Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

Adapting Disaster Risk Reduction Tools to Support Indigenous Resilience : A Case Study in the Strait… Marteleira, Michelle Apr 30, 2017

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


310-Marteleira_Michelle_Indigenous_resilience_2017.pdf [ 10.4MB ]
JSON: 310-1.0362567.json
JSON-LD: 310-1.0362567-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 310-1.0362567-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 310-1.0362567-rdf.json
Turtle: 310-1.0362567-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 310-1.0362567-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 310-1.0362567-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

G EO A K R I DEM A R P O LV A N C O U V E RR I C H M O N DGeorgiaStraitGateK E R R I S D A L ED U N B A R - S O U T HL A N D SI o n a I s l a n dM c D O N A L D S LO UG HN O RTHARMS E A I SL A N DM U S Q U E A MVancouver Southlandsvancouver_1Local Diking Authorities  Other Flood Control Works(Vancouver Southlands, Musqueam I. R.)North Fraser Port Authority (Deering Island)Printed from Digital Files by the Integrated Land Management BureauMap Projection: Albers, NAD83Grid Projection: UTM Zone 10N, NAD 83Revised Date: October 18, 2009File: vancouver_1VANCOUVER SOUTHLANDS1:10,0000 0.5 1 1.5 20.25Kilometers0 0.5 10.25MilesNotes Specific to Local Diking AuthoritiesIndex Maprichmond_3sea_isl_2 burnaby_4vancouver_1Vancouver Southlands Districtvancouver_1Map produced for Ministry of Environment, Lower Mainland Region.Note 1: Dikes are shown for reference purposes and are outside local diking authority area.metres Eastt  tmetres Northmetres NorthLegendPumpstation / FloodboxPumpstationFloodboxOpen CulvertStaff GaugeDike Crest GaugeWater Survey Canada (WSC) Real Time GaugeRelief WellLow DikeSpecial ConcernMetric Stationing 0+000Imperial Stationing 0+00Flood Profile Points Incl. Freeboard †Flood Profile LineRipRapLocal Authority Standard Dike §Local Authority Non-Standard Dike §§Other Flood Control WorksFish and Wildlife Water Related StructureDikes Outside Local Area (See Note 1)FloodplainMunicipal BoundaryIndian ReservesProvincial ParkRegional District ParkWater PipelineSewer PipelineGas PipelineEnergy PipelineOilElectrical transmission linePipelineRailwayIMPORTANT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMERThe floodplain boundaries and related flood protection infrastructure shownare provided to support flood emergency preparedness, planning and response;broad-based floodplain management, planning and reviews; and other relatedactivities.  It is NOT intended to replace detailed floodplain mapsdesignated under the 1987 Canada/BC Floodplain Mapping Agreement.FLOODING MAY OCCUR OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN AREAS SHOWN.The data was compiled from various sources; it is not warranted as to itsaccuracy or sufficiency by the Ministry of Environment,and is not intended for legal purposes.§ Standard dike - a flood protection structure that meets, or has met, provincial dike standards that are regulated by the Inspector of Dikes under the Dike Maintenance Act.  Due to morphological,  hydrological, and other changes in or about river systems, such a dike shown on the map may not continue to meet current standards.IMPORTANT:  To verify a standard dike’s current status, the Inspector of Dikes office should be contacted.§§ Non-standard dike - a flood protection structure that has a lower level of protection than thatprovided by a standard dike.  Flood protection works that conform to this classification often protect rural agricultural lands and are sometimes referred to as agricultural dikes.†The Fraser River flood profile plus freeboard is derived from the Fraser River Hydraulic Model UpdateReport, March 2008, by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants.  "Standard dikes" have not been evaluated against this new profile and may be lower than theelevation of this new profile plus freeboard.  Details of this study may be found on the Ministry of Environment, Water Stewardship Division web site.The Flood Profile plus Freeboard denotes the standard dike crest elevations established by the Inspector of Dikes for the Fraser River dikes.  Floodproofing elevations for buildings and other development in the floodplain are established by and are the responsibility of local government and other development approval officials.   These floodproofing elevations may vary from the flood profile plus freeboard elevations shown.ADAPTING DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TOOLS   TO SUPPORT INDIGENOUS RESILIENCEA Case Study in the trait of GeorgiaMICHELLE MARTELEIRA     EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis project investigates the current challenges for disaster risk reduction planning across First Nations communities (Indian Bands) in Canada and explores ways that tools can be adapted to improve regional resilience efforts. It is clear that institutional gaps exist in disaster risk reduction planning between Bands and other local governments in Canada, leading to increased risk among First Nation populations. Colonial policies, such as the reserve system, have forced communities to live in areas with greater exposure to hazards, while the jurisdictional power of the federal government over Bands makes collaboration with local governments difficult. Natural hazards often have regional impacts, so interjurisdictional collaboration should be an important feature of resilience building. Shared and adapted disaster risk reduction tools are a way to encourage this regional cooperation and build stronger relationships. Through a case study with the Musqueam First Nation, this project identifies methods for adapting a coastal resilience tool (the Resilient-C platform) and proposes recommendations for future collaboration efforts. How can disaster risk reduction tools be adapted to meet the needs of First Nations planning contexts in Canada? Interviews with staff from several departments of the Musquean Band administration were conducted in 2016 to gain further insight on the current institutional challenges for implementing disaster risk reduction efforts. This engagement also informed the recommendations made in this project report, including how resilience tools can be adapted to First Nations contexts through the recognition of Indigenous worldviews and traditional practices, and how the sharing of resources across jurisdictions can be improved within a region. Specific recommendations for the Resilient-C platform—which has been developed by a team of researchers, including the author, at the University of British Columbia (UBC)—were also established.  Recommendations for adapting disaster risk reduction tools to Indigenous contexts were identified through analysis with the Musqueam Nation and informed by the literature review. Musqueam’s perspective on these issues are unique to the Band’s circumstances and provide an initial reference for further research. The recommendations section identifies three themes where specific suggestions are made:1. Recognizing the value in making connections2. General approaches for adapting resilience tools3. Specific proposals for the Resilient-C platformThe partnership with the Musqueam Nation provided a valuable opportunity to co-develop the research design, learn about resilience and coastal adaptation strategies from staff at the Band administration, and to share the research findings to support disaster risk reduction planning across other Indigenous communities in Canada. This research helps to build a framework for developing and adapting tools to meet the needs of Indigenous communities and supports comprehensive approaches for resilience planning. The report concludes that regional resilience efforts must include Indigenous communities through communication, cooperation, and collaboration, to make disaster risk reduction more effective and equitable across Canada. Adapting Disaster Risk Reduction Tools to Support Indigenous Resilience: A Case Study in the Strait of GeorgiabyMichelle MarteleiraBachelor of Public Affairs and Policy Management (B. PAPM), Carleton University, 2011A PROJECT SUBIMTTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE MASTER OF ARTS (PLANNING)inThe Faculty of Graduate and Post-Doctoral StudiesSchool of Community and Regional PlanningTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAVancouverApril 2017© Michelle Marteleira, 2017iiPREFACEThe Behavioural Research Ethics Board at the UBC Office of Research Services approved this project “Adapting a Hazards Vulnerability Index for Indigenous Coastal Management in the Strait of Georgia, Canada”, BREB # H16-00701, on November 2, 2016. The Literature Review section regarding vulnerability indices and the Resilient-C platform is based on work conducted in Dr. Stephanie Chang’s lab at the School of Community and Regional Planning at UBC from September 2014 to May 2017. This research is funded by the Marine Environmental Observation Prediction and Response Natwork (MEOPAR). I was responsible for collecting census and interview data for the coastal communities involved in the Resilient-C platform, and contributed to the public engagement activities of the lab, such as workshops, webinars, and academic presentations.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSFirst, I would like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Stephanie Chang of the School of Community and Regional Planning at UBC for inviting me to her research lab, providing me with a foundational understanding of disaster risk, and supporting my attendance in various conferences, trainings, and events. This project wouldn’t have been possible without her guidance. I would  like to thank the Marine Environmental Observation Prediction and Response Network (MEOPAR) for providing me with funding, support, training opportunities, and a network of supportive peers throughout my graduate studies. I would also like to acknowledge the support I received from the Musqueam First Nation, and particularly from Jessica L. Carson, which made my research and engagement possible. I am very grateful to all of my interviewees from the Band administration for sharing their time and insights to inform this project.  Thank you to all the faculty and staff at the School of Community and Regional planning for enriching my experience in graduate school and introducing me to the many facets of the planning profession. Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family for their continued patience, encouragement, and humour throughout this process - it has been instrumental to the success of my graduate work. iviiiTABLE OF CONTENTSExecutive Summary iiPreface iiiAcknowledgements  ivAcronyms & Abbreviations 1Glossary of Terms 1PROJECT SCOPE 2Introduction 3The Resilient-C Platform 4Objectives 5Methodology 6Research Engagement Methods 7LITERATURE REVIEW  8First Nations Resilience Planning in Canada 9The Urgency of Disaster Risk Reduction for First Nations Communities 10Using First Nations Approaches and Best Practices 13Resilience Tools: Vulnerability Indicators 14RECOMMENDATIONS 161. Recognize the Value in Making Connections 171.1 Establish ways to actively share relevant research with First Nations                                         171.2 Share resilience tools across local governments and First Nations 181.3 Recognize the strengths that exist in First Nations communities 182. Approaches for Adapting Disaster Risk Reduction Tools                  202.1 Adapt regional resilience tools for First Nations contexts 202.2 Consider First Nations modes of resilience 202.3 Mainstream resilience tools across the Band administration    212.4 Identify champions within a Band to lead resilience efforts 222.5 Support further research to identify opportunities for inclusive collaboration                                     233. Recommendations for the Resilient-C Platform 243.1 Add Musqueam First Nation to the platform 243.2 Modify indicators and data sources 243.3 Expand the Resilient-C resource library 25CONCLUSION 26References 28Appendices   31Appendix A: Resilient-C Indicator changes 32Appendix B: Interview Consent Form 33Appendix C: Interview Questions 34List of Figures  Figure 1. Map of First Nations in the Strait of Georgia region, with Musqueam Nation shown in red.   2Figure 2. The Resilient-C interface showing Vancouver as the home community. 4Figure 3. Map of diking infrastructure and First Nations reserves along the Fraser River, near Chilliwack    10Figure 4. Map of First Nations in Canada, with Tribal Council Networks  12Figure 5. Logo for the Aborigrinal Disaster Resilience Planning Guide                    13Figure 6. Map of social vulnerability and climate change in the US Southwest 15Figure 7. Musqueam Creek, the last salmon-bearing stream in Vancouver   19Figure 8. Map of Musqueam Indian Reserve No.2 (IR2), where on-reserve community members live         21Figure 9. Musqueam Band Office 22Figure 10. Map of Musqueam Indian Reserve No. 3 (IR 3), Sea Island 23ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONSBCDRRFLNROINACJIBCMEOPARNGOSCARPSoVIUBCUNHRC UNISDRUSBritish ColumbiaDisaster Risk ReductionThe Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations, British ColumbiaThe Ministry of Indigenous and Northern Affairs CanadaJustice Institute of British ColumbiaThe Marine Environmental Observation Prediction and Response NetworkNon-Governmental OrganizationThe School of Community and Regional PlanningSocial Vulnernability IndexThe University of British ColumbiaUnited Nations Human Rights CouncilUnited Nations International Strategy for Disaster ReductionThe United States of AmericaGLOSSARY OF TERMS AboriginalAdaptationBand (Indian BandCapacityDisaster Risk ReductionExposureFirst NationHazardsIndigenousReserveResilienceRiskStructural MitigationToolsTribal CouncilVulnerabilitySynonymous with Indigenous; refers to the descendants of the original in-habitants of North America. The Canadian government recognizes three groups of Aboriginal people: Indian (First Nation), Métis, and Inuit. Adjusting activities, policies, or infrastructure in response to changes in political or environment circumstances. The unit of government for people subjected to the Indian Act who have the collective use of land set apart by the Crown. A Band is usually repre-sentated by a Band Council and managed by a Band administration.The combination of all the strengths and resources available within a com-munity, society, or organization that can be used to achieve agreed goals. A system or planning process prepared by a community that sets out goals and objectives for reducing risks of disasters and impacts. DRR can sup-port structural mitigation and social and economic vulnerability reduction. The scope of people, infrastructure, housing, industry, and other assets located in hazard-prone areas.A term describing Indigenous communities in Canada that replaces the word Indian, which many have found offensive. A First Nation is often syn-onymous with Indian Band. A phenomenon or human activity that can cause death or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption, or environmental degradation. Examples include floods, eathquakes, and contaminant spills.See Aboriginal.Tract of land, the legal title to which is held by the Crown, set apart for the use and benefit of a Band. Can also be referred to as Indian Reserves.The ability of a system, community, or society facing hazards to resist and recover from the effects of a disaster, including through the preservation and restoration of community systems. The probability of an event with negative consequences. Any physical construction to reduce or avoid possible impacts of hazards, such as dikes, dams, and earthquake-resistent infrastructure.Resources, guides, strategies, plans, or policies that increase knowledge on or capacity to reduce disaster risk.A regional group of First Nations that delivers common services to its membersThe circumstances of a community, system or property that make it sus-ceptible to hazards. 1PROJECT SCOPE1PROJECT SCOPEIntroductionObjectivesMethodologyLITERATURE REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONINTRODUCTIONThe impacts of disasters are urgent concerns for many communities in Canada, and particularly among Indigenous communities, which often lack access to the appropriate tools and resources for hazards mitigation planning and are subsequently disempowered in disaster risk reduction. Indigenous communities have demonstrated adaptability and resilience to natural hazards over millenia, but colonial policies have greatly impeded their ability to manage risk. Insufficient access to resources and planning tools is largely due to a history of poor institutional support, and further decreases the ability for Indigenous communities—which include First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities in Canada—to implement effective and proactive disaster management strategies. There are opportunities for planning practitioners and academics to work with Indigenous community leaders and better understand the socioeconomic contexts that underpin local and regional vulnerability. Interjurisdictional collaboration supports the development of disaster risk reduction initiatives that are locally appropriate and sustainable. This research project investigates the impacts of disproportional disaster risk on First Nations communities in Canada, and examines the potential for an adapted disaster risk reduction platform to improve regional resilience through a case study with the Musqueam First Nation.  Communities in the Strait of Georgia, a body of water between the mainland of British Columbia and Vancouver Island, are exposed to hazards such as coastal and riverine flooding, storm surges, tsunamis, sea level rise, soil erosion, ocean acidification, and contamination from marine spills, among others. The impacts of these hazards are projected to increase with climate change, population growth, and asset densification in coastal areas. In this region, First Nations communities suffer from persistent coastal and riverine flooding, coastal erosion, storm surges, and infrastructure located in vulnerable zones (Dolan et al., 2006). However, a lack of available resources and institutional support prevents First Nations Bands from implementing comprehensive disaster risk reduction strategies to meet these challenges (Newton, 1995). Coastal hazards often have regional impacts, and efforts that strengthen regional resilience through collaboration and resource sharing can be effective at reducing pockets of vulnerability. However, exisiting barriers to regional resilience can include institutional deterrents, limited time or resources, or a lack of historical precedents in collaboration across jurisdictions, among others.  The coastal areas of the Strait of Georgia have been the traditional territory of Coast Salish First Nations for time immemorial; the Musqueam Nation’s traditional territory is 144,888 hectares and includes all of present-day Metro Vancouver, north into Howe Sound, and east up the Fraser River (Musqueam, 2008). Currently, the coastal areas in the Strait of Georgia are managed by municipal governments and 33 First Nations governments (INAC Profiles, 2017), yet coastal risk reduction tools and strategies are often not shared between municipalities and Band staff. Municipalities and First Nations have different bureaucratic and jurisdictional powers; municipalities receive support from provincial governments and can raise their own taxes through delegated powers to implement projects, where First Nations governments liaise through the federal Ministry of Indigenous and Northern Affairs (INAC). This siloed approach leads to gaps in regional resilience efforts.This project seeks to improve access to information and resources for disaster risk reduction among Indigenous communities in general, and to better understand how a coastal risk reduction tool could be specifically adapted for the local needs of the Musqueam First Nation specifically. The recommendations developed through this research are intended to guide interjurisdictional collaboration to make future resilience planning more effective and equitable throughout a region. Figure 1. Map of First Nations in the Strait of Georgia region, with the Musqueam Nation shown in red. 31 PROJECT SCOPEThe Resilient-C Platform The Resilient-C platform was used as a case study to explore the process of adapting disaster risk reduction tools to suit the needs and challenges of First Nations planning contexts. The Resilient Coasts Canada (Resilient-C) platform can be accessed at, and is a new approach to applying vulnerability indicators that allows communities to share knowledge and foster resilience. Resilient-C is an indicator-based approach to disaster and risk reduction planning that was developed by a research team at the University of British Columbia, of which the author was a member of, and is funded by the Marine Environmental Observation Prediction and Response Network (MEOPAR). Resilient-C identifies communities that are similarly vulnerable, and this information is made accessible to disaster and risk management professionals through an online platform (Chang et al., 2015). This approach allows local municipal leaders, such as planners and engineers, to quickly determine which communities face similar hazards and conditions of vulnerability as their own, and the platform provides valuable information about the hazards mitigation or disaster risk reduction strategies that have been implemented. By connecting similarly vulnerable communities and informing them of effective strategies for coastal disaster risk reduction, the Resilient-C platform builds networks of resilience across diverse regions and promotes community-to-community learning.Figure  2. The Resilient-C interface showing Vancouver as the home community. Resilient-C, 2017OBJECTIVESThis project aims to identify existing institutional gaps that have limited the ability for First Nations communities to engage in disaster risk reduction in the Strait of Georgia region and across Canada more broadly. It also aims to find ways to make regional resilience tools inclusive of First Nations communities. Disaster risk reduction tools are characterized as resources, guides, checklists, strategies, plans, or policies that increase knowledge on and improve capacity to reduce disaster risk. Guiding Research QuestionsCan accessible and shared resilience tools lead to better planning outcomes for First Nations communities managing disaster risk?What makes participatory processes and interjurisdictional collaboration valuable for building resilience among First Nations communities? How can these processes and adapted tools help to inform best practices for future planning inititatives of First Nations communities within a broader context of environmental change and disaster risk reduction?Through a case study with the Musqueam First Nation, this project explores the challenges of disaster risk reduction planning in an Indigenous context. Using participatory approaches and engagement methods, best practices are identified for adapting disaster risk reduction tools to support regional resilience that is inclusive to and accessible for Indigenous communities (see Recommendations section). The research involved collaboration with several departments of the Musqueam Band administration to establish an ongoing relationship between the Musqueam First Nation and the Resilient-C research team. First Nations communities face increasing pressures from disaster risk, and it is imperative that effective resilience planning be proactive, appropriate, and invovle multiple stakeholders to meet these challenges.4 5ADAPTING DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TOOLS TO SUPPORT INDIGENOUS RESILIENCE: A Case Study in the Strait of Georgia 1 PROJECT SCOPEMETHODOLOGYThe approach of the research project was two-fold. First, a literature review was undertaken to better understand the context of disaster resilience planning across Indigenous communities in Canada; key themes included the genenal institutional challenges across different levels of government, such as municipal, provincial, and federal structures. Through the ongoing work of the Resilient-C research group and discussions with Band staff, a regional scan of hazards information was conducted to identify the hazards exposure relevant to the Musqueam Band administration. This process included a review of provincial floodplain maps and diking infrastructure maps, and helped to contextualize the kinds of tools and resources that would be most useful for the risk reduction efforts of First Nations communities more broadly, and to address the hazard exposure faced by Musqueam more specifically.Second, methods were identified for adapting the Resilient-C platform specifically for the Musqueam First Nation. This involved focused meetings with several departments of the Band administration to establish research objectives. Later, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with staff members to determine how tools could be used to meet the Band’s specific needs for reducing risk on Musqueam’s reserve land and traditional territory. As noted in the objectives section, the research engagement also addressed how resilience tools could be used across Band departments, and how they might support or leverage external collaboration.The following research objectives were informed by the initial discussions with staff at the Musqueam Band administration:• Improve access to information about disaster risk reduction strategies being undertaken in the Strait of Georgia region• Adapt tools for coastal risk reduction that are relevant to the specific needs of the Musqueam First Nation• Explore appropriate opportunities for the Musqueam Band staff to engage in regional coastal resilience efforts• Identify factors that will allow the Resilient-C platform to be adapted for First Nations communities in the Strait of Georgia region, and articulate ways to adapt tools for Indigenous communities in a broader Canadian context.The scope and methods of the research project were developed with individuals from the relevant Band departments to ensure that the process and emerging findings would benefit the Musqueam First Nation. The research process was flexible, and open to feedback and modification. Research Engagement Methods Research engagement and collaboration occurred at Musqueam’s Band office and at events hosted by the researcher and Resilient-C team in Vancouver. The collaborative approach facilitated participation across community and research-oriented events. Individuals working for the Musqueam band administration were engaged through presentations, inter-departmental meetings, semi-structured interviews, and participation in community events both on- and off-reserve.Direct EngagementEight semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 staff members of the Musqueam Band administration in the fall of 2016. Each of the interviews lasted between 30-90 minutes, and interviewees were asked about how their work relates to coastal management, disaster risk reduction, vulnerability reduction, emergency management, infrastructure, and land use planning. They were also asked about their priorities and general concerns with regards to resilience planning (see a\Appendix C). The departments interviewed included:• Fisheries• Health• Lands• Public Works• Safety and Security• Title and RightsCollaborative EngagementMembers from the Musqueam band administration also participated in events hosted by the Resilient-C research team and MEOPAR. Individuals from the Band administration participated in two annual stakeholder workshops hosted by MEOPAR in Vancouver (2015 and 2016), and participated in the webinar for the Resilient-C platform launch (September 2016).  Additional disaster risk reduction planning outside of this research project was also conducted with Musqueam Band staff. To facilitate the development of the Musqueam Emergency Management Plan, the author advised Band staff on hazards identification and building institutional capacity for disaster risk reduction. The author and Musqueam Band staff also collaborated on disaster risk reduction workshops and events in the region throughout the duration of the project, such as the Understanding Risk Forum, which built trust and strengthened the research partnership.  6 7ADAPTING DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TOOLS TO SUPPORT INDIGENOUS RESILIENCE: A Case Study in the Strait of Georgia 1 PROJECT SCOPEAPRIL - MAYCorrespondence withBand Administration201520162017MARCH - AUGUSTCorrespondence withBand Administration to formalize research partnershipNOVEMBERInterviews conducted with staff accross Musqueam Band Depts.MAYMusqueam staff participates in MEOPAR annual workshop. (hosted by author)AUGUSTBand staff participates in Resilient-C platform webinar. (hosted by author)DECEMBERMusqueam Band staff participates in MEOPAR annual workshop. (hosted by author)OCTOBERIn-person meetings with staff at Band Administration OfficeSEPTEMBERIn-person meeting with staff at Band OfficeJANUARYAuthor helps inform Musqueam’s emergency managementplanning processAPRILJessica L. Carson, Band staff member acts as second reader for projectLITERATURE REVIEW2PROJECT SCOPE LITERATURE REVIEWFirst Nations Resilience PlanninUrgency of DRR for First NationsIndigenous ApproachesResilience Tools: IndicatorsRECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONDisaster risk reduction is a growing policy area for all levels of government, including at international levels. Climate change, in addition to increased exposure to many hazards through population growth and asset densification, have increased public awareness of the loss and damage of potential disasters. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, for example, is an international agreement to reduce disaster risk globally (UNISDR, 2015), and Canada has created a National Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction to mainstream the framework’s goals across the country. Many provinces have developed initiatives to address disaster risk at regional levels, however efforts to include First Nations have only recently begun to address historic the gaps in resilience planning.FIRST NATIONS RESILIENCE PLANNING IN CANADAIncreasingly, the impacts of environmental change–whether experienced through natural hazards, resource and infrastructure development, or climate change–disproportionately affect Indigenous communities around the world (Berkes, 2009; Ford & Smit, 2004; UNHRC, 2014). The geographic location of many First Nations reserves in Canada increases their exposure to natural hazards (Epp, et al., 1998), which is compounded by the lack of resources available to First Nation Band administrations to mitigate the resulting disaster risk or build local resilience. For many Indigenous communities, these consequences are acute; the prevalence of natural hazards risk can pose substantial threats to human safety, limit economic development, and burden capacity building efforts (Dolan et al., 2006).In Canada, the historic impacts of colonialist policies forcibly reduced First Nations territories and severely limited access to traditional land, yet also established reserves in areas prone to natural and human-induced disasters (Berkes, 2009; Epp et al 1998). In British Columbia for example, many First Nations reserves located along the Fraser river are outside of dike-protected areas (FLNRO, 2011). Some of these reserves currently rely on dikes that were built during a past emergency as a response measure; they are not maintained by a diking authority and have inadequate engineering and oversight (FLNRO, 2017). The disparities in hazard exposure and vulnerability between First Nations and other local governments have created significant gaps in regional resilience.  Although there is a wide diversity in the geographic and socioeconomic conditions of Indigenous communities across Canada, ongoing colonial regimes have left most communities systemically under-resourced and without many opportunities to implement or maintain basic infrastructure, such as to supply fresh water, manage local sanitation or waste, build adequate healthcare facilities, or provide reliable food security. Many First Nations communities in Canada are also still healing from the horrific experiences of residential schooling and other socially disruptive policies imposed by the federal government, leading to higher rates of social and economic vulnerability (Frohlich et al., 2006; Adelson, 2005). The intersection of these historic, geographic, environmental, and socioeconomic conditions makes appropriate and proactive disaster risk reduction planning prohibitive for many First Nations communities. 92 LITERATURE REVIEW1010118 10171551101111 11111411108997SRBCS t r e e tCrStewartSloug hSumasLakeCanalMOUNTAINYARROWVEDD ERRIVERPRAIRIER66877778866888777568 12875756567 787776755676666477776667576766 46644477867456654 5666655566777657767787 77565 917853106914161919171716141213111010101214141618141213912 1215 151518161927222222211919181619232118181717 2021232216184860407303308424346368310 282806775141113 1391166102132881875827825744704652843797571569576SUMASPEAKCNRSRBCGREENDALECHILLIWACKMTNI S L A N DQ U E E N SArnoldERRIVERSUMASRIVERS loughMillerS lo ug hVEDDERCANALMc Gi ll i va rySloughYaalstrickIslandMENISLANDQuaamitchSloughZ a i t s c u l l a c h a nSloug hS K U M A LA S P HI S L A N DDEROCHEMartonCrDerocheCrC h i l l i w a c kC r e e kCANADI A NP A C I F I CGOOSELAKECANALSUMASLAKECDuncanSloughFRASE R RIANALL e wi sS l o u ghDNDPyeC rBC 8708472M T NN IC O M E NM T ND E R O C H EL A K EE R R O C KQ U E E N SI S L A N DI S L A N DS K U M A L A S P HC PRCPRSLOUGHNICOMENrisCreekLakeErrockCreekDerochePyeCreekCreekBarnesCreekH o l a c h t e nCr e e kSi d d a ll140BC87098WLAKEE n t r a n c eB a yS m it hFallsC r e e kF i nCre e kL a u r e lC r e e kA s c a p h u sC r e e kC U L T U SL A K EHat ch e r yC r e ekSWELTZERRIVERMidgleyCreekRyderCreekWindfieldCreekYoungCreekS L E S S EP A R KTamihiCreekLiumcTamihRI V ERCHILLI WACKV E D D ER R I V E R228BC88073229BC88073SeedlingCrC HI LL I227BC88073C F B C H I L L I W AC KV E D D E RC R O S S I NGP R O M O N T OR YM TT O MS O U T HS U M A SSRBCAtchelitzCreekS a r d i sP o n dLITTLECHI L L I WA C KRLuckakuckCrAtclelitzCreekS A R D ISR Y D E R L A KER y d e rL a k eRyderCrL O O K O U TR I D G EE L KM T NCalkinsCrM a r b l eh i l l CrFor dCreekElkCree kBrookElkDu n v illeC r e e kN e v i nC r e e kC a mpSlCa mpSl o u ghR O S EB A N KI S L AN DSlou ghHopeHopeSlG r a v e lSlR o s eI s l a n dGravelSloughBell Sl oughC A N A D I A NN A T I O N A LM TS H A N N O NF A I R F I E L DF A I R F I EL D I S L AN DC H I L L I W A C KA I R P O R TCoco-appel oSl oughSheffordSloughC h i lliwackCreekSammihaultCr e e k075074073BC87084BC87084BC87084HopeSlo u g hDunvilleFordCreekElkCreekM TT H U R S T O NC r eekFR A S E RRNev i nC re e kBri d al233BC 88073HARRISONHILLSQUEENSISLANDMINTO LANDINGHOGISLANDHARRISON MILLSCPRCEMETERYHILLROSEISLANDHARRISONKNOBS q u a w k u mC rNi co me nSl oug hH A R R I S O NB A YHARRISBatesonSloughVE RMountainSloughW I N DE R M ER EI S L AN DCampSl o u g hS l o u g hC am pGreye l lSloughGravel S loughBellSloughNel so nbc87098-141bc87098-142161162238394473151618131115141515121414123413791Orchard SloughWSC 08MH0014966415151715141616171616121213151313121315 151417161715151515141515111217101213DownstreamControlStructure1115141413131514161415141417161515151415151415141316149121112121213131282611916151519181719171818171516161717191819 19202119191818202119201618192020211919191918 181922191919171718181719202019HORTARDHILLA G A S S I ZBr id alCrC h e amS l o ughA g ga s si zSloughF V R DF V R DK E N TF V R DCHILLIWACKGREENDALEYARROWABBOTSFORD(SUMAS)H O P E     S L O U G HWellington AveSchweyey RdNicomen Island I DNorth NicomenDyking DistrictVedderCrossingQuarry*Nelso n S loughControlStructure405ControlStructure1204CareyPointN e l s o n             S l o u g h Island 32Camp SloughUpstreamControlStructure E a s t       Di keIsland 22Wing DikeHopeSloughFloodwallTownDikeWe s t  Di k eSetbackDikeSetbackDike (City of Chilliwack)McGillivrayPumpstationBermCollinsonPumpstationFPAF 03 -02-01FPAF 02-02-07Agassiz-RosedaleBridgeCHIPStructureHARRISONMILLSAGASSIZChilliwack Cr.PumpstationNew Cannor Rd DikeMerritt DrBonavista StWilliams StKent RdKillarney DrWedgewood DrChilliwack Lake RoadWilson Road Dike Osborne Road DikeSoowahlie DikeCattermole DikePOPKUM 2Yarrow Central RdYarrow Central RdWilson RdCultus Lake ParkCultus Lake ParkFraser River Ecological ReserveFerry Island ParkChilliwack River ParkBridal Veil Falls ParkKilby Historic Park66672326403820191725243755555254754254143332332031530830230029929821721520817817717216846646543943840265822241554553 26724755155054954854654554454354029239c39b322321319318317316314313312311 310303297257246225221211210209207206205180179176175 17417117016947147046846446343743639a16b16a400383378SKWAY 5SKUMALASPH 16CHEAM 1SOOWAHLIE 14TZEACHTEN 13SKWALI 3SKWAH 4TSEATAH 2GRASS 15SCOWLITZ 1HOLACHTEN 8SQUIAALA 7SCHELOWAT 1SKWEAHM 10SQUAWKUM CREEK 3SQUIAALA 8SKOWKALE 10KWAWKWAWAPILT 6LAKAHAHMEN 11YAALSTRICK 1LACKAWAY 2AITCHELITCH 9ZAITSCULLACHAN 9SKWAHLA 2YAKWEAKWIOOSE 12SKOWKALE 11PAPEKWATCHIN 4WILLIAMS 2AYLECHOOTLOOK 5LAKWAY CEMETERY 3SUMAS CEMETERY 1211.0BENCHARMYLIUMCHEN CREEKVEDDER MOUNTAINLITTLE TAMIHI WESTMOUNT THURSTONTAMIHI NORTHLIUMCHEN WESTPARMENTERNORRISH CREEKWL2000BR1700WD1100CHILLIWACK-TAMIHI CRMOUNT WOODSIDEWL1000CHILLIWACK-MCGUIREBR.NC100ATA1300BR.NC100CWOODSIDE TWOMG1510LAKE ERROCKMG1500WD1500AR1200BR.N500LIUMCHEN LAKEWD1600BR1710AR1100WL4000BR1500AR1300TA1300Lougheed HwyTrans-Canada HwyPrest RdChilliwack Lake RdYale RdTolmie RdDyke RdNo 5 RdYoung RdKeith Wilson RdNo 4 RdChilliwack Central RdElk View RdLickman RdGibson RdPrairie Central RdMcGuire RdIndustrial Way1st AveLimbert RdSouth Sumas RdDixon RdVedder RdHwy 9Banford RdInter Provincial HwyKilby RdAdams RdBallam RdExtrom RdNorth Parallel RdAthey RdHaig HwyMcGrath RdEvans RdNo 3 RdLuckakuck WayAnnis RdunsignedHopedale RdBench RdFord RdChapman RdHope River RdTaylor RdBell RdNo 2 RdNixon RdChadsey RdNevin RdBridge RdBroadwayColumbia Valley RdMarion RdWatson RdSumas Prairie RdBailey RdMajuba Hill RdKnight RdHack-Brown RdVedder CanalTuyttens RdCartmell RdMcSween RdOld Orchard RdYale Rd EVedder Logging Co RdMalcolm RdAirport RdSouth Parallel RdSlesse RdNicomen Island Trunk RdKitchen RdBlackburn RdReeves RdTeskey WayChilliwack River RdSinclair RdBrooks RdReece AveJohnson RdChilliwack Bench FSRProgress WayOld Yale RdLewis AveAllan RdHodgkin RdHinkley RdPioneer AveMary StUpper Prairie RdStewart RdTyson RdBustin RdCameron RdMcLeod RdKennedy RdThornton RdHuston RdCoote StFalls CrtWilson RdBridal Falls RdBrooks AveNorth Nicomen RdWiltshire StUnsworth RdWhelpton RdPortage AveParr RdMcElwee RdGill RdNicomen Slough RdBoundary RdHazel StGillanders RdBrinx RdCarleton StSumas Central RdSherlaw RdSand RdBriteside RdPatterson RdAppel RdTower RdSterling RdRyder Lake RdMarble Hill RdHunt RdTranmer RdOByrne RdRuddock RdSkway RdKitchen-Hall RdAshton RdSylvan DrPelly RdTeskey RdAgassiz AveGrigg RdJesperson RdReid RdBritton AveElm DrMcConnell Rd3rd AveTait RdCarter RdLindell RdEdwards RdKirkpatrick RdStevenson RdElgey RdAitken RdFir RdFarnham RdHaley RdWolfe RdSoowahlie RdWoodbine StCannor RdOhman RdShrewsbury DrVance RdSolway Rd2nd AveLarsen RdMatheson RdHodgins AveBruce RdLookout RdNo 1 RdLake DrGrand View DrMcGregor RdHodgson RdCPR RdBole AveQuarry RdCaen AveCastleman RdPromontory RdFerry RdTopaz Dr Ranchero DrMountain View RdPetawawa RdJinkerson RdBunker RdWells RdMcIntosh DrRamsay PlStandeven RdForester RdCreek RdBarrow RdRoy AvePayne RdFairfield RdGray RdMcCaffrey RdParmenter RdThomas RdPeach RdCheam AveHigginson RdScott RdHocking AveSimmons RdMcDonald RdDyer RdChilliwack Mountain RdE Victor DrJames StTeton AveArmstrong RdParsons RdDieppe StLakeshore DrKalyna DrBowman RdNorth Deroche RdEdward StKerr AveAlken RdMercer RdLoch RdWallace DrPoole RdWatkins RdVimy AveBaker DrChristina DrMoquem PlMorton RdMiller DrThompson RdCessna DrAlpine CresKipp Avemall accessEden DrMaple AveElsie PlHillcrest DrJanzen RdFir StSherwood DrSweetbriar AveSquiala RdEdson DrMoses Dr Walker RdOlds DrMacSwan DrMorrow RdRobinson RdRoss Rd5th AveHusband RdCharles StSappers WayChartwell DrCedarcreek DrAriel PlBell Acres RdGriffin DrSmith RdUplands RdSussex DrSelkirk StGreenhill RdDeroche Landing RdWright RdBayview RdGoldspring PlHayward RdWincott RdHoneysuckle DrParkwood DrLickman Rd OnrampLarter AvePrest Rd OnrampVedder Rd OnrampYoung Rd OnrampCanterbury DrBluejay AvePark DrPaula CresAnnis Rd OnrampSwanson StTilston StRowat AveTeathquathill RdLindys Drprivate drivewayCooper RdTournier PlOrr RdNelson RdGarnet DrEstate DrHolt RdRamona DrBryant PlNewby DrLenora CresPalmer PlOttenbreit RdAshby DrPine StFielder RdWalden StPatricia DrLaurel PlParker RdHwy 9 OnrampKenswood DrSteetaws RdVelma AveCastleman RdunsignedAitken RdunsignedUpper Prairie RdWells RdPark DrunsignedMcDonald RdNo 1 RdBanford RdGray RdHwy 9South Sumas RdMalcolm RdUnsworth RdTrans-Canada HwyunsignedYale RdBoundary RdYale Rd ECannor RdNo 3 Rd14.311.111.214.515.919.615.613.715.316.519.020.314.618.119.513.815.014.018.414.611.613.017.519.719.116.316.913.918.215.511. 11.2 11.311.511.611.811.912.112.312.412.512.712.813.013.313.413.74+890=35+0086+3492+9332+2702+0004+0001+7302+5008+4803+4370+0003+0863+92532+4890+000+000+0083+00-3+0732+8081+00188+00130+55185+45193+23256+380+310=0+000378+10= 0+7108+1812+1201+2560+3700+000 0+3250+0006+9200+4301+2363+90910+00013+54011+83010+44031+50028+85026+8401+133+50 0+000+0050+4053+0074+0066+15228+50335+00378+00349+50401+90264+00172+00148+00171+00294+25447+20105+00117+90118+80138+03442+90143+00110+50272+30540+00101+18139+27491+00564,000564,000566,000566,000568,000568,000570,000570,000572,000572,000574,000574,000576,000576,000578,000578,000580,000580,000582,000582,000584,000584,000586,000586,000588,000588,000590,000590,000592,000592,0005,434,0005,434,0005,436,0005,436,0005,438,0005,438,0005,440,0005,440,0005,442,0005,442,0005,444,0005,444,0005,446,0005,446,0005,448,0005,448,0005,450,0005,450,0005,452,0005,452,0005,454,0005,454,0005,456,000Chilliwackchilliwack_22Local Diking AuthorityCity of ChilliwackPrinted from Digital Files by the Integrated Land Management BureauMap Projection: Albers, NAD83Grid Projection: UTM Zone 10N, NAD 83Revised Date: October 26, 2009File: chilliwack_22CHILLIWACK1:40,0000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80.5Kilometers0 1 2 3 40.5MilesNotes Specific to Local Diking AuthoritiesIndex Mapchilliwack_22kent_28abbotsford_21nicomen_isl_27fvrd_cascade_26fvrd_chilliwack_23dewdney_norrish_24mission_20harrison_29Chilliwackchilliwack_22Map produced for Ministry of Environment, Lower Mainland Region.Note 1: Dikes are shown for reference purposes and are outside local diking authority area.metres Eastt  tmetres Northmetres NorthLegendPumpstation / FloodboxPumpstationFloodboxOpen CulvertStaff GaugeDike Crest GaugeWater Survey Canada (WSC) Real Time GaugeRelief WellLow DikeSpecial ConcernMetric Stationing 0+000Imperial Stationing 0+00Flood Profile Points Incl. Freeboard †Flood Profile LineRipRapLocal Authority Standard Dike §Local Authority Non-Standard Dike §§Other Flood Control WorksFish and Wildlife Water Related StructureDikes Outside Local Area (See Note 1)Flood Profile LineMunicipal BoundaryElectrical transmission linePipelineWater PipelineSewer PipelineGas PipelineEnergy PipelineOilRailwayIndian ReservesProvincial ParkRegional District ParkFloodplainIMPORTANT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMERThe floodplain boundaries and related flood protection infrastructure shownare provided to support flood emergency preparedness, planning and response;broad-based floodplain management, planning and reviews; and other relatedactivities.  It is NOT intended to replace detailed floodplain mapsdesignated under the 1987 Canada/BC Floodplain Mapping Agreement.FLOODING MAY OCCUR OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN AREAS SHOWN.The data was compiled from various sources; it is not warranted as to itsaccuracy or sufficiency by the Ministry of Environment,and is not intended for legal purposes.§ Standard dike - a flood protection structure that meets, or has met, provincial dike standards that are regulated by the Inspector of Dikes under the Dike Maintenance Act.  Due to morphological,  hydrological, and other changes in or about river systems, such a dike shown on the map may not continue to meet current standards.IMPORTANT:  To verify a standard dike’s current status, the Inspector of Dikes office should be contacted.§§ Non-standard dike - a flood protection structure that has a lower level of protection than thatprovided by a standard dike.  Flood protection works that conform to this classification often protect rural agricultural lands and are sometimes referred to as agricultural dikes.†The Fraser River flood profile plus freeboard is derived from the Fraser River Hydraulic Model UpdateReport, March 2008, by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants.  "Standard dikes" have not been evaluated against this new profile and may be lower than theelevation of this new profile plus freeboard.  Details of this study may be found on the Ministry of Environment, Water Stewardship Division web site.The Flood Profile plus Freeboard denotes the standard dike crest elevations established by the Inspector of Dikes for the Fraser River dikes.  Floodproofing elevations for buildings and other development in the floodplain are established by and are the responsibility of local government and other development approval officials.   These floodproofing elevations may vary from the flood profile plus freeboard elevations shown.TH  URGENCY OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION FOR FIRST NATIONS COMMUNITIESPast experiences have shown that the impacts of disasters can have severe consequences for the health, livelihood, and the economic well-being of a community. This is particularly true for flooding events, which are more likely to result in large scale evacuations. Before a disaster occurs, many communities are evacuated to mitigate the worst physical health impacts that a disaster may have, including mitigating the loss of life. Evacuations are a necessary component of a disaster and emergency management protocol, however sometimes an evacuation can exacerbate the negative impacts of a disaster, such as creating new tensions within a community, and between the evacuated community and host municipality (Buckland & Rahman, 1999). An important aim of disaster risk reduction is to eliminate the need for evacuations in the first place. 10 11ADAPTING DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TOOLS TO SUPPORT INDIGENOUS RESILIENCE: A Case Study in the Strait of Georgia 2 LITERATURE REVIEWFigure 3. Map of diking infrastructure and First Nations reserves along the Fraser River, near Chilliwack. FLNRO, 2011In Canada, First Nations com unities are evacuated at much more frequent rate than non-Fi st Nations communities, and can often experience repeated evacuations (Epp et al, 1998). For example, one-third of all evacuations for wildfires have involved First Nations communities, yet Indigenous people only represent about 4% of Canada’s population (Beverly & Bothwell, 2011). There is ample evidence that if a disaster occurs, evacuations and long-term displacement will have negative consequences on community cohesion, mental health, and overall resilience (Quarantelli, 1990). Evacuation processes have also been shown to exacerbate the physical, mental, spiritual, and social impacts of a disaster (Bronen, 2008; Thompson et al, 2014). First Nations communities are forced to confront both of these pressures: they face disproportionate disaster risk and, should a disaster occur, the impacts of evacuation and recovery can further entrench social vulnerability and structural damage for an entire generation, leading to increased disaster risk. This is the institutional catch-22 that looms over many First Nations communities. That Band administrations are frequently overworked and already functioning at maximum capacity compounds these challenges.There are also clear health c nsequences—both physical and mental—for those who undergo evacuations and displacements, particularly if they lead to repeated evacuations or longer term displacement (Norris et al., 2001; Riad & Norris, 1996). Common impacts across evacuated and displaced groups include high rates of PTSD, lasting mental health issues for youth, and increased evels of stress and violence (Stanke et al., 2012; Udwin t al., 2009). Current evacuation processes can recreate colonial policies, such as militarized situations, and a lead to communication breakdowns between a community, evacuators, and other local or provincial governments (Ballard & Thompson, 2013; Francis, 2015). Although these processes should be reevaluated and reformed to better suit the needs of First Nations communities and avoid further harm, communication and cooperation across First Nations and municipal and provincial governments should be greatly improved prior to a disaster.The colonial reserve system that allocated small tracts of land and housing for First Nations administration—often located in remote and vulnerable areas—is one underlying piece of the disaster risk reduction challenges faced by Indigenous communities. Institutional barriers and a lack of communication between governing bodies poses additional strains on resilience building. The allocation of power in Canada mandates that provincial governments generally oversee the planning and creation of structural mitigation systems, while First Nations fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government and must coordinate this type of infrastructure planning with INAC. This division of power has created gaps in administering risk reduction programs uniformly across provinces and the country, unintentionally putting First Nations communities at a higher risk for disasters, and ultimately evacuations.The negative consequences of recent evacuations and long-term displacements of First Nations communities in Canada have only begun to be documented, and they demonstrate the catastrophic impacts that result from a lack of accessible resources for disaster risk reduction and poor communication with other local and regional governments (Obonsawin, 2009). The recent experiences of Hatchet Lake Denesuline First Nation in Saskatchewan and Lake St. Martin First Nation in Manitoba clearly show how families and communities face continued suffering during and after evacuation processes (Scharbach & Waldram, 2016; Thompson et al., 2014). In 2011, a rapidlly developing wildfire near Wollaston, Saskatchewan, resulted the evacuation of the Hatchet Lake Denesuline community, however it was the process of evacuation, and not the encroaching emergency, that led to the most Figure 4. Map of First Nations in Canada, with Tribal Council Networks. INAC, 2017distress. Poor coordination of the evacuation between local responders, Provincial bodies, and the Band admnistration quickly escalated into a highly militarized environment with reports of violence, which deteriorated relationships between the community and other governments in the region (Scharbach & Waldram, 2016). The Lake St. Martin First Nation has experienced repeated and worsening floods for decades, which are largely result of structural flood mitigation policies implemented by the provincial government of Manitoba. In 2011, a massive flood took place in the interlake region of Manitoba, and the provincial government opted to divert water to Lake St. Martin to protect other agricultural and recreation lands at risk. This diversion resulted in the total flooding of the Lake St. Martin First Nation’s lands and the permanent displacement of all 2400 on-reserve community members (Ballard & Thompson, 2013). Institutional coordination between the Band and local and provincial governments was inadequate before the flood occured, and worsened after the evacuation. Those displaced long-term have been left to deal with social isolation, lack of access to traditional food, job insecurity, and poor education and mental health outcomes. Both of these recent disasters demonstrate the urgent need to strengthen interjurisdictional relationships between First Nations, provincial governments, and regional municipalities prior to an emergency event. It is clear that Indigenous communities will disproportionately suffer from the impacts of a disaster. Effective disaster risk reduction must be inclusive of Indigenous communities throughout a region to mitigate these traumatic consequences.USING INDIGENOUS APPROACHES AND BEST PRACTICES The challenges of reducing disaster risk across First Nations communities in Canada is beginning to improve. The Emergency Management department at INAC has increased funding for disaster mitigation programs (INAC, 2017), and INAC has also recently funded practical disaster resilience projects that address this resource gap. For example, the Aboriginal Disaster Resilience Planning Guide (JIBC, 2016) is a toolkit that aids First Nations communities across Canada in their disaster risk reduction planning. The guide contains detailed information about numerous hazards that are relevant to First Nations contexts, including some risks that are less common in municipalities, such as water contamination and food insecurity. As a guide for creating disaster management plans, the online toolkit was adapted to address the institutional planning context of First Nations. The webiste includes information about how Band administrations can liaise with federal and provincial bodies to establish mutual aid agreements or memorandums of understanding for emergency services, for example, and identifies ways that Aboriginal knowledge and worldviews can be woven into resilience planning.Some recent experiences of evacuations also present lessons for applying First Nations approaches when outlining strategies and improvements for disaster risk reduction. The documented impacts of previous disasters experienced by First Nations provide guidance for improving interjurisdictional relationships before an emergency to support resilience, and highlight the need to mitigate the traumatizing effects of an evacuation should it need to occur. INAC and Wilfrid Laurier University recently developed a guide for First Nations communities displaced by disasters, which demonstrates how planning tools can be adapted for both municipalities and Figure 5. Logo for the Aborigrinal Disaster Resilience Planning Guide. JIBC, 2017The Aboriginal Disaster Resil-ience Planning Guide was devel-oped by the Justice Institute of British Columbia in 2014-2015, and was funded by INAC. The toolkit contains information about numerous hazards and ways to identify community resilience. These tools can be accessed online at   12 13ADAPTING DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TOOLS TO SUPPORT INDIGENOUS RESILIENCE: A Case Study in the Strait of Georgia 2 LITERATURE REVIEWFirst Nations to support concurrent resilience building (Pearce et al., forthcoming 2017). The recommendations in this guide are taken from literature and interviews with community members who have recently experienced a disaster and/or evacuation in British Columbia, Manitoba (Ballard & Thompson, 2013; Thompson et al., 2014), Ontario, and Saskatchewan (Scharbach & Waldram, 2013; Scharbach & Waldram 2014). To improve disaster risk reduction collaboration, for example, some of the key recommendations that emerged were increased and transparent communication between a First Nation and municipalities through participation in committees and events, increased capacity building across all Band departments for emergency response and recovery, and the initiation of relationships between Bands and municipalities through a dedicated First Nations liaison. Additional recommendations include ensuring that communities clarify response and evacuation responsibilities with local municipalities, and the recognition of Indigenous contexts throughout risk reduction and recovery processes.RESILIENCE TOOLS: VULNERABLITY INDICATORSResilience planning and implementation involves many actors within an affected community. Environmental management and hazards mitigation are typically reactive and conducted through centralized channels, while little local engagement occurs with affected community residents (Mora, 2009). This is particularly the case for First Nations Bands that must request resources and approval from INAC (Berkes, 2007). These centralized and reactive strategies for coping with vulnerability have significant negative effects on First Nations communities in Canada, which already face a much higher risk of disaster than municipalities in the country. After prolonged inaction, interventions by the state occur only once a disaster already hits a First Nation, leading to traumatic and expensive evacuations, the destruction of homes and infrastructure on reserve, and potentially permanent relocation (Obonsawin 2009, Scharbach & Waldram 2013, Thompson et al 2014). There is a great urgency for locally appropriate and adaptive resilience tools to be developed with First Nations to prevent further catastrophic losses from disasters.Vulnerability indicators have frequently been used for resilience and disaster risk reduction research, and demonstrate a method for quantifying vulnerability for comparative purposes to improve resilience. Indices that assess vulnerability based on categories, such as social and economic vulnerability, represent a common approach to measuring vulnerability at a community scale. Susan Cutter (2003, 2008) and her team developed the Social Vulnerability (SoVI) framework, which predominantly uses census data and has been applied in numerous places in the US and worldwide. This approach identifies areas with the highest and lowest vulnerability, and there are now many other indicator-based methods that measure and spatialize vulnerability across specific hazards, which are often used to inform policy decisions (Balica et al. 2012, Felsenstein & Lichter 2014.) Susan Cutter’s SoVI framework, for example, has since been adapted by other organizations, like Oxfam America, to identifying regional pockets of vulnerability (see Figure 6, Oxfam America, 2009).These indices are useful for identifying communities or neighbourhoods that are the most vulnerable, however many local governments may already be aware of their relative vulnerability to certain hazards, particularly with regards to social and economic vulnerability. For First Nations governments that already experience frequent disasters and emergencies on reserve lands, their high vulnerability is often well-understood by everyone in the community. Knowledge gaps for First Nations leaders in Canada more frequently stem from a lack of access to resources for mitigation and planning (JIBC 2016; Thompson et al., 2014). Band administrations are limited by the amount of funding they have access to and the amount of time they have to research and draft resilience plans. Additionally, many communities or stakeholder groups may not have the capacity to fully communicate the meaning or impacts of a vulnerability score (Chang et al 2015). For First Nations communities in Canada, it can be difficult to appropriately respond to a vulnerability score if there are limited resources available to act or improve resilience. The Resilient-C platform takes a novel approach to vulnerability indices because it compares the similarity of different communities based on their vulnerability profiles (Chang et al, 2015). Methodologically, this type of index moves away from the ranking systems generated by conventional indices (i.e. highest vulnerability to lowest vulnerability) and can be interpreted as less antagonistic. The hazard vulnerability similarity index informs the overall Resilient-C platform, and measures vulnerability based on broader categories. The platform provides a user with an overview of which communities are similarly vulnerable and also acts as a repository of hazard and disaster risk reduction planning resources. For example, if a planner from Community A sees that Community B is similarly vulnerable based on the economic vulnerability category, the planner can see the profile of Community B and get information on their hazard mitigation and resilience plans. These plans are linked to on the platform, and make it easy for communities to share information with each other. This cooperative approach to knowledge and resource sharing supports regional resilience efforts, and the platform’s structure presents an opportunity to explore how it could be adapted and made accessible and useful for First Nations communities. Figure 6. Map of social vulnerability and climate change in the US Southwest, ranked highest to lowest. Oxfam America 200914 15ADAPTING DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TOOLS TO SUPPORT INDIGENOUS RESILIENCE: A Case Study in the Strait of Georgia 2 LITERATURE REVIEWRECOMMENDATIONS3PROJECT SCOPE LITERATURE REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONSMaking ConnectionsAdapting Resilence ToolsModifying Resilient-CCONCLUSIONThe following recommendations were developed based on feedback from interviews and workshops conducted with staff members of the Musqueam Band administration, as well as from key themes that emerged in the literature review. The recommendations are divided into three categories. “Recognize the value in making connections” addresses the interjurisdictional communication and collaboration gaps across local governments, “general approaches to resilience tools” takes a pragmatic approach for adapting resilience tools for First Nations contexts, and “recommendations for the Resilient-C platform” makes specific proposals for the disaster risk reduction platform that was used in this case study. 1. RECOGNIZE THE VALUE IN MAKING CONNECTIONSAcross Canada, the duty to consult First Nations Band administrations only legally applies to the Crown (federal and provincial governments), as it is considered a nation-to-nation dialogue that supports Aboriginal rights and title (Ritchie, 2013). Although industry stakeholders have become more engaged in consultation processes (which predominantly concern environmental impacts from resource development), municipalities, researchers, and other organizations are not obligated to consult with First Nations communities. A lack of incentives or opportunities for interactions between First Nations and regional or municipal governments has roots in past colonial policies. Overcoming some of the institutional siloing that has arisen due to this lack of communication and cooperation can be difficult for those unfamiliar with the process of interjurisdictional relationship-building. These gaps further compound the challenges for regional resilience-building across Canada more broadly. Disaster risk reduction tools, especially for larger scale disasters arising from coastal hazards, should include all potentially affected communities. Recognizing the intrinsic value in making connections across jurisdictions and institutions is an important starting point for making disaster risk reduction more inclusive to First Nations communities.1.1 Establish ways to actively share relevant research with First Nations Many resilience and disaster risk reduction tools already exist, both internationally and within Canada, that could be useful for First Nations communities and other municipalities. Academics, NGOs, and the private sector often collect data and conduct research on hazard mitigation and resilience. Academics are in a better position to share their research as they are seen as a neutral party, and researchers should leverage their position to share data and make it accessible to First Nations 173 RECOMMENDATIONSBand staff. Other research about hazard mapping, structural mitigation, and land use planning should be made available to First Nations communities wherever possible. This type of information sharing may be most successful if it is centrally located on an online database the contains resources for regional or hazard-specific disaster risk reduction resources. For example, an information clearing house could be developed at a regional and/or provincial level to act as a central resource hub for disaster risk reduction, and function online and/or in print. If this information hub addresses regional disaster risk, information can be disseminated to all First Nations that have reserve land or traditional territory in the region. Ideally, this type of information clearing house can be overseen by a committee representing the local municipal, regional, and First Nations governments to encourage in-person cooperation. 1.2 Share resilience planning tools across local governments and First NationsThere is intrinsic value in sharing information with adjacent local governments, including First Nations government, and in making connections in the process of external engagement. Municipal, regional, and provincial governments should share hazard mitigation information with any adjacent First Nations communities, and especially if the hazards have impacts on a regional scale. Capacity development and funding for disaster risk reduction, including for structural mitigation, should be a priority for governments in Canada. Beyond funding and capacity building programs, information about funding opportunities, new studies, and a range of adaptation or structural mitigation options should be widely shared. The INAC community profile map is a useful tool for identifying all of the First Nations with reserve land in any region across Canada. Additionally, a broader approach may include reaching out to First Nations that have traditional territory in the region, but may not have reserve land there. By sharing risk reduction tools and best practices across jurisdictional boundaries, learning opportunities emerge and relationships for collaboration and cooperation can be strengthened between local government staff and Band administrations. 1.3 Recognize the strengths that exist in First Nations communitiesFirst Nations communities often have unrecognized capacity and strengths. Some First Nations are leaders in regional Tribal councils (a group of First Nations that share geography, culture, and/or history and have intergovernmental agreements), for example, and are well-networked with other Bands in the Region. Many First Nations communities also have high social capital, as members know their neighbours closely, are aware of political and community-wide events, and share a sense of culture, history, and language. Increasingly, First Nations communities are gaining sovereignty and building capacity at a grassroots level. Youth have played an important role in recent years to revitalize First Nations cultural and language programs, and several communities have been recognized for their planning processes. Musqueam is an award-winning regional and national leader in First Nations planning, and has engaged in national and high-profile events, such as the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver. Indigenous worldviews and traditional knowledge exemplify a physical and spiritual connection to land, and represent sources of community-wide resilience. These existing strengths should be recognized by other researchers, governments, or institutions involved in disaster risk reduction, which can then facilitate appropriate engagement and relationship-building throughout a region. A point-person working for a Band can help to communicate these strengths by sharing information on cultural events, programs administered by the Band, and other initiatives to staff working for local governments. Figure 7. Musqueam Creek, the last salmon-bearing stream in Vancouver. Musqueam First Nation, Dept. of Intergovernmental Affairs, 2017. 18 19ADAPTING DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TOOLS TO SUPPORT INDIGENOUS RESILIENCE: A Case Study in the Strait of Georgia 3 RECOMMENDATIONS2. APPROACHES FOR ADAPTING DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TOOLSIdeally, disaster risk reduction and resilience tools would be adapted in collaboration with a First Nation Band administration, or with representatives from several First Nations communities in a geographic region. Open communication and sustained cooperation are the most effective approaches for ensuring that a tool most accurately addresses Indigenous contexts, including their specific hazard risk and vulnerabilities. This process of adapting a tool for Indigenous contexts also serves to strengthen relationships by building trust, establishing communication channels, and promoting future collaborations. All stakeholders involved in developing and implementing tools, including researchers, NGOs, municipalities, and First Nations, will support regional resilience through these inclusive efforts.2.1 Adapt regional resilience tools for First Nations contextsConventional indicator frameworks and general disaster resilience tools are tailored to suit the needs of municipalities or other levels of government, and often do not consider the unique and specific contexts of First Nations governance. Still, adapting these tools is especially important in Canada where jurisdictional and economic barriers disproportionately disadvantage First Nations. Adapting disaster risk reduction tools first means making them available to Indigenous communities online, in print, or through face-to-face communication. Tools should be adapted for the institutional and socioeconomic contexts of Indigenous communities by considering, for example, that structural mitigation measures may not always be available to a Band. Data availability should also be accounted for when adapting tools, as some First Nations may have less access to hazards data than municipalities. Issues of vulnerability and resilience specific to First Nations communities should be considered for indicators, which is explained in more detail in Recommendations 3.1- Consider First Nations modes of resilience Other modes of resilience should be included in tools or approaches to disaster risk reduction. For example, the transfer of traditional knowledge to younger generations is a key aspect of resilience across First Nations communities. Traditional practices reflect the unity and independence of First Nations communities, and speak to their resilience throughout the process of colonization. Knowledge keepers in a community may also have a unique understanding of how ecological systems would need to be considered in disaster risk reduction planning, such as species migration at a regional level. The connection to land, such as the ability to hunt, fish, gather traditional foods, and practice culture in a traditional territory, is another important feature of resilience that should be considered in tools and policies addressing disaster risk reduction. Some First Nations communities may not be willing to make trade-offs for achieving risk reduction goals in the same way a municipality would; certain geographic areas, for example, may hold intrinsic value for cultural and spiritual reasons, and would not be substitutable. Limited land bases may also reduce adaptation and resilience options. This becomes important when considering the environmental impacts of structural mitigation and in climate change adaptation planning. See Thompson and Ballard (2013 & 2014) for an example of how structural mitigation can have negative and irrevocable unintended consequences when First Nations communities are not involved. Figure 8. Map of Musqueam Indian Reserve No.2 (IR2), where nearly all on-reserve community members live. Musqueam First Nation, Dept. of Intergovernmental Affais, 2017.  2.3 Mainstream resilience tools across the Band administration This recommendation is relevant to staff of a Band administration, as well as researchers or policy-makers. Band administration staff can mainstream resilience planning in economic development plans, land use plans, climate change adaptation plans, and traditional use studies to take a holistic approach to disaster risk reduction. This will also make the implementation of preparedness programs easier. For example, traditional use studies can help to inform the types of resilience approaches that are most appropriate for a given location by identifying areas or corridors of priority that should be protected (e.g. for spiritual or 20 21ADAPTING DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TOOLS TO SUPPORT INDIGENOUS RESILIENCE: A Case Study in the Strait of Georgia 3 RECOMMENDATIONSarcheological purposes), and by demonstrating traditional ways that hazards have been successfully mitigated or accommodated by the community throughout their history. A Band can also mainstream disaster risk reduction efforts through land use plans, emergency management plans, health plans, and climate change adaptation plans. These plans can operationalize resilience planning by identifying locations for intervention, preparedness activities, approaches for managing changing hazard risk, and anticipating future needs of vulnerable community members. Further, mainstreaming resilience can lead to increased opportunities to engage at a regional level as different Band departments may interact with a variety of external stakeholders involved in disaster risk reduction throughout the year.Researchers and policy makers may also seek to adapt a tool for First Nations contexts. In this case, an effective approach includes anticipating how resilience tools could be used by several departments of a Band administration. This will make the resilience tool much easier to implement across a First Nation. For example, tools or strategies for disaster risk reduction can consider how a health, fisheries, or education department at a Band may be able to apply the tool in their own programs. Further, a researcher, NGO, or local government addressing disaster risk reduction at a regional level can share educational tools with multiple staff from Band administrations in a region.Figure 9. Musqueam Band Office. Musqueam First Nation, Dept. of Intergovernmental Affais, 2017.  2.4 Identify champions within a Band to lead resilience effortsWhen possible, individuals can be identified to champion resilience efforts within a Band Council or the Band administration. Allocating responsibilities among staff who may already have other positions and a heavy workload can be challenging, however it is important that a Band takes proactive measures for disaster risk reduction. Mainstreaming resilience across Band departments can help to alleviate this workload (see Recommendation 2.3). An individual that works across departments in a band administration may be best-suited for this task and could be identified as the point person for interjurisdictional communication, participating in regional collaborations, and developing resilience strategies. They could then engage others in the administration in disaster risk reduction activities, such as sharing information about hazard risk. This approach of having a “First Nations liaison” has been successful for interjurisdictional disaster response in Canada, and could be an effective for improving regional cooperation (Pearce et al, 2017). Additional funding should be provided by the federal and provincial governments to support this type of initiative.2.5 Support further research to identify opportunities for inclusive collaborationThe existing research on First Indigenous disaster resilience is limited both within Canada and internationally. Much more research needs to be undertaken to identify how municipalities and regional governments can collaborate with Indigenous communities to comprehensively reduce disaster risk and prevent emergencies from occurring. Canadian researchers have an opportunity to address the gap in disaster risk reduction across jurisdictional boundaries, and can initiate relationships by reaching out to First Nations communities to see how these institutional gaps could best be addressed. Research collaborations that involve university faculty, students, and staff from both a Band administration and a local municipality would present an excellent opportunity to explore these challenges.Figure 10. Map of Musqueam Indian Reserve No. 3 (IR 3), Sea Island. This reserve is surrounded by the City of Richmond and is exposed to flooding from the Fraser River. Musqueam First Nation, Dept. of Intergovernmental Affais, 2017.  22 23ADAPTING DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TOOLS TO SUPPORT INDIGENOUS RESILIENCE: A Case Study in the Strait of Georgia 3 RECOMMENDATIONS3. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE RESILIENT-C PLATFORM3.1 Add Musqueam First Nation to the platform A community profile would give Musqueam an opportunity to interact with the platform’s functions, such as identifying vulnerability similarity in the region based on different categories. The community profile could also showcase Musqueam’s existing plans that involve risk reduction, land use, and coastal management. Representation on the Resilient-C platform would allow the Musqueam Band administration to have access to the community profiles and plans of other municipalities in one online tool, as well as display their own initiatives. The ability to access a repository of other planning resources could help to inform the current and future planning processes of the Band, such as land use planning for reserve or territorial land, or emergency management planning. Once added to the platform, Musqueam administrators will help demonstrate new uses for the platform from a First Nations perspective, which can benefit other First Nations looking for disaster risk reduction resources. 3.2 Modify indicators and data sources From interviews with members of the Band administration, it became clear that indicator data would have to be modified to fit the context of how information about First Nations communities are collected and shared, and how certain kinds of information better represent resilience than others. The indicator categories (Social, Economic, Natural Environment, Built Environment, and Institutional) generally seemed to work for the Musqueam Band, however there were additions, eliminations, and changes to specific indicators. Some new indicators include: % of on-reserve community members who fish% people with chronic diseases or mobility issues# of traditional use/archeological sites in coastal areasThese new additions reflect the values of the community that were not captured by the original indicator list. The number of community members who fish represents the amount of people who are able to go out on the land in the traditional territory and subsist on traditional foods, which is a measure of resilience. Some First Nations may have higher rates of chronic illness or mobility issues, which indicates vulnerability, and most health departments at a Band will have this data for the community. The number of traditional use or archeological sites in coastal areas represents a type of vulnerability in the natural or built environment, and is an important aspect of Indigenous values to consider in the context of coastal hazards.Indicators that would be modified include:Flood ProtectionGovernance PositionAlong the Fraser River, many First Nations reserves are outside of dike-protected areas (see section 2: Literature Review). Some Band administrations have implemented other forms of diking infrastructure that is not overseen by a diking authority, and which may only provide partial protection. The flood protection indicator should be modified to indclue categories for “partially complete” or in “process”, in addition to the “yes” and “no” categories. A First Nation represents a different type of government than municipalities or regional districts. The governance position indicator would need to be modified to include “First Nations Band”, in addition to the other categories. Indicators that will be excluded include:Housing ValueNon-English speakersHousing value was not considered a useful indicator because on-reserve housing cannot be sold on the market, and reserve lands are held by the Crown. The existing indicator for “old buildings”, is much more useful for comparing vulnerability in a First Nations context, and Bands will often have data about the age and condition of residential dwellings on-reserve.  The indicator for non-English speakers was not considered useful because it represents groups with special needs, such as new immigrants, which is not usually applicable for communities living on reserve. Further, many Indigenous communities were forced to speak English through colonization, resulting in a loss of language and community connection. Indigenous language revitalization programs are growing throughout Canada, and are understood as a way to support reconciliation and community resilience. For these reasons, the indicator for non-English speakers is not especially relevant to the Musqueam Band.Refer to Appendix A for a full list of the modified indicators and a justification for the changes. 3.3 Expand the Resilient-C resource libraryThe activities section in the community profile page shows the actions and plans that have been implemented by a community for disaster risk reduction, and links them to specific hazards. A separate column could be added to this section to identify if there were particular funding sources for each strategy, such as provincial or federal grants, or contributions from non-governmental organizations. This would be particularly useful for a First Nation Band administration that may not be aware of funding or partnership opportunities.  Some of the funding sources may not be relevant to First Nations, however it is useful to for all the participating communities to see what types of funding or resources are available, and how they’ve been applied, as this continues to be a persistent challenge for regional resilience building. 24 25ADAPTING DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TOOLS TO SUPPORT INDIGENOUS RESILIENCE: A Case Study in the Strait of Georgia 3 RECOMMENDATIONSCONCLUSION4CONCLUSIONAnalysis of how to adapt disaster risk reduction tools, such as the Resilient-C plat-form, for Indigenous communities identifies important lessons for implementing strategies and plans to support regional resilience. Indigenous communities across Canada will face increasing pressures and hazard risk, and it is imperative that ef-fective disaster risk reduction planning be proactive and appropriate to meet these challenges. Information, strategies, and resilience-building tools should be adapted and disseminated across jurisdictions throughout a region or province, and there are opportunities for researchers and NGOs to contribute to facilitating regional collaboration. This is particularly important in the Strait of Georgia region of British Columbia where many First Nations are adjacent to municipalities and are exposed to similar hazards. Adapting disaster risk reduction tools for Indigenous contexts improves regional resilience by ensuring that resources and information are shared more equitably to reduce pockets of higher vulnerability.The recommendations generated by this research are intended to help guide future disaster risk reduction efforts. Institutional capacity can be a challenge for many First Nations communities, and staff may not be prepared to add more responsi-bilities to their already full list of tasks within a Band administration. Disaster risk reduction approaches that consider the time and human resource constraints faced by many, if not most, First Nations, will be the most successful. These recommen-dations may also need to be adapted for different institutional and geographic con-texts; regional resilience efforts may require further modification if a community is remote, or has different institutional relationships with a provincial, territorial, or federal body. Inuit and Métis communities, for example, have different legal and institutional arrangements within Canada that should be considered when adapting disaster risk reduction tools.Indigenous communities each face unique challenges for reducing disaster risk, and an effective way to approach resilience is to start with open communication and cooperation. Relationships between researchers, NGOs, municipalities, and First Nations that are built on trust and common goals can have lasting impacts that improve regional capacity to confront environmental changes and manage disaster risk. 274 CONCLUSIONPROJECT SCOPE LITERATURE REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONREFERENCESAdelson, N. (2005). The embodiment of inequity: Health disparities in Aboriginal Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health/Revue Canadienne de Sante’e Publique, S45-S61.Balica, S.F., Wright, N.G. & van der Meulen, F. (2012). Nat Hazards. 64: 73. doi: 10.1007/s11069-012-0234-1Ballard, M. & Thompson, S. (2013). Flooding Hope and Livelihoods: Lake St. Mar-tin First Nation. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research.Berkes, F. (2007). Understanding Uncertainty and Reducing Vulnerability: Lessons from Resilience Thinking. Natural Hazards, 41(2), 283–295.Berkes, F. (2009). First Nations Ways of Knowing and the Study of Environmental Change. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 39(4), 151–156.Beverly, J.L. & Bothwell, P. (2011). Wildfire evacuations in Canada 1980–2007. Natural Hazards (59), 571–596.Bronen, R. (2008). Alaskan communities’ rights and resilience. Climate Change and Resistance, Forced Migration Review, Special Issue, 30-32. Retrieved from, J. and Rahman, M. (1999), Community-based Disaster Manage-ment During the 1997 Red River Flood in Canada. Disasters, 23: 174–191. doi:10.1111/1467-7717.00112Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2009). Home safe home: The Co-wichan Reclamation Project.Canadian Press. (2015, April 22). Northern Ontario First Nation community to begin evacuation due to flooding. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from, S. E., Yip, J. Z. K., van Zijll de Jong, S. L., Chaster, R., & Lowcock, A. (2015) “Using Vulnerability Indicators to Develop Resilience Networks: A Sim-ilarity Approach.” Journal of Natural Hazards, 78: 1827. doi:10.1007/s11069-015-1803-x.Cooke, M., Beavon, D., & McHardy, M. (2004). Measuring the Well-Being of Ab-original People: An Application of the United Nations’ Human Development In-dex to Registered Indians in Canada, 1981-2001. Ottawa: Strategic Research and Analysis Directorate, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.Cutter, S. L., B. J. Boruff, and W. L. Shirley. 2003. Social vulnerability to environ-mental hazards. Social Science Quarterly 84 (2): 242-261.Cutter, S. L., L. Barnes, M. Berry, C. Burton, E. Evans, E. Tate, and J. Webb. 2008. A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disas-ters. Global Environmental Change 18: 598-606.Dolan, A. H., & Walker, I. J. (2006). Understanding vulnerability of coastal com-munities to climate change related risks. Journal of Coastal Research, 1316-1323.Epp, D., Haque, E. C., & Peers, B. (1998, March). Emergency preparedness and First Nation communities in Manitoba. Brandon, MT: WESTARC Group, Bran-don University. Produced for Emergency Preparedness Canada. Retrieved from, Felsenstein, and Lichter M. 2014. “Social and Economic Vulnerability of Coast-al Communities to Sea Level Rise and Extreme Flooding”. Natural Hazards 71(1):463-491Ford, J. D., & Smit, B. (2004). A Framework for Assessing the Vulnerability of Communities in the Canadian Arctic to Risks Associated with Climate Change. Arctic, 57(4), 389–400.Francis, A. (2015). Kashechewan evacuees face years-long wait before re-turn home. (video). APTN National news.  Retrieved from, E. D., Dougill, A. J., Mabee, W. E., Reed, M., & McAlpine, P. (2006). Bottom up and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indica-tor identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 78(2), 114–127.Frohlich, K. L., Ross, N., & Richmond, C. (2006). Health disparities in Canada today: Some evidence and a theoretical framework. Health Policy, 79(2), 132-143.Healey, P. (1992). A Planner’s Day: Knowledge and Action in Communicative Prac-tice. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(1), 9.First Nations and Northern Affairs Canada. (2017). First Nations Community       Profiles Map.  Retrieved from First Nations and Northern Affairs Canada. (2017). Emergency Management Assis-tance Program.  Retrieved from   Justice Insititute of British Columbia. (2016). The Aboriginal Disaster Resilience Planning Guide. Retrieved from   Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO). (2011).  Lower Mainland dike inventory maps. Retrieved from Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO). (2017).       Dike Management and Safety: Construction Operation and Maintenance Dikes. Retrieved from Mora, S. (2009). Disasters are not natural: risk management, a tool for develop-ment. In M. Culshaw, H. Reeves, I. Jefferson, & T. Spink (Eds.), Engineering geology for tomorrow’s cities, vol 22. Geological Society of London’s Engi-neering Geology Special Publication (pp. 101–112).Musqueam Indian Band. (2008). Musqueam Land Use Plan. Newton, J. (1995). An assessment of coping with environmental hazards in north-ern aboriginal communities. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe cana-dien, 39(2), 112-120.Norris, F., et al. (2001). A qualitative analysis of posttraumatic stress among Mexi-can victims of disaster. Journal of Traumatic Stress, (14)4, 741-756Norris, FH., Murphy, A.D., Bake, C.K., & Perilla, J.L. (2004). Postdisaster PTSD       over four waves of a panel study of Mexico’s 1999 flood. Journal of Traumatic Stress. (17)4, 283-29228 29ADAPTING DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TOOLS TO SUPPORT INDIGENOUS RESILIENCE: A Case Study in the Strait of Georgia 4 REFERENCESObonsawin, J. (2009). Evacuation of First Nations communities in Ontario: Issues and recommended practices. (Masters Thesis). Retrieved from America. (2009). Exposed: Social Vulnerability and Climate Change in the US Southwest. Retrieved from:, L., Murphy, B., Chretien, A., Marteleira, M., and Bissey, M. (Forthcoming,       2017). From Displacement to Hope: A Guide for Displaced First Nations Com-munities and Host Communities. Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU), and Indige-nous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC).Porter, L. (2006). Planning in (Post) Colonial Settings: Challenges for Theory & Practice. Planning Theory & Practice, 7(4), 383–396.Quarantelli, E. L. (1990). The warning process and evacuation behavior: The research evidence. Newark, DE: University of Delaware, Disaster Research Center. Retrieved from, J.K. & Norris, F.H. (1996). The influence of relocation on the environmental, social, and psychological stress experienced by disaster victims. Environment and Behavior, 28(2), 163 – 18Ritchie, Kaitlin. (2013). “Issues Associated with the Implementation of the Duty to Consult and Accommodate Aboriginal Peoples: Threatening the Goals of Reconciliation and Meaningful Consultation,” UBC Law Review 397 at 408-409, 414-415.Scharbach, J. & Waldram, J. (2016). Asking for a disaster: The emergency evacu-ation experiences of the Hatchet Lake Denesuline First Nation. Human Organi-zation, 75 (1), 59-70.  doi:, J.& Waldram, J.B. (2016). Asking for a Disaster: Being “At Risk” in the Emergency Evacuation of a Northern Canadian Aboriginal Community. Human Organization, 75(1), 59 - 70.Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Ac-tion. London: Ashgate.Stanke, C. Murray, V., Amlōt, R., Nurse, J., Wiliams, R.  (2012). The Effects of Flooding on Mental Health: Outcomes and Recommendations from a Review of the Literature. PLOS Current Disasters. 1. doi: 10.1371/4f9f1fa9c3caeThompson, S., Ballard, M., & Martin, D. (2014). Lake St. Martin First Nation com-munity members’ experiences of induced displacement: “We’re like refugees”. Refuge, 29(2), 75-86.Udwin, O., Boyle, S. Yule, W, Bolton, D, & O’Ryan, D. (2009). Risk factors for long-term psychological effects of a disaster experienced in adolescence: Predictors of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 41(8), 969-979United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR). Send-ai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015-2030. (2015). Retrieved from: United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Expert Mechanism on the Rights of First Nations Peoples. (2014). Promotion and protection of the rights of First Nations peoples in disaster risk reduction, prevention and preparedness initiatives. Geneva.APPENDICES30 ADAPTING DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TOOLS TO SUPPORT INDIGENOUS RESILIENCE: A Case Study in the Strait of GeorgiaAppendix A: Resilient-C Indicator Changes. Appendix B: Interview Consent Form                                             	Version	2:	1	November	2016																																	Page	1	of	3	 	 		Research	Consent	Form		Indigenous	Coastal	Management	in	the	Strait	of	Georgia		I.	Who	Is	Conducting	The	Study?	Principal	Investigator:			Prof.	Stephanie	Chang,	School	of	Community	and	Regional	Planning	(SCARP)	University	of	British	Columbia		Co-Investigator(s):		Michelle	Marteleira,	MA	Planning	Candidate,	the	School	of	Community	and	Regional	Planning,		University	of	British	Columbia		604-838-3774		This	research	is	for	a	graduate	degree,	and	will	contribute	to	a	graduating	project	(semi-public	document).		The	project	report	will	be	made	available	to	planners	from	participating	First	Nations	communities	and	to	the	faculty	of	the	School	of	Community	and	Regional	Planning	at	the	University	of	British	Columbia.		 II.	Who	is	funding	this	study?		The	study	is	being	funded	by	the	Marine	Environmental	Observation	Prediction	and	Response	(MEOPAR)	Network.	 III.	Why	are	we	doing	this	study?		You	are	being	invited	to	take	part	in	this	research	study	because	you	are	a	planner	or	you	work	in	a	lands,	public	works,	infrastructure,	or	related	department	for	a	coastal	First	Nation	in	the	Strait	of	Georgia.		We	want	to	learn	more	about	how	to	help	coastal	First	Nation	communities	manage	coastal	risks	from	natural	hazards.				This	study	will	help	us	learn	more	about	the	existing	gaps	in	coastal	risk	management.		We	are	inviting	people	working	for	coastal	First	Nations	to	help	us,	and	are	doing	this	study	to	learn	more	about	whether	or	not	an	online	platform	tool	would	be	useful	for	your	coastal	risk	reduction	efforts.		 IV.	How	is	the	study	done?		If	you	agree	to	participate	in	this	study,	we	will	ask	you	about	what	kinds	of	gaps	currently	exist	for	proactive	coastal	management	with	Indigenous	communities.	With	your	consent,	an	interview	time	will	be			32 33 APPENDICES34 35ADAPTING DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TOOLS TO SUPPORT INDIGENOUS RESILIENCE: A Case Study in the Strait of Georgia  APPENDICESAppendix C: Interview Consent Form																						 																							Version	2	17-04-09			Research	Study:	Indigenous	Coastal	Management	in	the	Strait	of	Georgia			Sample	Interview	Questions:		1. Can	you	please	state	your	name	and	position,	including	department,	at	the	Musqueam	First	Nation?	2. How	long	have	you	been	working	in	this	position?		3. In	what	ways	does	your	work	deal	with	coastal	management?		4. Does	your	work	deal	with	emergency	management?		5. What	do	you	think	are	the	biggest	challenges	for	coastal	management	facing	the	Musqueam	First	Nation?	6. What	specific	challenges	for	coastal	management	or	coastal	resilience	do	you	face?	7. What	would	help	the	Musqueam	Nation	meet	the	challenges	for	coastal	management	and	resilience	that	you	described?		8. Is	a	lack	of	information	on	coastal	hazard	mitigation,	or	local	coastal	management	policies,	an	issue	in	your	work?		9. Would	an	online	tool	identifying	communities	with	similar	vulnerabilities	to	yours	be	valuable	for	your	work?		10. Would	it	be	beneficial	to	know	how	other	similarly	vulnerable	communities	are	addressing	coastal	management?			****	10	minute	live	demonstration	of	Hazard	Vulnerability	Similarity	Index,	an	online	platform	that	spatially	identifies	communities	that	share	similar	vulnerability	profiles,	is	provided	for	the	participant************		11. Would	this	platform	be	a	useful	tool	for	your	department	or	other	departments	with	the	Musqueam	First	Nation?		12. If	not,	why?	13. If	so,	what	do	you	think	makes	it	useful?	14. How	would	you	improve	the	platform	to	be	more	relevant	for	the	Musqueam	First	Nation?	15. Would	you	include	additional	vulnerability	indicators?		16. Would	you	remove	any	of	the	existing	vulnerability	indicators?	17. When	and	why	would	you	use	this	platform?		36 ADAPTING DISASTER RISK REDUCTION TOOLS TO SUPPORT INDIGENOUS RESILIENCE: A Case Study in the Strait of GeorgiaCover Page: Map of the Fraser River floodplain, North Arm, affecting the City of Vancouver, the City of Richmond, and the Musqueam First Nation.  © Michelle Marteleira, 2017The University of British Columbia


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items