Bridging Indigenous andWestern sciences in freshwater research, monitoring, andmanagement in Canada

1 Environment and Biodiversity Sciences, Fisheries andOceans Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 2 Science and Technology Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 3Wildlife Research Division, Science and Technology BranchEnvironment and Climate Change Canada,Montreal, Quebec, Canada 4 EcosystemsManagement Policies and Practices, Fisheries andOceans Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 5 Canadian Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 6 Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 7 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada 8 Department of Geography and Atmospheric Science, Center for Indigenous Research, Science, and Technology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA 9 Department of Chemistry, University of Manitoba,Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada


INTRODUCTION
Mutually respectful and reciprocal relationships between people and their environment is a central tenet of many Indigenous worldviews (Berkes, 2012;Diver et al., 2019;Kimmerer, 2013;Larsen & Johnson, 2017;McGregor, 2018;Virtanen et al., 2020). This long-standing relational connection to the more-than-human-world (i.e., nonhuman beings such as plants, animals, water, and rocks) can be found among Indigenous peoples globally (Berkes, 2012;Cajete, 1994;McGregor, 2018;Virtanen et al., 2020). Across the Americas, this relational connection is particularly evident when it comes to freshwater ecosystems. For example, water is essential to life in Anishinaabek Creation stories (McGregor, 2014). This is also reflected in the important role of Indigenous women as keepers of the water across what is known to many Indigenous peoples as Turtle Island (i.e., the North American continent; Anderson, 2010, Anderson et al., 2013McGregor, 2008a;Privott, 2019). In addition to the relational connection to water, there are many instances where a similar relationship can be found with fish across the northern part of Turtle Island and Inuit Nunangat 1 (Todd, 2014;Latulippe, 2017). For the Paq'tnkek Mi'kmaq it is the Ka't (American eel; Davis et al., 2004). For the Teetł'it Gwich'in it is łuk dagaii (broad whitefish; Hodgson et al., 2020). And for First Nations spanning the Pacific Northwest it is salmon (Colombi & Brooks, 2012;Armstrong & William, 2015) and herring (linang to the Haida and wán̓ ái to the Haíłzaqv/Heiltsuk; Gauvreau et al., 2017;Jones et al., 2017).
These relational connections draw attention to the importance of moving beyond intrinsic and instrumental values related to the environment to also considering the central role of relational values (Chan et al., 2016;Pascual et al., 2017;Sheremata, 2018). Instrumental values pertain to human needs (e.g., species contributing to food security and material well-being) and intrinsic values pertain to nature's inherent value (i.e., those beyond any direct or indirect benefit to humans ;Chan et al., 2016;Pascual et al., 2017;Sheremata, 2018). Relational values are those values directly tied to desirable relationships (e.g., respectful and reciprocal relationships between people and their environment; Pascual et al., 2017). So, while the species noted above contribute to food security and material well-being (i.e., instrumental values) there 1 Inuit Nunangat refers to the Inuit homelands in present day Canada, including the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (Northwest Territories), Nunavut, Nunavik (northern Quebec) and Nunatsiavut (northern Labrador) (ITK, 2018). are important relational values that have often been overlooked by Western institutions and value systems.
Furthermore, there are numerous threats to these central relationships among Indigenous peoples and their environment (Lyver et al., 2019;Tang & Gavin, 2016). For example, relocation (i.e., enforced or voluntary) and migration of Indigenous peoples has resulted in changes to traditional livelihood practices and/or a loss of traditional rights (Ballard, 2012;Tang & Gavin, 2016). In other instances, the general degradation or alteration of waterways, species, and habitats have negatively impacted the ability of Indigenous peoples to maintain their relational connections and practice their rights (Fox et al., 2017;Tang & Gavin, 2016). These threats are further compounded by the intensifying impacts of climate change (Lyver et al., 2019). For example, Watt-Clouter (2005, 2015, in asserting an Inuit 'right to be cold' highlights the impacts of climate change on Inuit culture, traditional lands, and relational connections with animal relatives (see also Jodoin et al., 2020). The impacts and consequences associated with the loss of relationships and continued engagement with the environment are significant, including the loss of knowledge, language, and cultural institutions (Lyver et al., 2019). Accordingly, conserving and restoring the myriad relationships between Indigenous peoples and the environment can help to support both reconciliation and self-determination.
As Anishinabe scholar Deborah McGregor notes, it is critical to recognize these relationships as relational responsibilities founded with environmental justice for all (McGregor, 2009).
Using all available ways of knowing (see Table 1) to conserve, prioritize, and restore relationships among Indigenous peoples and the environment they live in, and are a part of, including their traditional territories, is critical (Fox et al., 2017). Indeed, drawing upon multiple ways of knowing, such as Indigenous science and Western science (see Table 1), is an important undertaking, which can strengthen the evidence base for policy advice and decision making (Alexander, Ban et al., 2018;Henri, Martinez-Levasseur et al., 2020;Johnson et al., 2016;Mistry & Berardi, 2016;Tengo et al., 2014). Accordingly, environmental research, monitoring, natural resource management, and conservation practices that are inclusive of Indigenous science and knowledge are essential.
Indigenous peoples around the globe comprise less than 5% of the world's population yet protect 80% of global biodiversity (Toledo, 2013). This relationship to biodiversity is particularly salient between Indigenous peoples (specifically First Nations, Inuit and Métis) and TA B L E 1 Glossary of key terms (adapted from Alexander, Provencher, Henri, Taylor, Lloren et al., 2019)

Term Definition
Knowledge system A knowledge system is made up of agents, practices, routines, and institutions that organize the production, validation, transfer, and use of knowledge (Cornell et al., 2013;Miller & Munoz-Erikson, 2018).
Indigenous knowledge system An Indigenous knowledge system is a 'cumulative body of knowledge, practices, and beliefs, evolving and governed by adaptive processes and handed down and across (through) generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment' (Díaz et al. 2015). An Indigenous knowledge system may be further defined as 'a "high-context" body of knowledge built up over generations by culturally distinct people living in close contact with a "place"' (Johnson et al., 2016: p. 5) that includes Indigenous science and improves through processes of addition and revision (Nelson, 2005).
Indigenous science Indigenous science is 'a "multi-contextual" system of thought, action and orientation applied by an Indigenous people through which they interpret how Nature works in 'their place' [. . . ] Indigenous science is derived using the same methods as modern Western science including: classifying, inferring, questioning, observing, interpreting, predicting, monitoring, problem solving, and adapting" (Johnson et al. 2016:5). Indigenous science is embedded in an Indigenous knowledge system.

Western science
With roots in Greek philosophy and the Renaissance, Western science is a fluid and evolving body of knowledge that tends to favour objectivity and reductionism (Mazzocchi, 2006). Western science includes knowledge appropriated over the ages from many cultures, and such knowledge 'was modified sufficiently to fit Eurocentric worldviews, metaphysics, epistemologies, and value systems' (Aikenhead and Ogawa, 2007:543).
Bridging knowledge systems A process that maintains the integrity of each respective knowledge system while enabling the reciprocal exchange of understanding for mutual learning (Rathwell et al., 2015). This is akin to what Johnson et al. (2016) refer to as weaving knowledge systems.
freshwater ecosystems, habitats, and species in Canada (e.g., Anderson, 2010;Latulippe, 2017;McGregor, 2008McGregor, ,2014Schuster et al., 2019;Todd, 2014), which has ∼20% of the world's freshwater supply in the Great Lakes alone, shared with the United States (Statistics Canada, 2020). The relationship with water is further evident when one looks at a map of Canada, where almost all Indigenous communities are located next to water. While Canada has a history of evidence informed decision making and environmental management (Cooke et al., 2016), the effective consideration and inclusion of Indigenous knowledge in environmental governance continues to pose a perennial challenge (Eckert et al., 2020;Henri, 2012;Menzies & Butler, 2006;Nadasdy, 2003;Sandlos, 2007 James et al., 2016). By cataloguing and describing the evidence and its associated meta-data via a searchable database, report (e.g., narrative synthesis), and in some instances a geographical information system, systematic maps help to identify key research gaps that may benefit from additional primary research and highlight knowledge clusters that would permit more in-depth analysis James et al., 2016). Accordingly, compiling such a collection is a crucial first step in support of future analysis and/or evidence synthesis.
In this manuscript, we distinguish between 'Indigenous science' and 'Western science' (Table 1). We recognize that there is a risk in simplifying or reifying knowledge systems which are diverse, complex, heterogeneous, and increasingly intertwined through negotiations across epistemological and cultural boundaries (Agrawal, 1995;Alexander, Provencher, Henri, Taylor, Lloren et al., 2019;Cajete, 2000;Ford, 2015;Johnson et al., 2016). However, when seeking to examine instances where multiple ways of knowing have been brought together, delineations help facilitate explorations at such intersections. In addition, while the case studies we are reviewing have predominantly described 'Indigenous knowledge' , we prefer employing the term 'Indigenous science' to avoid reinforcing an artificial dichotomy between Indigenous knowledge systems and Western science. We think of 'science' as something all societies create within their own ontological constructs (Johnson et al., 2016;Turnbull, 2000aTurnbull, , 2000b (Turnbull, 2000a: p. 6).

Question and question components
What methods, models, and approaches have been used in studies that seek to bridge Indigenous and Western sciences in freshwater research, monitoring, or management in Canada?
The primary question can be broken down into the following three components: Population: Cases of freshwater research, monitoring, or management.
Study design: Articles that report empirical results, either qualitatively or quantitatively, and where knowledge weaving practices and/or methods are discussed or inferred that seek to bridge Indigenous and Western sciences.

Systematic map protocol
The  Table 2); (ii) Google was not used as a search engine; (iii) eligibility criteria were modified; and (iv) some data extraction codes were modified. Reviewers were never responsible for making decisions about articles they have authored during any stage of this process.

Searching for articles
This systematic map used standardized search terms across four publication databases, specialized websites, and one web-based search engine. The bibliographies of relevant reviews and systematic reviews were screened to identify any articles that may not have been found using the search strategy noted above. Searches were conducted between July 2019 and December 2019.

Search terms and languages
The search string was adapted from the published protocol to replace terms related to coastal and marine environments with those specific to freshwater environments to reflect the scope of this map (see  (Landis & Koch, 1977).
Discrepancies were discussed and the inclusion criteria were clarified before the same three reviewers screened another subset of 101/5576 articles, which resulted in inter-reviewer Kappa statistics ranging 0.710-0.807 indicating a 'substantial' to 'almost perfect' level of agreement. Any discrepancies were again discussed, and a fourth reviewer (JJT) was brought in to reconcile any differences before screening was allowed to proceed. Attempts were made to find the full text of any article included at title and abstract using Carleton University subscriptions or by using inter-library loan services when needed. Prior to full-text screening, a consistency check was again performed between the three reviewers (SA, LN, and AB).
A random subset of 65 articles (20% of articles included at title and abstract) were screened in two batches resulting in Kappa statistics ranging 0.082-0.909 indicating a large variation in agreement between the three reviewers. Discrepancies were discussed and inclusion criteria were further clarified with the help of a fourth reviewer (JJT). Another subset of 20 articles were screened by the three reviewers resulting in Kappa statistics ranging 0.432-0.765 indicating 'moderate' to 'substantial' agreement and screening was allowed to proceed after any discrepancies were reconciled and the inclusion criteria were reviewed and clarified a final time. During screening reviewers had the ability to request a second opinion from another member of the review team for any articles with unclear eligibility. At no point during title and abstract or full-text screening was a reviewer allowed to influence the inclusion decision for any article that they authored.

Eligibility criteria
A pre-established set of eligibility criteria (Table 3) guided article screening. All four inclusion criteria needed to be met to be included in the final dataset of articles and case studies.

Study design
Articles that report empirical results -either qualitatively or quantitatively -where knowledge weaving practices and/or methods are discussed or inferred. Empirical studies included fall into one of three broad categories: (1) studies focused on environmental/ecological research and monitoring (i.e., those reporting on direct or indirect observation or experience from Indigenous science and Western science (i.e., environmental data); for example, Fraser et al. (2006); (2) studies focused on the processes and practices of bridging knowledge systems in the context of decision-making (e.g., Latulippe, 2017); and (3) studies concerned with perceptions of ecological or environmental phenomenon (e.g., perceptions of ecosystem services Levine et al., 2017).

Geographical scope
Case studies conducted within Canada's jurisdictional boundaries, as well as cases where traditional Indigenous territories overlapped contemporary nation-state boundaries (i.e., the Canada-US border).

Language
English.

Critical appraisal
Critical appraisal refers to the processes of assessing the validity of studies included in evidence synthesis (e.g., systematic reviews and sys-

Data mapping method
Narrative synthesis was used to summarize findings and insights (Popay et al., 2006). As a textual approach, narrative synthesis was used to explore relationships within and between studies -through textual descriptions, grouping and clustering cases, and content analysis -particularly those related to understanding the variability of study design, settings, and study populations (Popay et al., 2006). To

Number and types of articles
Searches across four bibliographic databases and Google Scholar resulted in 5988 records once duplicates were removed (See Supporting Information 2.1 and Figure 1). Screening at title and abstractbased upon the eligibility criteria (

Systematic map
A systematic map constitutes the central output from this research.
This map is composed of a database in the form of a case-based matrix that includes relevant meta-data and coded values (e.g., binary, categorical) for the case studies (Supporting Information 3), as well as the geographical distribution and location of each case study (Figure 3, Supporting Information 2.6, Figs. S1 and S2).

F I G U R E 3
Geographic distribution of case studies included in the systematic map (n = 74; locations reflect the centralized point of each case study)

Geographic distribution of included case studies
While the 74 case studies identified and included in this systematic map span across Canada's freshwater ecosystems, they are far from being evenly distributed. At the sub-national level (i.e., province, territory, Inuit regions), the number of case studies that have been con-

Empirical, ecological, and hydrological scope of included studies
The empirical focus of the case studies fell into two broad categories: Case studies were also characterized based upon the hydrological scale and focus (i.e., basin, watershed, water body). By far, the most prevalent hydrological scale at which case studies are focused is best classified as water body (n = 63; e.g., river, lake, pond; Figure 6). Notable clusters of case studies at the hydrological scale of a water body can be found in the Northwest Territories (n = 12), British Columbia (n = 9), Inuvialuit Settlement Region (n = 8), and Ontario (n = 8).

Methods, models and approaches
A core objective for this systematic map was to identify the diversity and better understand the landscape with regards to the methods, models, and approaches employed to bridge multiple ways of knowing.
To this end, we specifically focused on two key aspects: (i) methodology knowledge.
An examination of methodologies revealed a number of results with regards to research design. The first notable finding was that there were 15 different research designs used (Figures 7 and 8). The second notable finding was that community-based participatory research was the most prevalent methodology employed (Figures 7 and 8).

Indigenous science and demographics of knowledge holders
Details concerning the demographics of Indigenous participation and contributions were examined for each case study to better understand the representation of Indigenous science and knowledge systems, and knowledge holders. The extent and nature of information provided with regards to demographics varied widely and in general was poorly reported. For example, the majority of case studies did not report the age group of knowledge holders (65%; 48/74; Figure 11a) or the gender of knowledge holders (62%; 46/74; Figure 11c).
Indeed, 13 case studies did not report demographic details regarding age group, gender, or whether Elders were included. The reported contribution of youth is relatively low (19%; 14/74; Figure 11a). While there appears to be higher levels of youth involvement in the more

Evidence gaps and insights
This systematic map revealed a few notable evidence gaps and some key insights. Reporting on the demographics of Indigenous participation and contributions continues to be a critical gap that has been similarly identified (Hitomi & Loring, 2018;Alexander, Provencher, Henri, Taylor, Lloren et al., 2019). Indeed, age and gender were not reported in over half of the case studies. However, based upon what was reported, there were some important observations. First, male and female knowledge holder participation rate in the freshwater case studies were comparable ( Figure 11c) as compared to trends observed in research focused on environmental and climatic change where male bias definitely characterizes who is engaged in those studies (Hitomi & Loring, 2018). This lack of a gendered bias in freshwater studies could reflect the special relationship between Indigenous women and water (e.g., women as protectors of the sacred water in Syilx culture; Anderson, 2010;Anderson et al., 2013;McGregor, 2008a;Privott, 2019).
Second, with regards to youth participation as knowledge holders in this systematic map, we found 19% of studies (14/74) involved youth, which is higher than reported in the previous coastal/marine systematic map using the same protocol (7%; 5/71 studies reporting involving youth; Alexander, Provencher, Henri, Taylor, Lloren et al., 2019).
While time trends in these small sample sizes (an artefact of the habitat and geographic scope of the systematic map) are difficult to determine, it would be informative to see whether cases of youth involvement across all the habitat types (coastal/marine, freshwater, and terrestrial) have been consistent over time since the literature started emerging 20 years ago or if youth engagement is a more recent phenomenon in the field. There have been numerous calls to diversify knowledge holders and include youth (e.g., Henri, Brunet, et al., 2020), and a future analysis of this could explore if these calls have been answered or are at least being considered more regularly in project planning. In regions where youth make up the majority of the population, programs that involve youth in Indigenous and Western science weaving are critical to engaging the next generation of environmental leaders (Provencher et al. 2013;Pedersen et al., 2020).
There were also several insights that emerged from this systematic map, specifically with regards to the methodological approaches, research methods, and the demographic of knowledge holders which we speak to further below.

Limitations of the evidence base
It is equally important to note the limitations of the evidence base.

CONCLUSION
Drawing upon all available ways of knowing to conserve and restore relationships between Indigenous peoples and the environment is critical (Fox et al., 2017). Furthermore, using Indigenous and Western sciences is an important undertaking which can strengthen the evidence-base, build trust, and enhance legitimacy for decision making (Alexander, Provencher, Henri, Taylor, Lloren et al., 2019;Ban et al., 2018;Henri, Martinez-Levasseur, et al., 2020;Johnson et al., 2016;Mistry & Berardi, 2016;Tengo et al., 2014).

Implications for policy, management and research
Compiling a collection of case studies is a crucial first step in support of future analysis and/or evidence synthesis. For example, future in-depth analysis of such a collection of case studies could: (i) help identify better practices and approaches to guide future projects; (ii) provide critical insights for engaging with multiple knowledge systems; and (iii) highlight successful examples that offer promising pathways for moving forward (Alexander, Provencher, Henri, Taylor, Lloren et al., 2019).
Indeed, this systematic map identified close to thirty published case studies that focused on the processes and practices of bridging knowledge systems in the context of decision-making. Further, in-depth analysis and evaluation of these case studies, especially when combined with the other approximately thirty case studies identified by Alexander, Provencher, Henri, Taylor, Lloren et al. (2019) could provide key insights and more nuance across different decision-making contexts (e.g., co-management of natural resources, conservation planning, regulatory decisions).
Bridging Indigenous and Western sciences, as illustrated across many of the case studies included in this systematic map: (i) highlights the many benefits that can come with applying multiple ways of knowing to devising management strategies (Reid et al., 2021) and; (ii) can further strengthen relationships with First Nation, Métis, and Inuit communities in Canada, which have often been marginalized from environmental research and decision making (Berkes, 2009). Furthermore, bridging knowledge systems offers a promising approach and pathway to help bend the curve on freshwater biodiversity (sensu Tickner et al., 2020) and achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., Goals 14 and 15). It is important to note though that not all Indigenous communities choose to engage with Western science, nor acknowledge the settler-state's forms of governance, instead choosing to maintain and practice Indigenous scientific and governance systems (Ariss & Cutfeet, 2012).
The results of this systematic map also provide key insights to inform the practices and processes associated with research and monitoring. First, there are many pathways and approaches to bridging Indigenous and Western sciences that can help to inform a wide diversity of research questions across multiple ecological and hydrological scales. However, these approaches are often contextual, place-based, and will vary depending upon the question at hand. Accordingly, further inquiry would help to parse out these different pathways. Second, it is important to remember that the methodological approaches and methods were operationalized through a wide suite of research practices. While not the focus of this review, Wong et al. (2020) highlight the importance and imperative of ethical research practices (e.g., free, prior, and informed consent). Similarly, a closer examination of the bridging and weaving process will be essential to identify examples that support the co-existence of knowledge systems and seek to 'remedy, rather than reinforce, existing power relations; respect differences, instead of suppress them; and uphold, as opposed to diminish, their unique strengths' (Reid et al., 2021, p. 4).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers and the editor for their constructive comments which improved the manuscript. This study was supported by Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada.