Informality within Indigenous land management: A land-use study at Curve Lake First Nation, Canada

Abstract

Curve Lake First Nation (CLFN) in Ontario has a mainland Reserve area of 649 ha and a Reserve population of 1368; 768 of whom are CLFN members and 600 of whom are seasonal or permanent non-members. Land management is an amalgam - there is much formal land tenure through Certificates of Possession (CPs) and leases but little formal land use planning. A desire by CLFN (Chief and Council, Lands Committee, Lands Manager) for more formal land use planning drove this research. In 2019, 160 CLFN members participated in a land-use study. The results were aggregated into four categories: those that hold land (CP holders), those that do not hold land (non-CP holders), members living on-Reserve, and members living off-Reserve. CP holders and non-CP holders agreed that all parcels should be managed/used according to community values. There was similar agreement between on-Reserve members and off-Reserve members. However, there was little understanding of existing land tenure and land management regimes, and much uncertainty about the distinction between formal and informal land-use. Further analysis revealed, on the one hand, that there was a significant difference in knowledge about how Reserve land may be used between CP holders and non-CP holders, and between on-Reserve and off-Reserve members. We refer to this difference as a disconnect and found a correlation between informality and disconnect. On the other hand, there was no disconnect about the need for formal land-use policies and bylaws, which finding supports the CLFN community as it debates a land-use plan.

Full text

Land Use Policy 112 (2022) 105786
0264-8377/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Informality within Indigenous land management: A land-use study at Curve
Lake First Nation, Canada
Robert A. Fligg
a
,
*
, Brian Ballantyne
a
,
b
, Derek T. Robinson
a
a
Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Waterloo, Canada
b
Royal Roads University, Victoria, B.C., Canada
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
First Nations
Indigenous
Land management
Informality
Land-use study
ABSTRACT
Curve Lake First Nation (CLFN) in Ontario has a mainland Reserve area of 649 ha and a Reserve population of
1368; 768 of whom are CLFN members and 600 of whom are seasonal or permanent non-members. Land
management is an amalgam - there is much formal land tenure through Certicates of Possession (CPs) and leases
but little formal land use planning. A desire by CLFN (Chief and Council, Lands Committee, Lands Manager) for
more formal land use planning drove this research. In 2019, 160 CLFN members participated in a land-use study.
The results were aggregated into four categories: those that hold land (CP holders), those that do not hold land
(non-CP holders), members living on-Reserve, and members living off-Reserve. CP holders and non-CP holders
agreed that all parcels should be managed/used according to community values. There was similar agreement
between on-Reserve members and off-Reserve members. However, there was little understanding of existing land
tenure and land management regimes, and much uncertainty about the distinction between formal and informal
land-use. Further analysis revealed, on the one hand, that there was a signicant difference in knowledge about
how Reserve land may be used between CP holders and non-CP holders, and between on-Reserve and off-Reserve
members. We refer to this difference as a disconnect and found a correlation between informality and disconnect.
On the other hand, there was no disconnect about the need for formal land-use policies and bylaws, which
nding supports the CLFN community as it debates a land-use plan.
1. Introduction
Within the country of Canada there are 3247 First Nation Reserves
(ISC, 2018) across about 640 First Nation communities. Approximately
82% of First Nations manage their land under the Indian Act (Act)
1
or a
subset of the Act called the Reserve Land and Environmental Manage-
ment Program (RLEMP) (Fligg and Robinson, 2019).
2
Within this
context, land management includes dening how land is possessed,
occupied, transferred and used. However, since the Act does not fully
accommodate the cultural land management needs of First Nation
people (Fligg and Robinson, 2019), many First Nations take a more
informal approach to land-use that involves using undocumented
practices that follow traditions and community values (AFN, 2021;
Millette, 2011; Ecotrust Canada, 2019).
Formal rules and policies can support efcient and effective land
management (OECD, 2017; OPPI, 2019). Furthermore, because form
ality requires articulation and communication, a formal approach can
also facilitate a more unied knowledge base and a better understanding
within a community about the use of land (CMHC, 2021). Therefore, a
correlation might exist between a formal land-management system and
the awareness of community members about what land-use practices
are sanctioned and subsequently be “on the same page” about land-
management issues. The corollary may provide an alternative that de-
rives a similar outcome, whereby informal land-management may have
a correlation to member disconnect, i.e., members are less aware or
certain about sanctioned land-uses and are subsequently less “on the
same page” as other community members.
Although literature exists about First Nation land management (e.g.,
Fligg and Robinson, 2019; Flanagan et al., 2010) and community
cohesion (e.g., Flanagan & Harding, 2016; Flanagan, 2016), there is a
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: robertallanigg@gmail.com (R.A. Fligg).
1
Indian Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. I-5)
2
Approximately 18% of First Nations manage their land outside of the Indian Act; 14% under the First Nation Lands Management Act (LABRC, 2021), and 4%
under a framework of self-government. See, ISC (2020), or Fligg and Robinson (2019).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Land Use Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105786
Received 18 September 2020; Received in revised form 17 September 2021; Accepted 26 September 2021

Land Use Policy 112 (2022) 105786
2
lack of empirically-based studies on First Nation members’ perception of
formal or informal land-use
3
and how managing land under the Act, or a
subset thereunder, impacts members connectivity. In collaboration with
Curve Lake First Nation, we dene member connectivity as being more
or less “on the same page” about land management, policy and vision
about the use of their Reserve land.
Many First Nation communities lack land-use plans and policy
4
owing to “insufcient capacity” within the community (OPPI, 2019, p.
11), which often results in disorderly development, sprawl and unsus-
tainable land-use, e.g., mix of land-use types, and poor environmental
practices (CCP, 2009; Baijius and Patrick, 2019). Therefore, First Nation
communities might benet from community participation in land-use
studies to improve access to information and to enhance member’s
knowledge, understanding, and perception on 1) land management and
policy, 2) informal land-use practices (e.g., those sanctioned or
condoned, or those unsanctioned by the community, and Chief and
Council), and 3) the potential benets of land-use policy to support a
collective land-use vision and land stewardship plan for all members.
The benets of land-use planning and policy are partly dependent on
the presence of a coherent land tenure system (ILG, 2010; FAO, 2002),
because zoning and land-use mapping relies on a parcel system that are
linked to property rights. Yet, across Canada, approximately 50% of First
Nation communities do not have parcel fabric and do not allot individual
property rights (Fligg and Robinson, 2019). Furthermore, for 82% of
Reserve communities,
5
the Act denes how land is managed and gov-
erned, including how land is held in title and transferred. This differs
with off-Reserve lands, where anyone may live within and be a member
of a community (e.g., a municipality). Although, some First Nation
members may or may not live on a Reserve, all members have the right
to an opinion and eligible members a right to vote about the use of their
afliated Reserve land (ISC, 2021). This right and the “wants and needs”
of all members are characteristics of the heterogeneous nature of
Reserve communities (Fligg, 2019). The “wants and needs” of members
may be better understood by empirical research on member knowledge
base and their perception and opinions about land-use and management.
In collaboration with the Lands Manager and Council of Curve Lake
First Nation, Ontario, Canada, we elicited information on members’
knowledge and opinions about land management, including land use
policies/practices and land tenure. The information was acquired for
two purposes. The rst purpose was to gain insight about the “wants and
needs” of community members. The second purpose was to determine
whether a disconnect (i.e., a difference in understanding or disagree-
ment) existed between members or conversely, whether members were
“on the same page” (i.e., aligned) about land management issues. Re-
spondents were categorized as a member landholder or non-landholder
(CP or non-CP holder
6
) and as a member living on- or off-Reserve. Using
156 survey responses, we sought to determine 1) whether any discon-
nect among First Nation members was correlated to formal or informal
land-use policy and land management, and 2) whether there was a gap
between members “wants and needs” regarding what should happen
according to policy or process (formal) and what actually happens on
the ground (informal).
To answer these questions, we provide a brief overview on the cul-
tural exclusivity of First Nation membership and property rights under
the Indian Act as well as an overview on the land management matrix,
impacted by informality. Then we describe the demographics, land
systems, land-use and policies, and challenges in land management at
Curve Lake. The need for research in this area is given followed by the
land-use study approach and how it was implemented prior to our re-
sults, by land policies and systems, CP holders and non-CP holders, and
on- and off-Reserve members. Finally, we discuss our ndings and what
they mean for First Nations communities in general and for Curve Lake
First Nation in particular.
2. Background
2.1. Indian Act
The Indian Act (Act) denes how approximately 82% of First Nations
manage their Reserve land, and how land can be possessed/held in title
and used.
7
Although, individual land holdings can only be held by a First
Nation Band member (e.g., by a certicate of possession (CP)),
8
non-
members can lease land from the Band or from a CP holder. In
contrast to off-Reserve land tenure, which is composed of fee simple land
holdings, on-Reserve land tenure means that a CP provides formal evi-
dence of title sanctioned under the Act. The CP is recorded in the Indian
Lands Registry System (ILRS), administered by the federal government.
The system underpins security of tenure and claries who has the right
to possess, occupy, transfer, subdivide, use and develop a parcel of land
(Fligg and Robinson, 2019; Ballantyne and Ballantyne, 2016).
Approximately 10 sections of the Act (Section 5–14) dene “Indian”
9
and set out rules and process for First Nation membership. For example,
Curve Lake First Nation membership is dened under Section 11 of the
Act which sets out that the First Nation membership list is maintained by
the Department of Indigenous Services Canada (ISC), and under Section
6 which denes how a member is entitled to be registered as an Indian.
Understanding who is a First Nation member (e.g., by denition under
Sections 10 or 11 of the Indian Act) and how Reserve land is possessed/
held in title (e.g., communal and/or sanctioned individual land hold-
ings) is signicant to conducting a land use study within any First Nation
community.
2.2. Informality in land management
Informality in land management refers to land-use practices or
property rights that are not sanctioned by the government – neither by
the First Nation government (i.e., Chief and Council) nor by the state (i.
e., the Crown or Indigenous Services Canada). Thus, there is a theoret-
ical matrix of land management. Along one side of the matrix, are the
two types of governance (informal and formal land management) and
along the other, land-use and property rights (Table 1).
In the developing world, such a nuanced matrix is often described as
legal pluralism (Ballantyne, 2007), which refers to the multiplicity of
statutes, principles, and legal institutions that inform and direct land
management (land-use and property rights). Yet there is also a sense of
entitlement in land management debates – “by which different parties
base their claims on whichever legal framework … best ts their situa-
tion” (Meinzen-Dick & Pradham, 2002, p. 15). In this context, informality
is sometimes used interchangeably with customary. However, informality
can be unfair across a community, and the extent to which informality is
3
The number of non-peered/peered reviewed papers, book chapters, and
articles using the University of Waterloo’s OMNI search tool (https://ocul.on.
ca/introducing-omni) that referred to both land use study and First Nations
were 81. Of the 5 peer-reviewed papers, none made reference to land man-
agement systems or land-use policy.
4
Approximately 5% of First Nations have a community land-use plan in
place, based on the number of First Nation communities that make this infor-
mation known on their website.
5
Supra Note 2
6
An allotment such as a parcel of Reserve land held by a certicate of
possession (CP), is evidence of possessory title by a member of the First Nation
to a parcel of land on Reserve land as dened under the Indian Act.
7
Reserve land is held in trust by the Crown for the use and benet of a band
(First Nation).
8
According to Statistics Canada, 2016, approximately 50% of the First
Nation population live off-Reserve.
9
Although the word Indian has been replaced by First Nation, it remains
dened under the Indian Act.
R.A. Fligg et al.

Land Use Policy 112 (2022) 105786
3
accepted can vary across a region or country (Knight, 2010). Finally,
informal land management can sometimes be difcult to dene – some
communities have retained custom as-is, some have reinvented and
modernized custom, some have done both, and some have had customary
rights recognized in formal statutes (Cousins & Claassens, 2006).
Informality within First Nation communities includes at least ve
actors – Chief and Council, the Lands Manager (to whom responsibility
for land management issues has been delegated), Indigenous Services
Canada, community members, and non-member lessees (Alcantara,
2010). Analysis of informality in land management is edgling, tends to
focus on how land is possessed/held and not on how land is used, and
does not easily lend itself to statistical analysis owing to its ethnographic
heterogeneity (Flanagan and Beauregard, 2013). Thus, the courts have
held that Chief and Council have the authority as to which families have
the right to possess certain parcels, and that informal (i.e., customary)
rights can revert from the family to the community.
10
The presented research expands on this analytical net to investigate
informality in land management. If informality is characterized as CP
holders being able to “just about do what they want on their land”
11
then formality is characterized by discrete policies from Chief and
Council that manifest themselves in by-laws, policies, and land-use
plans administered by the Lands Manager.
3. Study area
Curve Lake First Nation (CLFN) is located on a peninsula adjacent to
two lakes, approximately 150 kms north-east of Toronto, Ontario, and
abutting the Municipal Township of Selwyn, within the County of
Peterborough
12
(Fig. 1). CLFN membership is approximately 21
77 people, of whom 768 (35%) members reside on the Reserve (in
approximately 331 households). The remaining 1409 CLFN members
live off-Reserve (CLFN, 2019).
13
According to the 2016 Census (ISC,
2018: StatsCan, 2016) 45% of the members are male and 55% are fe-
male; 17% of the membership are aged 0–14 years, 66% are aged 15–64
years and 17% are aged 65 years and over.Approximately 600 non-CLFN
members (in 211 households
14
) reside on the Reserve on leased land,
50% of which are seasonal (cottages) and 50% of which are year-round
(homes). Thus, the total on-Reserve population is approximately 1368;
56% of whom are CLFN members (CLFN, 2019).
3.1. Reserve and non-Reserve lands
The CLFN study area includes approximately 649 ha of the mainland
Reserve (Fig. 1, Land-Use Study – Area A, Reserve lands
15
) and
approximately 315 ha of fee simple land within the Municipality of
Selwyn (Fig. 1, Land-Use Study – Area B, fee simple land). A portion of
the Reserve was ooded during the construction of the Trent-Severn
Waterway, which is excluded from our study (Fig. 1 – ooded area).
CLFN Reserve land is managed under a subset of the Indian Act (Act)
called the Reserve Land and Environmental Management Program
(RLEMP) at an “operational” level, which offers CLFN more control over
the management of their land than under the Act. RLEMP has two
program categories, operational and delegated. Delegated may be found
on Reserves that were operating under the former “53/60′′ program
(referring to Sections 53 and 60 of the Act for delegated authority)
whereas under operational authority means a First Nation works with
Indigenous Services Canada on managing their land.
16
CLFN fee-simple
land is managed according to municipal zoning and by-laws enacted
pursuant to provincial legislation, although, 50% of it will be added to
the Reserve pursuant to the Addition to Reserve (ATR
17
) process.
The CLFN community has a mixture of rural and urban areas. Rural
areas are used for small farms, hunting, and wildlife habitats (CLFN,
2019; Whetung-Derrick, 1976). Urban areas are used for residential
housing, year-round and seasonal leases, tourism, and small businesses.
There are two main types of land holdings: 1) individual land holdings,
held by certicate of possession (CP lands
18
) and 2) Band land
19
(com-
munity lands or non-CP land). A third type of land holding is leasehold, a
subset of individual land holdings or band land.
20
According to the ILRS
there are 1006 current CP’s
21
that covers approximately 70% of the
Table 1
Matrix of Land Management. The matrix has four quadrants. The left column has Formal Land Management and the right column is Informal Land Management. The
top row is land-Use and the bottom row is Property Rights (land tenure).
Formal Land Management Sanctioned by the Government of
Canada, legislation, or Chief and Council
Informal Land Management Not sanctioned but condoned by Chief and Council at will or
not condoned by Chief and Council or the community
Land Use
•land use according to a Reserve land management system
•land use by-laws, policy, and plans as passed by Chief and Council
•land use based on custom or tradition
•The community {e.g., CP holders or lessees) do as they please
Property
Rights
•title is sanctioned by legislation – title is registered
•parcel fabric is ofcially recorded
•customary system of communal or individual land holdings
•Buckshee leases
a
or agreements
a
“A buckshee lease refers to a lease that has not been granted by Her Majesty pursuant to the Indian Act”, First Nations Land Management Resource Centre, https://l
abrc.com/
10
Johnstone v. Mistawasis First Nation, 2003 SKQB 240. (CanLII), https
://canlii.ca/t/57tb, retrieved on 2021–06–21
11
As described by a respondent to the Curve Lake First Nation land-use study
questionnaire, 2019.
12
The County of Peterborough is an upper-tier municipality that contains
lower-tier municipalities located within it, such as the City of Peterborough
(population 84,032, as of the 2016 Census) and the Township of Selwyn
(population 17,060, as of the 2016 census).
13
Census Canada 2016 reports a 2016 Reserve population of 1059, 613
households (457 by usual residents) and an average household size of 2.3. The
census includes non-member leasehold residents, and therefore has a higher
population and number of households.
14
There are approximately 220 leases; 211 are occupied by non-members, and
nine are occupied by CLFN members.
15
Indigenous Services Canada - First Nation proles; https://fnp-ppn.aadnc
-aandc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/index.aspx?lang=eng Curve Lake Indian Reserve
Number 35. This area includes many islands, swampy and wildlife habitats, and
ooded riparian lands. The useable land base is approximately 650 ha.
16
Reserve Land and Environmental Program Readiness, rst edition, National
Aboriginal Lands Managers Association (NALMA, 2020). Also see Fligg and
Robinson (2019) and ISC (2020).
17
“An Addition to Reserve [ATR] is a parcel of land added to the existing
Reserve land of a First Nation” https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/133226
7668918/1332267748447
18
Certicate of Possession (CP) is the evidence of title issued by Indigenous
Service Canada (ISC) for individually held land. It is a possessory title; Reserve
land is held in trust by the Crown.
19
Band is a term used for the First Nation, dened under the Indian Act.
20
There are approximately 220 leases, all on CP land (as per September
2020).
21
1006 CP’s based on ILRS records, November 2019. A First Nation member
may hold more than one CP.
R.A. Fligg et al.

Land Use Policy 112 (2022) 105786
4
Fig. 1. Curve Lake First Nation. The “Land-Use Study – Area A” lands represents all the CP-held parcels and community held (band) land on Reserve, as of March 31,
2021. Area A lands are only the terrestrial lands - bounded by the red line (to the water’s edge or ooded limit) and the inland parcel to the north. The “Land-Use
Study– Area B” lands are the areas shaded in grey and outlined by dashed lines (to the north of the Reserve), which depict the approximate location of the fee simple
lands owned by Curve Lake First Nation. The inset shows Curve Lake First Nation in relation to Peterborough and Toronto. Source – the Base Map © OpenStreetMap
contributors. The parcel data is from the Government of Canada, Indian Lands Registry System (ILRS) and electronic Registry Index Plan (eRIP) maintained by
Indigenous Services Canada (ISC).
R.A. Fligg et al.

Land Use Policy 112 (2022) 105786
5
Reserve
22
(Fig. 2a). Approximately 57% (571 of 1006) of CP parcels have
been developed (e.g., they contain a structure such as a house), leaving
43% CP parcels undeveloped. The developed parcels are occupied by: CP
owners (63% of Reserve land - 331 households), lessees (6% of Reserve
land - 220 leases
23
- CLFN, 2019), and private commercial activities (2%
of Reserve land - CCP, 2009). About 35% of members have a CP within
their immediate family, which could be used for development (CCP,
2009). All 220 leases are on CP held land (September, 2020), which
occupies approximately 6% of Reserve mainland, near or along the lake
shores (Fig. 2b). The non-CP Reserve land comprises 30% of the Reserve
and is CLFN band or community held land (Fig. 2a). Approximately 11 ha
(or 5%) of band land is used for community purposes such as for the First
Nation governance building, school, medical centre, parks, and cultural
grounds. The remainder of community land resides in forest and pro-
tected areas, such as wildlife habitats.
How land is used (whether the use is formal or informal according to
Table 1) and the process of land-use decision-making over community
(band) land are guided by the CLFN land management system, infra-
structure and housing policies (CLFN, 2019), and in collaboration with
Indigenous Services Canada (ISC). There are no by-laws pursuant to
Section 81 (1) (g), (h) and (i) of the Indian Act which sets out the
“Powers of the Council” on land management, planning, housing and
surveys (First Nations Gazette, 2020). Except for CLFN policies on
infrastructure, and on housing when CLFN money is used (CLFN, 2019),
there are no formal land-use and development policies. The reason for
the lack of formal land-use policy is uncertain, although, the lack of
capacity (e.g., resources, trained staff, and funding) to enforce formal
policy is affecting the implementation of formal land-use policies.
24
However, despite the perception that CP land holders may do as they
please,
25
members are guided by community land-use values, based on
custom, tradition, and a vision for effective and sustainable land-use.
26
4. Land-use survey
In 2009, a comprehensive community plan (CCP, 2009) outlined a
number of land-use issues at Curve Lake First Nation (CLFN), which
included unstructured development, haphazard use of land, lack of
housing, and unprotected wildlife habitats. The comprehensive commu-
nity plan included a land-use forecast that CLFN would soon run out of
useable land for housing, community facilities and commercial develop-
ment; suffer irreversible environmental degradation, and given the prac-
tice of haphazard land use it would alienate people from their land, their
shorelines and their traditional use area. The primary recommendation of
the comprehensive community plan was to undertake a land-use planning
exercise. It was recognized that the planning exercise would be a difcult
task since the CLFN “does not have a process for the acquisition, regula-
tion, or development of land….as First Nation members, we can do what
we like when it comes to the land we own” (CCP, 2009, p. 15). After 12
years, land-use and policy has not changed signicantly.
27
To elicit information and opinions from members about land man-
agement (including actual land-use) and community well-being (CWB),
we undertook a Community-Based Participatory Research approach
(Castleden et al., 2012; Hartwig et al., 2006, Table 2) to develop and
implement a land-use survey in 2019.
28
The Community-Based Partici-
patory Research approach took approximately six months to full the
initial stages of research objective, study design, recruitment, and sur-
vey method in collaboration with the Curve Lake Lands Committee, a
10-member group with a cross-section of members.
29
During the development stage of the survey, consultation took place
at numerous community events (e.g., Community Center meeting,
Spring clean-up), committee meetings (e.g., Public Works, Education,
Youth, and Economic Development), and included a land-use planning
workshop with CLFN students at their high-school. Pre-sampling and
testing of the survey was completed by the CLFN Lands Committee.
Notice about a land-use study was provided at CLFN social functions,
through yers, and on social media (e.g., Facebook). The notice indi-
cated that a land-use survey was going to be undertaken by the CLFN
Lands Committee in collaboration with researchers from the University
of Waterloo (ORE 40248)
30
in April of 2019 with approval by Chief and
Council. The preferred method of delivery for the CLFN was an online
questionnaire service called SurveyMonkey.
31
However, a face-to-face
option was also available.
Respondents were anonymous, were assigned a reference number,
and were required to be an adult member of CLFN. A 52-question land-
use survey was held over four weeks, which was undertaken by 160
participants (156 provided sufcient responses for analysis). Non-
member leaseholders were not canvassed because all leases are on CP
land held by members and we wished to focus on members’ knowledge
and opinions. Following the Community-Based Participatory Research
approach, the survey data were compiled and a preliminary report was
provided to CLFN members one month after closing the survey, and a
detailed report was provided nine months later. This journal article will
also be circulated to provide additional analysis of our results to the
CLFN community and to the broader science, planning, and First Nation
communities.
5. Land use survey summary
Survey responses were well balanced across our dimensions of in-
terest. The breakdown by CP/non-CP holder was 44.2/55.8% respec-
tively and by adult members living on/off-Reserve (18 years and over),
which was 51.9/48.1% respectively. The Curve Lake First Nation
(CLFN) Lands Committee (2019) indicated that the number of off-
Reserve responses was typical based on previous studies conducted
with the community. By category, 51.9% of responses were from 35% of
the members living on-Reserve; 44.2% of the responses were from
approximately 40% of the members living within a CP household
(331),
32
and 48.1% of responses were from 65% of the membership
living off-Reserve. Analysis of the study by household population data
22
Based on the November 3, 2019 dataset for Curve Lake First Nation, by
Natural Resources Canada.
23
96% of leases are occupied by non-members; 4% of leases are occupied by
CLFN members, three of which are seasonal (cottages), and six of which are
year-round (homes).
24
According to the CLFN Lands Manager, land-use by-laws will be difcult to
enforce.
25
According to the CLFN land-use study 2019, and the CLFN comprehensive
community plan 2009 (CCP, 2009)
26
CLFN Lands Manager, discussion on the use of land.
27
CLFN Lands Committee on what by-laws or policies exist regarding land-
use.
28
Appendix B outlines 27 of 52 questions asked in the land-use survey. The
remaining questions were about individual information not made available.
29
CLFN Lands Committee (2019) consisted of 10 members, consisting of CP,
and non-CP holders, on- and off-Reserve members, younger to older adults
(Elder), Council member & Lands Manager
30
University of Waterloo, Ofce of Research Ethics, https://uwaterloo.ca/rese
arch/office-research-ethics
31
SurveyMonkey is a cloud based on-line survey software, surveymonkey.com
32
40% of membership living within CP held dwellings is based on the number
of members (2177), the Statistics Canada (2016) average of 2.3 persons per
household at CLFN, and the number of CP households (331). This number may
be a bit high based on the CCP (2009) (e.g., 35%), that indicates 65% of
members would rely on non-family members for on-Reserve CP housing.
R.A. Fligg et al.

Land Use Policy 112 (2022) 105786
6
(24% on-Reserve
33
), at the 95% condence level, revealed an approxi-
mate margin of error of 9%, which is acceptable for an exploratory study
(Valliant et al., 2013; Litter, 2015). The CLFN Lands Committee
34
regarded the number of respondents as excellent relative to previous
surveys which support the validity of this analysis.
The land-use survey was composed of two sections of questions. The
rst section, comprising 27 questions (Appendix B), focused on land
management - land-use planning, land tenure and socio-economic
development. The second section, comprising 25 questions, elicited in-
formation about other land-related aspects such as services (e.g., wells)
for the lands Committee, and were excluded from our analysis.
Summary statistics associated with the 27 relevant questions (Ap-
pendix A) identied the following 10 key ndings about CLFN members
“wants and needs” about land management:
1. 88% (of respondents) desired more community land
2. 84% were not familiar with land-use policies
3. 81% desired land-use zoning as part of land-use planning
4. 76% were unaware of the CLFN land management system
5. 66% indicated a need for leasing restrictions
6. 64% were not happy with the leasing system
7. 64% were unaware of the Canada Lands Survey System
8. 59% desired more protected areas (30% were unsure of the
situation)
9. 44% were unaware ISC maintains a system of land title regis-
tration, i.e., the Indian lands registry system (ILRS)
10. 42% were unaware of the differences between title to land on-
and off-Reserve
The high proportion of respondents associated with key ndings 1, 2,
3, and 4 suggest agreement among members about land-use planning.
Fig. 2. a) CP held lands comprise about 70% of the Reserve on the peninsula (shown in brown). The open areas within the Reserve boundary (shown in a heavy
purple line) are band lands. b) The leased lands are shown as the shaded parcels and outlined by 7 ovals (about 10% of the Reserve on the peninsula). Source – the
Base Map ©OpenStreetMap contributors. Parcel data is from the Government of Canada, Indian Lands Registry System (ILRS) and electronic Registry Index Plan
(eRIP) maintained by Indigenous Services Canada.
33
The number of on-Reserve households is 331, which agrees with the 2.3
persons per household, StatsCan (2016). Therefore, respondents are approxi-
mately 24% of the Reserve households, and using 77%, of the approximate
adult being 591 (or 14%) of the 768 on-Reserve member population, and for
off-Reserve, using 77% of the adult member being 1085 (or approximately 7%)
and using 2.3 persons per household it is approximately 613 or 12%.
34
supra note 32
R.A. Fligg et al.

Land Use Policy 112 (2022) 105786
7
Fewer members agreed about land-tenure components as demonstrated
with key ndings 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10. The signicance of these ndings
provide an indication as to what areas all members were more or less in
agreement.
6. Statistical analysis
To assess any correlation between members’ connect/disconnect
with formal/informal land-use practices, survey responses were divided
into four CFLN membership categories: 1) CP holders (44.2% of re-
spondents), 2) those who do not hold land or are non-CP holders (55.8%
of respondents), 3) members living on-Reserve (51.9% of respondents),
and 4) members living off-Reserve (48.1% of respondents) (Appendix
B). A Chi-squared analysis was used to determine if signicant differ-
ences existed among these membership categories across 19 responses
(of the 27 lands questions) that were a categorical or binary response (e.
g., yes, no, and where applicable - unsure) (Tables 3 and 4). While
thresholds and the role of p-values differ by research domain (Andrade,
2019), we used an alpha value of 0.05 to provide an objective threshold
to identify whether substantial differences existed between responses
from different membership categories.
When survey responses were not categorical or binary (e.g., a rating
system or percent values), a Student’s t-test (2 tail, and alpha of 0.05)
was used (4 of the 27 responses, Appendix D). The Student’s t-Test
compared the t-statistic value (t-stat) with the t-critical value (t-crit) on
the rating or average information. If the t-stat value was less than the t-
crit value (at alpha 0.05), then there was no signicant difference
(suggesting no disconnect) between the averages of the data being
tested. The Chi-square and Student’s t-test used 23 of the 27 land related
responses. The four responses (of the 27 relevant questions) not used
were either supplemental to a previous question, or could not be tested.
A regression analysis was also conducted and various matrices of the
correlation coefcients of the survey results tested, which corroborated
the presented ndings.
35
6.1. CP holders versus non-CP holders
In our comparison of CP and non-CP holders, a disconnect was found
in 10 of 19 questions, which included awareness and knowledge of
Table 2
Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) adapted from Hartwig et al.
(2006).
Research Objective
Full participation of the community to identify
issues of greatest importance, e.g., input from
town hall meetings, social gatherings,
committees, Council.
Study Design
Community representative involved with the
land-use survey, e.g., Lands Manager, Lands
Committee, and various other committees.
Recruitment & Retention
Community representatives provided guidance
on recruitment and retention strategies and
aided in recruitment efforts, e.g., via social
media, town hall meetings, and committees.
Instrument Design (e.g., surveys,
questionnaires, interviews)
Instruments were developed and tested with
community input, e.g., land-use survey/
questionnaire using SurveyMonkey and face to
face options.
Intervention Design
Community members helped guide
intervention development, e.g., the land-use
survey as a guide for land-use planning and
policies.
Analysis and Interpretation
Data was shared; Lands Committee,
community members and researchers worked
together to interpret results
Dissemination
Community assisted researchers to identify
appropriate venues to disseminate results;
community members involved in
dissemination; results were also published in a
peer-reviewed journal.
Table 3
Disconnect Table: Chi-square results (p values) for CP members (land holders)
versus non-CP members (non-land holders), and for on-Reserve versus off-
Reserve members. The threshold for disconnect is p values less than alpha
=0.05. The table indicates that survey questions (Appendix B), 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10
and 11, had a disconnect for both CP/non-CP members, and for on/off-Reserve
members. Questions 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18 had differing results between member
types. Numbers 13, 15 and 16 had a disconnect in CP/non-CP members, whereas
questions 14 and 16 had a disconnect for on/off Reserve members. The differing
results are outlined in Appendix C.
Disconnect Test is statistically
different (or fails to reject) p
value <alpha 0.05
Survey
Question (
Appendix B)
Land Use Survey Question CP / non-CP
p value
On / off
Reserve p
value
Do you know the land
management regime (or land
governance system) that
Curve Lake First Nation is
managed under?
2.46E-20 2.38E-06 1
Should CLFN lands be managed
under a different land
management regime such as
the First Nations Land
Management Act (FNLM) or a
Self Government?
0.0080 0.0177 3
Are you familiar with CLFN’s
band administration policies
on land-use?
0.0099 9.35E-05 4
Do you know that the
Government of Canada,
Surveyor General Branch
(SGB) maintains the CLFN’s
survey records?
8.195E-05 0.0046 8
Do you know that the
Government of Canada,
Indigenous Services Canada
(formerly INAC) maintains
title information for CLFN, in
a system called the Indian
Lands Registry (ILR)?
8.63E-05 0.0026 9
Do you know what a certicate
of possession is? 1.81E-09 2.7E-08 10
Did you know that the Reserve
title system is different than
how title is held off Reserve?
e.g., fee simple vs. certicate
of possession?
0.00044 0.00445 11
Do you know that lessees pay
yearly service fees to CLFN? 0.0069
SeeTable 4
andAppendix
C
13
Are you in favour of a land-use
plan that designates land (e.
g, zoning) for different types
of land-uses, such as housing
(residential), business
(commercial), parks,
traditional use, and wildlife
habitats?
0.0331
SeeTable 4
andAppendix
C
15
Do you prefer individual houses
or apartment units, or both? 0.0176
SeeTable 4
andAppendix
C
16
Are there places within CLFN
territory that you think
leasing should not be
allowed?
SeeTable 4
andAppendix
C
0.0189 14
Do you think there are enough
protected wildlife habitats
within CLFN?
SeeTable 4
andAppendix
C
0.0005 18
35
The regression analysis was excluded to provide the simplest analysis for
comprehension by a wide audience of stakeholders and decision-makers.
R.A. Fligg et al.

Land Use Policy 112 (2022) 105786
8
CFLN’s land management regime, land-use policies, land-use planning
and leases (Table 3). Further, a disconnect about preferences for
different land uses and housing types (e.g., preference for houses or
apartments) also existed, which may have been partially driven by CP
holders having a higher preference for mixed housing, possibly for
business purposes (e.g., leasing).
No signicant difference (or no-disconnect) was found in 9 of 19
responses that favoured more land-use policy (on both CP and com-
munity lands), setting aside more traditional-use areas, acquiring more
land, increase of controls on protecting wildlife habitats and water-front
lands, and concerns about leasing (Table 4). Furthermore, there was no-
disconnect in how satised members were (using four satisfaction levels
tested and ranked in agreement from highest to lowest) in their standard
of living (51.1% sd 0.6), the current land management regime (46.5% sd
0.9), the current leasehold system (35.6% sd 1.8), and the quality and
availability of housing (32.9 sd 1.5) (Appendix D).
The overall outcome of the analysis suggests that there is no-
disconnect between CP/non-CP holders on the need for formal land-
use policy. However, there is a disconnect between CP/non-CP holders
in their knowledge and awareness of land management and land-use
policies, and to a lesser extent in their knowledge and awareness
about housing.
6.2. Members living on-Reserve versus off-Reserve
The same 23 responses were tested (19 by Chi-square, and 4 by
Student’s t-test) for differences between CLFN members living on- and
off-Reserve and then related to results from CP and non-CP holder
comparisons. A disconnect was found in 9 of 19 responses, 7 of which
are the same for CP and non-CP holders, which included awareness and
knowledge of CFLN’s land management regime, land-use policies, and
leases (Table 3). The two responses that were different from CP and non-
CP holders were found in responses about lease areas and wildlife
habitats with a disconnect among members living on- and off-Reserve.
No signicant difference (or no-disconnect) was found in 10 of the 19
responses, 7 of which are the same for CP and non-CP holders, that
favoured more land-use policy (on both CP and community lands), and
setting aside or acquiring more land for traditional land-use areas and
business, increase of controls on protecting wildlife habitats and water-
front lands (Table 4). The three response that were different than the CP
and non-CP holders were found in responses on the desire for land use
planning, preference in housing types, and knowledge about leases.
The 19 Chi-square test results (Tables 3 and 4) indicated that 14 of
the responses (between members living on and off-Reserve, and between
CP, non-CP holders) did not change in disconnect and no-disconnect. Of
the ve responses that had differing results, four of the responses had p
values close to the threshold of alpha 0.05 (Appendix C). The signi-
cance of these ve results suggests uncertainty in knowledge base about
land-use policy, planning, and leasing among all member types.
The Student’s t-test (on the four satisfaction levels in the standard of
living, the current land management, the current leasehold system, and
the quality and availability of housing) produced the same results as for
CP and non-CP holders, or no-disconnect (Appendix D).
7. Discussion
Our land-use survey analysis found areas of disconnect/no-
disconnect among CP and non-CP holders, and on- and off-Reserve
members in land management, land-use and policy, and land tenure.
Chi-square results indicated no-disconnect among all members on the
vision about their land, and on the need for sustainable land-use and
effective land management. While, the Student’s t-test indicated no-
disconnect between member types (CP and non-CP holders, and on-
and off-Reserve members) we also found no-disconnect among low
levels of satisfaction (less the 50%) on: 1) the general condition,
availability and suitability of housing (32.8%), 2) the leasehold system
(36.0%), 3) the current land management regime (46.6%), and 4) an
average score on the overall quality of living (51.3%).
Overall, the results suggest a correlation between how connected
members were (i.e., no-disconnect) and formality (members prefer to
know what should happen on the ground) in land management because
they have a similar vision for the future of their land. Complementing
Table 4
No disconnect table: Chi-square results (p values) for CP members (land holders)
versus non-CP members (non-land holders), and for on-Reserve versus off-
Reserve members. The threshold for no- disconnect is p values greater than
alpha =0.05. The table indicates that for survey questions (Appendix B) 5, 6, 17,
19, 20, 23 and 24 there is no-disconnect for both CP/non-CP members, and for
on/off-Reserve members. Questions 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18 had differing results
between member types. Numbers 13, 15, and 16 had no-disconnect in on/off-
Reserve members, whereas questions 14 and 18 had no-disconnect for CP/
non-CP members. The differing results are outlined in Appendix C.
No disconnect Test is not
statistically different (or does
not fail to reject) p value
>alpha 0.05
Survey
Question (
Appendix B)
Land Use Survey Question CP / non-CP
P values
On / off-
Reserve P
values
Do you think CLFN should have
more or less policy on the use
of community or band land?
0.1294 0.8193 5
Do you think CLFN should have
more or less policy on what
you can do on "private"
reserve land? (CP)
0.3959 0.1660 6
Do you think there are enough
traditional land use areas in
the community?
0.1310 0.2448 17
Do you think there are enough
areas for business in CLFN? e.
g., gas stations, banks, stores,
etc?
0.2247 0.1664 19
Would you be in favour of CLFN
acquiring more land for
community use?
0.3411 0.5158 20
Do you think more controls
should be put in place on CP
held lands for environmental
protection? e.g., Wildlife
habitats, wetland protection,
pollution controls.
0.8664 0.2653 23
Do you think more
environmental controls
should be put in place for the
waterfront areas. e.g.,
landscaping, swamp and
marsh protection?
0.7779 0.7216 24
Are there places within CLFN
territory that you think
leasing should not be
allowed?
0.4960
SeeTable 3
andAppendix
C
14
Do you think there are enough
protected wildlife habitats
within CLFN?
0.0938
SeeTable 3
andAppendix
C
18
Do you know that lessees pay
yearly service fees to CLFN?
SeeTable 3
andAppendix
C
0.0600 13
Are you in favour of a land-use
plan that designates land (e.
g., zoning) for different types
of land-uses, such as housing
(residential), business
(commercial), parks,
traditional use, and wildlife
habitats?
SeeTable 3
andAppendix
C
0.1800 15
Do you prefer individual houses
or apartment units, or both?
SeeTable 3
andAppendix
C
0.2403 16
R.A. Fligg et al.

Land Use Policy 112 (2022) 105786
9
this nding, our results suggest a correlation between member discon-
nect and informality (i.e., land-use practices not sanctioned by the First
Nation government) in land management, whereby the non-CP holders
and off-Reserve members have a higher level of uncertainty about
community accepted or sanctioned land-use practices on the Reserve.
Analysis of member disconnect indicates a gap in the knowledge
base, whereby CP holders and members living on the Reserve were more
knowledgeable than non-CP holders and members living off-Reserve
(Appendix B). However, all respondents had similar views about the
need for land-use planning, including land-use policy. The signicance
of this nding suggests the rationale for their desire for planning and
policy might not be supported by their knowledge about land manage-
ment and formal land-use policy, or their knowledge about the formal
property rights system (such as the Indian Lands Registry System (ILRS)
and Canada Lands Survey System (CLSS)). Rather the rationale is sup-
ported by the 2019 land use survey and the CCP (2009) that revealed a
desire for land-use in accordance with informal First Nation customs and
community values; a rationale based on CLFN’s vision for effective and
sustainable land-use.
The analysis indicates a need to enhance members’ knowledge
awareness of land management, in general, and a specic need to close
the knowledge gap for non-CP holders and off-Reserve members. This
nding is obfuscated by the signicant number of non-CP holders who
live on-Reserve and by the number of CP holders who live off-Reserve.
36
When viewed from an off-Reserve perspective, provincial lands are
under a formal system of land management, including land-use plan-
ning, and land-tenure, and consultation practices are found in provincial
municipalities (Selwyn Township Community Consultation Policy,
2019). The signicance of these results is Reserve lands are managed
differently (as outlined in Sectioned 2) than off-Reserve lands. This
difference extends to how land is possessed/held (e.g. CP’s), how lands
are leased, and how lands are developed. Empirical information on land
matters is signicant to understanding Reserve members “wants and
needs” and to allowing all members be “on the same page”. These
ndings will assist Chief and Council, and the community, in deter-
mining why land-use planning such as enacting policy is difcult (or
perceived to be difcult) and will assist in mitigating the issues (Millette,
2011; Prusak et al., 2016). This land-use study is a signicant step to-
wards a land-use plan at CLFN, designed with an ethnographic vision of
the community (Prusak et al., 2016).
The fact that there is informality within land management (what
actually happens on the ground, Table 1) clouds the “wants and needs”
of the members and being “on the same page” where all members (CP/
non-CP holders, or members living on- and -off-Reserve) are entitled to
an opinion. The disconnect among members (i.e., in knowledge base)
presents uncertainty on how CLFN land may be used (e.g., what are the
informal land-use practices) and on whether informal land-use prac-
tices are perceived as being formal (i.e., sanctioned by ofcials and
administrators).
8. Conclusions
The Community-Based Participatory Research approach requires not
only consultation with the community on what is taking place on the
ground and on their knowledge base, but also requires understanding the
ethnographic reasons for how land is being used and for the land man-
agement dynamic (as outlined in Section 3 for Curve Lake First Nation).
Although the matrix of land management (outlined in Section 2)
assists in our understanding on what is meant by informality and for-
mality as applied to CLFN lands, this article focused on the relationship
of informal and formal land management by member types. How the
informal/formal matrix of land management applies to CLFN land-use
and management will be explored in a subsequent paper.
37
Disconnect by both member types (CP/non-CP members and on/off-
Reserve members) was found in 10 of the 19 responses tested by Chi-
square that required knowledge on land management regimes, land
tenure, and land-use policy. Despite this disconnect, a positive conclu-
sion is that respondents agreed (or had no-disconnect) about their vision
for sustainable land-use practices, with over 80% of respondents in
favour of a formal system that would be specic to Curve Lake First
Nation. Formal systems have proven to better levels of community well-
being (CWB)
38
(Aubin, 1996; Brinkhurst, 2013; Fligg and Robinson,
2019). Across 169 First Nation communities in Ontario and British
Columbia (BC) there was a positive relationship between formality and
CWB – a 10% increase in formal housing led to CWB increases of 0.83
points for Ontario communities and 0.9 points for BC communities
(Ballantyne and Ballantyne, 2016). Viewed through a lens of economic
theory, formality increases investment incentives, lowers transactions
costs, increases bargaining efciency, internalizes negative external-
ities, and increases economic efciency. From a land use planning
perspective, formality promotes orderly development and sustainable
land-use practices.
Further work identied from the results of the land-use study at
CLFN includes:
1. Investigating informal practices (e.g., what is taking place), formal
systems (e.g., what should take place according to CLFN, RLEMP land
management regime), and what practices are in line with CLFN cus-
toms and traditions, and situating these ndings in the matrix of land
management for communication with CLFN and other First Nations.
2. Increasing member knowledge about land management and nar-
rowing the disconnect in knowledge between non-CP holders and CP
holders, and between on-Reserve members and off-Reserve members.
3. Reducing the uncertainty and describing the benets of a formal
system that incorporates CLFN land values and land-use practices.
4. Addressing the lack of capacity (e.g., resources, trained staff, and
funding) to implement formal land-use policies or by-laws.
The challenges for CLFN to move to a more formal system will likely
be mitigated if informal practices (based on a community vision) are
incorporated into a formal system that is embraced by the community.
Future research on land management at Curve Lake First Nation in-
cludes: exploring a land management regime that embraces the “wants
and needs” of members, based on customary land values and vision; and
exploring a land-use plan that formalizes those informal land-use practices
that are condoned by the First Nation administration and the community.
As of July 2021, these results are being considered by the Curve
Lake First Nation Lands and Environment Committee so as to inform
an action plan.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Robert A. Fligg: Original draft preparation, Writing, Conceptuali-
zation, Data curation, Methodology, Analysis, Discussion & Conclusions,
Brian Ballantyne: Writing - Contribution, Reviewing and Editing,
Derek T Robinson: Writing - Contribution, Reviewing and Editing.
Acknowledgement
We acknowledge the encouragement and support of Alison Irons-
36
While the number of non-CP members that live on the Reserve has not been
determined, 65% of members are non-CP holders and 35% of all members (768
of 2177) live on-Reserve (CCP, 2009).
37
For example, to what extent do land use practices degrade the riparian
zone?
38
CWB index is a measure of socio-economic well-being or development,
which aggregates information related to Income, Education, Housing, and La-
bour Force Activity (ISC, 2019).
R.A. Fligg et al.

Land Use Policy 112 (2022) 105786
10
Cummings, Lands Manager (during the research) at Curve Lake First
Nation (CLFN), without whom the research could not have happened.
We are grateful for the support and assistance of the CLFN Chief and
Council, Lands Committee, and the contribution of the 160 CLFN com-
munity members who provided feedback. Our hope is that the research
helps the CLFN community to manage its lands. We would like to thank
with gratitude the anonymous reviewers, for their time and insight
which improved the quality of the paper. The lead author would also like
to thank with gratitude the nancial support of Natural Resources
Canada (NRCan) and Petro Buster Inc.
Appendix A. Summary of the Land Use Survey
This table is organized by policy on land-use on the left, and systems of land management and property rights on the right. The 10 key nding in
Section 5 are based on the summary results of the land use survey outlined in this table.
Policy on land-use
Systems of land
management and
property rights
Land use
1. 84% indicated they are not familiar with land-
use policy.
2. 56% would like to see more policy on
community land (26% no change).
3. 46% would like see more policy on CP land
(28% no change); whereas,
4. 55% would like to see more policy on
traditional lands, (30% unsure).
5. 38% vs 35% (yes vs no, respectively) regarding
more Reserve land used for business.
Land Tenure system 1. 66% are aware of what a CP is.
2. 58% are aware of differences in on-off Reserve land tenure system.
Addition lands
bought by CLFN
1. 75% would prefer additional lands be used for
both private and community purposes, however,
2. 88% indicated a need for more community
land.
3. 83% indicated that additional land be added to
the Reserve (not leave in the Provincial system as
fee simple land).
Land registry system 1. 56% are aware the government (ISC) manages the Reserve land
registration system (ILRS).
Environmental
protection
1. 59% indicated there are not enough protected
areas (30% unsure).
2. 79% indicated generally, more environmental
protections are needed, and,
3. 79% indicated more protection of waterfront
areas.
Leasing system 1. 36% are satised with the current leasing system.
housing
1. 63% would like housing more than 50 ft apart.
2. 65% indicated both types of housing, houses
and apartments
Land management system
at CLFN (IALM, RLEMP)
1. 76% are unaware of the LM system type and need more info.
2. Approximately 50% are satised with the current system, with 59%
not sure about changing and need more information (e.g., about FNLM,
SGLM) followed by yes/no (28% / 13%) for change.
leasing
1. 73% are aware there are fees.
2. 66% indicated there should be restrictions on
leasing areas
Survey system 1. 64% are unaware of the system (Canada Lands Survey System)
2. 24% are satised, and 66% neutral or uncertain.
Planning (both policy
and system) 1. 81% indicated yes to zoning (including 52 comments indicating land-use planning and policy is needed within the system of land management)
Appendix B. Land Use Survey
Summary of the 2019 CLFN land-use survey of 156 respondents that summarizes 27 of 52 questions that pertain to land-use policy, land man-
agement and socio-economic development. The information in the table is categorized by CP and non-CP owner, and by on-Reserve and off-Reserve
members. Green shading (in the rst column, 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 & 11) indicates disconnect by both member types (CP/non-CP & on/off Reserve
members) (Table 3). Grey (2, 5, 6, 12, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26 & 27) indicates no-disconnect by both member types (Table 4, and Appendix D) and blue
(13, 14, 15, 16 & 18) indicates a difference by member type (Appendix C). Non-shaded responses (7, 21, 22 & 25) were not used in the Chi-square and
Student’s t-test.
R.A. Fligg et al.

Land Use Policy 112 (2022) 105786
11
Land-Use Study Question Question type All CP
(69)
CP
Reserve
(59)
CP off
Reserve
(10)
non
CP
(87)
non CP
Reserve
(22)
non CP &
off
Reserve
(65)
on
Reserve
(81)
off
Reserve
(75)
on
Reserve
%
off
Reserve
%
1
Do you know the land
management regime (or
land governance system)
that Curve Lake First Nation
is managed under?
Yes 31 29 2 8 4 4 33 6 21.2 3.8
No 38 30 8 79 18 61 48 69 30.8 44.2
2
How satised are you with
CLFN’s current land
management system?
percent 47.43 48.40 41.22 45.60 46.00 45.45 47.20 43.34
3
Should CLFN lands be
managed under a different
land management regime
such as the First Nation
Land Management Act
(FNLM) or a Self
Government?
Yes 25 22 3 20 2 18 24 21 15.4 13.5
No 13 12 1 7 4 3 16 4 10.3 2.6
Unsure 31 25 6 60 16 44 41 50 26.3 32.1
4
Are you familiar with
CLFN’s band administration
policies on land-use?
Yes 17 16 1 8 6 2 22 3 14.1 1.9
No 52 43 9 78 16 62 59 71 37.8 45.5
5
Do you think CLFN should
have more or less policy on
the use of community or
band land?
More 42 33 9 38 8 31 41 40 26.3 25.6
Less 9 9 16 5 12 14 12 9.0 7.7
No change 13 13 24 8 16 21 16 13.5 10.3
6
Do you think CLFN should
have more or less policy on
what you can do on
"private" Reserve land? (CP)
More 32 27 5 37 9 29 36 34 23.1 21.8
Less 14 11 3 26 6 20 17 23 10.9 14.7
No change 20 19 1 21 7 14 26 15 16.7 9.6
No 0 0 87 22 65 22 65 14.1 41.7
7
How satised are you with
the current land survey
system?
Very satised 5 5 0 5 3 2 8 2 5.1 1.3
Satised 18 16 2 10 4 6 20 8 12.8 5.1
Neither
satised nor
dissatised
26 21 5 43 9 34 30 39 19.2 25.0
Dissatised 9 8 1 4 1 3 9 4 5.8 2.6
Very
dissatised 2 2 0 1 0 1 2 1 1.3 0.6
Unsure 9 7 2 24 5 19 12 21 7.7 13.5
8
Did you know that the
Government of Canada,
Surveyor General Branch
(SGB) maintains the CLFN’s
survey records?
Yes 36 31 5 19 6 13 37 18 23.7 11.5
No 33 28 5 68 16 52 44 57 28.2 36.5
9
Did you know that the
Government of Canada,
Indigenous Services Canada
(formerly INAC) maintains
title information for CLFN,
in a system called the Indian
Lands Registry (ILR)?
Yes 51 44 7 37 11 26 55 33 35.3 21.2
No 18 15 3 50 11 39 26 42 16.7 26.9
10 Do you know what a
certicate of possession is? Yes 63 55 8 39 14 25 69 33 44.2 21.2
No 6 4 2 47 7 40 11 42 7.1 26.9
11
Did you know that the
Reserve title system is
different than how title is
held off Reserve? E.g. fee
simple vs. certicate of
possession?
Yes 51 46 5 40 10 30 56 35 35.9 22.4
No 18 13 5 47 12 35 25 40 16.0 25.6
12 Are you satised with the
current leasehold system? percent 33.79 33.91 33.1 37.48 40.57 36.45 37.24 34.78
13 Yes 58 50 8 55 14 42 64 50 41.0 32.1
(continued on next page)
R.A. Fligg et al.

Land Use Policy 112 (2022) 105786
12
(continued)
Land-Use Study Question Question type All CP
(69)
CP
Reserve
(59)
CP off
Reserve
(10)
non
CP
(87)
non CP
Reserve
(22)
non CP &
off
Reserve
(65)
on
Reserve
(81)
off
Reserve
(75)
on
Reserve
%
off
Reserve
%
Did you know that lessees
pay yearly service fees to
CLFN?
No 11 9 2 30 7 23 16 25 10.3 16.0
14
Are there places within
CLFN territory that you
think leasing should not be
allowed?
Yes 46 43 3 50 15 35 58 38 37.2 24.4
No 21 14 7 29 6 23 20 30 12.8 19.2
15
Are you in favour of a land-
use plan that designates
land (e.g, zoning) for
different types of land-uses,
such as housing
(residential), business
(commercial), parks,
traditional use, and wildlife
habitats?
Yes 55 47 8 70 16 54 63 62 40.4 39.7
No 8 7 1 2 1 1 8 2 5.1 1.3
Unsure 6 5 1 14 5 10 10 11 6.4 7.1
16
Do you prefer individual
houses or apartment units,
or both?
Individual
houses 15 14 1 35 10 25 24 26 15.4 16.7
Apartments 1 1 0 4 0 4 1 4 0.6 2.6
Both 53 44 9 48 12 36 56 45 35.9 28.8
17
Do you think there are
enough traditional land use
areas in the community?
Yes 10 10 0 13 4 9 14 9 9.0 5.8
No 44 36 8 41 11 30 47 38 30.1 24.4
unsure 15 13 2 30 6 24 19 26 12.2 16.7
18
Do you think there are
enough protected wildlife
habitats within CLFN?
Yes 13 13 0 8 3 5 16 5 10.3 3.2
No 40 34 6 47 14 30 48 36 30.8 23.1
unsure 16 12 4 31 2 29 14 33 9.0 21.2
19
Do you think there are
enough areas for business in
CLFN? E.g. gas stations,
banks, stores, etc?
Yes 25 20 5 33 13 20 33 25 21.2 16.0
No 28 24 4 26 6 20 30 24 19.2 15.4
Unsure 14 13 1 27 3 24 16 25 10.3 16.0
20
Would you be in favour of
CLFN acquiring more land
for community use?
Yes 61 51 10 74 20 54 71 64 45.5 41.0
No 6 6 0 12 2 10 8 10 5.1 6.4
21
If you answered yes to the
above question, would you
be in favour of adding that
land to Reserve status?
Yes 61 51 10 66 16 50 67 60 42.9 38.5
No 2 2 0 5 1 4 3 4 1.9 2.6
Unsure 4 4 0 14 3 11 7 11 4.5 7.1
22
If CLFN acquired more land,
should that be for
community use or private
use (CP) or both?
Private Use
(CP) 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 1.3 1.3
Community
Use 10 10 0 16 7 9 17 9 10.9 5.8
Both 54 44 10 63 15 48 59 58 37.8 37.2
Unsure 2 3 0 6 0 6 3 6 1.9 3.8
23
Do you think more controls
should be put in place on CP
held lands for
environmental protection?
E.g. Wildlife habitats,
wetland protection,
pollution controls.
Yes 52 45 7 66 18 48 63 55 40.4 35.3
No 14 11 3 19 3 16 14 19 9.0 12.2
24
Do you think more
environmental controls
should be put in place for
the waterfront areas. E.g.
landscaping, swamp and
marsh protection?
Yes 54 45 9 70 19 51 64 60 41.0 38.5
(continued on next page)
R.A. Fligg et al.

Land Use Policy 112 (2022) 105786
13
(continued)
Land-Use Study Question Question type All CP
(69)
CP
Reserve
(59)
CP off
Reserve
(10)
non
CP
(87)
non CP
Reserve
(22)
non CP &
off
Reserve
(65)
on
Reserve
(81)
off
Reserve
(75)
on
Reserve
%
off
Reserve
%
No 5 4 1 4 4 4 5 2.6 3.2
Unsure 10 10 0 12 3 9 13 9 8.3 5.8
Off 10 0 10 65 0 65 0 75 0.0 48.1
25 What type of dwelling do
you live in ? House 66 57 9 75 22 53 79 62 50.6 39.7
Apartment or
Quad 3 2 1 12 12 2 13 1.3 8.3
Trailer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0
26
What would you say is the
overall quality of the
standard of living in Curve
Lake (i.e. level happiness
and well being in Curve
Lake)
percent 51.79 54.02 37.67 50.5 55.10 48.81 54.56 43.24
27
Rate what you consider is
the general condition,
availability and suitability
of housing on the Reserve.
percent 34.45 35.61 27.22 31.37 37.63 29.25 36.62 28.24
Appendix C. Differing results in disconnect / no-disconnect
This table summarizes the ve differing results shown in Tables 3 and 4 (survey questions 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18). The threshold for disconnect is p
values less than alpha =0.05 and for no-disconnect p values greater than alpha =0.05. Chi-square results (p values) for numbers 13, 15 and 16 -
indicate a signicant difference (disconnect) in CP/non-CP holders and no signicant difference (no-disconnect) for on/off Reserve members, and for
numbers 14 and 18 – show no signicant difference (no-disconnect) for CP/non-CP holders and signicant difference (disconnect) for on/off-Reserve
members.
CP / non-CP Holders p
value
On / off Reserve members
p value
Land Use Survey Question Disconnect p value
<0.05
No Disconnect p value
>0.05
Number 15. Are you in favour of a land-use plan that designates land (e.g., zoning) for different types of land-uses, such as
housing (residential), business (commercial), parks, traditional use, and wildlife habitats? 0.0331 0.1800
Number 13. Do you know that lessees pay yearly service fees to CLFN? 0.0069 0.0600
Number 16. Do you prefer individual houses or apartment units, or both? 0.0176 0.2403
No Disconnect p value
>0.05
Disconnect p value
<0.05
Number 14. Are there places within CLFN territory that you think leasing should not be allowed? 0.4960 0.0189
Number 18. Do you think there are enough protected wildlife habitats within CLFN? 0.0938 0.0005
Appendix D. Student’s t- test
CP and non-CP holder results are on the left and on/off-Reserve members results are on the right. The four questions in the land-use survey had a
rating out of 100 (See Appendix B – survey questions 2, 12, 26 and 27). The results indicate all four questions had no signicant difference (no-
disconnect). The threshold for no-disconnect was found when the t-statistic (t-stat) value was less than the t-critical (t-crit) value at alpha 0.05 (2 tail).
Land Use Survey Question
CP / non-CP Holders Student’s t- test (alpha
0.05) Average of
CP and Non-
CP in %
on-Reserve / off-Reserve member Student’s t-test
(alpha 0.05) Average of on
and off-
Reserve in %
Statistically
Different (t-stat is
less than t-crit)
CP
Average
in %
Non-CP
Average in
%
Statistically
Different (t-stat is
less than t-crit)
On-Reserve
Average in
%
Off-Reserve
Average in
%
No. 2 How satised are you with
CLFN’s current land management
system?
No 47.4 (sd
32.0)
45.6 (sd
23.4) 46.5 (sd 0.9) No 47.7 (sd
32.3)
44.9 (sd
20.4) 46.3 (sd 1.4)
No. 12 Are you satised with the
current leasehold system? No 33.8 (sd
27.1)
37.5 (sd
24.8 35.6 (sd 1.8) No 35.7 (sd
27.9)
36.0 (sd
23.1) 35.8 (sd 0.2)
No. 26 What would you say is the
overall quality of the standard of
living in Curve Lake (i.e., level of
No 51.8 (sd
25.1)
50.5 (sd
24.5) 51.1 (sd 0.6) No 54.3 (sd
27.2)
47.3 (sd
21.8) 50.8 (sd 3.5)
(continued on next page)
R.A. Fligg et al.

Land Use Policy 112 (2022) 105786
14
(continued)
Land Use Survey Question
CP / non-CP Holders Student’s t- test (alpha
0.05) Average of
CP and Non-
CP in %
on-Reserve / off-Reserve member Student’s t-test
(alpha 0.05) Average of on
and off-
Reserve in %
Statistically
Different (t-stat is
less than t-crit)
CP
Average
in %
Non-CP
Average in
%
Statistically
Different (t-stat is
less than t-crit)
On-Reserve
Average in
%
Off-Reserve
Average in
%
happiness and well being in Curve
Lake)?
No. 27 Rate what you consider is the
general condition, availability and
suitability of housing on the
Reserve.
No 34.4 (sd
22.8)
31.4 (sd
22.1) 32.9 (sd 1.5) No 36.1 (sd
24.2)
29.0 (sd
19.5) 32.5 (sd 3.6)
References
AFN, 2021. Honouring Earth, Assembly of First Nations, http://www.afn.ca/honorin
g-earth/.
Alcantara, C., 2010. Customary land rights on Canadian Indian Reserves. Chapter 5 in:
Flanagan, Alcantara & Le Dressay. Beyondthe Indian Act. pp 73-90.
Andrade, C., 2019. The P value and statistical signicance: misunderstandings,
explanations, challenges, and alternatives. Indian J. Psychol. Med. 41 (3), 210–215.
https://doi.org/10.4103/IJPSYM.IJPSYM_193_19.
Aubin (GwulSa’las), A., 1996. Economic Development for First Nations Peoples on
Vancouver Island. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont.
Baijius, W., Patrick, R.J., 2019. Planning around reserves: probing the inclusion of First
Nations in Saskatchewan’s watershed planning framework (https://). International
Indigenous Policy Journal 10 (5). https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2019.10.5.8502.
Ballantyne, B., 2007. Managing land information using Canadian exemplars and
cautions. Land management information systems in the knowledge economy.
UNECA 206–221.
Ballantyne, C., Ballantyne, B., 2016. The effect of informal property rights on First
Nations’ community well being. Geomatica 70 (3), 233–238. https://doi.org/
10.5623/cig2016-312.
Brinkhurst, M., 2013. Community Land Use Planning on First Nations Reserves and the
Inuence of Land Tenure. MRM Thesis. Simon Fraser University.
Castleden, H., Morgan, V.S., Lamb, C., 2012. “I spent the rst year drinking tea”:
exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community-based
participatory research involving Indigenous peoples. Can. Geogr. 56 (2), 160–179.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541–0064.2012.00432.x.
CLFN, 2019. Curve Lake First Nation, About Us, 〈https://www.curvelakerstnation.
ca/about-us/〉9checked 2020–05-230.
CCP, 2009. Paddles Up, Positioning the Curve Lake First Nation For Self-Directed Action,
The Curve Lake First Nation Comprehensive Community Plan, 2009, Crane
Aboriginal Management Services.
CMHC, 2021, Why are policies important, Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation
〈https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/professionals/industry-innovation-and-leade
rship/industry-expertise/affordable-housing/managing-affordable-housing/m
anage-affordable-housing-projects/policy-information/why-are-policies-important〉.
Cousins, B. & Claassens, A., 2006. More than simply socially embedded. Keynote address.
International Symposium: At the frontier of land issues. Montpellier, France. May
2006.
Ecotrust Canada, 2019. BC First Nations Land Use Planning Effective Practices, A Guide
prepared for the New Relationship Trust, 〈https://www.newrelationshiptrust.ca/wp
-content/uploads/2017/04/land-use-planning-report.pdf〉.
FAO, 2002. Why Land Tenure is Important, Land Tenure and Rural Development. Food
and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations,, Rome, p. 2002. Chapter 2.
Flanagan, T., Alcantara, C., LeDressay, A., 2010. Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring
Aboriginal Property Rights.. McGill Queen’s University Press.
Flanagan, T., Beauregard, K., 2013. The Wealth of First Nations: An Exploratory Study.
Fraser Institute,.
Fligg, R.A., 2019. Modelling Land-Use Change for Indigenous Socio-Economic
Development: Curve Lake First Nation, Canada, Annual World Bank Conference on
Land and Poverty, Washington DC, 2019.
Fligg, R.A., Robinson, D.T., 2019. Reviewing First Nation land management regimes in
Canada and exploring their relationship to community well-being. Land Use Policy
90, 104245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104245.
Hartwig K., Calleson D., Wallace M. 2006. Unit 1: Community-Based Participatory
Research: Getting Grounded. In: Developing and Sustaining Community-Based
Participatory Research Partnerships: A Skill-Building Curriculum, 〈https://ccph.
memberclicks.net/assets/Documents/PapersReports/cbprcurriculum.pdf〉.
ILG, 2010. Understanding the Basics of Land Use Planning, Institute for Local
Government, Sacramento, 〈https://www.ca-ilg.org/〉.
ISC, 2021. Leadership selection in First Nations, Indigenous Services Canada 〈htt
ps://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1323195944486/1565366893158〉New legislative
changes improve First Nations access to lands and nancial resources 〈https://www.
sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1544732060186/1544732109441〉.
ISC, 2020. Land Management, Indigenous Services Canada 〈https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/
eng/1587563382582/1587563402582〉.
ISC, 2019. The Community Well-being Index, Indigenous Services Canada 〈https://www.
sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1100100016579/1557319653695〉.
ISC, 2018. Registered Population by Sex and Residence 2016, Indigenous Services
Canada 〈https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1523286391452/1604600659875〉.
Knight, R.S., 2010. Statutory recognition of customary land rights in Africa. FAO,, Rome,
p. 2010.
Litter, S., 2015. The importance and Effect of Sample Size, Select Statistical Services 〈http
s://select-statistics.co.uk/blog/importance-effect-sample-size/〉.
Meinzen-Dick, R. & Pradham, R.P., 2002. Legal pluralism and dynamic property rights.
CAPRi Working Paper 22. 35pp. January 2002.
Millette, D.M., 2011. Land use planning on Aboriginal Lands- Towards a New Model for
Planning on reserve lands. Can. J. Urban Res. 20 (2), 20–35.
NALMA, 2020. What is Land Management, National Aboriginal Lands Managers
Association. 〈https://nalma.ca/about-land-management〉, 〈https://nalma.ca/〉.
OECD, 2017. The Governance of Land Use, Policy Highlights. The Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),.
OPPI, 2019. Indigenous Perspectives in Planning: Report of the Indigenous Planning
Perspectives Task Force. Ontario Professional Planners Institute,.
Prusak, S.Y., Walker, R., Innes, R., 2016. Toward Indigenous Planning? First Nation
Community Planning in Saskatchewan, Canada. Journal of Planning Education and
Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456×15621147.
Selwyn Township Community Consultation Policy, 2019. Community Consultation
Policy for Planning Applications, 〈https://www.selwyntownship.ca/en/townshi
p-hall/resources/Building__Planning/Community-Consultation-Policy-for-Planning
-Applications.pdf〉.
StatsCan, 2016, Census Prole, 2016 Census, Curve Lake First Nation 35, Indian reserve
[Census subdivision], Ontario and Ontario [Province] 〈https://www12.statcan.gc.ca
/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?B1=All&Code1=351501
9&Code2=35&Data=Count&Geo1=CSD&Geo2=PR&Lang=E&SearchPR=01&Sear
chText=Curve+Lake+First+Nation+35&SearchType=Begins&TABID=1〉.
Valliant, R., Dever, J.A., Kreuter, F., 2013. Practical Tools for Designing and Weighting
Survey Samples. Springer,. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6449-5.
Whetung-Derrick, M., 1976. History of the Ojibwa of the Curve Lake Reserve and
Surrounding Area, Volume 2, Social and Cultural History.
R.A. Fligg et al.