Evaluating the efficacy of GIS maps as boundary objects: unpacking the limits and opportunities of Indigenous knowledge in forest and natural resource management

ABSTRACT

The meaningful inclusion of diverse forms of knowledge, such as Indigenous knowledge (IK), remain unrealized in many natural resource management decision-making processes. Innovative boundary objects could be used to facilitate the effective inclusion of IK in natural resource management decision-making processes. In this study, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps were used as boundary objects due to their ability to visually display IK across knowledge boundaries. Using a conceptual framework that combines the Six Faces of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) outlined by Houde (2007). “The Six Faces of Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Challenges and Opportunities for Canadian Co-Management Arrangements.” Ecology and Society 12 (2): 34–50. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art34/) and boundary object criteria derived from the boundary science literature, our study investigated whether and how GIS maps could be used to increase the influence of IK on forest management. The four boundary object criteria (interpretive flexibility, accommodating concreteness, facilitating joint process, and satisfying information need) generated insight into specific ways to reduce the current barriers that may restrict greater use of IK within GIS and allow them to function more effectively as boundary objects.

KEYWORDS:

• Boundary objects
• Indigenous knowledge
• GIS
• forest management
• natural resource management
• six faces of traditional ecological knowledge

Introduction

Natural resource and forest management planning and policy processes are often biased towards accepting and incorporating Western scientific evidence (Ascher, Steelman, and Healy 2010; Morgan and Cole-Hawthorne 2016). However, Indigenous¹ rights and the role of Indigenous communities in these processes are increasingly being recognized on a global scale. As such, researchers and policy makers are in search of ways to accommodate multiple ways of knowing, such as Indigenous Knowledge (IK), in established and conventional policy processes (Morgan and Cole-Hawthorne 2016; Wyatt 2008). Effective and innovative methods are needed to gain an understanding of how different ways of knowing may be used to inform policy processes (Berkes 2012; Houde 2007).

This article creates a framework based on Houde’s Six Faces of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (2007) to investigate the opportunities for and limitations of GIS as a boundary object for advancing IK in a natural resource planning process. We investigated this question within the context of a case study of Beardy’s and Okemasis Cree Nation (BOCN) of Saskatchewan, Canada and their participation in the forest management planning process for the Nisbet Provincial Forest.

Boundary objects, GIS and knowledge systems

Boundaries are found between knowledge systems, disciplines, knowledge producers, and policy innovators (Cash et al. 2003; Guston 2001; Maclean and The Bana Yarralji Bubu Inc. 2015). Boundary objects translate critical knowledge from one social world to another, and, in this way, can influence this knowledge’s inclusion into management and decision-making processes.

One potential boundary object is GIS. GIS is a computer program designed to represent the world as geographic layers containing objects and attributes based on a specific conceptualization of space and reasoning (Malczewski 2004). GIS can store, organize, and analyze spatial data that occupy a geographical space, then present these data through digital visualizations (Sonti 2015). For the purposes of natural resource and forest planning and management, GIS is significant because it can illustrate different perspectives and connections in the same space (Sonti 2015; Young and Gilmore 2017). GIS maps may then influence the decision-making process within natural resource and forest management decisions by making local community resources more visible, as well as the values these resources have for them. Further, contingent on the diversity of the communities involved, the values expressed in the maps may be associated with multiple knowledge sources, including local and Indigenous knowledge (IK) (Tripathi and Bhattarya 2004; Young and Gilmore 2017). In some cases, GIS has been an effective tool for combining information from different knowledge systems to influence environmental governance and management processes (Tripathi and Bhattarya 2004; Young and Gilmore 2017). Thus, GIS maps may offer a more tangible way to address local concerns about resource management and use than discussion alone, depending on who is involved and the nature of the map-making process (Levine and Feinholz 2015; Wario, Roba, and Kaufmann 2015).

Globally, IK is increasingly recognized as a significant source of information that can contribute to environmental policy and management processes (Berkes 2012; Parsons, Nalau, and Fisher 2017; Robinson and Wallington 2012; Tripathi and Bhattarya 2004; Zurba and Berkes 2014). As Cummings and Read (2016) suggested, the decision-making processes for forest management planning may improve when IK informs policy decisions. However, significant obstacles limit the influence of this knowledge on forest management and planning, including limited representation, engagement, and participation of communities (including Indigenous communities), and restricted use of IK within planning and policy processes (Diver 2017; Gratani et al. 2014; Robitaille et al. 2017; Wyatt, Kessels, and van Laerhoven 2015).

One such obstacle is the colonial legacies in Canada with regard to forestry, natural resources, and Indigenous peoples (Nikolakis and Nelson 2015; Pun 2016). Treaties, colonial management systems, white settler development, and forest management plans all created structural barriers to Indigenous involvement in natural resource management (Nikolakis and Nelson 2015; Pun 2016). Confusion remains as to what effective consultation means, as well as how stakeholder engagement can be carried out authentically (please see Teitelbaum, Wyatt, and Bullock 2019 for a thorough treatment).

Both IK and Western scientific evidence are valid knowledge systems and applicable to the people who use them to understand their own realities (Agrawal 2014). Subtleties and variations within these knowledge systems exist, and these knowledge systems are not mutually exclusive. In some cases, GIS mapping has been used in collaboration with Indigenous communities to represent their interests, values, and concerns regarding natural resource and forest planning processes (Levine and Feinholz 2015; Pearce and Louis 2008; Tripathi and Bhattarya 2004; Wario, Roba, and Kaufmann 2015; Young and Gilmore 2017). Young and Gilmore (2017) used GIS maps in a participatory methodological process and demonstrated how GIS maps could serve as boundary objects in the context of forest and land use planning involving Indigenous people. The authors revealed that GIS maps could transfer knowledge across boundaries in a transparent and accessible way. In this instance, GIS was used to combine information from different knowledge systems to make strategic environmental management decisions. The authors concluded that while the technology was useful, the quality of the knowledge input into the system determined the effectiveness of GIS as a geospatial tool to support dialogue across different perspectives and epistemologies.

Harvey and Chrisman (1998) suggested that GIS is a technology that needs to be negotiated between different social groups. The boundary object concept allows us to understand the relationship between the technology (GIS) and the people among whom the understanding is negotiated. Boundary objects are most useful when we stabilize the expectations for how knowledge will be understood and used between parties. Building on these previous studies, our article identifies opportunities and limits to GIS as a boundary object in the context of IK. As Harvey and Chrisman (1998) suggest, GIS is a localized set of processes resulting from negotiations regarding the construction of artefacts to fit multiple perspectives. The question is: how do we more critically evaluate its efficacy?

Engaging Indigenous communities in boundary object development is one approach for increasing the influence of IK in natural resource management (Steger et al. 2018; Zurba and Berkes 2014). Boundary objects, like GIS maps, may facilitate the communication of information between Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge holders (Maclean and The Bana Yarralji Bubu Inc. 2015; Zurba and Berkes 2014), but the potential for this facilitation to be improved remains underexplored. Practical approaches are needed to address the multifaceted nature of IK, including how to meaningfully include this knowledge in a way that is respectful and mutually beneficial to the different actors involved. (O’Flaherty, Davidson-Hunt, and Manseau 2008; Parsons, Nalau, and Fisher 2017; Young and Gilmore 2017). This article fills this gap by investigating the opportunities and obstacles for using GIS maps as boundary objects to effectively facilitate the use of IK in a case of forest planning.

We developed a conceptual framework, which we elaborate below, to advance how we could think more critically about the opportunities and limitations of GIS as a boundary object in this context. Our goals were to provide a critical framework that could provide insight into how GIS maps and map-making processes could be refined to improve their use, especially as they related to the inclusion of IK.²

The Six Faces of Indigenous knowledge and boundary object evaluative criteria

Our research began with embracing the complexity of IK through the lens of Houde’s (2007) Six Faces framework. Houde developed categorical terms and definitions to tease apart how IK could be understood and to better facilitate the inclusion of IK within co-management processes. Houde refers to six distinct “Faces” of knowledge. These include:

1. Factual observations (Face One), based primarily on empirical observations of the environment and its living components, which may be interpreted in multiple ways by different knowledge holders.

2. Management systems (Face Two), which primarily concern methods for sustainable use of natural resources as practiced by individuals in the Indigenous community.

3. Past and Current Uses (Face Three), comprised mainly of the knowledge of past and current uses of the environment, including sites of cultural significance and the location of medicinal plants.

4. Ethics and Values (Face Four), includes environmental ethics and values individuals hold for wildlife, the environment, and other humans.

5. Cultural Identity (Face Five), concerns language and images of the past, stories, important social relations, and the benefits that cultural landscapes provide.

6. Cosmology (Face Six) is the foundation for all of the other faces and is mainly comprised of the assumptions and beliefs individuals have of their surrounding environments and reality.

This categorization of IK into six separate faces enabled us to consider how these different aspects of knowledge could be relevant in a forest and natural resource management context.

Houde’s framework informed the categories of knowledge to which a boundary object could be applied. Houde’s framework outlined specific categories that we used to better understand both the physical and intangible aspects of natural resources. This framework also identified categories where groups or communities may have had different understandings of how physical, cultural, historical, spiritual and values-based knowledge mapped onto their local landscapes (Radcliffe 2012).

Boundary objects are objects that have the ability to cross different social worlds, can satisfy the needs of each of these worlds, and adapt to the context they are used in (Star and Griesemer 1989). Based primarily on the work of Carlile (2002), Star and Griesemer (1989), Star (2010), and Steger et al. (2018), we identified four main criteria that could be used to evaluate the efficacy of boundary objects. These criteria are: providing interpretive flexibility, accommodating concreteness, facilitating joint process and satisfying information needs. These criteria are from the literature writ large and may be used in other contexts. In this study, we apply them specifically to a case study where GIS maps are the boundary objects.

First, a boundary object must be flexible, by which we mean it must establish a “shared syntax or language for individuals to represent their knowledge” (Carlile 2002, 451). This creates “interpretive flexibility” (Steger et al. 2018, 154; Star 2010) to facilitate communication between two different social worlds (Star and Griesemer 1989; Steger et al. 2018). To have interpretive flexibility, the boundary object must be both robust and malleable – in other words, it needs to be able to go “back-and-forth between social worlds” (Steger et al. 2018, 154) and “exist in a specific state” (Steger et al. 2018, 154), while remaining universally recognizable across disciplines (Star and Griesemer 1989; Star 2010; Steger et al. 2018).

Second, a boundary object must accommodate concreteness or provide a “means for individuals to specify and learn about their differences and dependencies across a given boundary” (Carlile 2002, 452). For instance, Carlile (2002) explains that a concrete method or approach allows individuals to understand a problem in which differences and dependencies of various groups are specified. Concreteness provides a situation or opportunity where representatives can elaborate on their concerns and create alignment about what they understand. Carlile (2002) also notes that the nature of the problem and specific context may determine how concrete a boundary object needs to be. For example, the boundary object facilitating information flow needs to be concrete enough to focus conversation and facilitate developing a solution (Carlile 2002). This could take the form of a cultural artefact, photograph, piece of art or a map.

Third, a boundary object must facilitate a joint process for understanding. This is akin to “a process where individuals can jointly transform their knowledge” (Carlile 2002, 452). This transformation requires individuals to absorb and/or change the information a boundary object carries, apply what is learned, and “transform the current knowledge used at the boundary” so that it can become socially shared knowledge that is informed by more than one perspective (Carlile 2002, 452). For example, the collaborative process of developing a map based on multiple experience, perspectives, and purposes may reveal how information is absorbed, learned from, processed and transformed by individuals. This transformation of knowledge may be done by any individuals involved (Carlile 2002).

The fourth and last characteristic of a boundary object is that, to be effective, it must satisfy a need for information. Boundary objects cannot exist in a vacuum; they need to meet a social need for those involved. By satisfying a need for information, the boundary object may “in turn influence the form and structure of dialogue” (Star 2010; Steger et al. 2018, 154). For instance, there could be a strong need to provide information into a planning process which in turn necessitates the need to organize or classify data. This would stimulate conversation about the data and its appropriateness, which then influences the dialogue and appropriateness in the need for the information.

These criteria provide a framework for understanding what may or may not make a boundary object effective and what is required for consistent communication across different yet intersecting social worlds. Critically assessing boundary objects is important because it allows us to understand the comparative strengths and weaknesses of a boundary object for a given purpose. Different boundary objects, such as paintings, maps, photographs and artefacts have been used with varying results in effectively translating IK across boundaries (Levine and Feinholz 2015; Supernant 2017; Young and Gilmore 2017; Zurba and Berkes 2014). The boundary object criteria provide a way for us to better understand the appropriateness and efficacy of boundary objects as well as a way to improve on them for better use into the future.

In this article, we integrate the Six Faces framework and boundary object criteria to evaluate the opportunities for and barriers to incorporating IK into a forest planning process. The context for the study was the Nisbet Provincial Forest, in Saskatchewan, Canada, which had undertaken an update to its forest management plan (FMP) as part of the Nisbet Integrated Forest Land Use Plan (IFLUP).

Research context and methods

The Nisbet Provincial Forest is an expansive forest surrounded by residential and agricultural development (Government of Saskatchewan 2012). This study examined the FMP of the IFLUP. The IFLUP is a planning document intended to provide clear direction for the government and stakeholders when making forest and resource management decisions to perpetuate the ecological integrity of the Nisbet Provincial Forest (Government of Saskatchewan 2012). The Nisbet Implementation Team (NIT) is charged by the provincial government with overseeing the management of forest land and resources within the geographical planning area of the Nisbet Provincial Forest. They are responsible for implementing the plan and they create recommendations for the IFLUP.

One of the participating members of the NIT was the Beardy’s and Okemasis Cree Nation (BOCN). BOCN is located just west of Duck Lake, Saskatchewan and is one of six Indigenous communities surrounding the Nisbet Provincial Forest (Beardy’s and Okemasis First Nation 2013). BOCN places significant value on the forest and natural resources found in the Nisbet Provincial Forest. The BOCN community continue to use the natural resources found in the Nisbet Forest to hunt, fish, pick berries, and gather medicine, among other activities. Given the use of the forest by BOCN, we were interested in learning how or if their IK was used as part of the planning process. We were responding to a request from the Elder-in-residence³ at the time to undertake this research on behalf of BOCN.

This research was carried out in three phases from 2015 to 2018. The University of Saskatchewan School of Environment and Sustainability Elder-in-Residence asked us to leverage the information that had been collected by BOCN and others for this study, so as not to overburden the community. First, we conducted a systematic inventory and categorization of documented IK from the BOCN. This inventory documented and categorized all of the IK obtained including information regarding wildlife, botany, culturally significant sites, fishing and hunting areas, regions where medicinal plants were located, and so on. This revealed two key sources of content, including a BOFN⁴ History Report (2013) and a spatial data cache of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK⁵) that had been obtained by a research scientist to inform highway development within and around the region. This cache included information from community members regarding the observed locations of big game, fur bearing animals, and other wildlife. We categorized this knowledge according to the Six Faces of TEK outlined by Houde (2007).

The second part of the research involved transferring the IK into GIS layers and onto maps that aligned with each of the Six Faces. The result was that Face One (factual observations) and Face Three (current and past uses) were most amenable to mapping given the spatial nature of knowledge in the two sources available to us. Two GIS maps were created based on the categorized TEK from Beardy’s and Okemasis relating to Face One and Face Three.

The maps were then used in the third phase of the research, which included interviews with BOCN community members and the NIT members. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 BOCN members and 10 NIT members to evaluate the perceived opportunities and obstacles of using GIS maps as boundary objects in the forest planning and management context. Time was spent in the community getting to know community members and volunteering for a variety of activities on reserve. Our Elder-in-residence made initial connections with BOCN members for us. Interviews were conducted in neutral locations of participant choice and interview questions were structured to encourage open discussion. We also built off Bullock and Steelman’s and School of Environment and Sustainability faculty members’ contacts within the region, which were based on long-term relationships going back to 2010. These interviews were transcribed and inductively and deductively coded.

Interviewees included Elders, harvesters, hunters, band office staff, council members, planners, resource managers, stakeholders, and government representatives. Initially, individuals were included in the BOCN sample if they met the following criteria: they held previous knowledge of the IFLUP or FMP; they were a member of the BOCN community; and they were an IK holder.⁶ Most BOCN participants had little to no prior understanding of the IFLUP or FMP. Indeed, previous studies have documented systemic barriers to Indigenous participation in forest governance in the study area (Bullock et al. 2020; Klenk et al. 2013). The sample was expanded to focus only on the second two criteria. Individuals were included in the NIT sample if they met the following criteria: previous knowledge of the IFLUP and FMP and familiarity with land use planning and/or natural resource use within the Nisbet forest.

BOCN members were interviewed to validate or refute the IK used in the GIS maps and to provide any additional IK to be categorized and potentially mapped with one of the Six Faces. NIT members were interviewed to assess the feasibility of utilizing the GIS maps for informing the IFLUP or FMP management plans. The data collected through these interviews were then evaluated against the boundary object criteria to gain better insight into how or if the Six Faces could be more effectively represented in the GIS maps, as well as how these maps could be improved to provide more effective knowledge transfer across boundaries.⁷

Results

The interpretation of criteria

We assessed the interpretive flexibility criterion based upon the participants’ ability to comprehend the information each Face represented and whether participants were able to engage with that information and/or to provide additional information that could be categorized under this Face. Accommodating concreteness was interpreted as the physicality and graphical representation in the maps, which provided a tangible artefact with which to engage in discussion. A joint process for facilitating understanding was evaluated as the ability of participants to engage into in-depth discussions where knowledge categorized under any of the Six Faces could be transformed to facilitate shared meaning. Finally, the need for information was understood as the desire for IK to be incorporated into the Nisbet Provincial Forest planning process. This need was accepted by both BOCN tribal members and NIT members.

Faces One and Three, and the criteria

Face One was characterized primarily by empirical observations of the surrounding environment. These observations were identified in clearly defined geographical boundaries that were recognizable to different communities. The two main sources of previous knowledge collected, the history report and TEK cache, provided shapefiles⁸ that were categorized under Face One. The BOFN History Report (2013) provided the base GIS maps for Face One and Three and informed the shapefiles for some culturally significant sights, medicinal plants, berries, and a host of information pertaining to wildlife. Face One information consisted of hunting sites, fishing spots, and locations where various animals were found, such as big game or fur-bearing animals. BOCN participants provided further information including a deer hunting area south of Dunder and reconfirming “Birch Lake”⁹ as a hunting spot. NIT participants provided specific shapefiles for geographic boundaries delineating rural municipalities and First Nation reserves in Saskatchewan. The Face One map fully met all four criteria.

Face Three was comprised of the location of culturally significant sites, medicinal plants, and the use of the land as it occurred and changed over time. This information provided for the Face Three map was relatively easy to map due to its strong geospatial components that were largely recognizable by the participants across knowledge boundaries. The Face Three map fully met three of the evaluative criteria and partially met one criterion.

BOCN participants provided key information on the temporal changes of typical spatial patterns for different animals, including: changes in animal migration and movement patterns, new animal sightings, new nesting sites of birds, and the health of local plants and trees (B1 2016; B5 2016; B6 2016; B10 2016; B12 2016). BOCN participants also revealed concerns of changing predator movements heading south and towards their reserve. These observations were corroborated by other BOCN participants who stated these changes may be “associated with climate change” (B1 2016) and that “nowadays … due to global warming … a lot of these animals are moving south” (B5 2016). Some BOCN participants stated that “places that never had snow are getting snow” (B12 2016) and that there are areas “where there’s no trees anymore, it [is] all clear cut … and those were areas where the moose would stay in the fall … I’ve noticed there’s so much of a difference in their … movement patterns” (B10 2016). As summarized by another BOCN participant, “everything is changing” (B12 2016).

With that being said, the information provided by BOCN participants on the dynamics of environmental entities, especially within the context of climate change and the implications this change may have on biodiversity, was very difficult to visually display on the GIS maps. Another challenge was that a significant portion of the wildlife information that was provided through the interviews lacked specific geographical locations and was discussed in generalities. This challenge did not allow the information to be mapped. However, interviews demonstrated that BOCN interviewees were strongly interested in animal movements including migrations and/or declines or changes in species. As a result, this interest may be an opportunity for future study.

Interpretive flexibility

Members from both the BOCN and NIT provided information that contributed to the Face One map. This map was robust enough to provide identifiable geographical locations of key landmarks and valued areas familiar to interviewees, including landmarks and areas informed by IK. Interviewees were also able to provide additional information once they understood the purpose of the map. BOCN and NIT participants recognized the geographic boundaries outlined on the map and the knowledge the maps depicted. This provision of new knowledge by both BOCN and NIT corresponded with the defining characteristics of interpretive flexibility where new information may be given and is able to be interpreted by multiple individuals using shared understanding. Thus, the ability for interviewees to recognize and then add to the information in the maps suggests that the interpretive flexibility criterion was met.

Similar to Face One, the Face Three map was robust enough to provide the depiction of geographical locations familiar to interviewees, and the understanding of the depictions were interpretable such that more or corrective information could be added. For instance, BOCN participants provided new information that supplemented what was shown in the original map and could be categorized under Face Three. The map served the function of a jointly understood object that facilitated understanding between the two groups. Interviewees provided new geographical and locational information based on their understanding of the original GIS map for Face Three, such as Indian Crossing (B7 2016) and the Canadian Trails (B10 2016). These sites are important for ceremonial uses and cultural camping sites.

Members from both BOCN and NIT recognized the geographic boundaries and the terms used to reference the activities in these areas outlined on the Face Three map. Additionally, both BOCN and NIT members recognized that culturally significant sites existed within the geographic boundaries within the Nisbet Forest. Some challenges that occurred with developing a shared syntax was knowledge sensitivity (i.e. how private information is deemed to be by individuals), where some BOCN participants chose not to disclose specific locations of medicinal plant sites or culturally significant sites. Reluctance in providing specific information challenged the ability of BOCN and NIT participants to have a better shared understanding of Face Three knowledge using a shared syntax because some information that would have aided in this understanding was withheld. This did not happen in all cases of the knowledge provided. Regional approximations of medicinal plant locations or culturally significant sites were provided and agreed upon in the maps, which meant the interpretive flexibility criterion was met by Face Three.

Accommodating concreteness

The Face One map met the accommodating concreteness criterion in two ways. First, the map provided an object and process that allowed the depiction of actual areas or resources that were relatively easy to agree upon. The information pertaining to Face One provided by the two original sources of information and in the interviews was sufficiently tangible to be easily represented on the maps. Second, the GIS map allowed participants to learn about the resources within the forest, such as wild game and fish. They were then able to identify similar resources that were used in more areas of the forest than they had initially realized. Due to this realization, participants were able to identify differences in resource dependencies, such as identifying new areas to access resources they may have thought were depleted, such as sage or fresh water. In seeing the map, one NIT participant noted how IK was now informing their understanding of the forest, they noted that IK “totally involves the entire forest I would say, or most of it … most people would just assume it's here, only here. Not other areas like that.” (N10 2017). This participant was describing that he grew to understand that the forest was larger than he originally thought, and it encompassed a wider range of resources he did not know previously existed, such as new areas to hunt. Accommodating concreteness pertains to the physical representation of knowledge that facilitates understanding. The map allowed Face One to meet this criterion.

The Face Three map met the accommodating concreteness criterion in two ways. First, the information pertaining to Face Three provided in the interviews and by the two original sources of information, was sufficiently tangible to create the original GIS map. Second, participants from both groups were able to identify resource use in the Nisbet Forest relating to historically and culturally significant sites through the depictions of the map. For example, one BOCN participant said that the Face One (and Three) maps “clearly show … all the areas that the people utilized and still do” (B8 2016). These areas included popular cultural campsites that were historically used by community members.

Facilitating joint process

The Face One map in its final iteration was a product of a joint process that transformed knowledge from an original understanding to a new understanding. The maps provided a focal point for interview exchanges that permitted an in-depth evaluation of the maps and their content. In some instances, BOCN participants confirmed, modified, or refuted what was depicted in the original map. For example, hunting areas were outlined on the Face One map. One participant was able to identify a deer hunting site south of the community of Dunder, Saskatchewan (B7 2016). This participant was able to draw an approximate circle on the original map provided for Face One, but a shapefile was not able to be displayed on the modified map due to the uncertainty of the sizing of the area it may have covered. However, providing this information allowed Face One to meet this criterion.

Some BOCN participants elaborated on the practice of hunting in the forest and provided locations of sites that were already depicted on the map. For example, “Birch Lake” was identified by one BOCN participant as a place where he regularly hunted and fished (B7 2016). As a result, this participant used the map as a mechanism to transform the knowledge depicted in the map by understanding not only what information the map was depicting but then in adding new information to modify the contents of the map. Additionally, NIT participants provided additional shapefiles that outlined the jurisdictional boundaries between different communities in Saskatchewan once they saw the original maps. The provision of these shapefiles transformed the knowledge presented in the original Face One map by providing new information that contributed to the new maps, such as new information on big game hunting spots or different fishing areas at previously unmarked bodies of water.

Face Three fully met the facilitating joint process criterion. A NIT member provided the first author with shapefiles for Indian Crossing, though the name of this location varied, with some referring to it as “Elk Crossing” or “The Crossing”. This information was added to the modified Face Three map. The North and South Canadian trails were described in abstract terms and not located directly on the map. These locations were described as areas where hunting and ceremony camps were held throughout the warmer months of the year (B10 2016).

BOCN participants also confirmed portions of the existing knowledge that was depicted on the original maps, such as Eagle Creek (B3 2016). A NIT member also provided the shapefiles for Eagle Creek. Although the location of Eagle Creek is approximate, it is depicted in the original Face Three map as a drainage site and a body of water. However, through interviews with some BOCN participants, Eagle Creek was confirmed to have varied significance for different participants and was used by some BOCN community members for spiritual purposes. As one BOCN participant stated, “that’s where the Indian people used to meet … and camp there on their travels and hunt … we’d have a pipe ceremony there” (B3 2016). BOCN members providing information about significant sites and NIT members providing shapefiles is an indication that the maps facilitated a joint process of knowledge transformation. This is because participants from both sides of the knowledge boundary were better able to understand the knowledge depicted on the GIS maps and provide more information based on this understanding. For example, after viewing the Face Three map, participants understood this map was primarily showing culturally significant sites and potential medicinal plant sites. This encouraged participants to look at the map and identify areas they were familiar with that were not already indicated on the map.

The exact location of medicinal plants or culturally significant sites may be held in confidence within the community and between individuals (B4 2016; B6 2016), as illustrated by a BOCN member who mentioned “people don’t tell their berry picking spots” (B6 2016). Largely because the information was considered confidential, the locations of medicinal plants discussed during the interviewing process were not represented as point data, but rather encompassed larger regional areas. A NIT member described that those areas could be harder to protect and, due to their size, “[are] going to be a barrier” (N4 2017). This participant identified that knowledge sharing discretion may be a barrier to meaningfully include IK in policies that may be used to protect the same resources the participants chose not to discuss. Therefore, given the sensitivities related to traditional use and information, there may be irreconcilable differences between what is known and what can be shared to create mutual understanding.

NIT members relied on the BOCN participants for the validation and disclosure of knowledge that was depicted on the Face Three map. As a result, the Face Three map served as a jointly understood tool to facilitate discussion, understanding and correction primarily among the BOCN interviewees, while informing the NIT members and having them supply corresponding shapefiles where appropriate. The joint process revealed similar understandings that were mappable due to their ability to accommodate concreteness, but there was a division in how they could be represented, with some participants who opted to share broader, less specific spatial information of sensitive knowledge. This divergence was part of the mutual learning developed across the knowledge boundary. This mutual learning is important, regardless if it was or was not reconciled within this study.

Satisfying the need for information

Participants from both groups recognized that the knowledge from BOCN was missing from the planning and implementation process and were interested in having more information, including IK, represented in maps. For example, the NIT wanted more information on physical characteristics that were important to the surrounding Indigenous communities such as animals, plants, and natural resources, within the Nisbet Forest (N1 2017; N3 2017; N8 2017; N10 2017). This was a clear fit for the Face One map. As one NIT participant stated, “it [the map] just gives us the kind of information we were missing … in terms of traditional use” (N10 2017).

Interviewees also expressed a desire to depict information beyond the borders of the Nisbet Forest. The interview questions referred solely to the limits of the Nisbet Forest; however, the interviewees sought to add information beyond the Nisbet borders. Participants from both groups were intrigued with the expansiveness of the information in Face One as depicted in the revised map, which was created by integrating the original and new knowledge collected through the interviews, as it extended beyond the Nisbet forest.

Participants from both groups desired more information pertaining to wildlife and the environment, and this need was satisfied by the Face One map. This satisfaction is corroborated by a BOCN participant who stated that the maps are “very accurate” and “you got most of it covered … where I go anyways … and where I’ve traditionally gone” (B10 2016). Supporting these statements, another BOCN participant claimed that “when you’re looking at this map, I think it’s all fairly accurate” (B8 2016).

Also, NIT participants were eager to analyze the Face One map and expressed a desire for more information to learn from and potentially apply in different avenues regarding the Nisbet Forest. Some suggested specific areas where the information in the maps could be used in the plan. For example, two participants suggested specific areas where the maps could be located – the “zoning section” (N1 2017) or “appendix … so other people can reference it” (N4 2017). BOCN participants who were more familiar with GIS expressed an interest in learning more about wildlife and their dynamic characteristics. Therefore, the curiosity expressed by both groups indicated a desire for the information Face One provided and suggested sections of the FMP that could highlight where IK fit best.

Most participants from both groups were eager to analyze the Face Three map and expressed a desire for more information about traditional uses. Both BOCN and NIT participants were interested in the information categorized under Face Three, particularly medicinal plants. As one NIT participant stated, “I’d like to go where these medicinal plants are … just so I would know chewing on this piece of stuff would cure my tummy ache or something, you know?” (N3 2017). NIT interviewees were more supportive of using point data for this information, but BOCN participants were reluctant to share point data because they did not want to reveal the specific location of these plants. Consequently, Face Three only partially met this criterion.

Face Three maps met the criterion in another way: the information directed people’s attention to sites requiring preservation due to their cultural importance for an Indigenous community. However, as corroborated above by NIT participants, this was more challenging to do so with larger, less precise locations. Nonetheless, meeting the need for information was satisfied because of the information that was shared. As summarized by this statement made by a BOCN member: “By sharing traditional knowledge, we’re also increasing our participation at these forest management planning [meetings] … we’re also able to preserve and protect our traditional uses of these lands” (B1 2016). Sharing traditional uses of the land may lead to the land’s protection and could increase BOCN participation in decision-making processes.

Face Two and the criteria

Face Two identified practices that involved the sustainable use and management of natural resources within the environment within specific geographical locations. Information provided by BOCN focused on agricultural methods, including logging and hunting. Face Two met the satisfying information need criterion, did not meet the interpretive flexibility criterion, and only partially met the two other criteria.

Interpretive flexibility

There was insufficient information provided through the interviewing process to form interpretive flexibility where participants from both groups could provide their own knowledge based on a shared syntax. Specifically, participants did not provide information that fell under this Face. In short, there was not enough common ground for the two groups to communicate with each other through a GIS map. BOCN members provided more comments on what kind of management practices were taking place and who were benefiting from these practices. NIT members focused more on the process of obtaining knowledge to inform these practices.

BOCN interviewees expressed concerns about the longer-term sustainability of the Nisbet Forest and its resources. For example, timber extraction (B7 2016) and insecticide use (B5 2016) by companies and landowners were identified as concerns. These comments and concerns were not easily captured in a GIS map and the specific practices they spoke of did not use similar language between the two groups. For example, one BOCN participant observed logging in the Nisbet Provincial Forest and was aware that there was “Replanting [of] trees” and this replanting was “pretty good for the harvesters” (B7 2016). Others stated that some agricultural practices such as crop expansion or insecticide use may be detrimental in the long-run, stating that “there’s not very much land that is undisturbed” (B5 2016).

NIT members focused more on the limitations associated with the process of creating the IFLUP and FMP, such as data sensitivity and a lack of resources to address knowledge diversity. These participants primarily discussed how these limitations may affect what information may be disseminated and subsequently what information may be shown on the GIS maps. As one NIT interviewee stated, NIT members “want to understand everything, though that’s sometimes impossible” and that the IFLUP and FMP were “the best they could do at the time” (N8 2017). Another NIT participant corroborated this statement by claiming that “there ends up being … the human element in all of these planning processes … there is a need for change” (N1 2017). Based on these comments, BOCN participants discussed a different dimension of forest and natural resource management in the Nisbet Forest. The GIS maps did not create sufficient interpretive flexibility to facilitate communication between the two social worlds of the NIT and BOCN participants. BOCN participants spoke of practices as they were being observed, such as insecticide use by farmers. NIT participants spoke of practices as how they are developed, such as zoning protocols in the FMP. As a result, there was not sufficient information that was mutually understood to allow a GIS map to be created for Face Two (i.e. because as described above discussions and very different perspectives could not be appropriately aligned for inclusion onto a GIS map). The interviews revealed that both groups knew of the existence of management practices, but this understanding was limited, as both groups operationalized their knowledge of these practices differently. Subsequently, this decreased the interpretive flexibility of Face Two, not allowing this Face to meet the criterion.

Accommodating concreteness

The knowledge provided by participants in the interviews did not contain sufficient spatial data for a map of Face Two to be mapped using GIS. With more time and resources, mapping may have been possible because several BOCN participants discussed the location of agricultural and forest practices such as farming, logging, and hunting. With greater effort, this information could have depicted the resource dependency within the Forest experienced in the BOCN community (B7 2016) and the information could have been assigned more specific geographical locations. However, the information provided by BOCN participants did not have specific locations; rather resource management and use were addressed in the abstract.

Additionally, despite the differences identified in discussions pertaining to Face Two, both groups did have some shared values associated with the sustainable use and management of natural resources, such as diversified decision-making by having increased engagement of First Nations in forest management planning (B1 2016; B2 2016; N1 2017; N4 2017; N8 2017). However, these shared values and meanings could not be illustrated in ways that lent themselves to being mapped. As a result, Face Two only partially met the accommodating concreteness criterion.

Facilitating joint process

There was a divergence in how BOCN currently uses resources and how the NIT has depicted resource use and management. For example, many NIT participants were not aware of the medicinal uses of plants in the area, but instead knew more of grazing or hunting areas. Sharing the original GIS maps for Face One and Three based on the aforementioned two sources of knowledge supported joint understandings to take place more easily for these Faces than the other Faces. As mentioned above, BOCN members were able to elaborate on some resource use practices, such as timber extraction (B7 2016) and insecticide use (B5 2016). These discussions were facilitated by using the Face One and Three maps as visual aids to elaborate their points, as they were able to point to various geographical regions within the Nisbet Forest as they continued their discussion. However, the GIS maps did not provide a process that facilitated the transformation of information regarding agricultural and resource management such that this information had sufficient geospatial components that could create a Face Two map. Thus, Face Two only partially met this criterion.

Satisfying information need

Face Two provides a classification of information that both BOCN and NIT participants valued and found useful. Both groups expressed an interest in the sustainable use of the forest and its resources. As one NIT participant stated, the information provided by the maps and the discussions they elicit regarding the other Faces “is the type of information that would be that over-arching decision-making information” (N1 2017). Subsequently, Face Two fully met this criterion. With more time and resources, it may be possible to collect more tangible information regarding Face Two in the future to be fully mapped.

Faces Four, Five, and Six and the criteria

Face Four concerns environmental ethics and the values individuals may hold for wildlife, the environment, and other humans. There was insufficient information to create a Face Four map given the original data sources. Additional information surfaced during the interview processes was also not complete enough to allow a Face Four map to be created. NIT interviewees stated that their overall values as a committee rested on two tenets, “keeping the forest in perpetuity and not reducing the size [of the forest]” (N8 2017). Some BOCN interviewees acknowledged the value of the Nisbet Forest by expressing concern for its preservation. For example, one BOCN participant noted, “All we’re trying to do is protect a little forest … to preserve our Nisbet Forest” (B5 2016). The significance of these values was evident, but the information was difficult to translate into spatial data to be effectively represented on a GIS map. Consequently, the criteria of interpretive flexibility, accommodating concreteness and facilitating a joint process were difficult to achieve. That being said, there was a need for more knowledge about Face Four values in the IFLUP and FMP, and the previous quotes suggest a need for information, allowing this Face to meet the satisfying information need criterion. However, without tangible geospatial representation of these values, a map is an imperfect vehicle through which to represent this suite of characteristics.

Face Five comprises information regarding language, stories, and visual depictions of cultural identity. Similar to Face Four, there was insufficient tangible information to create a Face Five map given the original data sources. The interview data were also insufficient to allow a Face Five map to be created. BOCN interviews addressed the importance of Face Five dimensions in their comments. For instance, one BOCN participant mentioned the importance of language by stating that:

I think if we had kept our language alive, those [GIS] maps would look a lot different … [because] places were described using language. So, when you lose a language, you lose an understanding of where a lot of the medicines [are], the good hunting sites, all of this stuff is found in our language … and sadly most of us don’t speak it (B2 2016).

Stories and language may provide concrete means for the translation of knowledge between individuals, and although both these participants provided information that matches the defining characteristics of Face Five, neither were easily translated into spatial data for the purposes of a GIS map. The lack of tangibility affects the ability to create a map for Face Five and affected its ability to fully meet the interpretive flexibility or facilitating joint process criterion, only allowing this Face to partially meet the accommodating concreteness criterion. This speaks more to the limitations of GIS maps and what they can represent than to the limitations of what was expressed by the interviewees.

Face Six is the foundation for all of the other Faces and was the most difficult Face for which to obtain any information, let alone spatial data. This Face primarily concerns the assumptions and beliefs individuals have of their surrounding environments and reality. These beliefs may stem from oral tradition and may be presented less effectively by GIS maps. As a result, there was insufficient information from the original data or from the interviews to create a Face Six map. With that being said, there still exists a need to understand IK, its dynamic characteristics and how they may be effectively represented using a boundary object. BOCN participants noticed that the younger generations are not using IK in a way that may sustain its existence (B2 2016; B5 2016; B7 2016; B9 2016). This desire allows Face Six to meet the satisfying information need criterion.

Summary

Not all of the Six Faces used to inform the GIS maps met the criteria at the time the knowledge was collected (Table 1). Face One met (indicated by ✓) all four boundary object criteria. Face Two partially met (indicated by ✓/X) two criteria and fully met one criterion. Face Three met three criteria and partially met one criterion. Face Four and Six only met one criterion and did not meet the rest (indicated by X). Face Five partially met one criterion and fully met one criterion. Together, Face One and Three were the most effective maps in terms of meeting the overall criteria.

Table 1. The six faces and boundary object criteria.

Face	Criteria
	Interpretive Flexibility	Accommodating Concreteness	Facilitating Joint Process	Satisfying Information Need
Face One	✓	✓	✓	✓
Face Two	X	✓/X	✓/X	✓
Face Three	✓	✓	✓	✓/X
Face Four	X	X	X	✓
Face Five	X	✓/X	X	✓
Face Six	X	X	X	✓

Some of the maps did not lend themselves to being effective boundary objects, partially as a result of not meeting the criteria, but also due to the limitations of the data that were collected. Meaning, with more time and resources, more tangible information categorized under the Faces that partially met the evaluative criteria, such as Face Two and Five, may have been obtained. This is because both Faces Two and Five have the potential to be mapped as they both contain information that may be assigned spatial elements, such as physical entities and a geographical location. The four criteria used to evaluate boundary objects allowed us to understand the opportunities as well as the limitations to how GIS maps may function as effective as boundary objects in this context.

There were some challenges in acquiring information from the BOCN community to use in the study. Ultimately, the depictions displayed within GIS maps can only be as effective as the information used to inform them. As stated by Agrawal (2014, 6) “those who possess knowledge may also possess the right to decide how and by whom that knowledge may be used”. New relationships take time to build, and the research process was treated as a relationship building process to embed the student researcher to act on existing relationships among the supervisors and participants who represent local stakeholders and rightsholders. This study was done in a region and with partners that have a history of looking favorably on and engaging in research and teaching activities with the University of Saskatchewan as the home institution. Our Elder-in-Residence at the time encouraged this research to be done with community members who trusted him to participate in this study. Therefore, this research was not an isolated moment of intervention but a desired endeavor by the BOCN community.

Discussion

The boundary object criteria revealed an almost universal agreement on satisfying information need – most participants saw the importance and need for incorporating IK into maps for the purposes of planning and management in the Nisbet Forest. However, while there is common recognition of the information need, there are challenges in how to obtain the knowledge, talk about it so it can be mutually understood (interpretive flexibility), tangibly represent it in map form (accommodating concreteness) and respectfully represent it through a process or object that is mutually understood (facilitating joint process). Previous studies from similar cross-cultural forest contexts in Canada have demonstrated that necessity or desire for knowledge alone can create opportunities for sharing and documenting unique forest knowledge (i.e. regarding traditional medicines) but that processes and facilitation strategies must still be specified to knowledge holders, users, and places (Palaschuk 2018).

The criteria helped us understand two key dimensions related to using GIS maps as boundary objects in this context. First, the criteria provide some insight into why some knowledge categories are difficult to convey on maps. In these cases, we may be able to make improvements in how that knowledge can be displayed, but not in all cases. The Six Faces of TEK framework suggests six different knowledge categories, not all of which are easily understood or represented in GIS maps. Faces One and Three were more easily mapped given conventional western understanding and translation of these concepts. This suggests that we need even more creative ways to think about GIS or other kinds of approaches for incorporating the remaining four Faces. Second, the criteria provide insight into why maps may not be the right medium to use as a boundary object in some circumstances. Maps may be imperfect boundary objects when it comes to expressing knowledge through oral traditions (stories) and through language that is not shared (Cree vs. English). Stories can be boundary objects, but they are harder to map because they will not always have clear geospatial components, or they might not be tangible enough to be represented. Language can also be a barrier because it hinders the ability to find shared meaning and the flexibility we need when trying to cross a boundary. Mapping and storytelling approaches can be used hand-in-hand as separate but related boundary objects to benefit from the strengths offered by each medium.

While GIS cannot be applied across all Faces, the framework revealed important aspects of IK that could be included in GIS applications used in natural resource and forest planning processes. BOCN interviewees had insights about the other less mappable Faces, but the GIS technology or our approach limited their inclusion. For other aspects, stories, art or other means might be more appropriate for expressing some of these values and could act as more effective boundary objects given the content. Applying the criteria to these boundary objects would further our understanding of how they function as boundary objects and help us better characterize their efficacy or lack thereof.

Boundary objects are localized artefacts based on social agreements and the mutual understanding of multiple perspectives (Harvey and Chrisman 1998). These artefacts, such as GIS technology, are a set of processes that are dynamic and subject to change. Faces One and Three have demonstrated in this research as consisting of tangible spheres of knowledge that translates easily onto GIS maps. Faces Four, Five, and Six include intangible spheres of knowledge which may be given similar agency as tangible spheres of knowledge within the IK system (Hirt 2012). Therefore, IK cartographic traditions are different than traditional Western mapping. With that being said, IK is not an object for study under a Western scientific framework (Hirt 2012). Rather, IK cartographic methods and traditional Western scientific mapping could be used together as cross-cultural, diverse knowledge-building tools and boundary objects founded under mutually accepted social agreements (Harvey and Chrisman 1998; Hirt 2012). These social agreements may include sustainable forestry and natural resource management. As a result, obtaining more intangible culturally specific knowledge may be less challenging.

To conclude, we recognize that a concrete means to find common ground and a shared syntax may be necessary but insufficient criteria, at least when using GIS maps as boundary objects, may hinder its ability to be a more effective boundary object. As concluded by Young and Gilmore (2017), knowledge input into the system determined the efficacy of GIS as a geospatial tool to support a shared dialogue across different knowledge boundaries and epistemologies. Thus, interpretive flexibility and accommodating concreteness may be the most important criteria for a Face to meet. A process or structure is needed that can aid in understanding differences across knowledge boundaries, and the GIS maps were used to try and do so. GIS maps may not be the perfect vehicle for all kinds of information, especially those that rely more heavily on orally transmitted knowledge that is culturally specific. However, recognizing the need for tangible information and knowledge that lends itself to geospatial data may increase the ability of IK to be included in maps that can serve as effective boundary objects. Alternatively, it may be that Western cartographic conventions and technology are not universally suitable for representing IK and that some other process and format is better suited to sharing and using certain kinds of knowledge in decision making.

Acknowledgments

A very special thank you to all of the communities whose knowledge and narratives guided this research study and to the professors at the University of Saskatchewan who contributed and supported this study all the way through to its completion. The University of Saskatchewan Behavioural Research Ethics Board (Beh-REB) reviewed and approved this research, Research Ethics Board (REB) number Beh 16-326.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by BOCN, NIT, and Mistawasis Nêhiyawak whose knowledge and perspectives guided this co-research. As settler researchers, we benefitted from this partnership and acknowledge that our portrayal of the findings was shaped by our own values and perspectives. Any omission or errors remain ours.This research was generously funded by the University of Saskatchewan and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (grant# 430-2014-00531).

Notes on contributors

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is a recent Master’s of Environment and Sustainability graduate from the School of Environment and Sustainability at the University of Saskatchewan. Based on her foundational experiences in field work and community engagement, she is currently involved in the development of innovative practices of diverse knowledge inclusion within the realms of environmental, wildlife, and sustainability science. She is also heavily involved in Indigenous relations with industry and Crown.

Toddi Steelman

Toddi Steelman is the Stanback Dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University. Prior to that, she served for five years as Executive Director and Professor at the School of Environment and Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada. Working at the intersection of science, policy and decision making. The author of four books, Steelman has published extensively in peer-reviewed journals, as well as opinion and editorial pieces in Nature, the Globe and Mail, The Hill and the Los Angeles Times.

Ryan Bullock

Ryan Bullock, PhD is Canada Research Chair in Human-Environment Interactions and Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Studies and Sciences, as well as Co-Chair of the Master in Environmental and Social Change program at The University of Winnipeg in Manitoba, Canada. He researches the human dimensions of environmental resources with a focus on how societies plan for and respond to social-ecological crises, conflicts and change.

Notes

1 We use the term “Indigenous” as the more globally accepted term for First Peoples, which in the Canadian context includes First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people.

2 We acknowledge that Indigenous ways of knowing and being are legitimate in their own right and do not need to be legitimized within Western science.

3 The School of the Environment and Sustainability at the University of Saskatchewan has an Elder-in-residence program in order to establish long-term ties to key Métis and First Nation communities with whom the school partners.

4 The First Nation changed their name from Beardy’s and Okemasis First Nation to Beardy’s and Okemasis Cree Nation in 2018.

5 The cache was created using the term TEK instead of IK. We use the term IK since the broader definition parallels the purpose of this study more closely.

6 Not all community members identified as an IK holder and not all community members felt that they had any IK.

7 To protect confidentiality, all personal identifiers have been removed and participants are identified with a code only (e.g. the first BOCN member interviewed will be referred to as B1).

8 Shapefiles are the format used to contain geospatial vector data used in geographic information system software (ESRI 2016).

9 This site has been de-identified in order to protect its identity and exact location.