Advancing Integrated Modelling of Water Resources with Indigenous Expertise

Abstract

Indigenous Peoples possess valuable insights for cultivating sustainable relationships between people and water. However, achieving sustainable water solutions through collaboration between hydrologists and Indigenous partners is impeded by divergences in their worldviews. To bridge this gap, we describe a process of "braiding" expertise to enhance "integrated modelling", acknowledged for providing holistic decision support for water resources management through the power of coupled models, yet falling short in representing Indigenous knowledge, which is unique in right and measure. We base our arguments on lessons learned from collaborating with people of First Nation and Métis backgrounds residing within the Saskatchewan River Delta, Canada. We set goals and outline potential pathways for braiding across four essential areas: data, code of conduct, agenda, and water valuation, critical for advancing the responsible, collaborative decolonization of hydrology and fostering a deeper understanding of natural systems and their sustainable management.

Full text

ALLYING HYDROLOGY WITH INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE – DUFFY, A. ET AL.
1
Advancing Integrated Modelling of Water Resources
with Indigenous Expertise
Ashleigh Duffy1, Saman Razavi1,2,3*, Ana-Pietje Du Plessis4, Carl Gutwin4, Timothy Jardine2,5,
Graham E. Strickert1,2, Ehsan Nabavi6, Howard Wheater7
1 Global Institute for Water Security, University of Saskatchewan, 11 Innovation
Blvd, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 3H5
2 School of Environment and Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan, Kirk
Hall, 117 Science Place, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, S7N 5C8
3 Institute for Water Futures, Mathematical Sciences Institute, The Austrlaian
National University, Canberra ACT 2600, Australia
4 Department of Computer Science, University of Saskatchewan, 110 Science
Place, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, S7N 5C9
5 Department of Toxicology, University of Saskatchewan, 44 Campus Drive,
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, S7N 5B3
6 Responsible Innovation Lab, Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness
of Science, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT 2600, Australia
7 National Hydrology Research Centre, University of Saskatchewan, 11 Innovation
Blvd, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada; & Imperial College London at
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Skempton Building, South
Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ
*Correspondence to:
Global Institute for Water Security, University of Saskatchewan
11 Innovation Boulevard, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 3H5
Primary: saman.razavi@usask.ca; Secondary: ashleigh.duffy@usask.ca

ABSTRACT
Indigenous Peoples possess valuable insights for cultivating sustainable relationships between
people and water. However, achieving sustainable water solutions through collaboration between
hydrologists and Indigenous partners is impeded by divergences in their worldviews. To bridge
this gap, we describe a process of “braiding” expertise to enhance “integrated modelling”,
acknowledged for providing holistic decision support for water resources management through
the power of coupled models, yet falling short in representing Indigenous knowledge, which is
unique in right and measure. We base our arguments on lessons learned from collaborating with
people of First Nation and Métis backgrounds residing within the Saskatchewan River Delta,
Canada. We set goals and outline potential pathways for braiding across four essential areas:
data, code of conduct, agenda, and water valuation, critical for advancing the responsible,
collaborative decolonization of hydrology and fostering a deeper understanding of natural
systems and their sustainable management.
Key Words: Integrated Modelling, Knowledge Braiding, Saskatchewan River Delta, Traditional
Ecological Knowledge, Water Resources Management

1. INTRODUCTION
The field of hydrology is expanding, embracing greater interdisciplinarity to address the
demands of complex societies and the challenges posed by changing climates. Just as water
issues become increasingly wicked, practices taught by Western institutions –originally designed
to propel European colonial industry—are falling short of answers. Thus, to find answers, the
field of hydrology must advance beyond the narrow halls of Western institutions. For this reason,
hydrology researchers and practitioners in post-colonial contexts such as the Americas, Australia
Africa, and New Zealand are expected to “decolonize” their work. Specifically, they are being
tasked with co-producing knowledge and improving their engagement with Indigenous peoples.
A growing number of agencies are allocating funds to incentivize such efforts (Canada, ECC,
2023; FNIGC, 2023; G. of A., 2023; Hebart-Coleman, 2023) and although initiatives are often
localized, decolonization of water resources has global implications (Martin-Ortega, 2023;
Neville & Coulthard, 2019; Sidik, 2022). These incentives are driven by noble intentions, but
engaging in an impactful way involves a substantial commitment to relationship building over
long periods of time. Progress has been made in many areas of community-engaged research, but
there is a danger that mere auxiliary involvement of social scientists carries an air of duplicity
and tokenism in Indigenous settings.
Superficial recognition of local knowledge and limited access to information have pushed
Indigenous communities to seek accountability and agency (Galloway, 2017; Andrews et al.,
2018; Pearce, 2021; Mohammadiazar, 2022). The modern world expects respectful engagement
of Indigenous partners, but Western institutions can do more to recognize the merit of other
knowledge systems. Specifically, Indigenous connections to water are being increasingly
recognized as uniquely capable of monitoring and enhancing water health and vitality (Martin et

al., 2010; Baltutis et al., 2012; Behailu et al., 2016; Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2017). Socio-ecology
has led a movement to bridging the gap between Western science and Indigenous knowledge
(e.g. Abu et al., 2019), but many hydrologists face a divide between the ethical -and legal-
imperative to engage with Indigenous peoples and current practice that is still rooted in colonial
notions of expertise. Across this divide, however, lies great potential for change and
advancement, especially under conditions of climate change (Miner et al., 2023).
1.1 Pooling Expertise
In this era of climate extremes and water crises, complex problems require a pooling of
resources and expertise. For decades, water scientists have been looking for synergy between
various disciplines through the lenses of Integrated Water Resources Management (Agarwal,
2000), Integrated Assessment (Letcher et al., 2007; Seitz et al., 2011), and other ways of
"knowing water" through concepts of Water Security (Gerlach & Mukhtorov, 2015). Each lens
progresses toward a holistic and sustainable approach to managing water resources and
informing decision-making, balancing social, economic, and environmental needs. Central to
many of these efforts has been Integrated Modelling (IM), which combines data, analytics,
models, and knowledge-user input from diverse disciplines to gain a comprehensive
understanding of complex systems and interactions (Hamilton et al., 2015; van Beek et al., 2020;
Eamen et al., 2021). Despite these advances, an over-compartmentalization of water resources
often persists within these Western approaches, which commonly separate surface water,
groundwater, or water quality from the broader ecosystem and social contexts that are woven
deep within colonial education systems, as illuminated by social movements for the self-
determination for Indigenous Peoples (Leonard et al. 2023). Recent confrontation of colonial
legacies offers an opportunity to revise Westernized water solutions.

Here, we build on literature from IM, participatory modelling, and decolonization
methods to offer strategies for braiding Western and Indigenous expertise for the pursuit of
advancing our understanding of contemporary water challenges. For the purpose of this article,
the social-ecological term: to braid expertise or knowledge systems (Kimmerer, 2013) is akin to
coupling equations or models, but encompasses the entire process of knowledge production –
from observation and conception to explanation and testing. Our argument is built on lessons we
have learned while working with community partners of First Nation and Métis heritage residing
within the Saskatchewan River Delta in western Canada. Case examples include model co-
development projects (Abu et al., 2018; Mohammadiazar, 2022; Gutwin & Du Plessis, 2022;
Sabokruhie et al., 2024) and the multi-stakeholder meeting series: Delta Dialogues. These works
occurred under the Integrated Modelling Program for Canada (IMPC), a seven-year-old Global
Water Futures research project pursuing resilient water solutions in an era of increasing water
crises and unequal access to clean water and healthy ecosystems.
The target audience for this article are water resources researchers and practitioners of
Western science interested in decolonizing hydrology. We are non-Indignenous researchers with
diverse backgrounds ranging from hydrology and water resources engineering to toxicology,
biology, social sciences, economics, and computer science, working in post-colonial Canada.
1.2 Two Ways of Knowing
Ways of knowing are socially constructed methods of recognizing evidence and
interpolating meaning from that evidence to explain the world, at times referred to as
epistemologies (Barth, 1995; Mukhtarov & Gerlak, 2014). The epistemological weight of those
in positions of great influence carry particular significance on matters of water, leaving
Indigenous epistemologies marginalized and underestimated within the context of “formal”

science (Andrews et al., 2018; Gerlak & Mukhtarov, 2015). Their traditional knowledge, skills,
and customary laws are often dismissed as outdated and inadequate for meeting the demands of
modern cities and citizens, despite evidence to the contrary (Berkes, 2009; Von Der Porten et al.,
2016; Abu & Reed, 2018). According to Nabavi (2022), this phenomenon has given rise to what
is described as a "flat epistemic landscape" in the realm of water management—a context where
alternative knowledge forms contend with the towering prominence of modern, Western
hydrology. This dominant hydrological perspective asserts itself as the sole credible, valid, and
legitimate source of understanding water. And that is perhaps why Indigenous ways of knowing
water resource systems are often unfamiliar or even contentious to many hydrologists.
However, it is promising that hydrologists have proven keen to identify the “hydrologic
dragons”, or intimidating unknowns; to update their understanding of hydrologic systems as they
venture into unfamiliar territory (Wagener et al., 2012). This learning mindset is needed,
especially when modelling skews toward reductionism and compartmentalism, a strategy ill-
equipped to tackle diverse hydrologic and social contexts. Indigenous perspectives on water are
consistent with a more holistic approach and in conflict with Eurocentric compartmentalized
approaches (Klymiuk, 2021), on the basis that physical, sacred, and human worlds are
interconnected in constant flow (Laborde & Jackson, 2022; Pierotti, 2015). Water itself is even
revered by many Indigenous cultures as an animate spirit who sanctions each individual’s
existence (Groenfeldt, 2006; Wilson & Inkster, 2018).
Despite an apparent dichotomy between these views, we assert that together these ways
of knowing can co-produce insights and solutions that neither could achieve alone. The
knowledge “co-production” described here occurs on-site (i.e. place-based), to enhance local

Indigenous land and water management under a changing climate (Chambers et al., 2021; Miner
et al., 2023).
Viewing the world through both Western and Indigenous lenses is also termed two-eyed
seeing, an Indigenous phrase introduced to Western science by Mik’maq Elder Albert Marshall
(Bartlett et al., 2012; Reid et al., 2021) and previously discussed in our region of focus, the
Saskatchewan Delta (Abu et al., 2019). The concept of “braiding” applies two-eyed seeing in
practice and is gaining attention in North America. It reached global attention in 2013 as a
progressive approach to botany promoted by distinguished Potawatomi professor of
environmental biology, founder and director of the Center for Native Peoples and the
Environment, Robin Wall Kimmerer (see Braiding Sweetgrass, Kimmerer, 2013).
The argument for braiding is as follows: when experts of Western and Indigenous
knowledge combine the strengths of their respective fields, while regarded as equal in merit to
preserve their inherent identities, they can foster interdisciplinary approaches that yield holistic
outcomes which are both more equitable and resilient.
2. A CALL TO ACTION
IM can tackle big problems but has its limits in Indigenous contexts. What complicates IM
in such contexts are the differences in semantics and worldviews, as well as a legacy of trauma
from past extractive research and misguided attempts to subsume Indigenous knowledge into
colonial frameworks, while keeping it entirely disconnected from decision-making and
sovereignty (Nadasdy, 1999; Latulippe & Klenk, 2023).
So, in situations where coupled models are ill-advised, agendas vary, and the quality of
your collaborations make or break the project, is IM still viable? We think it is. IM is about
combining the strengths of data and models of multiple disciplines, knowledge bases and

conceptualizations, and we argue that Indigenous ways of knowing should be included and will
strengthen model outcomes. Resilient water resource solutions must account for multiple
environmental factors and also include a balance of perspectives (Beck et al., 2018). Modelling
with Indigenous partners can not only achieve these things, but it is also timely and called for.
However, models are generally quantitative tools manufactured in colonial institutions and risk
excluding important qualitative contexts. So, how can people from such different worlds
combine their expertise?
To braid a hydrologic project in partnership, each way of knowing features differences
which must be recognized and respected. Below, we present a table of four key constituents of
water resources projects, selected to define braiding goals based upon the authors’ personal
experiences. Harmonization across these constituents should be viewed at the heart of IM to
enable a comprehensive understanding of complex water systems and ensure we solve water and
environmental challenges holistically and inclusively.

Figure 1. Goals to braid Western water modelling with Indigenous expertise; divided into four
key constituents of water resource projects in which authors have observed contention between
worldviews.
With limited guidance available on hydrological modelling in cross-cultural Indigenous
contexts, we have been learning from experience –a heuristic approach to modelling. Below, we
delve into each braiding goal from Fig. 1, beginning with a case study of lived experiences
backed by scientific literature. In conclusion, we propose a way forward to continue braiding

complementary water expertise in support of those working to develop this progressive path
forward for IM.
3. CASE DESCRIPTION & LESSONS
The Saskatchewan River Delta (the Delta) – Kitaskinaw in the Cree language – sits at the
drainage outlet of the Saskatchewan River Basin. It is largely located on Treaty 5 Territory and
traditional homelands of the Swampy Cree and Métis Peoples (Fig. 2). At 10,000 km2, it is
regarded as the largest inland delta in North America, <1 % urbanized and features no protected
areas while draining a catchment extending 389,000 km2 (Jardine et al., 2023).
The Saskatchewan River arises from the snow and glaciers of the Canadian Rocky
Mountains, flows from the province of Alberta through Saskatchewan to Manitoba, and is the
major water resource for the Canadian prairies, supporting large cities, industry, and extensive
areas of irrigated agriculture (Wheater & Gober, 2013; Gober & Wheater, 2014). Upon reaching
the Delta, the regulated, residual flows of the Saskatchewan River stretch across the
Saskatchewan-Manitoba provincial border. This region faces flow stability concerns under
climate change (DeBeer et al., 2015), a concern shared by other glacier-fed hydrologic regions
such as those in Himalaya and Karakoram (Nie et al., 2021).
Historical water resource developments in the basin included construction of the Gardiner
dam in Saskatchewan in the mid-20th century, at the time the largest earth dam in the world. Its
construction created the 225 km long Lake Diefenbaker and profoundly altered the seasonality of
downstream flows by removing the natural summer flow peak and increasing winter low flows
(Jardine et al., 2023). The living memories of many residents of Cumberland House (located in
the heart of the Delta) predate the 60-year-old history of upstream hydroelectric development,
including the nearby E B Campbell Dam (Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 2019). Operation

of the E B Campbell Dam included peak power generation immediately upstream of the Delta,
compounding the loss of natural flow seasonality with large diurnal flow changes. In subsequent
years, the reduction in sediment loads have been differentiated from natural system changes
(Ashmore & Day 1988; Smith et al., 2016), confirming that the dam is contributing to nutrient-
rich sediment starvation and channel scour.
Consequently, ecological changes in the Delta have been profound (Andrews et al., 2018;
Abu et al. 2019; Mohammadiazar, 2022) and of major concern to its residents, many of whom,
with their families, now run grassroots initiatives to progressively counteract the effects of these
dams on the remaining freshwater resources and ecosystem services.

Figure 2. Conceptual map of the Saskatchewan River Basin depicting large cities, Cumberland
House in the Saskatchewan River Delta, three impactful hydroelectric dams, Provincial and
Treaty boundaries. View is downstream to upstream; prevailing water-reliant industries
indicated by shadowed icons; not to scale.
We have been working with Indigenous partners in the Delta since 2011 to understand
and model the changes happening in their landscapes. A more detailed account of the Delta’s

state was recently published in a UNESCO book on river rhythms, and co-authored by Delta
residents (Jardine et al., 2023). With them, we have gathered considerable knowledge, but a
decade working in the Delta is still insufficient to fully comprehend the hydrological,
geomorphological, biological, social, and cultural complexities of this unique system.
Indigenous residents can recall historical flow conditions in detail, especially the Elders,
outfitters, guides, trappers, and teachers, with whom we have primarily worked. Their
understanding of seasonal flows and ecology has accelerated model calibration, improved the
feasibility of scenarios run by our models, and improved uptake of results (Sabokruhie et al.,
2024). The holistic perspective communicated by our Indigenous partners illuminates drivers and
responses that we do not reflexively account for. These elements have often emerged during in-
person visits and follow-up reviews of scenarios. We found through iterative meetings that our
partners were able to identify channels we had missed in satellite imagery, confirm and adjust
boundary conditions, and provide values of peak and low flows in regions that lack historical
survey records. Indigenous knowledge can validate instrumental observations or fill gaps in
archival records. The Delta has been inhabited for thousands of years while the year of earliest
recorded European contact was 1690 (Meyer & Thistle, 1995), and Western scientific reports on
the Delta only extend to 1962 (Abu et al., 2019). The development of hypotheses to test were
informed by local knowledge, thereby saving considerable time and money in contrast to
exploratory field surveys. Together, we have been able to produce model scenarios for decision
support that balance local socioeconomic needs with sustainability. We have been humbled by
missteps and buoyed by successes, but take both in stride, and expand upon the details as we
share the following lessons under each goal.

3.1 Recognize Merit
To handle the data for this work in a correct way, a broader understanding of Indigenous
knowledge is required. People are turning to Indigenous knowledge for sustainable methods,
ideas, and designs because its roots go back to a pre-industrial era (Bohensky & Maru, 2011;
Martin et al., 2010). Dentzau (2019) discusses tension between Western and Indigenous
knowledge systems, stating that Indigenous knowledge is “...grounded in place and an
understanding of periodicity, seasonality, ecological relationships, sustenance, land ethics and
sustainability" (p. 1032). In context of the natural world, this knowlege is commonly referred to
as traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) accumulated from generations of direct reliance on an
environment (Berkes, 2009).
As a hydrologist, how can I begin with TEK? To better understand TEK and perspectives
of Indigenous residents, interviewing people “on-the-land” in the form of community engaged
scholarship has proved a viable method. From 2020 to 2022, Mohammadiazar engaged with
Delta residents and documented local viewpoints on modelling opportunities for Cumberland
House. They found that the most significant impact of hydropeaking operations –daily and sub-
daily water level fluctuations– are currently overlooked by large-scale hydrologic models. They
also found that the bulk of Delta research has been conducted during peak flow seasons (May-
September), ignoring the other half of the year when river ice crossings are necessary for
accessing homes and businesses across the Delta. Mohammadiazar (2022) explains how many
modellers miss out on opportunities to embrace TEK, especially when it presents as narrative;
that modellers should “use the contextual observations provided by local experts to add value to
the development of scientific tools and analysis” (p.108); such as applying local knowledge of
critical indicator species to assess the ecological impacts of flow alterations. Below are the key

actions we continue to pursue that other (quantitative) modellers can take to include TEK, as
recommended by Delta residents (Mohammadiazar, 2022, Table 5.2).
• Mobilize place-based knowledge: Visit the Delta and gain hydro-ecological
understanding of its flows.
• Use community science: Recruit community members as partners, drawing upon their
year-round experiences, and facilitate cross-cultural engagement.
How should I regard TEK for a successful partnership? When working with TEK, its
merit must be balanced with Western science. This test is failed by many possessing a “higher”
education, who believe themselves the expert or a savior, allowing hubris to frame Indigenous
partners’ observations as anecdotal. It is a mistake of ego explained by Ali et al. (2022) as
viewing collaboration with Indigenous Peoples through a “deficit lens”, a habit detrimental to
working partnerships –among other things.
To avoid working through a deficit lens, interpretation and application of TEK –ideally
the entire project– must be co-led by the knowledge keeper to ensure any modelling aligns with
the purpose and context of their insights. While TEK is effective at perceiving feedback within a
hydrologic system –therefore refining hypotheses– it is not always congruent with model input
values. In the case of converting lived realities into numerical data, Ali et al. (2022) advise
caution as Indigenous worldviews can become “caught in a number-bind” (p. 198). To some
degree, the quagmires of TEK misuse can be avoided by upholding the First Nations principles
of OCAP (Ownership, Control, Access, Possession) that establishes a standard for how First
Nations’ data and information should be collected, protected, used, and shared (FSIN, 1998).
OCAP protects Indigenous knowledge (TEK included) from extractive research practice.
Indigenous knowledge and data are unique in ownership and right, and permission to access or

interpret it must be granted and overseen by the Indigenous community to which it belongs. The
knowledge keeper must be able to maintain informed control over the interpretation of their
knowledge to prevent its distortion or misuse.
3.2 Build Trust
Effective collaboration in Indigenous communities requires considerable time and funding,
physical attendance of leadership, ongoing two-way dialogue, and an ear for local narratives
(Duffy, 2021; Sundin et al., 2018). Each miscommunication or false assumption will lose you a
measure of hard-won trust and can damage the social license of your organization.
What does reciprocity look like? Selection of input data and interpretation of outputs
greatly influence the outcome of modelling exercises and determine who benefits the most. In
the Delta, decision-making power inequities have constrained official recognition of Indigenous
knowledge (Andrews et al., 2018). Mohammadiazar (2022) found that “[scientific
documentation of operational impacts on local ecology] are inaccessible to the people of the
Delta and ignored by upstream managers” (p. 104). A responsibility lies with those who can
access broader information platforms to improve accessibility.
Accessibility should be a priority. Unconscious coloniality, as explained by Klymiuk
(2021), is embedded within the geosciences, and we argue by extension, hydrology. Counter-
acting systemic power imbalances, which in this case can be termed “decolonizing”, requires a
genuine and ongoing effort. Co-produced knowledge can be shared in culturally appropriate
formats (GWF, 2023), such as data visualizations (see Goal 3), and local language translation.
Currently, Western science is more readily accredited than Indigenous knowledge and science
(Snively, 2016), a power imbalance that favors English-speaking and westernized audiences,
offering greater –even exclusive– benefit to colonial institutions. Graphical displays, although

visual in nature, when designed only within and for Western institutions are poor tools for
knowledge dissemination in Indigenous communities (Steelman et al., 2019). Dissemination
through such graphical displays does not connect with community partners in equal measure and
can reinforce power imbalances when hidden behind a paywall or academic jargon.
Alternatively, physical and Geographic Information System maps have proven to be an excellent
bridge for sharing knowledge on an increasingly accessible platform (Scott, 2019;
indigenousmaps.com). More accessible knowledge formats, by definition, reach a wider
audience, helping water resource practitioners to depart from conventional and often rigid
consultation toward collaboration, improve credibility and future opportunities.
A stronger degree of reciprocity would entail Indigenous partners having an equal say in
the project's conception and funding structure. Currently, Canadian research funding agencies
predominantly favor Western-oriented knowledge, handling proposals submitted by Western
scientists with budgets adhering to Western research/education protocols. Consequently, IMPC
was overseen solely by Western scientists, and funds were transferred to Indigenous partners,
where needed, through honorariums or fees for service. Although altering established funding
mechanisms poses challenges, we must explore innovative ways to overcome barriers and
support Indigenous partners in achieving a degree of self-determination in the research process,
akin to what is available to Western scientists.
How do I keep up with everyone to ensure transparency? In 2020, IMPC initiated a
meeting series called “Delta Dialogues: Finding a Way Forward”, held approximately quarterly
until 2022, and co-coordinated by the Cumberland House Delta Stewardship Committee with
researchers from the University of Saskatchewan. It has served as a platform for stakeholders
and rights-holders to share concerns and develop lines of communication about ecology and flow

management in the Delta. Minutes are confidential but include Indigenous knowledge keepers
reporting local conditions, dam operators providing updates on flow regulation, and scientists
demonstrating decision-support models and visualization tools. The series has been a
springboard for collaboration. However, as universities have an imperative to remain neutral, a
third-party now mediates Delta Dialogues. This arrangement enables university scientists to
contribute to discussions based on scholarly expertise rather than acting as mediators themselves.
In settings such as Delta Dialogues, attendees and speakers responded positively when others
make an effort to see the Delta through the eyes of others.
3.3 Co-Develop
To genuinely decolonize, transformative change must be implemented at project
inception and be carried through to project design and implementation. This section is longer
than the others, reflecting a lengthy learning journey.
The idea to co-develop a visualization tool arose in 2020 after the Cumberland House
community identified a conceptual gap with Saskatchewan Power Corporation (SaskPower,
operator of E B Campbell Dam) and discussed this with IMPC researchers. With the help of
community members, we designed a tool to visualize the streamflow entering the Delta below E
B Campbell Dam (Gutwin & Du Plessis, 2022). By establishing its development as a shared
process, this tool evolved into an artifact that can house shared knowledge, facilitating
communication, understanding, and collaboration between stakeholders. Such an artifact is
commonly referred to as a “boundary object” (Shaw et al., 2022, Zurba et al, 2019). The visual
products of models –such as maps– can also serve as excellent boundary objects, bridging
conceptual gaps and fostering cooperation among various stakeholders and rights-holders of
different backgrounds.

The E B Campbell Visualization Tool was co-developed through iterative review with
Delta residents to visualize past and real-time flows below E B Campbell Dam in the upper
Delta. Throughout the co-design and production process, multiple questions emerged, such as
those stated below, and addressing them significantly enhanced the shared understanding of all
parties involved.
What if my definition doesn’t match yours? Community members have relayed that water
is being held back by E B Campbell, while operators assert that the dam is a run-of-river facility.
A run‐of‐river operation is defined as an operation “under which dam releases are set to closely
match inflow into the reservoir while accounting for the temporal lag of the reservoir” (Haas et
al., 2014, p. 1623). What is not explicit within this definition is that it uses a daily temporal
resolution (Haas et al. 2014). Hydropeaking, in contrast, occurs at a sub-daily resolution when
water is released to generate electricity in step with fluctuating demand (Batalla et al., 2021).
There is a disconnect between the industrial understanding of run-of-river at a daily scale and the
lived effects in the Delta at a sub-daily scale.
In building the E B Campbell Visualization Tool, it was important to create a space
where data could be displayed at a temporal resolution that was meaningful to Delta residents.
The figures below are snapshots from the E B Campbell Visualization Tool (Gutwin & Du
Plessis, 2022). Each visualization displays the same flow over the same duration but at different
resolutions. The result was a boundary object that can illustrate different scopes without
quantification, removing the axes and legends which prize technocratic methodologies and
setting up the data to be more translational to TEK. Figure 3.A demonstrates the data at a daily
resolution (operator scope of flow operations), and Figure 3.B demonstrates the data at an hourly
resolution (community scope of flow operations).

Figure 3. Visualizations of flow variability (y-axis in cubic meters per second) over time (x-axis)
in the Saskatchewan River, upstream (blue) and downstream (green) of the E B Campbell dam.
Left (A): a daily resolution, showing the dam operator's scope of flow operations. Right (B): The same
data an hourly resolution, showing the community's scope of flow operations; adapted with permission
from https://gwf-hci.usask.ca/eb-campbell/
By showing both experiences as imagery, the division becomes clearer. At a daily scale,
inflow and outflow are closely aligned, but sub-daily data demonstrates that outflow is much
more variable than the daily data implies. Specialist knowledge can bias the way we think about
the world and make us unaware of alternate definitions (Ellen, 2004). This example shows how
outputs can benefit greatly from creating space for community knowledge.
What does a number mean on the ground? Our Indigenous partners expressed the
importance of photographs as a way of demonstrating conditions within the Delta. Describing
outflow from a dam as a number (e.g., a flow rate) favors an industrial agenda, but if that number
can be translated into a photo, a perspective provided by the community, conversations become
more inclusive. Photographs incorporated into the E B Campbell Visualization Tool were
contributed by community members who were asked to “capture images of the river that
reflected their observations and experiences” (Mohammadiazar, 2022, p. 37). Within the tool,
clicking on one of these photos allows the user to see the corresponding outflow rate from the
dam, and outflow can be similarly linked to photos at a given point in time. In doing so, the tool

was updated to create a space where flow rate can be discussed alongside documented conditions
in the Delta, together interpreting what effect different flow rates have, such as experiences of
flooding or being grounded while fishing.
By co-developing boundary objects, a project can be more inclusive, sustainable, and
considerate of diverse perspectives, leading to better outcomes for both the environment and the
communities affected.
What if priorities change? In another 2021-2023 study modelling hydraulic effects of a
potential weir on the Saskatchewan River (Sabokruhie et al., 2024), normative scenarios were
co-selected with local Indigenous experts to guide modelling. These normative scenarios
represented hypothetical realities based on our combined visions of future flows. Normative
scenarios can also serve as boundary objects (Lebel, 2013), and are well-suited for braiding
because they are able to reflect narratives without the need to quantify everything. While co-
developing flow scenarios, our experience mirrored two key objectives of Maier et al. (2016) on
modelling uncertain climate futures: consider several hypotheticals (scenarios) and focus on
adaptive strategies over fixed solutions.
Unfortunately, given our window of funding, we could barely begin to address the
complex downstream impacts expressed by the community. This gap was not born of ignorance,
but of the systemic disconnect between the short-term agenda of Western research and long-term
agenda of the community. As explained by Sabokruhie et al. (2024), restoring the Delta's natural
flow regime has been discussed many times, but we and community members settled on the most
realistic and –pressing concern for modelling: the declining depths and extent of the Delta’s
largest lake, Cumberland Lake.

It was clear that the available elevation data was insufficient to display the spatial extent
of surface water coverage with and without a weir. In response, we prioritized alternative
products that could still provide information to bolster decision-making about the usefulness and
feasibility of a weir, while also emphasizing the need for better elevation data. In person, our
team provided technical support during meetings as the community used the co-produced outputs
to propose a locally led data acquisition partnership to government officials. They were
successful. We found that the purpose of scenarios ranged from providing practical solutions to
acting as boundary objects depending on the data and goals.
3.4 Balance Outputs with Meanings
What is the “value” of water? Conceptual barriers between Western and Indigenous
views extend deeply into what drives Western economies: costs-benefit analyses. Water pricing
is an efficient way to run a state, but a price tag cannot encompass a society. In 1989 the North
Village of Cumberland House (NVCH) and Cumberland House Cree Nation together sued the
provincial government and SaskPower in response to the adverse impacts caused by complete
shutoff of water flows at E B Campbell dam, for a $15 million settlement (Andrews et al., 2018).
This settlement was a limited solution, however, as concerns about water management for the
Delta have persisted, culminating in a recent state of emergency declared by NVCH over low
flows that stranded the Village’s drinking water intake (CTV News, 2023).
Consider the following questions. Do you recall the dollar amount on your last water bill?
That number may reflect the efficiency of your lawn sprinkler or appliances, but could it ensure
your family is able to find work close to home, travel to school safely, or hold ceremonies in
your People’s sacred places? The “barometer” for successful intervention in the Delta is
ecohydrological: the return of culturally important animals, moose, muskrat, fish, and birds

(Jardine et al., 2023). This is a very long-term goal, but hydrologic system models can be used to
illuminate pathways to ecosystem restoration. For the residents of the Delta, its sub-daily flows,
floods, and biota do more than providing income and sustenance; they underpin physical and
social infrastructure, culture, and individual identities (Jardine et al. 2023).
What if my solution creates more problems for you? A hydrologic model needs to answer
operational questions for municipalities, research institutes, or industry. Therefore, within
modelling practice there exists a tendency to divide complex systems into a sum of parts. The
tidy compartments offered by standardized approaches are appealing. As Cilliers et al. (2013)
explain, “…we can never have comprehensive access to any complex system” (p. 1), they also
caution us to be just as aware of what we exclude from the model as what we include. Modelling
practice is full of "boundary judgements,'' what is in and what is out (Nabavi et al., 2017). These
judgements range depending on the choices modellers make when framing the problem and its
scope, the extent of dynamic processes explicitly considered in the model, and the principles that
select the criteria by which policy options are evaluated.
It is easy to cling to reductionist assumptions about system drivers and response, but
reality is far from tidy, and sensitivities of context must be accounted for. As Jackson et al.
(2022) articulate, there are consequences to oversimplification:
“Most contemporary mitigation strategies for dams offer partial compensation for
tangible losses [but] such strategies lack recognition of (and compensation for) the major
life changes that occur in riparian human communities when a dam breaks the river's
historical rhythms, familiar to generations of people.” (p. 960)
In the same article, a knowledge keeper and guide local to the Delta, Solomon Carriere, explains
how these hydrologic changes have introduced uncertainties in outfitting business and access to

roads. Carriere articulates, “water let go by the dams reaches [the] rivers at different times… I
have to estimate. Here I might need an ice bridge, over there I might need a boat.” (p. 956). For
Indigenous communities in Saskatchewan and elsewhere, water security encompasses more than
material needs, it extends to the spirit world, gender roles in society, human ethics, and culture
(Awume et al., 2020). At a conceptual level, Laborde & Jackson (2022) articulate differences
between industrialized “modern water” and the “Living Waters” concept of Aboriginal
Australians. In the Living Waters Model, water is not simply a commodity, but the central node
in a network of people, ancestors, and plants that rely upon reciprocal relationships.
So how can we balance values? Social and regulatory directives to practice preliminary
and ongoing engagement with Indigenous partners is not only ethical. When applied
appropriately and consistently, the experiences and knowledge of Indigenous communities can
inform hydroelectric operations to reduce negative downstream impacts (Baird et al., 2021), and
the costs of responding to said impacts. If a project is truly co-led and co-developed, both
partners will have vested interest in a mutually beneficial outcome that balances their combined
values.
4. TOWARD A BRAIDED APPROACH
The collaborative work described in this paper has illustrated braiding as a nuanced
approach to IM in this context. Braiding applies the concept of two-eyed seeing by respecting the
expertise and values of different knowledge systems in practice. Braiding practices can be
perceived as parallel to the customary modelling practice of data fusion, where disparate data
and models coalesce to produce a greater whole. This "greater whole" of knowledge can indeed
be cultivated by co-piloting the project with Indigenous partners from its inception onward,

potentially generating an outcome that transcends the sum of its parts, whilst simultaneously
honoring constituents of each worldview depicted in Figure 1.
Hydrologists understand that data does not equate to information. Conventional
hydrologic data consists of a series of numbers; however, information is derived when we
scrutinize this data through the lens of a specific context, provided by an existing knowledge
base (Gupta et al., 2008). TEK can present a distinctive context that allows us to uncover
information that extends beyond our standard statistical scope of distributions, trends, and
periodicity. In essence, TEK can imbue these numerical values with new, lived meanings. In IM,
integration has traditionally referred to the practice of coupling multiple quantitative capabilities
of models. What we propose is a necessary expansion of the field of IM, wherein “integration”
encompasses more than just the amalgamation of tools. Indigenous water knowledge is holistic
in nature; “pre-integrating” hydrologic knowledge with elements of ecology, healthcare,
economics and other fields. Modelling co-piloted by Indigenous expertise can produce integrated
results without extensive computation, a branch of IM that builds on generations of knowledge
while reaching new heights of inclusive water resources management.
Hydrologists are well aware that existing models have their limits. Even the most
complex models frequently encounter challenges due to insufficient field data and limited
process understanding, especially under non-stationarity, including climactic and other
environmental changes. Embracing Indigenous knowledge opens new avenues to tackle these
challenges –at a foundational operational level, by offering fresh opportunities to complement
existing field data and expand our perceptual understanding of in-situ hydrological processes,
and more generally to provide a broader, holistic perspective on water and ecosystem
management to achieve sustainable solutions.

To successfully braid Indigenous ways of knowing with modelling, a project must
embrace the merit of multiple knowledge systems, stem from trust, be co-developed and balance
multiple values of water. There is opportunity to be found in revisiting the big picture,
developing effective partnerships, and moving on from the antiquated mindset of working for
Indigenous Peoples to working beside Indigenous experts. If we claim to seek resilient solutions,
we must recognize the merit of Indigenous ways of knowing and the strength of complementary
knowledge systems. We can report that working in partnership is an essential, and mutually
beneficial experience, which we have found to enhance our own understanding of natural
systems and our perceptions of environmental sustainability.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was conducted in Treaty 5 Territory and Homelands of Cree and Métis Peoples. Many
thanks to the residents of the Saskatchewan River Delta who provided place-based expertise
critical to this article, with special admiration to Co-Investigator Dr. Gary Carriere of
Cumberland House and his family; Co-Investigator – Dr. Karl-Erich Lindenschmidt; Figure 2
Illustrator – David C.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
AD: concept synthesis, lead writing, illustration SR: structure, modelling, writing,
correspondence APDP, CG: boundary object development and writing TJ, GES: Ongoing
community engagement, review EN, HW: review, writing

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
This paper was written by non-Indigenous authors and does not endeavor to represent or speak
on behalf of Indigenous Peoples. All Indigenous knowledge discussed herein has been drawn
from previous or pending publications possessing the appropriate ethics certification and/or co-
authorship of Indigenous partners. This is only one side of a multi-faceted topic. We urge readers
to explore the works of Indigenous scholars and of Saskatchewan River Delta residents. No
known conflicts of interest exist.
FUNDING
This work was funded by the Integrated Modelling Program for Canada, a Global Water Futures
project at the Global Institute for Water Security, University of Saskatchewan.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data used to produce the visualizations referenced are available to the public at wateroffice.gc.ca
and are displayed at https://gwf-hci.usask.ca/eb-campbell/.
REFERENCES
Abu, R., & Reed, M. G. (2018). Adaptation through bricolage: Indigenous responses to long‐
term social‐ecological change in the Saskatchewan River Delta, Canada. The Canadian
Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien, 62(4), 437-451. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12469
Abu, R., Reed, M. G., & Jardine, T. D. (2019). Using two-eyed seeing to bridge Western science
and Indigenous knowledge systems and understand long-term change in the
Saskatchewan River Delta, Canada. International Journal of Water Resources
Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2018.1558050

Agarwal, A., de los Angeles, M. S., Bhatia, R., Chéret, I., Davila-Poblete, S., Falkenmark, M., ...
& Wright, A. (2000). Integrated water resources management (pp. 1-67). Stockholm:
Global water partnership. https://hdl.handle.net/10535/4986
Ali, T., Buergelt, P. T., Maypilama, E. L., Paton, D., Smith, J. A., & Jehan, N. (2022). Synergy
of systems theory and symbolic interactionism: a passageway for non-Indigenous
researchers that facilitates better understanding Indigenous worldviews and knowledges.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 25(2), 197-212.
10.1080/13645579.2021.1876300
Andrews, E. J., Reed, M. G., Jardine, T. D., & Steelman, T. A. (2018). Damming knowledge
flows: POWER as a constraint on knowledge pluralism in river flow decision-making in
the Saskatchewan River Delta. Society & natural resources, 31(8), 892-907.
10.1080/08941920.2018.1451582
Ashmore, P. E., & Day, T. J. (1988). Spatial and temporal patterns of suspended-sediment yield
in the Saskatchewan River basin. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 25(9), 1450-1463.
https://doi.org/10.1139/e88-138
Awume, O., Patrick, R., & Baijius, W. (2020). Indigenous perspectives on water security in
Saskatchewan, Canada. Water, 12(3), 810. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w12030810
Baird, I. G., Silvano, R. A., Parlee, B., Poesch, M., Maclean, B., Napoleon, A., ... & Hallwass, G.
(2021). The downstream impacts of hydropower dams and indigenous and local
knowledge: Examples from the Peace–Athabasca, Mekong, and Amazon. Environmental
Management, 67, 682-696. 10.1007/s00267-020-01418-x
Baltutis, J., Shah, T., Brandes, O. M., Goucher, N., Harford, D., & Sandford, R. (2012). Cross-
Canada checkup: A Canadian perspective on our water future. POLIS Project on
Ecological Governance, University of Victoria & Adaptation to Climate Change Team,
Simon Fraser University.
Barth, F. (1995). Other knowledge and other ways of knowing. Journal of anthropological
research, 51(1), 65-68. https://doi.org/10.1086/jar.51.1.3630372

Bartlett, C., Marshall, M., & Marshall, A. (2012). Two-eyed seeing and other lessons learned
within a co-learning journey of bringing together indigenous and mainstream knowledges
and ways of knowing. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2, 331-340.
Batalla, R. J., Gibbins, C. N., Alcázar, J., Brasington, J., Buendia, C., Garcia, C., ... & Vericat, D.
(2021). Hydropeaked rivers need attention. Environmental Research Letters, 16(2),
021001.
Behailu, B. M., Pietilä, P. E., & Katko, T. S. (2016). Indigenous practices of water management
for sustainable services: Case of Borana and Konso, Ethiopia. Sage Open, 6(4),
2158244016682292. 10.1177/2158244016682292
Berkes, F. (2009). Indigenous ways of knowing and the study of environmental change. Journal
of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 39:4, 151-156, DOI: 10.1080/03014220909510568
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as
adaptive management. Ecological applications, 10(5), 1251-1262.
https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:ROTEKA]2.0.CO;2
Blackstock, M. (2001). Water: A First Nations' Spiritual and Ecological Perspective. Journal of
Ecosystems and Management. https://doi.org/10.22230/jem.2001v1n1a216
Bohensky, E. L., & Maru, Y. (2011). Indigenous knowledge, science, and resilience: What have
we learned from a decade of international literature on “integration”?. Ecology and
Society, 16(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04342-160406
Canada, ECC (2023, August 17). Indigenous Science. Canada.ca.
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/science-
technology/indigenous-science.html
Chambers, J. M., Wyborn, C., Ryan, M. E., Reid, R. S., Riechers, M., Serban, A., ... & Pickering,
T. (2021). Six modes of co-production for sustainability. Nature Sustainability, 4(11),
983-996. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00755-x

Cilliers, P., Biggs, H. C., Blignaut, S., Choles, A. G., Hofmeyr, J. H. S., Jewitt, G. P., & Roux,
D. J. (2013). Complexity, modeling, and natural resource management. Ecology and
Society, 18(3). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26269371
CTV News. (2023, October 19). Sask. village says it won’t have enough fresh water to last the
winter. CTV News Saskatoon. https://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/mobile/sask-village-says-it-
won-t-have-enough-fresh-water-to-last-the-winter-
1.6609201?cache=tixuupeifekm?clipId=86116
DeBeer, C. M., Wheater, H. S., Quinton, W. L., Carey, S. K., Stewart, R. E., MacKay, M. D., &
Marsh, P. (2015). The changing cold regions network: Observation, diagnosis and
prediction of environmental change in the Saskatchewan and Mackenzie River Basins,
Canada. Science China Earth Sciences, 58, 46-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-014-
5001-6
Dentzau, M. W. (2019). The tensions between indigenous knowledge and Western science.
Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14, 1031-1036. 10.1007/s11422-018-9903-z
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (2019). Assessment of the Instream Flow Needs for fish and
fish habitat in the Saskatchewan River downstream of the E.B. Campbell Hydroelectric
Station. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep.
2018/048. https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/library-bibliotheque/40759830.pdf
Duffy, A. (2021). Water Well Told: Storytelling in source water protection. (Graduate Theses &
Dissertations, University of Saskatchewan). Harvest. https://hdl.handle.net/10388/13512
Eamen, L., Brouwer, R., & Razavi, S. (2021). Integrated modelling to assess the impacts of
water stress in a transboundary river basin: Bridging local-scale water resource
operations to a river basin economy. Science of The Total Environment, 800, 149543.
Ellen, R. (2004). From ethno-science to science, or 'What the indigenous knowledge debate tells
us about how scientists define their project'. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4(3-4),
409-450. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568537042484869

FNIGC (2023). OCAP® is a registered trademark of the First Nations Information Governance
Centre (FNIGC). https://fnigc.ca/ocap-training/
Gerlak, A. K., & Mukhtarov, F. (2015). ‘Ways of knowing’ water: integrated water resources
management and water security as complementary discourses. International
environmental agreements: politics, law and economics, 15, 257-272.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-015-9278-5
Gober, P. & Wheater, H.S. (2014). Socio-hydrology and the science-policy interface: A case
study of the Saskatchewan River Basin. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sc., 18: 1413-1422).
Groenfeldt, D. (2006). Water development and spiritual values in western and indigenous
societies. Water and Indigenous peoples, knowledges of nature, 108-115.
Gupta, H. V., Wagener, T., & Liu, Y. (2008). Reconciling theory with observations: elements of
a diagnostic approach to model evaluation. Hydrological Processes: An International
Journal, 22(18), 3802-3813
Gutwin, C., & Du Plessis, A. (2022). E.B. Campbell Flow Visualization. University of
Saskatchewan. https://gwf-hci.usask.ca/eb-campbell/
Haas, N. A., O'Connor, B. L., Hayse, J. W., Bevelhimer, M. S., & Endreny, T. A. (2014).
Analysis of daily peaking and run‐of‐river operations with flow variability metrics,
considering subdaily to seasonal time scales. JAWRA Journal of the American Water
Resources Association, 50(6), 1622-1640. https://doi.org/10.1111/jawr.12228
Hamilton, S. H., S. ElSawah, J. H. A. Guillaume, A. J. Jakeman, and S. A. Pierce (2015),
Integrated assessment and modelling: Overview and synthesis of salient dimensions,
Environmental Modelling & Software, 64, 215-229.
Hebart-Coleman, D. (2023, July 27). Supporting the engagement of Indigenous Peoples in
International Water Policy. SIWI.org. https://siwi.org/latest/supporting-engagement-of-
indigenous-peoples-in-international-water-policy/

Jackson, S., Anderson, E. P., Piland, N. C., Carriere, S., Java, L., & Jardine, T. D. (2022). River
rhythmicity: A conceptual means of understanding and leveraging the relational values of
rivers. People and Nature, 4(4), 949-962. 10.1002/pan3.10335
Jardine, T., Reed, M., Strickert, G., Massie, M., McKay-Carriere, L., MacColl, I., Carriere, R.,
Carriere, S., Abu, R., and Steelman, T. 2023. Healthy Delta, Healthy People: The past,
present and future of the Saskatchewan River Delta. pp. 397-421 In River Cultures: Life
as a dance to the rhythm of the water, Wantzen, K.M. (editor). UNESCO Publishing,
Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.54677/FJXJ5653
Kimmerer, R. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the
teachings of plants. Minneapolis, MN Milkweed Editions.
Klymiuk, A. A. (2021). Addressing unconscious coloniality and decolonizing practice in
geoscience. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 2(11), 745-746.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ s43017-021-00235- y
Laborde, S., & Jackson, S. (2022). Living Waters or Resource? Ontological differences and the
governance of waters and rivers. Local Environment, 27(3), 357-374.
Latulippe, N., & Klenk, N. (2020). Making room and moving over: knowledge co-production,
Indigenous knowledge sovereignty and the politics of global environmental change
decision-making. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42, 7-14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.10.010
Leonard, K., David-Chavez, D., Smiles, D., Jennings, L., ʻAnolani Alegado, R., Tsinnajinnie, L.,
... & Begay, R. L. (2023). Water Back: A Review Centering Rematriation and Indigenous
Water Research Sovereignty. Water Alternatives, 16(2), 374-428.
Letcher, R. A., Croke, B. F., & Jakeman, A. J. (2007). Integrated assessment modelling for water
resource allocation and management: A generalised conceptual framework.
Environmental Modelling & Software, 22(5), 733-742.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.12.014

Mantyka-Pringle, C. S., Jardine, T. D., Bradford, L., Bharadwaj, L., Kythreotis, A. P., Fresque-
Baxter, J., Kelly, E., Somers, G., Doig, L. E., Jones, P. D., & Lindenschmidt, K. E.
(2017). Bridging science and traditional knowledge to assess cumulative impacts of
stressors on ecosystem health. Environment international, 102, 125-137.
Martin, J. F., Roy, E. D., Diemont, S. A., & Ferguson, B. G. (2010). Traditional Ecological
Knowledge (TEK): Ideas, inspiration, and designs for ecological engineering. Ecological
Engineering, 36(7), 839-849.
Martin-Ortega, J. (2023). We cannot address global water challenges without social sciences.
Nature Water, 1(1), 2-3.
McDonald, G. W., Bradford, L., Neapetung, M., Osgood, N. D., Strickert, G., Waldner, C. L.,
Belcher, K., McLeod, L., & Bharadwaj, L. (2022). Case Study of Collaborative Modeling
in an Indigenous Community. Water, 14(17), 2601. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/w14172601
Meyer, D., & Thistle, P. C. (1995). Saskatchewan River rendezvous centers and trading posts:
Continuity in a Cree social geography. Ethnohistory, 403-444.
https://doi.org/10.2307/483213
Miner, K., Canavera, L., Gonet, J., Luis, K., Maddox, M., McCarney, P., ... & Rattlingleaf, J.
(2023). The co-production of knowledge for climate science. Nature Climate Change,
13(4), 307-308. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01633-4
Mohammadiazar, A. (2022). Harmonizing Water Resource Management with Indigenous Ways
of Knowing (HARVEST, University of Saskatchewan).
https://hdl.handle.net/10388/13843
Mukhtarov, F., & Gerlak, A. K. (2014). Epistemic forms of integrated water resources
management: Towards knowledge versatility. Policy Sciences, 47(2), 101-120.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-013-9193-y
Nabavi, E. (2022). Who speaks for water in times of crisis? a case for co-production of
engineering and governance. Frontiers in Communication, 7, 810266.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.810266

Nabavi, E., Daniell, K. A., & Najafi, H. (2017). Boundary matters: the potential of system
dynamics to support sustainability?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 312-323.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.032
Nadasdy, P. (1999). The politics of TEK: Power and the" integration" of knowledge. Arctic
Anthropology, 1-18. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40316502
Neville, K. J., & Coulthard, G. (2019). Transformative water relations: Indigenous interventions
in global political economies. Global Environmental Politics, 19(3), 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00514
Nie, Y., Pritchard, H. D., Liu, Q., Hennig, T., Wang, W., Wang, X., ... & Chen, X. (2021).
Glacial change and hydrological implications in the Himalaya and Karakoram. Nature
reviews earth & environment, 2(2), 91-106. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s43017-020-00124-w
Pierotti, R. (2015). Indigenous Concepts of ‘Living Systems’ Aristotelian ‘Soul’ Meets
Constructal Theory. Ethnobiology Letters, 6(1), 80-88. 10.14237/ebl.6.1.2015.420
Reid, A. J., Eckert, L. E., Lane, J. F., Young, N., Hinch, S. G., Darimont, C. T., ... & Marshall,
A. (2021). “Two‐Eyed Seeing”: An Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research
and management. Fish and Fisheries, 22(2), 243-261. 10.1111/faf.12516
Sabokruhie, P., Duffy, A., Mohammadiazar, A., Carriere, G., McKay, K., Lindenschmidt, K.E.,
Strickert, G., Jardine, T., & Bradford, L. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-
3919254/v1 (2024).
Scott, M. CBC News, (2019). https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/indigenous-mapping-
conference-1.5315663?_vfz=medium%3Dsharebar
Seitz, N. E., Westbrook, C. J., & Noble, B. F. (2011). Bringing science into river systems
cumulative effects assessment practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(3),
172-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.08.001

Shaw, A., Steelman, T., & Bullock, R. (2022). Evaluating the efficacy of GIS maps as boundary
objects: unpacking the limits and opportunities of Indigenous knowledge in forest and
natural resource management. Journal of Cultural Geography, 39(1), 90-116.
Sidik, S. M. (2022). Weaving Indigenous knowledge into the scientific method. Nature,
601(7892), 285-287. https://doi-org.cyber.usask.ca/10.1038/d41586-022-00029-2
Smith, N. D., Morozova, G. S., Pérez-Arlucea, M., & Gibling, M. R. (2016). Dam-induced and
natural channel changes in the Saskatchewan River below the EB Campbell Dam,
Canada. Geomorphology, 269, 186-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.06.041
Steelman, T. A., Andrews, E., Baines, S., Bharadwaj, L., Bjornson, E. R., Bradford, L., ... &
Voyageur, M. (2019). Identifying transformational space for transdisciplinarity: using art
to access the hidden third. Sustainability science, 14, 771-790
van Beek, L., Hajer, M., Pelzer, P., van Vuuren, D., & Cassen, C. (2020). Anticipating futures
through models: the rise of Integrated Assessment Modelling in the climate science-
policy interface since 1970. Global Environmental Change, 65, 102191.
Von Der Porten, S., de Loë, R. C., & McGregor, D. (2016). Incorporating indigenous knowledge
systems into collaborative governance for water: challenges and opportunities. Journal of
Canadian Studies, 50(1), 214-243. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcs.2016.50.1.214
Wheater, H.S. & Gober, P. (2013). Water Security in the Canadian prairies: science and
management challenges. Philos. T. R. Soc. A., 371. 10.1098/rsta.2012.0409
Wilson, N. J., & Inkster, J. (2018). Respecting water: Indigenous water governance, ontologies,
and the politics of kinship on the ground. Environment and Planning E: Nature and
Space, 1(4), 516-538. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848618789378
Zurba, M., Maclean, K., Woodward, E., & Islam, D. (2019). Amplifying Indigenous community
participation in place-based research through boundary work. Progress in Human
Geography, 43(6), 1020-1043. https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325188077