Open access

Connecting community-based monitoring to Arctic environmental decision-making and governance: A systematic scoping review of the literature

Publication: Arctic Science
26 January 2024

Abstract

Arctic community-based monitoring (CBM) programs have proliferated in recent decades. While the desire to influence decision-making is frequently listed as a motivation for CBM, there is a dearth of literature examining whether and how this goal is achieved in the Arctic. We draw on a systematic scoping literature review to examine the current state of the literature on Arctic CBM and environmental decision-making. Relevant articles (n = 27) were identified through inclusion/exclusion criteria (i.e., English language, peer reviewed, published between 1991 and 2021, and based on primary research) and analyzed using a data extraction questionnaire. We find that there is a growing focus on the relationship between Arctic CBM and decision-making in a range of decision contexts, most notably including co-management institutions. We note that less attention was paid to the potential effects of the often unequal, settler-colonial politics within the broader environmental governance system on the relationship between CBM and decision-making. Indigenous peoples and Indigenous Knowledge systems play a significant role within the included references, but less than half of the included references incorporated Indigenous governance concepts to a major extent. Based on our findings, we recommend future studies engage critical analysis of the influence of the governance and politics in the Arctic (1) on environmental decision-making; (2) the politics of knowledge; and (3) the use of digital technologies in the collection, storage, and mobilization of CBM data.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Arctic community-based monitoring (CBM) programs—or formalized processes where parties “collaborate to monitor, track and respond to issues of common community concern” (Whitelaw et al. 2003, p. 410)—have proliferated in recent decades (Johnson et al. 2015; Kouril et al. 2016; Danielsen et al. 2020). Many authors identify the desire to influence decision-making as a motivation for Arctic CBM (e.g., Fidel et al. 2014; Kouril et al. 2016; Gagnon et al. 2020), but the relationship between CBM and environmental decision-making and governance has received relatively less attention. In a recent survey of Arctic CBM practitioners, Danielsen et al. (2020, p. 13) found that 60% of respondents stated that CBM had improved “participation in natural resource decision-making, leadership development, and increased local governance over natural resources”. However, more empirical evidence is needed to examine whether and how Arctic CBM programs are achieving the desired outcomes in decision-making (Johnson et al. 2015; Danielsen et al. 2020).
Research globally suggests that CBM increases the extent and immediacy of data uptake in decision-making (Danielsen et al. 2007; Brook et al. 2009; Conrad and Hilchey 2011), although interventions tend to be limited to local rather than regional or national decision-making processes (Danielsen et al. 2010). At the same time, CBM data use is limited by factors including the scale and type of data collected, how extensively they are shared, what format they are shared in, their perceived accuracy and trustworthiness, and their relevance to critical environmental issues and decision contexts (Sheil 2001; Danielsen et al. 2009; Johnson et al. 2015; Buckland-Nicks et al. 2016; Herman-Mercer et al. 2018). For instance, where community-centered approaches drive the selection of data collection methods (e.g., interviews or mapping exercises), the sensitivity of Indigenous Knowledge (IK),1 and the need to respect Indigenous data sovereignty can mean that CBM data are not always easily shared across contexts. Adding to the above, an emerging body of scholarship situates CBM within the broader environmental governance system.2 Staddon et al. (2014, p. 13) write that it is necessary to understand “how issues of power and control may constrain [CBM's] contribution to sustainable environmental management”. These issues are particularly notable in relation to Indigenous peoples who are navigating unequal governance systems shaped by settler-colonialism.3 Indeed, while Indigenous peoples are frequently characterized simply as “stakeholders” within CBM programs (Wilson et al. 2018), recent research has examined the potential for Indigenous rightsholders to use CBM to assert their self-determination within or to “decolonize” settler-colonial governance systems (Kotaska 2013; Wilson et al. 2018; Reed et al. 2020). Despite these efforts, there is a need to attend to the ways that settler-colonialism also constrains Indigenous self-determination and governance (Cohen et al. 2021; Reed et al. 2021). Thus, examining the effects of equity and justice in environmental governance in CBM requires widening the scope beyond individual decision-making contexts to also examine the influence of the broader system.
The Arctic environmental governance system is complex and involves many state and non-state actors, whose roles and relationships are rapidly shifting within a changing environmental, social, and political landscape (Dodds and Nuttall 2015; Shadian 2017). Indigenous peoples are primary actors in Arctic CBM (Johnson et al. 2015). As such, understanding the role of Indigenous peoples in environmental governance is critical. While Arctic Indigenous peoples have always governed their territories, their inherent rights and authorities are not evenly recognized across colonial contexts (Coulthard 2014; Nadasdy 2017; Shadian 2017; Nuttall 2018). Governance approaches in Arctic states vary in many regards, including the distinct histories of settler-colonialism, resource extraction, infrastructure, capacity, and more; all of which influence the extent to which Indigenous rights and authorities are acknowledged and respected. Along with national and sub-national policies, laws, and regulations, Arctic environmental governance is shaped to a significant degree by agreements between Indigenous peoples and colonial states including the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), the Greenlandic Inuit state (Naalakkersuisut) created by self-rule in 1979 (Nuttall 2008; Kuokkanen 2017), and several comprehensive land claim agreements in the Canadian North negotiated after 1973 (Loukacheva 2007; Bernauer 2015; Nadasdy 2017; Kuokkanen 2020; Wilson 2020). Such agreements strive toward more equitable and inclusive forms of governance to redress colonial inequalities. For instance, comprehensive land claim agreements in Canada create significant legal infrastructure that increase the potential for Inuit and First Nations to direct research activities and participate in decision-making. Such legal infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, co-management boards (e.g., Nunavut Wildlife Management Board established by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement is the main instrument of wildlife management and policy in Nunavut) and research permitting bodies (e.g., Yukon Scientists and Explorers Act Licence requires researchers from outside the territory to consult with Yukon First Nation governments prior to obtaining a research license). However, as much as these agreements may have shifted Indigenous-state relationships for the better, they are not without critique. In particular, comprehensive land claim agreements have been noted to represent a limited form of shared decision-making (i.e., they generally involve an advisory role) (Wilson 2020). Adding to this, these governance arrangements have been criticized for imposing colonial European governance systems and processes that bear little resemblance to Indigenous legal and governance traditions (Natcher et al. 2005; Nadasdy 2017; Wilson 2019).
The dearth of literature examining the relationship between CBM and environmental decision-making and governance in the Arctic motivate the development of this systematic scoping review of the peer-reviewed literature. It has two overlapping research objectives: (1) to explore how Arctic environmental governance systems shape the development, implementation, and mobilization of CBM data in decision-making and (2) to evaluate what elements of CBM facilitate or constrain the use of CBM data in decision-making processes. While primary research is needed to explore the nuanced relationships between CBM, Arctic decision-making, and governance, our systematic scoping review identifies some key trends and specifies some potential future directions for research on the topic.

2. Materials and methods

We use a systematic scoping review approach to systematically and transparently identify, select, and synthesize articles using replicable methods (Peters et al. 2015). Systematic scoping reviews are considered the gold standard in environmental research as they make it possible to analyze trends in the extent, range, and nature of published literature. Additionally, they are useful for identifying research gaps, clarifying concepts, and methods and reporting on the types of evidence available to inform policy and practice (Berrang-Ford et al. 2015; Peters et al. 2015). Our scoping review involved four steps, including (1) the identification of research questions; (2) the systematic identification and selection of pertinent articles; (3) the extraction of data from each article; and (4) the summary, analysis, and reporting of results (Arksey and O'Malley 2005; Levac et al. 2010).

2.1. Search strategy

The search strategy was developed by the lead author. A librarian specializing in environmental sciences was a member of our review team and participated in all stages of the study (Aamodt et al. 2019). The search strategy included terms related to CBM and environmental governance and was situated within the Circumpolar North (Table 1). The search string was used to search Web of Science, Scopus, GreenFILE, and Academic Search Complete databases. The initial search was conducted on March 25, 2021. To confirm the sensitivity of our search, we hand-searched 3 years (2018–2021) of three main journals (Arctic Science, Arctic, and Polar Geography). The searches were restricted to articles published between 1991 and 2021. The citations were downloaded from each database in RIS format. After download, the citations were exported to DistillerSR© (Evidence Partners, Ottawa, Canada) for deduplication and screening.
Table 1.
Table 1. Strategy used to search Web of Science, Scopus, GreenFILE, and Academic Search Complete for publications on community-based monitoring, environmental decision-making and governance, and the Arctic.

2.2. Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria were developed a priori. Publications were eligible for inclusion if they were published between 1991 and 2021, in English, examined the connection between CBM and environmental governance in the Circumpolar North, and described primary research or was a review of primary research (Table 2). For the review, “governance” included any reference to policy, decision-making, legal systems, or similar terms. The Circumpolar North was defined following the Arctic Human Development Report (Larsen and Fondahl 2015).
Table 2.
Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select publications on Arctic community-based monitoring and environmental decision-making and governance.

2.3. Article screening process

Articles were screened to select relevant publications (see Supplementary Files for screening questions). Titles and abstracts were reviewed by one reviewer. Exclusion of the articles was independently confirmed by a second reviewer. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by consensus. Agreement between reviewers was evaluated using Cohen's κ value (Cohen 1960).

2.4. Analysis

Our analysis characterizes trends in the literature on the relationship between Arctic CBM and environmental governance processes. A data extraction questionnaire was developed a priori to capture key themes the author team determined to be relevant to the review (see Supplementary Files). The data extraction questionnaire was applied to each of the 27 included articles in DistillerSR©. Extracted data were then analyzed using descriptive statistics. Graphs were generated using Microsoft® Excel for Mac 2023.

3. Review results

The initial search identified 778 articles. After screening, 27 articles met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed (Fig. 1). The years of publication ranged from 2005 to 2020 (compared to inclusion criteria 1991–2021). Further, the returned articles were largely published in the last 10 years, with the most frequently occurring year of publication being 2020 (n = 8; 30%), followed by 2014 (n = 6; 22%) and 2018 (n = 5; 18.5%) (Fig. 2).4 A list of all included articles is available in the Supplementary Files. The level of agreement for inclusion between reviewers was “good” (Cohen 1960), with a Cohen's κ statistic of κ = 0.70 for the article screening. Results in this section summarize insights from the included articles based on questions from the data extraction questionnaire on the relationship between Arctic CBM and environmental governance (see Supplementary Files).
Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Overview of the identification, screening, eligibility phases of the literature review on Arctic community-based monitoring (CBM), and environmental decision-making and governance.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Year of publication of included articles shows that the majority of publications discussing the linkages between community-based monitoring (CBM) and environmental decision-making and governance occurred in 2014 and later.

3.1. Location of authors and studies

The returned articles discussed CBM programs in seven Arctic countries (Fig 3a). Most references were based on CBM in Canada (n = 21; 78%). The remaining references discussed CBM in the United States (Alaska) (n = 6; 22%), Norway (n = 5; 19%), Sweden (n = 5; 19%), Russia (n = 4; 15%), Greenland (n = 3; 11%), Finland (n = 2; 7%), and Iceland (n = 1; 4%).
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3. Maps display the number of returned articles with (a) study areas within seven Arctic countries and (b) lead authors originating in five Arctic countries. Maps created by Emma L. Ausen in ArcMap version 10.8.2 in North Pole Stereographic projection.
While the geographic location of research activities generally took place within one circumpolar country (n = 20; 74%), a few results involved two or more circumpolar countries (McGetrick et al. 2015; Wheeler et al. 2016; Wilson et al. 2018; Taylor et al. 2020).
The lead authors of the reviewed articles were distributed across five countries, with the majority from Canada (n = 17; 63%), followed by United States (n = 4; 15%), Norway (n = 3; 11%), Sweden (n = 2; 7%), and Denmark (n = 1; 4%) (Fig. 3b). Most of these lead authors were affiliated with an academic institution (n = 20; 74%), while the remaining authors were affiliated with governments (n = 6; 22%) and the private sector (n = 1; 4%). Of the 27 articles, less than one third of the lead authors were affiliated with an organization (any type) located in the circumpolar Arctic (n = 8; 30%). Of the subset of the authors located in Canada, only a small proportion of lead authors were affiliated with a northern Canadian organization of any type (n = 3; 11%). Nearly half of the included articles (n = 12; 47%) had at least one author who self-identified as Indigenous, or as employees of an Indigenous government or organization, including land claim organizations (e.g., co-management institutions). Out of all the articles, only one publication led by an author affiliated with a European institution included an author who was Indigenous or was an employee of an Indigenous organization (n = 1; 4%).

3.2. Involvement of communities varied by phase of CBM

Over two thirds of the included articles referenced the use of community-based research (CBR) methods (n = 18; 67%). CBR involves a focus on issues of importance to communities and engages community members in all phases of the research process toward the goal of social change (Minkler and Wallerstein 2010). CBR is central to decolonizing research or shifting the colonial dynamics that tend to exist within conventional relationships between university researchers and Indigenous communities (Castleden et al. 2012). Taking this a step further, we analyzed the included articles for the presence of four phases of CBM: program design, data collection, data analysis, and knowledge mobilization (Fig. 5).

3.2.1. Program design

Over two thirds (n = 18; 67%) of the included articles involved community members in program design (Fig. 4a). Involvement in program design took place through community consultation and/or social science research designed to document monitoring priorities and locations (e.g., Parlee et al. 2005; Danielsen et al. 2014; Fidel et al. 2014; Herrmann et al. 2014).
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Community involvement by phase of community-based monitoring (CBM) in included articles including (a) program design, (b) data collection, (c) data collection, and (d) knowledge mobilization.

3.2.2. Data collection

All the included articles (n = 27; 100%) involved community members in data collection (Fig. 4b). This is not surprising given that involvement of community members in data collection is definitional to CBM; it was also one of our inclusion/exclusion criteria. However, involvement in the other phases is less common, as will be explored in the sections that follow.

3.2.3. Data analysis

Just under half (n = 12; 44%) of the included articles involved community members in data analysis (Fig. 4c). Involvement of community members in data analysis may depend on the type of data because some analyses require specialized skills or equipment. For instance, programs collecting water quality samples may require laboratory and/or statistical analyses that make it less possible for communities to conduct analyses themselves (e.g., Latta 2018; Wilson et al. 2018). Most often, community members were involved in data analysis through member checking or validation meetings where the results were presented, and subsequent feedback was incorporated (Parlee et al. 2005; Danielsen et al. 2014; Fidel et al. 2014; Ostertag et al. 2018; Henri et al. 2020; Ndeloh Etiendem et al. 2020).

3.2.4. Knowledge mobilization

Nearly two thirds (n = 17; 63%) of the included articles involved community members in the knowledge mobilization (KM) or the use of CBM data (Fig. 4d).5 We specifically examined the included articles for discussions related to data sharing and communication practices for the purpose of mobilizing the data into policy and practice.
KM requires sharing data in a format that is usable by communities. While this does involve sharing raw data, other KM products are also developed. For example, Stenekes et al. (2020) note, “[i]n addition to academic outcomes, plain languages [sic] materials and culturally appropriate outputs were created for the community (i.e., book of stories)” (p. 5). Academic publications such as the included peer-reviewed articles are used to mobilize data to academic audiences. As discussed above, just under half (n = 12; 44%) of the included articles were co-authored by an Indigenous community member or non-Indigenous peoples who were employed by Indigenous organizations.
As mentioned above, Arctic jurisdictions in Canada have research permitting bodies that stipulate requirements to share research results with Indigenous rightsholders. At minimum, this involves presenting research results to the appropriate body (e.g., First Nation governments, co-management boards, and Inuit Hunter Trapper Organizations). However, we found that many of the returned articles went beyond these basic requirements to more fully engage communities in knowledge mobilization as part of ongoing collaborative research (e.g., Ostertag et al. 2018; Wilson et al. 2018; Hovel et al. 2020; Stenekes et al. 2020). Many of these authors also reflect on the challenges related to effectively involving communities in collaborative research.  Hovel et al. (2020) note that funding is a barrier to involving communities in knowledge mobilization as it curtails the number of repeated trips necessary for effective collaborative research and knowledge mobilization, including presentations at community gatherings and scientific meetings. Given the focus of this systematic scoping review of the literature, it is not surprising that several of the examples of knowledge mobilization focused on sharing CBM data with communities and other audiences for the purpose of mobilization in decision-making. These instances are discussed below.

3.5. Indigenous peoples, knowledge, and governance in Arctic CBM

3.5.1. Inuit were the most common Indigenous peoples discussed

A diversity of Indigenous peoples from across the Arctic were represented in CBM programs identified in the included articles (Fig. 5). Of the 27 included articles, 23 explicitly mention Indigenous peoples (n = 23; 85%). While Inuit (n = 13; 48%) had the strongest representation (Pulsifer et al. 2012; Herrmann et al. 2014; Wheeler et al. 2016; Tomaselli et al. 2018), Dena (i.e., Indigenous peoples belonging to the Athabaskan language group) comprised the second largest group (n = 10; 37%) of Indigenous groups represented in the returned results (Latta 2018; Wilson et al. 2018; Stenekes et al. 2020). Some studies mentioned Indigenous peoples but did not relate to particular Indigenous nations (n = 3; 11%). Four included articles did not mention Indigenous peoples (n = 4; 15%). The regions with the lowest Indigenous representation in their research were the Nordic European countries.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 5. Indigenous peoples represented in included articles on Arctic community-based monitoring (CBM) and environmental decision-making and governance.

3.5.2. IK plays a significant role in Arctic CBM

A large majority of articles (n = 21; 78%) explicitly mention IK in the context of CBM (see Table 3). Indeed, much emphasis was placed on the involvement of Indigenous peoples and their knowledge systems, which have historically been excluded from decision-making processes (Parlee et al. 2005; Fidel et al. 2014; Latta 2018; Ostertag et al. 2018; Wilson et al. 2018; Henri et al. 2020; Ndeloh Etiendem et al. 2020; Peacock et al. 2020).
Table 3.
Table 3. Overview analysis of included articles on key themes related to the connection between community-based monitoring (CBM) and environmental decision-making and governance in the Arctic.
The included articles most frequently discussed the value of IK in CBM for increasing the robustness of knowledge to both better detect environmental change (Schott et al. 2020) and understanding past and present relationships with the environment (Russell et al. 2013; Fidel et al. 2014; Gagnon et al. 2020; Hovel et al. 2020; Stenekes et al. 2020). For instance, Stenekes et al. (2020, p. 1) write, “[c]ommunity-based monitoring (CBM) based on traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) has the potential to contribute to understanding impacts on the environment and community livelihoods”. In most cases, IK was engaged alongside Western science (WS) (Bennett and Lantz 2014; Ostertag et al. 2018; Hovel et al. 2020; Ndeloh Etiendem et al. 2020; Schott et al. 2020). However, some focused on the collection of IK alone (Parlee et al. 2005; Stenekes et al. 2020).
Many of the articles discussed the relationship between IK, CBM, and decision-making and governance. For instance, some articles discussed the inclusion of IK in the context of co-management institutions (Parlee et al. 2005; Bennett and Lantz 2014; Ostertag et al. 2018; Hovel et al. 2020; Peacock et al. 2020). In some cases, the authors of the included articles discussed the legal or policy requirements in the Canadian territories to include IK, or to consult and engage Indigenous peoples (Russell et al. 2013; Ostertag et al. 2018; Ndeloh Etiendem et al. 2020; Peacock et al. 2020). While including IK in CBM was conceptualized as a way to improve monitoring and allow Indigenous peoples to better assert their self-determination (Fidel et al. 2014), very few of the included articles discussed the “governance value” of IK, or the idea that IK also includes knowledge governance, law, and associated institutions or practices (Whyte 2017). Several discussed “cultural” institutions or systems that inform harvesting (Ostertag et al. 2018; Hovel et al. 2020; Ndeloh Etiendem et al. 2020). Even fewer specifically discussed the need for more fulsome engagement with IK including Indigenous legal and governance institutions which flow from IK systems (Latta 2018; Wilson et al. 2018).
Incorporating IK into decision-making is an enduring issue in the Arctic and elsewhere. CBM was conceptualized as an approach that goes beyond the minimum legal requirements for incorporating IK in decision-making. Indeed, IK collected through Indigenous-led CBM can support Indigenous self-determination while also improving the robustness of information available for decision-making (Peacock et al. 2020). Ndeloh Etiendem et al. (2020, p. 309) discuss how CBM might be a tool for overcoming challenges related to “matching local and scientific objectives, initiating and retaining community involvement, and appropriately interpreting and integrating IK in decision-making processes”. At the same time, several authors acknowledged the limits of incorporating IK into colonial management processes (Parlee et al. 2005; Schott et al. 2020). For instance, Schott et al. (2020, pp. 211–212) note,
it still requires that IK be placed into a colonial management framework outside of the control of local communities. Knowledge co-production has been criticized for its call to engage with all stakeholders without clear consideration of power and politics, and how co-produced knowledge interacts with existing systems, structures, and processes of institutions.
Only under half (n = 13; 48%) of the included articles discussed the development of IK indicators in CBM (see Table 3). Indicators are, simply put, the signs or symbols used to understand and communicate about changes in the ecosystem (Parlee et al. 2005). Of the articles that discussed IK, only ∼38% (n = 5/13) highlighted specific processes or methods for developing those indicators (Parlee et al. 2005; Danielsen et al. 2014; Ostertag et al. 2018; Peacock et al. 2020; Stenekes et al. 2020). The included articles primarily used methods including interviews, focus groups, and workshops to document existing indicators that are used by Indigenous peoples, as well as to discuss appropriate approaches to documenting these changes over time through CBM. For instance, (Peacock et al. 2020, p. 260) recommends “establishing benchmarks so that metrics can be assessed using the traffic light approach” to better facilitate the inclusion of IK indicators in co-management processes.
One common theme in the justification of using IK indicators was that of addressing data gaps or building on shortcomings associated with the scientific approach. As Peacock et al. (2020) states, “LEK/TEK can provide historical baselines for determining benchmarks that extend back in time beyond the scientific record and may identify indicators and metrics not described in the scientific record” (p. 256). As discussed by Danielsen et al. (2014), it is not easy for decision-makers to share occasional harvester observations communicated over the phone. Rather, they note:
direct-count data, compiled by the same people at the same sites over an extended time frame, especially when written down and supported by local interpretation and analysis, can provide very useful information for the government [...], especially where conventional scientific monitoring programs are providing infrequent or no information. (p. 83)
Overall, translating IK into observations or indicators recorded in a format that can be analyzed quantitatively over time and at larger scales could improve the communication of CBM data to audiences outside of Indigenous communities.
Concerns about the appropriate use of IK and IK indicators were noted in several of the included articles (Parlee et al. 2005; Bennett and Lantz 2014). For instance, Parlee et al. (2005, p. 134) discussed some of the limitations of these types of indicators in that they can be a poor match for the kinds of indicators used in colonial resource management. Furthermore, they note “the process of defining indicators is inherently reductionist, which sets up the potential for miscategorization or misinterpretation of values and experiences that are holistic in nature, as in the present study”. Thus, anytime IK indicators are developed, safeguards are needed to ensure that they are not applied beyond their intended use.

3.5.3. The majority did not incorporate Indigenous governance concepts to a major extent

Arctic Indigenous peoples are important actors in governance. We coded the included articles for a range of Indigenous governance concepts of which two thirds of the included articles included at least one (n = 17; 63%).6 We also coded the articles for whether they identified Indigenous peoples as “rightsholders” (n = 11; 41%) or ”stakeholders” (n = 12; 44%). We then combined the two previous questions to analyze the extent to which the articles incorporated Indigenous governance concepts (see Table 3). We found that less than half of the articles incorporated Indigenous governance concepts to a major extent (n = 11, 41%). One quarter partially incorporated the concepts (n = 7; 26%), while one third did not incorporate Indigenous governance concepts (n = 9, 33%).7 For instance, Tomaselli et al. (2018) was coded as having partially incorporated Indigenous governance concepts. The authors refer to co-management and partner with designated Inuit rightsholder organizations (Kitikmeot Inuit Association, the Ekaluktutiak Hunters & Trappers Organization). However, the authors refer to Inuit as “local stakeholders”. Those who incorporated Indigenous governance concepts to a major extent made important connections between Indigenous governance roles and CBM. For instance, Hovel et al. (2020) argued that “the growth of community-based work is also consistent with a legal and ethical responsibility to respect Indigenous rights and title, and work within land claim and settlement agreements” (pp. 155–156). However, they go on to note that while it is an essential step away from a colonial framework to a collaborative one, CBM is not a panacea for addressing the problems inherent in systems and may in some cases serve to reproduce colonial inequalities. Many of the authors did discuss Indigenous governance concepts, but further attention to Indigenous governance, self-determination, and the complex effects of settler-colonialism on CBM in the Arctic is needed.

3.6. All included articles discussed the connection between CBM and decision-making but less than two thirds provided examples

All (n = 27; 100%) of the included articles discussed the connection between CBM and decision-making. Indigenous-State co-management processes flowing from land claim agreements or other legislated arrangements were the most common decision-making context (Parlee et al. 2005; Bennett and Lantz 2014; Fidel et al. 2014; Ostertag et al. 2018; Tomaselli et al. 2018; Henri et al. 2020; Hovel et al. 2020; Ndeloh Etiendem et al. 2020; Peacock et al. 2020; Schott et al. 2020) (see Table 4 for examples). Indigenous rights and involvement in decision-making outside of formal co-management processes were also discussed in a few instances (Herrmann et al. 2014; Latta 2018; Wilson et al. 2018; Stenekes et al. 2020). Some of the included articles, generally from European countries, focused on management processes without reference to Indigenous peoples, for example, Norwegian beach litter management (Haarr et al. 2020) or Swedish moose management (Singh et al. 2014). Others also made broad reference to Arctic management or policy decisions (McGetrick et al. 2015; Wheeler et al. 2016; Taylor et al. 2020).
Table 4.
Table 4. Overview of examples of actual or potential use of community-based monitoring (CBM) data in environmental decision-making.

3.6.1. Specific examples were provided of CBM use in decision-making

Only under two thirds of the included articles (n = 17; 63%) discussed specific examples where CBM can or does influence policy or decision-making. For instance, Hovel et al. (2020) examine how the Gwich'in Renewable Resources Board (GRRB) developed a formal process for consulting with the Renewable Resource Councils as co-management partners to create a list of potential and approved “Research and Management Priorities” to ensure research and monitoring is directly linked to wildlife management (Hovel et al. 2020). Identifying priorities for monitoring and research relevant to the GRRB's decision-making processes means that any CBM conducted by the GRRB, or in collaboration with external governments and researchers, can be designed to address these priorities at the outset. Further examples of papers demonstrating this trait are identified in Table 4. This is important because in the wider CBM literature, there are many articles broadly referring to the potential for CBM to improve policy or decision-making but fewer concrete examples of how this can or does happen. However, even with many examples of CBM data being applied in decision-making identified in the review, there are few tangible instances of specific governance outcomes mentioned.

3.6.2. Decision-support for climate change adaptation

A large majority of the articles discussed climate change impacts as a contextual factor motivating CBM (n = 19; 70%) (see Table 3). However, less than two fifths of articles specifically discussed the potential or actual role CBM can play as a climate change adaptation strategy (n = 10; 37%). Most often, this role related to the collection of data or observations needed to understand and respond to climate impacts. For instance, Fidel and others note (2014, p. 49):
Our understanding of the effects of climate change on Arctic communities and resulting adaptations can be enhanced through Community-Based Observing Networks (CBONs). CBONs allow for systematic data collection by locals to address community concerns. The effects of climate change and appropriate adaptation strategies will vary locally depending upon the characteristics of the social-ecological system (SES).
Related to this, a number of articles discussed CBM as contributing to adaptive approaches within co-management (Wheeler et al. 2016; Peacock et al. 2020; Schott et al. 2020). Such information can also be useful to communities and individuals in decision-making about species that are not directly co-managed. While climate change is a major stressor considered in the design and implementation of CBM programs, further consideration could be given to how CBM data directly feed into adaptation planning in the Arctic.

3.7. Various factors play a role in increasing the potential for CBM programs to influence decision-making

We reviewed the included articles for the factors affecting the influence of CBM programs on decision-making (See Table 3). Each factor is explained in the sub-sections that follow.

3.7.1. Addressing a data gap

Nearly all (n = 24; 89%) of the included articles discussed the importance of CBM in addressing a data gap. The idea that CBM should be conducted to address a gap in present data sets is widespread in the field of CBM and is in fact most often a primary motivation for CBM. While reflecting this broader trend, the included articles were more likely to discuss addressing data gaps in the context of specific decision-making processes. The included articles discussed the ways that CBM can also facilitate more robust data sets involving repeated measurements in hard-to-reach locations, often situated near Arctic communities (Fidel et al. 2014; Taylor et al. 2020). For instance, IK and WS collected through CBM are discussed as a way to provide much needed baselines against which to characterize rapid environmental changes (Fidel et al. 2014; Hovel et al. 2020; Ndeloh Etiendem et al. 2020) and better communicate environmental conditions within decision-making processes (Danielsen et al. 2014; Herrmann et al. 2014; Wheeler et al. 2016; Latta 2018; Tomaselli et al. 2018).

3.7.2. Data relevance to decision context

A large majority (n = 22; 81%) noted that the data collected through CBM must also be relevant to the decision-making context. While CBM programs generally aim to fill a data gap, the potential use of the data in decision-making processes is not always considered at the outset. The included articles highlighted that to address data gaps, data collection protocols must be designed with decision contexts in mind (Danielsen et al. 2014; Wheeler et al. 2016; Wilson et al. 2018; Ndeloh Etiendem et al. 2020; Peacock et al. 2020). Many included articles emphasized that co-design with all relevant actors increases the relevance to decision-making processes (Hovel et al. 2020; Peacock et al. 2020; Schott et al. 2020), especially Indigenous peoples who have historically been excluded from decision-making processes as the result of colonialism. As mentioned above, Hovel et al. (2020) discussed the process followed by GRRB to design monitoring and research initiatives to respond to the co-management board's strategic priorities.
Taking this a step further, Peacock et al. (2020) recommended that CBM co-design should also involve agreement on the management actions that would be triggered by monitoring. In some cases, however, there is no mechanism in place to incorporate CBM data into decision-making processes. For instance, Ndeloh Etiendem et al. (2020, p. 322) suggested that the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board's “administrative process does not currently facilitate the admission of information generated by the NWMB itself”. This issue could perhaps be addressed through better a co-design of CBM to provide data that can be taken up in decision-making. Furthermore, the absence of a mechanism for using CBM data suggests that decision-making bodies themselves need to reconsider their administrative structures to effectively utilize data collected through CBM including both WS data and IK.

3.7.3. Data quality and accuracy

Only over half (n = 14; 52%) of the included articles discussed the collection of high-quality and accurate data as critical to its incorporation in decision-making. This is a common theme in the CBM literature. It is widely accepted that given the right training and program design, along with standardized protocols and quality control protocols, non-professionals can collect high-quality data (Herman-Mercer et al. 2018). This theme was reflected in the included articles. For instance, two of the included articles discussed that quality control of sampling procedures and accurate metadata are needed for the ability to properly apply CBM (Enoksen and Reiss 2018; Wilson et al. 2018). The need for high-quality data only increases when intending to use the data to inform decision-making because it can have social ramifications. For example, harvesting data must be of high quality and accuracy because it may affect harvesting quotas in ways that have immediate impacts on food security and community well-being.
While much of the CBM literature focuses on non-professionals collecting WS data, the incorporation of IK in the majority (n = 21; 78%) of included articles adds a nuance to the discussion on the need for quality and accuracy. Indeed, several included articles discussed the ways that combining knowledge systems (local, Indigenous, and Western scientific knowledge) documented through a range of approaches (e.g., interviews, community-based sampling, and conventional monitoring) can address some of the limitations, biases and inaccuracies in these methods when used in isolation. In the end, several included articles saw the ability to combine multiple sources of knowledge in CBM as a means of “increasing the depth, accuracy, and reliability of assessments” (Peacock et al. 2020, p. 260). For instance, Inuit knowledge was noted to produce finer scale, longer term, and more continuous data on Arctic terns than WS research (Henri et al. 2020). Others noted that repeated observations can allow for a deeper understanding of time and space that can improve data accuracy and rigour (Herrmann et al. 2014). While WS has identified ways to ensure the quality and accuracy of CBM data, more emphasis should be put on the Indigenous protocols for quality assurance when IK is involved (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami 2018).

3.7.4. Trust and legitimacy

Nearly half (n = 13; 48%) of the included articles discussed the role of trust and legitimacy of CBM programs and data as a factor influencing uptake in decision-making. Trust is a significant but undertheorized theme in the CBM literature.8 It has been noted in the broader literature that CBM groups often emerge out of distrust in governments and industry (Au et al. 2000; Bliss et al. 2001; Irwin 2002; Savan et al. 2003) where government enforcement and compliance measures are considered inadequate, or where industry cooptation of scientists is a concern (Savan et al. 2003) or where IK and LK do not seem to correspond to WS.
Of the articles that discussed trust, directly or indirectly, all but one (n = 1/13; 8%) (Singh et al. 2014) discussed this in the context of CBM with Indigenous peoples, colonialism, and their relationship with state governments, external researchers, and WS knowledge. Historic and ongoing settler colonialism in the Arctic is likely the single most important factor that has shaped trust relationships in the Arctic including trust in colonial states, academic researchers, and WS (Wilson et al. 2023). Against this backdrop, we found that several articles discussed distrust in other sources of data as a motivator for CBM including distrust in WS (Peacock et al. 2020) or in the WS data collected by other parties including industry and state governments (Wilson et al. 2018). In a context where communities distrust the health of present environmental conditions (e.g., water quality concerns were raised; Wilson et al. 2018; Stenekes et al. 2020), CBM was viewed as necessary to gain an independent understanding of environmental conditions. In many cases, this involved the collection of both IK and WS (e.g., Ostertag et al. 2018; Gagnon et al. 2020; Hovel et al. 2020). Many of the included articles also attended to the role of CBM in building trust with external researchers or state governments (Latta 2018; Gagnon et al. 2020) particularly in the context of co-management arrangements that flow from comprehensive land claim agreements (Hovel et al. 2020; Ndeloh Etiendem et al. 2020). It was also noted that CBM has the potential to rebuild trust through supporting Indigenous self-determination and data ownership (Ndeloh Etiendem et al. 2020).

3.7.5. Data collection and management

Data management is an important aspect of the longevity, replicability, and confidentiality of a project and its results. A relatively even split occurred between results mentioning data management (n = 13; 48%) and results not discussing data management (n = 14; 52%). It is good practice to identify how the data will be stored and managed in the long term (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami 2018; Inuit Circumpolar Council 2022). Data sovereignty is an important aspect in Indigenous-led research and governance (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami 2018; Inuit Circumpolar Council 2022). Several components of data sovereignty were discussed in the articles. First, data ownership was an important theme related to data management. While some included articles simply discussed data repositories, as would be typical for scientific data sets (Mair et al. 2018; McDuffie et al. 2019; Gagnon et al. 2020; Taylor et al. 2020), included articles that involved Indigenous peoples and knowledge tended to have much more in-depth discussions related to the sensitivity of data and ethical dimensions of data ownership and access. Community data ownership and sovereignty must be respected when working with Indigenous peoples (Kukutai and Taylor 2016; Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami 2018). Several articles specifically mentioned that the data were owned by Indigenous communities or individual contributors (e.g., Bennett and Lantz 2014; McGetrick et al. 2015; Gagnon et al. 2020). Second, beyond data ownership, there are many decisions required about who can access which data. Involving Indigenous peoples in this decision-making is critical to self-determination in monitoring. Also important is including IK holders and rightsholder organizations in the review of data to ensure that no sensitive information is released without approval, especially regarding IK holders (Bennett and Lantz 2014; Fidel et al. 2014; Ndeloh Etiendem et al. 2020; Schott et al. 2020). Schott et al. (2020, p. 214) also discussed the creation of a “community-run Data Committee to decide about the sharing of the more contemporary harvest study data”. Data availability or use statements were also mentioned (Bennett and Lantz 2014; Gagnon et al. 2020; Henri et al. 2020). Where data were made publicly available, Bennet and Lantz (2014) discussed the inclusion of data use terms stating that the data were not for commercial use, belonged to individual observers, and were managed by the Inuvialuit Joint Secretariat. For example, Henri et al. (2020, p. 2)  included a “Data availability statement”:
Data Availability Statement: The data used in this study are restricted by the Local Nunavimmi Umajulivijiit Katujaqatigininga of Kuujjuaraapik due to potentially sensitive information regarding Inuit land-use and harvesting activities. Please address data inquiries to: Ms. Salamiva Weetaltuk, Manager, Local Nunavimmi Umajulivijiit Katujaqatigininga of Kuujjuaraapik.
The types of data repositories mentioned varied from open-access data repositories to community-controlled, and were often designed to allow various levels of access to different user groups (Ndeloh Etiendem et al. 2020). Several included articles also mentioned the use of geo-spatial databases that allow for web-based mapping of CBM data in several programs (Bennett and Lantz 2014; Herrmann et al. 2014; McGetrick et al. 2015). While access to spatially explicit data sets can be very useful for communities, McGetrick et al. (2015)  discussed how GIS technology can also present difficulties for data confidentiality and stewardship. Digital data entry systems, as opposed to paper datasheets, are also becoming more common in CBM programs. For instance, Herrmann et al. (2014) discussed the GeoPortal used by Cree and Naskapi First Nations to collect field data (Herrmann et al. 2014). Overall, data management is critical to linking IK to various WS knowledge in a way that is needed to mobilize data in decision-making and policy processes (Pulsifer et al. 2012).

3.7.6. Data translation techniques

Over half (59%, n = 16) of the included articles discussed data translation techniques—here used to refer to the techniques for sharing CBM data in a format accessible to relevant parties in Arctic governance. There were several approaches mentioned. The validation of CBM findings plays a critical role in the translation of data. Many included articles discussed the need for ongoing engagement with communities to build trust and understanding. CBM results were generally validated through community presentations and workshops. For instance, Ndeloh Etiendem et al. (2020) and Hovel et al. (2020) referred to participant-led workshops that engage Inuit in reviewing data. Others mentioned the importance of translating findings into Indigenous languages (e.g., Inuktut Tomaselli et al. 2018). Many of the above approaches to data translation represent best practices for CBR with Indigenous peoples (Castleden et al. 2012; Pedersen et al. 2020). However, data translation was not without challenges. Some returned articles mentioned challenges in translating specialized knowledge into a format that could be understood at the community level (e.g., of WS, law and policy; Latta 2018). However, the primary discussion is related to the challenges and politics of recording and representing IK in CBM.

3.7.7. Capacity is an enduring issue in CBM

Three included articles identified capacity (n = 3; 7%) as “other factors” affecting the uptake of CBM data in decision-making. Connections between CBM and decision-making can be challenged by community capacity constraints, for instance, in relation to staffing and data management (Herrmann et al. 2014; McGetrick et al. 2015). However, external researchers and governments who are parties to CBM also have the challenge of understanding the research protocols and practices, complex histories, and governance contexts that Indigenous partners are situated within. For instance, Hovel et al. (2020, p. 168) discussed how “capably understanding the land claims represented a significant learning curve early in our projects”.

4. Discussion

This systematic scoping review of the peer-reviewed literature reveals an increasing consideration of the potential for CBM to connect to environmental decision-making and governance in the Arctic. Indeed, the number of articles published annually in the years under consideration (1991–2021) that explicitly linked Arctic CBM and environmental decision-making and governance increased over time. Over half of the articles were published since 2018, suggesting that such connections will only intensify in the Arctic CBM literature.
Our review identified several factors as important to the potential for CBM to influence decision-making. These include having (a) addressed a data gap, (b) produced data of high quality and accuracy, (c) levels of trust among parties and perceived legitimacy, (d) data management practices, (e) data translation techniques, (f) the relevance of data to the decision context, and (g) other factors primarily focused on capacity. Many of these factors have been identified in the CBM literature outside the Arctic (Sheil 2001; Danielsen et al. 2005, 2009; Buckland-Nicks, Castleden and Conrad 2016; Herman-Mercer et al. 2018). However, there were unique qualities of Arctic environmental decision-making and governance considered within this literature.
While Arctic environmental governance is complex, we identify several important elements that are important when considering how to increase the uptake of CBM data in decision-making. A large majority of the included articles discussed CBM programs in the Canadian north (n = 21; 78%); thus, the features we identified in our review are rooted in this context. As noted previously, the presence of so many CBM programs in the Canadian north is likely influenced by the existence of comprehensive land claim agreements and related policy requirements. Such agreements strive toward more equitable and inclusive forms of governance to redress colonial inequalities. Three key features of the governance landscape likely influence the creation of CBM programs and their connection to decision-making. First, Canadian federal and territorial legal and policy requirements to consult and engage with Indigenous peoples and IK systems in decision-making were discussed by several authors (Russell et al. 2013; Ostertag et al. 2018; Ndeloh Etiendem et al. 2020; Peacock et al. 2020). It is not clear to what extent these requirements are increasing the uptake of CBM data in decision-making. Consultation and engagement are very limited forms of participation in governance as they fall short of acknowledging Indigenous jurisdiction or decision-making authority. Nonetheless, they do represent a shift in the broader governance context to include rightsholders and can be considered a facilitative factor.
Second, the presence of research permitting requirements in the Canadian territories (e.g., Yukon Scientists and Explorers Act Licence) requires researchers from outside the territory to consult with Indigenous rightsholders prior to obtaining a research license. As such, it is likely these permitting processes increase the number of CBM programs by motivating researchers to involve communities more fully in monitoring. However, we view permitting processes as limited in their ability to address systemic inequalities within the Arctic environmental governance system. In agreement with Perrin et al. (2021), we argue that these research permitting processes might better facilitate the connection between CBM and decision-making by improving guidance to applicants on how to address the policy priorities in a particular region. However, further research is needed to examine the potential effect research permits have on decision-making.
Third, co-management institutions were among the most common decision contexts discussed. While co-management was discussed outside of the Canadian context (e.g., in Alaska See Fidel et al. 2014), these institutions most often flow from comprehensive land claim agreements in Arctic Canada. For instance, many of the included articles conducted with Inuit in Nunavut discussed co-management arrangements that stem from the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act (1993) (Tomaselli et al. 2018; Ndeloh Etiendem et al. 2020; Peacock et al. 2020). Co-designing research with the decision-making processes of co-management boards and their strategic priorities in mind was a common theme (Hovel et al. 2020; Peacock et al. 2020). However, even in instances where CBM was co-designed with the goal of influencing co-management decisions, the same co-management bodies did not always have a mechanism for taking the data into account once collected (Ndeloh Etiendem et al. 2020). Co-management boards have been subject to criticisms regarding how their role in the Arctic governance context might facilitate or constrain CBM from influencing change. For instance, based on ethnographic research conducted in Yukon, Canada, Nadasdy (2017) argues, to implement the powers contained within comprehensive land claim agreements, Arctic Indigenous peoples have had to dramatically alter their ways of life and engage in forms of governance that bear little likeness to traditional forms of governance. In wildlife co-management processes, for instance, Indigenous peoples have had to accept a range of “Euro-Canadian assumptions about the nature of power and governance that are implicit in the notion of a treaty between sovereign (or semi-sovereign) entities” (p. 6). Tester and Irniq (2008) note that some of these co-management boards (e.g., Nunavut Wildlife Management Board) have had more success than others at incorporating IK and perspectives, “[m]ost likely this success has a great deal to do with the power and control that indigenous [sic] people have over the process in question” (p. 51). While co-management bodies flow from comprehensive land claim agreements, which acknowledge Inuit and First Nations as “rightsholders”, it is important to attend to the potential limitations they may present in terms of what they conceptualize as “governance” or “data”, and the power each party has available to exercise decision-making authority.
Taken together, many of the included articles add valuable empirics needed to understand the relationship between CBM and decision-making. They provide specific examples of CBM influencing or potentially influencing decision-making, which are often lacking in the broader literature. The included articles also frequently discuss aspects of the environmental governance context, including demonstrating awareness of the complexities of policy and legal context in which Indigenous peoples, their knowledge, and governance roles are situated. While we do not wish to minimize these contributions, in agreement with the emerging body of literature that situates CBM within the broader context of unequal politics and governance (e.g., Staddon et al. 2014; Wilson et al. 2018; Reed et al. 2020; Cohen et al. 2021; Reed et al. 2021), we find that more emphasis on the influence of the broader Arctic environmental governance system is needed. More specifically, we find that the impact of ongoing settler-colonial politics and Indigenous peoples’ desire to assert their self-determination require further discussion. Indeed, while Indigenous peoples played a significant role within the literature under consideration and most included articles also discussed IK, less than half of the articles incorporated Indigenous governance concepts to a major extent. Instead, about one quarter partially incorporated these concepts, while others did not incorporate Indigenous governance to any extent. Paying greater attention to the influence—the often-unequal politics in Arctic environmental systems—would facilitate movement beyond the understandings of CBM and decision-making as a “technical” process to account for the nuances of these systems that may facilitate or constrain CBM data from being taken up. Even more fundamentally, it requires us to ask: Who has the power to make decisions in this context? Whose legal or governance traditions shape the governance process? Whose knowledge is considered valuable and in what format?
Based on the above findings, we discuss potential future directions for research and practice related to CBM in the Arctic. First, this review suggests that greater attention to the complexities of Arctic environmental governance is needed in the CBM literature. Environmental governance is a malleable term. As such, it can be used to gloss over issues of unequal power and politics in ways that are counter to the goal of justice (Perreault 2014) that motivate many communities to participate in CBM. This tendency is perhaps most obviously represented in the limited understandings of Indigenous governance within the included articles. Settler colonial politics continue to shape governance in the Arctic (Bernauer 2019; Wilson 2020). Less than half of the included articles explicitly referred to Indigenous peoples as rightsholders with their own legal and governance systems (n = 11; 41%). While two thirds of the included articles included at least one Indigenous governance concept (n = 17; 63), less than half of the articles incorporated Indigenous governance concepts to a major extent (n = 11, 41%). The continued view of Indigenous peoples as “stakeholders” in Arctic governance within the CBM literature points to the colonial underpinnings of many CBM programs. Indeed, as Hovel et al. (2020, pp. 155–156) note, many of the challenges experienced in CBM are “rooted in the colonial history of research in northern regions; although CBM is intended to be a collaborative endeavor, it has also been criticized as another form of colonialism and co-optation (de Leeuw et al. 2012)”. We argue that this reflects a need for external researchers who are party to CBM programs to educate themselves about the broader political landscapes of Arctic governance systems, including the existence of pre-colonial Indigenous governance systems, the effect of historical and ongoing settler-colonialism, the limited acknowledgment of Indigenous rights and authorities, and the systemic challenges and ethical responsibilities that these create.
Not only is it important for external parties to understand and recognize the governance roles of Arctic Indigenous peoples, but it is also important for external parties to critically assess the potential for CBM programs to reinforce existing political inequalities within Arctic systems. Writing in the context of CBM of water in Canada, Cohen et al. (2021, p. 13) argue that despite the inclusion of Indigenous peoples, CBM programs tend to “reinforce existing hierarchies of knowledge, economics, and power. […] As a result, CBM programs might not only have limited influence on the decisions of authorities, they might also contribute to sustaining unequal and exploitative governance systems”. While CBM programs might have colonial underpinnings, especially given that many are designed to gain recognition by colonial governments (Reed et al. 2020; Cohen et al. 2021), the agency of Indigenous peoples to participate in and increasingly lead such programs must also be respected (Wilson et al. 2018). To enhance the potential for Arctic CBM programs to contribute to positive environmental governance outcomes, researchers and other external parties should focus on supporting Indigenous-led programs and their strategic priorities. Such a focus is needed to avoid what Noble and Birk (2011) call “comfort monitoring” or CBM that, despite expectations, does little to support changes in decision-making.
Second, connected to the above, the politics of knowledge within CBM programs requires further attention. It was evident in the included articles that IK is a valued component of CBM programs in a large majority of articles (n = 21; 78%). This suggests a major shift in the value placed on IK systems as well as legal requirements for its inclusion in decision-making processes in many Arctic jurisdictions. Yet, more attention needs to be paid to the uneasy tension between IK and governance processes shaped by colonial scientific management approaches (Latulippe and Klenk 2020; Wilson 2020). Indeed, there is a strong potential for CBM programs to replicate colonial research paradigms including extractive research practices and a focus on the “integration” of IK systems into the WS knowledge and within colonial governance processes. These tensions are especially evident in discussions related to the development of IK indicators to incorporate IK into CBM through repeated observations over time. While there are benefits associated with this approach, such as the ability to represent IK in a manner that might be more easily understood within colonial scientific management systems (Danielsen et al. 2014), it also runs the risk of applying this knowledge in contexts and at scales that distort its meaning (Tester and Irniq 2008; Latulippe and Klenk 2020). Concerns about the appropriate use of IK and IK indicators were noted in several of the included articles (e.g., IK indicators cannot capture the holistic nature of IK systems) (Parlee et al. 2005; Bennett and Lantz 2014). Thus, Indigenous peoples must lead the development of IK indicators and make decisions about their use. Indigenous leadership is fundamental to achieving this goal, including involvement in all phases of CBM from design to data governance. Taking this a step further, we should also be examining the colonial pressures within the broader environmental governance system that motivates Indigenous peoples to develop such approaches to representing IK. In such a view, we might ask ourselves how to address the unequal Arctic economic and political landscape in ways that would (a) be better able to understand IK (e.g., in oral narrative format) and (b) reduce the burden placed on Indigenous peoples to engage in monitoring. Still, Indigenous peoples are in many cases driving the documentation of IK through CBM programs to assert their self-determination. Future research related to IK and CBM should therefore focus on best practices that can be implemented to minimize the potential negative implications of such approaches.
Third, we recommend future research attend to the role of digital technologies in collecting, managing, and mobilizing CBM data in environmental decision-making. There is a trend toward employing digital data management and collection platforms in CBM (Johnson et al. 2021). The included articles provide several examples of this shift, including GIS technologies (Bennett and Lantz 2014; Herrmann et al. 2014; McGetrick et al. 2015). In a global review, Brammer et al. (2016) found that CBM programs that used digital devices had a higher likelihood of reporting management actions. However, digital platforms can increase the difficulty of managing sensitive data including spatially explicit data and IK. Indigenous-developed data management protocols are needed to protect Indigenous data sovereignty through managing data access (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami 2018). Johnson et al. (2021) advise that the desire to use CBM data in decision-making across scales is accompanied by a growing emphasis on data interoperability and standardization. However, they note, “[t]here is a potential for conflict between the drive for interoperability and standardization and the importance placed on data sovereignty and prioritization of local information needs by community partners” (p. 463). Indeed, even as Indigenous peoples build capacity for data management and curation using these digital platforms, it is also critical to continue to center Indigenous data sovereignty and needs. We argue that it is particularly important for external partners to CBM programs (e.g., from government, academia, or industry) to build their capacity for respecting issues of Indigenous governance and data sovereignty that arise through the collection, management, and use of digital data.

5. Limitations

This research was limited to peer-reviewed academic literature available in English that was indexed and discoverable in scholarly databases. Furthermore, despite best efforts to develop search strategies, syntax, and inclusion/exclusion criteria producing the greatest number of relevant returns for full review, the search terms and criteria utilized in this article may have been imperfect. As a result, relevant articles addressing the connection between Arctic CBM and environmental governance may have been overlooked. The English language inclusion/exclusion criterion represents one major limitation, as it means that peer-reviewed studies written in other languages were excluded from the review. Furthermore, it was not within the scope of this study to review gray literature associated with CBM programs (e.g., websites and reports). Given these limitations, the authors underscore that the work presented here should be interpreted as developing a baseline understanding of the English-language literature on Arctic CBM and environmental decision-making that might serve to inform future primary research.

6. Conclusion

In this article, we used a systematic scoping review to examine the current state of the literature on Arctic CBM and environmental governance. The goal of this systematic scoping review is to advance the understandings of the relationship between Arctic CBM and decision-making. It had two overlapping research objectives: (1) to explore how Arctic environmental governance systems shape the development, implementation, and mobilization of CBM data in decision-making and (2) to evaluate what elements of CBM program design facilitate or constrain the use of CBM data in decision-making processes.
Our systematic scoping review examined 27 peer-reviewed, English-language articles published between 1991 and 2021 that explicitly mention both CBM and decision-making or governance. We analyzed these included articles using a data extraction questionnaire. Our results indicate that there is a growing focus on the relationship between Arctic CBM and governance. Indigenous peoples played a significant role within this literature, and most included articles also discussed IK. However, less than half of the articles incorporated Indigenous governance concepts to a major extent.
Based on these findings, we discuss potential future directions for research and practice, including the need for (1) more critical research on the broader Arctic environmental governance context, including unequal politics shaped by settler colonialism that are counter to the goal of justice that motivated CBM; (2) improved critical engagement with the politics of knowledge in CBM; and (3) engagement with the uses and potential unintended consequences of digital technologies and software that aid in the collection, management, and mobilization of CBM data.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge that this work was completed on the University of Manitoba campuses which are located on original lands of Anishinaabeg, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota and Dene peoples, and on the homeland of the Red River Métis Nation. We would like to acknowledge the support provided to the authors by two Research Assistants Maria G. Lira and Josie Cook. We would also like to thank Emma L. Ausen from the Centre for Earth Observation Science (CEOS) at the University of Manitoba for creating the maps in Fig. 3.

Footnotes

1
IK systems based in embodied practice within a worldview (Latulippe and Klenk 2020; Pedersen et al. 2020). IK systems are much more than “data” to be incorporated or “integrated” into WS or colonial decision-making processes (Nadasdy 1999; Latulippe and Klenk 2020). Rather than having merely “supplemental value”, IK systems have “governance value” meaning that they contain knowledge about law and governance that is fundamental to the well-being of Indigenous peoples and land (Whyte 2017).
2
Decision-making is about choosing between alternative courses of action in a specific institutional context. Environmental governance is more than just government or individual environmental decisions. It is the set of regulatory processes, mechanisms, and institutions through which diverse state and non-state political actors influence environmental decisions, actions, and outcomes (Lemos and Agrawal 2006).
3
Settler-colonialism is a type of colonialism, common in Arctic states, in which colonizers aim to dispossess Indigenous peoples of their land for settlement and resource development (Wolfe 2006; Kauanui 2016). We define (settler-) colonialism and resistance to colonialism (anti-colonialization and decolonization) as “a living, quotidian, and ever-present moment that actors can interact with and interrupt. It is not an event, not even a structure, but a milieu or active set of relations that we can push on, move around in, and redo from moment to moment” (King 2019, p. 40). Defining colonialism as a set of active relations, we understand (settler-) colonialism as something that attempts to destroy or replace Indigenous relations. This negotiation and dispossession are ongoing in Arctic governance, CBM, and beyond.
4
Fifty percent of the included articles (n = 4) from 2020 were published in the same Special Issue in Arctic Science titled “Knowledge Mobilization on Co-Management, Co-Production of Knowledge, and Community-Based Monitoring to Support Effective Wildlife Resource Decision Making and Inuit Self-Determination”.
5
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) defines Knowledge Mobilization as “[t]he reciprocal and complementary flow and uptake of research knowledge between researchers, knowledge brokers and knowledge users—both within and beyond academia—in such a way that may benefit users and create positive impacts within Canada and/or internationally, and, ultimately, has the potential to enhance the profile, reach and impact of social sciences and humanities research” (SSHRC 2019).
6
The Indigenous governance concepts we coded for included Indigenous self-determination or nationhood (n = 14; 52%), traditional territory or homeland (n = 16; 59%), nations to nation relationships (n = 4; 15%), Indigenous rights (n = 16; 59%), problematizes the use of “stakeholders” (n = 3; 11%), and/or problematizes colonialism (n = 10; 37%).
7
We analyze the incorporation of Indigenous governance concepts using a constructed three-point scale. Included articles were coded as (1) having incorporated to a major extent, (2) having partially incorporated, or (3) having not incorporated (adapted from Wilson et al. 2022). It was only necessary for authors to demonstrate awareness of one or more of the Indigenous governance concepts to be consistent in its use of these concepts (see Supplementary Files). For instance, some references discussed the existence of Indigenous homelands or traditional territories but also discussed Indigenous peoples in contradictory ways (e.g., as stakeholders, minority groups, communities, or participants as opposed to rightsholders). These cases were coded as having “partially incorporated” Indigenous governance concepts.
8
Trust is a contested concept, and it has been defined in a variety of ways (Levi 1998; Levi and Stoker 2000; Whyte and Crease 2010). Following Levi and Stoker (2000, p. 476), we define trust as a relational concept that “involves an individual making herself vulnerable to another individual, group, or institution that has the capacity to do her harm or to betray her”. Distrust is not merely the opposite of trust but is informed by the “confident belief that other individuals, groups, or institutions will not act as justice requires” (Krishnamurthy 2015, p. 397). Understandings of trust must be contextualized within the trustworthiness of the broader system from the perspective of marginalized peoples including Indigenous peoples (Wilson et al. 2023).

References

Aamodt M., Huurdeman H., Strømme H. 2019. Librarian Co-Authored Systematic Reviews are Associated with Lower Risk of Bias Compared to Systematic Reviews with Acknowledgement of Librarians or No Participation by Librarians. Evid. Based Libr. Inf. Pract., 14(4): pp. 103–127.
Arksey H., O'malley L. 2005. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8(1): 19–32.
Au J., Bagchi P., Chen B., Martinez R., Dudley S.A., Sorger G.J. 2000. Methodology for public monitoring of total coliforms, Escherichia coli and toxicity in waterways by Canadian high school students. J. Environ. Manage. 58(3): 213–230.
Bennett T.D., Lantz T.C. 2014. Participatory photomapping: a method for documenting, contextualizing, and sharing indigenous observations of environmental conditions. Polar Geogr. 37(1): 28–47.
Bernauer W. 2015. The Nunavut land claims agreement and Caribou habitat management. Can. J. Native Stud. 35(1): 5–32.
Bernauer W. 2019. The limits to extraction: mining and colonialism in Nunavut. Can. J. Dev. Stud. 40(3): 404–422.
Berrang-Ford L., Pearce T., Ford J.D. 2015. Systematic review approaches for climate change adaptation research. Reg. Environ. Change 15(5): 755–769.
Bliss J., Aplet G., Hartzell C., Harwood P., Jahnige P., Kittredge D., et al. 2001. Community-based ecosystem monitoring. J. Sustain. For. 12(3–4): 143–167.
Brammer J.R., Brunet N.D., Burton A.C., Cuerrier A., Danielsen F., Dewan K., et al. 2016. The role of digital data entry in participatory environmental monitoring. Conserv. Biol. 30(6): 1277–1287.
Brook R.K., Kutz S.J., Veitch A.M., Popko R.A., Elkin B.T., Guthrie G. 2009. Fostering community-based wildlife health monitoring and research in the Canadian North. Ecohealth 6(2): 266–278.
Buckland-Nicks A., Castleden H., Conrad C. 2016. Aligning community-based water monitoring program designs with goals for enhanced environmental management. JCOM 15(03): A01.
Castleden H., Morgan V.S., Lamb C. 2012. “I spent the first year drinking tea”: exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community-based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples. Can. Geogr. 56(2): 160–179.
Cohen A., Matthew M., Neville K.J., Wrightson K. 2021. Colonialism in community-based monitoring: knowledge systems, finance, and power in Canada. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 11: 1988–2004 .
Cohen J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 20(1): 37–46.
Conrad C.C., Hilchey K.G. 2011. A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environ. Monit. Assess. 176(1–4): 273–291.
Coulthard G.S. 2014. Red skin, white masks: rejecting the colonial politics of recognition. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.
Danielsen F., Burgess N.D., Balmford A., Donald P.F., Funder M., Jones J.P.G., et al. 2009. Local participation in natural resource monitoring: a characterization of approaches. Conserv. Biol. 23(1): 31–42.
Danielsen F., Burgess N.D., Jensen P.M., Pirhofer‐Walzl K. 2010. Environmental monitoring: the scale and speed of implementation varies according to the degree of people's involvement. J. Appl. Ecol. 47(6): 1166–1168.
Danielsen F., Jensen, A.E., D.S. Balete, Mendoza, M., Tagtag A., Custodio C., et al. 2005. Does monitoring matter? A quantitative assessment of management decisions from locally-based monitoring of protected areas. Biodivers. Conserv. 14(11): 2633–2652.
Danielsen F., Johnson N., Lee O., Fidel M., Iversen L., Poulsen M.K., et al. 2020. Community-based monitoring in the Arctic. University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Danielsen F., Mendoza M.M., Tagtag A., Alviola P.A., Balete D.S., Jensen A.E., et al. 2007. Increasing conservation management action by involving local people in natural resource monitoring. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 36(7): 566–570.
Danielsen F., Topp-Jørgensen E., Levermann N., Løvstrøm P., Schiøtz M., Enghoff M., Jakobsen P. 2014. Counting what counts: using local knowledge to improve Arctic resource management. Polar Geogr. 37(1): 69–91.
de Leeuw S., Cameron E.S., Greenwood M.L. 2012. Participatory and community-based research, Indigenous geographies, and the spaces of friendship: A critical engagement. Can. Geogr., 56(2): 180–194.
Dodds K., Nuttall M. 2015. The scramble for the poles: the geopolitics of the Arctic and Antarctic. Polity Press, Oxford, UK. Available from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ubc/detail.action?docID=4187202  [accessed 30 April 2019].
Enoksen S.E., Reiss H. 2018. Diet of Norwegian coastal cod (Gadus morhua) studied by using citizen science. J. Mar. Syst. 180: 246–254.
Fidel M., Kliskey A., Alessa L., Sutton O.P. 2014. Walrus harvest locations reflect adaptation: a contribution from a community-based observation network in the Bering Sea. Polar Geogr. 37(1): 48–68.
Gagnon C.A., Hamel S., Russell D.E., Powell T., Andre J., Svoboda M.Y., Berteaux D. 2020. Merging indigenous and scientific knowledge links climate with the growth of a large migratory caribou population. J. Appl. Ecol. 57(9): 1644–1655.
Haarr M.L., Pantalos M., Hartviksen M.K., Gressetvold M. 2020. Citizen science data indicate a reduction in beach litter in the Lofoten archipelago in the Norwegian Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 153: 111000.
Henri D.A., Martinez-Levasseur L.M., Weetaltuk S., Mallory M.L., Gilchrist H.G., Jean-Gagnon F. 2020. Inuit knowledge of Arctic Terns (Sterna paradisaea) and perspectives on declining abundance in southeastern Hudson Bay, Canada. PLoS One 15(11): e0242193.
Henri D.A., Martinez-Levasseur L.M., Weetaltuk S., Mallory M.L., Gilchrist H.G., Jean-Gagnon F. 2020. Inuit knowledge of Arctic Terns (Sterna paradisaea) and perspectives on declining abundance in southeastern Hudson Bay, Canada. PLOS ONE, 15(11).
Herman-Mercer N., Antweiler R., Wilson N., Mutter E., Toohey R., Schuster P. 2018. Data quality from a community-based, water-quality monitoring project in the Yukon River Basin. CSTP, 3(2): 1.
Herrmann T.M., Sandström P., Granqvist K., D'astous N., Vannar J., Asselin H., et al. 2014. Effects of mining on reindeer/caribou populations and indigenous livelihoods: community-based monitoring by Sami reindeer herders in Sweden and First Nations in Canada. Polar J. 4(1): 28–51.
Hovel R.A., Brammer J.R., Hodgson E.E., Amos A., Lantz T.C., Turner C., et al. 2020. The importance of continuous dialogue in community-based wildlife monitoring: case studies of dzan and łuk dagaii in the Gwich'in Settlement Area. Arct. Sci. 6(3): 154–172.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 1993. Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act. Available from: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/N-28.7.pdf  [accessed 19 June 2017].
Inuit Circumpolar Council. 2022. Ethical and equitable engagement synthesis report: a collection of Inuit rules, guidelines, protocols, and values for the engagement of Inuit Communities and Indigenous Knowledge from Across Inuit Nunaat. Inuit Circumpolar Council. Available from: https://hh30e7.p3cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/ICC-EEE-Synthesis-report-WEB.pdf [accessed 12 May 2023].
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. 2018. National Inuit strategy on research. Available from https://www.itk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/National-Inuit-Strategy-on-Research.pdf   [accessed 8 May 2019].
Irwin A. 2002. Citizen science: a study of people, expertise, and sustainable development. Routledge: London, New York.
Johnson N., Alessa L., Behe C., Danielsen F., Gearheard S., Gofman-Wallingford V., et al. 2015. The contributions of community-based monitoring and traditional knowledge to Arctic observing networks: reflections on the state of the field. Arctic 68: 28.
Johnson N., Druckenmiller M.L., Danielsen F., Pulsifer P.L. 2021. The use of digital platforms for community-based monitoring. Bioscience 71(5): 452–466.
Kauanui J.K. 2016. “A structure, not an event”: settler colonialism and enduring indigeneity. Lateral, 5(1).
King T.L. 2019. The Black shoals: offshore formations of Black and Native studies. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina.
Kotaska J.G. 2013. Eyes and ears on the coast. In Reconciliation ‘at the end of the day’: decolonizing territorial governance in British Columbia after Delgamuukw. Dissertation, pp. 236–281. Available from https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/45003   [accessed 11 September 2013].
Kouril D., Furgal C., Whillans T. 2016. Trends and key elements in community-based monitoring: a systematic review of the literature with an emphasis on Arctic and Subarctic regions. Environ. Rev. 24(2): 151–163.
Krishnamurthy M. 2015. (White) Tyranny and the democratic value of distrust. The Monist 98(4): 391–406.
Kukutai T., Taylor J.   (eds). 2016. Indigenous data sovereignty: toward an agenda. Australian National Press(Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, 28), Australia.
Kuokkanen R. 2017. “To see what state we are in”: first years of the greenland self-government act and the pursuit of Inuit sovereignty. Ethnopolitics 16(2): 179–195.
Kuokkanen R. 2020. Indigenous self-government in the Arctic: assessing the scope and legitimacy in Nunavut, Greenland and Sápmi. In Routledge handbook of Indigenous peoples in the Arctic. Edited by Koivurova T., Broderstad E.G., Cambou D., Dorough D., Stammler, F. et al. et al. Taylor & Francis Group, Milton, UK. pp. 253–266. Available from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umanitoba/detail.action?docID=6377808 [accessed 30 March 2021].
Larsen J.N., Fondahl G. 2015. Arctic human development report: regional processes and global linkages. Nordic Council of Ministers, Denmark. Available from: http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:788965/FULLTEXT03.pdf.
Larter N.C. 2009. A program to monitor moose populations in the Dehcho Region, Northwest Territories, Canada. Alces 45: 89–99.
Latta A. 2018. Indigenous rights and multilevel governance: learning from the Northwest Territories water stewardship strategy. IIPJ, 9(2): 1–22.
Latulippe N., Klenk N. 2020. Making room and moving over: knowledge co-production, Indigenous knowledge sovereignty and the politics of global environmental change decision-making. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 42: 7–14.
Lemos M.C., Agrawal A. 2006. Environmental governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 31: 297–325.
Levac D., Colquhoun H., O'brien K.K. 2010. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation. Sci. 5(1): 69.
Levi M. 1998. A state of trust. in Braithwaite V., Levi M. (eds) Trust and Governance, New York, NY, USA. Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 77–101.
Levi M., Stoker L. 2000. Political trust and trustworthiness. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 3(1): 475–507.
Loukacheva N. 2007. The Arctic promise: legal and political autonomy of Greenland and Nunavut. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, ON.
Mair L., Jönsson M., Räty M., Bärring L., Strandberg G., Lämås T., Snäll T. 2018. Land use changes could modify future negative effects of climate change on old-growth forest indicator species. Divers. Distrib. 24(10): 1416–1425.
Mcduffie L.A., Hagelin J.C., Snively M.L., Pendleton G.W., Taylor A.R. 2019. Citizen science observations reveal long-term population trends of common and Pacific loon in urbanized Alaska. J. Fish Wildl. Manag. 10(1): 148–162.
McGetrick J., Bubela T., Hik D. 2015. Circumpolar stakeholder perspectives on Geographic Information Systems for communicating the health impacts of development. Environ. Sci. Policy 54: 176–184.
McGetrick J., Bubela T., Hik D. 2015. Circumpolar stakeholder perspectives on Geographic Information Systems for communicating the health impacts of development. Environ. Sci. Policy, 54: 176–184.
Minkler M., Wallerstein N. 2010. Community-based participatory research for health: from process to outcomes. Wiley, San Francisco, CA.
Nadasdy P. 1999. The politics of TEK: power and the “integration” of knowledge. Arct. Anthropol. 36(1/2): 1–18.
Nadasdy P. 2017. Sovereignty's entailments: First Nation state formation in the Yukon. University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division.
Natcher D.C., Davis S., Hickey C.G. 2005. Co-management: managing relationships, not resources. Hum. Organ. 64(3): 240–250.
Ndeloh Etiendem D., Jeppesen R., Hoffman J., Ritchie K., Keats B., Evans P., Quinn D. 2020. The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board's Community-Based Monitoring Network: documenting Inuit harvesting experience using modern technology. Arct. Sci. 6(3): 307–325.
Noble B., Birk J. 2011. Comfort monitoring? Environmental assessment follow-up under community–industry negotiated environmental agreements. Environ. Impact Assess. 31(1): 17–24.
Nuttall M. 2008. Self-rule in Greenland-towards the world's first independent Inuit state. Indigenous Affairs 8(3–4): 64–70.
Nuttall M. 2018. Self-determination and indigenous governance in the Arctic. In The Routledge handbook of the polar regions. Edited by Nuttall M., Christensen T.R., Siegert M. Routledge, New York, NY. pp. 67–80.
Ostertag S.K., Loseto L.L., Snow K., Lam J., Hynes K., Gillman D.V. 2018. “That's how we know they're healthy”: the inclusion of traditional ecological knowledge in beluga health monitoring in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. Arct. Sci. 4: 292–320.
Parlee B., Berkes F., Gwich'in T. 2005. Health of the land, health of the people: a case study on Gwich'in Berry harvesting in Northern Canada. EcoHealth 2(2): 127–137.
Peacock S.J., Mavrot F., Tomaselli M., Hanke A., Fenton H., Nathoo R., et al. 2020. Linking co-monitoring to co-management: bringing together local, traditional, and scientific knowledge in a wildlife status assessment framework. Arct. Sci. 6(3): 247–266.
Peacock S.J., Mavrot F., Tomaselli M., Hanke A., Fenton H., Nathoo R., et al. 2020. Linking co-monitoring to co-management: bringing together local, traditional, and scientific knowledge in a wildlife status assessment framework. Arctic Science, 6(3): 247–266.
Pedersen C., Otokiak M., Koonoo I., Milton J., Maktar E., Anaviapik A., et al. 2020. ScIQ: an invitation and recommendations to combine science and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit for meaningful engagement of Inuit communities in research. Arct. Sci. 6(3): 326–339.
Perreault T. 2014. What kind of governance for what kind of equity? Towards a theorization of justice in water governance. Water Int. 39(2): 233–245.
Perrin A., Ljubicic G., Ogden A. 2021. Northern research policy contributions to Canadian Arctic sustainability. Sustainability 13(21): 12035.
Peters M.D.J., Godfrey C.M., Khalil H., Mcinerney P., Parker D., Soares C.B. 2015. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int. J. Evid. Based. Healthc. 13(3): 141–146.
Pulsifer P., Gearheard S., Huntington H.P., Parsons M.A., Mcneave C., Mccann H.S. 2012. The role of data management in engaging communities in Arctic research: overview of the Exchange for Local Observations and Knowledge of the Arctic (ELOKA). Polar Geogr. 35(3–4): 271–290.
Reed G., Brunet N.D., Natcher D.C. 2020. Can indigenous community-based monitoring act as a tool for sustainable self-determination? Extr. Ind. Soc. 7(4): 1283–1291.
Reed G., Brunet N.D., Longboat S., Natcher D.C. 2021. Indigenous guardians as an emerging approach to indigenous environmental governance. Conserv. Biol. 35: 179–189.
Russell D.E., Svoboda M.Y., Arokium J., Cooley D. 2013. Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Cooperative: can local knowledge inform caribou management? Rangifer 33(SI 21):71–78.
Savan B., Morgan A.J., Gore C. 2003. Volunteer environmental monitoring and the role of the universities: the case of Citizens’ Environment Watch. Environ. Manage. 31(5): 561.
Schott S., Qitsualik J., Van Coeverden De Groot P., Okpakok S., Chapman J.M., Lougheed S., Walker V.K. 2020. Operationalizing knowledge coevolution: towards a sustainable fishery for Nunavummiut. Arct. Sci. 6(3): 208–228.
Shadian J.M. 2017. Reimagining political space: the limits of Arctic Indigenous self-determination in international governance? In Governing arctic change: global perspectives. Edited by Keil K., Knecht S. Palgrave Macmillan, London. pp. 43–57.
Sheil D. 2001. Conservation and biodiversity monitoring in the tropics: realities, priorities, and distractions. Conserv. Biol. 15(4): 1179–1182.
Singh N., Danell K., Edenius L., Ericsson G. 2014. Tackling the motivation to monitor: success and sustainability of a participatory monitoring program. E&S 19(4).
SSHRC. 2019. Guidelines for effective knowledge mobilization. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Available from https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/policies-politiques/knowledge_mobilisation-mobilisation_des_connaissances-eng.aspx [accessed 20 July 2023].
Staddon S.C., Nightingale A., Shrestha S.K. 2014. The social nature of participatory ecological monitoring. Soc. Nat. Resour. 27(9): 899–914.
Stenekes S., Parlee B., Seixas C. 2020. Culturally driven monitoring: the importance of traditional ecological knowledge indicators in understanding aquatic ecosystem change in the Northwest Territories’ Dehcho Region. Sustainability 12(19): 7923.
Taylor A.R., Barðadóttir Þ., Auffret S., Bombosch A., Cusick A.L., Falk E., Lynnes A. 2020. Arctic expedition cruise tourism and citizen science: a vision for the future of polar tourism. JTF 6(1): 102–111.
Tester F.J., Irniq P. 2008. Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit: social history, politics and the practice of resistance. Arctic 61: 48–61.
Tomaselli M., Gerlach S.C., Kutz S.J., Checkley S.L., Iqaluktutiaq TCOf 2018. Iqaluktutiaq voices: local perspectives about the importance of Muskoxen, contemporary and traditional use and practices + supplementary appendices S1–S5 (see article tools). Arctic, 71(1): 1–14.
U.S. Public Law 92-203. 1971. ANCSA (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act).
Vangerwen-Toyne M., Gillis D.M., Tallman R.F. 2014. Statistical power: an important consideration in designing community-based monitoring programs for Arctic and sub-Arctic subsistence fisheries. Polar Biol. 37(10): 1435–1444.
Wheeler H.C., Berteaux D., Furgal C., Parlee B., Yoccoz N.G., Grémillet D. 2016. Stakeholder perspectives on triage in wildlife monitoring in a rapidly changing Arctic. Front. Ecol. Evol. 4: 128.
Whitelaw G., Vaughan H., Craig B., Atkinson D. 2003. Establishing the Canadian community monitoring network. Environ. Monit. Assess. 88(1): 409–418.
Whyte K. 2017. What do indigenous knowledges do for Indigenous peoples? SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2612715. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Available from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2612715 (accessed 6 June 2019).
Whyte K.P., Crease R.P. 2010. Trust, expertise, and the philosophy of science. Synthese 177(3): 411–425.
Wilson N.J. 2019. “Seeing water like a state?”: Indigenous water governance through Yukon First Nation Self-Government Agreements. Geoforum 104: 101–113.
Wilson N.J. 2020. Querying water co-governance: Yukon First Nations and water governance in the context of modern land claim agreements. Water Altern. 13(1): 93–118.
Wilson N.J., Lira M.G., O'hanlon G. 2022. A systematic scoping review of Indigenous governance concepts in the climate governance literature. Clim. Change 171(3–4): 32.
Wilson N.J., Montoya T., Lambrinidou Y., Harris L.M., Pauli B.J., Mcgregor D., et al. 2023. From “trust” to “trustworthiness”: retheorizing dynamics of trust, distrust, and water security in North America.Environ. Plan. E: Nat. Space 6(1): 42–68.
Wilson N.J., Mutter E., Inkster J., Satterfield T. 2018. Community-Based Monitoring as the practice of Indigenous governance: a case study of Indigenous-led water quality monitoring in the Yukon River Basin. J. Environ. Manage. 210: 290–298.
Wolfe P. 2006. Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native. J. Genocide Res. 8(4): 387–409.

Supplementary material

Supplementary Material 1 (DOCX / 820 KB).

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

cover image Arctic Science
Arctic Science
Volume 10Number 2June 2024
Pages: 261 - 280

History

Received: 14 June 2023
Accepted: 31 October 2023
Accepted manuscript online: 27 November 2023
Version of record online: 26 January 2024

Data Availability Statement

Data are provided in supplementary files.

Key Words

  1. Arctic
  2. community-based monitoring
  3. environmental governance
  4. Indigenous governance
  5. Indigenous Knowledge
  6. systematic scoping review

Authors

Affiliations

Centre for Earth Observation Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, R3T 2M6, Canada
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, and Writing – review & editing.
Elizabeth Worden
Centre for Earth Observation Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, R3T 2M6, Canada
Author Contributions: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, and Writing – review & editing.
Grace O'Hanlon
Jim Peebles Sciences & Technology Library, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, R3T 2N2, Canada
Author Contributions: Methodology and Writing – review & editing.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: NJW
Formal analysis: NJW, EW
Funding acquisition: NJW
Methodology: NJW, GO
Project administration: NJW
Supervision: NJW
Writing – original draft: NJW, EW
Writing – review & editing: NJW, EW, GO

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Funding Information

University of Manitoba University Research Grant Program
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada: Canada Research Chairs Program 950-232734, SSHRC IDG 430-2021-00126
This publication was developed with support from the University of Manitoba University Research Grant Program, SSHRC Insight Development Grant # 430-2021-00126, and the Canada Research Chairs Program # 950-232734.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Other Metrics

Citations

Cite As

Export Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

There are no citations for this item

View Options

View options

PDF

View PDF

Media

Tables

Media

Share Options

Share

Share the article link

Share on social media

Cookies Notification

We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy.
×