, participatory workshops also enhanced understandings of how decisions are made, which is a highly important and empowering outcome that is not often mentioned in the CS literature, and deserves to be routinized and recognized as a valuable outcome of CS. Consistent with previous research, the monitoring trials in this study demonstrated that SBM was more accurate for some monitoring parameters than others, and that the average difference between student and professional data was similar to previous studies (Storey et al., 2016). In addition, my research findings highlighted that rigorous scientific protocols need to be balanced with giving youth opportunities to be creative and imaginative at a site and that this is an important program component for linking to decision-making through the ‘identifying issues and imagining solutions’ pathway, described in Figure 5.2. 123 6.2.3 Social Learning: A Model to Overcome School-Based Monitoring Dilemmas Insights from both the monitoring trials and the interviews provided the basis to respond to the third research question: RQ3: How can we design school-based monitoring programs and protocols to inform land and water decision-making The dilemmas, challenges and new opportunities that emerged through this study have underscored the ways that both CS and SBM can benefit from a social learning framing (Cundill & Fabricius, 2009) to help navigate what can feel like the ‘mess’ of trying to connect with decision-making. The framework presented at the end of Chapter Five (Figure 5.3) synthesizes a range of lessons learned and provides an SBM design process that can complement Wieler’s (2006) guide for delivering data to decision-makers, and Kroetsch’s (2021) guide for co-developing data management plans. The six stages offer a step-by-step approach to designing SBM that is flexible enough to navigate dilemmas and ‘trade-offs’ within SBM and provides a unique contribution by focusing on opportunities to link to decision-making through multiple pathways. Based on insights from the participants, the design process depicted in Figure 5.3 also offers suggestions for the most valuable moments to connect with decision-makers in the lifecycle of an SBM project, a gap raised by Stepenuck and Genskow (2019). Not surprisingly, while this research has answered some questions, it has raised others including how best to integrate curriculum and youth development elements (Ady, 2016) into the proposed SBM design process (Figure 5.3). Even so, the research also contributes to developments emerging in education and pedagogy, geared towards providing tools for teachers to facilitate delivery of water monitoring (Goodman, 2022). 124 6.3 Discussion: Key Insights and Implications for School-Based Monitoring: In Chapter One, four gaps were identified as areas where this thesis might be able to converse with the literature. Based on the research findings, I argue that SBM has much to offer towards addressing dilemmas that exist in the CS literature, as well as a growing paradigm shift in water management (Groenfeldt, 2019). 6.3.1 Beyond ‘Data’ for Influencing Decision-making Most literature reviewed during the research focuses on informing decision-making by filling data gaps. However, the findings of this research have underscored the need to challenge the assumption in the realm of CS as well as broader environmental management, that more data alone, will equal better decisions. This aligns with what complexity thinkers such as Kay et al. (1999) describe: Expectations that decision makers can carefully control or manage changes in societal or ecological systems have also to be challenged. Adaptive learning and adjustment, guided by a much wider range of human experience and understanding than disciplinary science, are also necessary (p. 2) By encouraging recognition of and investment into the diverse pathways for informing decision-making, the participants in this study encourage awareness that “community science creates opportunities to cope with complexity and uncertainty …by improving the fit between ecosystems and governance systems” (Charles et al., 2020, p. 82). This research has re-enforced the findings of Bonney et al. (2020) that pathways of informing decision-making that relate to public engagement in decision-making and socialecological transformation (such as the ‘conversations for action’ and the ‘behaviour change and stewardship’ pathways) are poorly understood. This study has underscored the need for better understanding of these pathways and raises the question of how to ensure that these pathways receive increased and ongoing attention in the future? This points to another 125 tension posed by the findings. Though the findings suggest that non-data pathways are just as, or more, influential on decision-making, collecting data with youth is still crucial, not least since it provides an important entry point for engagement and builds awareness of structured processes for learning about and acting for our watersheds. 6.3.2 A Shifting Mindset on School-Based Monitoring It is notable that the openness towards the potential of SBM to inform decisionmaking was shared by students, teachers and decision-makers in this study, a finding that may signal a shift in mindset. This positive appraisal of the potential for SBM is different to what others have found, that a lack of support from decision-makers is now the most significant barrier for CS programs (Bonney et al., 2020). The expansion of the youth climate movement is one potential explanation for this, accompanied by a growing narrative that youth have an important role to play in the transformation needed to respond to climate change (Han & Ahn, 2020). Could this be contributing towards greater acceptance and a turning towards youth knowledges? As Ady (2016) asserts “citizen science program can be strong in both arenas; a strong youth focus does not mean less credible data, and the age of the citizens does not determine the quality of the of the data collected” (p. 137). This shift is also situated within a move in British Columbia towards ‘collaborative monitoring’. Launched summer of 2021, the Collaborative Monitoring Initiative is operated out of the Polis Project for Ecological Governance based in Victoria B.C. (Polis, 2021). This initiative is focused on coordinating water monitoring groups at all levels across the province, supporting learning and developing resources (Polis, 2021). My research raises a question highly relevant to the emerging collaborative monitoring space: how can we ensure the youth are valued as essential collaborators for learning about water? 126 6.3.3 Imagination: Opportunities for School-Based Monitoring Perhaps the greatest potential for transformation identified in this study is the finding describing how SBM can inform decision-making by ‘identifying issues and imagining solutions’ (pathway 2). Outside of this research, the notion of ‘imagination’ is gaining traction as an important practice to enable system transformation needed for sustainability. This includes for example, the work by Brown et al. (2010) focused on transdisciplinary imagination to tackle wicked problems; the practice of ‘re-storying’ visions of the future by systematically minoritized/marginalized groups (Dragon Smith & Grandjambe, 2020); and calls from water ethicists to consider how imagination is needed for us to tackle global water challenges (Groenfeldt, 2019). Other areas where imagination and creativity are being harnessed is in the realm of scenario planning, a tool for environmental planning that invites stakeholders to draw on diverse knowledge and experiences to co-create plausible futures (Beach & Clark, 2015), and digital storytelling as a pathway to telling individual and collective narratives (Gislason et al, 2018). Imagination has two definitions, the first being the ability to form a “mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality” and the second being the creative ability to “confront and deal with a problem” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). Participants in this study evoked both senses of ‘imagination’ by describing that through SBM, youth could both imagine potential futures for their watershed, and also imagine solutions to existing problems. This offers an exciting new possibility for the kinds of roles that SBM might be able to take in a new era of collaborative monitoring and water management, where ‘imagination’ is being recognized as a tool to foster thinking and doing things differently. 127 The role of ‘imagination’ as a component of CS and SBM has also started to emerge in the literature over the course of this research, and further strengthens the legitimacy of the ‘identifying issues and imagining solutions’ pathway, as a means by which CS can inform decision-making. Spellman et al. (2021) outline research focused on a wild berry monitoring project where youth were engaged in a ‘scenario stories development mini-workshop.’ During the workshops, youth worked with their own ‘berry’ datasets and climate change projections, and then brainstormed actions that they or their community might take (Spellman et al., 2021). This new work, and associated tools for interested teachers, demonstrates what SBM might look like when targeting the ‘imagination’ pathway. 6.3.4 Pathways for Youth to Engage in Truth and Reconciliation Another pathway that provides opportunities to fuel a paradigm shift in water management is the ‘contributing to reconciliation’ pathway. The 2020 BC Watersheds conference demonstrated this as an area of growing recognition. Discussion focused on what legal changes might look like to fuel environmental monitoring, law revitalization, and decision-making by Indigenous rights holders who have inherited responsabilities for stewarding the land from their ancestors (Brandes et al., 2020). One avenue for this is the rise of Indigenous Guardian programs as a venue for Indigenous governments to receive funding for taking notice of what is happening on the land and practicing environmental stewardship (Greening et al., 2020). More work in the realm of education and capacity development will be crucial to prepare the next generation of land guardians, and school-based monitoring may serve to help grow the interests and abilities of youth pursuing this career path. This shift also aligns with imperatives from the realm of Aboriginal Education to work towards truth and reconciliation. As Marie Battiste (2013) writes on this topic, “to 128 affect needed reform educators need to make a conscious decision to nurture Indigenous knowledge, its dignity, identity, and integrity by making a direct change in school philosophy, policy, pedagogy and practice” (p. 99). Experiences during this research have highlighted the imperative to also pay attention to the truth component of ‘truth and reconciliation’, so that youth monitoring and interaction with waterways can also be a space for learning about Indigenous rights and to engage with the harms that have been done to Indigenous peoples. For example, as Saik’uz interview participants described, youth water monitoring could be connected to the Yinka Dene Water Law, and has the potential to support understanding of Indigenous rights and laws, including the necessary acknowledgement of the ways these rights and laws have been ignored and disrespected during the ongoing processes of colonization. However, as Wilson et al. (2018) describe, with Indigenous monitoring programs it is especially important to ensure that Indigenous ways of knowing are recognized. For example, in the Indigenous Observation Network water monitoring project in the Yukon and Alaska, monitoring is conducted in partnership with the Yukon River Inter Tribal Watershed Council, and the water monitors are members of various Indigenous nations (Wilson et al., 2018). However, in this example Indigenous knowledge was not incorporated into defining parameters, indicators or protocols, and the program fails to address local-level issues and concerns (Wilson et al., 2018). This raises the question of whether SBM could not only offer a venue to bring more imagination in water management but might also has the potential to enhance understanding and valuing of Indigenous water perspectives. These ideas resonate with what Yates et al. (2017) describe as the growing recognition of multiple ontologies of water, or ways of thinking about what water is and how water governance currently excludes and silences non-dominant ontologies. Yates et al. 129 (2017) discuss ‘water-as-resource’ and ‘water-as-lifeblood’ as two different ways of seeing and participating in water. Yates et al. suggests water-as-resource framings are built into settler colonial legal frameworks that aim to control, secure, and prioritize human water needs, whereas water-as-a-lifeblood framings often view water as unbounded and living (2017). Insights from Indigenous participants in this research have underscored the potential for future SBM programs in the Nechako to more actively centre Indigenous ways of knowing, and ‘two-eyed seeing’ (Bartlett et al., 2012), including as an avenue to advance an openness toward more integrative and holistic understandings, including the ‘water as lifeblood’ ontologies described by Yates et al. (2017). One example of this was the suggestion from an interview participant to work with Saik’uz or other First Nations to develop a cultural orientation to being on the land, including taking time to introduce yourself to the land and water. The Cultural Health Index (Tipa & Tierney, 2003) offers precedents for how stream monitoring programs can be designed for youth that build from Indigenous cultural values and ways of knowing, and foster intergenerational interactions, offering an example that resonates with suggestions and aspirations of several participants. One way for SBM programs to engage with diverse knowledges is by incorporating a mentorship program model and enhancing learning across cultures/worldviews. When describing the Water Warriors Indigenous mentorship program Callaghan et al. (2018) noted that learning across ages and cultures resulted in a safe setting where youth could negotiate with respective ways of knowing and doing. One possibility for this in the Nechako context was the compelling suggestion by Saik’uz staff who offered for Koh-learning mentors to go on the land with the Saik’uz Land Monitors to allow for further mentoring opportunities. This idea was unfortunately not able to be realized due to COVID-19 during this research, but 130 underscores the potential for these ideas to be developed in the future. Learning across generations, and the consideration that everybody holds responsibility to be a teacher, is also one of the First Peoples Principles of Learning (B.C. Ministry of Education, n.d.). 6.3.5 False Dichotomy: Localized vs. Standardized Protocols As described in Chapter One, a dilemma facing many environmental monitoring and community science programs is the decision to either adopt rigid standardized protocols, or to tailor protocols to community needs and questions (Wilson et al., 2018; Carlson & Cohen, 2018). As helpful and valuable as off-the-self-protocols can be, upon reflection with Kohlearning staff engaging with these protocols as the sole activity can stifle the passion, excitement, and life out of SBM. Yet, insights from this research highlight that both types of monitoring are beneficial and can be folded into SBM programs. Informed by insights from research participants, the design process of SBM to inform decision-making (Figure 5.3) gives space during initial visits for students to build their own methods of inquiry for learning about the site and youth are encouraged to engage from multiple disciplines. It is conceivable that as part of the same program, youth can also be engaged in a standardized monitoring program to allow them to situate themselves within bigger contexts. The approach of pairing inquiry, learning from multiple knowledges, and standardized monitoring aligns with strategies used in a youth environmental monitoring program in northern Canada seeking to inform decision-making (Fresque-Baxter, 2014), and reinforces the sense that projects designed to span these elements are possible. Findings from this thesis, and particularly the six pathways of influence underscore the need for ongoing reflection on how we think and talk about the concept of ‘monitoring’. In particular, this research raises the question of whether the term ‘monitoring’ can properly 131 encompass the activities that youth, volunteers, and community members are taking part in on the land when they are doing community science. This is especially an important consideration in school-based monitoring contexts where cross-curricular activities, leadership skills, and connecting to place and others are core components of the program (and which have been identified in this research as key contributors to influencing decisionmaking). Could an alternative to the term ‘monitoring’ better evoke the broad and important ‘action’ that is being undertaken by youth groups when they are on the land? A different term might also better evoke how (as this research has highlighted) there is a unique role at play here for youth as part of our collective efforts to take notice of and live sustainably on this planet. This notion is similar to the Maori cultural monitoring activities where youth must be present to conduct a valid stream assessment (Tipa & Tierney, 2003). A conversation on terminology for SBM could feed into the ongoing dialogue around the terminology used for community science (Grandisoli, 2021). 6.4 Research Lessons, Limitations and Recommendations The design of this research as action-oriented case study research has generated a range of lessons. Combining qualitative research methods with the design and coordination of collaborative water monitoring sessions proved to be demanding, challenging, and helpful in building understandings about school-based monitoring and making recommendations for future work. The following sections summarize the key methodological lessons learned and the limitations of the research design. 6.4.1 Lessons from Combining Water Monitoring, Interviews, and Workshops When feeling overwhelmed at the prospect of learning qualitative methods while also developing water monitoring protocols, I gained motivation from scholars such as Crain et al. 132 (2014) who encourage CS researcher to engage with: “tools designed to simultaneously capture both social and ecological information” (p. 649) to grasp how human interactions with social-ecological systems relate to outcomes for watersheds and ecosystems. This emphasis also helps inform the following recommendations for others interested in doing this kind of research. Bringing people together is the most important element to this kind of research. The importance of bringing youth and knowledge users (scientists/decision -makers) together into one room has been emphasized again and again in this research, reinforcing other calls for this in the literature (Ady, 2016; Thornton & Leahy, 2012). During interviews, decisionmaker, student, and teacher groups all had different information and data interests for monitoring. These differences support Kim et al.’s (2011) findings that data collectors and knowledge users have very different senses of what data is needed and usable and motivates the need for these groups to learn from each. Creativity is needed to design methods for bringing people together. There appears to be a methodological gap in CS research for how best to learn about and pair needs of knowledge users and interests of volunteer groups. Across the literature reviewed, there are several ad-hoc approaches including interviews, brainstorming sessions (Kim et al., 2011), workshops and surveys (Behmel et al., 2018) and community meetings (Stevens et al., 2014). In qualitative research, there is a lack of established methods for bringing groups together in this way, and instead, most of the time data collection with groups are labelled ‘focus groups’ and often inappropriately (Coreil, 1994). It is important to develop accepted methods to enable these types of interactions. Learnings from the phased approach in this research emphasize the benefits of interviewing distinct groups separately (i.e., students, and decision-makers) and then also, at a later stage, bringing the various players together. 133 Separate interviews help to build comfort and familiarity about a topic, which then supports participants to engage confidently and comfortably (especially youth) in multi-stakeholder venues. Pay attention to the issue of scale. The issue of scale arose during the research design phase and when choosing a case study, which is not surprising as issues of scale are inherent to resource management, governance, and monitoring (Cundill & Fabricius, 2009; Cash et al., 2006). These kinds of issues are what Cash et al. (2006) call ‘scale challenges’, when there are mismatches across spatial, jurisdictional, and temporal scales. From a community science perspective, programs most often target provincial or municipal governments (Kim et al., 2011; Carlson & Cohen, 2018), which can align with the level of an individual school, or school district, but then becomes complicated in also needing to align with the ecological spatial scale of interest for water monitoring. Decision-making for water is often split across various spatial and jurisdictional levels (Carlson & Cohen, 2018). Further, we encountered that the school year creates the potential for a mismatch at the temporal scale in that certain hydrological events of interest occur outside of the in-school months (i.e., low flows in August). In my experience, it was easiest to organize collaborations at a manageable level of one school and to then match monitoring to the appropriate spatial and jurisdictional levels. SBM research requires engaging with different knowledge cultures. Due to the ways in which this research was linked to the Koh-learning project, it became difficult to differentiate this research from the broader project. During the first mentor training session in September 2020, the teachers perceived that I was developing and building curriculum, whereas I saw myself as a researcher designing water monitoring protocols. I felt unequipped 134 and reluctant to be ‘teaching’. As described in my journal, teachers helped me to realize that boundary-crossing is necessary for us all to learn together: we ended up having a good discussion about how it is uncomfortable to cross over sectors like this… and we all have to become a little bit uncomfortable during the process. [Teacher’s name] said he thinks it is a more rich learning environment to be involved directly (as I am) because you really get the fulfillment of working with the students and really understanding first-hand what is it like to be a teacher and the logistical constraints. This challenge aligns with what Brown (2007) refers to as different “knowledge cultures”, describing how different forms of evidence are used to build conclusions and conceptualize problems across sectors or groups in society including individual, community, organizational, holistic and specialized knowledge. Parkes (2020) underscores that recognizing these knowledge cultures is the first step that can then be linked to strategies for working across them. With reference to Brown’s knowledge cultures, graduate research falls within the organizational/academic knowledge culture, whereas the Koh-learning project falls within the community knowledge culture. Looking back on the research journey I can now recognise that encountering barriers between knowledge cultures was likely one source of frustration I experienced during the research when trying to align my research goals with the Koh-Learning project. Yet, when goals did align in the project this was highly rewarding. For example, when the mentorship program became a success for both monitoring and educational goals and was fulfilling on a personal level. Learning from crossing boundaries and knowledge cultures lends greater credibility to the research findings and is something I came to view as one of the major strengths of my master’s research. 135 6.4.2 Limitations of the Research Generalizability of the case study. The insights from this research need to be seen in relation to ongoing debates around what findings from action research and case study research, if any, can be generalized beyond the context (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014). Several issues of generalizability arise in this study. First, I have applied Yin’s (2018) assertions that case study research findings can be used to refine and adapt theories in the literature (termed ‘analytical generalizability’). As Yin (2018) describes: “case studies like experiments, are generalizable to theoretical propositions and not to populations or universes… in doing case study research, your goal will be to expand and generalize theories or analytical generalizations and not to extrapolate probabilities (statistical generalizations)” (p. 21). Examples of analytical generalization include drawing on case study findings to adapt the pathways of influence framework (Figure 5.2) by building on McKinley et al. (2017), and adapting the social learning approach for monitoring (Figure 5.3) by building on Cundill and Fabricius (2009). It is also important to keep in mind that the context and people are inseparable from the findings. To address this, Stake (1995) argues that those who intend to use case study research findings are responsible for appropriately applying the findings (termed ‘naturalistic generalization’). I expect that the usefulness of the social learning approach to SBM (Figure 5.3) may vary depending on the context. To facilitate this and best prepare readers to adequately understand the context within which the results are derived, Chapter Three and Four provided extensive detail about context. Representation of perspectives in the research. Community science projects (and especially participatory workshops) are susceptible to the common mistake of failing to represent anything but the dominant mainstream views, and thus excluding the demographic 136 of society who stand to benefit most from the project (Buytaert et al., 2014). In the context of this research project, I have tried to be attentive to representation of Indigenous people and women/girls in research activities and believe that I was successful. However, it was not possible to recruit participants from all categories of the decision-maker group. Though attempts were made to recruit members of the agricultural community to the decision-maker group (adult farmers, ranchers) I was unsuccessfully and so their perspectives are missing from this study. While I was conducting the research, members of the agricultural community vocalized apprehension towards the Koh-learning project and concerns that stream stewardship conflicted with farming values and practices, at the same time participants noted this dynamic has vastly improved in recent years. As in other contexts, relationships between farmers and watershed restoration activities can be contentious (Duncan & Diprose, 2020). Future research and activities by the Koh-learning initiative should continue to make efforts to include perspectives of farmers into defining the shared goals for the program. How my positionality affected the research. Over the course of the research, I reflected on how different axes of my positionality influenced my engagement with the research setting, participants, and data. My identity as a young, white woman meant that I held privileges that enabled me to navigate the research process in ways that I may not have been aware of. Having experience working with youth, I found it fun and fulfilling to work with and learn from mentor students, especially in the field. My identity also potentially influenced the fact that 8/10 mentors were young women. By working as a member of the Koh-learning Design team, I had learned to value youth knowledge and perspectives and I put effort towards listening to and upholding youth ideas. This helped me to develop trust with youth which was instrumental for enabling the collaborative elements of the project. 137 In relation to the community, I was both an outside and an insider. Being from the north, I felt I could relate to and connect to people in Vanderhoof in the way that people from rural and remote communities can. I also held insider status by working for Koh-learning and for the Nechako Watershed Roundtable as many in the watershed space came to know me. Despite this, my background as the daughter of government workers from a region with minimal food production or resource extraction meant that the agricultural, forestry and mining contexts were unfamiliar to me. I was constantly learning about the dynamics amongst actors in an agricultural community, and my naivety in this space may have resulted in my missing some nuance in discussions. At the same time, teachers often remarked that youth were more likely to pay attention to newcomers to the community, and that being from the university helped foster interest and respect. I also wonder if being an outsider provided me with some neutrality and enabled making connections with a range of players across community divides, particularly with First Nation participants, not least due to the longstanding impacts of colonisation (Moran, 1988), that have created a complex and sometimes tenuous relationship between Vanderhoof and Saik’uz communities (Striegler, 2014). Since the data collection concluded, my positionality has shifted in that I have relocated back to the Yukon Territory to pursue a job working with the Government of Yukon’s Water Resources Branch. Being within a territorial government has further highlighted how connections between monitoring and decision-making are murky at all levels. This reinforces my assertion that those within government could greatly benefit from cross-sectoral processes to genuinely contemplate where, how, and for what purpose we are monitoring. The Water Resources Branch is currently working on an initiative to better understand how government monitoring networks might be adapted to make space for 138 different ways of knowing and learning about water. This underscores the opportunity for government staff to learn from CS groups and SBM, and the ways they are leaders in learning from diverse knowledges as part of monitoring activities (Keats, 2020). 6.4.3 Recommendations and Implications Although the number of cycles of learning and reflection needs to be limited within the timeframe of a master’s research project, this also underscores the potential for future research. If the project had continued for another year, a priority would have been to action some of the ‘next steps’ identified in the group workshop, such as having youth spend more time with the data, creating different kinds of opportunities for sharing the data, and working with Saik’uz First Nation to develop a cultural orientation to being on the land as part of sessions. Future graduate research could continue learning cycles with Koh-learning to examine less explored themes (in this research and elsewhere) such as the role of place connection in youth experiences of SBM (Haywood, 2014) and relationships to water (Fresque-Baxter, 2015) and how these relate to the pathways of influencing decision-making. The findings of this study regarding pathways of influence for SBM to inform decision-making also suggest that it would be valuable to see comparative case studies to learn about if and how these pathways manifest in other contexts. Future work might consider longitudinal action-oriented research to further explore social learning outcomes of SBM when linking to decision-making and particularly, the potential for both the ‘identifying issues and imagining solutions’ and ‘reconciliation’ pathways to inform decision-making. Going beyond previous studies, my research suggests that the mentorship program model is an effective strategy to support accurate data collection, and many other learning outcomes for youth. Further research is needed to examine the links between the mentorship program 139 model and data accuracy, impacts on decision-making, and the long-term impacts of social, leadership and team building outcomes. As identified by research participants, another area of potential action research would be to understand how to foster balanced conversations between decision-makers and youth that might allow for co-designing monitoring protocols that meet a variety of needs. Work in this area might involve bringing together thinking from Youth Participatory Action Research (Foster-Fishman et al., 2010) with educational strategies to create ‘patterns of interaction’ for meaningfully including ‘student voice’ (Mitra, 2005). Additionally, resources such as B.C.’s ‘Youth Engagement Toolkit’ could provide a starting point by giving tools to support asking/answering questions such as ‘how ready are we to engage with youth’ and ‘do adults and youth have joint rights and responsibilities?’ (B.C. Government, 2013). This research has also identified several implications for players within CS and SBM networks especially, as noted in Section 6.4.1, highlighting that bringing people together is integral to inform decision-making and foster educational outcomes. Yet, a well-known barrier to bringing people together is the significant transaction time required for relationship building, coordinating schedules and planning sessions, and the initial discomfort that may arise. Though there is likely a role for school administrators in convening players, more onus should be on governments to also instigate connections with youth monitoring. This research adds more reasons to existing motivation for land and water managers to prioritize working with youth (Ady, 2016; Fresque-Baxter, 2015), including the 10 Calls to Action for Natural Scientists, which urges scientists to engage youth (with emphasis on Indigenous youth) in their work (Wong et al., 2020). Relatedly, collaborative monitoring organizations should make efforts to not let youth slip off the radar and ensure tailored resources for school-based and youth-based monitoring. 140 At the end of this project, questions remain around where the responsibility lies to enable (and fund) SBM activities, including coordinating monitoring sessions and the mentorship program in an ongoing manner. It is my hope that the frameworks offered in this research can help to build the case for governments at all levels to recognize the service being provided by CS/SBM programs and contribute to making them sustainable. For example, often in CS projects agencies can provide in-kind support by helping to define program goals and protocols, offering training, and carrying out sample analysis. As for the education system, as much as possible land-based learning needs to be encouraged, supported, and resourced from school administrators to reduce barriers to SBM. As suggested by the Koh-learning project, universities can fill the role of an enabler, coordinator, and broker in SBM projects that are seeking to inform decision-making (Bae et al., 1997), yet sustainable funding is needed. Of critical importance, SBM monitoring activities should as much as possible seek to support Indigenous leadership in environmental governance, including monitoring programs and look to new strategies for co-developing projects (Keats, 2020). Additionally, future projects might more actively contemplate the strengths and weaknesses of working more closely with industry and farmers in a schoolbased monitoring context. As actors with significant autonomy on the landscape, there is potential to learn from industry-led monitoring efforts, and their potential to contribute to wider social learning processes, to fuel critical conversations and, potentially, to gain access to funding. 6.5 Conclusion This research fills a gap by offering a case study of school-based monitoring during an active process of trialling connections with decision-making. The research process 141 included literature review, piloting a mentorship program to engage youth in water monitoring trials, conducting interviews with students, teachers, and decision-makers to identify ways to adapt the program, and group workshops to discuss next steps. Informed by times I have spent with youth at the stream, and the testimony of students and teachers at NVSS, this research has deepened my appreciation of the powerful learning that can take place through school-based monitoring. The research findings align with what Ruiz-Mallén et al. (2016) refer to as transformational learning, and what others refer to as social learning, productive agency, and environmental agency. Overall, the research has underscored the importance of fostering peer-to-peer conversations, youth working with the data, and mentorship across ages in school-based monitoring programs. The research findings also highlight that engaging youth and schools in monitoring has unique benefits for decision-making. This implies that there are advantages to understanding school-based monitoring that are distinct from adult-focused community science, especially when it comes to informing decision-making. In addition, the research has pointed to ways that school-based monitoring can be enhanced by creating space for youth to apply their imagination to local problems, to align with Indigenous water laws and ways of knowing, and to engage in conversation with decision-makers that lead to adapting monitoring plans and taking action. The insights gained from this research in the Nechako suggest that well-designed school-based monitoring efforts, that are focused on local knowledges and decision-making, have the potential to contribute to a paradigm shift in water management, with benefits across generations for watersheds and communities. 142 Bibliography Abbott, B. W., Moatar, F., Gauthier, O., Fovet, O., Antoine, V., & Ragueneau, O. (2018). Trends and seasonality of river nutrients in agricultural catchments: 18 years of weekly citizen science in France. Science of The Total Environment, 624, 845–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.176 Aboriginal Education. (2019). School District 91 Nechako Lakes. https://www.sd91.bc.ca/apps/pages/district-map-nechako-lakes Ady, J. C. (2016). Framing youth citizen science for education, youth development and public land conservation [Doctoral Dissertation]. Prescott College. Anderson, E. P., Jackson, S., Tharme, R. E., Douglas, M., Flotemersch, J. E., Zwarteveen, M., Lokgariwar, C., Montoya, M., Wali, A., Tipa, G. T., Jardine, T. D., Olden, J. D., Cheng, L., Conallin, J., Cosens, B., Dickens, C., Garrick, D., Groenfeldt, D., Kabogo, J., … Arthington, A. H. (2019). Understanding rivers and their social relations: A critical step to advance environmental water management. WIREs. Water, 6(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1381 Andrews, E. J., Staples, K., Reed, M. G., Carriere, R., MacColl, I., McKay-Carriere, L., Fresque-Baxter, J., & Steelman, T. A. (2019). Insights for building community resilience from prioritizing youth in environmental change research. Sustainability, 11(18), 4916. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184916 Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 Arthington, A. H., Bhaduri, A., Bunn, S. E., Jackson, S. E., Tharme, R. E., Tickner, D., Young, B., Acreman, M., Baker, N., Capon, S., Horne, A. C., Kendy, E., McClain, M. E., Poff, N. L., Richter, B. D., & Ward, S. (2018). The Brisbane Declaration and Global Action Agenda on Environmental Flows (2018). Frontiers in Environmental Science, 6, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00045 Au, J., Bagchi, P., Chen, B., Martinez, R., Dudley, S. A., & Sorger, G. J. (2000). Methodology for public monitoring of total coliforms, Escherichia coli and toxicity in waterways by Canadian high school students. Journal of Environmental Management, 58(3), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2000.0323 Babu, S. C., & Reidhead, W. (2000). Monitoring natural resources for policy interventions: A conceptual framework, issues, and challenges. Land Use Policy, 17(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-8377(99)00033-2 Bae, G., Io, R. F., Lee, F., Lukasik, L., MacDougall, A., Martinez, R., Pullen, J., Wheeldon, I., Zaimi, O., & Sorger, G. (1997). Stream monitoring and stewardship programme involving a partnership between community organizations, high schools and a university. Lake and Reservoir Management, 13(3), 246–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/07438149709354315 143 Bale, S. A. (2016). Youth involvement in participatory watershed planning: Understanding the relationships between well-being, participatory governance and watersheds [Masters Thesis]. York University. Ballard, H. L., Dixon, C. G. H., & Harris, E. M. (2017). Youth-focused citizen science: Examining the role of environmental science learning and agency for conservation. Biological Conservation, 208, 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.024 Barlak, R. (2016). Regional District of Nanaimo Community Watershed Monitoring Network: 2014 data summary (p. 55). Regional District of Nanaimo and B.C. Ministry of Environment. Bartlett, C., Marshall, M., & Marshall, A. (2012). Two-eyed seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together Indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0086-8 Bartlett, C., Marshall, M., Marshall, A., & Iwama, M. (2015). Integrative science and twoeyed seeing: Enriching the discussion framework for healthy communities. In Ecosystems, Society and Health: Pathways through Diversity, Convergence and Integration. McGill-Queen’s University Press. Battiste, M. (2013). Decolonizing education: Nourishing the learning spirit. UBC Press. https://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=5652479 Bauer, M. S., Damschroder, L., Hagedorn, H., Smith, J., & Kilbourne, A. M. (2015). An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist. BMC Psychology, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-015-0089-9 B.C. Government. (2013). Youth engagement toolkit. BC Government, Ministry of Children and Family Development. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/family-socialsupports/data-monitoring-quality-assurance/information-for-service-providers/youthengagement-toolkit B.C. Government. (2019). Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act: Fact sheet. B.C. Government. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/british-columbians-ourgovernments/indigenous-people/aboriginal-peoples-documents/bc_declaration_actfactsheet-general.pdf B.C. Ministry of Agriculture. (2014). Growing knowledge land use inventory: Vanderhoof & Electoral Area F, summer 2013 (Reference No. 800.510-79.2014)). BC Ministry of Agrilculture. B.C. Ministry of Education. (n.d.). First Peoples Principles of Learning. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/kindergarten-to-grade12/teach/teaching-tools/aboriginal-education/principles_of_learning.pdf 144 B.C. Ministry of Environment. (2006). Continuous water-quality sampling programs: Operating procedures (p. 75) [Handbook]. Watershed and Aquifer Science, Science and Information Branch, B.C. Ministry of Environment. B.C. Ministry of Environment. (2013a). B.C. Field sampling manual part A: Quality control and quality assurance. B.C. Ministry of Environment. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/research-monitoring-andreporting/monitoring/emre/bc_field_sampling_manual_part_a.pdf B.C. Ministry of Environment. (2013b). B.C. Field sampling manual part E: Water and wastewater sampling. B.C. Ministry of Environment. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/research-monitoring-andreporting/monitoring/emre/bc_field_sampling_manual_part_e.pdf Beach, D., & Clark, D. (2015). Scenario planning during rapid ecological change: Lessons and perspectives from workshops with southwest Yukon wildlife managers. Ecology and Society, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07379-200161 Behmel, S., Damour, M., Ludwig, R., & Rodriguez, M. J. (2018). Participative approach to elicit water quality monitoring needs from stakeholder groups—An application of integrated watershed management. Journal of Environmental Management, 218, 540– 554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.076 Bennett, G., & Jessani, N. (2011). The knowledge translation toolkit: Bridging the know-do gap: A resource for researchers. International Development Research Centre. Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory research methods: A methodological approach in motion. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-13.1.1801 Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (1998). Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience (1st edition). Cambridge University Press. Best, A., & Holmes, B. (2010). Systems thinking, knowledge and action: Towards better models and methods. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 6(2), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426410X502284 Bodin, Ö., & Crona, B. I. (2009). The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference? Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 366–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.05.002 Bonney, P., Murphy, A., Hansen, B., & Baldwin, C. (2020). Citizen science in Australia’s waterways: Investigating linkages with catchment decision-making. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 27(2), 200–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2020.1741456 145 Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Phillips, T., Shirk, J., & Wilderman, C. (2009). Public participation in scientific research: Defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Centre for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE). Bonney, R., Shirk, J., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Ballard, H., Miller-Rushing, A., & Parrish, J. (2014). Next steps for citizen science. Science, 343(6178), 1436–1437. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251554 Bourhis, J. (2017). Narrative literature review. In M. Allen (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381411.n370 Bradbury, H. (2015). The SAGE handbook of action research (Third Edition). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781473921290 Brandes, L., Wood, C., & Vogel, A. (Eds.). (2020). Watersheds 2020- Stepping stones to collaborative watershed governance: Edited Proceedings (p. 36). Brandes, O. M., Carr-Wilson, S., Curran, D., & Simms, R. (2015). Awash with opportunity: Ensuring the sustainability of British Columbia’s new water law. POLIS Project on Ecological Governance & Environmental Law Centre, University of Victoria. Bridge, C. H. (2018). Land education and reconciliation: Exploring educators’ practice [University of British Columbia]. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0365284 Brown, V. A. (2007). Collective thinking for a connected world: Combining knowledges towards whole-of-community change. Ecology and Health: People and Places in a Changing World, 13. Brown, V. A. (2008). A collective social learning pattern. EuroPLoP Workshop, 14. Brown, V. A., Harris, J. A., & Russell, J. Y. (2010). Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination. Earthscan. Buckland-Nicks, A., Castleden, H., & Conrad, C. (2016). Aligning community-based water monitoring program designs with goals for enhanced environmental management. Journal of Science Communication, 15(3), A01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15030201 Buytaert, W., Zulkafli, Z., Grainger, S., Acosta, L., Alemie, T. C., Bastiaensen, J., De Bièvre, B., Bhusal, J., Clark, J., Dewulf, A., Foggin, M., Hannah, D. M., Hergarten, C., Isaeva, A., Karpouzoglou, T., Pandeya, B., Paudel, D., Sharma, K., Steenhuis, T., … Zhumanova, M. (2014). Citizen science in hydrology and water resources: Opportunities for knowledge generation, ecosystem service management, and sustainable development. Frontiers in Earth Science, 2, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2014.00026 146 Cajete, G. (2000). Native science: Natural laws of interdependence (1st edition). Clear Light Publishers. Callaghan, P., Paraone, R., Murray, M., Tahau, N., Edgarton, S., Bates, E., Ataria, E., Heremaia, H., Rupene, N., Wilson, E., Hanham, L., Soal, D., & Ataria, J. (2018). Tuākana/Teina Water Warriors Project: A collaborative learning model integrating mātauranga Māori and science. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 52(4), 666–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.2018.1509880 Campbell, I. (2004). Towards integrated freshwater policies for Canada’s future. Horizons, 6(4), 3–7. Canada Water Act, Pub. L. No. c. C-11, R.S.C. (1985). https://lawslois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-11/page-1.html Carlson, T., & Cohen, A. (2018). Linking community-based monitoring to water policy: Perceptions of citizen scientists. Journal of Environmental Management, 219, 168– 177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.077 carr, t., & Ranco, D. (2017). Citizen science and traditional ecological knowledge—Values of inclusion in the wabanaki youth science program. Maine Policy Review, 26(2), 86– 88. Carr, G. (2015). Stakeholder and public participation in river basin management—An introduction. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 2(4), 393–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1086 Carrier Sekani Tribal Council. (2007). Carrier Sekani Tribal Council: A CSTC background (p. 14). Carrier Sekani Tribal Council. http://www.carriersekani.ca/images/docs/cstc/CSTC%20Background%20%20Feb%202007.pdf Cash, D., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., & Young, O. (2006). Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01759110208 Castleden, H. (2016). Connecting community based water monitoring with environmental management and stewardship in Canada (p. 7). Water Economics, Policy and Governance Network & Canadian Water Network. https://cwnrce.ca/report/connecting-community-based-water-monitoring-with-environmentalmanagement-and-stewardship-in-canada/ Charles, A., Loucks, L., Berkes, F., & Armitage, D. (2020). Community science: A typology and its implications for governance of social-ecological systems. Environmental Science & Policy, 106, 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.01.019 147 Clermont, H. (2018). The underbelly of economy versus environment conflicts: Detangling sources of tension in contentious natural resource decisions [Doctoral Dissertation]. Royal Roads University (Canada). Coghlan, D., & Brydon-Miller, M. (2014). Generalizability. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446294406.n154 Conrad, C. C., & Hilchey, K. G. (2011). A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: Issues and opportunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 176(1), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1582-5 Conroy, M. J., & Peterson, J. T. (2013). Decision making in natural resource management: A structured, adaptive approach (Pap/Psc edition). Wiley-Blackwell. Corden, A., & Sainsbury, R. (2006). Using verbatim quotations in reporting qualitative social research: Researchers’ views. Social Policy Research Unit. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/pubs/pdf/verbquotresearch.pdf Coreil, J. (1994). Group interview methods in community health research. Medical Anthropology, 16(1–4), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.1994.9966115 Council of Canadian Academies. (2019). Greater than the sum of its parts: Toward integrated natural resource management in Canada. The Expert Panel on the State of Knowledge and Practice of Integrated Approaches to Natural Resource Management in Canada. https://cca-reports.ca/reports/the-state-of-knowledge-and-practice-ofintegrated-approaches-to-natural-resource-management-in-canada/ Crain, R., Cooper, C., & Dickinson, J. L. (2014). Citizen science: A tool for integrating studies of human and natural systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 39(1), 641–665. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-030713-154609 Cranmer, J. (2019). Stream monitoring for change in school district 91. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkNSvi2p3ZA Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE. Cundill, G., & Fabricius, C. (2009). Monitoring in adaptive co-management: Toward a learning based approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(11), 3205–3211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.05.012 Danielsen, F., Jensen, A. E., Alviola, P. A., Balete, D. S., Mendoza, M., Tagtag, A., Custodio, C., & Enghoff, M. (2005). Does monitoring matter? A quantitative assessment of management decisions from locally-based monitoring of protected areas. Biodiversity & Conservation, 14(11), 2633–2652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-8392-z 148 Davids, J. C., Rutten, M. M., Pandey, A., Devkota, N., Oyen, W. D. van, Prajapati, R., & Giesen, N. van de. (2019). Citizen science flow – an assessment of simple streamflow measurement methods. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 23(2), 1045–1065. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-1045-2019 Déry, S., Owens, P., Parkes, M., Petticrew, E., & Booth, B. (2021). Integrated watershed research in the Nechako. An evening on the Nechako. https://www2.unbc.ca/integrated-watershed-research-group/iwrg-publications-andpresentations Dickinson, J., & Bonney, R. (Eds.). (2012). Citizen science: Public participation in environmental research. Cornell University Press. SD91. (2019). District map – Nechako Lakes. School District 91 Nechako Lakes. https://www.sd91.bc.ca/apps/pages/district-map-nechako-lakes Dowswell, D. (2020). Nechako Valley Secondary School: 2020-21 School plan to enhance student achievement. Nechako Valley Secondary School. https://22.files.edl.io/dbe6/03/17/21/221835-3f1f866f-9f08-4234-807c255073659253.pdf Dragon Smith, C., & Grandjambe, R. (2020, September 10). To Wood Buffalo National Park, with love. Briarpatch Magazine. https://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/towood-buffalo-national-park-with-love Duncan, R., & Diprose, G. (2020). Collaboration and practice change in resource management: Collective action case studies from Central Otago (Contract Report No. LC3859; p. 46). Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research. Edwards, P. M. (2016). The value of long-term stream invertebrate data collected by citizen scientists. PLOS ONE, 11(4), e0153713. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153713 Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2014). Nechako river migratory bird sanctuary. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/migratory-birdsanctuaries/locations/nechako-river.html Fernandez-Gimenez, M., Ballard, H., & Sturtevant, V. (2008). Adaptive management and social learning in collaborative and community-based monitoring: A study of five community-based forestry organizations in the western USA. Ecology and Society, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02400-130204 Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., & Ballard, H. L. (2011). How CBCs learn: Ecological monitoring and adaptive management. In Community based collaboratives: Bridging socioecological research and practice (pp. 45–80). University of Virginia Press. 149 Fetterman, D. M., Kaftarian, S. J., & Wandersman, A. (2015). Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment, evaluation capacity building, and accountability. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483387079 First Nations Education Steering Committee. (2007). First Peoples principles of learning. First Nations Education Steering Committee FNESC. http://www.fnesc.ca/firstpeoples-principles-of-learning/ Fisher, K., & Phelps, R. (2016). Recipe or performing art?: Challenging conventions for writing action research theses. Action Research, 4(2), 143–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750306063989 Fisher, S. (2016). Life trajectories of youth committing to climate activism. Environmental Education Research, 22(2), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1007337 Fore, L. S., Paulsen, K., & O’Laughlin, K. (2001). Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams. Freshwater Biology, 46(1), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2001.00640.x Foster-Fishman, P. G., Law, K. M., Lichty, L. F., & Aoun, C. (2010). Youth ReACT for social change: A method for youth participatory action research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1), 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9316-y Fraser Basin Council. (2011). Rethinking our water ways: A guide to water and watershed planning for B.C. communities in the face of climate change and other challenges. Fraser Basin Council. https://www.rethinkingwater.ca/_Library/docs/FBC_WaterGuide_FINAL.pdf Fraser Basin Council. (2016). Towards a healthy Nechako: Nechako watershed strategy. Fraser Basin Council. https://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/_Library/UFR/Nechako_Watershed_Strategy31Oct2016-FINAL.pdf French, T. D. (2005). Water and sediment quality in the Nechako river (British Columbia, Canada): The synergistic effects of point-source effluents, historic flow reductions and submerged macrophytes (p. 49). Nechako White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative, c/o B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Environmental Stewardship Division. Fresque-Baxter, J. (2014). Project highlights from engaging Fort Resolution youth in cumulative impacts monitoring and assessment: Developing and operationalizing a framework for youth engagement (NWT Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program) [Annual project status report and b) project completion report]. Government of the Northwest Territories. https://nwtdiscoveryportal.enr.gov.nt.ca/geoportaldocuments/REPORT%20%202013-14%20-%20GNWT%20(FRESQUE-BAXTER)%20-%20CIMP156%20- 150 %20(CIMP%20FINAL%20REPORT)%20FORT%20RESOLUTION%20YOUTH% 20PROJECT.pdf Fresque-Baxter, J. (2015). ‘Water is life’: Exploring the relationship between place identity, water and adaptive capacity in Fort Resolution, Northwest Territories, Canada [Doctoral Dissertation, Wilfrid Laurier University]. https://scholars.wlu.ca/etd/1701 Gibbs, A. (2012). Focus groups and group interviews. In Research Methods and Methodologies in Education. SAGE. Gislason, M. K., Morgan, V. S., Mitchell-Foster, K., & Parkes, M. W. (2018). Voices from the landscape: Storytelling as emergent counter-narratives and collective action from northern B.C .watersheds. Health & Place, 54, 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.08.024 Gober, P., Larson, K. L., Quay, R., Polsky, C., Chang, H., & Shandas, V. (2013). Why land planners and water managers don’t talk to one another and why they should! Society & Natural Resources, 26(3), 356–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.713448 Goodman, S. (2022). Dirty water? Clean it up! The Science Teacher, 89(3), 38–45. Government of Canada. (n.d.). Species profile (white sturgeon)—Species at risk public registry. Retrieved March 20, 2022, from https://wildlife-species.canada.ca/speciesrisk-registry/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=123 Government of Canada. (2016, September 7). Where our legal system comes from—About Canada’s System of Justice. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/03.html Grandisoli, T. (2021, August 13). The controversy over the term “citizen science.” CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/what-on-earth-citizen-science-community1.6139049 Grant, L., & Langpap, C. (2018). Private provision of public goods by environmental groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805336115 Greening, C., Mar, L., Tillman, R., & Sandborn, C. (2020). The case for a guardian network initiative. B.C. First Nations Energy and Mining Council and the UVIC Environmental Law Centre. Gregersen, H. M., Ffolliott, P. F., & Brookes, K. N. (2007). Integrated watershed management: Connecting people to their land and water (Illustrated edition). CABI. Groenfeldt, D. (2019). Why we need water ethics: A values-based framework can guide water policy decisions that are both practical and moral. American Scientist, 107(5), 270–274. 151 Groulx, M., Brisbois, M. C., Lemieux, C. J., Winegardner, A., & Fishback, L. (2017). A role for nature-based citizen science in promoting individual and collective climate change action? A systematic review of learning outcomes. Science Communication, 39(1), 45–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016688324 Groulx, M., Winegardner, A., Brisbois, M. C., Fishback, L. A., Linde, R., Levy, K., & Booth, A. (2021). Place and transformative learning in climate change focused community science. FACETS, 6, 1773–1794. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2021-0003 Gurnell, A. M., England, J., Shuker, L., & Wharton, G. (2019). The contribution of citizen science volunteers to river monitoring and management: International and national perspectives and the example of the MoRPh survey. River Research and Applications, 35(8), 1359–1373. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3483 Hacker, K. (2013). Community-based participatory research. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452244181 Hadj-Hammou, J., Loiselle, S., Ophof, D., & Thornhill, I. (2017). Getting the full picture: Assessing the complementarity of citizen science and agency monitoring data. PLOS ONE, 12(12), e0188507. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188507 Hall, B., Etmanski, C., & Dawson, T. (Eds.). (2014). Learning and teaching communitybased research: Linking pedagogy to practice. University of Toronto Press. Hall, L. (1992). The Carrier, my people. L. Hall. Han, H., & Ahn, S. W. (2020). Youth mobilization to stop global climate change: Narratives and impact. Sustainability, 12(10), 4127. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104127 Harris, E. M., Dixon, C. G. H., Bird, E. B., & Ballard, H. L. (2019). For science and self: Youth interactions with data in community and citizen science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 0(0), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1693379 Hartman, G. F. (1996). Impacts of growth in resource use and human population on the Nechako River: A major tributary of the Fraser River, British Columbia, Canada. GeoJournal, 40(1), 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00222540 Haywood, B. K. (2014). A “sense of place” in public participation in scientific research. Science Education, 98(1), 64–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21087 Hecker, S., Haklay, M., Bowser, A., Makuch, Z., Vogel, J., & Bonn, A. (2018). Citizen science innovation in open science, society and policy. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781787352339 Helm, R., MacDonald, D., Sinclair, B., Chan, D., Herrington, T., Chambers, A., & Shepard, B. G. (1980). A review of the Nechako River Watershed. 152 Holling, C. S., & Meffe, G. K. (1996). Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology, 10(2), 328–337. HydroloGIS. (n.d.). Geopaparazzi reference manual. Retrieved March 28, 2022, from https://www.geopaparazzi.org/geopaparazzi/#_from_google_play IWRG. (n.d.). Integrated Watershed Research Group. University of Northern British Columbia. Retrieved March 24, 2022, from https://www2.unbc.ca/integratedwatershed-research-group Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science a study of people, expertise, and sustainable development. Routledge. Isaac, N. J. B., Strien, A. J. van, August, T. A., Zeeuw, M. P. de, & Roy, D. B. (2014). Statistics for citizen science: Extracting signals of change from noisy ecological data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 5(10), 1052–1060. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041210X.12254 Jerneck, A., Olsson, L., Ness, B., Anderberg, S., Baier, M., Clark, E., Hickler, T., Hornborg, A., Kronsell, A., Lövbrand, E., & Persson, J. (2011). Structuring sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 6(1), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-0100117-x Johnson, J. T., Howitt, R., Cajete, G., Berkes, F., Louis, R. P., & Kliskey, A. (2016). Weaving Indigenous and sustainability sciences to diversify our methods. Sustainability Science, 11(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0349-x Jollymore, A. (2017). From streams to citizens: A multi-lens investigation of water quality through carbon cycles and participation within water science and policy. [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of British Columbia. Joseph, B. (2014, August 14). Why you should avoid using “Crown Lands” in Indigenous consultation. Indigenous Corporate Training. https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/why-youshould-avoid-using-crown-lands-in-indigenous-consultation Kay, J. J., Regier, H. A., Boyle, M., & Francis, G. (1999). An ecosystem approach for sustainability: Addressing the challenge of complexity. Futures, 31(7), 721–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(99)00029-4 Keats, B. (2020). Exploration of Indigenous knowledge in community-based monitoring initiatives: Challenges and recommendations [Thesis MA Interdisciplinary Studies]. Royal Roads University https://viurrspace.ca/handle/10613/23273 Keen, M., Brown, V. A., & Dyball, R. (2005). Social learning: A new approach to environmental management. In Social Learning in Environmental Management. Routledge. 153 Kim, S., Robson, C., Zimmerman, T., Pierce, J., & Haber, E. M. (2011). Creek watch: Pairing usefulness and usability for successful citizen science. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2125–2134. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979251 Koh-learning in our Watersheds. (2021). Community update: Koh-learning in our watersheds. Integrated Watershed Research Group. https://www2.unbc.ca/sites/default/files/sections/integrated-watershed-researchgroup/june2021communityupdatefinal.pdf Koh-learning in our Watersheds. (n.d.). University of Northern British Columbia. Retrieved March 15, 2020, from https://www.unbc.ca/integrated-watershed-research-group/kohlearning-our-watersheds Kolok, A. S., Schoenfuss, H. L., Propper, C. R., & Vail, T. L. (2011). Empowering citizen scientists: The strength of many in monitoring biologically active environmental contaminants. BioScience, 61(8), 626–630. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.8.9 Kroetsch, N. C. (2021). Improving environmental monitoring collaborations through codevelopment of data management plans: A guide for resource management agencies and environmental stewardship groups. Levy, D. A., & Nicklin, P. (2018). Chinook and sockeye salmon conservation in the netʃa koh (nechako) river in Northern B.C. Upper Fraser Fisheries Conservation Alliance and the Nechako Fisheries Conservation Program. Little, K. E., Hayashi, M., & Liang, S. (2016). Community-based groundwater monitoring network using a citizen-science approach. Groundwater, 54(3), 317–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12336 Lubchenco, J. (1998). Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science. Science, 279(5350), 491–497. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.279.5350.491 Marchezini, V., Trajber, R., Olivato, D., Muñoz, V. A., de Oliveira Pereira, F., & Oliveira Luz, A. E. (2017). Participatory early warning systems: Youth, citizen science, and intergenerational dialogues on disaster risk reduction in Brazil. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 8(4), 390–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-017-0150-9 McGreavy, B., Calhoun, A., Jansujwicz, J., & Levesque, V. (2016). Citizen science and natural resource governance: Program design for vernal pool policy innovation. Ecology and Society, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08437-210248 McKay, A. J., & Johnson, C. J. (2017). Confronting barriers and recognizing opportunities: Developing effective community-based environmental monitoring programs to meet the needs of Aboriginal communities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 64, 16–25. 154 McKinley, D. C., Miller-Rushing, A. J., Ballard, H. L., Bonney, R., Brown, H., Cook-Patton, S. C., Evans, D. M., French, R. A., Parrish, J. K., Phillips, T. B., Ryan, S. F., Shanley, L. A., Shirk, J. L., Stepenuck, K. F., Weltzin, J. F., Wiggins, A., Boyle, O. D., Briggs, R. D., Chapin, S. F., … Soukup, M. A. (2017). Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental protection. Biological Conservation, 208, 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.015 McQuillan, D. (2014). The countercultural potential of citizen science. M/C Journal, 17. http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/919 Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Definition of imagination. In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved January 9, 2022, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imagination Milly, P. C. D., Betancourt, J., Falkenmark, M., Hirsch, R. M., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Lettenmaier, D. P., & Stouffer, R. J. (2008). Stationarity is dead: Whither water management? Science, 319(5863), 573–574. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1151915 Mirra, N., Garcia, A., & Morrell, E. (2015). Doing youth participatory action research: Transforming inquiry with researchers, educators, and students. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315748047 Mitra, D. L. (2005). Adults advising youth: Leading while getting out of the way. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 520–553. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04269620 Moewaka Barnes, H., Henwood, W., Murray, J., Waiti, P., Pomare-Peita, M., Bercic, S., Chee, R., Mitchell, M., & McCreanor, T. (2019). Noho Taiao: Reclaiming Māori science with young people. Global Health Promotion, 26(3_suppl), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757975919829700 Moran, B. (1988). Stoney Creek Woman: The story of Mary John (10th anniversary ed edition). Arsenal Pulp Press. Nadleh Whut’en and Stellat’en. (2016a). Yinka Dene ‘Uza’hné Surface Water Management Policy. http://www.carriersekani.ca/images/docs/Yinka%20Dene%20%27Uzah%27ne%20Su rface%20Water%20Management%20Policy%20(March%2018%202016)%20(00303 183xC6E53).pdf Nadleh Whut’en and Stellat’en. (2016b). Yinka Dene ‘Uza’hné Guide to Surface Water Quality Standards. http://darac.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/Yinka-Dene-UzahneGuide-to-Surface-Water-Quality-Standards-March-18-2016-00303157xC6E53.pdf Nali, C., & Lorenzini, G. (2007). Air quality survey carried out by schoolchildren: An innovative tool for urban planning. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 131(1), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-006-9468-2 155 Nechako Environment and Water Stewardship Society. (n.d.). Nechako Environment and Water Stewardship Society. Retrieved March 27, 2022, from https://www.newssociety.org/ Nechako Fisheries Conservation Program. (n.d.). Nechako River. Nechako Fisheries Conservation Program. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.nfcp.org/nechako-river Nechako White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative. (n.d.). Nechako White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative. Retrieved March 20, 2022, from https://www.nechakowhitesturgeon.org/ Newman, G., Chandler, M., Clyde, M., McGreavy, B., Haklay, M., Ballard, H., Gray, S., Scarpino, R., Hauptfeld, R., Mellor, D., & Gallo, J. (2017). Leveraging the power of place in citizen science for effective conservation decision making. Biological Conservation, 208, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.07.019 Nicholson, E., Ryan, J., & Hodgkin, D. (2002). Community data--where does the value lie? Assessing confidence limits of community collected water quality data. Water Science and Technology: A Journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research, 45(11), 193–200. Njue, N., Stenfert Kroese, J., Gräf, J., Jacobs, S. R., Weeser, B., Breuer, L., & Rufino, M. C. (2019). Citizen science in hydrological monitoring and ecosystem services management: State of the art and future prospects. Science of The Total Environment, 693, 133531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.337 Norgaard, K. M. (2019). Salmon and acorns feed our people: Colonialism, nature, and social action. Rutgers University Press. Nunan, F. (2016). Topic guide: Governance of natural resources. Climate, Environment, Infrastructure and Livelihoods Professional Evidence and Applied Knowledge Services. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12774/eod_tg.july2016.nunanf NWR. (2019). Nechako Watershed Roundtable Terms of Reference. NWR. (2021). Nechako Watershed Roundtable Strategic Plan 2022-2026. Nechako Watershed Roundtable. https://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/_Library/UFR/NWR_Strategic_Plan_20222026_Full_Plan.pdf NWR. (n.d.). Nechako Watershed Roundtable. Retrieved December 9, 2019, from https://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/Nechako_Watershed_Roundtable.html Office of the Premier, B.C. Government. (2022, February 25). Mandate letter: Minister of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/government/ministries-organizations/premiercabinet-mlas/minister-letter/lwrs-osborne-mandate_2022_-_secured.pdf 156 Olsson, L., & Ness, B. (2019). Better balancing the social and natural dimensions in sustainability research. Ecology and Society, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11224240407 Ortlipp, M. (2008). Keeping and using reflective journals in the qualitative research process. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 695–705. Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 550–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004 Overdevest, C., Orr, C. H., & Stepenuck, K. (2004). Volunteer stream monitoring and local participation in natural resource issues. Human Ecology Review, 11(2), 177–185. JSTOR. Overholt, E., & MacKenzie, A. H. (2005). Long-term stream monitoring programs in U.S. secondary schools. Journal of Environmental Education, 36(3), 51–56. Pahl-Wostl, C., Giupponi, C., Richards, K., Binder, C., de Sherbinin, A., Sprinz, D., Toonen, T., & van Bers, C. (2013). Transition towards a new global change science: Requirements for methodologies, methods, data and knowledge. Environmental Science & Policy, 28, 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.009 Pahl-Wostl, C., Sendzimir, J., Jeffrey, P., Aerts, J., Berkamp, G., & Cross, K. (2007). Managing change toward adaptive water management through social learning. Ecology and Society, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02147-120230 Pandya, R. E. (2012). A framework for engaging diverse communities in citizen science in the US. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6), 314–317. https://doi.org/10.1890/120007 Parker, E. (2018, November 2). Stream monitoring for change in School District 91. Rivershed Society of B.C. https://rivershed.com/project-news/stream-monitoring-forchange-in-school-district-91/ Parkes, M. W. (2015). “Just add water”: Dissolving barriers to collaboration and learning for health, ecosystems and equity. In L. Hallstrom, N. Guelstorf, & M. W. Parkes (Eds.), Ecosystems, Society and Health: Pathways through Diversity, Convergence and Integration (pp. 184–222). McGill-Queen’s University Press. Parkes, M. W. (2016). Cumulative determinants of health impacts in rural, remote, and resource-dependent communities. In P. M. Gillingham, R. G. Halseth, J. C. Johnson, & W. M. Parkes (Eds.), The Integration Imperative: Cumulative Environmental, Community and Health Effects of Multiple Natural Resource Developments (pp. 117– 149). Springer International Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-221236_5 157 Parkes, M. W. (2020). Working together for WHOLE systems: Approaching well-being and health while oriented to living systems and equity. In Animals, Health, and Society. CRC Press. Parkes, M. W. (2021). River conversations: A confluence of lessons and emergence from the Taieri River and the Nechako River. River Research and Applications, 38(3), 443– 452. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3907 Parkes, M. W., & Panelli, R. (2001). Integrating catchment ecosystems and community health: The value of participatory action research. Ecosystem Health, 7(2), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-0992.2001.007002085.x Pathways Forward 2.0 Agreement. (2020). https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resourcestewardship/consulting-with-firstnations/agreements/cstc_pathways_20_agreement_signed_-_jan_2020.pdf Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (3rd Edition). Sage. Paul, J. D., Buytaert, W., Allen, S., Ballesteros‐Cánovas, J. A., Bhusal, J., Cieslik, K., Clark, J., Dugar, S., Hannah, D. M., Stoffel, M., Dewulf, A., Dhital, M. R., Liu, W., Nayaval, J. L., Neupane, B., Schiller, A., Smith, P. J., & Supper, R. (2018). Citizen science for hydrological risk reduction and resilience building. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 5(1), e1262. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1262 Peters, M. A., & Besley, T. (2019). Citizen science and post-normal science in a post-truth era: Democratising knowledge; socialising responsibility. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(13), 1293–1303. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2019.1577036 Picketts, I. M., Déry, S. J., & Parkes, M. W. (2014). Changing landscapes, changing Lives: Exploring climate change impacts in the Nechako Watershed, and implications to natural resource development (p. 55). University of Northern BC and Fraser Basin Council. Picketts, I. M., Parkes, M. W., & Déry, S. J. (2017). Climate change and resource development impacts in watersheds: Insights from the Nechako River Basin, Canada. The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien, 61(2), 196–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12327 Pocock, M. J. O., Chapman, D. S., Sheppard, L. J., & Roy, H. E. (2014). Choosing and using citizen science: A guide to when and how to use citizen science to monitor biodiversity and the environment [Publication - Report]. http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/510644/ Polis. (2021, July). Introducing new collaborative monitoring initiative. POLIS Water Sustainability Project. https://poliswaterproject.org/2021/07/20/introducing-newcollaborative-monitoring-initiative/ 158 Poser, W. J. (2017). The carrier language: A brief introduction (2nd ed.). College of New Caledonia Press. Proctor, J. (2022, January 8). Court rejects First Nations’ bid to change flow of river to alleviate damage caused by northern B.C. dam | CBC News. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/first-nations-nechako-rio-tinto1.6308025 Purdue University. (n.d.). Footnotes and endnotes. Purdue Online Writing Lab. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa6_style/apa_formatting_and_sty le_guide/footnotes_and_endnotes.html Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 63(4), 655–660. https://doi.org/10.1079/PNS2004399 Ravetz, J. (2004). The post-normal science of precaution. Futures, 36(3), 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(03)00160-5 Ravitch, S. M. (2020, March 23). The best laid plans... qualitative research design during COVID-19. Social Science Space. https://socialsciencespace.com/2020/03/the-bestlaid-plans-qualitative-research-design-during-covid-19/ RDBN. (2021). Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako supports Indigenous efforts to rehabilitate and co-manage the Nechako River. Regional District Bulkley Nechako and Nechako First Nations. https://www.rdbn.bc.ca/application/files/5516/1539/5150/NFNRDBN_Press_Release_FINAL_1.pdf Reed, M., Evely, A. C., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., Newig, J., Parrish, B., Prell, C., Raymond, C., & Stringer, L. C. (2010). What is social learning? Ecology and Society, 15(4), r1. Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (2002). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. Huberman & M. Miles, The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion (pp. 305–329). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986274.n12 Robertson, M. (1991). The story of the surrender of the Cheslatta reserves on April 21, 1952. Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2005). Chapter 10: The first phase of analysis: Preparing transcripts and coding data. In Qualitative Interviewing (2nd ed.): The Art of Hearing Data. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226651 Ruiz-Mallén, I., Riboli-Sasco, L., Ribrault, C., Heras, M., Laguna, D., & Perié, L. (2016). Citizen science: Toward transformative learning. Science Communication, 38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016642241 159 Rushmer, R., Ward, V., Nguyen, T., & Kuchenmüller, T. (2019). Knowledge translation: Key concepts, terms and activities. In M. Verschuuren & H. van Oers (Eds.), Population Health Monitoring: Climbing the Information Pyramid (pp. 127–150). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76562-4_7 Salewski, W. (2013). Murray Creek stream restoration project. https://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/_Library/TR/tr_presentatin_murray_creek_2013salewski.pdf Sanderson, D., Picketts, I. M., Déry, S. J., Fell, B., Baker, S., Lee‐Johnson, E., & Auger, M. (2015). Climate change and water at Stellat’en First Nation, British Columbia, Canada: Insights from western science and traditional knowledge. The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien, 59(2), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12142 SD91 celebrating Aboriginal Education. (n.d.). SD91 Aboriginal Education. Retrieved March 20, 2022, from https://www.sd91indigenouseducation.com Shorten, A., & Smith, J. (2017). Mixed methods research: Expanding the evidence base. Evidence-Based Nursing, 20(3), 74–75. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2017-102699 Shupe, S. M. (2017). High resolution stream water quality assessment in the Vancouver, British Columbia region: A citizen science study. Science of The Total Environment, 603–604, 745–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.195 Silvertown, J. (2009). A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(9), 467–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017 Simms, R., Harris, L., Joe, N., & Bakker, K. (2016). Navigating the tensions in collaborative watershed governance: Water governance and Indigenous communities in British Columbia, Canada. Geoforum, 73, 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.04.005 Sloan Morgan, V. (2019). Inheritors of the future: Rural and northern community-driven voices of youth contemplating resource extraction in the Nechako Valley/Dakelth Territories (p. 18) [Workshop Summary Report]. University of Northern British Columbia. Sloan Morgan, V. (2020). “Why would they care?”: Youth, resource extraction, and climate change in northern British Columbia, Canada. The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12605 Spellman, K. V., Cost, D., & Villano, C. P. (2021). Connecting community and citizen science to stewardship action planning through scenarios storytelling. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 490. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.695534 Spreadsheet tutorial 4: T-Test. (n.d.). HHMI BioInteractive. Retrieved May 24, 2022, from https://www.biointeractive.org/classroom-resources/spreadsheet-tutorial-4-ttest 160 Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research (1st edition). Sage Publications. Starkey, E., Parkin, G., Birkinshaw, S., Large, A., Quinn, P., & Gibson, C. (2017). Demonstrating the value of community-based (‘citizen science’) observations for catchment modelling and characterisation. Journal of Hydrology, 548, 801–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.03.019 Stenekes, S., Parlee, B., & Seixas, C. (2020). Culturally driven monitoring: The importance of traditional ecological knowledge indicators in understanding aquatic ecosystem change in the Northwest Territories’ Dehcho Region. Sustainability, 12(19), 7923. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197923 Stepenuck, K. F., & Genskow, K. D. (2019). Traits of volunteer water monitoring programs that influence natural resource management and policy impacts. Society & Natural Resources, 32(3), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1511022 Stevens, M., Vitos, M., Altenbucher, J., Conquest, G., Lewis, J., & Haklay, M. (2014). Taking participatory citizen science to extremes. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 13(2), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2014.37 Storey, R., Wright-Stow, A., Kin, E., Davies-Colley, R., & Stott, R. (2016). Volunteer stream monitoring: Do the data quality and monitoring experience support increased community involvement in freshwater decision making? Ecology and Society, 21(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08934-210432 Striegler, L. (2014). Theatre for health: “Playing” the price of colonialism on the health of Indigenous peoples in Saik’uz Territory [Masters Thesis]. University of Northern British Columbia. Stringer, L., Dougill, A., Fraser, E., Hubacek, K., Prell, C., & Reed, M. (2006). Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social–ecological systems: A critical review. Ecology and Society, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01896-110239 Taccogna, G., & Munro, K. (1995). The streamkeepers handbook: A practical guide to stream and wetland care (The Stewardship Series). Salmonid Enhancement Program, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Tannenbaum, C., Greaves, L., & Graham, I. D. (2016). Why sex and gender matter in implementation research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16(1), 145. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0247-7 Taylor, P. C., & Medina, M. (2013). Educational research paradigms: From positivism to multiparadigmatic. College Research Journal, 1(1), 1–16. Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M. (2014). Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: The multiple evidence base approach. AMBIO, 43(5), 579–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3 161 Thornton, T., & Leahy, J. (2012). Trust in citizen science research: A case study of the groundwater education through water evaluation & testing program. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 48(5), 1032–1040. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2012.00670.x Tipa, G., & Tierney, L. (2003). A cultural health index for streams and waterways: Indicators for recognising and expressing Maori values. New Zealand Ministry for the Environment. Townsend, C. R., Tipa, G., Teirney, L. D., & Niyogi, D. K. (2004). Development of a tool to facilitate participation of Maori in the management of stream and river health. EcoHealth, 1(2), 184–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-004-0006-9 TRC. (2015). What we have learned: Principles of truth and reconciliation (p. 199). Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. https://ehprnh2mwo3.exactdn.com/wpcontent/uploads/2021/01/Principles_English_Web.pdf Tredick, C. A., Lewison, R. L., Deutschman, D. H., Hunt, T. A., Gordon, K. L., & Von Hendy, P. (2017). A rubric to evaluate citizen-science programs for long-term ecological monitoring. BioScience, 67(9), 834–844. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix090 Trochim, W. M. K. (2020). Qualitative measures. Research methods knowledge base. https://conjointly.com/kb/qualitative-measures/ Turner, D. S., & Richter, H. E. (2011). Wet/dry mapping: Using citizen scientists to monitor the extent of perennial surface flow in dryland regions. Environmental Management, 47(3), 497–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9607-y Tweddle, J. C., Robinson, L. D., Pocock, M. J. O., & Roy, H. E. (2012). Guide to citizen science: Developing, implementing and evaluating citizen science to study biodiversity and the environment in the UK. Natural History Museum and NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology for UK-EOF. van der Velde, T., Milton, D. A., Lawson, T. J., Wilcox, C., Lansdell, M., Davis, G., Perkins, G., & Hardesty, B. D. (2017). Comparison of marine debris data collected by researchers and citizen scientists: Is citizen science data worth the effort? Biological Conservation, 208, 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.025 VanWynsberghe, R., & Khan, S. (2007). Redefining case study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690700600208 von Benzon, N., & van Blerk, L. (2017). Research relationships and responsibilities: ‘Doing’ research with ‘vulnerable’ participants: Introduction to the special edition. Social & Cultural Geography, 18(7), 895–905. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2017.1346199 162 Wadsworth, Y. (1998). What is participatory action research? Action Research International, 2, 1–14. Water Sustainability Act, c14 SBC (2014). Wei, M. (2019, August 29). Who “owns” the groundwater in BC? Hydro Geo Logic. https://hydrogeo-logic.com/blog/who-owns-the-groundwater-in-bc/ Weigelhofer, G., Pölz, E.-M., & Hein, T. (2018). Citizen science: How high school students can provide scientifically sound data in biogeochemical experiments. Freshwater Science, 38(2), 236–243. https://doi.org/10.1086/698765 Weyhenmeyer, G. A., Mackay, M., Stockwell, J. D., Thiery, W., Grossart, H.-P., AugustoSilva, P. B., Baulch, H. M., de Eyto, E., Hejzlar, J., Kangur, K., Kirillin, G., Pierson, D. C., Rusak, J. A., Sadro, S., & Woolway, R. I. (2017). Citizen science shows systematic changes in the temperature difference between air and inland waters with global warming. Scientific Reports, 7, 43890. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep43890 What is DataONE? | DataONE. (n.d.). Retrieved June 22, 2020, from https://www.dataone.org/what-dataone Whitelaw, G., Vaughan, H., Craig, B., & Atkinson, D. (2003). Establishing the Canadian community monitoring network. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 88(1), 409–418. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025545813057 Whitfield, P. H. (1988). Goals and data collection designs for water quality monitoring. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 24(4), 775–780. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1988.tb00928.x Wieler, C. (2006). Delivering ecological monitoring information to decision makers: A draft strategy for effecting change. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) Secretariat for the Canadian Sustainability Indicators Network (CSIN). Williams, C. R., Burnell, S. M., Rogers, M., Flies, E. J., & Baldock, K. L. (2022). Naturebased citizen science as a mechanism to improve human health in urban areas. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(1), 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010068 Wilner, K. B., Wiber, M., Charles, A., Kearney, J., Landry, M., Wilson, L., & on behalf of the Coastal CURA Team. (2012). Transformative learning for better resource management: The role of critical reflection. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55(10), 1331–1347. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2011.646679 Wilson, N. J., Harris, L. M., Joseph-Rear, A., Beaumont, J., & Satterfield, T. (2019). Water is medicine: Reimagining water security through Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in relationships to treated and traditional water sources in Yukon, Canada. Water, 11(3), 624. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030624 163 Wilson, N. J., Mutter, E., Inkster, J., & Satterfield, T. (2018). Community-based monitoring as the practice of Indigenous governance: A case study of Indigenous-led water quality monitoring in the Yukon River Basin. Journal of Environmental Management, 210, 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.01.020 Wong, C., Ballegooyen, K., Ignace, L., Johnson, M. J. (Gùdia), & Swanson, H. (2020). Towards reconciliation: 10 Calls to Action to natural scientists working in Canada. FACETS, 5(1), 769–783. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2020-0005 Yates, J. S., Harris, L. M., & Wilson, N. J. (2017). Multiple ontologies of water: Politics, conflict and implications for governance. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 35(5), 797–815. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775817700395 Yim, D. (2009). Evolving co-management practice: Developing a community-based environmental monitoring framework with Tl’azt’en Nation on the John Prince Research Forest [Thesis (M.A) Geography]. University of Northern British Columbia. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. SAGE. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th Edition). SAGE. Young, E. L., & Pike, R. G. (2015). Stream velocity rod: User’s guide. BC Ministry of Environment. http://www.ap.smu.ca/~lcampbel/Stream-Velocity-Rod-Users-Guide2015-FINAL.pdf Zoellick, B., Nelson, S. J., & Schauffler, M. (2012). Participatory science and education: Bringing both views into focus. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6), 310–313. https://doi.org/10.1890/110277 164 Appendices Appendix A: Tables of characteristics for informing decision-making. Table A1 Community science program characteristics for informing decision-making. Trait Description Citations Category: Data Management Format allowing Putting data into a format that allows easy Wilson et al. comparison with comparison with water standards and (2018) thresholds and thresholds. standards Planting seed data Data examples are provided for others to refer Kim et al. (2011) to and use as a standard. Accessible sharing Ensure data are open and discoverable. For Newman et al. example, have phone enabled data collection (2017), Kim et al. and sharing. (2011) Easily verifiable Collect data that the knowledge users can Kim et al. (2011) easily verify (e.g., having photos to refer to for streamflow assessments). Have a stateNeed all information documented such as Stepenuck & approved quality protocols, projections and datums used, for Genskow (2019), assurance data to be usable by others. Having a stateNewman et al. plan/documentation approved plan indicates programs are highly (2017) of protocols organized, clear on their goals and recruitment plans, and have solid leadership/structure. Ensure data are Can provide motivation to volunteers to Newman et al. geo-located and use immediately see their data appear on the map (2017) geospatial analysis and being shared/used and see the placeand GIS connections. Category: Data type/focus Diverse data Collecting data that is useful for both the Kim et al. (2011) long-term and short-term and collecting data that is useful for multiple groups/purposes. Unique focus Focusing on something that is often Hadj-Hammou et overlooked by government monitoring (i.e., al. (2017) small water bodies). Large geographic These datasets tend to be more sought after. Hadj-Hammou et coverage al. (2017) Redundancies with Overlapping with other monitoring efforts can Hadj-Hammou et other monitoring serve to validate data and build a more robust al. (2017) monitoring network. Baseline Starting with baseline monitoring can build Wilson et al. monitoring up the capacity and credibility of the program. (2018) This helps when applying for funding to 165 Trait Focus on priority stressors and phenomena. Evaluate the impacts of management interventions Number of volunteers Volunteers with specific traits Level of involvement of volunteers in the research Engage the same volunteers in small scale/diverse shortterm projects. Place identification Decision-makers engaged in designphase Level of government Trust of volunteers in coordinating organization Trust of decisionmakers in dataquality Multiple partnerships Description monitor site specific issues that are more likely to influence decision-making. Lots of opportunity for citizen science to help fill gaps in our understanding of emerging stressors and phenomena. Citizen science can be integrated into the adaptive management process by helping to monitor the management actions taken by decision-makers. Category: Volunteers More volunteers and sites contribute to a greater chance of informing decision-making. Having volunteers with knowledge and experience, awareness of environmental issues and motivation. Programs where volunteers played more roles in the research were more likely to influence natural resource policy and management. Citations It is efficient when a coordinator helps to orchestrate volunteers and researchers get access to well-trained cadre of volunteers for a short period. Promoting identification with place for volunteers fostered volunteer retention. Category: Engaging with Decision-Makers To ensure that the protocols fit within a decision-making framework, it is recommended that programs work with decision-makers early in the program to codesign place specific program goals/protocols. Data-policy linkages were perceived to be better in partnerships with lower levels of government compared to federal government. Trust of the data collectors in the coordinating organization. For Indigenous community monitors, the legacy of colonization has impacted trust in state agencies. Trust of knowledge users in the data quality is necessary. A high level of confidence is needed for identifying trends, and an even higher level for compliance monitoring. Programs that were partnered with both government and CS networks were more Newman et al. (2017) Newman et al. (2017) Newman et al. (2017) Bonney et al. (2020) San Llorente Capdevila et al. (2020) Stepenuck & Genskow (2019) Newman et al. (2017) Bonney et al. (2020), BucklandNicks et al. (2016), Castleden (2016), Newman et al. (2017) Carlson & Cohen (2018) Wilson et al. (2018) Castleden (2016) Carlson & Cohen (2018) 166 Trait Government staff involved in developing quality control and volunteer training Usability surveys Two-way knowledge exchange Multiple sources of funding Adequate resources to pursue monitoring goals Larger budget Program longevity Internal project evaluation Definition of a problem Having the objective to address an environmental crisis Diverse leadership Description likely to be effective in meeting their goals compared to programs that partnered with only government or CS networks, or neither. Helped to bring expertise to design protocols that could target specific government information needs. Citations Doing usability surveys with data consumers from different sectors to introduce them to the data source and hear feedback on how it can be better delivered. In some programs, volunteers did not even know their data were being used, therefore having processes to report back on usage of data is important. Category: Funding Funding from various government and private sources helps to be resilient to changes in government. Should not let capacity for purchasing monitoring equipment dictate the protocols used (this leads to fragmented data sets that can’t interact), should instead identify the basis of a question to be answered first, and go from there. Based on the idea that programs with more resources can accomplish more. Category: Other Program Traits Older programs are most likely to inform policy (it takes time to get up and running, collect sufficient data and then translate to policy). Necessary to help identify issues and conflicts within citizen science programs to move forward and make program adjustments. Essential to develop objectives to give a trajectory for the program. This came out as the most influential trait – authors advise that all CS monitoring programs work to address an environmental crisis. To foster adaptive governance, the program has diverse leadership which enables informal networks to form. Kim et al. (2011) Castleden (2016) Bonney et al. (2020), Carlson & Cohen (2018) Castleden (2016), McGreavy et al. (2016) Carlson & Cohen (2018) Stepenuck & Genskow (2019) Bonney et al. (2020), Carlson & Cohen (2018) McGreavy et al. (2016) Carlson & Cohen (2018) Stepenuck & Genskow (2019) McGreavy et al. (2016) 167 Trait Alignment between program design and goals Publish results Include opportunities for broader local knowledge to contribute to the project Connection to place Description Builds credibility, saves resources and helps to articulate and achieve connections with decision-making. Helps to demonstrate validity and credibility of results. Programs and protocols can be more conducive to local knowledge if they are designed to allow for a larger array of “data” collection, and not just specific variables. Other options include having local expert input on their understandings of complex interactions, hypothesis development, needs and issues. To connect data with policy, it needs to be situated within a specific social-ecological reality. Leveraging the “power of place” in programs can help improve connections with decision-making. Citations Buckland-Nicks et al. (2016) McGreavy et al. (2016) Newman et al. (2017) Newman et al. (2017), Carlson & Cohen (2018) 168 Table A2 Characteristics of governance landscapes that facilitate community science informing decision-making. Trait Description Citations Category: Governance/Management Context Polycentric Governance models where there are diverse nodes of Hadjwater decision-making, and multiple “information flows” can Hammou et governance provide more opportunities for citizen data to be aligned al. (2017) with decision-making, while not needing to be standardized to a certain data quality. Catchment/ In regions where there is catchment level management Hadjwatershed there was more collaboration among actors, which Hammou et level facilitated informing decision-making. al. (2017) management DecisionCertain kinds of data that would be useful to specific Wilson et context/ nations/governments would not be practical at the al. (2018) scale watershed-scale, however baseline info across the watershed is useful to address broader concerns. IndigenousOpportunity to link directly with standards monitoring Wilson et led Water outlined in Indigenous-led water planning. al. (2018) planning Existing Having existing data and sharing standards can facilitate Kim et al. standards the process of CS programs hoping to inform decision(2011) making. Category: Partnerships and Networks Presence of Having a large network to conduct training, quality control HadjCSS bridging and data storage. These networks also help to establish Hammou et organizations/ monitoring protocols designed to answer research al. (2017), networks questions. Carlson & Cohen (2018) Willingness There needs to be a willingness and open-mindedness Bonney et and support from decision-makers who may use or benefit from the CS al. (2020), of decisionand they need to work collaboratively with new programs. Stepenuck makers & Genskow (2019) Opportunities Events, conferences, meetings that bring together Newman et to connect volunteers, decision-makers, agencies etc., provides al. (2017), with decision- opportunities to connect initiatives. Wilson et makers al. (2018) Strong cross- To be resilient against funding challenges having strong Bonney et sectoral partnership allowed for “credibility and capacity to al. (2020) partnerships integrate within monitoring and decision-making frameworks” (p. 4) 169 Appendix B: Summary of monitoring parameters suitable to school-based monitoring. Hydrological Variable Water Quality Water Quantity Parameter of Focus Surface water quality Fecal coliform and E. coli Groundwater quality Method Source HACH test kits (Pacific Streamkeepers protocols) IMC method Taccogna & Munro, (1995) Au et al. (2000) HACH chemistry testing kits to measure nitrates, hardness, chloride, pH, conductivity, and iron Pesticides Test strips Heat flux emissions Surface water and air of greenhouse temperature gases from inland waters) Streamflow Salt-dilution, float method, Bernoulli run-up Stream velocity rod Thornton & Leahy (2012) Water level Starkey et al. (2017) Wet and dry mapping Historic water levels Groundwater level River level gauge with instructions for passersby to take and submit photos GPS Oral history interviews Manual water level sounder Kolok et al. (2011) Weyhenmeyer et al., (2017) Davids et al. (2019) Young & Pike (2015) Turner & Richter (2011) Marchezini et al. (2017) Little et al. (2016) 170 Appendix C: Research ethics approval RESEARCH ETHICS BOARD MEMORANDUM To: CC: Ella Parker Margot Parkes From: Chelsea Pelletier, Vice Chair Research Ethics Board Date: October 30, 2020 Re: E2020.0409.024.00(a) Linking School Based Monitoring to Land and Water Decision-Making Thank you for submitting amendments to the above-noted proposal to the Research Ethics Board (REB). The amendments have been approved until the date as provided in the original protocol approval for this project (i.e. May 26, 2021). Continuation beyond that date will require further review and renewal of REB approval. Any further changes or amendments to the protocol or consent form must be approved by the REB. During the COVID-19 pandemic, no in-person interactions with participants are permitted until a Safe Research Plan is completed and the protocol mitigations for COVID-19 are submitted as an amendment and approved by the REB. Please refer to the Chair Bulletins found on the webpage at: https://www.unbc.ca/research/research-ethics-safety-human-participants for further details. If questions remain, please do not hesitate to contact Isobel Hartley, Research Ethics Officer at Isobel.hartley@unbc.ca or reb@unbc.ca. Good luck with continuation of your research. Sincerely, Dr. Chelsea Pelletier Vice Chair, Research Ethics Board 3333 University Way, Prince George, BC, V2N 4Z9, Telephone (250) 960-6735 171 Appendix D: Summary of interview and workshop participant groups, roles, and types of interviews. Group Student Teacher DecisionMaker Total Interview Participants Type of Number of Interview Participants Group 6 interview Group 6 Group 5 Group 3 Group 5 Individual 1 Individual 2 Individual 1 Individual 1 Individual 1 Individual 1 Individual 1 / Individual 1 34 Role Workshop Participants Highschool 3 Middle years Highschool Middle years Saik’uz First Nation Staff Saik’uz First Nation Council Local Government Council Prov. Gov. - Water Authorizations Prov. Gov. – Fisheries & Wildlife Prov. Gov. – Environmental Protection Prov. Gov. – Forestry Stewardship Prov. Gov.- Parks Prov. Gov. -Research & Stewardship NGO 4 2 3 1 / 1 / / / / 1 1 1 17 172 Appendix E: Participant feedback on interviews and workshops (gathered in conjunction with demographic questionnaire). Feedback on: Inclusive Participation Questionnaire Did you feel you Item: were able to express your ideas full and appropriately during the workshop? Responses Yes: 24/26 from No: 0/26 Interview No response: Participants2 2/26 Learning Responses from Group Workshops Participants3 Yes: 10/10 No: 0/10 Participant Satisfaction Were you satisfied with how the workshop was facilitated? Relationship Building Did you feel you built any new relationships through the interview/ workshop?1 Yes: 21/26 No: 3/26 No response: 2/26 Yes: 24/26 No: 0/26 No response: 2/26 Yes: 11/26 No: 9/26 No response: 4/26 Yes: 10/10 No: 0/10 Yes: 10/10 No: 0/10 Yes: 9/10 No: 1/10 Did you learn anything new through your involvement in the interview/ workshop? Notes: 1 For those participating in individual interviews this question was optional. 2 Of the 34 interview participants, 26 completed the demographic/feedback questionnaire 3 Of the 17 workshop participants, 10 completed the demographic/feedback questionnaire 173 Appendix F: Links to summary reports. As outlined in Section 4.5.5, interview and workshop summary reports were developed as a mechanism for sharing back on preliminary analysis of qualitative data. Findings have since been refined based on feedback and further review of the data. Interview Summary Report: https://www2.unbc.ca/sites/default/files/sections/integratedwatershed-research-group/interviewpreliminarysummaryreportv2.pdf Workshop Summary Report: https://www2.unbc.ca/sites/default/files/sections/integratedwatershed-research-group/groupworkshopspreliminarysummaryreport.pdf 174