Tracing Climate Impacts Using Participatory Systems Mapping: Informing Adaptation for a Marine Food System in the Tla’Amin First Nation

Tracing climate impacts using participatory systems mapping: informing adaptation for a marine food system in the Tla’amin First Nation

Patricia T. Angkiriwang

BSc Hons., The University of British Columbia, 2017

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Zoology)

The University of British Columbia (Vancouver)

August 2020

Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the thesis entitled:

Tracing climate impacts using participatory systems mapping: informing adaptation for a marine food system in the Tla’amin First Nation submitted by Patricia T. Angkiriwang in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science.

Examining Committee:

William Cheung, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries

Supervisor

Daniel Pauly, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries

Supervisory Committee Member

Terre Satterfield, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability

Supervisory Committee Member

Sarah Otto, Department of Zoology

Departmental Examiner

ii Abstract

Climate change is altering the physical and biogeochemical properties of the ocean, with implications for the biogeography, phenology, biodiversity and ecosystem functions of marine organisms, as well as for the human societies that depend upon them. Shifting species distributions, among various biological responses to climate change, may exacerbate ongoing challenges to food security, nutritional health and culture for many coastal indigenous First

Nation communities. Developing appropriate, nuanced, and context-specific adaptation responses to climate change, however, requires an understanding of how climate-driven ecosystem changes act and interact with other non-climatic factors. Effective adaptation strategies also need to be developed in partnership with community members to identify people’s values, needs, and knowledge of local system dynamics and challenges. Through a collaborative effort with the Tla’amin (ɬəʔamɛn) Nation, this research aims to support the development of adaptation strategies by identifying the perceived mechanisms or pathways through which climate-driven ecosystem changes could affect local seafood access and consumption, and by identifying how these climate effects interact with other factors affecting local seafood availability and access to harvest. This thesis applied a participatory systems mapping approach to co-develop a conceptual model of the key dynamics in the

Tla’amin traditional marine food system with Tla’amin Elders, legislators, managers, and community members with expertise in fisheries, traditional food harvest, resource management, and health. I used this model to trace climate stressor-impact pathways and con-

iii struct a logic-based influence diagram (a modified “fuzzy” cognitive map (FCM)) focusing on the factors affecting food fish harvest. Climate change impacts on the consumption of traditional foods were perceived via both direct and indirect pathways, with reinforcing feedback loops brought about by reduced exposure and experience to traditional foods. Cli- mate effects on local abundance, availability, and safety of fish and shellfish, accompanied by potential consequences for harvest restrictions, were found to compound onto existing constraints to physical and temporal access to the harvest of traditional marine foods. Un- derstanding these multifaceted local climate impacts may help inform future identification and implementation of adaptation strategies for traditional seafood harvest in the face of climate change.

iv Lay Summary

For many First Nations located in what is now known as British Columbia, including the Tla’amin (ɬəʔamɛn) Nation, fish and shellfish make up the bulk of traditional foods, important not only nutritionally but also socially, culturally, and economically (Chan et al. 2011;

Harris 2001; Paul et al. 2014; Satterfield et al. 2017). However, the availability and access of these marine foods have been declining, and overall negative impacts expected from climate change on marine and coastal ecosystems may further worsen ongoing challenges

(Weatherdon et al. 2016).

This research, co-created with the knowledge, expertise, wisdom, and guidance of many

Tla’amin Elders, legislators, managers, and community members, takes a look at how different structural challenges in the harvest and consumption of fish and shellfish can be interconnected, and situates the issues of climate change within the current challenges of marine food harvest and consumption.

v Preface

The bulk of this research took place on Tla’amin (ɬəʔamɛn) traditional territory, and was written on unceded and traditional lands of the Musqueam (xwməθkwəy̓əm), Squamish (sḵwx̱wú7mesh), and Tsleil Waututh (səlilwətaɁɬ̓ ) peoples.

This project is a collaboration with the Tla’amin Nation, and though the text and graphics presented in this dissertation are my own, this research has been shaped by the knowledge of many Tla’amin Elders, legislators, managers, and community members.

I was responsible for the coordination, planning and direction of workshops conducted through this project, the construction of the resulting conceptual models, and the formulation and implementation of all subsequent analyses. In arranging workshop logistics, I received immense guidance from Lori Wilson and Sachiko Ouchi, as well as Drew Blaney, Lee

George, and many more. Tiff-Annie Kenny, Terre Satterfield, Colette Wabnitz, and William

Cheung provided insightful feedback in the structure and formulation of questions in preparation for the main systems mapping workshop. Contributors in the systems mapping portion of this research included, but were not limited to:

Cathy Galligos Doreen Hopkins Gordon Williams

Clint Williams Drew Blaney Larry Louie

Craig Galligos Eugene Louie Lee George

Denise Smith Gilbert Francis Leonard Harry

vi Lori Wilson Phil George Scott Galligos

Nathan Jantz Rose Adams Simon George

Pat Galligos Roy Francis

This research was conducted in tandem with Sachiko Ouchi’s Master’s project (Simon Fraser

University), a separate but closely related project with Tla’amin Nation partners on food fisheries portfolios. Both these projects form part of the initial steps toward an upcoming

4-year initiative entitled: “Developing Adaptation Strategies For Healthy Fisheries and Food

Security For First Nations In BC Under Climate Change” with several universities, several

First Nations, and the First Nations Health Authority.

This project and associated methods were approved by the University of British Columbia’s

Behavioural Research Ethics Board (certificate number H18-01272).

vii Contents

Abstract ...... iii

Lay Summary ...... v

Preface ...... vi

Table of Contents ...... viii

List of Tables ...... xi

List of Figures ...... xii

Acknowledgements ...... xiii

Dedication ...... xv

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1. Context ...... 1

Tla’amin (ɬəʔamɛn) Nation ...... 1

The importance of fish and shellfish ...... 1

A colonial context ...... 4

Steps to sovereignty and future planning ...... 6

Current status of fisheries resources ...... 7

Implications of climate change ...... 8

Building understanding for adaptation ...... 11

1.2. Research framework ...... 14

A systems science approach ...... 14

What is systems science? ...... 15

viii A link to Indigenous and holistic ways of thinking ...... 16

Models to synthesize understanding ...... 17

Participatory modelling ...... 19

Constructing influence diagrams ...... 22

Influence diagram simulation techniques ...... 23

Basics of a “fuzzy” cognitive map ...... 29

Research structure ...... 32

2. Systems mapping for understanding climate impacts in a marine food system . . . 33

2.1. Introduction ...... 33

2.2. Methods ...... 36

Part One: The marine food system and climate-impact pathways ...... 37

Main workshop ...... 37

Workshop structure ...... 39

Constructing the systems map ...... 40

Post-workshop analysis ...... 42

Part Two: Situating climate impacts on traditional harvest ...... 44

Follow-up workshop ...... 44

Workshop structure ...... 45

Constructing a logic-based influence diagram ...... 46

2.3. Results ...... 47

Part One: The marine food system and climate-impact pathways ...... 47

Key elements of the Tla’amin marine food system ...... 47

Conceptual systems map ...... 49

Climate-impact pathways ...... 62

Part Two: Situating climate impacts on traditional harvest ...... 64

Factors influencing seafood harvest ...... 64

ix Types of influencing interactions ...... 65

Climate impacts on access ...... 68

2.4. Discussion ...... 70

Food fisheries under climate change ...... 70

Climate impacts on harvest access ...... 74

Representing factors influencing seafood harvest ...... 75

Caveats and opportunities for future research ...... 77

2.5. Conclusion ...... 82

3. Concluding remarks ...... 84

3.1. Advantages and remarks ...... 86

Systems and forms of knowing ...... 86

Auxiliary benefits of participation ...... 87

Learnings from the research process ...... 88

3.2. Limitations of this research ...... 90

Limitations of a systems approach ...... 90

3.3. Opportunities ...... 93

Informing adaptation ...... 93

References ...... 96

Appendices ...... 125

A. Framing of systems mapping activities ...... 125

B. Qualitative coding results ...... 127

C. From broad systems map to logic-based directed graph ...... 132

D. Results from Activity W2.3 ...... 139

x List of Tables

1.1. Overview of semi-quantitative modelling techniques ...... 28

2.1. Mapped Tla’amin marine food system: Nodes ...... 56

2.2. Mapped Tla’amin marine food system: Edges ...... 59

2.3. Factors influencing harvest of traditional seafood ...... 67

2.4. Climate-related impacts on physical and temporal access to the harvest of

traditional marine foods ...... 70

B.1. Groups of people cited in Activity W2.2 ...... 127

B.2. Animals and plants cited in Activity W2.2 ...... 128

B.3. Environmental drivers cited in Activity W2.2 ...... 128

B.4. Barriers and changes cited in Activity W2.2 ...... 129

B.5. Themes and topics discussed in Activity W2.2 ...... 131

D.1. Topics discussed in Activity W2.3: Future changes and scenarios ...... 140

xi List of Figures

1.1. Tla’amin territory and surrounding area ...... 2

1.2. Directed acyclic and cyclic graphs ...... 22

2.1. Outline of main workshop activities ...... 41

2.2. Conceptual map of broad Tla’amin marine food system ...... 52

2.3. Climate-impact pathways ...... 63

2.4. Factors influencing harvest of traditional seafood ...... 66

A.1. Systems mapping framework ...... 126

C.1. Notes from the follow-up workshop ...... 134

C.2. Visual tools for follow-up workshop ...... 136

xii Acknowledgements

I would like to first express my appreciation to my supervisor William Cheung, for his kind guidance and unwavering support throughout my Master’s degree. Thank you also to my supervisory and examining committee members Terre Satterfield, Daniel Pauly, and Sally

Otto, for their ready support and feedback in this process. This project has received funding from the Canadian Institute of Health Research and the Natural Sciences and Engineering

Research Council of Canada.

I would like to extend a huge thank you to everyone I have met during my visits to Tla’amin

Nation, in and outside this project, for your trust, kindness, and conversation. I would like to say, ʔimot, čɛčɛhatənapɛč, I cannot thank you enough, and I wish I knew more words to express my thanks. I am extremely grateful to Lori Wilson, Lee George, Tyrone Wilson, He- gus Clint Williams, Cathy Galligos, Craig Galligos, Roy Francis, Drew Blaney, Nathan Jantz, and Denise Smith for extending their kindness and patience as I stumbled and waded my way through this learning journey, from the first project proposal all the way to the follow- up meetings and workshops. I am indebted to all the Elders and workshop attendees for their wholehearted participation and invaluable contributions to this project; it goes without saying that this research would not have been possible without them. I would also like to send my thanks to all the folks at Sliammon Hatchery for the memorable morning coffees, laughter, field trips, and mini language lessons, to Alex for his friendship and IT support, and to June for the smiles and greetings at the end of the work day. I am grateful to Jo-

xiii lene, Bud, Dorothy and family, as well as to Leonard and family, for hosting me with warm and open arms during my visits. And I am forever grateful to Kyle, whose friendship and memory I will treasure for a long time to come.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to each person who has, in one way or another, influenced and shaped this research. I am extremely grateful to Sachiko Ouchi, Colette Wab- nitz, and Tiff-Annie Kenny, who have provided wonderful collaborative moments, lending me their time, energy, indispensable insights, and generous support. Thank you also to the countless others with whom I have exchanged ideas, influencing this project in many little ways. Special thanks to fellow members of the Changing Ocean Research Unit (CORU) for their camaraderie, participation in test runs of workshop warm-ups and activities, and immense support in preparing for my defense; friends and colleagues at the Institute for

Oceans and Fisheries (IOF) for helpful feedback on presentations, recording and transcription equipment, and hallway conversations; everyone I met and talked to at the Stockholm

Resilience Centre (SRC) for the many invaluable idea exchanges over fika, lunch, and walks; and Honoré Watanabe for sharing his stories and typesetting advice. Conversations and email exchanges about traditional knowledge and science, qualitative and quantitative research methods, modelling, social-ecological systems, and mathematics with many, many individuals (including, but certainly not limited to, Julia Jung, Rowenna Gryba, Tim Daw,

Robin Gregory, Phil Underwood, Katja Malmborg, Michele-Lee Moore, Tim DuBois, Drew

Ringsmuth, Nathan Bennett, Romina Martin, Raphaël Roman, and Fok-Shuen Leung) have served as a crucial sounding board for my ideas and for this thesis.

Finally, I am grateful to those who have been part of my journey leading up to this point, and for the personal relationships that have nourished me (both metaphorically and literally!) as I navigated this degree. Friends, family, love, I could not have done this without you.

xiv In memory of Kyle Francis

xv 1 Introduction

1.1. Context

Tla’amin (ɬəʔamɛn) Nation

The Tla’amin (ɬəʔamɛn) Nation, formerly known as the Sliammon First Nation, is located on Tla’amin traditional territory, on the Sunshine Coast of what is now known as British

Columbia, just north of the city of Powell River (Tla’amin Nation 2019c).

The Tla’amin Nation is one of the Northern Coast Salish First Nations, along with the closely related Klahoose and Homalco, who all share the common language ʔayʔaǰuθəm, as well as the K’omoks, Pentlatch, and Sechelt (shíshálh) (Caldwell 2015; Kennedy and Bouchard 1983; Paul et al. 2014).

The importance of fish and shellfish

Like other indigenous Coast Salish peoples on the Pacific Northwest coast, the Tla’amin (ɬəʔamɛn) people have traditionally relied on the sea not only for transportation but also as a major source of food, employing a range of methods to manage fish and shellfish (Cald- well et al. 2012; Harris 2001; Kennedy and Bouchard 1983; Lepofsky and Caldwell 2013;

Mathews and Turner 2017; Tla’amin Nation 2019b).

1 Teeshohsum Tees’kwat (tišosəm) (tiskʷət)

Figure 1.1.: Tla’amin Nation’s main village site, Teeshohsum (t̓ išosəm - “water white with herring roe,” or “milky waters from herring spawn”), is located on the Sunshine Coast, a short distance from Tees’kwat (tiskʷət - “big river”), now the city of Powell River. Tla’amin territory forms part of the Strait of Georgia bioregion in the Salish Sea, connected to the northeast Pacific Ocean.

2 1.1. Context

Indeed, fish and shellfish constitute the bulk of traditional foods (Chan et al. 2011), and are important nutritionally, as well as socially, culturally, and economically (Chan et al. 2011;

Harris 2001; Paul et al. 2014; Satterfield et al. 2017). The inextricable importance of fish and shellfish to the Tla’amin people is reflected in place names like Teeshohsum (tišosəm̓ - “water white with herring roe,” or “milky waters from herring spawn”), which refers to

Tla’amin’s main village site, as well as in the perspectives of Elders, legislators, and community members alike (Paul et al. 2014; Sliammon Indian Band and Wilson 1994; Barnett

1938 as cited in Isabella 2014). To this day, fish (notably salmon), shellfish, and other traditional foods serve as a way to pass on culture, knowledge, and identity, while supplement- ing people’s diets with crucial micronutrients and fatty acids (Chan et al. 2011; Paul et al.

2014).

Northern Coast Salish peoples, including Tla’amin, have managed intertidal and sub-tidal zones in a diverse set of ways, such as physically modifying natural habitats and socially regulating resource use and distribution (Caldwell 2015; Lepofsky and Caldwell 2013). Phys- ical maintenance and modification of ecosystems, for example, were carried out to enhance clam production and capture a range of marine species (Jackley et al. 2016). These modifications range from the clearing of beaches while gathering clams to large shoreline boulder constructions used to harvest a variety of taxa, including shellfish, fish, and octopus (Cald- well et al. 2012). The Tla’amin and other Northern Coast Salish peoples also cultivated care- ful relationships, both human and nonhuman, to manage their land and resources (Wash- ington, pers. comm., as quoted in Caldwell 2015; Isabella 2014)

Social management strategies employed by Northern Coast Salish peoples included the management of timing and location of capture, management of rights to harvest specific species, control and tenure of specific harvesting features or locales, limits on catch sizes, as well

3 1.1. Context as a general respect for human and nonhuman kin, i.e. taking only what is needed and distributing resources through feasting, trading, and social events (Caldwell 2015).

A colonial context

The past century and a half, however, has seen a string of rapid changes. The use of fish traps was banned at the end of the 19th century as the colonial government sought to pro- mote and develop the commercial fishing sector (Atlas et al. 2017; Harris 2001; Newell 1993).

The active use of other intertidal features in Tla’amin Nation has also ceased, tracing back to increased urbanization and a decline in availability of marine resources safe for consumption (Caldwell 2015). Contaminants, including effluent from a pulp mill established in the early 1900s, have resulted in numerous safety-related shellfish closures of beaches

(Tla’amin First Nation 2010), and herring, which had been an important source of food in early spring when salmon stores were low, ceased to return to Teeshohshum (tišosəm̓ ) following a series of commercial openings in the 1980s (Barnett 1938; Ouchi 2019; Shore 2009;

Sliammon Indian Band and Wilson 1994 as cited in Isabella 2014).

In addition, the regulatory jurisdiction of waters and marine resources began to shift to the government’s Department of Fisheries at the turn of the 20th century (Harris 2001; Swener- ton 1993). By 1894, “Indians” were required to obtain formal permission of the Department in order to fish1 and, by 1910, a permit that outlined specific permissible fishing gear types, areas, and times (Harris 2001; Swenerton 1993). Moreover, the state’s invocation of the common law doctrine of the public right to fish essentially created an open-access fishery, erasing pre-existing claims or treaty promises of First Nations ownership (Harris 2001).

1Indigenous fishers had to acquire permission from the Inspector of Fisheries to fish for food, while their non- Indigenous counterparts could simply purchase a license for one dollar, without asking for permission (Harris 2001, p.72-73; Schreiber 2008, p.89 as cited in Satterfield et al. 2017).

4 1.1. Context

Although this introduction makes no effort to provide a comprehensive history of modern fisheries in British Columbia, it is worthwhile to note the dynamics that underpinned this initial shift to a state-managed fishery in the late 1800s. Rapid industrialization of fishing accompanied the establishment of salmon canneries along the coast in the 1870s, and many

First Nations people became involved in the commercial canning industry as workers: men fishing, women cleaning fish and filling cans (Harris 2001; Newell 1993). The commercial fishery encouraged First Nations people to work in the industry, and participation in commercial fishing became important for people economically, providing them with a source of income in a new market-based economy (Harris 2001). At the same time, however, as the industry grew and sought to gain more access to fish, it began lobbying the government to limit other Indigenous fishing, using arguments that were “cloaked in the rhetoric of conservation” (Swenerton 1993; Meggs 1991, p.52; Harris 1998). In 1876, for example, when a controversial and lucrative harvest season by a canning firm divided public opin- ion, with some convinced that stocks were inexhaustible and others convinced they were on the brink of collapse, the canners themselves suggested “a middle course,” suggesting runs were good but any problems could be traced to First Nation fishing activities (Meggs 1991, p.53). The subsequent creation of a restrictive “Indian food fishery” by the government in

1888, separate from the industrial or sport fishery, was one measure taken not only to di- minish First Nations control and integrate First Nations people into the economy as labour, but also to open up the resource to non-Indigenous interests (Harris 2001; Swenerton 1993).

Meanwhile, these events took place against the backdrop of the Indian Act (1876) and subsequent potlatch ban (1885), the imposition of residential schooling, and the forcible removal of people from their traditional village sites2 (Paul et al. 2014; Tla’amin First Nation 2016;

Truth and Commission 2015).

2For the Tla’amin people, this included the Tla’amin winter village Tees’kwat (tiskʷət), the current site of the Powell River wood pulp and paper mill (Osmond 2016).

5 1.1. Context

Steps to sovereignty and future planning

The salmon canning industry has since boomed and busted, but the relationship between

First Nations and the centralized bureaucratic management continued as a fraught one, taking on the form of legal battles in contemporary times (Haggan and Brown 2003; Newell

1993). In recent years, efforts have been made toward reconciliation. These include the

Truth and Reconciliation Commission and recommendations in 2015 (Truth and Reconcili- ation Commission of Canada 2015), a Reconciliation Framework Agreement for Bioregional

Oceans Management and Protection between the Government of Canada and 14 First Na- tions on the Pacific North Coast in 2018 (Office of the Prime Minister 2018), and recent amendments to the Fisheries Act through Bill C-68, which requires that “when making a decision under that Act, the Minister shall consider any adverse effects that the decision may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, include provisions respecting the consideration and protection of Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, and authorize the making of agreements with Indigenous governing bodies to further the purpose of the

Fisheries Act”(Bill C-68 2019). Most recently, in November 2019, the Province of British

Columbia passed legislation to make BC’s laws consistent with the United Nations Decla- ration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Bill 41 2019; Government of British Columbia

2019). This, then, may be an opportune time to implement new and strategic policy alternatives and solutions to address Indigenous rights and governance in marine policy and fisheries management (von der Porten et al. 2016).

For the Tla’amin Nation, strides have also been made toward reclaiming sovereignty. After a 20-year long negotiation process, the Tla’amin Nation signed the Tla’amin Final Agree- ment in 2016, a treaty aimed to restore their right to self-government and legal title of land

6 1.1. Context

(Tla’amin Nation 2019a). It is thus in this context of rebuilding self-determination and planning for the future that this research takes place.

Current status of fisheries resources

The status of many fish populations important for First Nations along the coast of British

Columbia (BC) is a cause for concern, chiefly due to overfishing of targeted and non-targeted species (Baum and Fuller 2016). Pacific salmon populations have been declining for several decades. Between 1950 and 2005, 96 percent of monitored streams on BC’s north and central coasts consistently failed to meet management escapement targets (Price et al. 2008; Price et al. 2017); and in 1993, 600 of 9204 identified salmon runs in BC were considered at high risk of extirpation (Price et al. 2017; Slaney et al. 1996). Although progress has been made since the adoption of the Wild Salmon Policy (2005), the abundance of spawning adults has de- clined considerably for several Pacific salmon species, and monitoring effort has remained inadequate (Cohen 2012; Price et al. 2017).

Similar data gaps exist for non-salmon species due to federal budget cuts to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) over the past decade (Baum and Fuller 2016). Stock assessment frequency on the Pacific coast has been varied and patchy across species, and these temporal gaps present an impediment to sound fisheries management and recovery (Baum and Fuller 2016). For the species for which biomass estimates are available, there has been a declining trend in biomass since the 1970s, largely driven by a decline in groundfish species including rockfish (Sebastes spp.) and small pelagics such as herring (Clupea pallasii) (Baum and Fuller 2016). From the perspective of DFO’s Precautionary Approach Framework, Baum and Fuller (2016) show that only around 30% (13) of marine fish and invertebrate stocks on the Pacific coast of Canada are considered by DFO to be in a “healthy state,” corresponding to a level of fishing mortality and biomass that allow for long-term sustainable exploitation

7 1.1. Context aligning with productivity objectives, biological considerations, and social and economic objectives (Government of Canada 2009). Roughly 45% of stocks are in an unknown state

(Baum and Fuller 2016).

Implications of climate change

Making decisions about fisheries management requires one to take into account the implications of climate change now and in the upcoming decades. Since the industrial period, our ocean has borne much of the effects of anthropogenic climate change, with over 90 percent of excess heat having accumulated in the ocean globally (IPCC 2019b; Weatherdon et al.

2016). The ocean has also taken up an estimated 20 to 30 percent of total anthropogenic car- bon dioxide (CO2) emissions since the 1980s. Consequently, the rate of ocean warming has been increasing, doubling between 1993 and 2019; marine heatwaves have been increasing in frequency; and stratification between different ocean layers of the upper 200 m has been increasing (IPCC 2019b). Ocean acidification has also been intensifying due to absorption of more CO2, oxygen levels have decreased in the upper 1000 m of the ocean, and global mean sea levels have been increasing due to ice sheet and glacier mass loss and ocean thermal expansion (IPCC 2019b). These trends are only expected to continue into the future (IPCC

2019b).

Locally, the marine ecosystem in and around Tla’amin territory, part of the Strait of Geor- gia bioregion by the northeast Pacific Ocean, is facing a multitude of changes in the upcoming century (Okey et al. 2014; Weatherdon et al. 2016). The Strait of Georgia bioregion, which forms the largest part of the Salish Sea and lies between mainland British Columbia and Vancouver Island, is considered to be relatively sensitive to climate change impacts, not only because of its exposure and proximity to relatively dense human populations and human-related stressors, but also because of its geomorphology and oceanography, strong

8 1.1. Context influence of rivers, and estuarine and tidal circulations (Johannessen and Macdonald 2009;

Okey et al. 2014). River discharge from the Fraser River, the dominant source of freshwater and particulate matter and the main driver of circulation for the strait, has already expe- rienced changes: summer peak flow has decreased, while winter flow has tended to occur earlier (Johannessen and Macdonald 2009). Other expected changes include warming waters, decreases in dissolved oxygen, and increases in ocean acidity, all of which may have cascading effects on biota (Gattuso et al. 2015; Johannessen and Macdonald 2009; Okey et al.

2014).

A review of the effects of climate change on Pacific marine ecosystems in Canada by Okey et al. (2014) summarized projected impacts on marine life into several themes. First, changes in the environment are expected to decrease habitable space for marine organisms, which could force latitudinal and depth range shifts. Examples of this include poleward shifts in distribution range that is largely driven by ocean warming (Cheung et al. 2015). In some cases, cold-water species may shift to more thermally-optimal deeper waters during peri- ods of warmer temperature (Dulvy et al. 2008). At the same time, some deep-water-adapted species may be driven into shallower waters because of oxygen depletion, where they could be more susceptible to predation (McKinnell and Dagg 2010; Okey et al. 2014). Second, shifts in the distribution, abundance, and timing of biological events may lead to changes in the composition and interaction of communities (Ainsworth et al. 2011), including spatial or temporal mis-matches between co-evolved species. Environmental changes could also bring the arrival of new, and potentially invasive, species (Lo et al. 2010), as well as changes to patterns of primary production, toxic algal blooms, and adverse physiological effects on invertebrates due to ocean acidification (Okey et al. 2014). Finally, combined or cumulative effects of climate-related and non-climatic stressors, such as commercial fishing, may increase overall vulnerability of species communities to ecosystem changes (Okey et al. 2014). On the coast of British Columbia (BC), projected changes to species distribu-

9 1.1. Context tions due to changing ocean conditions alone are expected to bring about average declines of 4.5 to 11 percent in cumulative annual catch for 98 modelled marine fishes and invertebrates of commercial and cultural importance to First Nations in BC, between 2000 and

2050 (Weatherdon et al. 2016). These climate-related changes, then, compound onto other stressors. For example, Pacific salmon, which were estimated to decrease by an average of

17 to 29 percent in catch availability from climate-related distribution shifts (Weatherdon et al. 2016), are especially threatened by multiple stressors: because Pacific salmon rely on a wide range of habitats over their life cycle, their survival is affected not only by changing ocean conditions and fishing at sea, but also by habitat destruction, increases in river temperature, and decreases in river flow (Gale et al. 2014; Johannessen and Macdonald 2009;

Satterfield et al. 2017).

Given these expected changes for marine ecosystems and their ecological communities, there is concern that climate effects would directly impact the people who rely on seafood from these northeast Pacific waters. Negative effects on fish and shellfish may further exacerbate existing challenges to seafood availability and access. Already, a survey conducted in partnership with 21 randomly selected First Nations “on-reserve” communities in BC in

2008-2009 (First Nations Food, Nutrition & Environment Study, FNFNES) found that 47.4% of respondents cited climate change as one of the drivers worsening the decline of traditional food availability in their households (Chan et al. 2011; Marushka et al. 2019). In view of this, First Nations-led community planning and resource co-management may be inte- gral to the continuation of harvest and consumption of traditional fish and shellfish in the years to follow.

10 1.1. Context

Building understanding for adaptation

To reduce climate-risk on fisheries and seafood security, there is a need to identify and implement adaptation strategies in the face of climate change. Adaptation occurs at several scales of implementation (Lim et al. 2005; Whitney et al. 2017), and working locally to identify people’s values, perceptions, priorities, needs, capacities, and knowledge is especially important to enable more nuanced, context-specific, and relevant adaptation strategies (IPCC 2019a; Ford et al. 2019; Galappaththi et al. 2019; Neef et al. 2018; Pearce et al.

2015; Whitney et al. 2017; Wilson 2014).

Adaptation to climate change can be defined broadly as “adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities” (IPCC 2007, p.869), or, in a community setting, as

“a community-led process, based on communities’ priorities, needs, knowledge, and capacities, which should empower people to plan for and cope with the impacts of climate change”

(Reid et al. 2009, p.13 as cited in Wilson 2014). A community’s capacity to adapt, or “adaptive capacity,” is characterized as “the capacity to learn, combine experience and knowledge, ad- just responses to changing external drivers and internal processes, and continue operating”

(Berkes et al. 2008 as quoted in Béné et al. 2016). In the ecological resilience approach, it is this adaptive capacity, along with other types of capacities to respond to shocks and stressors (i.e., absorptive (coping) capacity and transformative capacity), that contributes to the notion of “social-ecological resilience” (Béné et al. 2016; Galappaththi et al. 2019).

Although this concept of resilience is perceived as a desired outcome in certain contexts

(Barrett and Constas 2014), not all resilient responses necessarily bring about positive outcomes in the long run, and there may be trade-offs between different elements of adaptive capacity (Cinner et al. 2018). Resilient responses that bring about initial desirable change

11 1.1. Context may also have detrimental medium to long-term consequences (Béné et al. 2016). These may happen in cases where analyses or action is focused on a single driver, such as climate change, while inadvertently neglecting other, sometimes more critical, stressors (Gau- tam and Andersen 2017; Nagoda 2015). In a given social-ecological system 3, stressors may span different scales and act through multiple different pathways, with effects that may be contextual or hidden (Bunce et al. 2010). Because of these multi-dimensionalities, it is important to understand and interrogate the interactions between multiple stressors (Ben- nett et al. 2016; Bunce et al. 2010), as well as trace the stressor-impact pathways on people and their communities (Bunce et al. 2010; Few 2007). Assessing climate-impact pathways can be useful to identify opportunities for adaptation, even when done in a linear fash- ion (Few 2007). However, employing a more holistic, “systems” approach to elicit these climate-impact pathways naturally situates these pathways in the context of existing feedbacks and inter-linkages with other non-climatic factors. Identifying climate-impact pathways through a systems approach, as we will detail further in the second half of this introduction, may also better address the complexity of the local system at hand (Tendall et al.

2015).

Thus, this research aims to gather and formalize the understanding of the (climatic and non-climatic) factors and climate-impact pathways affecting the Tla’amin marine food system, with the aim of informing potential climate adaptation planning. We partner with the

Tla’amin First Nation to investigate the pathways through which climate-related impacts on marine life could affect how people harvest and consume traditional seafood, as well as to explore how projected climate-related impacts on marine life in the 21st century may interact with other, non-climatic, factors and dynamics within their modern Northern Coast

Salish food system.

3A social-ecological system can be defined as a system that includes human and biophysical subsystems in mutual interaction. For more working definitions, see Colding and Barthel (2019).

12 1.1. Context

This thesis is guided by the following questions:

(a) Through what perceived mechanisms or pathways, if any, could climate-driven ecosys-

tem changes affect local seafood access and consumption in the Tla’amin First Nation

community? And,

(b) How are climate effects situated among other factors that affect local seafood avail-

ability and access to harvest?

We first use a participatory systems mapping approach to gather community expertise and identify the various factors and inter-linkages impacting traditional marine food harvest and consumption. From the resulting systems map (an influence diagram in the form of a signed directed graph), we trace pathways that lead from climate change to traditional seafood consumption and identify associated dynamics and feedbacks. We then unpack further the dynamics that directly impact traditional marine food harvest using a fuzzy cognitive mapping semantic analysis approach.

In the following section, we will explain the rationale behind the methodological framework taken for this thesis. We will review the advantages of a systems approach, the various possible approaches to constructing or analysing system maps or influence diagrams, and the benefits of a participatory approach.

13 1.2. Research framework

system /ˈsi-stəm/ : a regularly interacting or interdependent group

of items forming a unified whole

from late Latin systemat-, systema, from Greek systēmat-, systēma,

from synistanai to combine, from syn- + histanai to cause to stand

(As defined in Merriam-Webster’s English dictionary )

A systems science approach

To address the complexity present in the modern Tla’amin traditional marine food system and explicitly investigate the inter-linkages between factors affecting harvest and consumption of traditional marine foods, we turn to a field of inquiry called “systems science,” along with Indigenous notions of relationality and holism (or ‘wholism’), and participatory systems methodologies. In particular, we employ a participatory systems mapping approach, which allows for the exploration of a diversity of factors in an integrated way, by explicitly and collaboratively addressing the interconnections between them.

In searching for a suitable approach to this research, we prioritise methods that explicitly consider the interconnections between a broad range of factors within a given complex system (i.e. the Tla’amin traditional marine food system). In particular, we require a method that then allows for the subsequent identification of pathways perceived to lead from one concept to another (i.e. pathways from climate-driven environmental changes to consumption of traditional marine foods). We also prioritise collaborative methods that are grounded in community expertise and practice, which allow researchers to cast a wide net with relatively few a priori assumptions about the system itself.

14 1.2. Research framework

What is systems science?

Systems science, or the study of systems, is a domain of inquiry whose focus lies more in the way things are organized and relate to one another, rather than on the things themselves (Klir 2001). This perspective to scientific inquiry, which has transcended disciplinary boundaries, emerged from the evolution of western science.

The scientific method, with modern influences in the western philosophical movement known as logical empiricism (logical positivism), is one of a multitude of ways through which humans have expressed and transmitted knowledge, and it has been an especially useful way to discover and document what people know about the world (Chalmers 1999;

Creath 2017). As science progressed over the centuries, however, it has been accompanied by increasingly siloed specializations with rigid mechanistic approaches (Klir 2001; Las- zlo 1978; M’Pherson 1974). These self-imposed boundaries between academic disciplines may prove to be restrictive (M’Pherson 1974; Paasche and Österblom 2019; van den Belt

2004); as science philosopher Ervin László writes, “observed phenomena in the natural and man-made universe do not come in neat disciplinary packages labeled scientific, human- istic, and transcendental: they invariably involve complex combinations of fields, and the multifaceted situations to which they give rise require an holistic approach for their so- lution” (Laszlo and Laszlo 1997). In this vein, members of the scientific community have emphasized the importance of overcoming disciplinary boundaries in recent years, with calls in fields like conservation to move toward cross- and trans-disciplinarity within and between the natural and social sciences (Bennett et al. 2017; Campbell 2005; Levin and Poe

2017; Mascia et al. 2003). There has also been an adoption of theoretical frameworks like social-ecological systems and resilience (Béné et al. 2016; Chapin et al. 2009; Folke et al. 2016) and approaches such as adaptive co-management, which link academia with non-academic stakeholders (Armitage et al. 2009; Armitage et al. 2010).

15 1.2. Research framework

Systems science, whose approaches gained traction in the second half of the 20th century, provides one set of tools for transdisciplinary research (Klir 2001; Laszlo and Laszlo 1997).

At its essence, it is the study of different interconnected elements, the relationships between them, and the “system” that they make up as a whole (Hall and Fagen 1956; Klir 2001; Las- zlo 1978). It was born both from a reaction to the reductionism of the traditional sciences and its failure to adequately cope with complexity in the biological and social domains, as well as from an emergence of interdisciplinary areas in science like biophysics and social psychology (Jackson 2003; Klir 2001). Systems science as a field of inquiry reconciles reductionism and empiricism with a holistic approach and is accompanied by the notion that some principles, ideas, and methods could be applicable to “systems” in general— regardless of their disciplinary categorization (Hall and Fagen 1956; Klir 2001). This gave rise to related (sub-)fields of general systems theory, cybernetics and control theory, non-linear dynamical systems, systems dynamics, multi-agent modelling, network science and more

(Chen and Stroup 1993; Hieronymi 2013; Wolstenholme 1999).

Since the 1980s, the systems science approach has been extended to the qualitative principles of “systems thinking,” a procedure that has been popularized in not only social-ecological resilience research, but also operations research, management, and other fields (Béné et al.

2016; Buchanan 2019; Chen and Stroup 1993; Duboz et al. 2018; Enfors-Kautsky et al. 2018;

Jackson 2003; Senge 1990; The Omidyar Group 2017).

A link to Indigenous and holistic ways of thinking

Using a systems approach in this research also allows for the methods employed in this work to be more congruent with the holistic thinking present in many Indigenous cultures.

Indeed, although it is debatable how well the English word “system” conveys the concept of different parts making up a coherent whole (Hall and Fagen 1956; M’Pherson 1974), a

16 1.2. Research framework holistic worldview comes naturally to many Indigenous ways of knowing (Aikenhead and

Ogawa 2007; Berkes 2009; Davidson-Hunt and Berkes 2003; Long et al. 2003; Paul et al. 2014, p.83; Atleo 2004; Kii’iljuus Wilson and Luu Gaahlandaay Borserio 2011 as cited in Salomon et al. 2018). Often taking on the form of legends, teachings and oral histories, these ways of knowing are highly relational, focusing on the “interconnectedness and holism of our place in the universe” (Barnhardt and Oscar Kawagley 2005, p.12 as quoted in Aikenhead and Ogawa 2007; Cajete 2000).

Moreover, Indigenous understandings of traditional ecological knowledge are embodied in the relationships between knowledge, people, and all of creation, both natural and spiritual

(Aikenhead and Ogawa 2007; McGregor 2002). Tla’amin Elder Elsie Paul also echoes these ideas of interconnectivity as she concludes the telling of a legend in her book Written as I

Remember it, “Whatever it was, the water, the lighting, the animals, the birds. Everything’s connected” (Paul et al. 2014).

Because of the common threads shared with systems science, this relational way of knowing and being has had an inextricable influence on this study. Although this research does not necessarily employ an Indigenous methodology, it has been profoundly shaped by the author’s conversations and interactions with Tla’amin collaborators and community members.

Models to synthesize understanding

Within a systems science and systems thinking approach, the construction of “models” is what allows for the explicit documentation, visualization, and exploration of these relations and interconnections.

In these contexts, “models” refer to the abstracted representation of an integrated system,

17 1.2. Research framework describing its key components and the relationships between them. Not all models are necessarily drawn or written down: for example, “mental models,” which can be described as simplified cognitive representations of systems that exist in the world, are what we humans use to make day-to-day decisions and interact with the world around us (Doyle and

Ford 1998; Epstein 2008; Hovmand 2014; Jones et al. 2011). In modelling disciplines, however, these implicit mental models are made explicit, through formal models that can be investigated using computer simulation or through informal diagrams (Epstein 2008; Hov- mand 2014). Depending on the scope, purpose, and availability of data, system models may be informed by measured or previously modelled data, scientific literature, expert knowledge, as well as values and perceptions. This information can be quantitative or qualitative in nature, or a combination of both (Mago et al. 2012, 2013). In the context of complex problems, qualitative information, through the analysis of interviews, oral history, focus groups, and participant observation, can provide especially valuable insight into the dynamics of a system (Luna-Reyes and Andersen 2003).

The creation of an explicit model can illuminate core dynamics and uncertainties, the dis- covery of new questions, and the demonstration of trade-offs within a system (Epstein 2008).

With regard to human-environment relations, models offer the ability to expand our understanding of ecosystems, as well as the implications of our management and policy decisions on ecosystem and human health (Bunce et al. 2010; Gray 2016; Jones et al. 2011; van den Belt

2004). Although the advent of systems sciences was largely driven by advances in computer simulation methods (Chen and Stroup 1993; Hieronymi 2013; Wolstenholme 1999), there is inherent value in the construction of informal model diagrams (Coyle 2000). Coyle (2000) argues that the process of describing a complex system, though often described as the initial step before the creation of a formal computer simulation model, is a useful thing to do in and of itself and may lead to better understanding of the problem at hand.

18 1.2. Research framework

Informal model diagrams are visual representations of a system, referred to by some researchers and practitioners as “qualitative models,” “conceptual models,” or “cognitive maps”

(Coyle 2000; Etienne et al. 2011; Linnéusson 2009). They include influence diagrams or causal maps, which are graphical diagrams in which arrows are drawn between concepts to represent hypothesized influences or causal relationships (Chaib-draa 2002; Coyle 2000;

Hovmand 2014; Sterman 2000). Causal mapping, through its ability to describe causal connections in a comprehensive way, has lent itself to management and decision-making contexts, in which maps can be constructed to represent the perceptions and domain knowledge of decision-makers (Axelrod 1976; Nadkarni and Shenoy 2004). The construction of these diagrams has also been useful in socio-ecological systems and coastal and marine management contexts; for example, Prigent et al. (2008) used cognitive maps to formalize and compare the objectives and knowledge of fishers and shellfish farmers in the French

Eastern English Channel, while Bonneau de Beaufort et al. (2015) constructed causal maps to help inform management of scallop dredging in the Bay of Brest.

Participatory modelling

The implementation of systems mapping through participatory modelling, in particular, allows researchers and practitioners, through collaboration, to address the complexity and social context that accompanies a systems model (Duboz et al. 2018; Franco and Montibeller

2010).

This research with the Tla’amin Nation seeks a collaborative approach that involves few a priori ideas on the part of researchers, instead letting factors and dynamics of the system emerge from community members themselves. This is important, since the knowledge of what factors affect (and how they affect) harvest and consumption of traditional food lies with the people who experience it firsthand, and also because participatory “bottom-

19 1.2. Research framework up” approaches to build understanding have been considered foundational when aiming to contribute to practical adaptation initiatives (Smit and Wandel 2006).

“Participatory modelling” takes this bottom-up approach to the construction of systems models, mobilizing the knowledge of different actors to create explicit informal and formal models through facilitated or collaborative methods (Duboz et al. 2018). It is a concrete way to incorporate diverse perspectives and knowledge; consider different socio-cultural, environmental, political, economic and environmental contexts; and consider power relationships present among stakeholders, while building shared understandings of reality and facilitating social learning (Duboz et al. 2018; van den Belt and Blake 2015). A resulting collective model can also serve to disseminate insights contributed and gained by participants

(van den Belt 2004).

There are numerous methods to participatory modelling, all of whom share a transdisciplinary, collaborative learning approach (Duboz et al. 2018). These include: Group Model

Building (GMB) (Luna-Reyes et al. 2006; Rouwette et al. 2002; Vennix 1999); Community-

Based Systems Dynamics modelling (CBSD) (Hovmand 2014); the ARDI (Actors, Resources,

Dynamics, and Interactions) method (Etienne et al. 2011); and many other methods under the broader term of “participatory modelling” (Gray 2016). These approaches are closely related to the philosophies of Companion Modeling (ComMod), which emphasizes the adaptive and flexible nature of these modelling processes and systematically considers the (power) relationships between stakeholders (Barreteau et al. 2014; Duboz et al. 2018); and to Check- land’s soft-systems methodology, which emphasizes collective learning in the face of am- biguous and complex problems (Checkland 2000; van den Belt 2004, p.52).

Participatory modelling can play an important role in bridging understanding between scientists and/or decision-makers and community members. For instance, some approaches to participatory modelling highlight the ways in which they integrate science and deliber-

20 1.2. Research framework ation; in those processes, scientists become one of the stakeholders in a collaborative management discussion, increasing a shared understanding of the dynamics of a problem in order to build consensus and inform decision-making (van den Belt 2004). In operations research, models built through a facilitated process can provide managers with a learning tool that allows them to work out ideas and action possibilities for the question at hand (Franco and Montibeller 2010). In the context of international development, the participatory nature of these approaches is especially meaningful given the acknowledged importance of community driven solutions in socio-ecological challenges (Berardi et al. 2013, 2015).

Although the specific questions and activities posed in the model construction of this study are tailored to the context of the Tla’amin marine food system, the research method employed is loosely inspired by group model building “scripts” developed at University of Al- bany’s Rockefeller College (Luna-Reyes et al. 2006); the Actors, Resources, Dynamics, and

Interactions (ARDI) framework (Etienne et al. 2011), a framework for the co-construction of systems models (“conceptual models”) focused on eliciting the dynamics between actors and natural resources; as well as activities conducted as part of the Participatory Modelling of Wellbeing Trade-Offs in Coastal Kenya (P-mowtick) project (Daw et al. 2015; ESPA 2012;

Galafassi et al. 2017). A flexibility in the activities employed (to tailor to the understandings and communication styles of workshop participants) was prioritised over the rigid adher- ence to a framework that may potentially be less meaningful to participating collaborators.

In this research, we use a participatory systems mapping method with Tla’amin Elders, legislators, managers, and community members who hold expertise in fisheries, traditional food harvest, resource management and health. In researcher-facilitated workshop groups, participants co-construct informal model diagrams, specifically influence diagrams, to lay out the factors that impact traditional food harvest and consumption and situate the role of

21 1.2. Research framework

(i) (ii) B B C C

A A E E D D

Figure 1.2.: Influence diagrams take the form of directed graphs. Shown here, (i) a directed acyclic graph and (ii) a directed graph with one cycle. climate change in the current dynamics of the Tla’amin marine food system. From these influence diagrams, climate-impact pathways on the consumption of traditional marine foods can then be traced and identified.

Constructing influence diagrams

Generally, an influence diagram will be represented through a directed graph (Fig. 1.2), which is defined in mathematics (graph theory) as “a set of vertices and a collection of directed edges that each connects an ordered pair of vertices” (Fishwick 1991; Sedgewick and

Wayne 2019). That is to say, a collection of objects that are related to one another, where each relationship (edge) is associated with a direction.

The way in which an influence diagram is further formulated depends on its intended use and, if eventual computer simulation is intended, on the model simulation technique. De- pending on the modelling approach used, the edges of the directed graph can be associated with signs, weights, discrete or continuous functional relationships, or even logical state- ments.

In the construction and development of influence diagrams in this research, we prioritise

22 1.2. Research framework methods that can be accessible and transparent to our non-academic workshop participants, who come from a variety of life experiences and backgrounds. This means a flexible and versatile approach that can take advantage of narrative and qualitative information in the specification of concepts, relationships, and dynamics. For these reasons, we choose to construct system influence diagrams that are able to support an intuitive, linguistic description of the system’s relationships. We use a signed directed graph as a base, then further specify the diagram to capture the fundamental nature of these system relationships with the addition of logic-based conjunctions. We then show how this logic-based influence diagram can subsequently be translated into a qualitative computational simulation. For the purpose of this thesis, we choose to use a modified version of “Fuzzy” Cognitive Mapping

(FCM) as an example.

In the following, final introductory sections, we provide a rationale for why FCM is chosen as the intended modelling technique for the computational simulation of our constructed influence diagram. We give an overview of various possible modelling techniques, further details of FCM construction, some advantages and limitations of the FCM method, and how we push the boundaries of those limitations in this research through the addition of logic- based conjunctions.

Influence diagram simulation techniques

There exist several possible modelling approaches and computational simulation techniques that will guide the construction and formulation of a system influence diagram. In selecting an intended simulation approach for our diagram of the Tla’amin traditional marine food system, however, we seek methods that do not necessarily need quantitative parameterization of all factors and relations identified. This is due to the intangible nature of many concepts that relate to traditional foods, as well as the infeasibility of conducting meaningful,

23 1.2. Research framework quantitative expert elicitation given a large number of workshop participants and a limited amount of time. We also search for modelling techniques that have the potential to seam- lessly translate into computer simulations for the purpose of quick scenario comparisons and more involved decision support in potential future adaptation strategy development and implementation.

Systems dynamics modelling (SD) is a technique to analyze the behaviour of complex systems over time using numerical computer simulation, often to inform policy analysis and design. In a systems dynamics approach, however, quantitative parameterization is required: the influence diagram is formalized mathematically through the formulation of equations (e.g. functional relationships, difference or differential equations) and the parameterization of concept levels and rates. The directed graph representation must be reduced into one or more “stock and flow” models, where quantities flow from one concept to another and accumulate over time (Bérard 2010; Meadows 2008; Sterman 2000;

Suprun et al. 2018; van den Belt 2004; Wolstenholme 1999). This formalization process can be time- and resource-intensive, especially when direct stakeholder participation is priori- tized (Suprun et al. 2018). It can be even more challenging in situations where quantitatively characterizing the system in this manner cannot be done while retaining meaning or validity (Luker 1991), or when the technical nature of this process may prevent participation from non-technical, expert community members. In these situations, this formal systems dynamics approach may not necessarily be the most appropriate.

Instead, one may opt to conduct qualitative analyses or to employ techniques of simulation that are more qualitative in nature (Levins 1974; Luker 1991). Bayesian belief networks

(BBNs) and their less precise counterparts, qualitative probabilistic networks (QPNs), are two such ways of constructing and directly analysing directed graphs. QPNs, and BBNs especially, lend themselves well as decision support tools in the face of uncertain information

24 1.2. Research framework

(Bonneau de Beaufort et al. 2015). They also show promise in their ability to use both scientific and traditional forms of knowledge (Mantyka-Pringle et al. 2017). BBNs, however, can still be time- and resource-intensive. BBNs associate each set of relations that influence a given concept with a conditional probability matrix (derived from data and/or expert elicitation) (van Kouwen et al. 2008; Wellman 1990). Similarly, QPNs also associate each relation in the diagram or network with a probability metric, but in a less rigid way: each edge is associated with a sign (+, −, 0, or ?: “positive”, “negative”, “no effect”, or “unknown”) that specifies the nature of influence. For example, a positive influence would indicate that the presence of one concept corresponds to an increased probability of the other concept (Well- man 1990). Due to the probabilistic nature of their analyses, however, the directed graphs corresponding to BBNs and QPNs are necessarily acyclic (Wellman 1990). Because of this acyclic structure, the construction of BBNs and QPNs can be challenging in the context of environmental issues. Not only do environmental contexts typically encompass many feedback effects, but in addition, the removal of feedback loops to achieve the required acyclic structure may require arbitrary choices (Bonneau de Beaufort et al. 2015). Because of this, we turn to other methods that do encode loops into their representation of the system at hand.

Methods that allow for feedback dynamics to be represented in a system’s influence diagram include causal loop diagramming (CLD), as well as loop analysis and qualitative network modelling (QNM). In explanatory or management contexts, when further computer simulation may not be intended, an influence diagram may take on the form of a “causal loop diagram” (Herrera 2017; Sterman 2000). Popularized by Senge (1990) to make systems dynamics more accessible to non-technical fields (Linnéusson 2009, p.24; Enfors-Kautsky et al. 2018; Ricigliano 2012; Senge 1990; The Omidyar Group 2017), causal loop diagrams put an emphasis on the explicit mapping and identification of chains of relationships that loop back to affect the original causal concept— i.e., feedback loops. They employ a sim-

25 1.2. Research framework ple negative or positive (binary) relationship associated with each link or arrow, which are then used to determine the overall character of each feedback loop (i.e. the loop is defined as a reinforcing, or positive feedback loop if it reinforces the original change in the concept; and as a balancing, or negative feedback loop if it opposes the original change) (Sterman

2000). Main insights of this technique come from the identification and naming of these loops, which can be useful in and of itself, but provide no avenue for further computer simulation.

Causal loop diagram analyses are, in some regard, a more accessible version of the loop analysis algorithm proposed by Puccia and Levins (1985), which, unlike causal loop diagrams, have recently been expanded into a computational simulation approach. Puccia and Levins’ loop analysis is an algorithm to qualitatively analyze partially specified (data- limited) systems governed by linearizable ordinary differential equations. In loop analysis, the signs and edge weights of the signed directed graphs correspond to how increases or decreases in individual concepts would directly affect the rate of change of other concepts at equilibrium4 (e.g. +, −, or 0: “increase”, “decrease”, or “no effect”) (Justus 2007; Levins

1974). In more recent research, this loop analysis has been further expanded in community ecology research as “qualitative network modelling” (QNM), in which simulations are done using sets of randomly generated weights for all uncertain interactions to generate a set of all plausible models (Harvey et al. 2016; Melbourne-Thomas et al. 2013; Reum et al. 2015).

The pool of models is then used to generate probabilities of outcomes given a “press perturbation” (i.e., a sustained, altered state (or elimination)) of a given concept (Bender et al.

1984; Raymond et al. 2011; Reum et al. 2015).

In the context of participatory methods with narrative data and linguistic descriptions of

4 For a link leading from concept xi to xj , the edge weight and sign would correspond to the magnitude and sign

∂ dxi of the coefficient: aij = ( ) ∂xj dt x∗

26 1.2. Research framework edge relationships, “fuzzy” cognitive mapping (FCM) is a similar method that has a slight advantage over QNM. Like QNM, FCM allows feedback interactions (Osoba and Kosko 2017); however, without the strict differential meaning of edge weights as in QNM, there is more flexibility for modifications to include, for example, logical conjunctions in the specification of causal relationships in the influence diagram.

“Fuzzy” cognitive mapping (FCM) is a simple simulation approach to influence diagrams, often used to compare the perceptions or mental models of different groups of people (Gray et al. 2012; Özesmi and Özesmi 2004) or as a quick way to carry out simple scenario explo- rations, with applications in many socio-ecological problem contexts (Devisscher et al. 2016;

Gray et al. 2015; Gray et al. 2012; Özesmi and Özesmi 2004; Papageorgiou and Salmeron

2014; Penn et al. 2013; Solana-Gutiérrez et al. 2017; Vasslides and Jensen 2016). Introduced by Kosko (1986), “fuzzy” cognitive maps (FCMs)5 are a way to characterize and iterate relationships between concepts with imprecise or vaguely-defined values using informal causal reasoning. Concepts are typically defined on a semi-quantitative, constructed scale (e.g. 0 to 1: “low” to “high”). Edges are also semi-quantitative in nature, associated with a weight generally defined by a real number between -1 and +1. These edge weights correspond to the degree of causality, or the “causal strength” of the connection, with discrete weight values associated with corresponding linguistic variables (e.g. “weak”, “very weak”, “strong”).

Weight values may be determined with expert elicitation, local and indigenous knowledge, and/or scientific literature6. The levels of influencing concepts and their respective weights, along with a specified “transfer function,” dictate the resulting levels of concepts at each step of an FCM simulation.

5Note: The acronym “FCM” may be used for both the method, “fuzzy” cognitive mapping, as well as the directed graph constructed using this method, a “fuzzy” cognitive map. 6In the case where there are multiple layers of evidence, FCM edge weights can be calculated using fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic rules and inferences (Mago et al. 2012; Ramsey and Veltman 2005). Fuzzy logic has been suggested as an effective way to represent local and indigenous knowledge (Berkes 2009).

27 Table 1.1.: Overview of semi-quantitative modelling techniques

System Qualitative Causal loop Qualitative dynamics: Bayesian belief ”Fuzzy” probabilistic diagram (CLD) network stock-flow networks (BBN) Cognitive Maps networks analysis analysis models

Flow and rates: Causal influence: Indicate the flow Probabilistic Causal influence: The weight Probabilistic of material from influence: Given How an increase associated with influence: How one concept to the presence of in one concept the influence of presence of one Causal influence Nature of relationships another, or one concept, the affects the rate one concept’s concept affects the in general govern rates at probability of of change of the value on another probability of the which quantities the other other concept at concept’s other concept flow in/ out of concept equilibrium (subsequent) concepts value

Support of feedback Good Poor Poor Good Good Good dynamics

Translation into computer Good Good Good Poor Good Good simulation

Accessibility to Good non-technical audience

Ease of construction with Poor Poor Good Good non-technical audience

Transparency and traceability of parameters Good Good N/A Good used in subsequent simulations

Support of qualitative concepts and/or linguistic Good Good Good relationships 28 1.2. Research framework

For the purposes of this research, the FCM method of formulating influence diagrams presents several advantages over the methods discussed above: 1. FCM construction does not strictly require a formal, quantitative characterization of all factors and relationships; 2. Assump- tions inherent in FCM modelling do not disallow loops and cyclical structures in the directed graph; and 3. FCM construction translates naturally into further computational simulation.

Finally, FCM is a flexible enough method that may allow for potential modifications and incorporation of linguistic logical specifications of system relationships.

Basics of a “fuzzy” cognitive map

In an FCM, there are n concept nodes connected by signed directed edges with weights wij connecting some concept Ci to some concept Cj. Typically, this connection indicates that the presence of Ci influences the value of Cj at the next time step or iteration, weighted

t by some constant wij. In a discrete FCM, a concept’s state value Cj represents the extent to which the concept Cj is present or true in the FCM system at time step or iteration t, defined

t t t t in [0, 1]. The state vector C = [C1,C2, …,Cn] provides a snapshot of all concept values in the system. In this body of work, the words “level”, “state”, “value”, and “state value” will be used interchangeably to refer to concept values represented by the elements of Ct.

When simulating the FCM, concept values Ct are updated at each iteration until equilibrium values or limit cycles are reached (Osoba and Kosko 2017). At each iteration, a concept’s

t+1 value Cj is obtained by multiplying values of all influencing concepts by their respective weights, adding them together, then passing the result through a transfer function (thresh- olding, activation, or “squashing” function) fj. In a simple discrete FCM,

( ) ∑n t+1 t t Cj = fj kCi + Ci wij (1.1) i=1

29 1.2. Research framework where k typically assumes a value of either be 1 or 0 depending on the type of FCM algorithm used, wij is the weight of causal influence of concept Ci on concept Cj, and fj is some

t+1 function that converts the inputs into the concept node’s new state Cj .

These transfer functions are used in order to constrain concept values within a specified range (e.g. between 0 and 1, or -1 and +1) and are often sigmoidal in nature,7 but they can have variations in their characteristics and parameterization (Papageorgiou and Salmeron

2014). Typically, the sigmoidal function used is the standard

1 f(x; λ, h) = (1.2) 1 + e−λ(x−h)

(Knight et al. 2014). In order for the iterative FCM algorithm to produce valid outputs, the choice of f and its implementation must be carefully justified, as small differences in initial conditions or parameters can result in drastically different outcomes (Knight et al. 2014).

Different scenarios can be tested by “clamping” the value of one or more concepts, keeping them fixed at certain values (generally, “high” or “low” extremes) throughout the simulation. The equilibrium outcomes of these scenarios can then be compared to one another and used in the study of social-ecological systems or other decision-support applications

(Devisscher et al. 2016).

With the development of online and offline user interfaces (Gray et al. 2013; Wildenberg et al. 2010), FCMs are particularly accessible to practitioners and stakeholders who intend to use influence diagrams to stimulate discussion by prompting and projecting scenarios in real time. However, despite— or perhaps, because of— FCM’s ease of use, parameter and

7Note: There are other ways to aggregate weights, such as with bivalent or trivalent transfer functions (Felix et al. 2017); the choice depends on the application (Tsadiras 2008). Bivalent functions and their associated binary (+1 or -1) concept values, however, can result in contradictions during simulation (Miao et al. 2001).

30 1.2. Research framework algorithm choices made in FCM may be not only unintuitive to users, but also arbitrary in nature. This presents a problem when slight differences in transfer function parameters can result in substantial differences in simulation results (Knight et al. 2014; Penn et al.

2013). That being said, many improvements have been suggested in the literature to better address issues with the widely-used original FCM algorithm, including temporal handling, stability, value uncertainties, and logical reasoning (e.g. in fuzzy rule-based FCMs) (Car- valho 2013; Felix et al. 2017; Papageorgiou and Salmeron 2014). Perhaps due to a lack of accessibility or lack of practical advice, however, there remains a large gap between the development of accurate and robust FCM systems and the hands-on use by researchers and practitioners on real case studies (Felix et al. 2017). These improved algorithms can also be more time- and resource-intensive, losing some of the main benefits of the original FCM: simplicity, elegance, and ease of use (Carvalho and Tomé 1999).

Thus, this research does not aim to address all of the downfalls of the FCM algorithm; instead, we focus on simply adapting the original FCM method to better suit the Tla’amin food fisheries use-case while maintaining accessibility and simplicity. In particular, we dis- sect the relationships encoded in our influence diagram, making explicit their embedded semantics (Carvalho 2013) and introducing logical conjunctions that correspond to participants’ mental models. We do this by constructing what we will refer to as a “logic-based influence diagram,” 8 where we incorporate logical reasoning into the edges of our directed cyclic graph, something that is often lost with non rule-based FCMs (Carvalho 2013). The logic-based influence diagram can then be translated into a qualitative computational simulation using slight modifications to the original FCM algorithm.

8Davis and Cragin (2009) refer to similar logic-based structures as “combining logic diagrams.” Although their cases were limited to acyclic factor trees, the essence is the same.

31 1.2. Research framework

Research structure

This thesis presents the results and insights that emerged from two participatory workshops run with Tla’amin legislators, managers, Elders, and community experts on local natural resource management and health. The main chapter of thesis will detail the participatory systems mapping method taken for this research and will present the results through two influence diagrams: a co-constructed conceptual model of the broader traditional marine food system, as well as a logic-based influence diagram focusing on the factors affecting traditional harvest of seafood, which can be translated into a simple computational model using a modified “fuzzy” cognitive mapping (FCM) approach. The chapter will describe how participatory systems mapping can be used to uncover perceived climate-impact pathways, to trace the perceived effects of a changing climate and warming waters on a community’s harvest and consumption of traditional seafood, and how these pathways relate to broader concepts of harvest access and availability. More broadly, this research explores how a system understanding of barriers to local seafood availability and access might aid in the exploration of potential community adaptation strategies and illustrates the ways in which qualitative and semi-quantitative approaches have the potential to build and bridge understanding between different structures and ways of knowing.

32 2 Systems mapping for understanding climate impacts in a marine food system

2.1. Introduction

“I was reading, several years back, about the medicine wheel, and

how everything was interconnected. And interconnectedness was a

huge, huge deal. […] First Nations people utilized the medicine

wheels for plant life, for everything. Interconnectedness was so key

to thriving, and now with all the failures that are going on, they’re all

interconnected. It’s funny how it works out that way— all these little

things are interconnected as well.”

(Scott Galligos, December 2018)

Our ocean has borne much of the effects of anthropogenic climate change, with implications not only for marine biodiversity, but also for the human societies that depend upon them (Gattuso et al. 2015; IPCC 2013b, 2019b; Weatherdon et al. 2016). This includes Indige- nous peoples and communities who live and have lived along the Pacific Northwest coast

33 2.1. Introduction of North America, for whom the importance of fish and shellfish are engrained in place names, stories, traditional diets, cultures, and identities (Chan et al. 2011; Harris 2001; Paul et al. 2014; Satterfield et al. 2017).

Over the past ten thousand years, marine faunal abundances and distributions have varied in response to climatic change (Butler and Campbell 2004; Weatherdon 2014), and First

Nations in what is now known as British Columbia have adapted to these environmental changes by adjusting fishing techniques, targeted species, and settlement conditions in response (Trosper 2002; Turner and Clifton 2009; Weatherdon 2014). However, the present climate-related changes, specifically changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentra- tions and their associated increases in radiative forcing, are occurring at unprecedented rates in at least 22 000 years (IPCC 2013b), compounded by structural and regulatory constraints left by an unresolved colonial history and by declines of marine species from increased external commercial pressure and overfishing (Menzies and Butler 2007; Newell

1993; Turner and Turner 2007; Weatherdon 2014). These may have consequences for cultural and nutritional health at both a household and community level (Chan et al. 2011;

Marushka et al. 2019; Satterfield et al. 2017).

These expected changes suggest that there may be an increased need for First Nations to identify and implement effective adaptation strategies in the face of climate change. In- deed, local communities may be the most qualified to determine their path to adaptation

(Berardi et al. 2015; Smit and Wandel 2006; Wilson 2014). In this process, working in partnership with community members to identify people’s perceptions, priorities, and knowledge is a crucial step, enabling more nuanced, context-specific, and appropriate adaptation strategies (IPCC 2019a; Ford et al. 2019; Galappaththi et al. 2019; Pearce et al. 2015; Whitney et al. 2017; Wilson 2014).

In this collaboration with the Tla’amin Nation, we aim to support this process by synthesiz-

34 2.1. Introduction ing and exploring the interactions between climate change and other non-climatic drivers that may influence the harvest and consumption of traditional marine foods. Before we be- gin to employ methods that identify barriers to climate change adaptation processes (Moser and Ekstrom 2010), we focus on building an initial ground-up understanding of the system at hand. Here, our “system” comprises the inter-connected factors and relationships that influence food fisheries harvest and traditional marine food consumption in Tla’amin Na- tion.

Factors influencing the use of traditional foods in First Nation communities have been investigated through survey-based perspectives (Chan et al. 2011; Kuhnlein 1989). For example,

Kuhnlein (1989) interviewed women heads of households in the Nuxalk food system and asked how often different traditional plant and animal species were used. Through a multiple regression analysis, they found that for fish and game, availability of the foods as well as taste appreciation predicted how often those foods were used. Similarly, a province-wide dietary survey of on-reserve First Nations in BC by Chan et al. (2011) listed several barriers preventing (more) use of traditional food (i.e., equipment and transportation, availability, time, ease of access, regulations). They separately cited that 75% of respondents observed that climate change was affecting availability of food for harvest. More recently,

Ouchi (2019) identified several key social-ecological mechanisms that were perceived to drive changes in seafood harvest and consumption portfolios in Tla’amin Nation. Never- theless, although many factors and mechanisms underlying traditional food use have been discussed in these studies, there remain gaps in the synthesized understanding of how these factors and mechanisms relate to one another.

There is thus room to expand beyond these survey-based approaches and to further study how the different factors affecting traditional food use interact with and affect each other in the overall food system. The complexity of traditional seafood availability and access for

35 Indigenous communities, along with the threat of further challenges due to climate change, underscores the importance of developing a more holistic understanding of the local food system in question. For this, we turn to the fields of systems sciences, along with Indige- nous notions of relationality and holism (or ‘wholism’), and participatory systems methodologies.

Taking a participatory systems modelling approach, and in collaboration with the Tla’amin

First Nation, we co-develop a conceptual model of the key dynamics in the Tla’amin food fisheries system. The model is co-constructed through a participatory systems mapping exercise with Tla’amin Elders, legislators, managers, and community members with expertise in fisheries, traditional food harvest, resource management and health. Using the resulting conceptual model, we then investigate the pathways through which climate-driven ecosystem changes, including potential impacts on fish and shellfish populations, could affect how people harvest and consume traditional seafood. We situate these climate pathways in the context of non-climatic factors that affect local harvest of traditional marine foods, as well as in the context of broader concepts of access. With the insights and data gleaned from the participatory approach, we also specify a logic-based influence diagram that can be used to inform a qualitative computer simulation model, using a modified version of “fuzzy” cognitive mapping as an example.

2.2. Methods

This research employed a participatory systems method to co-construct conceptual models of the Tla’amin traditional marine food system. Two participatory workshops were organized between 2018 and 2019: (1) a main workshop held with broader participation by members, Elders, and staff of the Tla’amin Nation to co-develop a broad system understanding; and (2) a follow-up workshop, involving a subset of participants of the main workshop,

36 2.2. Methods to focus on elucidating a subset of the broader system dynamics. A participatory approach1 was chosen in order to maximize collaboration, transparency, and ownership with and by community members.

The two workshops contributed to two parts of this research. In Part One, we co-constructed a conceptual model, or systems map, in the form of an influence diagram that summarized the broad dynamics affecting harvest and consumption. From this map, we distilled the set of climate-impact pathways embedded within the broader dynamics. In Part Two, we developed a more detailed understanding of the climatic and non-climatic factors that influence traditional seafood harvest. Using the outputs from both workshops, we constructed a more detailed, logic-based influence diagram to illustrate the dynamics underlying traditional seafood harvest in the Tla’amin food system.

Part One: The marine food system and climate-impact pathways

Main workshop

A two half-day workshop was held in early December 2018 with members of the Tla’amin

Nation to bring together a variety of local knowledge about the harvest, consumption, and traditional use of fish and seafood. At the workshop, participants came together with the research team to identify the factors and key dynamics relating fisheries, environmental change, food security, culture, and well-being in the Tla’amin fish and food system.

The workshop was attended by 22 people (excluding project researchers) who held knowledge about Tla’amin fisheries, traditional harvest, health, culture, and resource management. Recruitment of participants through a combination of snowball sampling and help

1In contrast to a code-based construction of causal map diagrams, e.g. in Yearworth and White (2013).

37 2.2. Methods from Tla’amin Nation staff to identify and invite potential attendees. Attendees included, but were not limited to: Tla’amin legislators and natural resource managers, Sliammon

Fish Hatchery manager and workers, fishers, Elders who expressed interest in attending, the youth and community cultural coordinator, the community development officer, and

Tla’amin Health director and managers. Recruitment assistance was received from Lori

Wilson, Legislator and Executive Council for Lands & Resources for Tla’amin Nation and

Doreen Hopkins, Elders Program Coordinator. Members of the research team (Sachiko

Ouchi, Tiff-Annie Kenny, William Cheung, and Patricia Angkiriwang) acted as facilitators and notetakers for the workshop. Audio was recorded during workshop discussions to aid with record-keeping and note-taking for use in subsequent analyses. Ethics approval was obtained through the University of British Columbia’s Behavioural Research Ethics Board, and individuals were given ample time to review a consent and identity disclosure form before moving forward with their participation. In particular, participants were given the opportunity to indicate consent of the use of their name in this study, and the vast majority wished their name to be used. The vast majority also gave permission for their likeness to be used in presentations. Those who did not give these pieces of consent were kept anony- mous in this thesis and removed from any photographs. Lunch was provided both days of the workshop, and monetary compensation for participants’ time was provided to those who were not already working for Tla’amin Nation at the time of the workshop.

At the time of this thesis’ publication, the author has been in touch with Tla’amin Nation staff and has plans to create a visual summary or video that communicates the process and results of this study. This communication piece will be used to follow-up with workshop participants and the broader community, in lieu of an in-person visit given a global pandemic. The data collected (the audio-video recording of the workshop, along with its transcription and notes) are to be kept with the Tla’amin Nation and in a secure location at the University of British Columbia (UBC) for 5 years. At that time, the Tla’amin Nation will

38 2.2. Methods be contacted to see if they would like this information permanently archived at UBC. If not, the information in UBC’s possession will be destroyed.

Workshop structure

The workshop was held at the Tla’amin Nation’s Governance House on two consecutive mornings and began with an opening prayer led by Tla’amin Elder Eugene Louie, followed by a round of self-introductions and intentions with workshop participants and members of the research team.

Activities on the first half-day of the workshop focused on constructing influence diagrams in small groups (Fig. 2.1). After a presentation by the facilitation team on the context of the project and its connections with past and future research, participants were presented background information on the notion of “complex systems,” as well as the uses of systems mapping in building a larger picture of local food and resource challenges. Workshop goals were framed in the following way: to discuss the links between the fish and shellfish in the ocean and on beaches, the harvesting of this seafood, and the consumption of this seafood

(and the things that, in turn, affect these links) (Fig. A.1). Following a warm-up activity

(W1.1; see Appendix A for more detail), discussions took on the format of small group conversations, with the aim of constructing a shared, systems model of the factors surrounding availability and access to fish and seafood for traditional use. One facilitator was situated at each of the three groups, providing guiding questions and documenting the factors and links from the group’s discussion (W1.2).

On the second half-day of the workshop, participants from each of the groups presented their systems map from the previous day, highlighting key themes and concepts (W2.1). The facilitation team then presented participants with an aggregated systems map and asked participants for feedback. Participants later self-organized into 2 smaller groups, based on

39 2.2. Methods the task prompts assigned to each group. The first group was prompted to discuss the systems map in more detail (W2.2). Through a round-table discussion, they identified the major themes in the combined systems map, as well as the most important factors and connections in the system. The second group was prompted about changes and scenarios, both positive and negative, that their community could potentially see in the future (W2.3). These ideas were noted on a whiteboard by a member of the facilitation team.

Constructing the systems map

Like many other participatory modelling approaches, the chosen systems mapping approach emphasizes transparency and ease of use and thus relied heavily on visual tools to represent the complex system (Franco and Montibeller 2010; van den Belt 2004, p.17). The workshop’s main systems mapping exercise (W1.2) revolved around the construction of a visual diagram using hand-written sticky notes, representing concepts, and connected with hand- drawn arrows. These were drawn in real-time with participants during the main workshop and were later corroborated using qualitative coding of audio recordings from the activity.

A total of three conceptual system maps were constructed in Activity W1.2. Construction of these maps was guided by a facilitator, in groups of 6 to 7 people. Though participants were encouraged to write their own phrasing of concepts on the sticky notes available, in many cases people preferred to describe their thoughts orally, through stories, personal histories and examples. The structure, detail, and focus of these system maps varied depending on the nature of the conversation and the facilitator’s style of note-taking.

These three maps were then aggregated to form one single conceptual map. (This was done overnight so that the map could be presented on the second day of the workshop.) An assumed structure of “abundance influencing harvest, and harvest influencing consumption”

40 W 1.1 Warm up DRAWING ACTIVITY & LARGE GROUP DISCUSSION Prompt: What comes to mind when you think of important fish and shellfish in and around your territory?

W 1.2 Systems map building FACILITATED SMALL GROUP ACTIVITY Guiding questions: DAY 1 a) When the health of important fish and seafood stocks change (for better or worse), who or what are affected? b) What things directly limit or enable people’s ability obtain fish and seafood? c) What are the possible upstream causes or inhibitors of these direct factors? d) How are these factors connected?

W 2.1 Report back & discussion INFORMAL SHARE BACK & LARGE GROUP DISCUSSION Highlighted key themes and concepts from previous activities. Asked participants for feedback.

W 2.2 Refining W 2.3 Futures DAY 2 the diagram SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION What changes or Which are the most scenarios (positive and important factors and negative) could your connections in the community potentially systems map diagram? see in the future?

Figure 2.1.: Schematic of the activities that took place during the main workshop. This workshop was held to es- tablish a broad systems understanding of the factors affecting consumption and harvest of traditional marine foods in Tla’amin Nation.

41 2.2. Methods

(see Fig. A.1) along with concepts and links from the most comprehensive of the three maps were used as the starting point for the aggregate map. Links and concepts from the other two maps were then added, and identical or similarly-worded concepts were identified and merged, preserving all connecting links. No conflicting links emerged. Decisions to omit certain concepts or links from the aggregate map were made in the following way: 1. Ref- erences to specific types of people or species that had been noted in the individual maps were omitted, as they did not appear to be a central theme of the system dynamics elicited in the activity. Rather, most of the concepts were said to affect most, if not all, types of people and species mentioned. 2. Concepts representing broader underlying themes (e.g.,

“colonization”) that were said to influence the “whole” system rather than particular concepts were omitted, and, 3. Concepts at the periphery of the Tla’amin seafood system (e.g., restaurants and global seafood exports), were similarly omitted.

The second half-day of the workshop allowed for participant feedback on this aggregated systems map, as well as the identification of particularly important or significant components and themes. A more refined version of the map was digitized and printed in the

Tla’amin Nation newsletter Neh Motl to invite feedback from the broader community (though no further feedback was received via this medium).

Post-workshop analysis

Following the main workshop, audio recorded in Activities W1.2 was qualitatively coded for emergent themes using QSR NVivo 12 software to keep track of any potential patterns or key drivers. Codes were generated inductively and included recurring topics, ideas, as well as mentions of types of people and types of animal or plant species groups in the context of the local food system (B). Topic codes were kept broad to minimize redundancy.

Coding of recorded audio was also used to identify instances of inferred causality between

42 2.2. Methods concepts. When relations between concepts were described by the workshop participants, specific keywords or shorthands were used that would imply influence or causality (e.g. “because”, “→”) in the workshop notes and transcripts. These keywords and shorthands, and the associated concept relationships, were identified and coded as instances of inferred causality. Although this method of inferred causality identification may have resulted in an incomplete list, this method was chosen over the alternative, that is, tracking the co- occurrences of topics and ideas. Topic co-occurrences may not necessarily indicate a causal relationship and, rather, could be circumstantial or contextual (Yearworth and White 2013).

Identifying instances of inferred causality using the recorded audio helped to confirm, clarify, or identify any nuances or omissions in systems diagram links mapped during the workshop.

Potentially redundant concepts were further eliminated (e.g. “money” vs. “cost” vs. “affordability” vs. “having (no) money”), and names of concepts were slightly rephrased to be more generalisable. Additionally, some links between concepts were rearranged to better match what participants had articulated; this was done through the detailed listening, note-taking, and coding of the audio recorded in Activity W1.2. Finally, factors that no longer played a part in the current dynamics of the system (even though it may have greatly impacted its current state), were also omitted from the systems map.

The finalized systems map, which took on the form of a signed directed graph, was encoded into node and edge lists to allow for the automated calculation of basic network metrics, including degree, indegree, and outdegree, which represent the number of total, incoming, and outgoing links from a given node, respectively, as well as closeness centrality, the average number of links from the given node to all other nodes in the network. These cal- culations were conducted using the Gephi open source software for graph and network

43 2.2. Methods analysis (Bastian et al. 2009). The systems map graph was laid out using the force-directed, unweighted Fruchterman-Reingold Algorithm,2 with adjustments for label readability.

In order to extract climate-impact pathways from the systems map, descendant nodes and edges along all paths originating from the concept node “warming waters” were identified and isolated from the broader directed graph. Node positions were arranged such that the shortest path between “warming waters” and “consumption of seafood as traditional food” laid, left to right, in a straight line.

Part Two: Situating climate impacts on traditional harvest

Follow-up workshop

A second workshop was held with a subset of participants from the main workshop to further elucidate the harvest dynamics of the Tla’amin food fisheries system. The goal was to obtain a more nuanced understanding in order to inform a logic-based influence diagram of factors affecting traditional harvest, which then could be used to situate climate effects in the context of other non-climatic factors. This workshop was held in August 2019 in the form of a 2.5 hour meeting with eight Tla’amin Nation legislators, managers, and staff, including the Tla’amin Health director and managers and staff of the Tla’amin Salmon Hatchery. Two people from the main workshop’s research team were present for this follow-up.

2In order to achieve an aesthetically sensible layout for a given graph, force-directed algorithms assume a repulsive and attractive force between any two nodes and attempt to minimize these forces (Jacomy et al. 2014). In the Fruchterman-Reingold algorithm, the repulsive force scales with d2, and the attractive force with 1/d, where d is the distance between the two nodes (Fruchterman and Reingold 1991).

44 2.2. Methods

Workshop structure

Unlike in the main workshop, during which facilitators largely remained on the periphery while guiding and moderating, this follow-up meeting resembled a semi-structured group interview, with directed questions posed by the researcher-facilitator (Patricia Angkiriwang).

Participants were given a recap of the previous workshop’s systems map (presented visually in several layers) and were posed broad questions that aimed to clarify the role of factors influencing traditional seafood harvest. Audio was recorded with permission from attendees.

Planned questions began with factors drawn with direct connections to harvest,3 with subsequent questions branching out and dictated by responses and discussions that followed.

The main questions discussed (W3.1) included:

• What kinds of restrictions exist when it comes to fish and shellfish harvest?

• Are there other limitations when it comes to fish and shellfish harvest?

• What are the differences between the harvests of fish and shellfish?

• What is the role of community food fish allocations, relative to individual harvests?

Meeting participants then clarified the logic needed to construct a more detailed influence diagram, focusing on several of the factors that were identified to impact “community members harvesting for their own needs or to share with the community”. This was done through an “If-Then” activity, in which participants were asked a series of questions prompted by interactive flashcards (W3.2). The focus of the activity was determined based on the conversations held earlier during the meeting. For each factor [X] (e.g. “interest in

3Factors directly connected to “harvest of fish and shellfish in the community” in the systems map were: environmental abundance; restrictive regulations; contamination of shellfish (presented in the positive, “safety of shellfish”); and capacity to harvest (presented as “individuals harvesting their own food”, and during the workshop revised to “community members harvesting for their own needs or to share with the community”).

45 2.2. Methods harvest”, “priorities”, “knowing how”, or “physical access”), the following questions were posed: a) What is the current level of [X]? (Is it “high” or “low”? What does “high” or “low” mean?); and, b) If [X] were to then increase, how would that affect how much people are harvesting in the community (both for individuals fishing for their own needs, as well as those who harvest to bring it back and share with the community)?

Constructing a logic-based influence diagram

Following the meeting, the audio recorded from the conversation was listened to twice, and detailed notes were taken and distributed back to meeting attendees. This information, alongside the systems map constructed from the main workshop in Part One, was used to create a logic-based directed graph4, which detailed a subsection of the main systems map and focused on the factors influencing the level of food fish harvest by and for

Tla’amin community members. An explanation of this construction process can be found in Appendix C.

Responses in the “If-Then” activity helped to inform assumptions about the type of causal influence relationship that existed between each pair of factors: i.e. Did the influence primarily depend on the causal factor’s state ⃝ (high or low), or was it triggered by the causal factor’s change in state △ (increase or decrease)? Was the influence dependent on all causal factors being active (“and” relation), was any one causal factor sufficient to influence the affected concept (“or” relation), or some combination? Finally, does the causal influence add to or take away from the affected concept’s previous state, or is the affected concept’s state fully determined by the causal factors of the previous time step? Answers to “If-Then” questions also verified the monotonicity of the relation.

4The approach taken was similar in nature to the linguistic logical conjunction approach to acyclic “factor trees” in Davis and O’Mahony (2017), referred to as a “combining logic diagram” in Davis and Cragin (2009).

46 2.3. Results

The following results are reported in two parts:

Part One presents the broad dynamics of the Tla’amin traditional marine food system and the perceived pathways of climate change impact. This section presents the findings from the main workshop as well as the resulting systems map, an influence diagram presented in the form of a signed directed graph that summarizes the broad dynamics affecting harvest and consumption. A narrative summary of the dynamics is presented, along with key elements of the system and any differences between the harvest and consumption of different marine species groups. Climate-impact pathways embedded within the broader map are highlighted.

Part Two situates climate effects in relation to other non-climatic factors that affect traditional harvest. The section highlights potential climate impacts on harvest access and presents the logic-based influence diagram detailing these influences and dynamics.

Part One: The marine food system and climate-impact pathways

Key elements of the Tla’amin marine food system

Groups of animals and plants mentioned over three times in the context of the local food system included, in descending order of mentions: salmon (i.e., sockeye, chum, pink, chinook), shellfish (e.g., oyster, mussels, clams), herring, seals and sea lions, groundfish (e.g., cod, halibut, rock cod, red snapper), birds, whales, crab, traditional plants, berries and fruit, dogfish, and prawn (Table B.2). This list included animals and plants that were presently regarded as important traditional food, had been traditionally but were no longer harvested and eaten (e.g. wild birds and their eggs), were connected and affected by changes in the

47 2.3. Results local food system via food webs, had been used in the past for other uses (e.g. dogfish for machinery oil), or were and/or had been commercially harvested.

Much of the discussion around people and the food system revolved around youth as well as Elders. Other types of people mentioned in relation to the effects of food system changes included families, unemployed or low-income people, working people, urban or off-Nation members (i.e. Tla’amin citizens living outside Tla’amin lands), fishers and hunters, commercial harvesters, and people with compromised health (Table B.1).

Traditional food was discussed as being important for individual physical and mental health, as well as community health. Not only was traditional food regarded as a source of high quality, nutritious food (as opposed to readily available processed or high-sugar foods), harvesting and preparing one’s own food was also seen to contribute to a self-sufficient, active lifestyle, positively affecting mental health and wellbeing. At the broader level, traditional food was discussed as important for the continuation of culture and traditional knowledge, as well as the maintenance of community health: community gatherings positively contribute to the health of the community as a whole by bringing people together and having those times of celebration.

The main environmental drivers mentioned during the course of the main workshop were pollution, climate change (warming waters and shifting seasons), and overharvesting; and to a lesser extent, habitat loss. Pathogens were mentioned in one instance, in relation to fish farm projects (Table B.3).

Barriers, limitations, and changes related to the harvest or consumption of traditional seafoods included broad notions of rules, regulations, and structural limitations; shifts in interests, attitudes, and priorities; declines in abundance and contamination of beaches; as well as

48 2.3. Results challenges in affordability, having time or energy, distance and transportation, and knowing— or not knowing— how to harvest or prepare traditional food (Table B.4).

The major themes and features of the systems map, as identified by workshop participants in Activity W2.2, included traditional knowledge and awareness; harvesting while ensuring future sustainability of resources; regulations, limitations, and external decision-making; changes in the environment; importance of family and community support; and individual challenges and barriers to traditional harvest (Table B.5).

More detail on these qualitative coding results can be found in Appendix B, and results from

Activity W2.3, not discussed in the body of this work, are reported in Appendix D.

Conceptual systems map

Descriptive network metrics The resulting systems map had 32 concept nodes and 56 edges or links. Each concept in the resulting systems map was connected to between 1 and 9 other concepts (with an average of 3.5 connections). Paths between any two nodes had an average length of 3.4 links. “Teaching and exchange of knowledge” was calculated to have the highest closeness centrality,5 a measure of how closely connected a concept is to all other concepts.

Concepts that had the highest number of outgoing links (out-degree) relative to incoming links (in-degree) included: “Family and social support”, “Teaching and exchange of knowledge”, and “External decision making, lack of recognition of local or traditional knowledge”

(Table 2.1).

5A closeness centrality of node/concept X is calculated as the reciprocal of the sum of shortest path lengths from X to all other nodes.

49 2.3. Results

Concepts with the highest number of incoming links to relative to outgoing links included

“Capacity to harvest fish and shellfish”, “Consumption of seafood as traditional food”, “Over- harvesting”, and “Capacity to prepare traditional foods” (Table 2.1).

Central concepts with the highest number of links in general (highest degree) were “Expo- sure and experience”, “Harvest of fish and shellfish in the community”, and “Capacity to harvest fish and shellfish” (Table 2.1).

Differences between marine species groups Although participants discussed specific types of species groups that were important as traditional seafood in the community, discussed dynamics generally emerged not at finer species level, but rather in three broad groups: salmon, shellfish, and groundfish (bottomfish).

Several edges in the conceptual systems map (Fig. 2.2, Table 2.1) were mentioned specifically in the context of shellfish. For instance, pollution [E7] and contamination [E2] were mentioned almost exclusively in the context of shellfish, save for one mention of fish farms and pathogens. Likewise, development near beaches [E3] and its effect on physical access of harvest grounds [H6], as well as tourism harvesting [E8] and its contribution to overharvesting [E6], also related specifically to shellfish. Finally, the feedback dynamics that led from community member harvest [A2] to overharvesting [E6] and abundance [E1] were mentioned in the context of shellfish harvest; for fin fish (notably salmon), overharvesting was regarded as largely influenced by external, offshore commercial fishing.

Other edges or links had varying degrees of importance for fin fish vs shellfish. For example, the role of transportation [H1] in being able to access harvest grounds [H6] differed between the harvests of shellfish and fin fish. Shellfish was seen as easier to access, as one could drive to the most accessible beaches to harvest shellfish without necessarily needing

50 2.3. Results a boat. Fishing, on the other hand, usually required a boat (and its associated expenses

[H3]), unless one waited for the salmon to come up the river during spawning season6.

Similarly, shellfish harvest required less gear (could be done with just a rake and a bucket), while fishing for salmon and groundfish needed at least hook and line.

The role of community food fish distributions [S2] also differed for shellfish, different species of salmon, as well as groundfish, influenced to an extent by not only the abundance, community demand, and staff capacity, but also the amount allocated to domestic harvest in the Tla’amin Final Agreement (Tla’amin Final Agreement 2016).

Dynamics The following paragraphs provide a narrative description of the factors and dynamics of the Tla’amin traditional marine food system that underlie Figure 2.2 and sum- marize the conversations that took place in the main workshop.

Factors that affected people’s ability to harvest and consume traditional marine foods emerged at several different scales, including: individual- or household-level factors, limitations at the local governance (Nation) or administrative level, as well as distal drivers and historical repercussions.

At the individual and household level, physical and financial barriers to harvesting can limit one’s consumption of traditional food. Though the two are intertwined, physical considerations include physical mobility, transportation, and spatial access, while financial factors include financial constraints and the affordability of associated expenses. Old age or poor health [H5] can affect one’s physical ability to go out and harvest food [H6], but so does having access to those harvest grounds. Having a boat [H1] enables people to fish on the water and gives people access to beaches that are farther away; however, many households

6Or, previously, when one might have been able to catch fish in stone fish trap structures along the coast.

51 − F1 Overall negative influence Access to infrastructure for food prep + Overall positive influence F2 IncreasesIncreases Capacity to prepare traditional foods + Mentioned exclusively in the context of shellfish + Increases Magnitude of effect differs between species groups Increases IsIs needed needed for for + K6 A Outcome of interest Prioritizing preparation and eating of traditional food E Environment H Individual harvest − F Food preparation S Social IsIs needed needed for for ReducesReduces + Interest and knowledge Structural limitations + K L IsIs needed needed for for + IsIs required required for for K1 S2 Convenience and appeal of alternatives Community freezer and distribution of fish K3 − + ReducesReduces + Knowing how to prepare traditional foods + IncreasesIncreases IncreasesIncreases Prioritizing harvest of traditional food A1 K5 Consumption of seafood as traditional food L1 + IncreasesIncreases Time and energy IncreasesIncrease + + + IncreasesIncreases IncreasesIncreases + Serving traditional food in official capacities IncreasesIncreases L4 + K2 IsIs needed needed for for + Exposure and experience A portion contributes toward + + IncreasesIncreases + IncreasesIncreases + Knowing how, when, where, and rights to harvest + IncreasesIncreases E4 IsIs needed needed for for Enforcement of sustainable harvest IncreasesIncreases + IsIs needed needed for for Physical ability or health + − Teaching and exchange of knowledge H5 ReducesReduces ReducesReduces K7 E6 − EnablesEnables mending mending of gearof gear Overharvesting + + − Increases PreventsPrevents IsIs needed needed for for S1 + IncreasesIncreases CanCan lead to to + IsIs needed needed for for + + Increases + − Family and social support Increases+ Reduces Access to gear E8 Tourism harvesting Harvest of fish and shellfish in the community H2 RestrictsRestricts ﬂexibility ﬂexibility EnablesEnables L3 − A2 +IsIs needed needed for for + + Restrictive fishing regulations EnablesEnables + IncreasesIncreases Capacity to harvest fish and shellfish EnablesEnables + + − H4 LeadsLeads to + ReducesReduces H3 EnablesEnables + Being able to afford expenses − − IsIs needed needed for for LackLack of abundanceabundance increases increases restrictions restrictions EnablesEnables + External decision making, lack of recognition of local or traditional knowledge Access to a boat or vehicle, fuel L2 E3 H1 + Contamination of shellfish EnablesEnables Abundance of fish and shellfish Physical access to harvest grounds E1 − H6 AffectsAffects + IncreasesIncreases ReducesReduces + − Warming waters IncreasesIncreases + E9 IncreasesIncreases Development near beaches and water E3 FrequencyFrequency of red of tidesred tides and harmfuland algal algal blooms blooms IncreasesIncreases E5 + Pollution of waters and beaches E7

Figure 2.2.: Diagram of conceptual systems map representing the broad Tla’amin marine food system. Nodes represent various elements related to

52 harvest and consumption of fish and shellfish, and signed edges describe causal influence. 2.3. Results simply cannot afford to purchase a boat, or the necessary fuel and gear [H3]. Furthermore, since there are no longer beaches safe to harvest from that are within reasonable walking distance, any form of safe shellfish harvest generally requires access to, at least, a land vehicle [H1]. If harvesting one’s own food is not an option, many, if not most, families turn to the grocery store for their regular subsistence needs. At the grocery store, again, financial barriers exist to accessing nutritious or culturally relevant foods; traditional foods such as fish are some of the most expensive. For people who do not have access to a vehicle or who live in remote areas, transportation into town to buy food itself can also be challenging.7

Interest, attitudes, and priorities at the individual and household level can also influence whether or not one carries out traditional harvesting or food preparation practices. At- titudes toward going out to harvest or preparing traditional food may change and shift, shaped by experiences, past trauma, or different life stages. Interest and exposure were perceived to form a reinforcing feedback loop: many people expressed a fear that upcoming generations would lose that “taste” for traditional fish and shellfish without an exposure to eating traditional food [K2,K6]. In a similar way, younger generations may feel a disconnect with traditional harvesting if they do not see the practice done by the people around them [K2,K5]. However, initiatives and infrastructure like the smokehouse at Sliammon

Hatchery [F1] can encourage an interest in eating traditional food among some members of the community, not only by increasing people’s exposure to the preparation of traditional food, but also through knowledge sharing and education [K7].

With that said, one needs not only the desire to harvest and consume traditional food, but also the time to do so. Prioritizing traditional food can be challenging given the constraints of day-to-day life and the appeal of more convenient alternatives. Having the time to har-

7A small handful of large chain supermarkets are located in the city of Powell River, a 20-minute drive or 2.5-hour walk from Teeshohsum (tišosəm̓ ).

53 2.3. Results vest and prepare one’s own food [L1] is limited by things like having a full-time job that is necessary in order to earn an income. In today’s society, money not only pays for elec- tricity bills and grocery bills, but also, on the flip side, is needed to acquire that boat, pay for gas, and purchase gear [H3]. Furthermore, the preparation needed prior to fishing and the processing post-harvest often require more time than the actual fishing itself. The pull of alternatives [K1], such as shopping at the relatively convenient grocery stores, allows people to get their food without having to harvest it themselves.

Social relationships and teaching were identified as some of the most important factors in the system. Ties with family, relatives, friends, and Elders [S1] allows for not only the sharing of resources and food, but also the sharing of knowledge through informal gatherings and community feasts. Practice in and exposure to traditional harvesting or food preparation practices [K2], then, increases one’s knowledge of how to harvest or prepare traditional foods. This knowledge is multi-faceted. Knowing where, when,8 and how to harvest, as well as an understanding of one’s rights to harvest [K4], are enabling factors when it comes to the harvest of traditional food. Knowing how to harvest also involves knowing how to mend one’s gear, or knowing how to harvest safely— whether that be personal safety on a boat, awareness of pollution sources in the area of harvest, or identification of contaminated shellfish. Equivalently, knowing how to prepare traditional foods [K3] increases people’s ability to eat more traditional food. This includes skills such as knowing how to clean fish, knowing how to properly dispose of fish, knowing how to smoke fish, all the way to knowing how to prepare specialized wooden sticks for smoking the fish.

Beyond the individual and household level, the sharing of teachings and knowledge was perceived as important to the sustainability of the resource as well. Because the Tla’amin

8That is, knowing the thirteen moons that govern the seasons of traditional harvest of plants and animals in the area.

54 2.3. Results teachings or Ta’ow (taʔaw), encompass notions of both harvesting no more than what one needs and paying respect to what one harvests, sharing and teaching the Ta’ow could decrease local overharvesting [E6]. Although the abundance of fish and shellfish was perceived to be driven largely by distal factors (i.e., changing environmental variables, industrial commercial overharvesting off-shore), the local overharvesting of shellfish, in particular, can visibly and directly affect the availability of marine foods in the area [E1]. This local overharvesting was seen as closely linked to the stockpiling of shellfish (i.e., harvesting before commercial openings), which was perceived to be driven by individuals’ desires or need to earn money, as well as to intensive tourism harvesting by visiting recreational harvesters [E8].

Structural limitations, particularly at the local governance and administrative level, also affect the harvest and consumption of traditional foods. Difficulties in management and enforcement, whether from less-than-ideal processes in fisheries co-management [L2] or from the limited ability of local enforcement to prevent unsustainable harvesting practices

[E4], were seen as challenges in ensuring future traditional food availability. These encompass external, top-down decisions made without a sincere local understanding [L2], including those concerning fisheries regulations, openings, and closures (made in response to dwindling fish stocks and increased demand) [L3] as well as the legality of tourism harvesting in the area [L2->E8]. Furthermore, the complexity of existing regulations only adds to the challenge of Tla’amin managers and staff as they communicate to community members about their harvest rights. Other administrative challenges also exist: Nation-wide initiatives, such as the occasional community-wide distribution of fish [S2], are limited not only by the environmental abundance of these fish, but also by funding and budgeting at the

Nation level, as well as staff time and capacity [L1]. Finally, food safety and licensing regulations also present barriers to processing and serving traditional food in official capacities, e.g., at the Nation-run daycare centre [L4].

55 2.3. Results

Distal drivers, factors that are not only distant but also difficult to predict and control, play a role in this food fisheries system as well. Many of these distal drivers are environmental factors, like climate change and warming waters [E9], which were said to reduce the abundance of fish and shellfish [E1] and the amount of time shellfish are safe to harvest

[E2], attributed to an increase in red tide and algal blooms [E5]. There is also a recognized link between increased development [E3], pollution [E7], and the contamination of shellfish [E2]. Off-shore commercial over-harvesting [E6], a distal driver dictated by trade dynamics at a global scale, was regarded as a major contributor to the overall decline of fish populations at a higher level.

In addition to these, past or historical events emerged as underlying factors, things which may not necessarily be part of the present-day dynamics but have considerably affected the food system’s current state. For example, participants mentioned that the establishment of the Powell River wood pulp and paper mill and the installation of septic outflows at inoppor- tune locations in the early- and mid- 1900s, respectively, have led to the high contamination and low safety levels of shellfish in nearby beaches. Similarly, commercial overharvesting and the resulting decline in abundance were said to increase the need for people to harvest farther away. These legacies explain the current system’s strong dependence on access to a boat or vehicle to be able to fish or harvest shellfish. Finally, the underlying legacy of colonialism was cited as a major factor and explains not only the community’s current reliance on grocery stores, but also many of the structural limitations described above (and many more outside the scope of this study).

Table 2.1.: Mapped Tla’amin marine food system: Nodes A description of nodes depicted in Figure 2.2.

ID Theme Concept Description Indegree Outdegree Degree

Consumption of How much and how often A1 — seafood as community members eat 5 1 6 traditional food traditional marine foods Continued…

56 2.3. Results

ID Theme Concept Description Indegree Outdegree Degree

Harvest of fish and How much and how often A2 — shellfish in the seafood is harvested for/ by 4 4 8 community community members

The abundance of traditionally Abundance of fish E1 Environment harvested fish and shellfish in 2 2 4 and shellfish surrounding waters and beaches The extent of marine biotoxin, Contamination of sanitary contamination, and E2 Environment 2 1 3 shellfish other unsafe substances in shellfish in the area

The establishment of projects, Development near E3 Environment buildings, leases and/or 0 2 2 beaches and water property by the water

The presence and ability of local Enforcement of E4 Environment enforcement to prevent illegal or 0 1 1 sustainable harvest overharvesting

Red tides and Frequency and seasonal length E5 Environment harmful algal 1 1 2 of harmful algal blooms blooms Harvesting fish and shellfish at a E6 Environment Overharvesting level or frequency that depletes 4 1 5 the resource The introduction of harmful Pollution of waters E7 Environment materials or substances into the 1 1 2 and beaches water and/or beaches Tourism for the explicit purpose of harvesting shellfish on local E8 Environment Tourism harvesting 1 1 2 beaches. Referred to by some as ”legal poaching” Higher ocean temperatures E9 Environment Warming waters 0 2 2 linked to climate change

Access to Food Having facilities for cleaning and F1 infrastructure for 0 2 2 preparation preparing harvested foods food prep How able community members Food Capacity to prepare F2 are to prepare traditional foods 4 1 5 preparation traditional foods at the individual/ household level

The ability of community Individual Access to a boat or members to access a boat or H1 2 1 3 harvest vehicle, fuel land vehicle and the fuel to power it

Individual The ability of community H2 Access to gear 3 1 4 harvest members to access fishing gear

Continued…

57 2.3. Results

ID Theme Concept Description Indegree Outdegree Degree

The affordability of expenses Individual Being able to afford H3 and/or having enough money to 0 2 2 harvest expenses afford the cost

How able community members Individual Capacity to harvest H4 are to harvest seafood at an 6 1 7 harvest fish and shellfish individual or household level

Being physically able and healthy Individual Physical ability or H5 enough to travel and harvest 0 1 1 harvest health seafood, at an individual level

The ability to go (and harvest) Individual Physical access to H6 where the abundance of fish and 2 1 3 harvest harvest grounds shellfish are located

The appeal of alternate food Convenience and Interest and sources (e.g. convenience of K1 appeal of 0 2 2 knowledge grocery stores) and activities alternatives (e.g. video games)

How often or how much one is Interest and Exposure and (or has been) exposed to K2 5 4 9 knowledge experience traditional harvesting practices or traditional foods

Knowing how to Having the skills and knowledge Interest and K3 prepare traditional to be able to prepare traditional 2 1 3 knowledge foods foods (e.g. cleaning fish)

Knowing how, when, Having the skills and knowledge Interest and K4 where, and rights to to be able to harvest fish and 2 2 4 knowledge harvest shellfish

Interest and Prioritizing harvest Interest in and prioritizing K5 2 2 4 knowledge of traditional food traditional harvest Prioritizing Interest in and prioritizing Interest and preparation and K6 traditional foods (includes food 3 2 5 knowledge eating of traditional preferences) food Teaching and Interest and Sharing skills, knowledge, K7 exchange of 1 4 5 knowledge traditional teachings (i.e. Ta’ow) knowledge

The ability of community Family and social S1 Social members to connect with family 0 4 4 support or community for support Community freezer Having a communal storage S2 Social and distribution of and/or distribution of seafood 1 1 2 fish harvested at a Nation level

Having time and energy (outside Structural L1 Time and energy of work and life responsibilities) 0 2 2 limitations at the individual level

Continued…

58 2.3. Results

ID Theme Concept Description Indegree Outdegree Degree

External decision The extent to which decisions making, lack of Structural are made in an external office L2 recognition of local 0 3 3 limitations (e.g. federally) and lack the or traditional involvement of local perspectives knowledge Imposed regulations that reduce Structural Restrictive fishing L3 the flexibility of fishing and 2 1 3 limitations regulations harvesting Serving traditional Having traditional foods Structural L4 food in official available at the institutional level, 1 1 2 limitations capacities e.g. at the Nation-run daycare

Table 2.2.: Mapped Tla’amin marine food system: Edges A description of edges depicted in Figure 2.2.

Overall Causal concept Relationship Affected concept effect

Harvest of fish and shellfish in Consumption of seafood as A2 Is needed for A1 + the community traditional food Capacity to prepare traditional Consumption of seafood as F2 Is needed for A1 + foods traditional food

Traditional food served in official Consumption of seafood as L4 Increases A1 + capacities traditional food Consumption of seafood as S1 Family and social support Increases A1 + traditional food Community freezer and Consumption of seafood as S3 Increases A1 + distribution of fish traditional food

Harvest of fish and shellfish in E1 Abundance of fish and shellfish Enables A2 + the community Harvest of fish and shellfish in E2 Contamination of shellfish Reduces A2 − S the community Capacity to harvest fish and Harvest of fish and shellfish in H4 Is needed for A2 + shellfish the community

Restricts Harvest of fish and shellfish in L3 Restrictive fishing regulations A2 − flexibility of the community

E6 Overharvesting Reduces E1 Abundance of fish and shellfish − X

E9 Warming waters Affects E1 Abundance of fish and shellfish − X Continued…

X = Magnitude of effect differs between shellfish and finfish S = Mentioned exclusively in the context of shellfish

59 2.3. Results

Overall Causal concept Relationship Affected concept effect

Red tides and harmful algal E5 Increases E2 Contamination of shellfish + blooms

E7 Pollution of waters and beaches Increases E2 Contamination of shellfish + S Red tides and harmful algal E9 Warming waters Increases E5 + S blooms

Harvest of fish and shellfish in A2 Can lead to E6 Overharvesting + X the community Enforcement of sustainable E4 Reduces E6 Overharvesting − harvest

E8 Tourism harvesting Increases E6 Overharvesting + S Teaching and exchange of K7 Reduces E6 Overharvesting − knowledge

Development near beaches and E3 Increases E7 Pollution of waters and beaches + S water External decision making, lack of L2 recognition of local or traditional Enables E8 Tourism harvesting + knowledge Access to infrastructure for food Capacity to prepare traditional F1 Increases F2 + prep foods Knowing how to prepare Capacity to prepare traditional K3 Is needed for F2 + traditional foods foods

Prioritizing preparation and Capacity to prepare traditional K6 Is needed for F2 + eating of traditional food foods Capacity to prepare traditional L1 Time and energy Is required for F2 + foods Being able to afford fuel, gear, H3 Enables H1 Access to a boat or vehicle + etc.

S1 Family and social support Increases H1 Access to a boat or vehicle + Being able to afford fuel, gear, H3 Enables H2 Access to gear + etc. Knowing how, when, where, and Enables K4 H2 Access to gear + rights to harvest mending of

S1 Family and social support Increases H3 Access to gear +

Capacity to harvest fish and H2 Access to gear Enables H4 + X shellfish Capacity to harvest fish and H5 Physical ability or health Is needed for H4 + shellfish Continued…

X = Magnitude of effect differs between shellfish and finfish S = Mentioned exclusively in the context of shellfish

60 2.3. Results

Overall Causal concept Relationship Affected concept effect

Physical access to harvest Capacity to harvest fish and H6 Is needed for H4 + grounds shellfish Knowing how, when, where, and Capacity to harvest fish and K4 Is needed for H4 + rights to harvest shellfish

Prioritizing harvest of traditional Capacity to harvest fish and K5 Is needed for H4 + food shellfish

Capacity to harvest fish and L1 Time and energy Is needed for H4 + shellfish Development near beaches and Physical access to harvest E3 Reduces H6 − S water grounds

Physical access to harvest H1 Access to a boat or vehicle Enables H6 + grounds Consumption of seafood as A1 Increases K2 Exposure and experience + traditional food Harvest of fish and shellfish in A2 Increases K2 Exposure and experience + the community

Prioritizing harvest of traditional K5 Increases K2 Exposure and experience + food Prioritizing preparation and K6 Increases K2 Exposure and experience + eating of traditional food Teaching and exchange of K7 Increases K2 Exposure and experience + knowledge

Knowing how to prepare K2 Exposure and experience Increases K3 + traditional foods Teaching and exchange of Knowing how to prepare K7 Increases K3 + knowledge traditional foods Knowing how, when, where, and K2 Exposure and experience Increases K4 + rights to harvest

Teaching and exchange of Knowing how, when, where, and K7 Increases K4 + knowledge rights to harvest Convenience and appeal of Prioritizing harvest of traditional K1 Reduces K5 − alternatives food Prioritizing harvest of traditional K2 Exposure and experience Increases K5 + food

Access to infrastructure for food Prioritizing preparation and F1 Increases K6 + prep eating of traditional food Convenience and appeal of Prioritizing preparation and K1 Reduces K6 − alternatives eating of traditional food Continued…

X = Magnitude of effect differs between shellfish and finfish S = Mentioned exclusively in the context of shellfish

61 2.3. Results

Overall Causal concept Relationship Affected concept effect

Prioritizing preparation and K2 Exposure and experience Increases K6 + eating of traditional food Teaching and exchange of S1 Family and social support Increases K7 + knowledge

A lack of it E1 Abundance of fish and shellfish L3 Restrictive fishing regulations + X increases

External decision making, lack of L2 recognition of local or traditional Leads to L3 Restrictive fishing regulations + knowledge External decision making, lack of Traditional food served in official L2 recognition of local or traditional Prevents L4 − capacities knowledge A portion of it Harvest of fish and shellfish in Community freezer and A2 contributes S2 + the community distribution of fish toward

X = Magnitude of effect differs between shellfish and finfish S = Mentioned exclusively in the context of shellfish

Climate-impact pathways

A selection of Figure 2.2 highlighting the pathways between climate change and consumption of traditional seafood is presented in Figure 2.3. These pathways reveal two major areas of impact: first, an impact on harvest directly impacting consumption; and second, a cascading effect stemming from changes in exposure to and experience with traditional foods.

In the following section, we focus on the first set of impact pathways, where ecological consequences of climate change lead to impacts on harvest, causing cascading impacts on seafood consumption. To elucidate this pathway further, we tease out the interactions between factors, climatic and non-climatic, that influence traditional harvest.

62 [H4] Capacity to harvest sh and shell sh Is needed for + Positive relationship + Is needed for + − Negative relationship [K4]Knowing how, when, where, Prioritizing harvest and rights to harvest of traditional food Increases Feedback + [K5] interactions + Increases + [K2] Exposure and experience Increases + + Is needed for Increases + + + Increases Increases [L3] + Prioritizing preparation and Restrictive shing regulations [K3] Knowing how to prepare traditional foods eating of traditional food − − [K6] Lack of abundance increases restrictions Restricts exibility of Increases + Is needed for + Is needed for Abundance of sh and shell sh Is needed for [F2] Capacity to prepare traditional foods − [E1] + + Aects + − Is needed for Reduces [A1] Harvest of sh and shell sh in the community + Is needed for Consumption of seafood as traditional food Warming waters + [A2] [E9] Can lead to (Overharvesting) − + Reduces Increases [E6] + + + Increases Community freezer and distribution of sh (A portion) Contributes toward Increases Red tides and harmful algal blooms Contamination of shell sh [S2] [E5] [E2]

Figure 2.3.: System pathways from warming waters to consumption of seafood, extracted from Fig. 2.2. Edges marked with + signs and blue edge labels indicate a generally positive relationship, while edges marked with - signs and red edge labels indicate a generally negative relationship between the two connected concepts. Dashed lines represent reinforcing feedback interactions, and dotted lines represent balancing feedback interactions. The brackets surrounding the concept “overharvesting” [E6] are an acknowledgement of the concept’s multiple scales. Harvest at the community level [A2] may only potentially lead to overharvesting at certain scales and certain species (e.g. shellfish overharvesting at the local scale if motivated by commercial harvesting). 63 2.3. Results

Part Two: Situating climate impacts on traditional harvest

Factors influencing seafood harvest

The harvest of traditional marine foods in the local Tla’amin food system can be carried out by community members for individual household use, or by community members and/or

Nation-hired individuals for community distribution. In a follow-up meeting, held with

Tla’amin Nation legislators, managers, and staff, we further explored the factors that influence how much or how often community members harvest fish and shellfish. Figure 2.4 illustrates these factors (Table 2.3) through a graphical influence diagram, informed by responses to guided activities. There are 5 factors directly connected to ability to harvest: knowing the skills (kn_skill), priorities and interest (priorities), being able to go at the right time (timing), being able to reach the resource (phys_access), and having access to gear (gear). Of these, 4 are explicitly connected to other, more indirect, factors. The influence diagram features 5 feedback loops. Of these, 3 reinforcing loops9 result from the feedback leading from traditional harvest (harvest) to exposure to and experience with traditional seafood (exposure) and influencing the level of knowledge that allows for traditional harvest (kn_skill,kn_seasons,kn_area). There is 1 reinforcing feedback loop between (priorities) and (exposure), and 1 balancing feedback loop describing how increased (harvest) would increase the risk of overharvesting (overh), resulting in a negative impact on (abundance) and, thus, harvest. These same loops can be found in earlier graphical representations of the system (namely, in Figs. 2.2 and 2.3).

9In a reinforcing feedback loop, also known as a positive feedback loop, changes in a concept toward a particular direction (increase or decrease) result in even more change in that direction. In a balancing feedback loop, also known as a negative feedback loop, changes in a concept results in the opposite change. As a general rule of thumb, this distinction can be determined by multiplying the signs of all edges in the loop; if the result is negative, the loop is a balancing loop.

64 2.3. Results

Types of influencing interactions

When more than one concept influences a single resulting concept (seen on the diagram as sets of convergent arrows), in simulation techniques such as “Fuzzy” Cognitive Map- ping (FCM) the aggregation of these links are averaged or added together (with or without weights). However, the assumption of the additive nature of these relationships may not be accurate. Deeper consideration of the semantics and how these relationships interact with one another— in this case, by further specifying the logic that governs their aggregation— might help to better reflect their reality.

In Figure 2.4, the majority of the interacting relationships could be classified as “and” relationships; that is, all the incoming factors are required to influence or cause a change in the state of the resulting concept (indicated by REQ in Fig. 2.4). For example, being able to go where a resource is abundant requires knowing where to go, being able to transport your- self there, and the presence of areas where resource is available and safe to harvest. Simply having one of those things is not sufficient. This is in contrast to sets of links that could be characterized by “or” relationships, where only one of several causal concepts is sufficient to influence the resulting concept.10

In between the extreme cases of “and”s and “or”s are other possible forms of aggregation

(Detyniecki 2001; Grabisch et al. 1998; Yager 1988). This corresponds to several other relationships in Figure 2.4, where the converging links could be classified as “additive” relationships (indicated by ADD in Fig. 2.4). For example, links that influence people’s ability to go out and harvest at the right time can be considered additive, as each influencing factor widens or further restricts the window of time one could potentially harvest.

10Note: In fuzzy logic (an approach to computing based on degrees of truth, rather than a binary true and false, as opposed to Boolean logic), these “and”s and “or”s correspond to “t-norm” and “t-conorm” operators, respectively (Detyniecki 2001).

65 2.3. Results

For all links in Figure 2.4, the state or value of the influencing concept, rather than its change

(e.g. high/low, as opposed to an increase/decrease), was established to be the major deter- mining factor that dictated the positive or negative influence on the affected concept (C). For several concepts, the resulting value of the affected concept (at the subsequent time step) could be fully determined by the values of its influencing concepts. In other cases, the value of a concept at a subsequent time step would also depend on the its own (current) value.

harvest

(REQ) + + + + + kn_skill timing phys_access priorities gear +

(REQ) + + (ADD) − + + + + regulations kn_seasons + avail_area transport + + time + (REQ) kn_area + safety − + (ADD) abundance

+ − + − − (ADD) (ADD) −

pollution warming overh exposure

Figure 2.4.: Logic-based influence diagram of factors influencing traditional harvest of fish and shellfish by and for Tla’amin community members. Influences from one concept to another can be generally considered positive (+) or negative (-), triggered by the influencing concept’s presence or positive state (⃝). Filled triangles beside certain concepts (▲) indicate that the concept would depend, to some extent, on its own previous state value (rather than being completely determined by influencing factors).

66 Table 2.3.: Factors influencing harvest of traditional fish and shellfish considered by Tla’amin community members, corresponding to Figure 2.4.

Label Concept

abundance Abundance of fish and shellfish in waters and beaches

warming Warming waters

safety Safety of shellfish

kn_seasons Knowing the seasons of harvest

regulations Harvest restrictions and commercial openings

harvest The extent to which community members harvest their own food

phys_access Physical access to harvest grounds, i.e. being able to go where the abundance is

time Having time and energy

contamination Contamination from pollution sources

transport Access to a boat or vehicle, fuel

priorities Priorities and interest in going out to harvest

kn_area Knowing the local area and where to harvest

kn_skill Knowing the skills on how to harvest

exposure Exposure to and experience in harvesting traditional foods

gear Access to gear

avail_area Presence of viable harvest grounds nearby

timing Ability to go out at the right time

overh Overharvesting

67 2.3. Results

Climate impacts on access

Among the factors that influence how much or how often community members harvest fish and shellfish, follow-up conversations revealed that effects of climate-driven changes could be primarily related to two aspects of access: physical and temporal. Physical access encompasses the physical or spatial access of viable harvest grounds, i.e. community members’ abilities to go to where the fish and uncontaminated shellfish are located, while temporal access, on the other hand, relates to community members’ ability to go out to harvest at the right time. Climate-driven impacts on abundance may also influence harvest restrictions and regulations (Table 2.4).

A climate-driven effect in the system can simultaneously impact both temporal and physical components of access. Lower abundance levels driven by warming waters, for example, coupled with increased competition for the limited resources, means that seafood harvest often requires not only better equipment, but also more travel and more time. In many cases, the depletion of resources requires people to travel greater distances to find an abundance of fish (this includes groundfish and salmon) and shellfish. For shellfish in particular, the most accessible areas are precisely those that are becoming the most depleted. Safe harvest grounds that are physically accessible by land, i.e. without a boat, are open to non-

Tla’amin members and have more competition for the limited resource. This distance can pose as a barrier. It becomes more difficult for people to get to these harvest grounds if they don’t have access to suitable transportation (e.g. a large enough boat), fuel, money, or time. Time, again, is already often limited by full-time work or other (paid or unpaid) jobs and responsibilities. Hence, any impact that decreases abundance and thus the presence of viable harvest grounds within an appropriate distance, including climate effects, would exacerbate existing barriers to physical or spatial and temporal access.

68 2.3. Results

Restrictive regulations around food fish harvest, potentially spurred and augmented by lower abundance levels, may also adversely affect both temporal and spatial access and reduce the flexibility of harvest options. At a temporal level, fishery closures and the timing of commercial fishery openings, particularly for salmon, can further limit the amount of time people can go out and fish. The short windows of time allocated to First Nations’ food fish harvest and, moreover, the uncertainty of these windows of time, mean that it is harder for people, especially those with other full-time responsibilities, to schedule, let alone find, the time to go out and fish. Physical, or spatial restrictions also exist, for example, in the form of domestic fishing areas assigned for food fish harvest.11 Other regulations, such as catch size restrictions imposed due to sustainability reasons, may be influenced by lower abundance levels. Low abundance may also affect the quota of fish assigned to Tla’amin Nation domestic fisheries. Allocations of salmon are assigned as a percentage of escapement and, with declining fish populations, may pose an issue in upcoming years. Furthermore, as the abundance and presence of different species in the area shift due to warming waters and other factors, the inflexibility in the allocations set in the fisheries clause of the Tla’amin

Final Agreement was brought up as a growing concern.

In addition to potential changes in abundance, climate change may also affect temporal and physical access to shellfish harvest through the changing seasons. In particular, more frequent occurrences of harmful algal blooms associated with warming waters shorten and further restrict the window of time one can harvest shellfish. These safety-related constraints may also compound onto existing spatial limitations, shrinking the already small number of available beaches, with others closed because of contamination (i.e. from pollution sources) or commercial leases and shellfish tenures.

11Sports or commercial licenses, on the other hand, are not associated with these same spatial restrictions.

69 Table 2.4.: Climate-related impacts on physical and temporal access to the harvest of traditional marine foods

Physical or spatial impacts Temporal impacts

Increased distance to fish requires transportation Increased distance to fish requires more time

Decreased abundance of fish in reachable areas Red tides and shorter seasons for shellfish harvest

Increasing dependence on being able to take time off Increasing dependence on access to a boat or vehicle from work Decreased temporal flexibility due to commercial openings and harvest regulations

2.4. Discussion

Food fisheries under climate change

In this research, we applied a systems approach to elucidate the dynamics surrounding

Tla’amin traditional seafood harvest and consumption and their potential responses to climate change.

Pathways perceived by members of the Tla’amin Nation to lead from “warming waters” to

“consumption of traditional seafood” could be categorized into two types of impact: direct impacts on harvest via effects on the resource, which affect consumption, as well as indirect impacts and feedback loops resulting from the effect of reduced harvest on community members’ exposure and experience to traditional foods.

Direct paths from climate change to decreased traditional harvest were perceived to take place via climate effects on fish and shellfish species, and specifically on resource availability and safety. Effects of climate change (“warming waters” and other associated effects) have been linked to resource availability in existing scientific literature; for many species important to coastal First Nations, including key pelagic species and shellfish, climate effects have been associated with negative impacts on populations and species abundance.

70 2.4. Discussion

Ecosystem models spanning the coast of British Columbia (BC) (though excluding the Strait of Georgia) found that cumulative impacts of climate effects (primary productivity, zoo- plankton size structure, dissolved oxygen, range shifts, and ocean acidification effects) had a negative impact (-30%) on ecosystem biomass (Ainsworth et al. 2011). In these models, the inclusion of range shift effects accounted for the most pronounced impacts in ecosystem biodiversity and fisheries landings. Range shift effects especially affect pelagic fish, notably salmon and herring (Ainsworth et al. 2011), which are especially important to many

First Nations including Tla’amin (Kennedy and Bouchard 1983; McKechnie et al. 2014). In a separate species distribution modelling study, salmon were estimated by Weatherdon et al.

(2016) to decrease by an average of 17 to 29 percent in catch availability by 2050 (from estimated 2000 levels) from climate-related distribution shifts alone. Herring (which, despite its importance, have not been available in Tla’amin waters since commercial seine openings in 1983 and 1984 (Paul et al. 2014)) were projected to be at even greater risk due to climate change, with projected declines of 28 to 49 percent along coastal BC (Weatherdon et al. 2016). Ocean acidification and warmer waters have been linked to negative impacts on shellfish, affecting the reproductive success of oysters, mussels, clams, and sea urchins

(Clements et al. 2018; Melzner et al. 2011; Reuter et al. 2011; Ries et al. 2009; Satterfield et al.

2017; Timmins-Schiffman et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2019). For certain other species, impacts of climate change on resource availability are less clear. For instance, warming waters may be favourable for halibut juvenile growth and halibut populations as a whole, but ocean acidification effects on halibut (which have been associated with sensory impairment in other fish (Haigh et al. 2015; Munday et al. 2009; Sadorus et al. 2014; Simpson et al. 2011)) have yet to be studied (Haigh et al. 2015; Okey et al. 2014; Satterfield et al. 2017). Similarly, shrimp populations may be positively affected by warming waters through favourable influences on spring phytoplankton bloom (Okey et al. 2014; Satterfield et al. 2017) but may potentially experience negative effects from ocean acidification (Haigh et al. 2015).

71 2.4. Discussion

Links from climate change to resource availability via harmful algal blooms and effects on seasonal timings have also been mentioned in existing literature. Just south of the Canada-

USA border, in a participatory modelling study on the Quinault razor clam fishery, members of the Quinault Indian Nation cited ocean change and harmful algal blooms (toxin levels and related closures) as the top two risks to their razor clam fishery, each mentioned by a majority of participants (Crosman et al. 2019). West coast wide toxic bloom events, with faster growth and northward expansion of Pseudo-nitzschia (a marine diatom responsible for the neurotoxin domoic acid (DA)), have been directly related to warm anomalies in the past, followed by increased toxin accumulation in razor clams and other organisms (McCabe et al. 2016). The widespread toxic algal bloom along the west coast of North America in 2015 caused unprecedented widespread closures of shellfish and fish fisheries (McCabe et al.

2016); DA-contaminated seafood, if ingested by humans, can cause symptoms ranging from mild gastrointestinal distress to coma or death (McCabe et al. 2016; Perl et al. 1990). With documented links between increased temperature and maximum growth rates of these di- atoms, harvest closures associated with these harmful algal blooms are likely to be more frequent and less predictable in the presence of warmer ocean conditions (Crosman et al.

2019; McCabe et al. 2016).

In addition to the more direct climate pathways described above, traditional harvest and consumption were perceived to be further impacted by feedbacks resulting from reduced exposure to and experience with traditional foods. These reinforcing, ripple-like effects that stem from the negative impact of reduced traditional harvest on community members’ exposure to and experience with traditional foods do not seem to be a new phenomenon.

Rather, these effects bear an eerie resemblance to the cascading impacts triggered by the dietary changes that took place following European settlement, when a loss of access due to land appropriation and private property, the introduction of new food products, an introduced dependence on a wage economy, and a disregard for existing land and resource

72 2.4. Discussion management practices, enabled by a European presumption of superiority, combined to cause a reduction in traditional plant harvesting practices over the course of a few short decades (Turner and Turner 2008). This reduced practice, intensified by the establishment of residential schooling, resulted in a discontinuity of knowledge and contributed to a further reduction of traditional food practices over a few generations (Turner et al. 2008). Thus, a vicious cycle was formed: the distancing away from traditional food practices necessitates a reliance on money and European staples to maintain food security, which then furthers this distance. Similarly, the reduced exposure to and experience with traditional foods today reinforce a concerning feedback loop.

Reduced exposure and experience to traditional foods is a concern, not only because of the vicious feedbacks they may cause, but also because of the “invisible losses” they may exacerbate that threaten cultural continuity (Turner et al. 2008). This is especially troubling when this reduced exposure and experience concerns a “cultural keystone species,” an important plant or animal species that has fundamental roles in culture, medicine, diet, or other necessities of life (Garibaldi and Turner 2004). To change the course of these adverse trends and reinforcing feedback loops, identifying potential levers of change through a systems lens may help guide initial adaptation efforts and resources. Looking at nodes in the system perceived to have the highest number of outgoing links relative to incoming links12

(in this case, concepts tied to family and social support, teaching and exchange of knowledge, as well as recognition of local or traditional knowledge in decision-making) may give us an initial clue into what targeted shifts could have the most impact.

12Additionally, one may also choose to use the system map structure to more comprehensively find “control nodes,” i.e. the subset of nodes that can be used to control the whole mapped system. (See Moschoyiannis et al. (2016) and Penn et al. (2017).)

73 2.4. Discussion

Climate impacts on harvest access

Climate effects on resource availability were only one of many factors that influence traditional seafood harvest. Follow-up conversations, accompanied with the construction of a logic-based influence diagram, gave us the opportunity to bring these climate impacts into the context of other determinants of access. In particular, climate-impact pathways, through their effects on local abundance and availability of fish and shellfish in the environment (and their potential consequences for restrictive regulations) as well as on harmful algal blooms and shellfish safety, were found to complicate physical and temporal access to the harvest of traditional marine foods (Fig. 2.4).

In “A Theory of Access,” Ribot and Peluso (2003) defined access, in a natural resource context, as the ability or power to benefit from natural resources, shaped by different mechanisms that are rights-based (e.g., law, custom, convention) as well as structural and relational (e.g., technology, capital, markets, labour, knowledge, authority, identities, social relations). Within our climate-harvest pathways, we identified parallel and complementary aspects of access, i.e. regulations, physical and spatial access, and time. Regulatory restrictions, potentially triggered by decreased fish and shellfish populations, reflect Ri- bot and Peluso’s descriptions of not only legal implementations of access but also access to knowledge and authority.13 Physical and spatial access components encompass access to technology, knowledge, property, and capital. Temporal components of access can be thought of as one kind of structural and relational mechanism.

The discussion of access at this level extends beyond the notions of coastal resource and spatial access outlined in Bennett et al. (2018), perhaps finding its home in food security and ac-

13As Ribot and Peluso describe, “‘scientific’ narratives linking human activities to ecological changes often serve to justify state control over resources” (Ribot and Peluso 2003).

74 2.4. Discussion cessibility literature. Indeed, our findings support arguments in food accessibility research that call for a more nuanced approach beyond purely spatial considerations. In the context of food access and spatial patterns of inaccessibility, Widener (2018) suggests incorporating and considering other dimensions of accessibility, such as transportation, economic factors, and time use. Likewise, in the context of coastal and Indigenous food systems, where it is important to address traditional food systems in addition to market food systems (Power

2008), these results suggest that a more holistic consideration of access to First Nations food fisheries is crucial to the implementation of appropriate policies and adaptation planning.

Consideration of access in this way builds on previous literature on climate-driven effects on food security. Previous research efforts have focused primarily on food availability rather than access, both at a global (Wheeler and Braun 2013) level as well as in First Nations food fisheries contexts (Marushka et al. 2019; Weatherdon et al. 2016), where studies have focused on the implications of species shifts and abundance on catch potential, with limited consideration of other climate-induced changes. By encompassing access considerations through the tracing of climate-impact pathways, our research expands on and adds depth to this existing body of work.

Representing factors influencing seafood harvest

The use of a logic-based influence diagram (Fig. 2.4) not only allows for the visual identification of climate impacts among the factors that influence traditional seafood harvest overall, but also encodes the heuristic knowledge and logic that govern people’s mental models.

The “additive” relationships in the influence diagram (specified by ADD in Fig 2.4) are of particular interest, where certain factors may be able to mitigate the effects of others. For example, some aspects of traditional knowledge could potentially mitigate impacts on physical and temporal access. Knowing the seasons of harvest (“thirteen moons”), through its addi-

75 2.4. Discussion tive interaction with other influencing factors, could enhance one’s ability to go harvest at the right time. In contrast, “and” relationships (specified by REQ in Fig. 2.4) reveal the pinch points or limiting factors in the traditional food harvest system. For example, knowledge of the area and knowledge of skills, interacting with other factors through “and” relationships, are simply non-negotiables when it comes to traditional harvest. This distinction between

“additive” and “required” relationships seems to parallel literature on the roles of Inuit Tra- ditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in the adaptation to climate change: Pearce et al. (2015) noted that in some instances, TEK was identified as an “effect modifier” in relation to other elements of adaptive capacity, where the strength of TEK adds to the effectiveness of an adaptation strategy, while in other instances, TEK could act as an “antecedent causal factor,” where feasibility of adaptation hinges on having sufficient TEK (Pearce et al. 2015).

When logical conjunctions such as these are translated into further computational simulation, they may be able to interrogate any assumptions made by the modelling technique of choice. To do this, further specification of these logical conjunctions may be needed: for instance, one needs to make the choice of whether an “additive” conjunction translates to a weighted sum of the influencing links, or whether it corresponds to an alternative mathematical aggregation where the strongest influence dominates. In “fuzzy” cognitive mapping

(FCM), one could accommodate these logical conjunctions by modifying assumptions inherent in traditional FCMs to more accurately represent these system relationships. This could be done by replacing the weighted sum in Eq. 1.1 with an alternate method of aggregation

(e.g., min, max, mean, or other arithmetic formulations suggested in Davis and O’Mahony

(2013, 2017) and Detyniecki (2001)).

In addition, the construction of the logic-based influence diagram included an effort to capture how a given concept was influenced through time. There was an intentional choice to explicitly specify whether or not a concept would depend, to some extent, on its own state

76 2.4. Discussion value at the previous time step, as opposed to being completely determined by influencing factors. With this explicitly determined (specified by ▲ in Fig. 2.4), it allows for an informed choice of k at each FCM iteration (Eq. 1.1). Depending on the use case, the choice of k may even be extended beyond the binary {0,1} to take on any real number in [0,1] (Stylios and

Groumpos 1999). This represents some notion of “inertia” or “unchangeability” for each influenced or affected concept in the system. This is necessary, for example, for concepts such as “knowledge”, where a high exposure to traditional foods will positively influence the state of knowledge at the next time step but may not instantaneously transform it within one iteration.

In our follow-up workshop and subsequent construction of the logic-based influence diagram, we also considered whether each concept’s influence was primarily a result of that concept’s state (e.g., “high” or “low”), indicated by ⃝, or triggered by the concept’s change in state (e.g., “increase” or “decrease”), indicated by △. In our case, all system relationships in Figure 2.4 were governed by the former, which makes the relationships suited to the semantics of the original FCM algorithm (Carvalho 2013). If, however, some relationships depended on the latter (i.e. changes in state), an extra term may be needed in the FCM algorithm equation; or, alternatively, this may call for the use of a different modelling method

(e.g., the FSDM modification suggested in Vogt et al. (2015)).

Caveats and opportunities for future research

Limitations of elicitation It is important to note that the results from this research are a product of the insights and knowledge shared in the workshops held with Tla’amin Nation managers, staff, community members, and knowledge holders and are thus a reflection of who was in the room at the time. Representation was limited by the scope of the research, researcher capacity, and the timing of the workshops (weekday mornings). Although sev-

77 2.4. Discussion eral areas of interest were represented, notably in the focus of natural resource management and health, there is room for more representation especially from non-staff, women, and youth on this topic. In particular, because of the focus of these workshops, there may have been an overrepresentation of managers and harvesters from the community, introducing a bias in the results.

For those who were represented, the workshop structure for this research provided attendees with an opportunity to voice and exchange their perspectives with others. However, the group nature of the workshop itself may have prevented some participants, e.g., those who were hard of hearing, from being able to engage in the discussion to their fullest extent.

To the best of our knowledge, however, all participants were able to engage with the activities and voice their perspectives to some degree, so this was unlikely to have significantly impacted our results.

Quality of facilitation also plays a confounding role in any facilitated research interaction.

In group discussions especially, facilitators may need to spot and address several biases that frequently emerge in group settings. These include the overconfidence effect (where an individual tends to have higher subjective confidence in their judgement); production blocking (where one cannot think of new ideas while listening to others in the group at the same time); and evaluation apprehension (where concern about how they are being judged by others affects what they say or decide) (Mukherjee et al. 2018). There may also be a dominance or halo effect (where the dominance or perceived status of an individual may shape or influence the discussion), or general groupthink (where members in a group may tend to think similarly to maintain group cohesion) (Mukherjee et al. 2018; Nyumba et al. 2018). Although some of these group biases may still have played a role, an effort was made to reduce these biases (i.e., in the selection of workshop subgroups, the design of activities to include initial individual brainstorming, and the setting of intentions at the

78 2.4. Discussion beginning of workshop). On the other hand, facilitation may also bias a group’s discussion.

The facilitated co-production of the systems map during the main workshop meant that the researcher-facilitator was embedded in the knowledge generation process. This was amplified as the facilitators in all three groups eventually assumed the role of notetaker due to participants’ preference and comfort with oral expression and discussion over written expression.14 That being said, the conversational approach that was taken has its benefits as well, echoing storytelling approaches in Indigenous methodologies and providing a greater control of disclosure for participants (Kovach 2010, as cited in Drawson et al. 2017, p.4). The participants’ free expression re-assured the research team that enough trust had been built to minimize effects of potential researcher-participant power dynamics that may have been present.

The conversations and discussions held in the main workshop may have also been influenced by the opening presentations and the framing of the problem (Appendix A). Climate change and its effect on marine organisms, for example, was briefly mentioned during the introductory presentations. This may have had influenced the appearance of “warming waters” as a concept node in the system. As well, the framing of the problem as a flow from abundance to harvest to consumption (Fig. A.1) may have intangibly influenced the conversations that day, in ways we may not understand. Ultimately, the systems map generated through this work holds value despite these limitations, and an understanding of these limitations is critical to the proper interpretation of our results.

Limitations of our systems approach Systems mapping proved to be a useful boundary object that allowed for a productive, semi-structured dialogue with a broad range of com-

14The warm-up drawing activity was designed to help participants overcome any apprehension of written or visual expression, but this was not sufficient in encouraging an enthusiastic uptake of the Sharpies and post-it notes provided. This, perhaps, could have been amended, for example, by replacing permanent markers with crayons (a less “permanent” option) as the provided writing medium.

79 2.4. Discussion munity members and staff and minimal pre-conceived assumptions on the part of the research team. Certain aspects of the systems approach, however, may have constrained the exploration of historical and cross-scale dynamics as well as distributional heterogeneities.

Because systems mapping, and especially systems modelling, is designed to capture the current dynamics and active processes of a given system, it fails to adequately capture the historical context of pollution and contamination, colonialism, and previous instances of intensive commercial over-harvesting— even though these have been substantially influential in shaping current levels of access and availability. However, because of the participatory and fluid nature of our data collection, we were able to acknowledge and recognize this outside the boundaries of our systems map and convey this context through narrative description.

Future studies may be able to formally explore the links to past events in further detail.

Our resulting systems map (Fig. 2.2) also did not encapsulate potential heterogeneities between different types of actors in the system. During the main workshop, participants were asked about different groups of people who were affected by changes in seafood availability. Demographics did not emerge as a major component of the system dynamics but were rather embedded in the types of barriers mentioned. Nearly all the factors in the aggregate map still affected most, if not all of groups of people mentioned, and thus were left at the aggregate level. Because clear differences did not emerge during participants’ discussions, we did not pursue this topic further; however, given more time, there may be room to talk to different segments of the populations and explore any hidden “taboo trade-offs” that may exist within the food system (Daw et al. 2015).

Similarly, distributional dynamics of traditional food were not addressed in the systems map but were key to understanding the Tla’amin traditional food system. As the majority of community members currently do not personally harvest their own fish or shellfish, sharing and distribution potentially play a large part in the system dynamics. However, as

80 2.4. Discussion with most social-ecological system models, there exists an inherent emphasis of “social unit or group” (community) rather than a disaggregation at the individual or household level

(Fabinyi et al. 2014). There is room to explore these potential heterogeneities in further studies and to pair systems theory approaches with distributional and equity considerations.

Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the level of community harvest and distribution, even with heterogeneous distributional considerations, does not necessarily translate directly to how much traditional seafood each person consumes. Consumption of fish and shellfish still depends on whether or not each individual or household has a taste for the food (Kuhnlein

1989) and are interested in preparing and eating it. Because this research takes a focus on the climate-to-harvest portion of the climate impact pathway, there is a need to further elucidate consumption dynamics (e.g., explore what factors affect a person’s preference for certain foods) to make further insights.

Finally, the scope of this research was also limited to the traditional seafood system as perceived by participating members of one Northern Coast Salish First Nation. By addressing the traditional food system in its own right, this study complements existing food security research that primarily consider market (store-bought) food systems in Aboriginal food security (Power 2008). With that said, further work to situate these findings in the context of people’s relationships to market foods and the overall food system will improve the use- fulness of this research to potentially inform the implementation of future initiatives and strategies by Tla’amin Nation.

81 2.5. Conclusion

Through the construction and subsequent analyses of a systems map constructed with Tla’amin

Nation members and staff, this research considered the inter-related factors that affect the use of traditional foods and traced the perceived effects of a changing climate and warming waters on traditional seafood use, enriching previous survey-based approaches (Chan et al. 2011; Kuhnlein 1989; Ouchi 2019). Climate change impacts on the consumption of traditional foods were perceived to be two-fold: first, pathways that impact consumption through direct impacts on harvest, via effects on the resource, and second, pathways that impacted consumption through indirect feedback loops, resulting from a reduced exposure to and experience with traditional foods. Direct climate impacts on traditional harvest, including climate effects on local abundance and availability of fish and shellfish in the environment (and their potential consequences for restrictive regulations), as well as on harmful algal blooms and shellfish safety, were found to compound onto existing constraints to the physical and temporal access to the harvest of traditional marine foods. This expands the consideration of climate-driven impacts on food security beyond climate effects on abundance and availability, additionally taking into account the role of climate effects on aspects of food and resource accessibility— something to consider in the future implementation and evaluation of potential climate adaptation strategies.

More than the insights and outcomes of this research, the participatory nature of the work, through interactive workshops, created an environment where people from diverse disciplines and walks of life were able to come together, collaborate, and voice what was important to them in the years to come. It also highlighted the importance and need of First

Nations governance, especially in light of climate change adaptation and the implementation of strategies, initiatives, and solutions. Even in the short amount of time working with

Tla’amin Nation through this thesis, the author has witnessed Tla’amin Nation further in-

82 2.5. Conclusion crease cultural education activities; initiate more collaboration between health and cultural departments; and continue to ramp up beach monitoring, education, and enforcement— speaking volumes to the Tla’amin people’s ability and drive to play an active role in shaping the future of their community and territory.

83 3 Concluding remarks

Climate change’s current and projected effects on fish populations on the coast of British

Columbia (Weatherdon et al. 2016) underscores the importance of having a rounded understanding of the inter-connected dynamics that influence local fisheries and food systems, in order to allow for the insightful evaluation of adaptation options to reduce potential climate risks. This research strengthens that understanding by exploring perceptions of how climate-driven ecosystem changes fit into the current dynamics of the Tla’amin fisheries and food system, through a trans-disciplinary and participatory “systems” approach with members and staff of the Tla’amin First Nation, and through tracing the perceived pathways that lead from climate change impacts to harvest and consumption of traditional seafood.

In the main chapter, climate change impacts on the consumption of traditional foods were perceived via both direct and indirect pathways, with reinforcing feedback loops brought about by reduced exposure to and experience with traditional foods. Climate effects on local abundance, availability, and safety of fish and shellfish in the environment, accompanied by potential consequences for harvest restrictions, were noted to compound onto existing constraints to physical and temporal access to the harvest of traditional marine foods.

Weaved throughout the outputs of this research were overarching themes and narratives about the role of traditional harvest, including ideas of tension and balance between contrasting and complementary parts. Voiced by Tla’amin Hatchery Manager Lee George and

84 3. Concluding remarks others was the notion of being “culturally rich” with the knowledge, ability, and practice of harvesting traditional foods— even though one may be financially “poor.” This held especially true in the past, but is increasingly being challenged by the dominance of the market economy. Fishing itself (what with the cost of fuel, gear, and a boat) has become increasingly costly: things that used to be a necessity have now become a luxury. There was also a notion of working toward a balance in harvesting itself, a main theme highlighted by El- der Eugene Louie at the closing of the main workshop: a balance of asserting the Tla’amin people’s rights to harvest “safe[ly],” “secure[ly],” and “without fear”— all the while keeping in mind the teachings (Ta’ow) of the Tla’amin people and taking only what is needed. This theme may extend beyond the context of Tla’amin Nation, as it closely echoes what Jacob et al. (2010) highlighted in their conversations on sockeye salmon and climate change with the St’át’imc people: “The message that stood out was to continue practicing their cultural teachings that have been passed on from previous generations, meaning a continued respect for the salmon and the people’s ecological surroundings. The values expressed were to take only what they need, not waste what they have, and to share what they have with others.” These messages, which underlay the conversations that took place during the course of this research, hint at the value of taking a broader, holistic lens in any research that aims to properly inform future planning in the context of First Nations governance, ecosystems, and climate change.

In this concluding chapter, we expand on the advantages, limitations, and opportunities of the process and participatory systems approach employed in this research, present a few anecdotes, and make links to the broader global discourse and climate change adaptation initiatives in the Pacific Northwest.

85 3.1. Advantages and remarks

Systems and forms of knowing

The adoption of participatory systems mapping in this research, with its participatory and trans-disciplinary qualities, allowed for the holistic consideration of both quantitative and qualitative forms of information, and translates naturally into the incorporation of multiple lines of evidence through the co-creation of knowledge. It not only caters to a multiple evidence base approach (Tengö et al. 2014), but may also serve as one practical way to advance the democratisation of conservation science and practice (Salomon et al. 2018). Moreover, the use of a systems mapping and mental modelling framework to document and build upon existing knowledge can be considered as a form of “two-eyed seeing,” a term coined by Mi’kmaq Elder Albert Marshall of the Eskasoni First Nation to mean “to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous ways of knowing, and to see from the other eye with the strengths of Western ways of knowing, and to use both of these eyes together” (Bartlett et al. 2012, as cited in Peltier 2018). The development of the logic-based influence diagram in this research, for example, uses both a perspective on logic and systems knowledge representations, together with the place-based knowledge of Tla’amin, Indigenous partners.

This multifaceted approach holds significance on several scales. On the ground, these notions are important for relevant, appropriate, and community-owned strategies in the context of First Nations governance and future planning. At the scale of global ocean and climate change, they relate to the recommendations made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in the recent report on the Ocean and Cryosphere to bridge scientific,

Indigenous, and local knowledge systems to utilise all relevant knowledge in policy, governance, and management (IPCC 2019a, p.1-39). In addition, this work enriches climate change research by taking an alternative approach to study “impact”: while climate scien-

86 3.1. Advantages and remarks tists focus on detection and attribution through statistical fingerprint and non-fingerprint methods (IPCC 2013a; Knutson et al. 2017), mental models serve as a way to trace how people attribute changes in their environment and in their community. Concept mapping also provides a way to link the micro and macro, proximal and distal, and the individual to the non-personal (Few 2007), and it may be one simple but essential step to straddle and bridge between local, regional, and global adaptation.

Auxiliary benefits of participation

The advantages to adopting a participatory approach to systems thinking extend beyond the world of scientific research, with benefits associated with the act of communal gathering and dialogue itself. The inherent value in hosting a social space for building shared understanding was made apparent to me by the experience of witnessing participants’ conversations and hearing their feedback from the main community workshop. After the main workshop in December 2018, Sachi and I remained in Tla’amin few days longer, and over the course of that week, we heard from several participants about how being part of the workshop translated to their day-to-day work, as well as about its perceived importance.

One legislator talked about a crown land referral that landed on their desk that week. They mentioned that even though they had limited knowledge about the specific species in question, they were able to use a systems thinking framework (“everything is connected to everything”) to approach the problem at hand. One community coordinator was able to use insights gleaned from the workshop in a report they were writing about the community garden. Crediting the conversations that took place at the workshop, they were able to make links between growing food in the garden and the significance and implications associated with the changing availability of, and barriers to accessing, traditional foods. One fish hatchery worker gave enthusiastic feedback about the workshop process, reporting that the workshop had really great energy and did a great job of bringing important issues to top

87 3.1. Advantages and remarks of mind at the legislature. Conversations during the workshop itself also seemed to spark ideas for managers and coordinators to continue existing, or create new, collaborations on initiatives external to this research. These anecdotes support the view that participatory research workshops can be more than just a transaction of knowledge and, rather, should strive to be a thoughtful process that values and serves its participants and collaborators.

Learnings from the research process

On this note, I take this opportunity to relay and amplify the messages I heard from my collaborators while conducting this research, about research, science, and data sovereignty.

Though not comprehensive, the following paragraphs elaborate on and highlight several messages I heard from a handful of members and staff of Tla’amin Nation in this research process.

First, scientists must be transparent about their research. The virtues of transparency and communication have been touted, often in the context of open science and reproducibility when communicating methods and results (Miguel et al. 2014; Moravcsik 2014; Nosek et al.

2015). However, there is also an aspect of transparency that must exist when interfacing with partners in community-based research. It is important for us, as scientists, to communicate: What has been done in the past, by us or by others? What information would be important for people (i.e., research participants, collaborators, partners, and the general community) to know? At times, this extra effort and communication may fall outside our line of work. However, it remains that the foundation of trusting relationships is central to collaborative research with Indigenous peoples (Morton Ninomiya and Pollock 2017). Peo- ple, not papers, must come first.

Scientists must also be thoughtful and judicious about what and how much information they are asking for. I believe this requires particular attention from natural scientists, who

88 may not always consider the historical or social implications of the data they request. Over time, this can create discomfort and frustration about the amount of information requested from First Nations staff. Scientists and management bodies need to ask ourselves: What is the point of asking for this information? Is there a way to achieve the same objective by measuring a different metric, or with less detailed information? What is important here?

Inevitably, pain points arise when external organizations ask for extra information without funding the infrastructure or human effort required for the collection of that requested data. This is exacerbated when the extra layer of information requested is perceived to be extraneous to the asking organization’s ostensible mandate. When the reason behind each ask and level of granularity is not transparent enough, it can, typically, fuel misunderstand- ings, frustration or contempt, and at its best, foster unfree or uninformed consent.

It is important— morally, ethically, and practically— to take these into consideration in order to foster fruitful and balanced relationships with Indigenous partners in research.

Although we have made our best effort in doing so with this work, it has in no way been perfect. With this, I felt it necessary to pass along the above learnings for any scientist or practitioner who may come across this work.

89 3.2. Limitations of this research

3.2. Limitations of this research

Limitations of a systems approach

Despite the sizeable merits of the participatory systems mapping method employed in this research, conducting this process uncovered several needs and limitations of a systems- based approach. These include challenges in adequately representing nuances, historical context, and heterogeneities.

Moving forward, it is imperative to consider how historical legacies and contextual dynamics may be better incorporated into, or considered in tandem with, a systems dynamics approach, especially when addressing natural resource systems, Indigenous governance, and First Nation communities. The process of systems mapping places a focus on modelling the current, active dynamics in a given system. Although this may be a perfectly appropriate approach for subsequent computational simulations, it has the danger of obscuring the role of pervasive historical legacies that explain why or how the system has become the way it is. This becomes particularly relevant when we consider that some of the largest barriers to climate change adaptation may not be ecological, but political in nature (Wenzel

2009; Wilson 2014). Indeed, barriers to adaptation due to colonization, in particular, are not unprecedented. One instance of this was Canada’s 1885 ban of the potlatch ceremony, which actively oppressed a system of reciprocity that had served as a form of insurance to mitigate against aquatic resource fluctuations (Turner and Clifton 2009; Weatherdon 2014).

Similarly, in the case of the Iñupiat village of Shishmaref, the results of colonization, with relatively immobile infrastructure and development, restricted the physical flexibility that had previously allowed residents to adapt to abrupt environmental changes (Marino 2012;

Whyte 2017). Historical legacies, if not addressed, may continue to complicate people’s abilities to adapt to climate change today. It is thus important to address these effects in con-

90 3.2. Limitations of this research junction with any systems mapping approach, notably those that aim to make insights into adaptation and future planning.

Further, future research will need to better address heterogeneities that are present within this complex system. As mentioned in the discussion of this work, there are characteristics of a systems mapping approach that do not necessarily lend themselves to addressing the differences and dynamics between actors in the system. In the case of this research project, we asked our collaborators and participants of the main workshop, “who, or what, may be affected if seafood abundance were to change?” Given this prompt, different types of people were mentioned, but there were no decisive differences between different groups of people. There were a few exceptions: affordability would most impact people with lower incomes; factors relating to knowledge and changing interests affected youth; and health or physical barriers to harvesting one’s own food affected Elders, who rely on the communal sharing of traditional food. However, most factors in the system affected most, if not all, demographic types. Our resulting model, then, had an inherent view of the community as one single social unit. This may have been partly due to the nature of the systems map construction, where each node in the influence diagram was designated as a factor that influenced harvest or consumption of seafood as a whole. Because of this, the process of systems mapping itself was not sufficiently conducive to untangling and disaggregating these multi-scale interactions in further detail.

The presence of these un-captured heterogeneities may have contributed to later challenges in elicitation. Even though the elicited factors in the system were phrased as an aggregate level, many of the barriers and enablers of traditional seafood harvest and consumption lay not at the aggregate, but rather, at the individual and household level. This made eliciting definite “levels” or “states” of concepts, as well as relationship characterizations, more challenging during the formalization of the conceptual model in subsequent follow-up con-

91 3.2. Limitations of this research versations. For instance, one could ask participants to characterize the typical state or level of a particular concept at a given period of time, on some collectively defined linguistic scale

(e.g. “very low” to “very high”). This becomes difficult, and perhaps less meaningful, when that concept is considered at a certain level (e.g. “high”) but exists only in a small percentage of people. This applies particularly for notion of interest or knowledge in traditional foods: if knowledge in traditional harvest is alive and well but only held by a handful of people in the community, describing it as a single value at the community or system level may result in a mischaracterization. With only a systems-level approach, one may overlook these heterogeneities and their potential temporal implications: e.g., what happens as generations change? These aforementioned un-captured heterogeneities may be attributed, in part, to “linguistic uncertainty”; that is, a vagueness, ambiguity, context dependence, or under-specificity associated with the words describing the factors in the influence diagram

(Carey and Burgman 2008). To address these linguistic uncertainties, terms and factors need to be better defined within the workshops themselves— inevitably requiring trade-offs between time, simplicity, and accuracy.

Similarly, a systems mapping approach does not lend itself to adequately capturing the dynamics of intra-social interactions within the community, i.e., between individuals or households. Indeed, systems theory has been previously criticized for its inadequacy to fully represent the power relations present in social systems (Cannon and Müller-Mahn

2010). This poses a potential concern, as intra-social dynamics play a large role in a traditional food system. Having social connection with family and friends facilitates both an exchange of knowledge and the sharing of food. Community members would have typically harvested fish, shellfish, and other traditional food, then distributed any surplus to Elders in the community as well as other friends or family members. This distribution of traditional food is especially important to older Elders, who are no longer physically able to harvest as they used to. Today, Tla’amin Nation staff and hired individuals may contribute their

92 harvested marine foods toward the community freezer or distribute fish to other members of the community. To address these intra-social dynamics, additional exploration could be done using agent- or individual-based modelling, especially to take into account distributional patterns and flow of sharing (e.g., of food, knowledge, and resources) in addition to potential spatial dynamics (e.g., with community members living off-Nation). Pairing systems theory approaches with distributional and equity considerations may be especially useful when considering distributional mechanisms such as community freezers to support access to traditional foods, which bring up a complicated set of benefits, limitations, as well as concerns (Organ et al. 2014).

3.3. Opportunities

Informing adaptation

Participatory systems mapping and, in particular, the tracing of climate-driven pathways, allowed us to explore a multidimensionality of stressors and to provide a starting point to discuss and consider appropriate response strategies. Indeed, climate change adaptation responses and processes that are feasible and practical tend to be incorporated into existing programs to enhance adaptive capacity, rather than taken in light of climate change alone

(Smit and Wandel 2006).

Adaptation and practical response strategies to climate change and other barriers were recurring topics of discussion in this project. During the main workshop of this research, participants mentioned several layers of barriers when it came to harvest and consumption of traditional seafood. When structural barriers were mentioned, it became clear that as much as they were barriers, they were regarded equally as potential levers of change at the local Nation level. Discussions quickly turned to possible strategies and initiatives

93 3.3. Opportunities for Tla’amin Nation. Conversations revolving around potential strategies appeared again during the brainstorm of “future changes” (Activity W2.3), when a subgroup of participants were prompted about changes and scenarios, both positive and negative, that their community could potentially see in the future. Suggestions included introducing innovative policies, increasing infrastructure to support the processing of traditional food, and pushing for a greater say in fisheries policies and better co-management (Appendix D). Many of these strategies seemed to address multiple layers of barriers, by aiming to alleviate individual or household-level barriers through interventions at the Nation level.

It is promising to note that these community suggestions are congruent with the result of our participatory systems mapping exercise, where concepts drawn with the highest number of outgoing links (i.e., influencing the highest number of other concepts) relative to incoming links included “Family and social support”, “Teaching and exchange of knowledge”, and “External decision making, lack of recognition of local or traditional knowledge” (p.49;

Table 2.1).

Suggestions posed could also be seen to attenuate impacts of climate change through actions that fall well within the Nation’s realm of control. Initiatives such as increasing the sharing of traditional practices and knowledge, in particular, seem to target the concept of “exposure and experience”, which, given the climate-impact pathways outlined (Fig. 2.3), would act to bolster harvest and food preparation capacity in the case of diminishing harvest rates as a result of decreasing abundance.

Although the work done in this thesis does not assert to make concrete recommendations on adaptation plans, it provides a useful structure to discuss and assess further suggested strategies surrounding Tla’amin traditional seafood harvest and consumption. Addition- ally, insights from this work can provide a stepping stone toward adaptation in the face of climate change in the context other factors affecting traditional foods. In particular,

94 this work provides an additional way to approach climate change adaptation on the Pa- cific Northwest, adding to an existing body of projects and initiatives (Lynn et al. 2013).

On both sides of the Canada-USA border, a number of Coast Salish First Nation and Tribal governments have been developing climate change adaptation plans, including the land- mark Swinomish Climate Adaptation Action Plan (2010) (Lummi Nation 2016; Donatuto et al. 2014; Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe 2013; Puyallup Tribe 2016; Samish Indian Nation 2017;

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community 2010). In 2016, Canada’s Climate Change and Health

Adaptation Program (CCHAP), initially established to fund community-designed and driven projects in First Nation and Inuit communities north of 60⁰, expanded to southern First

Nation communities with support from the First Nations Health Authority (FNHA) in BC

(Richards et al. 2019).

Possibilities of further work include integrating this approach with indicators of community health in the context of biophysical and social science impacts from climate change

(Donatuto et al. 2014) or linking this research to urban perspectives on food security and traditional food access (Elliott et al. 2012), which may open additional windows to meaningful and practical insights for adaptation.

95 References

Aikenhead, G. S. and M. Ogawa (2007). “Indigenous Knowledge and Science Revisited”. In:

Cultural Studies of Science Education 2.3, pp. 539–620. doi: 10.1007/s11422-007-9067-8.

Ainsworth, C. H. et al. (2011). “Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Northeast Paciﬁc

Marine Foodwebs and Fisheries”. In: p. 13.

Bill C-68 (2019). An Act to Amend the Fisheries Act and Other Acts in Consequence. In collab.

with Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. url: https://www.parl.

ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=9630814.

Armitage, D. R. et al. (2009). “Adaptive Co-Management for Social–Ecological Complexity”.

In: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7.2, pp. 95–102.

Armitage, D., F. Berkes, and N. Doubleday (2010). Adaptive Co-Management: Collaboration,

Learning, and Multi-Level Governance. UBC Press.

Atlas, W. I. et al. (2017). “Ancient Fish Weir Technology for Modern Stewardship: Lessons

from Community-Based Salmon Monitoring”. In: Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 3.6,

p. 1341284. doi: 10.1080/20964129.2017.1341284.

Axelrod, R. (1976). Structure of Decision: The Cognitive Maps of Political Allies. isbn: 978-0-

691-64416-5.

Barnett, H. G. (1938). The Nature and Function of the Potlatch. University of California, Berke-

ley. 294 pp.

96 Barnhardt, R. and A. Oscar Kawagley (2005). “Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Alaska

Native Ways of Knowing”. In: Anthropology & Education Quarterly 36.1, pp. 8–23. doi: 10.

1525/aeq.2005.36.1.008.

Barreteau, O. et al. (2014). “Companion Modelling: A Method of Adaptive and Participatory

Research”. In: Companion Modelling: A Participatory Approach to Support Sustainable De-

velopment. Ed. by M. Étienne. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 13–40. isbn: 978-94-

017-8557-0. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-8557-0_2.

Barrett, C. B. and M. A. Constas (2014). “Toward a Theory of Resilience for International

Development Applications”. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111.40,

pp. 14625–14630. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1320880111.

Bartlett, C., M. Marshall, and A. Marshall (2012). “Two-Eyed Seeing and Other Lessons Learned

within a Co-Learning Journey of Bringing Together Indigenous and Mainstream Knowl-

edges and Ways of Knowing”. In: Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 2.4, pp. 331–

340. doi: 10.1007/s13412-012-0086-8.

Bastian, M., S. Heymann, and M. Jacomy (2009). “Gephi: An Open Source Software for Ex-

ploring and Manipulating Networks”. In: Third International AAAI Conference on Weblogs

and Social Media.

Baum, J. K. and S. D. Fuller (2016). Canada’s Marine Fisheries: Status, Recovery Potential and

Pathways to Success. Oceana Canada, p. 154.

Bender, E. A., T. J. Case, and M. E. Gilpin (1984). “Perturbation Experiments in Community

Ecology: Theory and Practice”. In: Ecology 65.1, pp. 1–13. doi: 10.2307/1939452.

Béné, C. et al. (2016). “Is Resilience a Useful Concept in the Context of Food Security and

Nutrition Programmes? Some Conceptual and Practical Considerations”. In: Food Security

8.1, pp. 123–138. doi: 10.1007/s12571-015-0526-x.

Bennett, N. J. et al. (2016). “Communities and Change in the Anthropocene: Understanding

Social-Ecological Vulnerability and Planning Adaptations to Multiple Interacting Expo-

97 sures”. In: Regional Environmental Change 16.4, pp. 907–926. doi: 10.1007/s10113- 015-

0839-5.

Bennett, N. J. et al. (2017). “Conservation Social Science: Understanding and Integrating Hu-

man Dimensions to Improve Conservation”. In: Biological Conservation 205, pp. 93–108.

doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006.

Bennett, N. J. et al. (2018). “Coastal and Indigenous Community Access to Marine Resources

and the Ocean: A Policy Imperative for Canada”. In: Marine Policy 87, pp. 186–193. doi:

10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.023.

Bérard, C. (2010). “Group Model Building Using System Dynamics: An Analysis of Method-

ological Frameworks”. In: Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods: EJBRM; Read-

ing 8.1, pp. 35–45. (Visited on 09/19/2019).

Berardi, A. et al. (2013). “From Resilience to Viability: A Case Study of Indigenous Commu-

nities of the North Rupununi, Guyana”. In: EchoGéo 24. doi: 10.4000/echogeo.13411.

Berardi, A. et al. (2015). “Applying the System Viability Framework for Cross-Scalar Gov-

ernance of Nested Social-Ecological Systems in the Guiana Shield, South America”. In:

Ecology and Society 20.3, art42. doi: 10.5751/ES-07865-200342.

Berkes, F. (2009). “Indigenous Ways of Knowing and the Study of Environmental Change”.

In: Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 39.4, pp. 151–156. doi: 10.1080/03014220909510568.

Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke (2008). Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Re-

silience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press.

Bindoff, N. L. et al. (2013a). “Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: From

Global to Regional”. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of

Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change. Ed. by T. Stocker et al. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cam-

bridge University Press.

98 Bonneau de Beaufort, L., K. Sedki, and G. Fontenelle (2015). “Inference Reasoning on Fishers’

Knowledge Using Bayesian Causal Maps”. In: Ecological Informatics 30, pp. 345–355. doi:

10.1016/j.ecoinf.2015.09.006.

Buchanan, R. (2019). “Systems Thinking and Design Thinking: The Search for Principles in

the World We Are Making”. In: She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation

5.2, pp. 85–104. doi: 10.1016/j.sheji.2019.04.001.

Bunce, M., S. Rosendo, and K. Brown (2010). “Perceptions of Climate Change, Multiple Stres-

sors and Livelihoods on Marginal African Coasts”. In: Environment, Development and Sus-

tainability 12.3, pp. 407–440. doi: 10.1007/s10668-009-9203-6.

Butler, V. L. and S. K. Campbell (2004). “Resource Intensification and Resource Depression

in the Pacific Northwest of North America: A Zooarchaeological Review”. In: Journal of

World Prehistory 18.4, pp. 327–405. doi: 10.1007/s10963-004-5622-3.

Cajete, G. (2000). Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Clear Light Pub.

Caldwell, M. E. (2015). “Northern Coast Salish Marine Resource Management”. Doctoral dis-

sertation. University of Alberta.

Caldwell, M. E. et al. (2012). “A Bird’s Eye View of Northern Coast Salish Intertidal Resource

Management Features, Southern British Columbia, Canada”. In: The Journal of Island and

Coastal Archaeology 7.2, pp. 219–233. doi: 10.1080/15564894.2011.586089.

Campbell, L. M. (2005). “Overcoming Obstacles to Interdisciplinary Research”. In: Conserva-

tion Biology 19.2, pp. 574–577. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00058.x.

Canada. Office of the Prime Minister (2018). Reconciliation Framework Agreement for Biore-

gional Oceans Management and Protection. Backgrounder. url: https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/

backgrounders/2018/06/21/reconciliation- framework- agreement- bioregional- oceans-

management-and.

Cannon, T. and D. Müller-Mahn (2010). “Vulnerability, Resilience and Development Dis-

courses in Context of Climate Change”. In: Natural Hazards 55.3, pp. 621–635. doi: 10 .

1007/s11069-010-9499-4.

99 Carey, J. M. and M. A. Burgman (2008). “Linguistic Uncertainty in Qualitative Risk Analysis

and How to Minimize It”. In: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1128.1, pp. 13–17.

doi: 10.1196/annals.1399.003.

Carvalho, J. P. (2013). “On the Semantics and the Use of Fuzzy Cognitive Maps and Dynamic

Cognitive Maps in Social Sciences”. In: Fuzzy Sets and Systems 214, pp. 6–19. doi: 10.1016/

j.fss.2011.12.009.

Carvalho, J. P. and J. A. B. Tomé (1999). “Rule Based Fuzzy Cognitive Maps: Fuzzy Causal Re-

lations”. In: 18th International Conference of the North American Fuzzy Information Pro-

cessing Society - NAFIPS. IEEE, p. 8.

Chaib-draa, B. (2002). “Causal Maps: Theory, Implementation, and Practical Applications

in Multiagent Environments”. In: IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering

14.6, pp. 1201–1217. doi: 10.1109/TKDE.2002.1047761.

Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What Is This Thing Called Science? 3rd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub.

266 pp. isbn: 978-0-87220-452-2 978-0-87220-453-9.

Chan, L. et al. (2011). First Nations Food, Nutrition and Environment Study (FNFNES): Results

from British Columbia (2008/2009).

Chapin, F. S., C. Folke, and G. P. Kofinas (2009). “A Framework for Understanding Change”.

In: Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship. Ed. by C. Folke, G. P. Kofinas, and F. S. Chapin.

New York, NY: Springer New York, pp. 3–28. isbn: 978-0-387-73032-5 978-0-387-73033-2.

doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-73033-2_1.

Checkland, P. (2000). “Soft Systems Methodology: A Thirty Year Retrospective”. In: Systems

research and behavioral science 17.S1, S11–S58.

Chen, D. and W. Stroup (1993). “General System Theory: Toward a Conceptual Framework

for Science and Technology Education for All”. In: Journal of Science Education and Tech-

nology 2.3, pp. 447–459. doi: 10.1007/BF00694427.

100 Cheung, W. W. et al. (2015). “Projecting Future Changes in Distributions of Pelagic Fish

Species of Northeast Pacific Shelf Seas”. In: Progress in Oceanography 130, pp. 19–31. doi:

10.1016/j.pocean.2014.09.003.

Cinner, J. E. et al. (2018). “Building Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in Tropical Coastal

Communities”. In: Nature Climate Change 8.2, pp. 117–123. doi: 10.1038/s41558-017-0065-

Clements, J. C. et al. (2018). “Elevated Seawater Temperature, Not pCO2, Negatively Affects

Post-Spawning Adult Mussels (Mytilus Edulis) under Food Limitation”. In: Conservation

Physiology 6.1. doi: 10.1093/conphys/cox078.

Cohen, B. I. (2012). The Uncertain Future of Fraser River Sockeye: The Sockeye Fishery.

Colding, J. and S. Barthel (2019). “Exploring the Social-Ecological Systems Discourse 20 Years

Later”. In: Ecology and Society 24.1. doi: 10.5751/ES-10598-240102.

Coyle, G. (2000). “Qualitative and Quantitative Modelling in System Dynamics: Some Re-

search Questions”. In: System Dynamics Review 16.3, pp. 225–244. doi: 10 . 1002 / 1099 -

1727(200023)16:3<225::AID-SDR195>3.0.CO;2-D.

Crate, S. et al. (2019a). “Cross-Chapter Box 4: Indigenous Knowledge and Local Knowledge

in Ocean and Cryosphere Change”. In: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere

in a Changing Climate. In press.

Creath, R. (2017). “Logical Empiricism”. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. by

E. N. Zalta. Fall 2017. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. url: https://plato.

stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/logical-empiricism/ (visited on 09/17/2019).

Crosman, K. et al. (2019). “Clam Hunger and the Changing Ocean: Characterizing Social and

Ecological Risks to the Quinault Razor Clam Fishery Using Participatory Modeling”. In:

Ecology and Society 24.2. doi: 10.5751/ES-10928-240216.

Davidson-Hunt, I. and F. Berkes (2003). “Learning as You Journey: Anishinaabe Perception

of Social-Ecological Environments and Adaptive Learning”. In: Conservation Ecology 8.1.

doi: 10.5751/ES-00587-080105.

101 Davis, P. K. and K. Cragin, eds. (2009). Social Science for Counterterrorism: Putting the Pieces

Together. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. 486 pp. isbn: 978-0-8330-4706-9.

Davis, P. K. and A. O’Mahony (2013). A Computational Model of Public Support for Insurgency

and Terrorism: A Prototype for More-General Social-Science Modeling. Santa Monica, CA:

RAND. 88 pp. isbn: 978-0-8330-7919-0.

– (2017). “Representing Qualitative Social Science in Computational Models to Aid Reason-

ing under Uncertainty: National Security Examples”. In: The Journal of Defense Model-

ing and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 14.1, pp. 57–78. doi: 10.1177/

1548512916681085.

Daw, T. M. et al. (2015). “Evaluating Taboo Trade-Offs in Ecosystems Services and Human

Well-Being”. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112.22, pp. 6949–6954.

doi: 10.1073/pnas.1414900112.

Bill 41 (2019). Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. In collab. with Minister

of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. url: https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-

business/legislation-debates-proceedings/41st-parliament/4th-session/bills/first-reading/

gov41-1 (visited on 11/27/2019).

Department, L. N. R., K. Kuhlman, and G. Gabrisch (2016). Lummi Nation Climate Change

Mitigation and Adaptation Plan: 2016-2026. url: https://www.lummi- nsn.gov/userfiles/

360_Climate%20Change%20Assessment%20FINAL.pdf.

Detyniecki, M. (2001). “Fundamentals on Aggregation Operators”. In: p. 39.

Devisscher, T., E. Boyd, and Y. Malhi (2016). “Anticipating Future Risk in Social-Ecological

Systems Using Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping: The Case of Wildfire in the Chiquitania, Bolivia”.

In: Ecology and Society 21.4, art18. doi: 10.5751/ES-08599-210418.

Donatuto, J. et al. (2014). “Indigenous Community Health and Climate Change: Integrating

Biophysical and Social Science Indicators”. In: Coastal Management 42.4, pp. 355–373. doi:

10.1080/08920753.2014.923140.

102 Doyle, J. K. and D. N. Ford (1998). “Mental Models Concepts for System Dynamics Research”.

In: System Dynamics Review 14.1, pp. 3–29. doi: 10.1002/1099-1727(199821)14:1<3::AID-

SDR140>3.0.CO;2-K.

Drawson, A. S., E. Toombs, and C. J. Mushquash (2017). “Indigenous Research Methods: A

Systematic Review”. In: International Indigenous Policy Journal 8.2. doi: 10 . 18584 / iipj .

2017.8.2.5.

Duboz, R. et al. (2018). “Systems Thinking in Practice: Participatory Modeling as a Foun-

dation for Integrated Approaches to Health”. In: Frontiers in Veterinary Science 5. doi:

10.3389/fvets.2018.00303.

Dulvy, N. K. et al. (2008). “Climate Change and Deepening of the North Sea Fish Assemblage:

A Biotic Indicator of Warming Seas”. In: Journal of Applied Ecology 45.4, pp. 1029–1039.

doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01488.x.

Elliott, B. et al. (2012). ““We Are Not Being Heard”: Aboriginal Perspectives on Traditional

Foods Access and Food Security”. In: Journal of Environmental and Public Health 2012. doi:

10.1155/2012/130945.

Elliott, V. (2018). “Thinking about the Coding Process in Qualitative Data Analysis”. In: The

Qualitative Report 23.11, pp. 2850–2861.

Enfors-Kautsky, E. et al. (2018). Wayfinder: A Resilience Guide for Navigating towards Sustain-

able Futures. GRAID programme, Stockholm Resilience Centre. url: www.wayfinder.earth.

Epstein, J. M. (2008). “Why Model?” In: Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation

11.4, p. 12. (Visited on 09/23/2019).

ESPA (2012). Tools and Processes for Participatory Modelling of Wellbeing Implications Ecosys-

tem Service Tradeoffs: Description and Reflection on Methods Developed and Used in the

ESPA P-Mowtick Project. UK Research Council ESPA (Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alle-

viation).

103 Etienne, M., D. R. Du Toit, and S. Pollard (2011). “ARDI: A Co-Construction Method for Partic-

ipatory Modeling in Natural Resources Management”. In: Ecology and Society 16.1, art44.

doi: 10.5751/ES-03748-160144.

Fabinyi, M., L. Evans, and S. J. Foale (2014). “Social-Ecological Systems, Social Diversity, and

Power: Insights from Anthropology and Political Ecology”. In: Ecology and Society 19.4,

art28. doi: 10.5751/ES-07029-190428.

Felix, G. et al. (2017). “A Review on Methods and Software for Fuzzy Cognitive Maps”. In:

Artificial Intelligence Review 52.3, pp. 1707–1737. doi: 10.1007/s10462-017-9575-1.

Few, R. (2007). “Health and Climatic Hazards: Framing Social Research on Vulnerability,

Response and Adaptation”. In: Global Environmental Change 17.2, pp. 281–295. doi: 10.

1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.11.001.

Fishwick, P. A. (1991). “Invariance and Nominal Value Mapping as Key Themes for Qualita-

tive Simulation”. In: Qualitative Simulation Modeling and Analysis. Ed. by P. A. Fishwick

and P. A. Luker. Advances in Simulation. New York, NY: Springer New York, pp. 1–23. isbn:

978-1-4613-9072-5. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4613-9072-5_1.

Folke, C. et al. (2016). “Social-Ecological Resilience and Biosphere-Based Sustainability Sci-

ence”. In: Ecology and Society 21.3. doi: 10.5751/ES-08748-210341.

Ford, J. D. et al. (2019). “Changing Access to Ice, Land and Water in Arctic Communities”. In:

Nature Climate Change 9.4, pp. 335–339. doi: 10.1038/s41558-019-0435-7.

Franco, L. A. and G. Montibeller (2010). “Facilitated Modelling in Operational Research”. In:

European Journal of Operational Research 205.3, pp. 489–500. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2009.09.

030.

Fruchterman, T. M. J. and E. M. Reingold (1991). “Graph Drawing by Force-Directed Place-

ment”. In: Software: Practice and Experience 21.11, pp. 1129–1164. doi: 10.1002/spe.4380211102.

Galafassi, D. et al. (2017). “Learning about Social-Ecological Trade-Offs”. In: Ecology and So-

ciety 22.1. doi: 10.5751/ES-08920-220102.

104 Galappaththi, E. K., J. D. Ford, and E. M. Bennett (2019). “A Framework for Assessing Com-

munity Adaptation to Climate Change in a Fisheries Context”. In: Environmental Science

& Policy 92, pp. 17–26. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.11.005.

Gale, M. K. et al. (2014). “Observable Impairments Predict Mortality of Captured and Re-

leased Sockeye Salmon at Various Temperatures”. In: Conservation Physiology 2.1. doi:

10.1093/conphys/cou029.

Garibaldi, A. and N. Turner (2004). “Cultural Keystone Species: Implications for Ecological

Conservation and Restoration”. In: Ecology and Society 9.3. doi: 10.5751/ES-00669-090301.

Gattuso, J.-P. et al. (2015). “Contrasting Futures for Ocean and Society from Different Anthro-

pogenic CO2 Emissions Scenarios”. In: Science 349.6243, aac4722. doi: 10.1126/science.

aac4722.

Gautam, Y. and P. Andersen (2017). “Multiple Stressors, Food System Vulnerability and Food

Insecurity in Humla, Nepal”. In: Regional Environmental Change 17.5, pp. 1493–1504. doi:

10.1007/s10113-017-1110-z.

Government of British Columbia (2019). B.C. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Act - Province of British Columbia. url: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/

indigenous - people / new - relationship / united - nations - declaration - on - the - rights - of -

indigenous-peoples (visited on 11/28/2019).

Government of Canada, F. a. O. C. (2009). A Fishery Decision-Making Framework Incorporat-

ing the Precautionary Approach. url: https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/

sff-cpd/precaution-back-fiche-eng.htm (visited on 04/23/2020).

Grabisch, M., S. A. Orlovski, and R. R. Yager (1998). “Fuzzy Aggregation of Numerical Pref-

erences”. In: Fuzzy Sets in Decision Analysis, Operations Research and Statistics. Ed. by R.

Słowiński. The Handbooks of Fuzzy Sets Series. Boston, MA: Springer US, pp. 31–68. isbn:

978-1-4615-5645-9. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-5645-9_2.

Gray, S. (2016). Environmental Modeling with Stakeholders: Theory, Methods, and Applica-

tions. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media. isbn: 978-3-319-25051-9.

105 Gray, S. A. et al. (2013). “Mental Modeler: A Fuzzy-Logic Cognitive Mapping Modeling Tool for

Adaptive Environmental Management”. In: 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on

System Sciences. 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 965–

973. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2013.399.

Gray, S. A. et al. (2015). “Using Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping as a Participatory Approach to Ana-

lyze Change, Preferred States, and Perceived Resilience of Social-Ecological Systems”. In:

Ecology and Society 20.2, art11. doi: 10.5751/ES-07396-200211.

Gray, S. et al. (2012). “Modeling the Integration of Stakeholder Knowledge in Social–Ecological

Decision-Making: Benefits and Limitations to Knowledge Diversity”. In: Ecological Mod-

elling 229, pp. 88–96. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.09.011.

Haggan, N. and P. Brown (2003). “Aboriginal Fisheries Issues: The West Coast of Canada

as a Case Study”. In: Production Systems in Fishery Management. Ed. by D. Pauly and M.

Palomares, pp. 17–20. url: https://seannachie.ca/Website/Website-docs/H-BWestcoast.pdf

(visited on 09/26/2019).

Haigh, R. et al. (2015). “Effects of Ocean Acidification on Temperate Coastal Marine Ecosys-

tems and Fisheries in the Northeast Pacific”. In: PLOS ONE 10.2. Ed. by V. Thiyagarajan

(Rajan), e0117533. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117533.

Hall, A. D. and R. E. Fagen (1956). “Definition of System”. In: General Systems 1, p. 1848.

Harris, D. C. (1998). “The Legal Capture of British Columbia’s Fisheries: A Study of Law and

Colonialism”. University of British Columbia. doi: 10.14288/1.0077430.

– (2001). Fish, Law, and Colonialism: The Legal Capture of Salmon in British Columbia. Uni-

versity of Toronto Press. isbn: 978-0-8020-8453-8.

Harvey, C. J. et al. (2016). “Using Conceptual Models and Qualitative Network Models to

Advance Integrative Assessments of Marine Ecosystems”. In: Coastal Management 44.5,

pp. 486–503. doi: 10.1080/08920753.2016.1208881.

Herrera, H. (2017). “Resilience for Whom? The Problem Structuring Process of the Resilience

Analysis”. In: Sustainability 9.7, p. 1196. doi: 10.3390/su9071196.

106 Hieronymi, A. (2013). “Understanding Systems Science: A Visual and Integrative Approach:

Understanding Systems Science”. In: Systems Research and Behavioral Science 30.5, pp. 580–

595. doi: 10.1002/sres.2215.

Hovmand, P. S. (2014). Community Based System Dynamics. New York: Springer. 104 pp. isbn:

978-1-4614-8762-3.

IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Working Group II

Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change. Ed. by M. Parry et al. Cambridge University Press.

– (2013b). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group

I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Ed. by

T. Stocker et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

– (2019b). “Summary for Policymakers”. In: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere

in a Changing Climate. Ed. by H.-O. Pörtner et al. In press.

Isabella, J. (2014). Salmon: A Scientific Memoir. Victoria, British Columbia: Rocky Mountain

Books. 218 pp. isbn: 978-1-77160-045-3 978-1-77160-047-7.

Jackley, J. et al. (2016). “Ancient Clam Gardens, Traditional Management Portfolios, and the

Resilience of Coupled Human-Ocean Systems”. In: Ecology and Society 21.4. doi: 10.5751/

ES-08747-210420.

Jackson, M. C. (2003). Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers. Wiley Chichester.

Jacob, C., T. McDaniels, and S. Hinch (2010). “Indigenous Culture and Adaptation to Climate

Change: Sockeye Salmon and the St’át’imc People”. In: Mitigation and Adaptation Strate-

gies for Global Change 15.8, pp. 859–876. doi: 10.1007/s11027-010-9244-z.

Jacomy, M. et al. (2014). “ForceAtlas2, a Continuous Graph Layout Algorithm for Handy Net-

work Visualization Designed for the Gephi Software”. In: PloS one 9, e98679. doi: 10.1371/

journal.pone.0098679.

107 Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe (2013). Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation

Plan. url: https : / / jamestowntribe . org / wp - content / uploads / 2018 / 09 / 3 - JSK _ Climate _

Change_Adaptation_Report_Final_Aug_2013s.pdf.

Johannessen, S. C. and R. W. Macdonald (2009). “Effects of Local and Global Change on an

Inland Sea: The Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, Canada”. In: Climate Research 40.1,

pp. 1–21. doi: 10.3354/cr00819.

Jones, N. et al. (2011). “Mental Models: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis of Theory and Meth-

ods”. In: Ecology and Society 16.1. doi: 10.5751/ES-03802-160146.

Justus, J. (2007). “Loop Analysis and Qualitative Modeling: Limitations and Merits”. In: Biol-

ogy & Philosophy 21.5, pp. 647–666. doi: 10.1007/s10539-006-9050-x.

Kennedy, D. I. D. and R. Bouchard (1983). Sliammon Life, Sliammon Lands. Vancouver: Talon-

books. 176 pp. isbn: 978-0-88922-211-3.

Kii’iljuus Wilson, B. and K. Luu Gaahlandaay Borserio (2011). “Gam Tluu Tllgaay Aa k’iixa

Gang Ga; There Is No Land Strange”. In: That Which Makes Us Haida-the Haida Language

Book. Ed. by S. Steedman and J. Collison N. Skidegate, British Columbia, Canada.: Haida

Gwaii Museum, pp. 187–196.

Klir, G. J. (2001). Facets of Systems Science. Boston, MA: Springer US. isbn: 978-1-4613-5501-4

978-1-4615-1331-5.

Knight, C. J. K., D. J. B. Lloyd, and A. S. Penn (2014). “Linear and Sigmoidal Fuzzy Cognitive

Maps: An Analysis of Fixed Points”. In: Applied Soft Computing 15, pp. 193–202. doi: 10.

1016/j.asoc.2013.10.030.

Knutson, T. et al. (2017). Appendix C: Detection and Attribution Methodologies Overview. Cli-

mate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I. U.S. Global

Change Research Program. doi: 10.7930/J0319T2J.

Kosko, B. (1986). “Fuzzy Cognitive Maps”. In: International Journal of Man-Machine Studies

24.1, pp. 65–75. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7373(86)80040-2.

108 Kovach, M. (2010). Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations, and Contexts.

University of Toronto Press. 299 pp. isbn: 978-1-4426-9712-6.

Kuhnlein, H. V. (1989). “Factors Influencing Use of Traditional Foods among the Nuxalk Peo-

ple”. In: Journal of the Canadian Dietetic Association.

Laszlo, E. (1978). “Systems Philosophy”. In: Ultimate Reality and Meaning 1.3, pp. 223–230.

doi: 10.3138/uram.1.3.223.

Laszlo, E. and A. Laszlo (1997). “The Contribution of the Systems Sciences to the Humanities”.

In: Systems Research & Behavioral Science 14.1, p. 5. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199701/

02)14:1<5::AID-SRES150>3.0.CO;2-M.

Lepofsky, D. and M. Caldwell (2013). “Indigenous Marine Resource Management on the

Northwest Coast of North America”. In: Ecological Processes 2.1, p. 12. doi: 10.1186/2192-

1709-2-12.

Levin, P. and M. R. Poe (2017). Conservation for the Anthropocene Ocean: Interdisciplinary

Science in Support of Nature and People. San Diego, UNITED STATES: Elsevier Science &

Technology. isbn: 978-0-12-809298-9.

Levins, R. (1974). “Discussion Paper: The Qualitative Analysis of Partially Specified Systems”.

In: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 231.1, pp. 123–138.

Lim, B. et al. (2005). Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies,

Policies and Measures. Citeseer.

Linnéusson, G. (2009). On System Dynamics as an Approach for Manufacturing Systems De-

velopment. Technical Report 58. Gothenburg, Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology.

Lo, V., K. M. Chan, and C. D. Levings (2010). “Effects of Climate Change on Aquatic Invasive

Species in British Columbia”. In: Research Document 2010/053: State of Physical, Biological,

and Selected Fishery Resources of Pacific Canadian Marine Ecosystems in 2009. Ed. by W.

Crawford and J. Irvine, pp. 77–81. url: https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/publications/

resdocs-docrech/2010/2010_053-eng.htm.

109 Long, J., A. Tecle, and B. Burnette (2003). “Cultural Foundations for Ecological Restoration on

the White Mountain Apache Reservation”. In: Conservation Ecology 8.1. doi: 10.5751/ES-

00591-080104.

Luker, P. A. (1991). “Series Preface”. In: Qualitative Simulation Modeling and Analysis. Ad-

vances in Simulation v. 5. New York: Springer-Verlag. isbn: 978-0-387-97400-2.

Luna-Reyes, L. F. and D. L. Andersen (2003). “Collecting and Analyzing Qualitative Data for

System Dynamics: Methods and Models”. In: System Dynamics Review 19.4, pp. 271–296.

doi: 10.1002/sdr.280.

Luna-Reyes, L. F. et al. (2006). “Anatomy of a Group Model-Building Intervention: Building

Dynamic Theory from Case Study Research”. In: System Dynamics Review 22.4, pp. 291–

320. doi: 10.1002/sdr.349.

Lynn, K. et al. (2013). “The Impacts of Climate Change on Tribal Traditional Foods”. In: Cli-

matic Change 120.3, pp. 545–556. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0736-1.

Mago, V. K. et al. (2012). “Supporting Meningitis Diagnosis amongst Infants and Children

through the Use of Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping”. In: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision

Making 12.1, p. 98. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-12-98.

Mago, V. K. et al. (2013). “Analyzing the Impact of Social Factors on Homelessness: A Fuzzy

Cognitive Map Approach”. In: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 13.1, p. 94.

doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-94.

Mantyka-Pringle, C. S. et al. (2017). “Bridging Science and Traditional Knowledge to Assess

Cumulative Impacts of Stressors on Ecosystem Health”. In: Environment International 102,

pp. 125–137. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2017.02.008.

Marino, E. (2012). “The Long History of Environmental Migration: Assessing Vulnerability

Construction and Obstacles to Successful Relocation in Shishmaref, Alaska”. In: Global

Environmental Change 22.2, pp. 374–381. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.09.016.

110 Marushka, L. et al. (2019). “Potential Impacts of Climate-Related Decline of Seafood Harvest

on Nutritional Status of Coastal First Nations in British Columbia, Canada”. In: PLOS ONE

14.2, e0211473. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211473.

Mascia, M. B. et al. (2003). “Conservation and the Social Sciences”. In: Conservation Biology

17.3, pp. 649–650. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01738.x.

Mathews, D. L. and N. J. Turner (2017). “Ocean Cultures: Northwest Coast Ecosystems and

Indigenous Management Systems”. In: Conservation for the Anthropocene Ocean. Elsevier,

pp. 169–206. isbn: 978-0-12-805375-1. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-805375-1.00009-X.

McCabe, R. M. et al. (2016). “An Unprecedented Coastwide Toxic Algal Bloom Linked to

Anomalous Ocean Conditions”. In: Geophysical Research Letters 43.19, pp. 10, 366–10, 376.

doi: 10.1002/2016GL070023.

McGregor, D. (2002). “Traditional Ecological Knowledge and the Two—Row Wampum”. In:

Biodiversity 3.3, pp. 8–9.

McKechnie, I. et al. (2014). “Archaeological Data Provide Alternative Hypotheses on Pacific

Herring ( Clupea Pallasii ) Distribution, Abundance, and Variability”. In: Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences 111.9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1316072111.

McKinnell, S. M. and M. J. Dagg (2010). Marine Ecosystems of the North Pacific Ocean, 2003-

2008. North Pacific Marine Science Organization.

Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. chelsea green publishing.

Meggs, G. (1991). Salmon: The Decline of the British Columbia Fishery. Douglas & McIntyre.

296 pp. isbn: 978-0-88894-734-5.

Melbourne-Thomas, J. et al. (2013). “Testing Paradigms of Ecosystem Change under Climate

Warming in Antarctica”. In: PLOS ONE 8.2. Ed. by Y. Ropert-Coudert. doi: 10.1371/journal.

pone.0055093.

Melzner, F. et al. (2011). “Food Supply and Seawater pCO2 Impact Calcification and Inter-

nal Shell Dissolution in the Blue Mussel Mytilus Edulis”. In: PLOS ONE 6.9. doi: 10.1371/

journal.pone.0024223.

111 Menzies, C. R. and C. F. Butler (2007). “Returning to Selective Fishing through Indigenous

Fisheries Knowledge: The Example of K’moda, Gitxaała Territory”. In: American Indian

Quarterly 31.3, pp. 441–464. (Visited on 12/20/2019).

Miao, Y. et al. (2001). “Dynamical Cognitive Network - an Extension of Fuzzy Cognitive Map”.

In: IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 9.5, pp. 760–770. doi: 10.1109/91.963762.

Miguel, E. et al. (2014). “Promoting Transparency in Social Science Research”. In: Science

343.6166, pp. 30–31. doi: 10.1126/science.1245317.

Moravcsik, A. (2014). “Transparency: The Revolution in Qualitative Research”. In: PS: Polit-

ical Science & Politics 47.1, pp. 48–53.

Morton Ninomiya, M. E. and N. J. Pollock (2017). “Reconciling Community-Based Indigenous

Research and Academic Practices: Knowing Principles Is Not Always Enough”. In: Social

Science & Medicine 172, pp. 28–36. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.11.007.

Moschoyiannis, S. et al. (2016). “A Web-Based Tool for Identifying Strategic Intervention

Points in Complex Systems”. In: Cassting/SynCoP. doi: 10.4204/EPTCS.220.4.

Moser, S. C. and J. A. Ekstrom (2010). “A Framework to Diagnose Barriers to Climate Change

Adaptation”. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107.51, pp. 22026–22031.

doi: 10.1073/pnas.1007887107.

M’Pherson, P. (1974). “A Perspective on Systems Science and Systems Philosophy”. In: Fu-

tures 6.3, pp. 219–239. doi: 10.1016/0016-3287(74)90046-9.

Mukherjee, N. et al. (2018). “Comparison of Techniques for Eliciting Views and Judgements

in Decision-Making”. In: Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9.1, pp. 54–63. doi: 10.1111/

2041-210X.12940.

Munday, P. L. et al. (2009). “Ocean Acidification Impairs Olfactory Discrimination and Hom-

ing Ability of a Marine Fish”. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106.6,

pp. 1848–1852. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0809996106.

112 Nadkarni, S. and P. P. Shenoy (2004). “A Causal Mapping Approach to Constructing Bayesian

Networks”. In: Decision Support Systems 38.2, pp. 259–281. doi: 10.1016/S0167-9236(03)

00095-2.

Nagoda, S. (2015). “New Discourses but Same Old Development Approaches? Climate Change

Adaptation Policies, Chronic Food Insecurity and Development Interventions in North-

western Nepal”. In: Global Environmental Change 35, pp. 570–579. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.

2015.08.014.

Neef, A. et al. (2018). “Climate Adaptation Strategies in Fiji: The Role of Social Norms and

Cultural Values”. In: World Development 107, pp. 125–137. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.

02.029.

Newell, D. (1993). Tangled Webs of History: Indians and the Law in Canada’s Pacific Coast

Fisheries. University of Toronto Press. 352 pp. isbn: 978-0-8020-0547-2.

Nosek, B. A. et al. (2015). “Promoting an Open Research Culture”. In: Science 348.6242, pp. 1422–

1425. doi: 10.1126/science.aab2374.

Nowell, L. S. et al. (2017). “Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria”.

In: International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16.1, p. 1609406917733847. doi: 10.1177/

1609406917733847.

Nyumba, T. O. et al. (2018). “The Use of Focus Group Discussion Methodology: Insights from

Two Decades of Application in Conservation”. In: Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9.1,

pp. 20–32. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12860.

Okey, T. A. et al. (2014). “Effects of Climate Change on Canada’s Pacific Marine Ecosystems: A

Summary of Scientific Knowledge”. In: Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 24.2, pp. 519–

559. doi: 10.1007/s11160-014-9342-1.

Organ, J. et al. (2014). “Contemporary Programs in Support of Traditional Ways: Inuit Per-

spectives on Community Freezers as a Mechanism to Alleviate Pressures of Wild Food Ac-

cess in Nain, Nunatsiavut”. In: Health & Place 30, pp. 251–259. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.

2014.09.012.

113 Osmond, C. M. (2016). “Giant Trees, Iron Men: Masculinity and Colonialism in Coast Salish

Loggers’ Identity”. Master’s dissertation. Saskatoon, SK: University of Saskatchewan.

Osoba, O. and B. Kosko (2017). “Fuzzy Cognitive Maps of Public Support for Insurgency and

Terrorism”. In: The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation 14.1, pp. 17–32. doi: 10.

1177/1548512916680779.

Ouchi, S. (2019). “Diversification within Reduced Fisheries Portfolios Signals Opportunities

for Adaptation among a Coastal Indigenous Community”. Master’s report. Burnaby, BC:

Simon Fraser University. 50 pp.

Özesmi, U. and S. L. Özesmi (2004). “Ecological Models Based on People’s Knowledge: A

Multi-Step Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping Approach”. In: Ecological Modelling 176.1-2, pp. 43–

64. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.10.027.

Paasche, Ø. and H. Österblom (2019). “Unsustainable Science”. In: One Earth 1.1, pp. 39–42.

doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2019.08.011.

Papageorgiou, E. I. and J. L. Salmeron (2014). “Methods and Algorithms for Fuzzy Cogni-

tive Map-Based Modeling”. In: Fuzzy Cognitive Maps for Applied Sciences and Engineering:

From Fundamentals to Extensions and Learning Algorithms. Ed. by E. I. Papageorgiou. In-

telligent Systems Reference Library. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 1–

28. isbn: 978-3-642-39739-4. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-39739-4_1.

Paul, E., P. S. Raibmon, and H. Johnson (2014). Written as I remember it: teachings (?əms

tɑ?ɑw) from the life of a Sliammon elder. Women and Indigenous studies series. Vancouver:

UBC Press. 457 pp. isbn: 978-0-7748-2710-2.

Pearce, T. et al. (2015). “Inuit Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) Subsistence Hunting

and Adaptation to Climate Change in the Canadian Arctic”. In: ARCTIC 68.2, p. 233. doi:

10.14430/arctic4475.

Peltier, C. (2018). “An Application of Two-Eyed Seeing: Indigenous Research Methods With

Participatory Action Research”. In: International Journal of Qualitative Methods 17.1, p. 160940691881234.

doi: 10.1177/1609406918812346.

114 Penn, A. S. et al. (2013). “Participatory Development and Analysis of a Fuzzy Cognitive Map

of the Establishment of a Bio-Based Economy in the Humber Region”. In: PLoS ONE 8.11.

doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078319.

Penn, A. S. et al. (2017). “Extending Participatory Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping with a Control

Nodes Methodology: A Case Study of the Development of a Bio-Based Economy in the

Humber Region, UK”. In: Environmental Modeling with Stakeholders: Theory, Methods, and

Applications. Ed. by S. Gray et al. Springer International Publishing, pp. 171–188. isbn: 978-

3-319-25053-3. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-25053-3_9.

Perl, T. M. et al. (1990). “An Outbreak of Toxic Encephalopathy Caused by Eating Mussels

Contaminated with Domoic Acid”. In: New England Journal of Medicine 322.25, pp. 1775–

1780. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199006213222504.

Power, E. M. (2008). “Conceptualizing Food Security for Aboriginal People in Canada”. In:

Canadian Journal of Public Health 99.2, pp. 95–97. doi: 10.1007/BF03405452.

Price, M. H. et al. (2008). “Ghost Runs: Management and Status Assessment of Pacific Salmon

(Oncorhynchus Spp.) Returning to British Columbia’s Central and North Coasts”. In: Cana-

dian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65.12, pp. 2712–2718. doi: 10.1139/F08-174.

Price, M. H. et al. (2017). “Canada’s Wild Salmon Policy: An Assessment of Conservation

Progress in British Columbia”. In: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 74.10,

pp. 1507–1518. doi: 10.1139/cjfas-2017-0127.

Prigent, M. et al. (2008). “Using Cognitive Maps to Investigate Fishers’ Ecosystem Objec-

tives and Knowledge”. In: Ocean & Coastal Management 51.6, pp. 450–462. doi: 10.1016/j.

ocecoaman.2008.04.005.

Puccia, C. J. and R. Levins (1985). Qualitative Modeling of Complex Systems: an Introduc-

tion to Loop Analysis and Time Averaging. isbn: 978-0-674-43507-0. url: https : / / public .

ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=3048734 (visited on 03/04/2020).

115 Puyallup Tribe of Indians (2016). Climate Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation Options.

Puyallup, WA: Puyallup Tribe of Indians. url: http://www.puyallup-tribe.com/tempFiles/

PuyallupClimateChangeImpactAssessment_2016_FINAL_pages.pdf.

Ramsey, D. and C. Veltman (2005). “Predicting the Effects of Perturbations on Ecological Com-

munities: What Can Qualitative Models Offer?” In: Journal of Animal Ecology 74.5, pp. 905–

916. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2005.00986.x.

Raymond, B. et al. (2011). “Qualitative Modelling of Invasive Species Eradication on Sub-

antarctic Macquarie Island: Modelling of Invasive Species Eradication”. In: Journal of Ap-

plied Ecology 48.1, pp. 181–191. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01916.x.

Reid, H. et al. (2009). “Community-Based Adaptation to Climate Change: An Overview”. In:

Participatory learning and action 60.1, pp. 11–33.

Reum, J. C. P. et al. (2015). “Qualitative Network Models in Support of Ecosystem Approaches

to Bivalve Aquaculture”. In: ICES Journal of Marine Science 72.8, pp. 2278–2288. doi: 10.

1093/icesjms/fsv119.

Reuter, K. E. et al. (2011). “Elevated pCO2 Increases Sperm Limitation and Risk of Polyspermy

in the Red Sea Urchin Strongylocentrotus Franciscanus”. In: Global Change Biology 17.1,

pp. 163–171. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02216.x.

Ribot, J. C. and N. L. Peluso (2003). “A Theory of Access*”. In: Rural Sociology 68.2, pp. 153–

181. doi: 10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x.

Richards, G. et al. (2019). “Commentary - The Climate Change and Health Adaptation Pro-

gram: Indigenous Climate Leaders’ Championing Adaptation Efforts”. In: Health Promo-

tion and Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada 39.4, pp. 127–130. doi: 10.24095/hpcdp.39.

4.03.

Ricigliano, R. (2012). Making Peace Last: A Toolbox for Sustainable Peacebuilding. Paradigm

Publishers. 281 pp. isbn: 978-1-59451-995-6.

116 Ries, J. B., A. L. Cohen, and D. C. McCorkle (2009). “Marine Calcifiers Exhibit Mixed Re-

sponses to CO2-Induced Ocean Acidification”. In: Geology 37.12, pp. 1131–1134. doi: 10.

1130/G30210A.1.

Rouwette, E. A. J. A., J. A. M. Vennix, and T. van Mullekom (2002). “Group Model Building

Effectiveness: A Review of Assessment Studies”. In: System Dynamics Review 18.1, pp. 5–

45. doi: 10.1002/sdr.229.

Sadorus, L. L. et al. (2014). “Distribution Patterns of Pacific Halibut (Hippoglossus Stenolepis)

in Relation to Environmental Variables along the Continental Shelf Waters of the US West

Coast and Southern British Columbia”. In: Fisheries Oceanography 23.3, pp. 225–241. doi:

10.1111/fog.12057.

Saldaña, J. (2015). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. SAGE. 471 pp. isbn: 978-1-

4739-4358-2.

Salomon, A. et al. (2018). “Democratizing Conservation Science and Practice”. In: Ecology

and Society 23.1. doi: 10.5751/ES-09980-230144.

Samish Indian Nation (2017). Climate Adaptation Planning Framework. url: https://www.

samishtribe.nsn.us/docs/default-source/natural-resources-documents/planningframework_

final_compressed.pdf.

Satterfield, T. et al. (2017). “Implications of a Changing Climate for Food Sovereignty in

Coastal British Columbia”. In: Conservation for the Anthropocene Ocean. Elsevier, pp. 399–

421. isbn: 978-0-12-805375-1. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-805375-1.00019-2.

Schreiber, D. (2008). ““A Liberal and Paternal Spirit”: Indian Agents and Native Fisheries in

Canada”. In: Ethnohistory 55.1, pp. 87–118. doi: 10.1215/00141801-2007-047.

Sedgewick, R. and K. Wayne (2019). Directed Graphs. url: https://algs4.cs.princeton.edu/

42digraph/ (visited on 01/21/2020).

Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.

1st ed. New York: Doubleday/Currency. 424 pp. isbn: 978-0-385-26094-7.

Shore, R. (2009). “Our Once Teeming Shores”. In: The Vancouver Sun. (Visited on 09/20/2019).

117 Simpson, S. D. et al. (2011). “Ocean Acidification Erodes Crucial Auditory Behaviour in a

Marine Fish”. In: Biology letters 7.6, pp. 917–920.

Slaney, T. L. et al. (1996). “Status of Anadromous Salmon and Trout in British Columbia and

Yukon”. In: Fisheries 21.10, pp. 20–35. doi: 10.1577/1548-8446(1996)021<0020:SOASAT>2.

0.CO;2.

Sliammon Indian Band and B. Wilson (1994). Spring in Sliammon: The Herring Spawn. Powell

River, BC: School District #47.

Smit, B. and J. Wandel (2006). “Adaptation, Adaptive Capacity and Vulnerability”. In: Global

Environmental Change 16.3, pp. 282–292. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008.

Solana-Gutiérrez, J. et al. (2017). “Using Fuzzy Cognitive Maps for Predicting River Manage-

ment Responses: A Case Study of the Esla River Basin, Spain”. In: Ecological Modelling 360,

pp. 260–269. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.07.010.

Sterman, J. (2000). Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World.

Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill. 982 pp. isbn: 978-0-07-238915-9 978-0-07-231135-8 978-0-07-

238737-7.

Stylios, C. D. and P. P. Groumpos (1999). “Mathematical Formulation of Fuzzy Cognitive

Maps”. In: Proceedings of the 7th Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation,

pp. 2251–2261.

Suprun, E. et al. (2018). “An Integrated Participatory Systems Modelling Approach: Applica-

tion to Construction Innovation”. In: Systems 6.3, p. 33. doi: 10.3390/systems6030033.

Swenerton, D. M. (1993). A History of Pacific Fisheries Policy. Program Planning and Eco-

nomics Branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Region. 93 pp.

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community (2010). Swinomish Climate Change Initiative: Climate

Adaptation Action Plan. url: http://www.swinomish.org/climate_change/Docs/SITC_CC_

AdaptationActionPlan_complete.pdf.

System (2019). In: Merriam-Webster. url: https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/

system (visited on 11/05/2019).

118 Tendall, D. M. et al. (2015). “Food System Resilience: Defining the Concept”. In: Global Food

Security 6, pp. 17–23. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2015.08.001.

Tengö, M. et al. (2014). “Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced Ecosystem

Governance: The Multiple Evidence Base Approach”. In: AMBIO 43.5, pp. 579–591. doi:

10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3.

The Omidyar Group (2017). Systems Practice. url: https://docs.kumu.io/content/Workbook-

012617.pdf.

Timmins-Schiffman, E. et al. (2013). “Elevated pCO2 Causes Developmental Delay in Early

Larval Pacific Oysters, Crassostrea Gigas”. In: Marine Biology 160.8, pp. 1973–1982. doi:

10.1007/s00227-012-2055-x.

Tla’amin Final Agreement (2016). url: https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1397152724601/

1542999321074.

Tla’amin First Nation (2010). Tla’amin Land Use Plan.

– (2016). Tla’amin Nation Timeline. url: http://www.prepsociety.org/PRDI/images/TLA_

Timeline.pdf (visited on 09/21/2019).

Tla’amin Nation (2019a). Community. url: https : / / www . tlaaminnation . com / community/

(visited on 09/20/2019).

– (2019b). Culture. url: https://www.tlaaminnation.com/culture/ (visited on 09/20/2019).

– (2019c). Tla’amin Nation. url: http://www.tlaaminnation.com/ (visited on 09/20/2019).

Trosper, R. L. (2002). “Northwest Coast Indigenous Institutions That Supported Resilience

and Sustainability”. In: Ecological Economics 41.2, pp. 329–344. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)

00041-1.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015). Canada’s Residential Schools: The

Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Volume 5: The Legacy.

McGill-Queen’s Native and Northern Series 85. Montreal Kingston London Chicago: McGill-

Queen´s University Press. 405 pp. isbn: 978-0-7735-4660-8 978-0-7735-4659-2 978-0-7735-

9828-7.

119 Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, ed. (2015). Final Report of the Truth and

Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future. Vol-

ume One: Summary. Second printing. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company Ltd., Publishers.

536 pp. isbn: 978-1-4594-1067-1 978-1-4594-1068-8.

Tsadiras, A. K. (2008). “Comparing the Inference Capabilities of Binary, Trivalent and Sig-

moid Fuzzy Cognitive Maps”. In: Information Sciences 178.20, pp. 3880–3894. doi: 10.1016/

j.ins.2008.05.015.

Turner, N. J. and H. Clifton (2009). ““It’s so Different Today”: Climate Change and Indigenous

Lifeways in British Columbia, Canada”. In: Global Environmental Change 19.2, pp. 180–190.

doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.01.005.

Turner, N. J. and K. L. Turner (2007). “Traditional Food Systems, Erosion and Renewal in

Northwestern North America”. In: 6.1, p. 13.

Turner, N. J. and K. L. Turner (2008). ““Where Our Women Used to Get the Food”: Cumula-

tive Effects and Loss of Ethnobotanical Knowledge and Practice; Case Study from Coastal

British Columbia”. In: Botany 86.2, pp. 103–115. doi: 10.1139/B07-020.

Turner, N. et al. (2008). “From Invisibility to Transparency: Identifying the Implications”.

In: Ecology and Society 13.2. doi: 10.5751/ES-02405-130207.

Umeek (E. Richard Atleo) (2004). Tsawalk : A Nuu-Chah-Nulth Worldview. Vancouver, British

Columbia, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.

Van den Belt, M. (2004). Mediated Modeling: A System Dynamics Approach to Environmental

Consensus Building. Washington, DC: Island press. 339 pp. isbn: 978-1-55963-960-6 978-1-

55963-961-3.

Van den Belt, M. and D. Blake (2015). “Mediated Modeling in Water Resource Dialogues Con-

necting Multiple Scales”. In: JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association

51.6, pp. 1581–1599. doi: 10.1111/1752-1688.12330.

120 Van Kouwen, F., P. P. Schot, and M. J. Wassen (2008). “A Framework for Linking Advanced

Simulation Models with Interactive Cognitive Maps”. In: Environmental Modelling & Soft-

ware 23.9, pp. 1133–1144. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.02.006.

Vasslides, J. M. and O. P. Jensen (2016). “Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping in Support of Integrated

Ecosystem Assessments: Developing a Shared Conceptual Model among Stakeholders”. In:

Journal of Environmental Management 166, pp. 348–356. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.10.

038.

Vennix, J. A. M. (1999). “Group Model-Building: Tackling Messy Problems”. In: System Dy-

namics Review 15.4.

Vogt, R. et al. (2015). “Potential Changes to Travel Behaviors & Patterns: A Fuzzy Cognitive

Map Modeling Approach”. In: Transportation 42.6, pp. 967–984. doi: 10.1007/s11116-015-

9657-3.

Von der Porten, S. et al. (2016). “Recommendations for Marine Herring Policy Change in

Canada: Aligning with Indigenous Legal and Inherent Rights”. In: Marine Policy 74, pp. 68–

76. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.007.

Weatherdon, L. V.(2014). “Scenarios for Coastal First Nations’ Fisheries under Climate Change:

Impacts, Resilience, and Adaptation Potential”. Master’s dissertation. Vancouver, British

Columbia, Canada: University of British Columbia.

Weatherdon, L. V. et al. (2016). “Projected Scenarios for Coastal First Nations’ Fisheries Catch

Potential under Climate Change: Management Challenges and Opportunities”. In: PLOS

ONE 11.1. Ed. by J. C. Molinero, e0145285. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145285.

Wellman, M. P. (1990). “Fundamental Concepts of Qualitative Probabilistic Networks”. In:

Artificial Intelligence 44.3, pp. 257–303. doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(90)90026-V.

Wenzel, G. W. (2009). “Canadian Inuit Subsistence and Ecological Instability—If the Climate

Changes, Must the Inuit?” In: Polar Research 28.1, pp. 89–99. doi: 10.1111/j.1751- 8369.

2009.00098.x.

121 Wheeler, T. and J. von Braun (2013). “Climate Change Impacts on Global Food Security”. In:

Science 341.6145, pp. 508–513. doi: 10.1126/science.1239402.

Whitney, C. K. et al. (2017). “Adaptive Capacity: From Assessment to Action in Coastal Social-

Ecological Systems”. In: Ecology and Society 22.2, art22. doi: 10.5751/ES-09325-220222.

Whyte, K. P. (2017). “Is It Colonial Déjà Vu?: Indigenous Peoples and Climate Injustice”. In:

Humanities for the Environment: Integrating Knowledge, Forging New Constellations of

Practice. Ed. by J. Adamson and M. Davis. Routledge, pp. 88–105. isbn: 978-1-317-28365-

Widener, M. J. (2018). “Spatial Access to Food: Retiring the Food Desert Metaphor”. In: Phys-

iology & Behavior 193, pp. 257–260. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.02.032.

Wildenberg, M. et al. (2010). “Linking Thoughts to Flows - Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping as Tool

for Integrated Landscape Modeling”. In: LANDMOD2010. International Conference on In-

tegrative Landscape Modelling, p. 16.

Wilson, N. J. (2014). “The Politics of Adaptation: Subsistence Livelihoods and Vulnerability

to Climate Change in the Koyukon Athabascan Village of Ruby, Alaska”. In: Human Ecology

42.1, pp. 87–101. doi: 10.1007/s10745-013-9619-3.

Wolstenholme, E. F. (1999). “Qualitative vs Quantitative Modelling: The Evolving Balance”.

In: Journal of the Operational Research Society 50.4, pp. 422–428. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.

jors.2600700.

Yager, R. (1988). “On Ordered Weighted Averaging Aggregation Operators in Multicriteria

Decisionmaking”. In: IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 18.1, pp. 183–

190. doi: 10.1109/21.87068.

Yearworth, M. and L. White (2013). “The Uses of Qualitative Data in Multimethodology: De-

veloping Causal Loop Diagrams during the Coding Process”. In: European Journal of Op-

erational Research 231.1, pp. 151–161. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2013.05.002.

122 Zhang, Y. et al. (2019). “The Inhibition of Ocean Acidification on the Formation of Oyster

Calcified Shell by Regulating the Expression of Cgchs1 and Cgchit4”. In: Frontiers in Phys-

iology 10. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2019.01034.

123 Appendices

124 Appendix A.

Framing of systems mapping activities

The main workshop of this research, held over two morning sessions of 3-4 hours each at the

Tla’amin Nation’s Governance House, included several framing activities and introductory remarks that played a role in shaping the discussions of the workshop. These are outlined here in further detail.

The first day began with an opening prayer led by Tla’amin Elder Eugene Louie, along with self-introductions by the facilitation team and participants in attendance. This set intentions for a day of open listening and positive change, allowing participants to share their perspectives and questions of interest for this workshop. This was followed by a short presentation of the context of the project by the facilitation team. This included a clarification of the connections to an ongoing project with Sachiko Ouchi at Simon Fraser University (2018-

2019) (Ouchi 2019), as well as to past projects like the First Nations Food Nutrition and En- vironment Study (FNFNES), which included Sliammon involvement at the time (2008-2009)

(Chan et al. 2011). Also mentioned briefly was the connection to a previous study on the projected declines of First Nations food fish catch due to climate change (Weatherdon et al.

2016).

125 To illustrate the concept of systems mapping in context, facilitators framed the workshop goals in terms of bridging the links between the fish and shellfish in the ocean and on beaches; the harvesting of this seafood; and the consumption of this seafood. Participants were then presented background information on the notion of “complex systems”, as well as how systems mapping could be useful in decision-making and in understanding the larger picture in local food and resource challenges.

As a warm-up activity, participants were prompted to draw the things that come to mind when they thought of important fish and shellfish in the waters in and around their territory, and why they were important (W1.1). Participants then discussed the types of fish and shellfish they had brainstormed, and a list was collated on a large whiteboard. This served to kick-start the discussion around seafood, nutrition, and natural resource management.

Figure A.1.: Framework presented at the main workshop: from abundance to harvest to consumption

126 Appendix B.

Qualitative coding results

This section contains codes and number of references of each code from main workshop Ac- tivity W2.2. It is worth noting that code counts are not necessarily indicative of significance

(Elliott 2018; Nowell et al. 2017; Saldaña 2015), but were nevertheless useful in ensuring that concepts with the highest number of mentions made their way into subsequent analyses.

Table B.1.: Types of people mentioned in relation to the effects of food system changes

Code Count

Youth 17

Elders 12 Unemployed or 9 low-income

Working people 6

Off-Nation members 4

Fishers and hunters 2

Health compromised 2

127 Table B.2.: Top animals and plants mentioned in the context of the local food system

Code Count

Salmon 26

Sockeye 11

Chum 8

Pink 2

Chinook 1

Shellfish 24

Herring 13

Seal and Sea Lions 12

Groundfish / Bottomfish 11

Cod 3

Halibut 3

Rock cod 2

Red snapper 1

Birds 6

Whales 6

Crab 5

Traditional Plants 5

Berries and Fruit 4

Dogfish 4

Prawn 4

Table B.3.: Environmental drivers mentioned

Code Count

Pollution 13

Climate change 11

Overharvesting 11

Habitat Loss 3

Pathogens < 3

128 Table B.4.: Types of changes observed or barriers faced

Code Count Code category

Rules and regulations 39 Structural limitations

Attitudes or Interest 24 Interest, attitudes and priorities

Knowledge of Harvest 24 Knowledge and teaching

Contamination and Food Safety 16 Health

Affordability 15 Individual harvest

Transportation and Distance 15 Individual harvest

Food Preferences 14 Interest, attitudes and priorities

Ability to Prepare Food 13 Food preparation

Time and Energy 10 Individual harvest

Availability of Resources 9 Environment

Knowing Rights 8 Knowledge and teaching

Access to Beaches 6 Individual harvest

Priority of Spending 6 Interest, attitudes and priorities

Gear and Equipment 4 Individual harvest

Physical Ability 4 Individual harvest

Exposure and Experience 4 Interest, attitudes and priorities

129 It is important to note that the code “Rules and regulations” (Structural limitations, Ta- ble B.4) had a high count, in part, because its definition and scope was left intentionally broad. To illustrate, this code category encompasses all the topics listed below:

Examples of topics categorized as “Rules and regulations” (Structural limitations)

HR policies to allow for more cultural work

Structure of program budgets

Licensing and knowing rules

Input given to DFO, but decisions remain top-down

Representation at the decision making level (DFO) remains inadequate

FSC fishing listed as a priority on paper but not carried out in practice

Fisheries enforcement understaffed

High turnover rate in DFO staff puts burden on Nation

Food safety regulations and licensing at daycares

Liabilities and safety-related regulations

Limitations on harvest numbers, linked to dwindling resources

Shellfish closures

130 Table B.5.: Themes and topics discussed in Activity W2.2

Code Count Code category

Youth Education 25 Knowledge and teaching

Sustainability of Resources 21 Knowledge and teaching

Families and Social Support 20 Social support

Disconnect to Decision-making 19 Structural limitations

Commercial Harvesting 16 Commercial activities

Physical and Mental Health 15 Health

Seasons and Changes 11 Knowledge and teaching

Traditional Values 11 Knowledge and teaching

Events and Gatherings 11 Social support

Ecosystem and Food Web 9 Environment

Hatchery 9 Hatchery

(De-) Colonization 9 Historical impacts on present Enforcement of Sustainable 8 Knowledge and teaching Harvest

Treaty / Final Agreement 8 Structural limitations

Inter-community Collaboration 7 Inter-community collaboration

Validity of Local Knowledge 7 Structural limitations Public and Community 6 Knowledge and teaching Engagement

Community Freezer 5 Social support

Smokehouse 4 Food preparation

Processing Infrastructure 4 Food preparation

131 Appendix C.

From broad systems map to logic-based directed graph

This appendix outlines, in further detail, the construction of the logic-based directed graph that describes factors impacting people’s capacity to harvest marine foods in Tla’amin Na- tion, either for their own needs or to share with the community. For this process, discussions and responses recorded from the follow-up workshop (W3.1 and W3.2) were used to focus and refine the broader systems map generated through the main community workshop (Fig. 2.2).

At the time of the follow-up workshop, the subset of the systems map pertaining to food fish harvest in Tla’amin Nation comprised several main influences: abundance (via resource flow); restrictive regulations; contamination of shellfish (presented in the positive,

“safety of shellfish”); and capacity to harvest (presented as “individuals harvesting their own food”, and during the workshop revised to “community members harvesting for their own needs or to share with the community”). Factors that had been mapped, in turn, as influences on people’s capacity to harvest were “interest and priorities”, “having time and energy”, “knowing how (and knowing rights), “access to gear”, and “physical access to harvest grounds”. “Physical ability or health” had also been mapped as an influence but was

132 ultimately omitted from discussions and the subsequent logic-based diagram due to several reasons (time constraints; outside the scope of the model— not a lever of change in short-term adaptation planning; and could be classified under “physical access”).

The questions posed to managers and staff at the follow-up workshop focused on the concepts above, with particular emphasis on how those factors affect the amount or frequency at which community members harvest fish and shellfish. Discussions included responses to questions such as:

• What kinds of restrictions exist when it comes to fish and shellfish harvest?

• Are there other limitations when it comes to fish and shellfish harvest?

• What are the differences between the harvests of fish and shellfish?

• What is the role of community food fish allocations, relative to individual harvests?

Clarifications provided through the discussions informed later changes in the structure of the influence diagram in the following ways: “Restrictions” were not perceived to only per- tain to legal barriers, but were also related to time and timing, as well as distance and needing to go out farther to harvest. In addition, abundance did not only dictate the material flow of the resource, but also affected how people are able to harvest because of distance and time. That is, as resources dwindle, people may need to harvest farther away and may require more time to conduct their harvest. Then, if the windows of time available for harvest shrink as well, it may become more challenging to align the timing with people’s avail- abilities. Following the workshop, these insights informed the decision to (re-)structure the concepts and links such that: “having time and energy” was generalized to simply “timing limitations” or “timing”; and links were drawn from “abundance” to the concepts of “physical access” (via lack or availability of local harvest grounds) and “timing”, as well as from

“restrictions” to “timing”.

133 Figure C.1.: A summary of the broad systems map was presented using large acetate sheets and erasable markers during the follow-up workshop. This photograph shows the presented systems map along with added notes and modifications, subsequently used to create the logic-based directed graph focused on harvest.

134 The concept representing capacity to harvest, originally labelled “individuals harvesting their own food” was revised to “community members harvesting for their own needs or to share with the community” during the workshop, in order to encompass both individual and community-level food fish harvest. This was done as participants indicated that the factors influencing both community-level and individual or household-level harvest were largely identical, and resulted in the modelling decision to consolidate those concepts.

Responses to the “If-Then” activity (W3.2) also clarified the nature of the causal relationships. For several key factors that influenced people’s capacity to harvest, participants re- sponded to the prompt: For the factor [X], a) What is the current level of [X]? (Is it “high” or

“low”? What does “high” or “low” mean?); and, b) If [X] were to then increase, how would that affect how much people are harvesting in the community (both for individuals fishing for their own needs, as well as those who bring it back to share with the community)? Due to limited time, participants were prompted on: “interest in harvest”, “priorities”, “knowing how”, and “physical access”.

Interest in harvesting was perceived as “high” but in a concentrated number of people, and interest was also high in terms of people wanting to have seafood. Participants voiced that if interest were to increase, it may not change the amount of seafood harvested in the community; rather, mobilizing action, increasing capacity (knowledge, time), and prioritizing were more important. If prioritisation of traditional harvest were to increase at the household level, the amount of seafood harvested in the community could increase. This informed the modelling decision to reframe the concept “interest and priorities” to simply, “priorities”.

However, it was said that even if interest and priorities were high, people may still not be able to go out at the right time. For example, regulations might limit FSC harvest of sockeye salmon to a 2-week window. Equivalently, even if priorities are high, one would not be able to fish without the proper knowledge, or the ability to go with somebody who does have that

135 (a) “If-Then” activity visual tools

(b) Example of an application of the “If-Then” activity cards

Figure C.2.: Visual tools, in the form of prompt cards, aided the facilitation of the “If-Then” activity.

136 knowledge and experience. This, among comments addressing the other factors, helped inform the characterization of the interacting causal influences on capacity to harvest as an “and” relationship (indicated by REQ in Fig. 2.4).

If physical access were to increase, i.e., if some of the people who were not able to access a vehicle or a boat were now able to, it was thought that harvest would also increase. (The challenge was “getting there, and getting there at the right time.”) This increase to access could happen by pooling resources and going out together, sharing rides, something people have already been observing. Physical access also came from knowing where to go— e.g. people could catch salmon in the river when they come up in the fall (Sliammon Hatch- ery runs a program to smoke the fish, and show people how to get it from the river). This informed the decision to reframe the concept “knowing how (and knowing rights)” into separate nodes representing different types of knowledge, each playing a different role in the influence diagram.

Responses in the “If-Then” activity also suggested that causal influences were perceived to be uni-directional, i.e. if “one concept increases when the other increases, and thus decreases when the other decreases,” this direction is consistent (does not reverse) regardless of the value or state of the concepts. This lent validity to the assumption of monotonicity of relationships being modelled.

Finally, although questions were framed in terms of “increases” (i.e. “Given the current level of [X], what would happen if [X] were to increase?”), responses suggested that it was the shift to an adequate or elevated level that would cause a positive influence, rather than the idea of change in and of itself. For example, it would be number of people prioritizing harvest that would affect the community’s capacity to harvest food fish, as opposed to the change in the number of people compared to previous year. (If the number of people were still low, the presence of a change would have a minimal effect.) This observation informed

137 the modelling assumption that the state or value of the influencing concept is what deter- mines the positive or negative influence on the affected concept (indicated by ⃝ in the body of this thesis).

138 Appendix D.

Results from Activity W2.3

When asked about changes and scenarios, both positive and negative, that their community could potentially see in the future (Main Workshop, Activity W2.3), workshop participants talked about a number of possible futures and initiatives. The majority of these changes took on the form of either adaptation responses that the Nation may be able to implement or encourage, or things that the community may need to plan for in the future.

139 Table D.1.: Topics discussed in Activity W2.3: Future changes and scenarios

Topic Description

Figuring out ways to manage commercial leases while maintaining access for Innovative policies community members, supporting people who are not able to harvest but teaching skills to those who are able, developing incentives for youth to learn traditional knowledge

Stewardship Enhancing streams and habitat, planning for conservation and food

Bringing back traditional practices (clam gardens, fish traps), teaching the youth (e.g. Transferring knowledge camp ʔap̓ ukʷəm, changes in the school curriculum to learn about traditional values and knowledge)

Community gardens Having traditional community gardens

Increasing capacity Having people in charge of community food, people to patrol and take care of the land

Jobs and employment Availability of skilled jobs in the area for young people to return to

Development Seeing an increase in development in the area in the future

Building traditional food Local infrastructure to process harvested foods with food safety infrastructure

Nation having more of a say in fisheries policies, plans, and commercial harvests in the Governance area, open communication between Nation office and community members

140