Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies
DSpace
UBCV
Oswald, David Nicholas
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
Coastal zones are complex environments positioned at the intersection of land and marine systems where multi-scale interactions between different environmental components present distinct challenges for managing socio-economic activity. These environments provide several valuable ecosystem services that are beneficial to society, and have historically been important for social, economic, and cultural development. Despite the wide array of benefits provided by coastal ecosystem services, typically only a small proportion of them are considered in policy and development decisions, nor is their total economic value assessed. There are also many policies and regulations that apply to only distinct components of coastal zones and are implemented individually without consideration of their interactions, nor do they consider different values and knowledge systems. There is a profound need for a framework for coastal zone management that connects these different dimensions – ecosystem services, economic valuation, socio-cultural values, knowledge systems, and governance processes. This thesis takes an interdisciplinary approach to environmental, socio-cultural, economic, and historical aspects of coastal zone management in BC coastal nations. BC coastal nations were chosen based on their diverse biophysical environments and the unique challenges of First Nations natural resource rights and colonialization. This thesis outlines the rationale for a new systematic framework utilizing an ecosystem approach which incorporates economic valuation. The framework is explained in terms of its application in Haida Gwaii, as an example of a BC coastal nation, but is intended to be generally applicable. The main contributions: (a) provide a mechanism for incorporating differential values and knowledge systems in coastal zone management decisions; (b) present a framework through which multiple different ecosystem services can be assessed in the coastal zone; (c) incorporate different economic valuation methods for ecosystem services to economically account for externalities; (d) create a systematic framework for coastal zone management that incorporates ecosystem based management, different socio-cultural perspectives, economic valuation of ecosystem services, and socio-ecological dynamics. Adoption of more systematic and inclusive approaches to coastal zone management, as presented in this thesis, may result in more balanced development decisions, and could hopefully contribute to reconciliation in Canada and other countries which have a history of colonialization.
A SYSTEMATIC FRAMEWORK FOR COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN BC COASTAL NATIONS by DAVID NICHOLAS OSWALD B.Sc. Royal Roads University, 1999 M.Sc. McGill University, 2008 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Interdisciplinary Studies) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) April 2024 © David Nicholas Oswald, 2024 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled: A systematic framework for coastal zone management and economic valuation of ecosystem services in BC coastal nations submitted by: David Nicholas Oswald in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Interdisciplinary Studies Examining Committee: Les Lavkulich, Professor, Department of Food and Resource Economics, UBC Supervisor Dianne Newell, Professor, Institute for the Ocean and Fisheries, UBC Co-supervisor Terre Satterfield, Professor, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, UBC University Examiner Charles Menzies, Professor, Department of Anthropology, UBC University Examiner Ståle Navrud , Professor, School of Economics and Business, Norwegian University of Life Sciences External Examiner Additional Supervisory Committee Members: Rashid Sumaila, Professor, Institute for the Ocean and Fisheries, UBC Supervisory Committee Member Sumeet Gulati, Professor, Department of Food and Resource Economics, UBC Supervisory Committee Member iii Abstract Coastal zones are complex environments positioned at the intersection of land and marine systems where multi-scale interactions between different environmental components present distinct challenges for managing socio-economic activity. These environments provide several valuable ecosystem services that are beneficial to society, and have historically been important for social, economic, and cultural development. Despite the wide array of benefits provided by coastal ecosystem services, typically only a small proportion of them are considered in policy and development decisions, nor is their total economic value assessed. There are also many policies and regulations that apply to only distinct components of coastal zones and are implemented individually without consideration of their interactions, nor do they consider different values and knowledge systems. There is a profound need for a framework for coastal zone management that connects these different dimensions – ecosystem services, economic valuation, socio-cultural values, knowledge systems, and governance processes. This thesis takes an interdisciplinary approach to environmental, socio-cultural, economic, and historical aspects of coastal zone management in BC coastal nations. BC coastal nations were chosen based on their diverse biophysical environments and the unique challenges of First Nations natural resource rights and colonialization. This thesis outlines the rationale for a new systematic framework utilizing an ecosystem approach which incorporates economic valuation. The framework is explained in terms of its application in Haida Gwaii, as an example of a BC coastal nation, but is intended to be generally applicable. The main contributions: (a) provide a mechanism for incorporating differential values and knowledge systems in coastal zone management decisions; (b) present a framework through which multiple different ecosystem services can be assessed in the coastal zone; (c) incorporate different economic valuation methods for ecosystem services to economically account for externalities; (d) create a systematic framework for coastal zone management that incorporates ecosystem based management, different socio-cultural perspectives, economic valuation of ecosystem services, and socio-ecological dynamics. Adoption of more systematic and inclusive approaches to coastal zone management, as presented in this thesis, may result in more balanced development decisions, and iv could hopefully contribute to reconciliation in Canada and other countries which have a history of colonialization. v Lay Summary Communities in coastal zones are critical to social and economic development and are reliant on ecosystem services, which are the services that ecosystems provide to society such as provisioning of food, regulating the climate, and providing recreational opportunities. Development decisions such as the building of ports or other infrastructure are fundamental to economic development, yet they occur without factoring in the full economic costs of their environmental impacts. The diverse values and different ways of understanding the environment utilized by stakeholders and First Nations rights holders are also typically not considered in policy and development decisions in coastal zones. BC coastal nations are particularly good examples of this due to the history of colonialization of the coastal First Nations by the Government of Canada. This thesis presents a systematic framework for coastal zone management and economic valuation of ecosystem services to address these issues. vi Preface This thesis is my original work. I identified the research problems, obtained funding for the research, formulated the research approach, gathered the data through a systematic analysis of the literature, analyzed the results, designed the coastal zone management framework, and wrote the chapters. The COVID-19 pandemic broke out mid-way into this project, so the research approach had to be changed with no field work included. The Council of the Haida Nation was officially contacted with the proposed research plan but did not agree to participate as the topic was not a priority of theirs (see email response in Appendix A). An alternative approach was developed based on internal discussions within the advisory committee. The work was pursued independently although a co-development approach was preferred. My advisory committee (Drs. Les Lavkulich, Dianne Newell, Sumeet Gulati, and Rashid Sumaila) provided valuable feedback on my research design, initial results, and draft chapters. vii Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary .................................................................................................................................. v Preface ........................................................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... vii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. x Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... xi Dedication ................................................................................................................................... xiii Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Research Context .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Environmental management Challenges in Coastal Zone Management .......................................... 3 1.3 Reorientation of Economic Analysis .................................................................................................. 5 1.4 Recognizing differential values, knowledge systems, and governance processes ............................ 7 1.5 First Nations Rights and Inequities Resulting from Colonialization ................................................... 9 1.6 Research Approach .......................................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 2: Ecosystems, Environmental Management, and the Coastal Zone .............................. 18 2.1 Coastal Zone Management at a Precipice – The Need for a Systems Perspective .......................... 18 2.2 Defining the Coastal Zone ............................................................................................................... 21 2.3 Challenges in Coastal Zone, Environmental Management, and Governance .................................. 27 2.4 Ecosystems Services and the Coastal Zone ..................................................................................... 31 2.5 Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services in the Coastal Zone ..................................................... 35 2.6 Strategy for Addressing These Challenges ...................................................................................... 42 Chapter 3: Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services in the Coastal Zone of Haida Gwaii ......... 44 3.1 Introduction and Overview ............................................................................................................. 44 3.2 Approaches to Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services ............................................................ 53 3.3 Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services in BC Coastal Nations – Illustrative Examples from Haida Gwaii ........................................................................................................................................... 67 3.4 Discussion and Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 84 viii Chapter 4: A Systems-Oriented Framework for Coastal Zone Management and Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services in BC Coastal Nations ............................................................... 88 4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 88 4.2 Coastal zone management in Haida Gwaii – Current Status and Requirements ............................ 97 4.3 Values, Knowledge, and Coastal Zone Management .................................................................... 110 4.3 Proposed Design of Coastal Zone Management Framework ........................................................ 126 4.4 Implementation of Coastal Zone Management Framework ......................................................... 144 4.5 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 146 Chapter 5: Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 150 5.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 150 5.2 Challenges Faced, Areas of Uncertainty, and Acknowledgement of Shortcomings ...................... 155 5.3 Value of Coastal Zone Management Framework, Applicability, and Policy Implications .............. 158 5.4 Next steps and Additional Research Required .............................................................................. 162 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 164 Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 200 Appendix A: Response of Council of Haida Nation to Research Proposal (email) ............................... 200 Appendix B: Overview of Methodologies for Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services ................. 201 Appendix C: Regulations and Legislation Relevant to Coastal Zone Management in Haida Gwaii ..... 204 Appendix D: Policies, Plans, and Regulations Impacting Herring Fishery in Haida Gwaii .................... 210 ix List of Tables Table 1: Ethical principles in herring conflict .............................................................................................................. 73 Table 2: Sample of weight allocation across quantifiable and non-quantifiable values (values from a focus group for herring roe) ....................................................................................................................................................... 75 Table 3: Sample of indexed non-quantifiable values (V1-V5 to quantifiable values (V*) (values to be derived from a focus group on herring roe) .............................................................................................................................. 75 Table 4: Summed “whole value” of herring roe using landed value of 0.84$/kg ....................................................... 76 Table 5: Economic valuation of SOK and roe herring using relative valuation ........................................................... 77 Table 6: Economic valuation of carbon sequestration ecosystem components in seaward coastal zone of Haida Gwaii ................................................................................................................................................................. 81 Table 7: Economic valuation of carbon sequestration ecosystem components in inland coastal zone of Haida Gwaii .......................................................................................................................................................................... 82 Table 8: Total economic value of key ecosystem services in the coastal zone of Haida Gwaii .................................. 84 Table 9: Overview of economic valuation methods ................................................................................................. 201 Table 10: Regulations and legislation and their impact on coastal zone management in Haida Gwaii ................... 204 Table 11: Impact of management plans and policies on herring fishery in Haida Gwaii .......................................... 210 x List of Figures Figure 1: The geomorphology of the coastal zone ..................................................................................................... 22 Figure 2: Coastal zone resource and management schema ....................................................................................... 25 Figure 3: Total economic valuation framework .......................................................................................................... 53 Figure 4: Calculation of relative value ........................................................................................................................ 65 Figure 5: Steps in ecosystem service valuation .......................................................................................................... 68 Figure 6: Fisheries values determined through FNFC project .................................................................................... 73 Figure 7: Relative weighting of each value (quantifiable and non-quantifiable) ........................................................ 74 Figure 8: Major carbon cycle in shallow coastal environments .................................................................................. 78 Figure 9: Generic model of the coastal zone .............................................................................................................. 99 Figure 10: Gwaii Haanas zones ................................................................................................................................. 100 Figure 11: Knowledge systems for coastal Zone management: local, indigenous, and scientific ............................ 121 Figure 12: Systematic framework for economic valuation of ecosystem services in the coastal zone (Coastal Zone Management – Conceptual Framework (CZM-CF) .......................................................................................... 127 Figure 13: Traditional ‘three-legged stool’ model of sustainable development ...................................................... 128 xi Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge and deeply thank my research supervisors Dr. Les Lavkulich and Dr. Dianne Newell. Their belief in me was a constant source of support throughout this journey. I would like to particularly acknowledge and thank Les for being so incredibly positive and encouraging. I experienced some very tough personal times during this project and his unwavering positive energy and wise council allowed me to keep on pushing forward. I would like to also thank my research supervisory committee members Dr. Sumeet Gulati and Dr. Rashid Sumaila. I was relatively new to the discipline of economics at the outset of this project and their mentorship, guidance, and tutelage through coursework and helping guide the research has been remarkable. I would like to thank Ms. Enid Ho and the team at UBC’s ISGP program for their support and encouragement, thank you so much. This work was financially supported through a UBC Faculty of Graduate Studies Graduate Award. I would like to thank the UBC Faculty of Graduate Studies for this support. I would like to thank my family for their support and belief in me. Sadly, I lost two of my most coveted cheerleaders over the course of this degree, my dear Aunt Maureen and my hero, my father, Jack Oswald. I know that you are both happily smiling in heaven, free from pain, looking down and beaming with pride. Thank-you. Words cannot express how grateful I am for your love and support. I would like to acknowledge and thank my many professors and mentors whose guidance ultimately led me to doing this study. You have shared your knowledge, experience, and ideas with me over the years and I feel so deeply honoured and privileged to have studied with you. There are too many to mention but I would like to specifically thank Dr. Jim McTaggart Cowan, Dr. Tony Boydell, Dr. Leslie King, Dr. Mario Bunge, Dr. Garry Peterson, and Dr. Jonathan Seaquist. I would like to acknowledge the people of coastal nations for whom this research was conducted. I recognize that we did not have close collaboration on this project due to the COVID 19 pandemic, but I xii hope that they can derive some value from this work. Finally, I would like to acknowledge that this work took place on the unceded and ancestral land of the Musqueam First Nation. xiii Dedication There are many people I am grateful to for the support and encouragement that has been required for me to do this project. People often say that doing a PhD is challenge of endurance. This PhD has been no exception and over the time since I started it in 2017, I can honestly say I have changed as a person and my world has changed. I unfortunately lost my dear Aunt Maureen and father Jack Oswald over the course of doing this project. They were two people in my life who believed in me one hundred percent, and always offered positive encouragement with everything I did, particularly this PhD. I am not sure I would have done it were it not for their encouragement and support. I would therefore like to dedicate this work to them. Let it be known that their belief in me did not disappear when they passed away, rather, it has become part of me. Going forward I will take the lessons they gave me and values they instilled in me and put them to work in this world with the goal of having a positive impact. Thank-you for everything Aunty Maureen and Dad, I love you and I miss you. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Research Context Coastal zone management , as an area of interdependent ecological and socio-economic importance in the contemporary context, has not received sufficient attention by natural resource managers and scholars yet is of critical importance, as neither the land nor oceans (nor atmosphere for that matter) exist in isolation, they are deeply connected through dynamic interactions, and the communities in coastal zones are confronted with unique environmental impacts (Cicin-Sain et al., 1998; Cicin-Sain & Belfiore, 2005). Environmental issues such as climate change or the degradation of ecosystems and biodiversity and the mitigation of their negative effects require understanding of coastal zone dynamics. Economic globalization has resulted in growing pressures on coastal environments due to concentrated socio-economic development in these regions. In recent years, enhanced by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and the growing influence of multilateral environmental agreements such as the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the United Nations Convention on Combatting Desertification (UNCCD), the neglected issue of governance has been identified as a challenge. The adoption of UNDRIP has brought to the fore the need to address historical context and affirmation of ancestral rights of indigenous peoples where they have largely lacked recognition, never mind implementation. These emergent challenges mark a required shift in thinking to integrated approaches which recognize inherent rights, differential values, and balance sustainable natural resource management with the demands of an economically driven world. Coastal Nations in British Columbia, Canada examplify where these issues converge and offer an opportunity to examine historical developments and the modern-day reality of coastal zone management which must address pressing environmental issues and a society impacted by colonialization. This project was initiated in 2017 with the goal of examining economic valuation of ecosystem services in the coastal 2 zone of British Columbia. Through numerous consultations and refinement of the research focus the location of Haida Gwaii was chosen as an example of a BC coastal nation. Over the past six years First Nations rights and reconciliation have emerged as critical issues which need to be resolved as demonstrated by the adoption of UNDRIP. The COVID-19 pandemic started at the time where primary consultation and site excursions would have normally taken place, thus impacting the research plan for this project, so an alternative method was chosen which focused on a systematic analysis of the research and scholarly literature, field reports, and other documentation related to this problem. The Haida Nation was consulted and presented with a research proposal that outlined the objectives of this work, but they felt that the approach did not resonate with their values. Specifically, they hesitated to have their natural resource management plans, which are guided by their laws and ways “adapted to fit into an economic management model” (Council of Haida Nation, personal communication, 2019). Clearly this was seen as a major setback since a core element of the project was intended to examine economic valuation of ecosystem services in coastal zones. A response was sent to the Haida Nation thanking them for their consideration and that the research approach would be reviewed in consideration of their feedback. The situation was discussed and reviewed amongst the supervisory committee (two supervisors and two committee members) and different approaches were considered factoring in the stage of the academic program (mid-way). The current context of the COVID-19 pandemic weighed heavily on the discussions since in-person visits to research sites, Haida Gwaii specifically, were not permitted. Drawing on the experience of the supervisory committee, the modified approach was adopted in which BC coastal nations in general would be examined using the systematic review of the literature with the region of Haida Gwaii chosen as an illustrative example. In retrospect, alternative approaches could have been taken which would have been more reflective of a co-development approach to environmental research in which collaboration drives the process of methodological development. This would have been more aligned with the values that the author holds and 3 that underpin the philosophical approach this research project is attempting to promote. However, many choices that were made when attempting to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic would be made differently in retrospect. The linkages between economic policy and environmental / natural resource management have become more commonly accepted as demonstrated with the implementation of carbon taxation, promotion of avoided deforestation projects (REDD+), and the popularization of payment for ecosystem services programs, which in some cases have been accepted and implemented by indigenous peoples (Antweiler & Gulati, 2016; Dupuits & Cronkleton, 2020; R. Greiner, 2010). The systematic literature analysis methodology chosen is appropriate for the availability of data and access at the time of doing the research. Under normal circumstances, a more consultative and collaborative research approach would have been taken, but circumstances dictated the research approach chosen. However, this project can be considered a first step in addressing the identified issues and will hopefully serve as a starting point and a vehicle for further collaborative developments with impacted communities on the BC coast and elsewhere. 1.2 Environmental management Challenges in Coastal Zone Management Coastal zones are currently some of the most critical areas on the planet for environmental management due to the pressures of acute environmental impacts such as sea level rise, large scale nutrient run off and pollutant transport, and increased frequency of storm surges which threaten the socio-economic development of growing coastal communities (IPCC, 2019; Maúre et al., 2021). The traditional coastal zone management approach has focused on the components of the environment (such as land and water) and the socio-cultural dimensions (such as values and policies) in isolation, and this has led to management solutions and policies that ignore systemic interactions. By utilizing an integrated and ecosystem-based approach the connections between various components can be identified. This requires interdisciplinary thinking, communication amongst domain experts and impacted stakeholders and rights holders, and 4 analytical frameworks that capture these relationships and linkages. In the case of BC coastal nations, this is particularly important because in many cases, such as with the Haida People, whose ancestral territory is Haida Gwaii, a more holistic and integrated approach towards natural resource management is taken, whereas the colonial rule that was imposed on them since the time of first contact was focused on exploitation of specific natural resources (Council of the Haida Nation and the Government of Canada, 2018; Harris, 2004). A holistic/systems approach to natural resource management seeks to understand and recognize the interconnections between earth system processes and components and society’s relation to them. The resource exploitation approach of colonial settlers was focused on individual resources such as fish, furs, and minerals and the governance systems that developed through colonialization enshrined these beliefs in policies and regulations that, for the most part, remain in force today (Dick et al., 2022). Re-framing of how the environment is viewed in coastal zone management models can help remedy this by using an ecosystem approach and the ecosystem services model. An ecosystem approach is integrative in nature and focuses on the connections of different environmental components and processes, whereas ecosystem services are the benefits that society gains from nature. These two concepts are related but distinct. Ecosystem-based management is growing in popularity and has been employed in the Marine Plan Partnership in the North Pacific Coast of British Columbia (Diggon et al., 2021a). It is less commonly applied in coastal zone management due to the added complexity that the land-sea interface brings. The ecosystem service concept became popularized with the publication of the Millennium Assessment (MA) which was one of the first comprehensive evaluations of the health of global ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program), 2005). It is based on the premise that the environment is framed as services that society benefits from, either directly or indirectly, through four categories: provisioning, supporting, regulating and cultural/recreational. This is an inherently anthropogenic and utilitarian way of looking at nature, but it provides analytical clarity and a practical means of understanding impacts of human activities on different environmental components in the coastal zone. Stakeholder and rights holder groups which are impacted may have different perspectives or world 5 views of the environment and could have difficulty endorsing such a view, but the alternative to not finding a common language for viewing natural resources is continued disagreement and unsustainable exploitation. This is particularly relevant for aspects of nature that are often not accounted for in development and policy decisions such as the impacts on the cultural benefits nature provides. Interdisciplinary understanding is necessary for implementing this framework as it requires expertise from various scientific, social, and human sciences as well as different knowledge systems including local and indigenous knowledge. Disciplinary segmentation has in the past contributed to coastal zone management practices that have been incomplete and incoherent. Contemporary environmental challenges are forcing interdisciplinary thinking because with issues such as climate change, the impacts are not isolated to one sphere of the environment, rather they have cascading effects throughout the coastal zone. The coupling of social and ecological systems also necessitates interdisciplinary knowledge since socio-economic activity directly impacts, and is affected by, the environment. A systematic framework for coastal zone management that encapsulates different ecosystem services, the values of the local community, and economic values must be supported by interdisciplinary research and monitoring methods, particularly when seeking to reorient the basis for economic valuation. 1.3 Reorientation of Economic Analysis Economic globalization and natural resource exploitation has forced economic rationale to be the dominant paradigm from which much of environmental and coastal zone management decisions are made, with the result being a neglect for aspects of the environment that do not have clear economic value. The effect is essentially a ‘sale’ or ‘open exploitation’ of certain components of the environment without any deterrent. Negative environmental externalities are the impacts that occur in conjunction with an economic transaction (Durlauf & Blume, 2008). For example, when ports or pipeline terminals are constructed in coastal environments the immediate economic benefits of increased trade and industrial activity are clear and are 6 often featured prominently in the project environmental impact statements (National Energy Board, 2016). However, there are several environment and social impacts that have non-obvious economic costs such as degradation of the aesthetic quality of the coast which could affect tourism, or the impact on local biodiversity of an oil spill which would result in degraded ecosystem function which is fundamental to the health of the coastal environment (Mehvar et al., 2018). These issues are often not considered in traditional economic analysis nor are the costs of these negative externalities factored into coastal zone management decisions. The core issue here is that the orientation of economic analysis with respect to the environment is misaligned. The economy operates within the environment, it is not removed from it. Even in much of the ecological literature, humankind has historically been considered as removed from, or ‘outside’ of the environment (Worster et al., 1994). This is simply not the case. Society is reliant on services provided by nature such as fresh water, food, building materials, recreational opportunities, spiritual nourishment, climatic regulation, and many others. Society is also a massive source of impacts on the environment, to the point that the current epoch of Earth System history is referred to as the ‘Anthropocene’, or the era in which humanity is the most dominant force causing changes (Crutzen & Stoermer, 2021). This shift in thinking needs to be reflected in management models so that rather than having the economy and the environment represented as separate entities, economic activity is shown as being embedded within the environment. This has been a hotly debated issue in the economic literature over the past thirty years and has been the impetus for the remarkable growth of the fields of environmental and ecological economics (Pearce, 2002). In the case of coastal zone management in BC coastal nations, a new relationship between the economy and environment will be reflected in the framework presented in this thesis, including novel methods for assigning economic values to different ecosystem services. Economic values are not the fundamental values that must be subscribed to in coastal zone management and natural resource management, but they do relate to a dominant language or paradigm that guides (often 7 unjustly and unsustainably) policy and development decisions. It is therefore useful to consider how the application of economics and processes of economic valuation can be expanded to include important aspects of the local environment that have up to now been neglected in decision making in coastal zone management. Different valuation methods such as contingent valuation, hedonic pricing, relative valuation, and others will be outlined in this thesis with the objective of illustrating how novel methods can be inclusively utilized to reflect broader ecological and social values in economic analysis. The goal is to establish a common language that fully reflects local perspectives on coastal zone issues rather than have a narrow set of economic criteria which serves as the basis of policy decisions. In so doing, one must consider that there may be significantly differential values amongst stakeholder and rights holder groups in BC coastal nations, and in other coastal zones, and that these values must be recognized and incorporated into management and governance systems. 1.4 Recognizing differential values, knowledge systems, and governance processes Values drive social decisions and although they are individually held there are collective values in cultural groups that must be considered in natural resource decision making (G. Wright et al., 2023). In BC coastal nations as well as in most coastal zones, there are different social groups that may have divergent views on natural resource and conservation policies. It is important to identify this fact because historically, dominant social groups have imposed their values on others leading to inequitable resource distribution and in some cases conflict. Values not only influence policy making but they also dictate how different groups will assign economic values to environmental phenomenon and they also influence the world views and knowledge systems that social groups subscribe to. First Nations groups in British Columbia utilize indigenous knowledge as one of their primary ‘ways of knowing’ about the environment (N. J. Turner et al., 2000). This knowledge is characteristically different from science as it is more contextual, embodies values, and is often shared through oral histories (Sillitoe 8 et al., 2002). Local ecological knowledge is another type of knowledge system that is held by local inhabitants and resource users (Joa et al., 2018). Science has been the primary knowledge system used in coastal zone management and only in the last ten years has there been a broadening of perspectives on what types of knowledge should be used to contribute to decision making in environmental management. As of 2019, Canadian environmental impact assessments are now mandated to include indigenous knowledge as part of the evaluation process (Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, 2021). One of the difficulties experienced in natural resource management has been connecting different knowledge systems and ensuring that there is equivalent weight, understanding and respect given to each (McGregor, 2021). This has led to groups being marginalized because their fundamental world views have not been considered. An equitable and inclusive coastal zone management framework must recognize and include the diverse ways of knowing that stakeholder and rights holder groups use, and this must be reflected in the governance approach. Environmental pressures such as climate change and socio-economic development put coastal zones in a constant state of change and governance systems need to respond by being adaptive as well as integrative. Adaptive governance has emerged in the natural resource management literature from developments in adaptive management, where the dynamic nature of ecosystems is accounted for through iterative interventions (Allen & Garmestani, 2015b). Adaptive governance extends this to not only management decisions but also to structural governance processes such as regulations and legislation (Cosens et al., 2017). Values and knowledge systems influence how governance decisions are made and as previously indicated, they can differ significantly amongst stakeholder and rights holders. In the BC coastal nations it is important to ensure that First Nations’ indigenous knowledge and their values are given equal (if not more) weight than those proposed by the Canadian government. One of the main objectives of this research is to develop methods to economically value ecosystem components that are currently ‘invisible’ and open for exploitation in current policy and development decision making. The governance framework for coastal zone management in BC coastal nations needs to reorient the economy to be positioned within the 9 environment with ecosystem services being the links between them. The colonial history of British Columbia and the associated inequities that resulted must also be acknowledged. Going forward, balanced decision-making processes need to be implemented with First Nations representation and shared power being prioritized, in alignment with reconciliation and co-management. 1.5 First Nations Rights and Inequities Resulting from Colonialization First Nations have constitutional and inherent ancestral territorial rights in Canada and these rights need to be clearly actualized in coastal zone management. The Haida are an example of how, through employing perseverance and conviction, these rights can be recognized. Through hard fought battles over natural resources such as forests, the Haida have done a remarkable job of affirming their rights and have reduced unsustainable logging practices in their territory (Takeda & Ropke, 2010). The Haida’s sustained pressure and strategic actions have concretely demonstrated how First Nations rights can be advanced through the enactment of the Gwaii Haanas Agreement which stipulates that there is to be equal representation by First Nations rights holders (Haida) and the Canadian government on its governance board (Government of British Columbia and Council of the Haida Nation, 1993). The sharing of power in natural resource decision making in Gwaii Haanas is an excellent step forward but there are additional issues that still need to be resolved, some of which will be addressed in the proposed coastal zone management framework in this thesis. The Haida people are rights holders in Haida Gwaii and although there are other stakeholder groups who are active in this region, the Haida have distinct status in terms of decision making and natural resource use. Each cultural group has their own set of values, and these will impact how natural resource and socio-economic decisions are made. First Nations, including the Haida Nation, have distinct values that have guided their development since time immemorial. A key characteristic of the Haida values and world view is that they see themselves as intrinsically connected to nature rather than separated from it. The cultural, social, and spiritual values of the Haida need to be reflected in coastal zone management decisions in Haida 10 Gwaii as do those of other key stakeholders. Different ways of knowing and understanding the environment (knowledge systems), must also be considered. Indigenous knowledge, local knowledge, and science each have utility in terms of understanding the status of natural resources and their sustainable use (Tengö et al., 2017). Recognizing and utilizing indigenous knowledge in coastal zone management is also a means of showing respect for First Nations rights holders and more equitably sharing power, which is an integral aspect of reconciliation. The story of the development of Canada and colonization of First Nations is not an enviable one, it is wrought with pain and injustice, but the lessons of the past can provide the wisdom needed to create a better future, and the path of reconciliation has started to be laid out. The adoption of UNDRIP in 2022 by the international community signals a global awareness of the need to respect the rights of indigenous peoples and it also provides a framework (the articles of the declaration) to work with. The government of Canada’s current position of having nation-to-nation relationships with First Nations has started to be concretely shown in different ways. For example, First Nations consultation and the inclusion of indigenous knowledge was strongly emphasized in the Impact Assessment Act of 2019 and indigenous considerations are included in various current federal ministerial mandate letters (Impact Assessment Act, 2019; Trudeau, 2021a, 2021b). On June 21, 2023, the Canadian government released the UNDRIP Act Action Plan 2023-2028 in which are included 181 measures which are supposed to reflect priorities and proposals identified by First Nations, Inuit, and Metis, contribute to the objectives of the UN Declaration, and align with specific topics covered by the UN Declaration Act (Department of Justice of Canada, 2023). These are difficult issues to address, and no first steps will be perfect, but it appears that the intention of the government of Canada is to move towards creating healthier, more equitable relationships with First Nations, Inuit, and Metis. Coastal zone management in BC coastal nations can serve as an example of how to operationalize these principles and intentions in a working, systematic framework. 11 1.6 Research Approach The goal at the outset of this project was to critically analyze coastal zone management and address its current challenges in the context of the coastal zone of British Columbia. What started out as a well-constrained problem evolved into a complex undertaking that dove deep into the intersection of ecosystems and economics, cross-cultural values and natural resource management, innovative governance systems, and different facets of colonialization, its impacts, and solutions. The coastal zone of Haida Gwaii was chosen as one example of a BC coastal nation due to the natural resource management capacity that the Haida Nation have developed and their progress with establishing co-management systems. The Haida’s response to the research proposal was rather disheartening, but understandable. Their position was that they do not feel that economics should be the driver of their natural resource management policy, which seems to indicate that they felt the research objective of this project was to establish economic parameters to exploit natural resources in their territory. However, the goal of this project is not to facilitate natural resource exploitation, in contrast, it is to use the power of economics to identify aspects of ecosystem services in the coastal zone that provide distinct value to society but are currently not quantified economically, and whose value is often ignored in impact assessments and policy making. The result being a broader view of ecosystem service impacts in the coastal zone and the incorporation of rights holder and stakeholder values and knowledge systems in their evaluation, and therefore a more comprehensive and sustainable management model. This thesis takes a methods-focused approach rather than an empirical approach. This was decided when the field work was initially expected to commence and then the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in March of 2020. Difficulties with field visits (travel bans due to the pandemic) as well as the initial response from one of the proposed participating groups (Haida Nation) necessitated a re-examination of the research methods to be used. The goal of creating a systematic framework for coastal zone management and economic valuation of ecosystem services in BC coastal nations remained, but the strategy for developing 12 it had to change based on the circumstances that emerged. The possibilities for gathering on-site data through semi-structured interviews were very limited so it was decided that a systematic analysis of the literature would be conducted, from which the framework would be developed. The research was broken into key categories based on the nature of the problem, the key overall research question and the desired outputs. The main research question and sub-questions were: What is the design of a systematic framework for coastal zone management that can address the following key issues: • How can different ecosystem services be considered in coastal zone management? • What are appropriate economic valuation methods for these ecosystem services? • How can different socio-cultural values be considered in economic valuation of ecosystem services? • What are the processes by which different knowledge systems can be used in coastal zone management? • How can governance processes recognize the rights of First Nations rights holders and other stakeholders, leading towards reconciliation? The systematic literature review was then structured around the above questions with the goal of producing insights that would inform the design of the coastal zone management framework. Due to the multi-faceted nature of the problem a series of necessary outputs were delineated to focus the research. These outputs were: (a) Critical analysis of coastal zone management (b) Socio-historical review of natural resource management in BC coastal nations (particularly Haida Gwaii) (c) Assessment of environmental economic valuation methods for coastal ecosystem services (d) Analysis of methods for incorporating different knowledge systems and values into coastal zone management (e) Review of adaptive governance and adaptive management frameworks for coastal zone management 13 The analysis of the literature was executed with focus given to the different topics required to address the above questions and desired outputs. Literature pertaining to coastal zone management, the history of BC coastal natural resource development and First Nations issues, economic valuation of ecosystem services, use of different knowledge systems and values in environmental assessment, and adaptive management and adaptive governance of natural resources was reviewed and analyzed. Insights were extracted, synthesized, and then outlined in the respective parts of the thesis. The findings from the systematic literature review drove informed the design of the coastal zone management framework. The framework design process was very much organic in that, much like many creative processes, space was allowed for the framework to ‘emerge’. Upon completing the literature review time was given to conceptualize how the different elements relate to one and other and consider how the above key issues could be collectively addressed. An iterative schematic design process was used to visually organize the key concepts and functionally link them. The depth of the literature review must have facilitated this process because the schematic design of the coastl zone management framework (shown in Figure 12) ‘emerged’ rather quickly. The framework design was then reviewed with the supervisory committee members and then its application was considered, particularly economic valuation of specific ecosystem services. The organization of the thesis is intended to follow the sequence of the research process, with Chapter 2 addressing the issue of coastal zone management. Coastal zone management as a discipline is examined in Chapter 2 providing a critical assessment of the challenges that are currently faced. Particular attention is given to the need for interdisciplinary and systematic approaches to monitoring and impact assessment. Approaches for defining the coastal zone and aligning the biophysical context with governance and environmental management processes are explained. Ecosystems services feature significantly in this study and their intersection with coastal zone management are discussed in this chapter, highlighting examples of where they have been employed and some of the results that have materialized. Lastly, economic valuation of ecosystem services is introduced in terms of 14 how it may inform decision making and risk assessment in coastal zone management, setting the stage for Chapter 3. Economic valuation of ecosystem services is currently a much-studied topic with a variety of methodologies being examined. Chapter 3 discusses some of the underlying arguments in support of and questioning this approach as well as provides a description of the different methodologies that are commonly used and their relevance to BC coastal nations. Two examples of ecosystem services in Haida Gwaii were chosen and economic valuation methods illustrated for each of them. Advantages and disadvantages for each and the potential for integration of these results into a coastal zone management framework are discussed and delineated. A new integrative and systematic framework for coastal zone management is presented in Chapter 4. The different critical aspects are environment-economy relationship, stakeholder and rights holder values and knowledge systems, governance approaches, ecosystem services, and socio-ecological dynamics. Each of these aspects is explained and the overall integrated framework defined. The objective of presenting this framework is not to provide a final solution to coastal zone management in BC coastal nations and the broader issues related to reconciliation. Rather, the objective is to present a historically and culturally based integrated framework that can serve as starting point for addressing the problems of unaccounted for negative externalities, a lack of integration of biophysical and socio-cultural dimensions, and inequitable governance processes. Each coastal zone management situation is highly contextual, and this framework can be applied in different regions and adapted accordingly for each. The coastal zone management framework that was developed through this research was developed with the best available information at the time. There were some key assumptions that were made with its creation: (a) stakeholders and rights holders are willing to worth together in its implementation and work within an organized management structure; (b) there is recognition of a rule of law (either formal or informal) with which the framework is implemented and management decisions are respected; (c) there is a respect amongst the stakeholders and 15 rights holder groups involved including a recognition of historical inequities and cultural priorities. The coastal zone model created is a general model that needs to be adapted to local circumstances and its application is illustrated in this thesis in the coastal zone of Haida Gwaii. Next steps will be to have the model externally validated through subsequent application in different situations. The knowledge required for this research clearly comes from different disciplines, hence an interdisciplinary approach is required, but different paradigms and world views are also involved, therefore a transdisciplinary approach is also necessary. A transdisciplinary approach not only fosters the connection of different epistemologies, it also fundamentally alters the structure of knowledge creation to be a process of co-creation and collaboration where the results emerge through the connection of ideas and the discourse amongst participant groups (Thompson et al., 2017). The perception of nature and ecosystems on the part of living beings is articulated as sign-using processes in the semiotic literature and the discipline of ecosemiotics views ecosystems as communicative systems, building on the foundational work of C.S. Peirce which has been further developed by Brier (biosemiotics), Noth and Kull (Maran & Kull, 2014). Transdisciplinary approaches recognize the fundamental differences in how nature may ‘sign’ to different individuals and thus seeks to bridge these perceptual gaps through collaboration. Although this thesis is not focused on the perceptual dimensions of human-nature interactions, the spirit of transdisciplinarity and cross-cultural awareness should be considered an underlying aspiration of this research, and the resulting conceptual frameworks and methodologies should be utilized collaboratively and adapted through organic and respectful interactions. The problems of coastal zone management in BC coastal nations are multi-faceted and from the inception of this project to its conclusion the research focus, and ultimately the contribution to understanding, have been progressively refined. The main contributions: (a) provide a mechanism for incorporating differential values and knowledge systems in coastal zone management decisions; (b) present a framework through which multiple different ecosystem services can be assessed in the coastal zone; (c) incorporate different 16 economic valuation methods for ecosystem services in the coastal zone to economically account for externalities which were previously not considered; and (d) create a systematic framework for coastal zone management that incorporates ecosystem based management, different socio-cultural perspectives, economic valuation of ecosystem services, and socio-ecological dynamics in a transdisciplinary and integrated fashion. Coastal zone management has been hindered by siloed approaches which fail to fully address the interactions between different biophysical systems in the environment and the need for policies and regulations to be considered in an integrated manner. The ecosystem service-based framework presented in this thesis will help to reorient coastal zone management by utilizing a systematic approach which recognizes these dynamic interconnections. Environmental governance is currently presented with acute challenges due to an increasingly dynamic environment influenced by climate change and shifting social norms which seek to create more equitable and inclusive decision-making processes, particularly with indigenous peoples. This research contributes a framework that includes mechanisms for recognizing differential values held amongst stakeholder and rights holder groups as well as their knowledge systems, which often differ from western science, and incorporates them into decision making. It also explicitly identifies the dynamic nature of society-environment interactions and promotes an iterative approach to governance in keeping with the principles of, and growing literature in, adaptive governance. The total economic value of the environment is currently not factored into decisions in coastal zone management, and this results in policies and plans that often have negative external impacts on the environment (externalities). The framework developed from this research contributes an approach for identifying key ecosystem services in the coastal zone and then applies various economic valuation methods (some of which are novel) to them such that the full value of the environment can be captured in economic terms and then used in decision making. These three advancements in coastal zone management, environmental governance, and economic valuation address critical issues in each domain but also when integrated 17 together provide a far more comprehensive approach to decision making in the coastal zone which will lead to policies and development decisions that are more environmentally sustainable. 18 Chapter 2: Ecosystems, Environmental Management, and the Coastal Zone 2.1 Coastal Zone Management at a Precipice – The Need for a Systems Perspective Coastal zones present challenges for environmental management since they are subject to several developmental pressures and they sit at the intersection of the major earth system ‘spheres’: lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and ecosphere (Crossland et al., 2006). This biophysical complexity is exacerbated by an estimated 680 million people that live in low lying coastal areas, making the need for sustainable resource management and risk management in these areas even more important (IPCC, 2019). Coastal areas are attractive because of the several subsistence resources they provide, their strategic position for marine transportation and commerce, their social appeal for recreational and cultural activities, and their intrinsic value as a key dimension of many peoples’ ‘sense of place’ (Neumann et al., 2015). As a result of these socio-economic demands and biophysical complexity, it has been stated that “the management of human development activities in the coastal zone is one of the most complex and challenging tasks faced by man” (Burbridge, 1999). A critical component of this challenge is dealing with risks. Coastal environments are subject to natural hazards such as hurricanes, storm surges, tsunamis, saline intrusions, and landslides as well as longer term risks due to erosion and sea level rise (IPCC, 2022; NOAA, 2021). Climate change is influencing drivers of change in the coastal zone such as: sea level rise, storms (tropical cyclones and extra tropical cyclones), winds, waves, sea surface temperature (SST), and ocean acidity (Burger et al., 2020; Hoegh-Guldberg & Bruno, 2010). Studies indicate that the frequency of nuisance flooding (flooding occurring at high astronomical tides) in the United States has doubled over the last 30 years, leading to reduced property values and in some cases migration away from the coast (McAlpine & Porter, 2018; Sweet et al., 2018). Socio-economic drivers and natural resource benefits that draw people to the coastal zone must be understood to implement management practices that will reduce social and financial losses while safeguarding coastal environments. 19 The coast has been a long-heralded beacon to mariner explorers in search of new lands, opportunities, and treasures. The exuberance extolled when a coastline was sighted captures the enthusiasm and expectation of newfound fortune, but this expressed anticipation relates to only a small fraction of the tremendous and multi-faceted value that coastal lands have held for humankind for millennia. For example, during the Mesolithic, after the last glaciation 10,000 to 9,000 years ago, the Scottish First Setters chose the coastal areas on the body of water between the Ilse of Skye and the Scottish mainland to settle in due to the proximity of food sources and the transportation possibilities available (Hardy & Wickham-Jones, 2002). Another example is the Nuu-Chah-Nulth people of the west coast of Vancouver Island who arrived after the last ice age roughly 10,000 years ago and developed a culture that is intrinsically connected to the coastal environment through their hunting and gathering processes and their nature-centred beliefs (McMillan, 1999). Through the rich array of resources they provide, profound natural beauty and spiritual value they possess, and the ease of transportation options they afford, coastal zones have been the choice destination for many social groups, resulting in the development and economic activity we see in them today. Coastal areas, particularly those that are in prime maritime transport routes, are centers for economic activity. The value of economic activity in the United States coastal areas in 2021 was roughly 23 trillion USD (NOEP Coastal Data, 2022). Industries such as fisheries, aquaculture, ports and marine transport, and tourism form the basis for this economic activity. The tremendous economic value of coastal areas contributes to the concern that various environmental hazards such as sea level rise, coastal erosion, and high energy storms, have significantly increased socio-economic vulnerability in these areas (IPCC, 2022; R. K. Turner et al., 1996). Correspondingly, the economic value of the coastal zone in large part depends upon maintaining its environmental quality. As a result of resting at the intersection of several domains – biophysical, socio-economic, and governance-related, coastal zones have unique governance characteristics. The land-marine interface presents many 20 environmental management challenges due to the influence of surface water run-off and biochemical impacts such as nutrient loading or other chemical deposition from industrial sources (Diop et al., 2014; Halpern et al., 2008). Subsurface hydrology in coastal areas presents complications due to the interface of saline ocean water and freshwater aquifers, an example of which are saline intrusions that occur when coastal agricultural producers extract freshwater at rates that exceed replenishment, allowing salt water to enter (Barlow & Reichard, 2010; Werner et al., 2013). Ecologically, coastal areas encompass a rich array of habitat for a broad diversity of species. The importance of marine and coastal biodiversity is reflected in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity’s (UNCBD) newly adopted Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) in which Target 3 states that “by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial, inland water, and of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures” (Ainsworth et al., 2022). It is this foundation of biodiversity in the coastal zone that serves as the basis for staggering ecological complexity (Guichard et al., 2004; Witman et al., 2015). The environmental value of coastal zones can also be framed in terms of ecosystem services, or the benefits that humans gain from the environment (Arkema et al., 2015; Guerry et al., 2012). Sitting on the beach admiring the dynamism of the currents and waves, otters splashing in the ocean, and the sun glancing off the water, an experience that many people cherish, is a classic example of the aesthetic value coastal ecosystems provide (Satterfield et al., 2013). This value is the sum of the various environmental components of the coastal zone captured in the human experience. The economic, environmental, and social value of coastal zones interact to form a systematic and complex dynamic that is very challenging to assess, but nonetheless incredibly important if development impacts are to be managed. Interdisciplinary understanding and deep disciplinary knowledge are required to analyze the different aspects of coastal zones and how they work together. One of the main aims of this research is to present a coastal zone management framework and associated methods for its implementation that will 21 account for the complex interactions between different environmental spheres and intersecting regulatory and policy regimes. By using an ecosystem service-based approach, the focus is on systematic interactions, not disciplinary silos. This requires a systems approach, and one of the first tenets of systems analysis is to define specifically what the system in question is (Limburg et al., 2002). In this case, the coastal zone needs to be clearly delineated and characterized. 2.2 Defining the Coastal Zone The coastal zone is the interface of the land and sea, but it can be defined biologically, geomorphologically, and legally. There is a philosophical dimension to defining the coastal zone as it remains an ‘idea’ which is ontologically constituted of the geographic area where marine and terrestrial environments intersect. This definition may vary depending on the disciplinary lens one has – legal, ecological, economic, technological, geophysical, or other. The coastal zone (or coastal range) is considered to be the inner part of the continental shelf, the coastline, and a few kilometers inland from the coastline (Brambati, 2004). The mix of the movements of the ocean tides and currents, the ecological dynamics of coastal species, and atmosphere-hydrosphere-lithosphere interactions in the coastal zone result in an environment that is in a perpetual state of dynamic equilibrium (L. D. Wright & Nichols, 2019). From a geomorphological standpoint, the coastal zone is defined as an emerged zone and the continental margin as shown in Figure 1 (Brambati, 2004). The continental margin is an area that separates the rising continental land from the deep-sea floor. The continental margin is constituted of the continental shelf, the continental slope, and the continental rise. The emerged zone is the land at the coast and it is heavily influenced by marine phenomenon such as high tides and storm (Bearman, 2013). The continental shelf is traditionally the shallow area (tens of meters) of the ocean extending out from continental land. The continental slope connects the continental shelf and the deep ocean floor, it usually starts at around 130m depth and can be up to 20km wide leading into the continental rise. These geomorphological structures set 22 the stage for a staggering diversity of biological life forms, and the intricate complexities of their interactions. Figure 1: The geomorphology of the coastal zone Note. From (Brambati, 2004) Coastal zone problems and management a brief review. Chemistry and Ecology. 20(sup1) p. 156. The ‘ecological coastal zone’ is the portion of the marine ecosystem from the shoreline to the continental shelf. Included in this area is the euphotic zone, or the area from the ocean surface to roughly 50m depth. Although ecosystems transcend the terrestrial and marine environments in the coastal zone, there are distinct differentiating factors between them. The most significant being the aquatic medium which is the base habitat for marine organisms. The properties of water impact the physical and biological characteristics of marine environments, influencing processes like the transport of materials and organisms (e.g. dispersal of organisms) through the convective forces and currents of the ocean (Carr et al., 2003). The result is that marine ecosystems tend to be more ‘open’ than terrestrial ecosystems and therefore the scale of ecological processes needs to be considered differently. The interplay of these differing biophysical, spatial, and temporal dynamics, and the human influences on them, results in ecological complexity that needs to be considered in environmental management directives such as Marine Protected Areas (MPAs ) (Bani et al., 2019; D’Aloia et al., 2017). System boundaries need to be defined from an ecological standpoint, but they must also be considered from socio-economic and governance perspectives. 23 Development in the coastal zone has been, in large part, driven by social and economic forces. The arrival of settlers seeking new opportunities, development of industries that have required maritime transport, and the emergence of coastal communities that rely on the maritime natural resources such as fish, are examples of the role socio-economic drivers have in influencing development in the coastal zone (Salomons et al., 1999). Socio-economic factors such as population growth, urbanisation, and various land use changes, such as expansion of agriculture, can impact the flux of toxic chemicals, sediment, and C (carbon), N (nitrogen), and P (phosphorous) into the marine environment resulting in impacts that are often threats to human and environmental health (R. K. Turner, 2000). The trade-offs and interplay between socio-economic factors and environmental parameters need to be effectively managed in order to realize sustainable development (R. K. Turner et al., 1997). The traditional way of assessing economic activity in coastal zones has been by using values that contribute to GDP however by using the broader lens of environmental economics additional factors can be considered (Hodder et al., 2015). Arkema et al conducted a study in Belize which exemplifies the geographic nature of coastal zone analysis and how counter-acting forces of conservation and resource use must be considered within those boundaries (Arkema et al., 2014). They found that significant economic activity was generated by both the 800,000+ tourists who ventured to the coastal zone of Belize each year for snorkelling and scuba diving (ecotourism) and also the extractive practices of the commercial, recreational and subsistence fisheries. Although essential to economic development in this region, tourism and extractive practices also impact the very ecosystem services they are based on as well as others such as coastal security, which is provided by mangrove forests (Arkema et al., 2014). The point is that economic activity does not operate in isolation from social and environmental considerations, all of which are inextricably linked to ecosystem service provision (Guerry et al., 2011; White et al., 2012). To manage these trade-offs a truly integrated approach to coastal zone management is required. Even with a balanced, integrated management approach to the coastal zone, Olsen et al have argued that the most important issue is governance (Olsen et al., 1997). 24 The coastal zone is to some degree defined by its dynamism, but despite this constant state of change, it is essential to have stable governance frameworks to guide human development in these regions. Coastal zone management legislation was introduced in the United States with the CZMA (Coastal Zone Management Act) of 1972 (Birch & Reyes, 2018). The United States was the first country to implement comprehensive coastal legislation (Godschalk, 1992). Similar to the onset of EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) legislation in the early 1970’s, before the CZMA was enacted environmental assessment in the coastal zone was focused on specific independent issues such as recreational use, ocean development, estuarine conservation, and land-based issues rather than taking an integrated approach (Birch & Reyes, 2018; Gibson, 2002; Miller, 1983; Tintoré et al., 2009). Coastal zones are comprised of various socio-economic and environmental ‘systems’ where development impacts converge, necessitating an integrated approach to both impact assessment and governance. Integrated approaches to coastal zone management emerged in the 1980’s and began to be formulated in the early 1990’s with a particular emphasis on de-constructing the traditional sectoral approach and establishing models and methods to address the complex interactions that occur in these environments (Cicin-Sain & Belfiore, 2005; Thia-Eng, 1993). The trifecta of human activities, the marine environment, and the terrestrial environment, and their intersectional areas are captured in Scura et al’s model shown in Figure 2 (Scura et al., 1992). This model shows, in a generic sense, where the heights of complexity in coastal zone management emerge (the intersecting areas). 25 Figure 2: Coastal zone resource and management schema Note. Adapted from (Scura et al., 1992) Lessons for integrated coastal zone management: the ASEAN experience. Conference paper: Regional Workshop on Coastal Zone Planning and Management – Lessons Learned, Bandar Seri Begawan (Brunei Darussalam), 28-30 Apr 1992. Innovation in environmental governance combined with integrated thinking and analysis are needed in the coastal zone. Governance in the coastal zone was initially comprised of legislation and regulations focused on separate sectors, industries, and issues (Heath, 1974). These Acts, such as the Fisheries Act of Canada, were developed with the intention of controlling human activities that impacted portions of the environment, but they often neglected cross-resource and inter-sector issues such as cumulative effects (Crain et al., 2008; Jamieson & Levings, 2001). Environmental management has evolved to address the dynamic interplay between society and ecosystems through adaptive management, which is particularly applicable to the coastal zone (Armitage et al., 2017). However, governance must also be somewhat adaptive and intersectional to account for changes to socio-ecological systems in the coastal zone. Adaptive governance is a relatively new model (within the last five years) that attempts to capture these dynamics and inform how legislation, regulations, and management practices can be more responsive to contemporary issues such as rapid urbanization, climate change, and resource depletion (Brunner & Lynch, 2010; Chaffin et al., 2014; Folke et al., 2005). Coastal zone management is at a precipice since many of the acute 26 environmental concerns today are manifested in these areas. Data driven adaptive management and governance models are needed, as is understanding of the role of cultural context. The coastal zone is more than just a biophysical setting or a legislative and political jurisdiction, it is a place that holds cultural value for those that inhabit it. People often migrate to coastal areas for recreation and to enjoy the aesthetic value they hold. The appreciation of coastal aesthetic value is reflected in property values where in cases such as San Diego, it was found that there was a 101.9% ‘coastal premium’ for houses located within 500 meters of the coast, although this is changing due to the emerging impacts of climate change (Conroy & Milosch, 2011). Property values are often used in hedonic pricing methods applied to the economic valuation of aesthetic/cultural ecosystem services because they are a proxy value which represents human preference for coastal land (Sander & Haight, 2012). Cultural values of the coastal zone aren’t limited to recreational or aesthetic considerations, they also play an essential role in the lives of many indigenous peoples. The people of the Gitxaala Nation of northwestern British Columbia are one such group for whom the coast is considered with reverence. They are also known as ‘the People of the Saltwater’ because of how their cultural history and way of living are intrinsically connected to the ocean (Menzies, 2016). For the Gitxaala, the ocean and coastline are a source of food, transportation, economic activity, and it is their home. The ‘coast as home’ is a strong sentiment shared by many people who have spent their lives on a coastline. These personal connections result in strong perspectives when it comes to environmental management and natural resource exploitation. Different groups can have dramatically different views as to how coastal environmental impacts should be managed and it is therefore fundamental to identify different stakeholder perspectives as they are often culturally influenced (Menzel & Teng, 2009). Defining what culture is has been described as a ‘non-trivial matter for any environmental management regime’ (Satterfield et al., 2013). It is a broad concept that can be defined in several different ways such as world views, symbols (language and stories), assets (place names), and institutions and practices (Satterfield et al., 2013). Culture can also 27 be conceptualized as a process rather than an entity, as how it is often defined in Anthropology, as collective understandings that enable social life (Winthrop, 2014). In the coastal zone, different stakeholders and rights holders may have significantly differing worldviews and values and balancing these various wants and needs is at the core of environmental management and governance, however, it is not without challenges. 2.3 Challenges in Coastal Zone, Environmental Management, and Governance One of the most significant challenges in coastal zone management is the lack of integration of bodies of knowledge, governance and management models, and perspectives of stakeholders (Brambati, 2004; Kenchington, R & Crawford, D, 1993; Pomeroy & Douvere, 2008). The dichotomy of holism verses reductionism is an ongoing issue within interdisciplinary research, and it is particularly problematic with coastal zone management since it involves such a variety of disciplines (Risser, 1985). There is a cross section of the natural sciences such as ecology, hydrology, meteorology, and geomorphology in CZM, with social and economic considerations also needing to be addressed (Bremer & Glavovic, 2013). The policies, practices, and implementation mechanisms of CZM established in the United States with the enactment of Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 sought to address scientific and socio-economic concerns (Birch & Reyes, 2018). The CZMA “established a national policy and developed a national program for the management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the land and water resources of the Nation’s coastal zones, and for other purposes” (US Public Law 92-583). Several other countries followed the United States in implementing such legislation after realizing the complexity of balancing environmental, economic, and social concerns in the coastal zone (Sorensen, 1993, 1997). Early research in CZM in the 1970’s focused on land use and legal implications of the implementation of the CZMA (Birch & Reyes, 2018). The focus of this work was therefore quite limited to the disciplines that relate to these issues such as land tenure and land use. Disciplinary focus was the norm in this era and 28 although there was obvious cross-over in areas such as economics and environmental impact assessment, there remained distinct separation (Godschalk, 1992). Concomitant to the development of the CZMA, environmental impact assessment legislation and procedures were only just being developed in North America in the early 1970’s. Public awareness of the environment was heightened in the 1960’s by such works as Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring”, which ultimately led to the creation of the United States NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) in 1973 and the EARP (Environmental Assessment Review Process) in 1974 in Canada (R. Carson, 2000; Noble, 2015). Early EIA work under the EARP was, like CZM efforts, scientifically and legally focused and executed in a siloed and disciplinary manner (Gibson, 2002). As time progressed it became increasingly apparent that social and economic factors needed more consideration in both EIA and CZM and as a result, interdisciplinary and integrated approaches began to be developed. Integrated approaches to CZM were not necessarily new at the time of the implementation of the US CZMA in 1972, rather they had been in conceptual development since the 1950’s during the time that systems theory was in rapid development (van der Weide, 1993). The discipline of CZM was mobilized through a report by the Stratton Commission in 1969 with its initial recommendation that science be the driving force and that it be delivered within a technocratic management paradigm (Cicin-Sain et al., 1998; Stojanovic et al., 2004). CZM developed through the 1970’s and into the 1980’s along with the maturation of several related fields such as ecosystem ecology and marine biology, all of which demonstrated the complexity and inter-connectedness of the various biophysical and social phenomenon that comprise the coastal zone. Into the 1980’s the emerging understanding of its complexity resulted in CZM starting to be referred to as ICM (Integrated Coastal Management), and the need for multi-disciplinary approaches and interdisciplinary understanding became more and more important (Bremer & Glavovic, 2013). However, this transition presented challenges with connecting disciplines, linking science and policy, and mobilizing and sharing knowledge. 29 Integrating disciplinary assessments in CZM presents several difficulties, but perhaps the most significant is ensuring that different types of knowledge can be used cohesively, and that governance can be informed through the connection of science with policy. Bremer and Glavovic identify two traditions of thought on what the basis of the science-policy interface is: (a) a science-based interface which prioritizes the use of science for policy; and (b) a participatory interface that prioritizes communication across knowledge systems (Bremer & Glavovic, 2013). One main distinction between these schools of thought is the fact that science-centred scholars typically feel that the priority ought to be the pursuit of new knowledge to seek better understanding, whereas the participation-focused school tends to think that sufficient knowledge exists, and that the primary objective should be to share this knowledge through dialogue and various participatory processes. Realistically, both perspectives have merit since the ongoing pursuit of ecological understanding is a fundamental part of environmental management and it is imperative to share this information to effectively implement management plans. Environmental assessment scholars, practitioners, and legislators recognize that a multiplicity of knowledge systems may need to be incorporated into assessments, depending on the context (Eckert et al., 2018). Both groups identify that ICM should be ecosystem-oriented, adaptive and precautionary, science-based, interdisciplinary, and participatory (Bremer & Glavovic, 2013). Some of the key questions that remain for the application of ICM are: - What knowledge systems should be used? - What value will be placed on each and how will it be incorporated? - What are the participatory processes and institutional mechanisms that will be required to enable the sharing of perspectives? These questions, and the issues related to the science-policy interface, speak to the need for an appropriate management and governance framework for environmental and economic analysis in the coastal zone. 30 ICM requires governance frameworks to enable decisions to be made, and in such complex environments these frameworks need to be adaptable. Governance is often described as a process in which people make decisions in alignment with values and to meet certain objectives (Armitage et al., 2017; Kooiman et al., 2005). “Environmental management”, “adaptive management”, “natural resource management”, and “coastal management” constitute tools/frameworks used in decision-making and the policies that affect decision-making (Charles, 2001). Governance takes a broader analytical view and looks at the structures and institutions of decision making, who is participating, the methods of participation, and the distribution of power (Armitage et al., 2012). The complex, plural, and uncertain nature of coastal environments has caused ICM authors to favour flexible, adaptable, and multi-faceted models for governance (McFadden, 2007; McKenna & Cooper, 2006; Stojanovic & Barker, 2008). ‘Adaptive governance’ and ‘Interactive Governance’ are two models that have been proposed (Adger, 2000; Gibbs, 2009). Kooiman identifies four elements that are common in all models of governance: (1) the state is not the only crucial actor in coastal environments; (2) governance arrangements will differ based on different levels of society and by sector, with the various institutions involved being diverse in their motivations and principles; (3) there is a need for both traditional and contemporary state-society interactions (e.g. encouraging state activities outside of regulatory actions such as public engagement and education); and (4) there is interdependence amongst governing agencies and organizations and no single group can exercise legitimate governance independently (Kooiman, 2003). A governance structure for coastal zone management must be holistic in nature to accommodate different types of knowledge, connect a variety of state and non-state actors, and be adaptable to the inherent complexity and uncertainty in the coastal zone. The governance framework must also recognize the dynamic interplay between social and ecological systems and recognize the economic importance of ecosystem services. This will in turn impact how risk analysis and industrial development decision-making will occur in these regions. 31 2.4 Ecosystems Services and the Coastal Zone The concept of ecosystem services is particularly important in the coastal zone since there are many environmental impacts resulting from concurrent development activities that can be ‘captured’ and better understood using this model. Ecosystem services are the benefits to society that come from ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program), 2005; TEEB, 2010a). They are divided into four categories: regulating, provisioning, supporting, and cultural (recreational / aesthetic). Regulating services are things such as the moderating effect that coastal ecosystems have on ocean dynamics and the exchange of biophysical (water and energy) and biochemical (greenhouse gases) components of the atmosphere with the ecosphere (Anderson-Teixeira et al., 2012; Barbier et al., 2011). Provisioning services are the direct benefits that are provided to society such as food, freshwater, and the potential for energy generation (Arias et al., 2011; Gordon et al., 2010; Grizzetti et al., 2016). Supporting services are the underlying dynamics such as nutrient cycling or net primary productivity, that allow ecosystems to continue to function and provide benefits to society (Sandhu et al., 2010a). Lastly, cultural (including recreational and aesthetic) ecosystem services are the beauty of natural landscapes and the natural processes that allow for activities such as surfing, camping, and skiing (Fish et al., 2016). The ecosystem service concept was initially rather contentious as several scholars who held a more eco-centric perspective felt that ecosystems services placed an overly utilitarian value on nature and was, in their opinion, too anthropocentric (Schröter et al., 2014). In addition, there is still debate as to how to define and categorize ecosystem services as the benefits that nature provides society (Wallace, 2007). Although these arguments have merit and the debate continues, the growing pressure and stresses on the global environment force decision makers to practically confront the trade-offs between maintaining ecosystem integrity through conservation and managing the impacts of development (McShane et al., 2011; Rodríguez et al., 2006). To this end, the ecosystem service model has proven to be extremely valuable. 32 Global studies of the status of ecosystem health have been early adopters of the ecosystem service concept and as a result it has become more widely applied at regional and local levels. The MA was a global evaluation of the status of ecosystems in which an ecosystem service framework was used to demonstrate whether ecosystem health was declining, improving, or staying neutral (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program), 2005). One of the benefits of using the ecosystem service model is that it clearly presents how ecosystems are used by society and this message has resonated with a wide array of stakeholders ranging from indigenous peoples to senior decision makers (Costanza et al., 2017; Sangha et al., 2018). However, critics have cited that ecosystem service studies have usually been driven by biophysical data gathered and used by formally educated experts and therefore often do not fully take into account different knowledge systems (Menzel & Teng, 2009). Global assessments such as the MA, and more recently, IPBES (Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services), have attempted to link different epistemologies, or ‘ways of knowing’, but more work is required to cohesively bridge world views (Tengö et al., 2014, 2017). Since the MA’s publication in 2005 the ecosystem service literature has expanded significantly, and various analytical tools and methods have been created (B. Fisher et al., 2009; Vihervaara et al., 2010). InVEST is one such software modeling tool that has been used extensively to conduct assessments at the regional and local site scale (Natural Capital Project, 2019). Local and regional ecosystem service assessments have the benefit of providing more granular, or specific analytical results than global assessments, which are typically broader in their outlook. These localized studies will generally utilize data that is specifically linked to provisioning, regulating, supporting, or cultural services, or ‘bundles’ of ecosystem services (Raudsepp-Hearne et al., 2010). Arkema et al’s study of coastal ecosystem services in Belize utilized the InVEST model to assess the net benefits of conserving ecosystem services instead of impacting them through economic activities (Arkema et al., 2015). Trade-off evaluation such as this is particularly important in the coastal zone due to the many conflicting mandates for development, conservation, and sustainable natural resource use that exist in these environments. 33 The ecosystem services that are commonly the most critical to communities in the coastal zone relate to food provision, safety and security, and recreational and aesthetic values (Arkema et al., 2015). Fisheries are one of the main sources of nutrients and economic wellbeing for coastal communities (FAO, 2018). From an ecosystem service standpoint, fisheries could be considered essential provisioning services, and in many cases, such as in communities in the NW coast of British Columbia, they are a fundamental component of the economy (Littles et al., 2018; Sun & Hallin, 2018). Coastal communities are exposed to several types of hazards such as storm surges, tsunamis, and sea level rise (Kron, 2013). Mangroves and coastal geomorphology can act as buffers to storm surges and sea level rise and are therefore providing the social benefits of security and protection (Rao et al., 2015). Coastal zones offer several opportunities for tourism and recreational activities and often possess beautiful scenery, all of which fit into the category of cultural ecosystem services (Daniel et al., 2012; Gee et al., 2017). Indigenous communities often place special value on coastal areas as they view them not only as a source of sustenance but also an intrinsic part of their culture. Underpinning the provisioning, regulating, and cultural/recreational ecosystem services are the supporting ecosystem services. Supporting ecosystem services such as biodiversity and nutrient cycling are responsible for maintaining ecosystem function (Bastian, 2013; Mortimer, Saj, & David, 2018). Ongoing assessment of critical ecosystem services is an essential part of integrated coastal zone management. ICM can benefit from the ecosystem service model because different ecosystems services transcend disciplinary boundaries and therefore support the idea of an ‘integrated’, ‘holistic’, or ‘systems’ approach which, as La Notte et al stipulate, can also be framed in a ‘systems ecology’ paradigm (La Notte et al., 2017). Much of the focus in ICM is on safeguarding the benefits that societies derive from the environment and therefore having ecosystem services as the underlying representative model is appropriate. The challenge is determining which ecosystem services are most relevant to include. There may be some that are more pertinent to certain communities than others. For instance, coastal protection provided by 34 mangroves is extremely important in countries such as Thailand where tsunamis and storm surges have inflicted serious damages on coastal communities (Yanagisawa et al., 2009). It is imperative that priority ecosystem services be identified, the required data to support their analysis be selected, and the relevant regulatory and governance factors be considered when scoping the ICM analytical framework for a particular region. Coastal socio-ecological systems are dynamic and in a state of constant change, therefore the timeframe and temporal frequency of analysis also need to be considered (Chua et al., 2006). The ultimate objective of a systematic framework for ecosystem services in the coastal zone is to enhance decision making, reduce risks to society, and facilitate sustainable development. The emergence of ecosystem services in ICM is relatively recent, with only ten articles assessing marine and coastal ecosystem services appearing before 2000 (Liquete, Piroddi, et al., 2013). With the arrival of this new perspective have come challenges with its integration into traditional approaches whereby it has been shown that the full capability of ecological function and service provision cannot be replicated through simulation and modeling (Moberg & Rönnbäck, 2003). McFadden cites that current ICM approaches do not give adequate emphasis to the fundamental scientific knowledge of the various processes (and by extension the ecosystem services) that impact coastal spaces (McFadden, 2007). The scientific assessment of ecosystem services is constantly undergoing change (Carpenter et al., 2009; K. Chan et al., 2012). Climate change adaptation and the need for managing coastal impacts has motivated governments to further consider integrated approaches in coastal zone management and governance (Falaleeva et al., 2011; Sano et al., 2015; Tobey et al., 2010). Ecosystem services clearly articulate the goods and services that coastal communities rely on and thus in the context of climate adaptation and coastal vulnerability, this model is highly relevant and helpful in policy development and decision making (McKenzie et al., 2014; L. D. Wright et al., 2019). Governance, policy development, and decision-making in the coastal zone are critical in terms of enacting sustainable development. Utilizing a systematic and integrated approach allows different domains of 35 knowledge to be integrated which can result in a more informed assessment process (Noble, 2000; R. K. Turner, 2000). Including ecosystem services in a systems focused ICM governance model connects the fundamental ecological processes that support society with the decision-making processes that influence how natural resources are used and how the benefits nature provides can be safeguarded. There are several challenges with this approach, the first being that policy makers often lack clear definitions for ecosystem services and therefore have difficulty practically applying this knowledge. A good example of this are the problems decision makers have with incorporating impacts on ecosystem services into liability for environmental damages (Polasky et al., 2015). Secondly, governance is distinct from management and although environmental management has blossomed in its development as a discipline, there remains much work to do in incorporating knowledge of dynamically coupled social and ecological systems into governance and legal frameworks (Chaffin et al., 2014; Cosens et al., 2017). Lastly, knowledge of the environment can take many forms and it is not limited to western science. A systematic framework for ICM needs to recognize that different stakeholder groups may possess different epistemological views of the environment. Therefore, the local socio-cultural context needs to be considered and appropriate world views incorporated (Berkes, 2009; K. Chan et al., 2012). Economic issues must also be considered in the coastal zone and from the perspective of sustainable development, a broad perspective on what is economically valued should be considered, rather than the narrowly focused economic analysis that is most commonly used. 2.5 Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services in the Coastal Zone Values underpin many of the decisions people make and natural resource use is no exception. The ecosystem service model provides a means of categorizing the environment into different streams of goods and service provision which people can relate to. The next step is to then determine how people ‘value’ those services. How do people view them? What do they use them for? What is the perceived benefit they derive? The answers to these questions form the basis for natural resource policies, guidelines, and 36 governance. Chan et al present the argument that there is a dichotomy between stewarding nature for the sake of humans (instrumental valuation) and for nature’s sake (intrinsic value) (K. Chan et al., 2016). Decisions are seldom made based on the inherent value or utility of a resource, rather, they are generally contextually framed and based on some form of relation between the good or service and its perceived value by an individual or social group. These are relational values and they are derived based on preferences, principles, and virtues associated (K. Chan et al., 2016). Relational values can be defined at the individual level (through personal relationships) or at the community/society level (through a collective perspective). They are appealing because they capture the perspective of a community, which is by no means a static entity, nor is it uniform. An assessment of relational values can be the starting point for a quantitative or qualitative ecosystem service valuation. For example, it would be preferable to determine if a community first thinks that an aspect of the environment can be valued economically or not before attempting to do so. Relational values represent the perspective a community has on an ecosystem service, and they also lay the foundation for a more detailed assessment of its quantitative or qualitative value. Insights about the relationship between a social group (or an individual) and the environment can reveal the degree to which economic valuation can occur (if at all) (K. Chan et al., 2012; Haines-Young & Potschin, 2014). Market-based solutions for conservation are predicated on the idea that if parts of the environment are assigned sufficient economic value their consumption may be reduced or eliminated (Boisvert et al., 2013; Kroeger & Casey, 2007). However, long-time critics of economic valuation of ecosystem services argue that it can lead to the commodification of nature (Gómez-Baggethun & Ruiz-Pérez, 2011). Regardless of whether an aspect of the environment is economically valued or not, it can be instructive to assess how, in a participatory manner, local stakeholders perceive and relate to their environment in order establish governance, management plans, and decision making frameworks (Crandall et al., 2019; Menzel & Teng, 2009). A variety of economic valuation methods can be employed once stakeholders demonstrate their interest and acceptance of this approach. 37 Social values and economic valuation are intrinsically connected and therefore close consideration must be given to both in the process of selecting a methodology. ‘Value systems’ influence how people assign rights to things or activities, usually in the context of a specific goal or objective. We use the term ‘value’ to represent the contribution an action or object makes to desired outcomes (Costanza et al., 2011). Economists generally default to the mental model of value being based on want, satisfaction, pleasure, or utility goals (Farber et al., 2002). Ecosystems in the coastal zone can provide a number of different benefits for society, some of which have very clear utilitarian economic impacts whereas others hold more intrinsic values. Methodologies for assessing economic value must be chosen based on contextual understanding and the appropriateness of the tool. Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) is one of the most widely used methods for assessing economic values of natural resource-related goods (Bandara & Tisdell, 2004; R. T. Carson, 2011). CVM can also be used for assessing an economic value for non-use environmental services such as scenic beauty. This is achieved by determining peoples’ willingness to pay (WTP) for an improved situation or willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for a situation where damages reduce environmental quality. For example, CVM has been used for determining economic costs associated with efforts to conserve species in the wild and safeguard outdoor recreational amenities (McGonagle & Swallow, 2005). CVM analysis typically involves developing a survey around a hypothetical scenario related to the environmental issue at hand. For instance, if there were a project that was negatively impacting water quality in the coastal zone one could create a scenario in which a trust fund was created to help finance efforts to reduce the impacts through monitoring and technology implementation. The question to the survey recipients would then outline the costs of such an intervention and illicit the amount of money they would be willing to pay to achieve a certain level of water quality. Previous studies have shown that having a voluntary contribution mechanism (VCM) increases the probability that interviewees respond truthfully (Champ et al., 1997; Chilton & Hutchinson, 1999). Various levels of bids can be used in descending order to ascertain the amount of money a person will pay to address the environmental issue (Bandara & Tisdell, 38 2004). CVM can provide an estimate of what economic value can be assigned to various ecosystem services based on the input of local stakeholders. This method can also be used in conjunction with other economic valuation methodologies. Human perceptions and culture shape how people value the environment but there are several factors that influence these perspectives. Econometric analysis using time series panel data is a useful method for examining the relationships between variables to ascertain how different factors such as demographic characteristics, commodity prices, and environmental features (weather), can impact consumption patterns (Antweiler & Gulati, 2016; Fercovic & Gulati, 2016). In the case of economic valuation of ecosystem services in BC’s northwest coastal zone, there may be instances where direct economic valuation of ecosystem services is not possible since some of them are not exposed to a market. In the case where there isn’t a direct means of assessing economic value, shadow pricing, or pricing of proxies, can be used (Howarth & Farber, 2002). For supporting ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling or biodiversity, this approach may be necessary as they are not explicitly linked to markets (Farnsworth et al., 2015). Ultimately, the goal of assessing economic values for ecosystem services in the coastal zone is to improve decision making. Decision making in natural resource management can be supported by a variety of tools and processes and economic valuation and cost benefit analysis are two rooted in economics, however there are a range of others that incorporate a breadth of other social, psychological, cultural, technological, and scientific factors. Structured Decision Making (SDM) is not so much a specific tool, but is an approach that was designed to help resource managers make better decisions through using a way of thinking that can guide decision making using a variety of different methods and techniques (Gregory et al., 2012). SDM approaches are based on the theory of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) and the methods of Decision Analysis (DA), both of which facilitate the decomposition of often complex problems into logical components. SDM and DA techniques help individuals or groups tasked with making a decision to 39 determine objectives, assess performance scores for the alternatives being considered, and then develop weighted preference scores for the alternatives using relative importance weights for the objectives, given the anticipated consequence of the actions (Gregory et al., 2012) . The inputs to these processes are multi-dimensional, drawing on both logic and rational thinking as well as emotional and intuitive responses. SDM squarely recognizes that ultimately decisions are made by people and therefore a combination of deliberation and analysis is required. This is particularly relevant when examining natural resource management decisions in coastal zones because coastal populations aren’t solely concerned about economic factors (although they are important), they have a range of other considerations. Economic valuation of ecosystem services can provide important insights and data to the decision analysis process, often revealing impacts that are typically not considered using conventional economic analysis, but this information alone may not be all that is required to make good natural resource decisions. SDM processes will draw on scientific, technical, economic, and other contextual data to be used in analytical procedures determined to be appropriate to the problem, but the group deliberation process is fundamental because it allows people without scientific and technical expertise to understand technical information and express their values and concerns such that decision makers can comprehend and effectively consider them. Economically-driven decision making processes such as cost benefit analysis (CBA) are powerful in some respects because they can use generally applicable economic data (market or otherwise) to provide the rationale to proceed or not with an initiative, but they have been criticized for failing to capture social and ethical concerns such as cultural and moral values (K. Chan et al., 2012; Kenter et al., 2015). Others note that there is risk that monetary valuation of ecosystems may inappropriately translate citizen values such as normative beliefs, principles, and collective meanings into consumer preferences (Sagoff, 1998; Spash, 2007; Vatn, 2009), These are valid concerns, and duly noted, however, it must be understood that the objective of this research is not to create a coastal zone management framework to facilitate the economic exploitation of natural resources, it is to systematically integrate key concerns such as values, knowledge 40 systems, governance processes, ecological services and their total economic value into a framework that can be used within decision making processes. The application of the framework in decision making should be done with full consideration of stakeholder and rights holder values and preferences through using inclusive, deliberation-focused methods such as MAUT or Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Systematic and integrated coastal zone management presents the opportunity to bridge disciplines and paradigms in order to better understand the risks that come with economic activity and development in the coastal zone of NW British Columbia. Environmental management and environmental impact assessment are predicated on assessing environmental, social, and economic impacts and then proposing means of reducing negative impacts and augmenting positive ones (Noble, 2015). Coastal zones are particularly vulnerable to the pressures of economic development due to their pivotal role in transportation and the many valuable natural resources that they offer. To have a comprehensive view of the impacts of development in the coastal zone, the economic values of ecosystem services must be understood. In most cases the externalities of development decisions are not considered, and their economic value is not captured in environmental impact assessments or environmental management plans (Bellver-Domingo et al., 2016). Economic values for ecosystem services and can be integrated into tools such as cost benefit analysis or multi-variate trade-off assessment to provide a broader view of the risks that projects have (Cavender-Bares et al., 2015; Wattage & Soussan, 2003). The goal of risk assessment in the coastal zone is to assess potential negative outcomes of development decisions and the probability of them occurring. The classical environmental risk assessment approach in its most basic form is to: (a) identify the hazards; (b) delineate aspects they may impact (social, economic, or environmental); (c) assign probability of their occurrence; and (d) determine the ‘risk’ by multiplying the probability of occurrence by the magnitude of impact (Eccleston, 2011; National Research Council, 2009). A systematic framework for assessing ecosystem services in the coastal zone can contribute to classical risk assessments by broadening the definition of the ‘environment’ by including ecosystem 41 services and their economic value. Many ecosystem services are usually not taken into account in traditional risk assessment and therefore the full economic consequences of the impacts of hazards are not included (Faber & van Wensem, 2012; Nienstedt et al., 2012). For example, when assessing the potential impacts of a pipeline terminal or port, the economic benefits are often clear, whereas the risk of a spill could dramatically impact the aesthetic quality of coastlines. This would negatively impact the tourism industry as well as produce negative economic consequences tied to other ecosystem services such as food provision (Alford et al., 2014; Cirer-Costa, 2015; McDowell Group, 1990; Ventikos & Sotiropoulos, 2014). By having a framework which provides an ongoing record of indicators relating to ecosystem services, the full economic risks can be assessed. 42 2.6 Strategy for Addressing These Challenges This project seeks to develop a systematic framework for economic valuation of ecosystem services to enhance sustainable development in the BC coastal nations. Haida Gwaii is chosen as one example to illustrate how such a framework could be implemented. One of two types of ecosystem service are chosen: provisioning (e.g. fishing) and regulating (e.g. climate regulation). A critical review of the environmental economic valuation literature was conducted to suggest the most appropriate methodology for each selected ecosystem service. Example applications are demonstrated with a view to outlining how TEV (Total Economic Value) of environmental components can be assessed in the coastal zone, and then how these values can be integrated into the overall systematic management framework. Special consideration is given to the differing values of local stakeholder and rights holder groups and knowledge systems they use. The socio-cultural and historical context of reconciliation between First Nations and the Governments of Canada and British Columbia is also considered. The goal of this study is to provide a more comprehensive and systematic framework for coastal zone management than currently exists, with a view to informing policy and address the following known key concerns: - Prevalence of a ‘silo approach’ which does not recognize the interconnections between influential factors (biophysical, social, cultural, economic, legal, political) - Lack of recognition and balancing of differential values amongst stakeholder and rights holder groups - No cohesive means of reconciling different knowledge systems that are used by impacted stakeholders and rightsholders - Economic value of ecosystem services and of the externalities impacted by developments not factored into decision making - Dynamics of coastal zones not sufficiently addressed in governance systems since feedbacks and system interactions are not linked to management frameworks 43 The assumptions, and requirements, for the development and implementation of this framework are that there is a willingness of stakeholders and rights holders to work together in the implementation and use of the framework, there is a collective recognition of the rule of law, or at least a shared agreement on the rules established for implementation of the framework, and there is respect shared between all those involved. The following sections will address the above points and present a new systems-focused coastal zone management framework which incorporates economic valuation of the environment to support decision making. 44 Chapter 3: Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services in the Coastal Zone of Haida Gwaii 3.1 Introduction and Overview Contribution of this research to economic decision making in the coastal zone One of the primary goals of this research is to incorporate economic valuation in a coastal zone management framework so that the total economic value of the environment can be captured. An ecosystem service approach was chosen to achieve this because by doing so, critical components of the environment can be identified by stakeholders and rights holders and then appropriate economic valuation methodologies can be used to assess the economic value of environmental aspects that are typically not considered. A range of possible economic valuation methods are presented and two are used for illustrative examples of key ecosystem services in Haida Gwaii. The main contribution is an approach for identifying key ecosystem services, assessing their economic value, and then aggregating them to determine the total economic value of the environmental component in the coastal zone by including local stakeholder and rights holder input and values. The result being a more comprehensive understanding of the multi-dimensional value of the coastal zone that is typically not included in policy and development decision making. Current issues in economic valuation of ecosystem services The debate between economic development and environmental conservation is long standing, often serving as the fundamental point of disagreement between different groups of stakeholders and rights holders. With the increasing acceptance of the fact that compromise between these two perspectives might be the most practical and sustainable way forward, economic valuation of ecosystem services has emerged as a potential mechanism for balancing these often divergent perspectives (Kieslich & Salles, 2021; Tinch et al., 2019a). At a fundamental level, the school of deep ecology and similar philosophical systems see nature’s intrinsic value as unquantifiable from an economic perspective, whereas in pre-classical, classical, and neo-classical economics schools of thought, nature has been captured in the land theory of value and as a factor in supply and demand calculations (Cantillon, 2014; A. Marshall, 1898; Menger, 1950; Naess & Sessions, 1986; 45 Petty, 1899). In response to accelerated industrialization and technological development, nineteenth century classical economic thinking saw a greater emphasis on labour and capital as opposed to land; a shift from physical to monetary analysis; and a greater importance put on exchange values rather than use values (Daly & Cobb, 1994; Hubacek & van den Bergh, 2006). This ultimately led to the emergence of neoclassical economics in the late nineteenth century and twentieth century and a further reduction of nature’s role in economic analysis, aside from those components considered in the monetary aspects of exchange values (Naredo, 2015). The fundamental arguments over how nature should or should not be included in economic analysis are reflected in the ongoing debates between environmental and ecological economists, with the differences in opinion focused on issues such as the purpose of conserving nature (for its intrinsic or instrumental value), limits to economic growth, and the process of putting economic values on nature (Gómez-Baggethun & Ruiz-Pérez, 2011; Hickel & Kallis, 2020). The ecosystem service concept, although not perfect, has shown to be useful in policy and environmental assessment discussions and perhaps could serve as a tool for reconciling the differences between those that feel that the environment cannot be economically valued and those that do. Costanza et al’s pioneering work in assessing the global value of natural capital set the stage for the mainstreaming of ecosystem services into economic and policy discussions (Costanza et al., 1997). Following that, the MA was one of the first widely cited publications that utilized ecosystem services as a means of jointly evaluating ecosystem and human well-being (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program), 2005). The ecosystem service mainstreaming agenda has continued to accelerate with a growing interest in integrating economic valuation of ecosystem services into decision making, as exemplified with the launch and deployment of TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) (TEEB, 2010b). TEEB is an organization focused on developing and deploying defendable economic valuation frameworks and methodologies for decision makers in the public and private sectors (T. R. Bhattacharya & Managi, 2013; Hedden-Dunkhorst et al., 2015). 46 The use of economic valuation methods in ecosystem impact assessment has now become mainstreamed to the point at which leading corporate companies such as Puma, Kering, and others are using it to formulate quarterly and annual E P/L (Environmental Profit / Loss) statements (Hao et al., 2022). Although these practices are gaining more widespread adoption, there are still fundamental problems with connecting socio-cultural perceptions of the value of different ecosystem services with an economic equivalent. It is particularly challenging in coastal zones where there are complex intersections of ecological processes, economic uses, socio-cultural priorities, and political/legal jurisdictions. With a history of natural resource management challenges, BC coastal nations present an excellent context for examining how economic valuation of ecosystem services can occur (Takeda & Ropke, 2010). Another key issue related to economic valuation of the environment is the debate over discounting and how to properly account for benefits that are gained today verses their long-term costs. The concept of discounting is powerful because it can serve as a means of tempering peoples’ inclination to exhaust resources in the short term without considering the long-term consequence of natural resource depletion. Discounting is the approach in which future benefit values are reduced to a calculated present value using a chosen discount rate. The choice of the discount rate is a hotly debated issue in fields such as climate change mitigation and fisheries management because depending on the values chosen it can either promote or greatly detract from natural resource stewardship (Dasgupta, 2008; Pauly et al., 2002). High discount rates tend to encourage present day consumption and lead to long term resource depletion (Sumaila, 2021). Therefore when policy makers are considering how to balance short term economic gains from activities such as fishing or forestry, they need to consider an appropriate discount rate to determine allocations for current harvesting given net present values of the resources being considered and the future ecological states assessed through modelling exercises (Su et al., 2021). Another key consideration in discounting is whether the perspectives of different generations are considered when factoring in future benefits. Sumaila et al have proposed a method of intergenerational discounting where the preferences, and resource rights, of future generations are factored into assessments of present-day values and resource policies (Sumaila, 47 2004). This research project focuses primarily on different methods economic valuation of ecosystem services and does not directly address the discounting problem, but future research should attempt to incorporate was of balancing short term economic gains verse long term impacts on natural resources through discounting and net present value calculations. 48 Challenges in coastal zone management in Haida Gwaii The coastal zone of Haida Gwaii is home to a diversity of life forms, is an area of complex oceanographic and geological processes, and is of profound socio-cultural and economic importance to local communities, particularly the Haida Nation. Coastal zones are a source of food provisions and medicinal remedies, a link to vital to transportation, a source of economic activity, and provide a bounty of recreational activities and cultural benefits (Luisetti et al., 2014). Haida Gwaii’s coastal zone has been home to the Haida People since time immemorial and is noted as being critical to their wellbeing throughout their historical record (Fedje & Mathewes, 2011). The arrival of foreign peoples to Haida Gwaii in 1774 and the subsequent onset of colonialization brought about a new set of challenges to natural resource management. The lure of the natural resources and economic potential of this new land led to conflicts between settlers and the local Haida population over land and marine resource rights, differing perspectives on development policy, and views of nature itself (Dick et al., 2022; Silver et al., 2022). These challenges still manifest today and can be observed in distinct areas: singular development decisions that do not incorporate broader sustainability values; ongoing conflicts over natural resource rights and the corresponding evolution of co-management regimes; long-standing development policies that are in the eyes of many locals deemed to be unsustainable; and policies that do not factor in externalities, or impacts on nature that are not directly part of resource extraction activities (Lam et al., 2019; Takeda & Ropke, 2010). Economic valuation of ecosystem services may serve as a useful support to natural resource decision making to address these current challenges if associated risks with its implementation are understood and managed. Role of Ecosystem Services in Economic Valuation One of the main understood benefits of economic valuation of ecosystem services is the fact that it puts economic values on aspects of the environment that are traditionally not factored into economic decision making and are considered ‘free’ and therefore unconstrained from being consumed or impacted (Bellver-Domingo et al., 2016). TEV (Total Economic Valuation) is a method of aggregating economic values of an ecosystem, whether they be use values, direct (food provision) or indirect (recreation), or non-use values 49 such as for conservation (Ferreira et al., 2017). Economic valuation for ecosystem services that are typically traded in markets is relatively well-accepted for natural resources such as fish, agricultural products, timber, and minerals (Boisvert et al., 2013). However, applying market-framed economic valuation to aspects of ecosystems that are not exposed to a market, such as biodiversity, clean air provision, or nutrient cycling, has been widely criticized and deemed unethical, leading to the ‘commodification’ of nature (Martin-Ortega et al., 2019; Smessaert et al., 2020). Bateman et al demonstrated that integrating an ecosystem service perspective into land use and agricultural policy with a focus on only market-priced ecosystem goods may result in decisions that lower overall values, whereas if both market and non-market ecosystem services are considered, overall economic values will be higher (and can be substantially higher if policies are spatially targeted) (Bateman et al., 2013). The process of economic valuation can be particularly challenging in situations where there are significantly different cultural norms or differing views of nature, with BC coastal nations being very good examples. The local population of Haida Gwaii is roughly 5,000 people, with half being from the Haida Nation (Council of the Haida Nation, 2022; Loring & Hinzman, 2018). There is an inherent respect for nature held by the Haida that transcends its utility to their physical well-being and incorporates deep cultural and social value (Gilani et al., 2018). This reverence is embedded in the relationships between community members, to nature, and to past and future generations, and it is a reflection of a sense of place that has been cultivated by the Haida over thousands of years (Bringhurst, 2011; N. J. Turner et al., 2020). The prospect of introducing economic valuation of ecosystem services into a context with such strong and long-standing beliefs, that in many ways stand in opposition to viewing nature as a commodity, could indeed be a contentious proposition. It is therefore important to emphasize the objective of the activity, which is to put values on elements of nature that traditionally have been ‘invisible’ or ‘free’ in the eyes of decision makers, with a view to encouraging long-term sustainability rather than unsustainable over consumption of natural resources. One way of managing this risk is to ensure that there is sufficient representation by local rights holders and stakeholders throughout the economic valuation process. Tinch et al argue that the validity of 50 the economic values ascribed to ecosystem services may differ based on the method used and evidence gathered and that context-specific understanding is fundamentally dependent on group deliberation processes (Tinch et al., 2019a). In the case of BC coastal nations it is acutely important that First Nations’ perspectives and values be fully represented as this has often not been the case since the time of the arrival of European settlers and the onset of colonialization. This also speaks to the issue of local engagement in the management of natural resources, a trend that is growing with respect to concerns about climate change and environmental degradation in general (Reyes-García et al., 2020; Stojanovic et al., 2010). Several countries and communities have declared a ‘climate emergency’ because of the growing number of climate-related natural disasters. British Columbia is a perfect example, with the severe wildfires and heat waves that occurred in the summer of 2021 and the floods in the Fraser Valley that wreaked havoc on transportation infrastructure, agricultural operations, and the homes of many residents (Aidt, 2022; Hoekstra, 2022). At the international level the United Nations is encouraging developing nations to fortify their capacity to address climate change through environmental data acquisition, indicator development, information management, and environmental statistics, so they can improve their UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) reporting and build resilience (Hill et al., 2015). Initiatives such as SEAA (System of Environmental and Economic Accounting), WAVES (Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services), and the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) promoted by the United Nations and the World Bank are supporting countries (and communities) in taking control of their local environmental data and to some degree fortifying their local sovereignty (United Nations, 2022; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2022; World Bank, 2022). Economic valuation of ecosystem services, when combined with such efforts in environmental data management could greatly enhance the sustainability of natural resource management by bringing economic values to the previously ‘unseen’ aspects of local environments that communities hold so dear. Looking through the lens of reconciliation in the Canadian context, and more specifically BC coastal nations, this could support nation building and sovereignty over natural resources for First Nations peoples, 51 while also supporting climate change adaptation (Datta, 2019; Odulaja & Halseth, 2018; Vogel & Bullock, 2021). Key ecosystem services to choose For the purposes of this study the two categories of ecosystem services used in the MA, and that are traditionally employed throughout the literature, were used: provisioning services (e.g. food, water) and regulating services (e.g. climate regulation). A review of research literature and community reports on Haida Gwaii was conducted and an ecosystem service for each overall category was selected based on the understood importance to the local population. They are as follows: 1. Provisioning Service – fishing (herring) 2. Regulating Service – climate regulation through greenhouse gas exchange in the coastal zone Herring serves as an important part of the commercial fishery in the Northwest Pacific Coast and is constituted of the roe, SOK (Spawn on Kelp), food and bait, and special use fisheries. The herring fishery has also played a pivotal role in natural resource negotiations between the government of Canada and the Haida First Nation throughout history (Lam et al., 2019). Herring is particularly important to BC coastal First Nations as it is the basis of the food chain and an important part of the seasonal diet, ceremonial and potlach feasts, and economy of several groups. Herring is also viewed from an indigenous perspective as not only an important food stuff or commodity, but part of the overall ecosystem where, as stated in some cases, “everything revolves around the herring” (Gauvreau et al., 2017). The harvesting of herring SOK is a community activity for the Haida, with related knowledge being passed down from generation to generation, serving as an aspect of place-based knowledge and cultural identity (Haida Marine Traditional Knowledge Study participants et al., 2011). The economic valuation of herring as an ecosystem service thus makes for an excellent opportunity to examine the multi-dimensional aspects of its economic and socio-cultural importance, and how they can be more readily reflected in policy decision making. 52 Climate change is the challenge of this generation and coastal zones have a role to play in climate regulation through greenhouse gas exchange and sequestration. It is estimated that globally there is greater than 30,000 Tg of carbon stored in coastal “blue carbon” ecosystems (mangroves, seagrass meadows, tidal marshes) (Macreadie et al., 2021). Climate regulation occurs in both the land and marine component of the coastal zone and therefore a clear delineation must be made of which biophysical components are contributing. The social cost of carbon will be used in conjunction with the estimated greenhouse gas exchange estimates to conduct the economic valuation of this ecosystem service (Ricke et al., 2018). Approach of analysis of paper This study examines in detail an example of two of the types of ecosystem services and propose a functional method for determining their economic value. Various commonly used economic valuation methodologies are outlined, their relative strengths and weaknesses presented, and recommendations for herring and climate regulation made. The recommended approaches for each chosen ecosystem service are then illustrated through an example. The overall goal is to provide a suggested framework for assessing TEV for key ecosystem services in the BC coastal nations. This framework can also potentially be applied to other similar situations, taking into consideration local contextual factors. 53 3.2 Approaches to Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services Overview of different methods for economic valuation of ecosystem services Economic valuation of ecosystem services is commonly initiated by first determining specifically what components of ecosystems are being assessed and their corresponding type of use, this will then lead into the selection of the appropriate valuation methodology. TEV is typically divided into use and non-use values, with use values being associated with the more tangible benefits that society derives from nature either directly (e.g. food, biomass, fresh water, ecotourism) or indirectly through functional benefits (e.g. flood control, storm protection, climate regulation) (Ojea et al., 2012). Non-use values are generally categorized as having option values (future direct and indirect use), bequest values (the value of conserving current use and non-use values for future generations), or existence values (the value derived from knowing there will be future existence of natural functions) (Pascual et al., 2012). The hierarchy of economic valuation of ecosystem services is shown below in Figure 3 Figure 3: Total economic valuation framework Note. Adapted from (Pascual et al., 2012) The Economics of Valuing Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity In The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations, p. 197, Routledge. London. 54 Direct use values are more tangible in the sense that clear linkages can be made between them and consumption in society (and the economy). To that end, their economic valuation has a tendency to be relatively clear and intuitively understood whether the ecosystem service values be consumptive or non-consumptive (Tinch et al., 2019a). The challenge in BC coastal nations is the fact that for local communities, ecosystem services have use values (direct and indirect) as well as non-use values, and conventional economic analysis typically takes a narrow view using only market-based use values and neglects the ‘whole value’ of nature, often using an “Atomistic-Mechanistic” perspective (Norgaard, 1985). If TEV is to be calculated, there need to be methodologies to assess the economic value of each ecosystem service and in many cases these methods are not well defined. A breakdown of different economic valuation methods, their description, and how they may be employed in the coastal zone of BC coastal nations is presented in Appendix B. The process ecosystem valuation is not limited to choosing the methodology for economic valuation, attention must first be given to ecosystem value identification and classification before economic valuation is to occur. The structure and function of ecosystems are complex from a scientific standpoint and the task of identifying how, individually or collectively, these components contribute to human well-being is additionally challenging. The initial assessment of the value of global ecosystems and natural capital at an average of 33 Trillion USD per year by Costanza et al was pivotal in that it provoked great interest in considering the economic consequences of environmental impacts resulting from policy decisions (Costanza et al., 1997). It also ushered in a new wave of research focused on better understanding the economic values of ecosystem services and the models and frameworks appropriate for conducting such analysis, with the approach used with the MA being one of the most widely cited at the time of its publication (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program), 2005). However, critics have identified that some of the end benefits humans derive from ecosystems result from the interactions of several different ecosystem services, for example the regulating ecosystem components that form the basis for provisioning 55 or recreational ecosystem services, so care must be taken when assigning economic values so as to avoid double counting (B. Fisher & Turner, 2008) . Wallace argued that the frameworks proposed by Constanza et al and the MA mixed the ecosystem processes (means) required to achieve the services (ends) with the resulting services themselves, and therefore proposed a new classification/typology and method for mapping the ‘life cycle’ of ecosystem service delivery (Wallace, 2007). This approach was further examined and refined with a new classification approach that makes a clear distinction between ‘ecosystem services’ and the end benefits that result with two clear stipulations: (a) services are not benefits; and (b) ecosystem services are ecological in nature (B. Fisher et al., 2009). A comprehensive approach to ecosystem service identification requires delineation of the ‘value chain’ of intermediary ecosystem services that ultimately contribute to human benefits with a view of the whole socio-ecological system. The identification of ecosystem services should preclude the economic valuation of ecosystem services and should be done through a deliberative process with stakeholders and rights holders. This process should also gather their perspectives on ecosystem values. Value assignation regarding ecosystem services can be viewed both economically and socio-culturally. Decision making frameworks such SDM identify that there are several approaches by which individuals and groups come to decisions, as previously outlined in this thesis. With a comprehensive list of ecosystem services and benefits established, deliberative processes can be used to determine alternatives and evaluative criteria for each (in a specific decision-making context). Part of this evaluative criteria could involve economic valuation of the benefits realized which result from ecosystem services, whereas in other cases qualitative or normative assessment may be more appropriate. The economic evaluation may also address time based-factors and consider how past and future impacts should be accounted for in present day analysis using discount rates (Sumaila, 2022a; Vasquez-Lavín et al., 2019). Coastal zone management frameworks can support this process and can help to focus the analysis on the issues of highest priority, and 56 where appropriate include economic valuation. The economic valuation of ecosystem services can be approached in variety of ways, many of which are listed below: Evaluation of Approaches: Market Price – Strengths, weaknesses and potential application The market price methodology is perhaps one of the clearest approaches in the sense that there is a direct correlation to current economic activity. However, it can be misrepresentative of the true overall value of that ecosystem service to the community and there are many circumstances in which ecosystem services are not traded directly on markets and may have primarily spiritual or cultural value, thereby making it impossible to assign market-based values (K. Chan et al., 2012). In BC coastal nations there are market-traded natural resources that come from the coastal zone (fish being one), however, their value to the local community, and the Haida for example, is multi-faceted and is far more than just the traded market value (Loring & Hinzman, 2018). A better approach would be to recognize that the commodities that result from provisioning ecosystem services have different socio-cultural values associated with them and these diverse values should be captured in a systematic economic evaluation process. Benefit Transfer – Strengths, weaknesses and potential application The benefit transfer valuation methodology is the process of assessing the economic value of an ecosystem good or service by applying an estimate derived from another similar ecosystem, with the assumption that the two sites are sufficiently comparable (Navrud & Ready, 2007). The ecosystem being evaluated is referred to as the ‘policy site’ and the ecosystem from which values are being estimated is called the ‘study site’. Meta-analysis is an emerging approach for benefit transfer which involves reviewing multiple different economic valuation studies on similar types of ecosystems and establishing common analytical variables which serve as the basis for regression analysis (Stanley, 2001). Value functions can then be derived and applied to other similar ecosystems as Brander et al have done with mangroves in Southeast 57 Asia, and Londoño and Johnston have done internationally for coral reefs (Londoño & Johnston, 2012; M. Brander et al., 2012). Benefit transfer using meta-analysis has the advantage of providing purview over large spatial areas and numerous studies in order to estimate values that can then be consistently applied in the policy context, while reducing the costs associated with focused, local studies and the need for context-specific data from studies of individual sites (Rosenberger & Stanley, 2006). This method also enables specific characteristics of the policy site to be controlled for while using the value transfer function (M. Brander et al., 2012). The disadvantage of this approach is that it requires special attention to the regression model development to ensure it represents the key variables being assessed at the policy site, and that there are enough studies to draw on that are representative of the type of ecosystem and the specific ecosystem services to be evaluated at the policy site. For example, it is difficult to amass a large series of studies that have examined the economic value of cultural ecosystem services due to the difficulty researchers have had with their economic valuation (Cheng et al., 2019). In the case of BC coastal nations benefit transfer could be used for the economic valuation of provisioning and regulating ecosystems services if there were ample studies done on similar coastal zone ecosystems and the specific ecosystem services to be assessed (e.g. fish, and coastal protection). However, the socio-cultural context of several BC coastal nations is quite unique due to the history of the region and the strong values with respect to nature that are held by First Nations. Given the cultural importance of fish and other provisioning ecosystem services to the First Nations, it may be difficult to extrapolate local economic values based on a meta-analysis of other ecosystems. Socio-cultural values will most definitely need to be factored into the analysis. Contingent Valuation – Strengths, weaknesses and potential application CV (Contingent valuation) is a commonly used method in the ‘stated preference’ category and has been used widely in economic valuation of ecosystem services over the past 50 years. It involves utilizing survey methods to ask study participants what their perceptions and attitudes towards certain environmental 58 conditions or changes are and what their preferences would be towards those situations (Brouwer et al., 1999). To establish economic metrics, survey participants are usually asked what their willingness to pay (WTP) or willingness to accept (WTA) different levels of financial compensation with respect to the gains or losses in ecosystem services they experience (Mitchell & Carson, 2013). CV has been used in several coastal zones studies, particularly on wetlands and coral reefs, with the purpose of assessing economic values associated with ecosystem services they provide (Cesar & Beukering, 2004; Woodward & Wui, 2001). Coral reefs provide a variety of direct (recreational activities such as snorkelling) and indirect (coastal protection and habitat) ecosystem services but are often over-utilized and are degraded because they are considered open-access and the resources they provide are not subject to market constraints (Brander et al., 2007). Mathieu et al used WTP to assess the amount tourists were willing to pay to access the coral reefs in the Marine National Parks of the Seychelles and based on the results established estimates for the total economic value of the recreational services provided over a year (Mathieu et al., 2003). Wetlands offer several ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, habitat provision, and protection / buffering from storms (Mitsch et al., 2015). Petrolia and Kim used WTA to determine the amount of economic compensation respondents would want (in the form of an annual tax rebate) in order to reject policies that would reduce expected future losses due to coastal storm surges (Petrolia & Kim, 2011). In the same study they used WTP to assess the amount that participants would pay in the form of an additional tax over the following 10 years to minimize future losses through new policies. Both WTP and WTA can produce economic values for coastal protection but it has been shown in the literature that WTA commonly produces significantly higher values than WTP (Horowitz & McConnell, 2002; Petrolia & Kim, 2011). One of the strengths of CV is the fact that it produces a direct measure of the perspectives of study participants. If the study sample is representative of the local community, it can provide a good assessment of the economic norms of the population in relation to the values of ecosystem services (Loomisa et al., 59 2018; Mitchell & Carson, 2013). Some ecosystem services are difficult to connect to a market traded value and are therefore best understood in terms of the perceptions of community members. CV is thus a good approach where socio-cultural ‘norms’ are the most influential factor in economic valuation of ecosystem services. In the case of BC coastal nations there are numerous ecosystem services that are non-market facing and even those that are, for example fish, appear to be valued by communities in far more ways than just the selling price. CV, specifically WTP, could therefore be a very effective way to assess ecosystem services in BC coastal nations that are not market-exposed and hold highly normative community value, such as the aesthetic value of the coastal zone. Contingent Choice – Strengths, weaknesses and potential application Contingent choice methods are analytically powerful from an experimental standpoint because different scenarios can be ‘constructed’ with special attention paid to individual variables (representative of ecosystem services) (McGonagle & Swallow, 2005). This level of control over the survey execution can produce more focused results in terms of values of specific ecosystem services. Survey participants are asked to provide their WTP amongst different scenarios, each of which will produce various future outcomes. The difference between the outcomes in variables, and the stated preference, formulates the basis for the economic valuation of the ecosystem service. McGonagle and Swallow used a trichotomous contingent choice survey to assess the preferences of respondents with respect to two hypothetical coastal land use scenarios in Rhode Island, each of which had different biophysical characteristics and land management practices, with each scenario having a different economic value attached to it in terms of an additional tax that would have to be paid (McGonagle & Swallow, 2005). They constructed an econometric model with land attribute information, management factors, variables representing the attitudes and values of the respondents, and the WTP values, from which they were able to assess the relationships between land attribute characteristics and the policy / economic preferences of respondents. 60 The contingent choice approach to WTP is advantageous in coastal zone applications because these areas are highly diverse, and with its analytical precision it can help focus the analysis on specific ecological or socio-cultural attributes. However, the level of effort and expertise required to design the survey and develop the econometric model is significant and there needs to be a large representative cadre of study participants to produce the data for the model. This would require extensive public engagement with stakeholders in BC coastal nations. Survey/research fatigue has been shown to be an issue and therefore deploying a time-consuming engagement process may not be the most effective approach, regardless of the focused results it can produce (Field, 2020). A simplified contingent choice approach could be effective in the coastal zones of BC coastal nations, depending on the ecosystem service being evaluated. Hedonic Pricing – Strengths, weaknesses and potential application Coastal zones often generate quantifiable economic returns through tourism revenue and property value creation (Burak et al., 2004; Castro Noblejas et al., 2022). Hence, the hedonic pricing method is often used because it estimates economic values of ecosystem services that directly influence market prices (Rivas Casado et al., 2017). This method has been broadly used in coastal areas to approximate the economic impact of beach degradation on property values and the tourism industry (Alexandrakis et al., 2015; Thinh et al., 2019). Hedonic pricing has also been used as a means of assessing economic values for coastal protection and disaster mitigation ecosystem services (Y. Bhattacharya & Nakamura, 2021), and the market impacts of a wide array of other environmental amenities such as wetlands (Mahan et al., 2000), natural views (Benson et al., 1998), and open spaces (McConnell & Walls, 2005). A key strength of this approach is the fact that there is a clear economic market signal that is being used to relate environmental attributes to economic value without the need for potentially subjective survey responses. One of the challenges is the fact that the analysis requires a reasonable sample size of values (i.e. property transactions, hotel nights booked, tourisms operation revenue) to establish a regression model which produces economic values for ecosystems. To apply such a method of economic valuation in Haida 61 Gwaii there would need to be a substantial set of economic data to serve as the ‘market signal’ that the selected ecosystem services influence. For example, natural views have been found to have had significant influence on hotel stays (Latinopoulos, 2018). Similarly, ecotourism revenue has been linked to the quality of natural environments (Kirkby et al., 2010). If there are significant economic data sets for such environmentally influenced phenomenon in BC coastal nations, this could be a powerful approach. Travel Cost – Strengths, weaknesses and potential application The travel cost method (TCM) is based on the premise that the economic value of recreational experiences in nature can be estimated based on the costs incurred by those who travel to the site and therefore reflects their WTP for the experience (Seenprachawong, 2016). TCM can also be used to assess specific environmental attributes such as water clarity when the ‘traveller experience’ is broken down into discrete components of environmental quality (Vesterinen et al., 2010). The original idea behind TCM is straight forward – people are willing to spend varying amounts of time and money to visit sites and enjoy the recreational experiences they provide (Hotelling, 1947). The advantage of this method is that the data acquisition process can be uncomplicated. This kind of visitor data can typically be accessed through tourism bureaus or local government offices (Mayer & Woltering, 2018). Surveys are also used to gather trip and travel expenditure data, as well as data related to individual characteristics (level of education, socio-economic status, etc.) which are thought to influence travel decisions (Zulpikar et al., 2018). The TCM has been used extensively in estimating the economic value of coastal environmental features such as beach and water quality (Hanley et al., 2003; Prayaga, 2017). Several BC coastal areas are tourist destinations with a significant number of visits per year with associated tourism revenue. The TCM could be employed to assess the value of cultural / recreational ecosystem services which contribute to the tourism experience. Care needs to be taken with the design of the analytical framework because there are many dimensions / ecosystem components that contribute to the natural beauty of BC coastal zones and therefore attaching economic value to any single one of them needs to be experimentally justified, as noted in several TCM studies (Ezebilo, 2016; Fleming & Cook, 2008). 62 Damage Avoided – Strengths, weaknesses and potential application The avoided damage economic valuation methodology assesses the costs that are avoided due to the presence of one or many ecosystem services (Barbier, 2016; Farber et al., 2002). These are often regulating ecosystem services, since they are ecosystem components that act as buffers for natural processes that keep them in balance and minimize impacts. One of the most often cited examples in which ecosystem services play a significant role in avoiding damages is coastal protection (Liquete, Zulian, et al., 2013; Spalding et al., 2014). Mangroves and reefs have been shown to act as buffers to storm surges, coastal inundations, and tsunamis (Das & Crépin, 2013; van Zanten et al., 2014). The avoided damage method has been used to assess how the costs of storm-related damages have been reduced by mangroves, thereby framing the estimated economic values of the regulating ecosystem service they provide (Barbier, 2016). The advantage of this method is that robust economic values can be assessed for potential losses due to impacts on coastal infrastructure. However, this requires in-depth study to determine the degree to which different coastal environmental attributes can reduce the impacts of storms, and it can be challenging to assess specifically the degree to which this has occurred (Pinsky et al., 2013; Shepard et al., 2011). Several coastal nations, such as with the western coast of Haida Gwaii, are exposed to the open Pacific Ocean and there have been situations in which high energy storm surges and earthquake-induced tsunamis have presented risks to coastal communities and infrastructure. On October 28, 2012 there was a major (Mw 7.7 ) earthquake along the Queen Charlotte Fault Zone off the west coast of Haida Gwaii which resulted in a tsunami (Fine et al., 2015). There was some damage to the built infrastructure in Haida Gwaii as a result of the earthquake, but the tsunami that was generated was reported to have a maximum run up of 7.6 m in some of the sheltered bays and no major damage was documented (Leonard & Bednarski, 2015). Although there wasn’t significant damage, for future planning it is worth examining how coastal zone environmental attributes in Haida Gwaii and other BC coastal nations can serve as regulating ecosystem services and potentially reduce the costs of tsunami and storm surge damages. The damage avoided approach for economic valuation of ecosystem services would be perfect for this purpose. 63 Production Based – Strengths, weaknesses and potential application Supporting ecosystem services are the fundamental processes and attributes that contribute to the creation of other ecosystem goods and services that are directly consumed and sold in markets (Mortimer, Saj, & Christophe, 2018; Sandhu et al., 2010b). If these processes are negatively impacted there can be resulting changes to the production of commodities. It is important to understand that certain ecosystem attributes underpin the overall productive capacity of an ecosystem and that they have an economic value. For example, coral reefs in the coastal zone have been shown to be contributors to overall ecosystem productivity through providing habitat for fish and nutrient exchange (van Beukering et al., 2007). This approach can be powerful if a clear connection can be made between changes in environmental attributes (e.g. nutrient cycling) and ecosystem productivity (e.g. fish harvest). In BC coastal nations there are several key commodities such as halibut, salmon, herring, and roe, whose productivity can be tied back to the health and vitality of specific supporting ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling or biodiversity (Schweigert & Ware, 1995; Tulloch et al., 2022). Economic valuation of these supporting ecosystem services can be conducted by establishing the degree to which they (individually or collectively) contribute to commodity production (van Beukering et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2010). Ecosystem process models and simulations may help to provide a greater level of precision in these results, but they are also more analytically complex (Pandeya et al., 2016). Data paucity is a common challenge when attempting to evaluate the economic value of production-based ecosystem services, so a critical first step when seeking to apply this approach in BC coastal nations would be to determine the level of ecosystem-based data or knowledge that exists. A combination of indigenous, local, and scientific understanding would contribute positively to the analysis (Tàbara & Chabay, 2013; Tengö et al., 2017). 64 Relative Valuation** – Strengths, weaknesses, and potential application Relative valuation is a new approach developed by Sumaila and Teh that seeks to capture the contribution of differential social values and their relative importance to the economic value of ecosystem services (Sumaila, 2022b). The genesis of this idea emerged from discussions with First Nations groups in British Columbia and the realization of the profound impact that differing world views and values can have on the perceived values of ecosystem components. It constitutes the use of a survey approach in which respondents are asked to rank the relative importance of different values as they relate to one aspect of the environment – a fish species, for example. The different key social values need to be assessed beforehand and in early trials conducted by Sumaila and Teh the following were the list of values that rights holders and stakeholders delineated through in person consultations: economic, cultural, health, social, environmental, and governance. If this method were to be applied in a different context there would need to be a small focus group designated to represent each stakeholder and rights holder group. These designated groups would be responsible for determining what the core values are for their respective stakeholder or rights holder group. The core economic value for the ecosystem good or service is based on the established market value, in this case the landed value of salmon. Survey respondents are then asked to allocate certain amounts of points for each value from a budget of 100, thus outlining their relative importance. The landed value (market price of fish) is the reference point and the contribution of the other values (i.e. cultural, social, etc.) are indexed to it and the ‘whole value’ of the environmental component is calculated by multiplying the different weights to the index and then summing them (See Figure 4). 65 Figure 4: Calculation of relative value Note. Adapted from (Sumaila & Teh, 2021) First Nations Fisheries Valuation Report. UBC Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries. Initial trials of this technique have demonstrated promise, particularly because of the way it addresses different community social values that influence economic valuation and how it emphasizes rights holder and stakeholder participation. However, the different social values of the stakeholder and rights holder groups must be clearly defined and then explained to others who are asked to provide their input through surveys or polling. There are added benefits of using this technique from a participative research standpoint since community members are directly engaged with the process. This may be an effective approach to use in BC coastal nations since community members, particularly those from the First Nations, will likely place significant emphasis on various other values related to ecosystem components than just their market value (Loring & Hinzman, 2018). However, this methodology will only be useful for ecosystem services that have direct market exposure (i.e., they have a market price) and that the community can easily relate to, such as a common product derived from nature. It will be more difficult and perhaps even be considered too abstract if this method were attempted with regulating or supporting ecosystem services. Socio-cultural Values• Determine socio-cultural values from focus groupsMarket/Proxy Economic values• Establish baseline economic value (market based or proxy) 66 Summary of how to select the valuation method The process of selecting an economic valuation method for any given ecosystem service is influenced by several different factors such as the biophysical location being assessed and socio-economic context. The structure and type of community can influence the approach because if there are significantly different worldviews held by groups inhabiting the area then these differential values will need to be reflected in the analysis. Methods that utilize survey tools can be helpful in this regard because if the questions are designed properly, they can give an indication of the values of individuals. Contingent Valuation is an effective approach to use as it allows for economic values to emerge from samples of stated preference responses, which arguably provides a good representation of local economic perspectives. The breadth and depth of local economic data will also be a factor that needs consideration. If there is a breadth of market data pertaining to real estate or nature-derived commodities, then proxy analysis using hedonic pricing or damage costing methods can be used. Local economic data derived from tourism or parks (access to nature) can be extremely useful as well. In the case of BC coastal nations, and particularly Haida Gwaii, the local context was examined in terms of ecological and socio-economic history and the current situation with respect to industry and human activity. 67 3.3 Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services in BC Coastal Nations – Illustrative Examples from Haida Gwaii Summary of chosen methods for the key ecosystem services. TEV of an ecosystem is usually determined by taking into account the most pertinent ecosystem services in a location or region (J. Loomis et al., 2000; UNEP-WCMC, 2011). This involves examining the different provisioning, regulating, cultural and aesthetic, and supporting ecosystem services and delineating which of them contribute substantially to human well-being in the area. For the purposes of this project, only two ecosystem services of different types were selected to demonstrate how local contextual issues vary and how special consideration must be taken when conducting economic valuation. Under normal circumstances, the whole breadth of ecosystem services of the socio-ecological system deemed important by the local community would be evaluated in keeping with methods previously described in this thesis (mapping intermediary services and final benefits). Determining the priority ecosystem services to examine is customarily done through consultation with local rights holders and stakeholders. Haida Gwaii is an island archipelago and therefore its coastal zones feature prominently throughout the territory. Different communities may place more priority different ecosystem services depending on their specific natural resource dependencies and values. In this analysis it is assumed that a community with a significant population is chosen (Masset, for example) in which there is infrastructure in place and relatively diverse socio-economic activity. TEV of ecosystem services bust be done with attention paid to ecosystem function, the diverse benefits that are directly gained by society from nature, the intermediate benefits that nature provides, and the relationships between intermediate and direct ecological benefits and their valuation (See Figure 5). One also needs to avoid double counting of intermediate and final ecosystem services when calculating the total aggregated economic value (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). 68 Figure 5: Steps in ecosystem service valuation Note. Adapted from (UNEP-WCMC, 2011) Marine and coastal ecosystem services: Valuation methods and their application, p. 8. UNEP-WCMC Biodiversity Series, No 33. UNEP-WCMC The two types of ecosystem services to be valued are provisioning and regulating. Herring has been chosen as the provisioning ecosystem service because of its prevalence as both a food source and commodity for the Haida. Herring also has cultural significance to the Haida as a critical element in overall ecological function as a food source to other animals in higher positions in the trophic structure as well as being considered an intrinsic element in a balanced approach to fisheries management (R. Jones & Williams-Davidson, 2000). The herring fishery has been a source of conflict and contention between the Canadian government, the Haida, and commercial fishing companies operating in Haida Gwaii, with disputes arising in relation to management strategies and catch allowance of different groups (R. Jones et al., 2017). Hence, the differential values held by the stakeholders and rights holders associated with this resource, management issues, and the fact that herring has a long history as a provisioning ecosystem services to the Haida make it an interesting and relevant candidate for economic valuation. Climate regulation has been chosen as the other ecosystem service to assess due to the global concern about climate change that is growing by the day and because First Nations in Canada have long called for a more harmonious relationship between society and nature. Procedures and practices for land and marine based 69 carbon assessment have developed significantly over the past twenty years so there is growing familiarity with the concept of atmosphere-biosphere interactions and methods of quantifying and economically valuing them (Nellemann et al., 2009; Sapkota & White, 2020). Terrestrial and marine carbon assessment can be very complicated, but a simplified methodology will be proposed to ensure that it is accessible and useable by local communities. The social cost of carbon will be used for the economic valuation of greenhouse gases emitted from the coastal zone. The above two ecosystem services will be analyzed and methods for their economic valuation proposed with illustrative examples provided. The TEV will be based on this subset of priority ecosystem services and the value calculated as an aggregate. Consistent units are required for cross-comparison therefore there also needs to be a consistent definition of what the coastal zone is. The coastal zone includes river basins, estuaries, and coastal seas and typically extends to the continental shelf, however, there are varying definitions as to what the specific boundaries are. The OECD Environment Directorate suggests that the boundary be defined based on the problem being addressed or the management objective to be achieved (Crossland et al., 2005). A commonly used working definition is to include the landward area 100km from the land-sea connection. Another more hazard-focused method defines the coastal zone as the land area within 100m elevation from sea level and 100km from the shoreline (R. J. Nicholls & Small, 2002). The seaward extent of the coastal zone again has various definitions but is generally aligned with the bathymetry limits, with the extent being the end of the continental shelf (Crossland et al., 2005). Bathymetric studies of the coastal geomorphology in Haida Gwaii show that the continental shelf ranges in size on the western side of the archipelago with various basins and canyons situated in the downslope from shelf to the Queen Charlotte Fault Zone (QCFZ) (Barrie et al., 2013). The multibeam swath technology used provided an unprecedented level of detail showing the coastal geomorphology of Haida Gwaii, from which the seaward extent of the coastal zone can be estimated. According to the images produced the continental shelf can range from roughly a minimum of 2 km to a 70 maximum of 12 km from the shore. Therefore, an average of 7 km is used for the seaward extent of the coastal zone. The geospatial area of analysis in the coastal zone can be calculated by measuring the length of coastline to examine and then delineating a 7 km seaward buffer distance. Geospatial buffer calculations are easily handled by most geospatial analysis software and can be used to determine calculate the areal extent of the coastal zone (ArcInfo, Grass, Idrisi, for example) which can then be combined with various other biophysical parameters related to ecosystem services (e.g. biological activity per unit area). There are clearly many different interpretations of what the coastal zone is and a few of have been proposed. Different stakeholders and rights holders will likely have different perspectives on the definition to use. The first step in the application of this methodology and framework will be to determine amongst the key groups what an agreed upon operational definition of the coastal zone is. From that point, the analysis can take place. A sample definition will be use for the illustrative examples. Economic Valuation of Herring (Provisioning Ecosystem Service) Fisheries in general are key provisioning services for communities in Haida Gwaii but herring is particularly important due to its diverse economic value, fundamental role in coastal zone ecosystems, and its cultural importance to local communities, especially the Haida. Pacific Herring (Clupea pallasii) is a pelagic species that can be found in the inshore and offshore waters of the Northern Pacific Ocean. The Pacific herring fishery which is comprised of dry salt fishery, reduction fisheries, and roe herring fishery (including sac roe and spawn on kelp), started in British Columbia in the mid 19th century and industrial operations emerged in Haida Gwaii in the early 1900’s (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2022c; R. Jones et al., 2017). The Haida have engaged in traditional harvesting practices since time immemorial focusing on spawn-on-kelp (k’aaw), spawn on branches, bait, and oil, with the perspective of herring being an intrinsic part of the marine environment and the basis of the food chain (Haida Marine Traditional Knowledge Participants and Haida Oceans Technical Team, 2011). Maintaining the socio-ecological balance of the industrial herring fishery and the Haida traditional herring fishery has been challenging, as demonstrated by the sharp decline 71 in herring stocks that occurred in the 1960’s after intensive activity of the industrial herring reduction fishery (Lam et al., 2019). Herring’s important ecological role as a foraging fish, balancing plankton populations and serving as a source of nutrition for its predators, underscores the necessity of ensuring the sustainability and vitality of its stock level (Levin et al., 2016). In Canada, the Haida have aboriginal title and rights that are recognized under Section 35 of Canada’s 1982 Constitution Act and fish harvesting rights for Food, Social, and Ceremonial (FSC) purposes through enactment of the Fisheries Act and other acts, regulations, and negotiated treaty agreements (R. Jones et al., 2017). The management of the herring fishery (and other fisheries) in Haida Gwaii can be described as a wicked problem as it is multi-dimensional and involves balancing differential values, draws on diverse bodies of knowledge, embodies significant complexity and uncertainty, and requires navigating continually changing power dynamics (Jentoft & Chuenpagdee, 2009; Steel et al., 2017). Rights to commercial herring fishing for First Nations, which are not included in the Fishery Act, have been realized on a case-by-case as shown by the Heiltsuk First Nation’s proven aboriginal rights for fishing herring spawn-on-kelp for commercial purposes in the Central Coast area (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2022c). Concerns over the impact of the Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) opening commercial herring fisheries (roe and spawn on kelp) on overall stock levels and on the aboriginal fisheries have led to legal protests by the Haida as an assertion of their right to be consulted regarding the sustainability of natural resources (R. Jones et al., 2017). The disputes between the Haida and DFO over management decisions for the herring fishery, specifically whether to have commercial fisheries open or closed, have taken place since the 1980’s and involve conflicting values, diverse economic interests, and underlying historical power imbalances connected to colonialization. On numerous occasions since 1993 the Haida (and other First Nations) have taken issue with DFO’s decisions to open the herring fisheries based on their concerns about the impact on stock levels, and in some cases such as in 2014 / 2015 this has resulted in injunctions against the DFO decisions (R. 72 Jones et al., 2017). At the core of this dispute is a conflict in values between stakeholders and rights holders pertaining to a provisioning ecosystem service – herring. The economic analysis by DFO does not appear to capture the multitude of different socio-cultural values each group has. The relational value methodology developed by Sumaila and Teh is a sound way of determining the ‘whole value’ that a resource may have for a specific cultural group and therefore it would be useful in the herring fishery dispute to empower each group to fully express their perspective in a common economic language (Sumaila, 2022b). The first step in the relational economic valuation methodology is to determine what the key differential values are for the given resource, and in the case of herring there are different components to the fishery, but the primary ones are SOK (spawn on kelp) and herring roe. Initial trials of the relational method were done with representatives from First Nations groups who were associated with the First Nations Fisheries Council (FNFC), and through group consultation, the following values were established for salmon: governance, health, social, environmental, cultural, and economic (See Figure 6). Another study on the Pacific herring conflict used a set of 12 values linked to the Haida culture, universal foundations from Moral Foundations Theory, and Western ethical principles from the Ethical Matrix (Lam et al., 2019). For the purposes of this illustrative example, the values used by Sumaila and Teh in the initial trials will be used. However, when this method is applied in other situations, there would need to be a small number of representatives chosen from each stakeholder and rights holder group with whom the core values for each group would be established through consultative processes. Once established, these key values would need to be clearly defined and then presented to any individuals from the broader set of participants who were selected to provide input via surveys, polls, or focus groups. Survey participants will need to fully understand the definitions of the values selected because they will be responsible for giving their preference on them in terms of ranking/points allocation. 73 Figure 6: Fisheries values determined through FNFC project Note. From (Sumaila & Teh, 2021) First Nations Fisheries Valuation Report. UBC Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries. Table 1: Ethical principles in herring conflict Value Description Respect · Yahguudang or Yakguudanga Respect, for each other and all living things, is rooted in our culture. We take only what we need, we give thanks, and we acknowledge those who behave accordingly. Precautionary approach Balance (‘The world is as sharp as the edge Balance is needed in our interactions with the natural world. If we aren’t of a knife’) · Giid tll’juusa careful in everything we do, we can easily reach a point of no return. Our practices and those of others must be sustainable. Sustainable use Interconnectedness (‘Everything depends on everything else’) · Gina waadluxan gud ad kwaagiidaa This principle is comparable to an integrated approach to management. Integrated management Reciprocity (Giving and receiving) · Isda ad Reciprocity (giving and receiving) is a respected practice in our diigii isdaa culture, essential in our interactions with each other and the natural world. We continually give thanks to the natural world for the gifts that we receive. Equitable sharing Seeking wise counsel · Gina k’aadang.nga Our elders teach us about traditional ways and how to work in harmony. Like the forest, the roots of our people are intertwined. Together we consider new ideas and information in keeping with our culture, values, and laws. Adaptive management/Best information Responsibility · Laa guu ga kanhllnsa We accept the responsibility passed on (to us) by our ancestors to manage and care for the sea and land. We will ensure that our heritage is passed on to future generations. Inclusive and participatory Sanctity Sanctity is about accepting a sacred or spiritual element in the world Wellbeing Wellbeing is about a good quality of life, a state characterized by essential features such as health, prosperity, and happiness Freedom Freedom is about the ability to make your own choices on how to live your life Justice Justice is about distributing benefits, risks and costs fairly Authority Authority is about respecting social order and the rule of law Group solidarity Group solidarity is about the sense of belonging and showing loyalty to a group Note. Adapted from (Lam et al., 2019) Value- and ecosystem- based management approach: the Pacific herring fishery conflict. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 617, p. 349. 74 The economic analysis using relative valuation is based on ascribing different weights to core community values in relation to the market value of the resource. For the purposes of this example the community values assessed by Sumaila and Teh in their pilot workshops will be used (shown in Figure 5). For determining the landed economic value of herring roe, the latest market-based values for the Pacific Coast herring fishery are used – $0.84 per kg (2017 value from Pacific Wild market estimates) (Cashion, 2019). For SOK (spawn on kelp), the value of $0.44 per kg is used based on latest market values for the food and bait herring fishery (including SOK) (2017 value from Pacific Wild market estimate) (Cashion, 2019). Quantifiable and non-quantifiable values are combined by using a weighting exercise with study participants. The value weighting is done through execution of a survey in a focus group in which each participant is asked to provide an allocation of points to each value out of a total of 100 points. Their point allocations reflect their personal perspective on the relative weight each value should have. The ‘whole value’ of the fish is calculated as the sum of non-quantifiable and quantifiable values as shown in Figure 7. Figure 7: Relative weighting of each value (quantifiable and non-quantifiable) V1 = 0.75V* V2 = 1.25V* V* = LV V3 = 1.5V* V4 = 0.25V* V5 = 0.25V* Whole Value = V1+V2+V3+V4+V5+V* V1,2,3,4, are non-quantifiable values (e.g. social, health, governance, environmental, cultural) V* is the quantifiable value (e.g. landed value of fish product) Note. From (Sumaila & Teh, 2021) First Nations Fisheries Valuation Report. UBC Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries. This approach could be done with a small focus group or a larger, geographically distributed, group. Initial trials by Sumaila and Teh were conducted with an in-person focus group of roughly 10-12 participants. It is important to ensure that the process is clearly explained to study participants, so they understand the significance of the weights they provide to the different values and how the calculation of relative weights 75 and ‘whole value’ are determined. For the purposes of this illustrative example a set of sample data is used to show the calculations. This data does not come from a survey or poll, rather, it has been generated to show how the analysis would normally take place. Table 2 shows a sample of fictional survey results for value weights that could be gathered from ten study participants. Note that each participant is given a budget of 100 points to allocate across the quantifiable and non-quantifiable values. Table 2: Sample of weight allocation across quantifiable and non-quantifiable values (values from a focus group for herring roe) VALUE Participant Economic (V*) Cultural (V1) Governance (V2) Environmental (V3) Health (V4) Social (V5) 1 30 20 10 10 20 10 2 10 30 10 20 20 10 3 10 40 5 5 10 30 4 20 20 30 20 5 5 5 5 30 20 15 20 10 6 10 15 5 20 30 20 7 25 5 5 10 25 30 8 10 20 10 30 20 10 9 40 10 10 30 5 5 10 10 40 20 10 10 10 Table 3: Sample of indexed non-quantifiable values (V1-V5 to quantifiable values (V*) (values to be derived from a focus group on herring roe) VALUE Participant Economic (V*) Cultural (V1) Governance (V2) Environmental (V3) Health (V4) Social (V5) 1 1 0.667 0.333 0.333 0.667 0.333 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 3 1 4 0.5 0.5 1 3 4 1 1 1.5 1 0.25 0.25 5 1 6 4 3 4 2 6 1 1.5 0.5 2 3 2 7 1 0.2 0.2 0.4 1 1.2 8 1 2 1 3 2 1 9 1 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.125 0.125 10 1 4 2 1 1 1 76 Table 4: Summed “whole value” of herring roe using landed value of 0.84$/kg VALUE ($/KG) Participant Economic (V*) Cultural (V1) Governance (V2) Environmental (V3) Health (V4) Social (V5) SUM ($/kg) 1 0.84 0.56 0.28 0.28 0.56 0.28 2.80 2 0.84 2.52 0.84 1.68 1.68 0.84 8.40 3 0.84 3.36 0.42 0.42 0.84 2.52 8.40 4 0.84 0.84 1.26 0.84 0.21 0.21 4.20 5 0.84 5.04 3.36 2.52 3.36 1.68 16.80 6 0.84 1.26 0.42 1.68 2.52 1.68 8.40 7 0.84 0.17 0.17 0.34 0.84 1.01 3.36 8 0.84 1.68 0.84 2.52 1.68 0.84 8.40 9 0.84 0.21 0.21 0.63 0.11 0.11 2.10 10 0.84 3.36 1.68 0.84 0.84 0.84 8.40 Average: 7.13 With the ‘whole value’ of SOK and roe calculated on a per unit basis, the analysis can be applied over a specific geographic region if so desired. Table 4 shows the calculation of the ‘whole value’ of herring roe as per the relative weights provided by each study participant. In terms of the coastal zone, a working definition being used in this study is 100 km inland from the shoreline and 7 km seaward. Therefore, one could delineate a certain stretch of coastline and determine a focal geographic area using buffer analysis in a GIS software or rough estimates of coastal length (smoothing out the irregularities and using a common coastal baseline) and multiplying by the seaward extent. The harvest intensity of SOK or herring roe per unit area coastal ocean can be determined based on surveys and catch reports. For example, the amount of herring roe harvested per km2 could be determined for a specific time and then the result extrapolated over the seaward extent of coastal zone being evaluated. The total amount of herring roe could then be determined and multiplied by the relative economic value determined through the consultation process. For illustrative purposes the total annual roe herring harvest for 2021 of 11,293 short tons (10,244,837 kg) will be used to calculate annual economic values (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2023). For the case of SOK, in 2021 there was a reported harvest of 161 short tonnes (146,057 kg) (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2023). A similar process of economic valuation that was used for herring roe could be used on SOK (see Table 5). This value would then be aggregated with the other key ecosystem service values being assessed, but care must be taken to ensure the same geographic area and time boundaries are used for the sake of consistency. 77 Table 5: Economic valuation of SOK and roe herring using relative valuation Fishery Component Average Aggregated Relative Value from Focus Group ($/kg) Total annual harvest (kg) Whole Value of Fishery ($) Roe Herring $7.13* 10,244,837 $73,045,687.81 Spawn on Kelp $3.21* 146,057 $468,842.97 TOTAL: $73,514,530.78 *Using as an illustrated value Economic Valuation of coastal zone climate regulation (Regulating Ecosystem Service) The land-ocean interface in the coastal zone is often associated with the dynamics between waves and the shoreline, or the diverse wildlife that is present, but also important is the role the coastal zone has in climate regulation through the exchange and sequestration of CO2. The degree of activity in carbon exchange can vary depending on the biophysical composition of the coastal zone landscape and seascape, with vegetation playing a significant role. Coastal regulation of pollutants was one of the top three coastal ecosystem services identified in a review of 657 research papers published on the Baltic Sea (Heckwolf et al., 2021). Shellfish and seaweeds in coastal areas of China have been shown to sequester around 3.79 Mt of C per year and through cultivation and harvesting of these ecosystem products roughly 1.2 Mt of C is removed on an annual basis (Q. Tang et al., 2011). The general approach to assess carbon sequestration in coastal zones is to delineate the different components that exchange or sequester carbon, determine their spatial extent, evaluate the stock of carbon they hold, assess the rate of carbon exchange, calculate the net amount sequestered over time and then multiply through by a chosen economic value (social cost of carbon in this case). A schematic representation of the major carbon cycle in shallow coastal areas is show in Figure 8. 78 Figure 8: Major carbon cycle in shallow coastal environments Note. From (Kuwae & Hori, 2019) Blue Carbon in Shallow Coastal Ecosystems: Carbon Dynamics, Policy, and Implementation, p. 4. Springer Coastal areas in the Northern Territories of Australia were shown to have mangroves (334,000 to 380,000 ha), seagrasses (70,000 to 96,600 ha), and tidal saltmarshes (500,500 ha) that collectively are valued at 39-468 million AUD per year based on a price of 12.10 AUD / CO2e (Sangha et al., 2019). Coastal habitats such as mangroves, sand dunes, and saltmarshes have been found to sequester carbon at a rapid rate and play an important role in local and global climate regulation (Alongi, 2012; Chmura et al., 2003; Irving et al., 2011; M. L. Jones et al., 2008; Nellemann et al., 2009; Pendleton et al., 2012). The ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere and therefore the ocean-atmosphere interface may also be factored into the climate regulation ecosystem service in the coastal area under study (Kuwae & Hori, 2019). The dynamics of carbon cycling are complex and vary over time and space, but the goal is to establish a simple but credible means of establishing the net storage of carbon over time. 79 The coastal zone area being evaluated in Haida Gwaii needs to be outlined for the different aspects that contribute to climate regulation because they will each have different characteristic sequestration/storage rates. The coastlines in Haida Gwaii are extremely productive with kelp forests, eelgrass beds, glass sponge reefs, estuaries and fjords, shallow reefs and banks, and a continental shelf break that is extraordinarily close to the shore compared to other locations in the Northeast Pacific (R. Kumar et al., 2016). There are several ways of estimating stocks of carbon and sequestration rates in coastal ecosystems, each with varying degrees of measurement and accuracy. Field-based methods, like those used for forest carbon assessment, require in situ observation and measurements which are then equated to documented carbon parameters (J. T. Greiner et al., 2013; J. Tang et al., 2018). Remote sensing techniques using satellite imagery or data gathered from drones can be used in conjunction with hyperspectral image processing to estimate vegetative productivity using indices such as NDVI, EVI, which rely on mathematical combinations of reflectance values from the red and near infrared spectra (Ruan et al., 2022; Sejati et al., 2020). The questions to ask in any environmental data acquisition situation are: (a) what is the time frequency that measurements need to be made at (e.g. per minute, day, week, month, annually); (b) what spatial resolution is required (what is the size of the observed items and what level of spatial detail is required); (c) what kind of measurement needs to be made (e.g. are there distinct spectral responses needed, or particular shapes); and (d) what capacity is in place to conduct the ongoing monitoring (e.g. technical skills, available software or hardware). In this case a simple low technology approach is proposed to ensure there is no barrier to acquiring the data. A common area of coastal zone, like that which was outlined for herring, needs to be established for all the ecosystem services to be valued and this can be as simple as a length of coastline. For illustrative purposes, the same area will be chosen to show the economic valuation of atmospheric regulation through carbon sequestration. In the case of carbon sequestration, both the seaward and inland component of the coastal zone may be applicable, depending on the biophysical structure of the landscape. For illustrative purposes, both will be considered as separate components of the carbon sequestration ecosystem service in the coastal zone of Haida Gwaii. 80 Seaward component The amount of each type of carbon sequestering component in the seaward part of the coastal zone can vary dramatically. It can also be difficult to directly measure each part based on the broad spatial area and logistical challenges associated with in situ sampling in the marine environment (Ray & Grassle, 1991). A simplified approach is to ask local study participants to estimate the proportion of each type of carbon stock/sink in the seaward coastal zone being assessed based on their knowledge of the area (which is often-cited as a valuable source of information for ecological conservation purposes) (Charnley et al., 2007; Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2014). With the total seaward coastal zone area, proportion of carbon stocks / sinks, and carbon stock/sequestration parameters, the amount of CO2 stored and absorbed per year can be calculated. In Haida Gwaii and coastal British Columbia in general one can expect there to be a combination of the following marine components that will contribute to carbon exchange and climate regulation: kelp forests, eel grass beds and estuarine / salt marsh environment (Haida Marine Traditional Knowledge Study participants et al., 2011). However, when considering carbon sequestration as a nature-based solution to climate change, one must assess the marine biophysical processes to determine the full degree to which they contribute to the removal of carbon from the atmosphere and the permanence of the sinks. An expert panel on Canada’s Carbon Sink Potential was tasked with assessing various nature-based solutions to climate change and found that overall estimates of mitigation potential in Canada are based on limited evidence and are subject to a high degree of uncertainty, including marine coastal zone and blue carbon sinks (CCA (Council of Canadian Academies), 2022). Salt marshes are coastal ecosystems that are “mainly occupied by halophytic vegetation and exposed to low hydrodynamic conditions of tidal flooding” (Simas et al., 2001). The carbon sequestration potential of salt marshes has been widely studied and they are noted as having significant stability and permanence when it pertains to securing atmospheric carbon dioxide (Chmura et al., 2003). There are areas in coastal zones of Haida Gwaii that can be classified as salt marshes, therefore they will be included as one of the components of the climate regulation ecosystem service to be 81 economically valued. Sea grass meadows are considered “coastal wetlands vegetated by seagrass species (rooted flowering plants) that are permanently or tidally covered by brackish or saline water” (IPCC, 2013). Sea grass (eel grass) have carbon sequestration potential and are present in various locations in coastal zones of Haida Gwaii (Haida Marine Traditional Knowledge Study participants et al., 2011; Yoshida et al., 2019). Kelp forests are a noted feature of coastal ecosystems in Haida Gwaii and play a significant role in the herring SOK fishery and as an important ecological element contributing to biodiversity, but their role as a net sink of carbon has been questioned. There is insufficient data on Canadian coastal kelp forests to determine if they are a credible and permanent sink for carbon, and some studies indicate that they could in fact be a source of CO2 (Gallagher et al., 2022; Krause-Jensen & Duarte, 2016). Therefore at this point, kelp forests will not be included in the economic valuation of the climate regulation ecosystem service. The areal estimates of each carbon sequestering coastal component can be multiplied by carbon sequestration rates to determine the net flux over given time periods. The sequestered amount can then be multiplied by the social cost of carbon to assess the net value of the coastal climate regulation ecosystem service over time. An illustrative example of Haida Gwaii seaward coastal climate regulation ecosystem service components and values are show in Table 6. Table 6: Economic valuation of carbon sequestration ecosystem components in seaward coastal zone of Haida Gwaii Ecosystem Component Estimated coverage in study area (ha) Estimated Carbon Sequestration Rate (tonnes of CO2 per ha per year) Total Carbon Sequestered (tonnes of CO2 per year) Total Economic Value (per year, CAD) Salt Marsh / Tidal Estuary 25 7.98 199.5 $52,070 Eel Grass Beds 300 1.58 474 $123,714 TOTAL: 673.5 $175,784 Parameters: Eel grass sequestration rate: 1.58 tonnes CO2 / ha per year (EPA, 2017) Salt marsh / estuary sequestration rate: 7.98 tonnes CO2 / ha per year (IPCC, 2014) Social cost of carbon in Canada: $261/ ton CO2 as of 2023 (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2023) 82 Inland component The inland aspect of the Haida Gwaii coastal zone has two main climate regulating / carbon sequestering components: vegetation and soil organic carbon. There is a general understanding of the land-based carbon potential in Haida Gwaii since the development of the Great Bear Forest Carbon Project which has been in effect since 2014 and is a revenue generating PES (payment for ecosystem service) project for the Haida Nation (Peterson St-Laurent et al., 2017). Forest ecosystem dynamics are complex, and the impacts of climate change will likely affect the capacity for forests to store carbon, but for the purposes of this study, generic carbon storage parameters will be used for forests and soil which fall into three pools: above and below ground live biomass and soil organic carbon (SOC). The inland component of the coastal zone can vary based on the operational definition of “coastal zone” that is used. In this case it will be assumed that there will be distance inland that will be agreed upon by key rightsholders and stakeholders. This will then be multiplied by the length of coastline under study. This can also be done using the buffer function in a geographic information system. Table 7 outlines the key carbon sequestering components of the inland coastal zone Table 7: Economic valuation of carbon sequestration ecosystem components in inland coastal zone of Haida Gwaii Ecosystem Component Estimated coverage in study area (ha) Carbon density (tonnes of CO2 / ha) Total Carbon Sequestered (tonnes of CO2) Total Economic Value (CAD) Above ground live biomass (forests) 2,000 780 1,560,000 $407,160,000 Below ground live biomass. // (using bulk figure above) N/A N/A N/A N/A Soil Organic Carbon // (using bulk figure above) (est. 40% of total) 2,000 520 1,040,000 $271,440,000 TOTAL: 2,600,000 $678,600,000 Parameters: Temperate forest sequestration: 1,300 tonnes CO2 / ha (Simard & Ryan, 2020) Below ground live biomass carbon value is built into overall build figure into the bulk figure or 1,300 tonnes CO2 / ha. SOC is estimated to be 30-50% of overall forest carbon storage, therefore 40% was chosen for the SOC component of carbon storage in Haida forests (Smithwick et al., 2002) Social cost of carbon in Canada: $261/ tonne CO2 (Government of Canada, 2023) 83 The method for both the seaward and inland components of the coastal zone of Haida Gwaii forgoes intensive field-based measurement and data processing to arrive at results, but also does not provide a highly precise estimate of carbon sequestration and storage. As more capacity is developed on the ground in the areas being assessed, more sophisticated methods can be employed. The economic valuation is calculated by multiplying through the social cost of CO2 (SCC) based on the Canadian government’s current estimation of the damage cost per tonne – $261 per tonne of CO2 (Government of Canada, 2023). Environmental and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) is responsible for developing climate policy in Canada, part of which is assessing their economic parameters such as the SCC. The SCC is the estimated cost of the additional damages that are anticipated by increases in CO2 emissions. The SCC can be used to assess present day policy decisions based on cost-benefit-analysis of the projected future damage costs vs. the current cost of mitigation activities. ECCC chose to adopt the methodology used by the U.S. Interagency Working Group which used three peer reviewed Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2016). The three IAMs used are: FUND, PAGE, and DICE, all three of which are well recognized in the climate change literature (Diaz, 2014; Hope, 2020; Rose et al., 2017). The models are run with different parameters including discount rates and variations on climate impacts – one scenario being low probability and high-cost impacts. The SCC values are periodically reviewed as the new science is produced and models are improved. The total value of climate regulation ecosystem services for part of the coastal zone under study is calculated by adding up the values of each individual component in the inland and seaward aspects. This approach will give the annualized value of carbon sequestration in a designated coastal zone area in Haida Gwaii, thus representing the economic value of regulating ecosystem services over time. 84 Calculation of Total Economic Value of Coastal Zone The total economic value of coastal zone ecosystem services can be calculated by aggregating the values for each of the ecosystem services analyzed. Care must be taken to ensure that double counting doesn’t occur. For the ecosystem services chosen for illustrative purposes, this isn’t a problem, but it has been noted in the literature that supporting ecosystem services can sometimes be accounted for individually and as components of other ecosystem services (Fu et al., 2011). Special attention must also be paid to the spatial boundaries that are set when analyzing the ecosystem services. A common operational definition must be established amongst all key rights holders and stakeholders. This spatial extent should be applied uniformly across all ecosystem services being analyzed to maintain consistency. A consistent time threshold should also be applied, for example, over a year period. This is particularly important for ecosystem services that are dynamic over time – such as carbon sequestration and fishing. The total economic value of the example ecosystem services examined in this study is shown in Table 8. Table 8: Total economic value of key ecosystem services in the coastal zone of Haida Gwaii Ecosystem Service Description Economic Value per year (CAD) Herring Economic value of both herring SOK and roe fisheries determined with the relative valuation methodology (inclusive of diverse values) $73,514,530.78 Climate Regulation (carbon sequestration) Economic value of the sequestration of CO2 in the components of the seaward and inland coastal zone that act as carbon sinks. The current social cost of carbon (261 CAD) is used as the unit cost (ton CO2). ($678,600,000 + $175,784) TOTAL: $752,290,314.78 3.4 Discussion and Conclusion Economic valuation of ecosystem services is a hotly debated topic because it brings two paradigms together – environmental conservation verses economic development – and presents the trade-offs that need to be made in natural resource management in both economic and environmental terms. Valuation methods vary in how well they capture the economic value of environmental components and in many cases, they are highly normative in their application. There are few if any examples of the application of sound economic 85 valuation of ecosystem services applied within an environmental management framework that captures the dynamic nature of coastal zones, diverse stakeholder and rightsholder values, differing knowledge systems, and adaptive governance processes. This framework will be expanded on in the following chapter. One of the main challenges in natural resource management and economic planning today is that negative environmental externalities often are not factored into decision making resulting in policies and development decisions that may make economic sense but have widespread and unaccounted for negative impacts on the environment. Selecting key ecosystem services and then using an appropriate economic valuation method (participative and inclusive of local values) can bring light to some of these factors that are often unaccounted for in contemporary natural resource management. The cultural value of ecosystem services to First Nations is a perfect example of this. Often the market values of environmental components dominate policy making discourse, so by reflecting socio-cultural values in economic terms, a broader discussion can take place which is inclusive of the perspectives of local rights holders and stakeholders. The growing acceptance of carbon pricing exemplifies ‘mainstreaming’ ecological values into economic decision making. I feel this is a first step in a much larger transition that is taking place through which the economic values of more ecosystem system services will be included in policy and business decision making. There are several benefits of applying such techniques but there are also risks that need to be managed, particularly with the application of the economic valuation methods and framework. One of the biggest risks is that local values will not be reflected in decision making. The history of colonialization in British Columbia shows how policy decisions may be imposed upon populations without consideration of local values, rights, and ways of knowing. Although there are now some excellent examples of co-management and decision making inclusive of First Nations, such as with the Archipelago Management Board of Gwaii Haanas, the risk that local perspectives are not included in decision making still exists. It is imperative that local governing bodies be included as partners in the application of the economic valuation processes and 86 that decisions be made equitably and cooperatively. Another risk is that too much emphasis be placed on the financial figures that result from the economic valuation. The economic values are intended to support decision making as one of many factors to consider, most important of which are the beliefs, values, and laws, of the local rights holder and stakeholder groups. This is demonstrated by the feedback the Council of Haida Nation provided to the initial research proposal for this project which stated that the “Haida ways and laws are the driving model of multiple management plans co-developed by our own people and shouldn’t be adapted to fit into an economic management model” (CHN, personal communication, 2019). The methods of economic valuation of ecosystem services presented in this study are to be used in support of the Haida’s and other First Nations’ ways and laws which drive their natural resource management planning, not the other way around. The first step in applying these methods is to identify the key rights holder and stakeholder groups and consult with them about using them. The implementation should follow three principles: inclusivity, applicability, and efficacy. An inclusive process in this case means co-development and co-application with local groups. In any situation where there are impacted local stakeholder or rights holder groups there must be local cooperation and willingness to utilize this approach. The applicability speaks to the need for the methods to be useful and helpful for parties involved with natural resource management in coastal zones. One of the long-standing issues in coastal zone management has been the fact that the full range of values of local groups has not been reflected in the economic assessment of natural resources. These proposed methods squarely address this issue and do so in an applicable manner. The stated objective of this aspect of the research was to provide a framework through which economic values could be established, in an inclusive manner, for aspects of the environment that are typically not considered in coastal zone management (negative externalities). The method presented in the illustrative examples are one means of achieving this. 87 Lastly, the use of these methods must be effective. Meaning, they should produce results that are useful for groups involved with natural resource management in coastal zones. The example provided of relative economic valuation of the herring fishery was chosen specifically because of the way it addresses diverse local values. Initial trials of this method with First Nations representatives produced positive results and the fact that cultural values were reflected in economic terms alongside market values was greatly appreciated by the participants. Hopefully the next stages of application of this method in BC coastal nations will result in similar feedback and hence be an effective addition to coastal zone management for rights holders and stakeholders. 88 Chapter 4: A Systems-Oriented Framework for Coastal Zone Management and Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services in BC Coastal Nations 4.1 Introduction Contribution of this research to environmental management and governance in the coastal zone A fundamental goal of this research is to address the ‘silo-approach’ often taken in environmental management in the coastal zone by providing an integrated and systematic conceptual framework for coastal zone management that addresses the connectivity between different environmental components and different regulatory and policy regimes. The necessity for integrated approaches to environmental challenges is echoed by Sumaila, whose pioneering work in sustainable fisheries and leadership in the OceanCanada Partnership, a 7-year research initiative starting in 2014 which brough together 22 different research formal research partners, demonstrates an integrated approach bringing diverse disciplines such as economics, law, geography, fisheries science, oceanography, and ethics together to address critical issues (Sumaila, 2024). An ecosystem service-based approach allows for aspects of the environment to be prioritized, monitored, and in this case assessed for their economic value. The challenge with most coastal resource situations is that there are several stakeholder and rights holder groups involved whose perspectives often vary dramatically and coastal zone management approaches have failed to provide the means of recognizing their values and the different knowledge systems they use to understand the environment. Coastal zones are under tremendous development pressure and the impacts of climate change are growing, resulting in extraordinarily dynamic situations that call for management and governance processes that are adaptive. The contribution of this research is a systems-oriented framework for coastal zone management that can facilitate economic valuation of ecosystem services in the coastal zone, incorporate stakeholder and rights holder values and ways of knowing of the environment, and provide a means of applying adaptive governance to natural resources and socio-economic activities. 89 Current major issues ecosystem system-based management and natural resource governance in the coastal zone in general Coastal zones worldwide are presented with a myriad of challenges ranging from unprecedented threats due to global climate change to balancing socio-economic and industrial development with environmental impacts and the need for climate change adaptation (Andrade & Turra, 2021; IPCC, 2022). The evolution of coastal zone management from a discipline focused on managing single issues at a time (often with linear response patterns), to the present context in which multiple non-linear processes must be concurrently dealt with, presents an opportunity for systems theory, which is predicated on understanding the interactions between dynamic processes/systems, to be utilized (Bennett & Chorley, 2015; Bunge, 2000). The need for an integrated approach in coastal zone management was articulated by Clark in his foundational book “Coastal Zone Management Handbook” (Clark, 2018). ICZM research and its practical application flourished throughout the 1990’s in conjunction with rapid coastal development and the growing awareness of global environmental issues such as climate change, the loss of biodiversity, and the degradation of land (Sorensen, 1993, 1997). Environmental management as a whole underwent significant change at this time and into the 2000’s with the popularization of adaptive management and the wide acceptance of an ‘ecosystem-based’ perspective and the ‘ecosystem services’ concept (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program), 2005; Noble, 2000; Slocombe, 1993). Contemporary coastal zone management must recognize that environmental and social impacts do not occur in silos, that they are systematically linked, and that the services provided by nature (i.e. ecosystem services) must be considered in any impact assessment or management framework. Coastal zones are some of the most dynamic socio-ecological systems on the planet and these rapidly changing environments require responsive and ‘agile’ management processes and frameworks (Köhn & Gowdy, 1999; L. D. Wright et al., 2019). Principles such as continuous/iterative review, learning, and being prepared for ‘surprises’ are key ingredients of adaptive management and are highly relevant to contemporary coastal zone issues (Allen & Garmestani, 2015a). Ecosystem-based management has also emerged as a dominant approach in 90 environmental management over roughly the past ten years due to its utility in addressing development impacts on ecological functions and ecosystem services (Andrade & Turra, 2021; Domínguez-Tejo et al., 2016). Communities in coastal environments have common traits but they are heterogenous in their social constitution and this manifests in groups having different perspectives and values when it comes to the environment and natural resource use (Chakraborty et al., 2020). These differences in values tend to be amplified and can create social division when economic issues take precedence in coastal zone management deliberations. The growing pressures on coastal zone environments result primarily from economically-driven development decisions and therefore due consideration must be given to financial costs and benefits of proposed actions when developing coastal zone management plans and strategies. Assessment of the full economic cost of ecosystem impacts related to coastal development decisions has largely been absent in coastal zone management with the exception of some examples of coastal planning in which economic valuation of ecosystem services has been conducted (Maldonado et al., 2020; Torres & Hanley, 2016). The government of Belize undertook a lengthy process of consultation and economic/environmental analysis, using tools such as InVEST, to assess the health of coastal ecosystems and the economic value created by the services they provide (Arkema et al., 2014). The results of the analysis conducted fed into coastal zone planning process and ultimately resulted in a new coastal zone management plan which was published in 2016 (Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute (CZMAI), 2016; Verutes et al., 2017). Although there are some individual examples of successful integration of economic valuation of ecosystem services into coastal zone management, there lacks a systematic framework which can be applied generally. Another critical issue coastal zone management is confronted with is recognizing different ways of knowing and cultural perspectives related to ecosystems and environmental change. The epistemological foundations used by different cultural groups to understand nature can be fundamentally different and this can result in conflicting perspectives on coastal zone and marine management (Wyllie de Echeverria & 91 Thornton, 2019). In Canada, and several other countries, indigenous peoples were the original inhabitants of lands that were occupied by outsiders through processes of colonialization. One of the many troubling facets of colonialization of indigenous peoples in Canada was the fact that a western worldview, specifically that of ‘science’, was introduced as the dominant lens through which the environment and natural resources were viewed and was then used to take control of valuable natural resources (land and sea) through dispossession processes that restricted their use by the original inhabitants (Harris, 2001, 2004). Harris notes that post-colonial scholars widely recognize that culture and procedures of knowledge creation and application (such a science) are the dominant power relations embedded in colonialization and this was exemplified with the dichotomous relationship between the so called ‘civilized’ settlers and ‘savage’ indigenous peoples that was established in British Columbia upon the arrival of the Europeans (2004). However, worldviews and accepted epistemologies are not static, and as Kuhn has pointed out, there are waves of change within bodies of knowledge and the agents that operate within them – he calls these scientific revolutions, or paradigm shifts (Kuhn, 1970). Coastal zone management is no exception and in this case the change in paradigm is the choice of bodies of knowledge that are utilized to formulate policies and development decisions in the coastal zone. Intertwined with this shift is the necessity to understand the historical context and how past events, in particular injustices, impact the present day (Silver et al., 2022). The Canadian government now requires Indigenous Knowledge to be incorporated into environmental assessment procedures and it is in the process of widely implementing reconciliation actions, therefore it is timely to consider how coastal zone management in Canada could (or should) be impacted (Canada, 2021; McGregor, 2021) . In summary, the following are key issues that are currently facing coastal zone management, suggesting that a newly proposed systematic framework ought to address them: - Interactions between impacts need to be considered rather than taking a ‘silo’ approach - Dynamics of coastal zones must be factored into an adaptive management / iterative approach 92 - Impacts on ecosystem services should be considered (i.e. ecosystem-based management) - Economic value of ecosystem services and impacts on them (externalities) considered - Different ‘ways of knowing’ or bodies of knowledge (TEK, local knowledge, science) should be utilized - Differential socio-cultural values and historical context should be considered (Reconciliation in terms of Canada) A systematic approach is integrative in nature, but to propose such a framework one must be clear about specifically how the term ‘systematic’ is defined and the challenges and advantages that it presents. Challenges and advantages of using a systems approach for coastal zone management Systems thinking can be traced back to antiquity with examples such as the development of infrastructure and language, but systems theory itself is credited to Ludwig von Bertalanffy who in 1973 published his seminal book “General System Theory”, which outlined an approach that he felt could help advance the study of living systems (Bertalanffy, 1973). Bunge defines a system as a “complex object every part or component of which is related to at least one other component” and further divides them into two kinds: concrete and conceptual (Bunge, 2003). H.T. Odum further developed the study of ecology using a systems perspective through his pioneering work in the development of the discipline of ecosystem ecology in which he sought to classify ecological phenomenon as cyclical entities (ecosystems) and formulate predictive generalizations about how they function (Odum, 1983). Odum’s approach was somewhat ‘mechanistic’ in that he used an electrical metaphor in which circuits were used to represent the structure of ecosystems and their functional processes. Peter Senge, further popularized systems thinking in the 1990’s from a more conceptual standpoint with his work in business and management (Senge, 1994). Taking the conceptual approach to systems thinking even further into abstraction, scholars in the area of second-order cybnernetics examine ways of understanding the interactions of humans with physical systems and ways in which humans understand these interactions through what one could describe as a ‘meta-systems analysis’, or the 93 study of ‘human knowing’ (Brier, 2003; Scott, 2004). The point is that taking a systems approach means dramatically different things to different audiences, but in the context of coastal zone management, I am proposing that a ‘grounded’ and ‘functional’ conceptual systems framework be used. This approach differs from traditional coastal zone management because it seeks to recognize the inherent connections and interactions between and within relevant systems: environmental, legal, social, economic, cultural, political, human, and technological. This is particularly useful when attempting to incorporate economic valuation of ecosystem services into coastal zone management frameworks because traditionally there has been a deep disconnect between economic decisions in the coastal zone and their impacts on environmental processes (Agardy et al., 2005; Barragán & de Andrés, 2016). There are some risks to framing things systematically, one common critique being that by generalizing/systematizing processes too much in an interdisciplinary manner, the depth of understanding of specific domains (the ‘disciplinarity’) can be diluted (Robinson, 2008; Ulrich, 1993). This can be addressed by ensuring that there is sufficient disciplinary oversight involved throughout the analysis. For example, when different knowledge systems such as ancestral knowledge are linked with scientific analysis, there should sufficient validation of the results from within each domain to verify or substantiate the quality of the findings (Tengö et al., 2014). Systematic breakdown of ecosystem components can help to clarify the approach needed for their economic evaluation, however, there remain challenges with the integration of this approach into management applications. Challenges in incorporating economic valuation of ecosystem services into coastal zone management There are several challenges with incorporating economic valuation of ecosystem services into coastal zone management, some are practical, logistical, and conceptual, whereas the most significant issues are related to addressing socio-cultural norms and values. Chakraborty et al highlight the importance of how values themselves are approached when analyzing social and ecological systems in the coastal zone and argue that they are underserved in the literature, yet fundamentally important to creating policy (Chakraborty et al., 94 2020). How people perceive the value of ecosystem services can differ significantly amongst stakeholder groups as they often will have diverse backgrounds, world views, and vested interests (Blasiak et al., 2015; Simpson et al., 2016). Market values may be linked to some ecosystem services which can be viewed as commodities, but even in these circumstances culturally embedded social values will influence how groups will or will not accept economic valuation (M. Kumar & Kumar, 2008). In fact, some groups will not accept the idea of ‘putting a price on nature’ or even conceptualizing the environment as distinct ‘services’ which are separate from human beings. This is shown by several indigenous groups who see humanity as intrinsically and holistically connected with the natural world (Boelscher, 2011). Therefore, values and their differences within communities must be: (a) accepted, and (b) understood, if an acceptable management framework is to be realized. Given that economic valuation of ecosystems is accepted, there remains the obstacle of choosing the appropriate methodology, which is a task that is debated in the literature and heavily dependent on the local community (M. Christie et al., 2012; Hein et al., 2006; Kieslich & Salles, 2021; M. Kumar & Kumar, 2008; Tinch et al., 2019b). The first step is to determine what the key ecosystem services are for the coastal zone location under study and to then select the method most appropriate / acceptable for the given socio-cultural and biophysical context. This process must involve the key local stakeholders and rights holders, starting with presenting the framework/approach, then determining the ecosystems services to be included, choosing the economic valuation methods and applying them, and the interpretation of the results. This approach follows the philosophy and ethos of adaptive co-management in which the engagement and empowerment of impacted populations is critical to realizing sustainable development and building socio-ecological resilience (Olsson et al., 2004; Plummer et al., 2012). Economic valuation in this case is not a means to promote unfettered consumption of natural resources and increase impacts on the environment, rather, the purpose is to raise awareness of the values of nature that are generally not captured in conventional policy development and economic decision making to avoid environmental exploitation. This is one of the several benefits of taking this approach. 95 Several studies and policy development initiatives have shown the multiple benefits that economic valuation of ecosystem services can provide to sustainable resource management. Tourist destinations such as coral reefs are very good examples of situations where previous to there being credible methodologies for economic valuation of the recreational/aesthetic benefits they provide, environmental degradation resulted in significant losses that were ‘invisible’ or simply not accounted for (Brander et al., 2007; van Beukering et al., 2007). Burke et al’s study of reefs in Saint Lucia and Trinidad and Tobago revealed some challenges with economic valuation of recreational ecosystem services: distinguishing between visitors who were there to the see the reefs and those that were not; estimating the value of the use of coralline beaches and reefs for informal recreation and fishing by local populations; quantifying the economic value of reef-associated fish due to poor data; and evaluating visitor responses to marginal changes in reef quality. Despite these challenges, they were able to determine clear economic values for avoided damages to coral reefs if conservation measures were enacted (Burke et al., 2008). Cultural / recreational benefits are those most widely identified for coral reefs in the literature, with scuba diving being one of the top noted activities (Andersson, 2007; Gill et al., 2015). Coral reefs are frequently located in developing countries with little financial capacity to monitor and regulate their use, so by presenting an economic valuation of their ‘pristine value’ to tourism and recreation, the case for conservation is stronger and in some cases has served as the basis for donor support through grants and debt swaps to finance marine management programs (McGowan et al., 2020; Silver & Campbell, 2018). Another commonly overlooked benefit of economic valuation of ecosystem services is its capacity to capture the value of sustaining and regulating processes in ecosystems, which are absolutely fundamental to human security and wellbeing (Manea et al., 2019; van Zanten et al., 2014). Biodiversity, for example is the ‘connective tissue’ of ecosystems and vital to their overall functioning, yet it is being degraded at an alarming rate globally and its importance to issues such as freshwater and food provision is generally not factored into development policy or natural resource decision making (Altieri, 1999; Bastian, 2013). There 96 have been various studies that have used methods such as contingent valuation to evaluate the economic value of biodiversity, and the TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) framework has helped mainstream it into policy discourse, both of these approaches would be welcome additions to environmental management practices in coastal environments, which are usually rich in biodiversity (Bartkowski et al., 2015; TEEB, 2010a). The ultimate aim of including economic valuation of ecosystem services in the coastal zone is to ensure that the whole value of nature is recognized in a manner that is congruent with the socio-cultural values of the local community. This is especially important in BC coastal nations where First Nations peoples and other residents have a deep spiritual and practical connection with the environment. Potential for ecosystem system-based management with economic valuation in BC Coastal nations (particularly Haida Gwaii) Haida Gwaii is an area of tremendous ecological diversity and the Haida People have resided in this area since time immemorial and consistently held a world view intrinsically aligned with nature, whereas with the arrival of colonial settlers in the 1800’s new perspectives rooted in natural resource consumption where introduced, leading to conflicting approaches to environmental management (Fedje & Mathewes, 2011). One of the main issues that has plagued environmental management in Haida Gwaii is the disconnect between the values of Haida rights holders and those of other stakeholders (specifically Provincial and Federal Governments) and the attempts to reconcile these views have resulted in new models for collaboration, cooperation, and adaptive co-management (R. Jones et al., 2010; Takeda & Ropke, 2010). A systematic framework focused on coastal zone management in BC coastal nations can further these progressive approaches, and by introducing economic valuation of ecosystem services, the collective recognition of previously ‘un-valued’ ecosystem services can lead to more balanced and sustainable development decisions. This paper will outline how such a systematic framework can be designed and implemented in BC coastal nations and particularly the coastal zone of Haida Gwaii by providing an overview of current coastal zone management practices, outlining the role of values and knowledge in these 97 processes, proposing a design for the framework, and suggesting an implementation and governance approach for it. 4.2 Coastal zone management in Haida Gwaii – Current Status and Requirements Current status of coastal zone management in Haida Gwaii Coastal zone management in Haida Gwaii has undergone significant changes over that last 100 years in response to the arrival of missionaries, settlers, and colonizers who disrupted the practices of the Haida and other indigenous peoples on the Pacific Northwest Coast. Prior to the arrival of foreigners, the Haida peoples had long-standing natural resource management practices that were deeply aligned with their core values, which are fundamentally based on the principle that they seek to live in harmony with the environment and cultivate a reciprocal relationship of giving to and receiving from nature (Council of the Haida Nation and the Government of Canada, 2018). Through interactions between the Haida and newly arrived settlers who brought different practices, institutions, and economic interests, coastal zone management in Haida Gwaii dramatically changed. The current governance context of coastal zone management in Haida Gwaii and the resulting policies, legislation, and management frameworks are a direct product of the conflicts and struggles between the Haida Nation as key rights holders and other stakeholder groups in the area since the time of first contact (Takeda & Ropke, 2010). There is essentially a mosaic of policies influencing coastal zone management in Haida Gwaii enacted by different levels of government and exercised at various spatial scales. Management regimes as a whole cover access, rights and responsibilities, harvesting, allocation of benefits and costs, technology, education, and training, and they are fundamentally related to governance, spirituality and social relationships within a nation (King, 2004). To that end, the dynamic interactions between nations in Haida Gwaii have produced, and continue to influence, the current coastal zone management regime, resulting in a somewhat dynamic set of ‘rules and regulations’ nested within the space where cultures meet, a milieu that Pratt refers to as ‘the contact zone’ (Pratt, 2007). 98 Haida Gwaii is a an island archipelago and therefore the coastal zone management framework is to be applied in the land-sea interface which is essentially the geographic area, where by proximity, the land is influenced by the sea and the sea is influenced by the land the (Crossland et al., 2006). The coastal zone may have distinctly different definitions depending on the rights holder or stakeholder group that is consulted; therefore it is important that there be a commonly agreed upon operational definition amongst affected parties from the outset of the process. Figure 9 shows a general model of the coastal zone which includes upland, backshore, foreshore, inshore/shoreface, and offshore (Beatley et al., 2002). 99 Figure 9: Generic model of the coastal zone Note. From (FEMA, 2000). Coastal Construction Manual (3rd ed), Federal Emergency Management Agency Mitigation Directorate. Washington, D.C. In the case of Haida Gwaii this area may extend far inland due to the interactions of watersheds with the coastline (Foster & Allen, 2015; Reimchen, 2017). There are also several areas zoned for conservation within the Gwaii Haanas Land-Sea-People Management Plan that span broad spatial areas (e.g. the whole of Gwaay Jihlda – Rankine Islands) (Council of the Haida Nation and the Government of Canada, 2018). The establishment of the Gwaii Haanas biosphere reserve and its co-management framework between the government of Canada and the Haida Nation is one of the most significant advances in indigenous resource rights in the Pacific Northwest in the last 100 years (Hawkes, 1996). Figure 10 outlines the boundaries of the Gwaii Haanas reserve and the geographic boundaries of coastal zones throughout Haida Gwaii where the proposed coastal zone management framework will apply. Also shown on the map are other designated reserves/zones in the Haida Gwaii area. 100 Figure 10: Gwaii Haanas zones Note. From (Council of the Haida Nation and the Government of Canada, 2018). Gwaii Haanas Gina ’Waadluxan KilGuhlGa Land-Sea-People Management Plan, p. 32. The geospatial context for coastal zone management is important to specify to understand the interplay of political jurisdictions and relevant regulations. Geographic boundaries help focus the analysis, but due to the interconnected nature of socio-ecological systems, one must also consider the far reaching, and potentially cumulative, impacts that localized disturbances can have (Jordan et al., 2009; Proverbs et al., 2020). For example, the combined effect of climate change and land use in northwest coast river systems 101 have negatively impacted salmon spawning grounds which has then impacted fish stocks (Tulloch et al., 2022). Western / settler governance regimes have influence at international, national, and provincial levels in Haida Gwaii, and to analyze how they intersect, the governing authorities and the policies / agreements they are responsible for need to be delineated. The agencies and agreements that impact coastal zone management in Haida Gwaii are outlined in Appendix C. In addition to the creation of sizable natural reserves in Haida Gwaii there have been a number of significant steps made towards improving the relationship between the Government of Canada and the Haida People by developing more collaborative processes for managing natural resources and fostering ecosystem stewardship (Hotte et al., 2019; Takeda & Ropke, 2010). These changes in governance were precipitated by conflicts related to land and natural resource rights starting with colonialization in the mid 1800’s, but it was realistically not until the 1990’s that the outcomes of these conflicts began to result in more cooperative approaches, the sharing of power, and a greater degree of equity between the Haida Nation and Canada. The most notable first step was the amendment of the Gwaii Haanas MOU in 1993 (which was originally created in 1987 with the CHN listed only as an advisor) to include the Haida Nation as a core stakeholder and active participant (Alper, 1997; Stronghill et al., 2015). This was a seminal step forward for assertion of First Nations rights in British Columbia and it appears to have catalyzed collective action amongst other First Nations groups, resulting in the Declaration of First Nations of the North Pacific Coast which was signed by the Haida and eight other coastal First Nations on June 13, 2000 (Davis, 2009). This Declaration represented the official commitment of the signatory First Nations to assert their rights and entitlement, control, and use ecosystem-based management approaches on their ancestral lands, and it concomitantly sent a strong message to the federal and provincial governments, as well as the Canadian public, that these First Nations were ready (and capable) to claim their sovereignty. Coastal zone management in Haida Gwaii today has been greatly impacted by the advancement of the sovereignty of the 102 Haida People because through increased control over their ancestral lands, the Haida have encouraged the Canadian government to engage in co-management agreements. Co-management reconfigures the power dynamic of traditional top down governance regimes and forces stakeholder and rights holder groups to work together collaboratively and to share power equitably (Carlsson & Berkes, 2005). The Haida Nation started down the path towards co-management by developing protocol agreements with local governments in Haida Gwaii. A protocol agreement between the Haida Nation and the Municipalities of Masset and Port Clements signed in 2004 articulated “shared commitments” to work collaboratively to safeguard and steward the land, the waters, and the people of Haida Gwaii (Council of the Haida Nation, 2006a). Subsequently, more detailed agreements were created between the Haida Nation and the Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional Electoral Areas (2006 & 2008) and the Village of Queen Charlotte (2006), within which there was specific reference to identifying implications of Indigenous rights and title on land and coastal resource planning and governance (Council of the Haida Nation, 2006a, 2006b, 2008). During this time ecosystem-based management (EBM) and integrated planning also began to emerge as more widely accepted approaches in the Pacific Northwest (Moola et al., 2004; Takeda & Ropke, 2010). This is exemplified by the Coast Land Use Decision of 2006 in which there was a clear commitment to manage Crown land using an EBM approach (Nanwakolas Council et al, 2012). This led to the further developments in EBM in the central and northern coast of British Columbia such as its application to the management of the Great Bear Rainforest and its use in the Pacific Northwest Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA) which was established in 2005 through the application of Canada’s Ocean Plan (Price et al., 2009). Ecosystem-based approaches were also being considered for Haida Gwaii and working groups were created to study issues such as Haida marine traditional knowledge and the commercial value of the fisheries in Haida Gwaii (Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists, 2010; Haida Marine Traditional Knowledge Study participants et al., 2011). This work contributed to the release of the 2007 Haida Gwaii 103 Strategic Land Use Agreement which, in conjunction with the 2005 Haida Land Use Vision, aimed to have 52% of the land and 72% of coastline in Haida Gwaii be protected, with the remainder managed under an EBM framework connecting land and marine environments (Government of British Columbia and Council of the Haida Nation, 2007). The process of reconciliation in Haida Gwaii officially connected with coastal zone management with the 2009 signing of the Kunst’aa Guu – Kunst’aayah Reconciliation Protocol which outlined how the BC government and the Haida Nation would work together to share revenue and management of natural resources (Government of British Columbia and the Haida Nation, 2009). In June of 2010 the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act (HGRA) received royal ascent, solidifying the commitment of the BC government to build equitable relations with the Haida Nation and led also to the creation of the Haida Gwaii Management Council, which was comprised of two appointees from both the Haida Nation and the BC government, as well as a jointly appointed chair (Government of British Columbia and the Haida Nation, 2010). In 2010 a Ministerial Order determined that the management objectives of the Haida Gwaii Strategic Land Use Agreement (formulated in 2007) were to be legally binding and also follow an ecosystem-based approach, incorporating cultural, social, economic, and ecological objectives (Government of British Columbia, 2022). The year 2010 also brought the signing of the Gwaii Haanas Marine Agreement between the Haida Nation and the Government of Canada, establishing the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area Reserve, which was to fall under the authority of the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act (Government of Canada and Council of the Haida Nation, 2010). Following the growing theme of co-management in Haida Gwaii, this agreement was deemed to be governed by the Archipelago Management Board (AMB) which is comprised of three members from the Government of Canada and three members from the Council of the Haida Nation. In the Spring of 2012 the Government of BC and several First Nations launched the Marine Planning Partnership (MaPP) to serve as a vehicle to develop marine use plans specific to their ancestral territories (Diggon et al., 2021b). The work performed under the MaPP coincided with the larger scale planning processes that were underway with the PNCIMA. The Haida Nation was 104 active under both processes and through this engagement the Haida Gwaii Marine Plan was developed, identifying specific areas of marine resource use and strategies to sustainably balance them with the socio-economic and cultural needs of the community (Marine Planning Partnership Initiative, 2015). In 2016 the Haida Nation signed the Haida Gwaii Marine Plan Implementation Agreement with the Province of BC, outlining both groups’ commitment to work together to implement the Haida Gwaii Marine Plan as well as their corresponding roles and responsibilities (Government of British Columbia and the Haida Nation, 2016). Looking at the evolution of management frameworks, plans and policies, and legislation in Haida Gwaii since the early 1990’s, two clear patterns and themes emerge: (1) an increased level of collaboration, cooperation, and power sharing between the Haida Nation and the Government of BC, the Government of Canada and other stakeholders (local community groups); and (2) the adoption of ecosystem-based management approaches. Fortunately, due to the emphasis on an ecosystem-based approach, the notion of incorporating ecosystem services into a coastal zone management framework for Haida Gwaii is not a totally foreign concept, rather, the stage is set for it. The Gwaii Haanas Land-Sea-People Management Plan, which was completed in 2018, is the most comprehensive and appropriate framework currently addressing coastal zone management in Haida Gwaii (Council of the Haida Nation and the Government of Canada, 2018). The Land-Sea-People Management plan does intersect with, and may be influenced by, other governance/regulatory frameworks currently in place, but the various active frameworks operate at different scales and do not directly capture the linkages between terrestrial and marine interactions along the coast. Another issue is that the Gwaii Haanas Land-Sea-People Management plan applies to the Gwaii Haanas Reserve and not to Haida Gwaii as a whole. Taking these important factors into consideration, the current challenges with coastal zone management in Haida Gwaii can be examined. 105 Major challenges in coastal zone management in BC coastal nations Historically speaking, one of the most significant challenges faced in coastal zone management in BC coastal nations (and elsewhere) has been a “silo” approach which tends to look at the individual social, economic, and ecological factors in isolation rather than as an integrated whole. Since the time of the arrival of settlers and missionaries there appears to have been an emphasis placed on individual natural resources with views towards commercialization taking precedence (Mackie, 1997; Newell, 1993). This has changed somewhat through experience and knowledge gained by governing bodies regarding sustainable natural resource management and socio-ecological resilience. The result is that more integrated approaches tend to be taken but there remain challenges with respect to socio-economic and environmental monitoring using various data sets and indicators (Gilani et al., 2018; Smith & Rodríguez-Labajos, 2021). Often times there is no connection between different socio-economic needs and ecological health, thus demonstrating the potential for using an ecosystem services approach which connects services provided by nature to the socio-economic benefits gained by the community (Berkes et al., 2000; C. Chan et al., 2019). A systems approach is by its very nature focused on the connections between different factors such as economic vitality and ecological health and how they function together, rather than as individual isolated components, hence why it is appropriate for coastal zone management (Newton, 2012). Imbalances in power and inequitable decision making have also been major challenges in coastal zone management in Haida Gwaii. The arrival of outsiders brought foreign interests in natural resources and with them, dramatically different governance regimes which were imposed on the Haida and other First Nations groups in coastal British Columbia (Harris, 1997). The story of colonialization in Canada has many dimensions to it with very troubling consequences, but for the purposes of this work, one of the most significant impacts was how First Nations’ rights and interests with respect to natural resources were subjugated and their voice and power diminished when it came to policy formulation and decision making on their very own ancestral lands (Dick et al., 2022). There has been much progress made in fostering collaborative approaches between the Haida and the governments of British Columbia and Canada in 106 natural resource management, as exemplified in agreements such as the Kunst’aa Guu – Kunstaayah Reconciliation Protocol and the Gwaii Haanas Agreement which are based on principles of co-management and shared decision making. However, a coastal zone management framework for BC coastal nations must recognize historical inequities and the suppression of rights and provide for decision making power to be shared. This applies as well to other regions of the world where colonial powers have oppressed local peoples in the interest of political, economic, and socio-cultural control. Perhaps one of the biggest challenges in coastal zone management, and environmental management in general, is the fact that environmental externalities are not factored into natural resource decision making, yet there is growing evidence of the close interdependence of ecosystem well-being economic vitality (Lakshmi & Rajagopalan, 2000; L. D. Wright et al., 2019). Externalities are the un-costed impacts (in this case primarily on the environment) that result from an economic transaction (Yang, 2020). There are several reasons why this is problematic. For one, there can be impacts that result from one project, such as the construction of a new port, that under normal circumstances are economically ‘invisible’, but in reality may have very, very significant economic costs to other sectors such as tourism, which can be heavily dependent on the aesthetic quality of a coastline (Bourassa et al., 2005; Saz-Salazar et al., 2015). Another issue with externalities not being factored into coastal zone management is the fact that the ‘whole value’ of the environment is not determined. To the Haida and many other First Nations, the environment has far more value than just the market value of the various commodities ecosystems and nature provide (Loring & Hinzman, 2018). The Haida see themselves as part of nature and seek to live in reciprocity with it, yet their cultural value of vibrant biodiversity or healthy ecosystems is seldom if ever factored into economic decision making by policy makers (Council of the Haida Nation and the Government of Canada, 2018). Ideally, coastal zone management should incorporate economic valuation of ecosystem services to provide mechanisms to account for externalities when they occur and to attempt to capture the ‘whole value’ of the coastal zone for local communities so that the total costs of policy and development decisions can be considered. 107 Another critical challenge for coastal zone management in BC coastal nations is ensuring the values of the local community, both First Nations and non-First Nations, are reflected in management frameworks and that different knowledge systems (local knowledge, TEK, and science) are used, with each given equal respect and consideration. Coastal zone management is directed at assessing biophysical and socio-economic aspects in the local environment, but it is also culturally mediated in that it is a practice that is meant to serve the community in which it is exercised (Chakraborty et al., 2020; Ruiz-Frau et al., 2011). Therefore the values of the community should be included in the framework. In the case of Haida Gwaii the values of the Haida Nation and the local non-Haida community should be reflected in coastal zone management processes. The Haida Marine Plan and the Land-Sea-People Management Plan do an excellent job of explaining the importance of the environment to the Haida people and they clearly articulate the socio-cultural basis on which the Haida People seek to have decisions about the environment made. Similarly, the non-Haida community have their own values and sense of place and this too should be factored into the framework (Larson et al., 2013). How a community understands and relates to the environment can be seen as an extension of their culture and values. Science has been seen as the dominant system of knowledge used for natural resource decision making but it is not the only form of legitimate environmental understanding. Place-based knowledge gathered by local populations who live and work on the land year round can provide valuable insights that can be used in conjunction with scientific studies (Berkes et al., 2007). The subtle details that can only be noticed through extended periods of time in an area constitute the valuable understandings that come with local knowledge. A coastal zone management framework for BC coastal nations needs to incorporate local knowledge and indigenous knowledge to truly reflect what is occurring in the region and to align with local community values. In addition, the framework should adopt ecosystem-based management in keeping with other regional initiatives such as the MaPP and the PNCIMA. 108 How can ecosystem-based management be used in coastal zones in BC coastal nations? EBM is based on a holistic approach to managing natural resources and environmental impacts and it is predicated on considering the interactions of multiple species and the various ecosystem abiotic components rather than single species (Berkes, 2012a). The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) definition states that ‘An ecosystem approach to management is management that is adaptive, specified geographically, takes into account ecosystem knowledge and uncertainties, considers multiple external influences, and strives to balance diverse social objectives’ (NOAA, 2004). This is a rather broad definition within which many specific applications of EBM might fit – like focusing on adaptive management, understanding geographic variability, or examining purely socio-economic factors. There are widely recognized approaches such as resilience, adaptive management, and co-management that fall withing the rubric of EBM, but there are also new approaches to consider. Examples of these include multi-leveled adaptive governance, which is required for climate change adaptation, or considering coastal zones as coupled socio-ecological systems, both of which are designed to address a much greater amount of complexity (Brunner & Lynch, 2010; L. D. Wright et al., 2019). The coastal zone is wrought with complexity, it is where many systems intersect – ecological, social, economic, and cultural, being examples. It is a place of connections, synergies, and systems, and therefore it is also a place which is perfectly suited to apply EBM. However, in order also to address the issue of unaccounted for externalities, EBM must be accompanied by economic valuation of ecosystem services. How can economic valuation be used in coastal zone of BC coastal nations? As mentioned, economic valuation of ecosystem services is a critical step towards addressing ‘un-costed’ impacts on ecosystems and estimating the ‘whole value’ of the environment, but it is not without its challenges, particularly in communities where the fundamental cultural beliefs that the economic valuation is based on may differ significantly. EBM can work effectively with economic valuation of ecosystem services if the analytical framework is structured properly. Ecosystem services are divided into four 109 categories: provisioning, regulating, cultural / recreational / aesthetic, and sustaining (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program), 2005). Within each one of categories are the tangible services that ecosystems provide. Fishing, for example, would be considered a provisioning service for the inhabitants of Haida Gwaii (R. Jones et al., 2017). The first step for incorporating economic valuation of ecosystem services into an ecosystem-based coastal zone management framework is to ensure that the main ecosystem services for the community are identified. There may be several ecosystem services that are perceived as less of a priority for the community and therefore only an abbreviated list may be required. With the ecosystem services delineated within the coastal zone management framework, the process of economic valuation can occur. There are several valuation methods that can be utilized as outlined in Chapter 3, but the choice will depend on the local context and availability of data. The ultimate objective is to effectively integrate economic analysis with ecological understanding within a cohesive management framework that is responsive to the coastal zone impacts the community faces. The benefits being that there is a systematic overview of how the different social and ecological dimensions are connected, a means of assessing the biophysical status of the ecosystem components, and a process for determining economic value for the components such that the total environmental costs of a development decision are not invisible in relation to the economic gains. One of the main challenges one can expect is a resistance to putting economic values on the environment. In several indigenous cultures this may not be accepted as it would be viewed as treating the environment as a commodity and in doing so endorsing a process of economic framing, monetization, appropriation and commercialization of nature (Council of the Haida Nation, 2021; Gómez-Baggethun & Ruiz-Pérez, 2011). This is a valid point and an understandable reaction since the debate on ‘putting a price on nature’ is long standing and there are strong points on both sides of the argument (Masood, 2018). The counter argument is to explain that the purpose of economic valuation in this case is to not put a price on ecosystem services to treat them as ‘commodities for sale’ but rather to give them economic visibility such that any impacts on 110 them can be recognized in the same discussion, and be given the same weight, as the economic gains from proposed developments. Too often the impacts on nature are ‘invisible’ in policy discussions focused on coastal economic development. Fundamental to the discussion about economic valuation are social values themselves, and in BC coastal nations the start for any discussion about coastal zone management will likely be with values. 4.3 Values, Knowledge, and Coastal Zone Management What are values and what role do they play in CZM? What are values and why are they important in coastal zone management in BC coastal nations? Values are a person’s principles or standards of behaviour, or one’s judgement as to what is important in life which manifest in value judgements, or personal preferences about proposals or actions (Bunge, 2003). Although values depend on an individual’s judgement, they are also a social phenomenon, meaning social groups such as distinct communities or cultures formulate their collective values based on a variety of processes – consensus, dialogue, or imposition of doctrine, which they then translate into rules. Although individuals in social groups may have tacit norms, organized groups tend to form structured rulesets, also referred to as social technologies, that guide collective decision making (Bunge, 1999). Coastal zone management is inherently based on making decisions about society’s interaction with nature and use of natural resources – to conserve, to harvest, to control use, to restore after degradation – all of which are fundamentally based on socio-cultural and economic values (Loring & Hinzman, 2018; Luisetti et al., 2014). The idea of framing coastal zones as socio-ecological systems and ecosystem services is based on values as well, as it suggests a utilitarian perspective of the environment (Ruiz-Frau et al., 2011). Cultural values, for example, can influence natural resource decision making as shown in New Zealand where Maori values have been used in forest management, and in Japan where the utility of marine resources influences the behavioural intentions of the local community (encapsulated by the concept of “satoumi” which refers to traditional Japanese sustainable use of marine resources) (Lyver et al., 2017; Wakita et al., 2014). When 111 examining the different types of ecosystem services, it appears that recreational and cultural services are often based on the community’s perspective on, and appreciation of, nature (K. Chan et al., 2012). In addition, when assessing provisioning services, such as fisheries, there can be a wide discrepancy in how people value them. An example of this is how some coastal First Nations give a much greater relative weight to the cultural aspects of fish than the market value of fish (Council of the Haida Nation, 2021). The main point to note is that local stakeholder and rights holder values must be considered when developing coastal zone management plans if they are to be accepted by the community. Are there conflicting values in BC coastal nations (Haida Gwaii in particular) and how can they be addressed? Haida Gwaii is the ancestral home of the Haida people who have lived on their land since time immemorial and whose culture and values are intrinsically connected to the land and the sea (Council of the Haida Nation and the Government of Canada, 2018). Therefore when speaking of coastal zone management and the environment in Haida Gwaii one must understand and appreciate the Haida’s connection to their local environment and acknowledge the conflict in values that has occurred because of the arrival of settlers. The Haida’s connection between community members, the environment, their ancestors, and their future generations form what could be described as a sense of ‘holistic reciprocity’ that greatly influences all decisions with respect to the environment (Bringhurst, 2011; N. J. Turner et al., 2020). Gilani et al found that well-being for the Haida was based upon their relationship with the land, ocean, and air, which is a clear reflection of the essence of their values (Gilani et al., 2018). Interconnectedness and respect for their relationship with nature is captured in the Haida Proclamation, which states that “Our culture is born of respect; and intimacy with the land and sea and the air ...” (Council of the Haida Nation, 2018). Another demonstration of Haida values is demonstrated in the oral histories of their creation and the metaphysical / spiritual connection they have with nature. 112 The Haida believe that in addition to humans and animals, the universe is inhabited by supernatural beings which are referred to as “sga'na qeda's” (Swanton, 1905). The supernatural beings were the creators of the physical world and were present throughout the ocean, atmosphere, forests, lakes, and streams. According to Swanton’s account, the Haida territory rests on a foundation in the shape of a great supernatural being called the ‘Sacred-One-standing-and-moving’ or “Q6'yagiagA'nda” and that these supernatural beings were categorized as ‘beings of the upper world’, ‘beings of the sea’, ‘beings of the land’, and ‘patron deities’ (Swanton, 1905). The Secwépemc peoples of BC also have similar metaphysical or mythological accounts of their relationship with nature as reflected by their account of the ‘trickster’ who is said to be responsible for natural objects found in their territory (Ignace & Ignace, 2017). The Haida’s stories and myths that represent their cultural relationship with nature also represents, as Snowden outlines in his Cnefyn model for knowledge management, how they use narrative to document and share their traditional knowledge (Snowden, 2012). There is a dichotomous relationship of “human vs. nature” that has been prevalent throughout history in western society, but it is somewhat blurred in Haida society, because in their view culture, nature, and spirit are woven together in day-to-day life (Worster et al., 1994). The connection to nature that is intrinsic to the Haida’s worldview underscores their values in relationship to how they make decisions about natural resource use. The Haida see nature as a gift and deeply respect the sustenance, physically and spiritually, that it provides. This respect translates into how they view harvesting from nature, which is underpinned by the phrase “Tliisdluy gudang kilagangs isdaa”, meaning ‘just take what you need’ (Swanton, 1905). An example of how this belief is actualized was shown in the Haida’s response to what they felt was over-fishing of herring stocks when the overall harvest exceeded the regenerative capacity of the ecosystem. They thought this level of fishing was unwarranted and ultimately disrespectful to nature (R. Jones et al., 2010). Haida values of living in respectful harmony with nature and 113 not taking more than what one needs have been in contrast with the practices of settlers and colonialists since essentially the time of their arrival on the Pacific coast. Haida Gwaii is the ancestral territory of the Haida people, but today it is also the home to local non-Haida residents and is of interest to other stakeholders with commercial and governance concerns, thus necessitating cooperation amongst these different groups. Upon their arrival in 1774, European explorers brought with them a different paradigm of how to relate to nature – one of exploitation and commercialization, with their focus initially being on expanding the fur trade (R. Fisher, 2011; Takeda & Ropke, 2010). From this point on, the push for resource exploitation by foreigners translated into an array of other resource sectors such as forestry, fishing, and fish processing (canneries), with the primary objective being economic gains for outside (non-Haida) parties (Braun, 2002; Newell, 1993). The divergent perspectives on resource management between the Haida and colonialists led to a series of disputes over natural resource policy such as those for forest tenure allocations, fishing access quotas, mineral rights, and designation of nature reserves (or lack thereof) (Galois, 2017; Hotte et al., 2019; Takeda & Ropke, 2010). The governments of British Columbia and Canada had been complicit in fostering resource management policies and governance that favoured extraction and profit over the sustainability concerns of the Haida up to the point at which the Haida’s social/political mobilization forced a dialogue over land and marine resource rights (Takeda & Ropke, 2010). One of the clearest examples of how conflict of values between the Haida and colonial settlers has impacted resource management in Haida Gwaii is in the forestry sector. The stage was set for commercial forestry operations to emerge in Haida Gwaii in the late nineteenth century when in 1882 the government of British Columbia established reserves for the Haida (less than fifteen square kilometers of the roughly 10,000 square kilometers of the archipelago) and at the same time laid claim to the majority of the land for the province (Fedje & Mathewes, 2011; Harris, 2002). The 114 Moresby Island Timber Company was established in Haida Gwaii in 1908 and with it a number of small extraction operations commenced (Rajala, 2006). Throughout the first half of the 20th century the demand for wood was fueled by both World Wars I and II leading to significant growth of the forestry industry, advancements in extraction techniques and technology, and growing impacts on the forests of Haida Gwaii (Rajala, 2006). The ‘extractionist paradigm’ had clearly arrived and it was woven in with colonialization processes that were designed to control and transform the Haida (and other coastal indigenous peoples). The post-war period saw consolidation of logging operations with larger companies forming and the scale of environmental impacts growing. With the increased growth and industrialization of the forestry sector came concerns from the government about the sustainability of timber supply, which led to a Royal Commission to study the sector and make recommendations (Sloan, 1945). This resulted in a Tree Forest License (TFL) system which designated rights to harvest specific tracts of forest with overall management following a ‘sustained yield’ model in which old growth forests were viewed as ‘farmable resources’ that would be logged on a rotating basis, leaving time and space for replanting and regeneration, with the objective of a sustainable, long term timber supply (Rajala, 2006; Wilson, 1998). The creation of the TFL system is yet another example of how settler extractionist / expansionist ideology was institutionalized and imposed upon the Haida on their ancestral territory in stark contrast with their core values, which prioritized respect for nature and living in balance with it, rather than having dominion over it. Voices of opposition to clear cut logging practices in BC grew, driven by environmental groups and indigenous peoples. The combined effects of oppressive colonial policies and programs such as banning potlatches, limiting financial support for First Nations land claims, and eroding culture and language through the residential school system, with unsustainable natural resource management policies such as clearcutting old growth forests in Haida Gwaii led to flashpoints of civil unrest and political mobilization (Cole & Chaikin, 1990; Hanson et al., 2022; Tennant, 2011). At the same time as widespread unrest grew, 115 the Haida capacity for affirming their rights and culture was developing with strong leaders emerging and reforms to legislation such as the Indian Act enacted by the government. This set the stage for significant changes to natural resource management processes, with differential values between First Nations and the Government of Canada being a major driving force. A proposed five year logging plan submitted to the province in 1974 by Rayonier Canada Ltd. requested relocation of their logging operations to TFL 24 on Burnaby Island in the South Moresby area of Haida Gwaii (South Moresby Resource Planning Team, 1983). This proposal triggered a local campaign in opposition that quickly turned it into a national and international environmental issue (May, 1990). One of the principal points of objection released by the Skidegate Band Council was that the Rayonier proposal threatened the ecological integrity of an area that the Haida depended on for sustenance and “artistic, cultural, and spiritual inspiration” (South Moresby Resource Planning Team, 1983). These events, which occurred in the mid 1970’s, could be described as ‘values-based objections’ to colonial resource extraction practices. They led to a series of court battles over TFLs and land rights as well as public confrontations such as blockades, all of which were amplified by the growing media attention on South Moresby and Haida Gwaii (then Queen Charlotte Islands) (Wilderness Committee, 2010). Conflict in values ultimately paved the way for present day agreements such as the Gwaii Haanas Agreement, which was reached in 1993, and was the first example of a co-management agreement in which First Nations were provided equal power in decision making, with two of four governing seats held by members of the Haida (Government of British Columbia and Council of the Haida Nation, 1993). The South Moresby example shows that differences in values in the development of natural resource management frameworks in Haida Gwaii, or any other territory which has a history of colonialization and contested land rights, must be taken into consideration. Community values are also closely related to the knowledge systems different cultural groups use to understand the environment. 116 What is knowledge and what role does it play in CZM and what systems are used in BC coastal nations? Coastal zone management and environmental management in general depend on forms of scientific knowledge to assess impacts and develop mitigation and management strategies, but there are profound limitations and contextual gaps if only western science is used. Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) of local First Nations and the knowledge /experience of other local resource user groups is particularly important in the northwest Pacific Coast because of the extensive diversity and variability of the land and seascapes and the fact that indigenous peoples have lived continuously in these environments for thousands of years and have developed profound levels of place-based knowledge (Mathews & Turner, 2017; N. J. Turner et al., 2003). TEK can be defined as “the knowledge and insights acquired through extensive observations of an area or a species” which are often shared by the users of resources in a particular area or are passed down through generations through oral histories / traditions (Huntington, 2000). TEK is not necessarily held only by indigenous peoples, local inhabitants also can develop profound understandings of the ecosystems in which they live, however, indigenous peoples tend to formulate more comprehensive and systematic bodies of ecological knowledge which are closely linked to their language and spiritual cosmology (Berkes, 2012b). In this analysis, TEK will be used refer to the ecological knowledge held by First Nations peoples and local ecological knowledge (LEK) will refer to that which is held by local non-First Nations. Feature names are excellent examples of how geographic phenomenon are given functional meaning through the names First Nations have given them (Ignace & Ignace, 2017). Often times the subtle nuances of an ecosystem are best recognized through intimate exposure over extended periods of time rather than point source scientific measurements over the course of a single scientific study, therefore TEK can play a significant role in environmental assessment and coastal zone management. The role of TEK has now been officially recognized by the Canadian government in the latest federal environmental impact assessment legislation which lays out a process for First Nations participation and use of their ecological understandings 117 throughout the impact assessment process (Eckert et al., 2020). Historically, science has been used by colonial interests in British Columbia to substantiate or defend natural resource policies that have resulted in the marginalization of indigenous peoples (Harris, 2002). Therefore when examining what system(s) of knowledge should be used in coastal zone management in BC coastal nations, and while considering reconciliation in parallel, one must consider (a) what bodies of knowledge, or ways of knowing, provide the most value to understanding the environment; and (b) the socio-political and cultural impacts of the choice of knowledge systems that are used. These are related, but distinct issues. Value of knowledge systems to understanding the environment. Environmental sustainability is predicated on reducing society’s impacts on the environment, but how is the health of the environment and the impacts it sustains assessed? The traditional approach in coastal zone management has been to default to science as the baseline set of knowledge used for assessing impacts on natural resources and the environment, however, there is growing list of examples which show that alternative epistemologies can be used in conjunction with science (Alexander et al., 2019; McGregor, 2021). The natural sciences bring to coastal zone management aggregated disciplinary knowledge comprised of conceptual models which have been constructed through iterative reviews and hypothesis-driven experimentation. Science can bring a tremendous amount of predictive power to the assessment of environmental impacts. For example, the relationship between changes in marine characteristics such as ocean temperature and the observed impacts on sea life (Cheung et al., 2021). The shared body of experimental and observed studies related to environmental change facilitates the assessment of risks and impacts of human activities in the coastal zone, however, it is by no means the only way to understand the environment. Environmental change is sometimes best observed over a very long period of time under a consistent and seasoned personal gaze and this is a primary characteristic of TEK (Berkes, 2009). Place-based understanding as articulated by Brierly et al, is the knowledge of a specific location or physical landscape 118 gained by those that have lived in a geographic area for a long period of time (often over multiple generations) and have developed an understanding of the complex landscape through their many interactions with it (Brierley et al., 2013). Berkes argues that such systems of gaining environmental knowledge are fundamentally based on observing relationships between living beings and their environment and the interactions among them, and they emerge through processes of socio-ecological adaptation, the results of which are transmitted from one generation to the next (Berkes, 2012a). The granular understanding of place, which is an aspect of TEK, is similar to the feeling one gets when they return to a place they know well, perhaps where childhood was passed, and sees the subtle differences in the environment to what they previously recall. However, in the case of TEK, the observations tend to be documented, culturally encoded, and inter-generationally transmitted, an example of which is the in-depth traditional knowledge study the Haida published in 2011. The Haida Marine Traditional Knowledge Study was undertaken by Council of the Haida Nation to document the knowledge of the marine environment held by Haida elders, with the purpose of providing traditional knowledge to support marine planning, document present and past Haida marine use and occupancy, and share Haida marine history with present and future generations (Haida Marine Traditional Knowledge Study participants et al., 2011). The study methods involved several short and long-form oral history interviews with Haida Elders and younger participants in Skidegate and Masset, from which details on specific topics such as forage fish, offshore fishing, rockfish, and shellfish were gathered, as well as perspectives on Haida food and commercial fishing practices spanning over 100 years. This study shows the depth of knowledge and profound level of ecological detail that rests within indigenous communities and how it can provide immense value to coastal zone management activities. There are both advantages and disadvantages to indigenous knowledge verses science, some of which are highlighted in Table 9 and Table 10 which compare the two systems of knowledge. 119 Table 9: Characteristics of indigenous knowledge verses scientific knowledge Features Indigenous Scientific Relationship Subordinate Dominant Communication Oral Teaching through doing Literate Didactic Dominant Mode of Thought Intuitive Analytical Characteristics Holistic Subjective Experiential Reductionist Objective Positivist Note. From (Sillitoe, 2002). Globalizing Indigenous Knowledge, p. 110, In: Participating in Development: Approaches to Indigenous Knowledge. Edited by: P. Sillitoe, A. Bicker, and J. Pottier. Routledge, London. Table 10: Comparison of TEK vs scientific knowledge Traditional Ecological Knowledge Scientific Knowledge Qualitative Quantitative Intuitive Rational Holistic Reductionist Mind and matter considered together Separation of mind and matter Moral Value Free Spiritual Mechanistic Empirical observations through trial and error Experimentation and systematic deliberate gathering of facts Based on data generated from resource users themselves Data generated by a specialized cadre of researchers Based on diachronic data – long time series of information from one locality Based on synchronic data – short time series of data over a large area Note. From (Berkes, 1993). Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective, p. 4, In: Traditional ecological knowledge: Concepts and cases. Edited by: J.T. Tinglis. International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, ON. TEK and scientific knowledge are differentiated, but complementary, and are best used in collaboration, drawing on each system’s strengths. Service et al’s study of grizzly bear distribution in the central pacific coast of BC utilized TEK of indigenous peoples and LEK of local populations in conjunction with conventional scientific methods. They found that the local focus and qualitative nature of TEK/LEK brought historical context, which helped with interpretation, but it was limited because it was not systematic 120 and presented inconsistencies due to human behaviour (people have a tendency to remember and report their most recent observations) (Service et al., 2014). Other studies of beluga whale populations by the ABWC (Alaska Blue Whale Committee) demonstrated how the TEK/LEK of indigenous hunters could be effectively combined with other forms of conventional population analysis, such as aerial telemetry, to determine the belugas’ migratory behaviour (Fernandez-Gimenez et al., 2006). The efficacy of the scientific method and its conceptual models, which allow for systematic and consistent analysis at different spatial and temporal scales, as well as comparable evaluation from different peer reviewed studies, is shown in various coastal zone studies where environmental processes distributed over large spatial scales need to be understood. Some examples include the assessment of accumulated impact of point source pollution from various locations, impacts of climate change, and regional cumulative impacts of over-fishing (Clarke Murray et al., 2015; Cousineau & Murphy, 2022; Sumaila & Tai, 2020). In the case of coastal zone management in BC coastal nations there is a tremendous depth of indigenous knowledge that can be used in conjunction with both the knowledge of local non-indigenous peoples and science to provide a comprehensive assessment of ecosystem services and impacts on them. However, it is important to note that these approaches (and worldviews) are complementary and should be given equal levels of respect, utilized with awareness of their respective potential and limitations, and be recognized as distinct bodies of knowledge and not integrated together. The act of ‘integrating’ indigenous knowledge with science has been strongly (and rightly) critiqued as a process of placing science as the dominant approach and treating other systems of knowledge as ‘additional’ (King, 2004). As demonstrated, both TEK and LEK bring tangible value to environmental analysis and their inclusion in coastal zone management also facilitates cooperation and collaboration through co-management. Figure 11 shows a schematic model based on the approach taken by the Alaska Tribal Health Council for utilizing science, local knowledge, and indigenous knowledge in environmental assessment (Oswald, 2021). 121 Figure 11: Knowledge systems for coastal Zone management: local, indigenous, and scientific Note. From (Oswald, 2021) Interview: LEO Network Overview with Mike Brubaker The other critical aspect to consider when addressing the choice of knowledge systems to be used in BC coastal nations are the socio-political implications. Science has been the de-facto body of knowledge used in natural resource management since the time of the arrival of settlers, due in large part to the subjugation of the practices of the Haida and other First Nations and the intent of colonialists to exert control (Harris, 2002). Not only was a foreign way of thinking imposed upon the First Nations in their ancestral territories, there were rules, regulations, and policies enforced by colonialists which greatly impacted First Nations peoples’ rights to their own resources (limitations on fishing and forestry), limited their traditional harvesting methods (restricting fish wheels), and forbade their traditional governance practices (banning of potlatches) (Cole & Chaikin, 1990; Newell, 1993). Moving forward on a path of reconciliation between First Nations and the government of Canada to establish respectful nation-to-nation relationships requires that there be equitable territorial and resource agreements and respect for cultural practices. Co-management models such as that which was implemented with the Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve are a good demonstration of mutual respect for culture and sharing of power, and a coastal zone management framework for Haida Gwaii needs to recognize the value of the Haida’s TEK and local non- 122 Haida LEK, giving them equal weight in their support of decision making. Taking this stance is not only socially just, but from a practical standpoint, it will likely encourage participation and engagement of First Nations rights holders and other stakeholders since their cultures and perspectives will be respected. How will values and knowledge be integrated into a systems-oriented framework for ecosystem-based management? Values play a fundamental role in how communities relate to the environment and as previously described, there have in the past been conflicting perspectives amongst different groups on how socio-economic priorities should be balanced with environmental stewardship in BC coastal nations. It is important to identify what the core values of the main stakeholder and rights holder groups are and clearly document them. Once identified, these values can be presented to all those involved in the coastal zone management process, and they can also be schematically mapped out and compared (and often contrasted). Figure 5 provided an example of a values mapping process that was used by Sumaila and Teh, with the First Nations Fisheries Council (Sumaila & Teh, 2021). Sumaila and Teh worked with a focus group of First Nations representatives to identify six categories of values for provisioning services (fish) for First Nations: cultural, governance, environmental, social, health, and economic. These categories cover the general range of perspectives that communities (indigenous and non-indigenous) may have with respect to the environment. However, the specific ways in which each of those categories is understood by one stakeholder / rights holder group could be significantly different than another group. Therein lies the importance of providing an opportunity to solicit input on what the core values of each group are and what priority each of them has. The mapping of stakeholder / rights holder values is a critical first step in implementing a systematic framework for coastal zone management. In many coastal zone management plans, values are not emphasized or even articulated (Ruiz-Frau et al., 2011). The Haida on the other hand, emphasize their core values and feature them prominently in both their land use plan and the land-marine plan (Council of the Haida Nation and the Government of Canada, 123 2018; Marine Planning Partnership Initiative, 2015). It is therefore important to ensure there is a process in place for determining the environmental values of the main stakeholder/rights holder groups in Haida Gwaii and other BC coastal nations and have them reflected in the coastal zone management framework. Bridging of Knowledge Systems Assessment of ecosystem services in the coastal zone requires an integrated body of knowledge that will allow decision makers to craft policies or strategies that safeguard the environment and human health, whilst ensuring that socio-economic benefits are provided in a sustainable manner. As previously discussed, science can provide systematic and explanatory knowledge of ecosystem processes and impacts on them at various scales when applied appropriately. However, TEK and LEK can also provide tremendous insights into the status of the local environment based on firsthand exposure and observation over extended periods of time, in the case of the Haida and other BC coastal First Nations – over thousands of years. The challenge is to have stakeholders/rights holders agree upon the bodies of knowledge to be used, their methods of application, and how they will be collectively used in the coastal zone management framework in a meaningful way. In many cases the ‘ways of knowing’ about certain phenomenon might be dramatically different and thus difficult to reconcile. For instance, highly descriptive and qualitative knowledge of fish behaviour may be difficult to compare with quantitative analysis of changes in fish stocks. The key is to look for explanatory elements that are complementary – either supporting a common understanding, or contrarian results that together can be used to deduce the status of ecosystem services and impacts on them. There have been attempts made of bringing ‘ways of knowing’ by connecting various study results, but one must be cautious to not default to science and have other forms of knowledge blended in, losing their essence and roots. To that end, Berkes argues that TEK must not be fragmented and abstracted from its cultural and historical context as it should be seen as an integrated whole which includes the local knowledge, environmental practices, social institutions and rulesets, and the ethical foundation 124 (Berkes, 2012b). An appropriate and respectful approach is to give equal respect to science, TEK, and LEK, and align the findings independently while looking for valuable environmental insights. There are obstacles to the connection of TEK with science as shown in attempts to do so through the Canadian impact assessment process. Eckert et al found that in some cases deeply ingrained, systemic, and fundamental constructs which are tied to historical power struggles from colonialization and also knowledge incompatibility can limit the combined use of science and TEK (Eckert et al., 2020). In the context of evaluating Maori TEK verses science, Stephenson and Moller state that “TEK and science knowledge may be largely unlike in their epistemological and methodological features, but may share substantive knowledge without challenging the other aspects” (Stephenson & Moller, 2009). It is where there is complementary value in understanding the environment and ecosystem services brought by both systems of knowledge that efforts to connect them must be directed, despite differences in methodologies. Connecting science, TEK, and LEK needs to be done in a way that embodies collaboration and respect amongst different stakeholder / rights holder groups and there have been some excellent examples and models that can be used as references. Tengo et al’s multiple evidence base (MEB) approach for connecting diverse knowledge systems was developed to serve as a framework to guide global assessment and reporting processes used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the United Nation Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) in the inclusion of not only science, but also LEK and TEK (Tengö et al., 2014). The MEB framework is predicated on the fact that there is not necessarily one ‘authority’ when it comes to systems of knowledge for environmental monitoring, rather, there can be many. Social and ecological systems are dynamic and highly coupled, particularly in the coastal zone, and to have an ongoing understanding of their status there needs to be a breadth of different sources and types of data which can be transformed into information to support decision making (Folke et al., 2011; Tàbara & Chabay, 2013). Much of the LEK of communities that are coping with environmental change is captured by local populations (indigenous and non-indigenous) who are going about living their 125 lives whilst observing and taking note of what is occurring around them (Laidler et al., 2009; Loring et al., 2014; Sangha et al., 2018). Cross fertilization of observations using various different knowledge systems can provide new insights and evidence as well as possible causal explanation of changes in socio-ecological systems (Berkes, 2012b; Tengö et al., 2014). As previously noted, identifying complementary insights, or synergies, between knowledge systems will enhance the overall understanding of socio-ecological dynamics rather than relying on solely one methodology, perspective, or body of knowledge. The MEB approach recognizes the importance of TEK and LEK unto themselves and also suggests that evaluation/validation of the knowledge be done within the groups doing the analysis, rather than across, knowledge systems (Tengö et al., 2014). The validation process is therefore conducted by stakeholders / rights holders that recognize and understand the knowledge system (e.g. TEK) rather than those that may look upon it with skepticism or doubt. By having internal validation processes an even greater degree of cross cultural respect can be forged between the different cultural groups who are working together (Gratani et al., 2011). The process of internal evaluation also aligns with fundamental principles of co-management in that cross-cultural respect is fundamentally important to maintain between core stakeholder / rights holder groups (Carlsson & Berkes, 2005; Goetze, 2005). It also upholds principles of cultural sovereignty in the sense that the chosen system of knowledge, epistemology, or cosmological world view is that of the stakeholder / rights holder group, not one imposed by an external group (as was the case with colonialization) and therefore its evaluation should also be done autonomously. Using the MEB approach, or a variation thereof, different systems of knowledge can be jointly utilized, cross-cultural respect fostered, and stronger confidence in conclusions can be attained due to convergence (and divergence) of knowledge and understanding across knowledge systems, thus formulating a more comprehensive evaluation of the environment across spatial and temporal scales. 126 4.3 Proposed Design of Coastal Zone Management Framework What is the basis for the design approach? The design of the proposed systematic coastal zone management framework needs to address key elements or domains that have been previously alluded to, namely: ecosystem services and impacts on them; stakeholder and rights holder groups in the given area and their values and the knowledge systems they subscribe to; processes for economic valuation of ecosystem services; and policies, management, and governance processes. It is especially important to recognize the values of stakeholder and rights holder groups in contexts where there is a colonial history and disputed land and resource rights. BC coastal nations are a perfect example of a situation where reconciliation fundamentally requires ensuring that there is cross cultural respect, and that decision making is shared in an equitable manner. Before considering the design of the coastal zone management framework some assumptions need to be clarified. As previously mentioned, consultation with local stakeholders and rights holders in Haida Gwaii was very limited due to the COVID-19 pandemic and resistance from the Haida Nation to the idea of economic valuation of the environment. As a result there was limited primary data gathered and the bulk of the research was done through a meta-analysis of policy documentation, peer reviewed research papers, and the grey literature. The coastal zone management framework was therefore designed based on the best available information at the time and therefore one can consider it a general model and assume that it may need to be adapted to local circumstances, depending on where it is applied. Another key assumption is that stakeholders and rights holders in the area where the framework is applied will respect some form of rule of law or governance rules. In the case of Haida Gwaii natural resource management has in some cases been exercised through co-management protocols in which the Haida and non-Haida are equally represented on a management board which holds decision making power. For the coastal zone management framework to be effective, there will need to be some form of recognition of the decision-making power of 127 the governance organization by the wider population in the coastal area being addressed. The governance approach will be discussed further in a subsequent section. The following proposed framework shown in Figure 12 draws on: successful examples of co-management agreements implemented between the Haida and the government of Canada; resource management examples in the Northwest Pacific coast; an ecosystem service economic valuation approach previously described in this thesis; and a thorough review of the literature pertaining to the other aforementioned key elements. This proposed framework is a starting point and should not be considered ‘locked in stone’, rather, it is intended to provide a general framework from which specific details relating to each element can be determined. Figure 12: Systematic framework for economic valuation of ecosystem services in the coastal zone (Coastal Zone Management – Conceptual Framework (CZM-CF) 128 Overall Description The coastal zone management model shown in Figure 12 demonstrates the key components of the coastal context, the relationships between them, and their interactive dynamics. This is an overall schematic model in which many of the details for each of the components are summarized to show a cohesive whole. Each element of the model design is described in the following text. The name of the model is the Coastal Zone Management - Conceptual Framework, or CZM-CF. Environment – Global to Local Coastal Zone The environment takes centre stage in this model. The separation of humankind from the environment has been a topic of debate throughout history and has been a prevalent theme in various religions with Christianity most notably dictating humanity as having dominion over nature (Worster et al., 1994). Perhaps the most traditional model of sustainable development is the ‘three legged stool’ in which the economy, environment, and society are equally balanced in a three-way support, connected by governance (J. W. S. Young, 1997) (see Figure 13). Figure 13: Traditional ‘three-legged stool’ model of sustainable development Note. From (J. W. S. Young, 1997). A framework for the ultimate environmental index - putting atmospheric change into context with sustainability, p. 136. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 46: 135-149. 129 In classical economic theory the environment is portrayed as a pool of usable resources used to fuel socio-economic activity, and in the views of Thomas Malthus, will result in profound scarcity as population growth outstrips the capability of natural resources (i.e. provisioning ecosystem services) to sustain society. This perspective fails to fully recognize the fact that the basis of existence for human society is the environment: air, water, food, and source materials for shelter, trade, and industrial activity, and that society is embedded within nature, rather than outside of it (Malthus, 1798; Mooney & Ehrlich, 2012). One of the fundamental principles of ecological economics is the fact that society and the economy are nested within the environment and that there are limits to economic growth based on finite amounts of natural resources and the capacity of the Earth System to absorb impacts (Daly, 2007). The planetary boundary model proposed by Steffen et al provides a visual representation of what these essential Earth System features are (status of the climate, extinction rate, nutrient cycling, etc.) accompanied by data-driven scientific estimates of their status (Steffen et al., 2015). The donut economy concept proposed by Kate Raworth builds on the planetary boundaries concept by suggesting that economic activity should be bounded by the carrying capacity of the Earth (i.e. planetary boundaries) and should also be linked with social objectives/boundaries (Raworth, 2012). In the coastal zone management model shown in Figure 11 the environment is the basis for all socio-economic activity and environmental externalities (transactional impacts on the environment) are captured in the interactions shown between society, the economy, and the environment. The key point is that the Earth is humanity’s home within which all activities take place – therefore policy makers and decision makers must take this into consideration when reviewing proposed and existing activities in coastal zones. Society – Communities in the Coastal Zone Society in the CZM-CF encapsulates the population and distinct stakeholder and rights holder groups who reside in the defined area being analyzed. The boundaries for inclusion are subject to various factors but 130 they are primarily defined as the individuals who reside in the area and are part of a group that has either a territorial right to occupation and resource use – whether it be under a current political regime or through ancestral rights. In the case of Haida Gwaii the two main groups are Haida rights holders who are members of the Haida First Nation and have ancestral and territorial rights, and the local non-Haida population who, as citizens of British Columbia and Canada, have rights governed by Canadian federal and provincial laws. There are also outside commercial interests, some of which could be considered ‘foreigners’ to Haida Gwaii whose resource access rights need to be addressed as well. As previously discussed, resource and land rights disputes have featured prominently in the history of development in BC coastal nations since the arrival of explorers, missionaries, and colonialists. Part of the rationale for distinguishing what the core stakeholder and rights holder groups are in the CZM-CF is to attempt to recognize these differences and find equitable, balanced, and workable solutions that will help realize sustainable development. The complexities of social behaviour cannot fully be articulated in such a general model and one need only take a brief look at the literature pertaining to agent-based modeling, social mobilization, or environmental psychology to realize the challenges of understanding, modeling, and predicting social behaviour, but our purposes here are to start with the socioeconomic and ecological building blocks within coastal zones and then delve deeper into these complexities (Bradley & Reser, 2017; Farahbakhsh et al., 2022; Miyasaka et al., 2017). Details as to elements contained within ‘society’ will be addressed in subsequent sections. Economy – In the Coastal Zone The economy element in the CZM-CF takes a visually less prominent role than in other similar models such as the ‘three-legged stool’ model, however not because it is less important than society and the environment, but because it is framed differently. Economic activity in the coastal zone of BC coastal nations is driven by factors such as natural resource use (fisheries, forestry, etc.) and other benefits of ecosystem services such as the recreational and tourism activities linked to the environment. What is different about this model is the fact that the economy is embedded within the environment and ‘fueled’ by ecosystem services it 131 provides, and it is driven/influenced by social forces. The economy is essentially a social construct, it is defined based on socially-derived definitions, a good example being the many different conceptualizations of alternative indices of social and economic wellbeing that are being proposed instead of GDP (Costanza et al., 2014; Stiglitz et al., 2018). What people value in economic terms is often highly normative and is based on social preferences, hence why the CZM-CF indicates that the values of core stakeholder/rightsholder groups influence economic valuation (Arrow et al., 1993; Brown, 1984). Another feature of the model is the fact that environmental externalities, which are typically not valued in conventional economic analysis, are addressed thorough the economic valuation of ecosystem services (Tinch et al., 2019b). These proposed methods were outlined in Chapter 3 of this thesis, and they heavily draw on the input of different stakeholder and rights holder groups in terms of defining what they feel the total economic value of nature is, and more specifically, what values can be ascribed to specific ecosystem services such as climate regulation and fish provision (refer to chapter 3 for specific explanation of these methods) Ecosystem Services Ecosystem services are defined as the benefits society gains from the environment and they are classified under four categories: provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural / recreational (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program), 2005). The most understood ecosystem services in the coastal zone of Haida Gwaii and other BC coastal nations are likely to be those linked to resource extraction such as fishing and forestry. However, those that are linked to revenue generating industries such as tourism are also very important to the development of the local economy. Other ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling, biodiversity, climate regulation, and coastal protection are all critical to the proper functioning of local ecosystems and the well-being of communities, but they are generally not accounted for in economic terms (Beaumont et al., 2008; Remoundou et al., 2009; van Zanten et al., 2014). As shown in the CZM-CF, ecosystem services that are utilized by and impacted by the local population should be included in evaluations and assessed in terms of their status and economic value. This allows for a more comprehensive 132 view of the total economic value of ecosystem services used by the community and can then better inform decision makers as to what impacts certain policies or development decisions may have. In any given community there are a wide range of ecosystem services that may be utilized, or impacted, therefore it is important to prioritize the most significant ones. This will require that a review of the local context be conducted and that core stakeholder rights holder groups be consulted to determine what the main ecosystem services are. Assessment of the use (e.g. amounts of fish harvested) and impacts on the stock status (provisioning capacity) will be required for each ecosystem service selected. The different cultural groups may also utilize different knowledge systems for evaluating the status of the environment/ecosystem services. As previously outlined, different knowledge systems need to be assessed and ways of combining them determined in a respectful and comprehensive manner. Core Stakeholder / Rightsholder Groups In any given society there will likely exist distinct cultural groups who have differing values, beliefs, and practices, and BC coastal nations are no exception. A core stakeholder or rights holder group must be comprised of a substantial number of individuals who have a significant presence in the coastal zone under study. They may have rights (or limitations on their rights) legislated by the government body that wields power in the area, or hold ancestral rights, as do the Haida First Nation. In the case of First Nations in British Columbia, the distinction of ‘rights holder’ is used as they hold special territorial privilege due to the fact that they have resided on their lands for thousands of years, in the case of the Haida, at least 10,000 years (G. Christie, 2020; Fedje & Mathewes, 2011). Being that they are the original inhabitants of these lands, they hold fundamental ancestral rights, as opposed to other stakeholder groups who have resided on the lands for only one generation or even less. Therefore, this is recognized in their titular description as rights holders. Each stakeholder or rights holder group has commonly shared values and tends to ascribe to the use of a dominant knowledge system for understanding the environment (Cornell et al., 2013; van 133 Kerkhoff & Szlezák, 2016). Both the values and preferred knowledge systems need to be determined and articulated to effectively implement the CZM-CF. Values Community values are fundamental to sustainable development and they greatly influence how coastal zone management regimes are implemented, yet they are often overlooked (Chakraborty et al., 2020; Leal Filho et al., 2022). The CZM-CF clearly identifies the values of core stakeholder and rights holder groups as being a key element in terms of how the community will accept and interact with governance processes and how they will influence economic valuation. Disputes are common when there are significant differences in values amongst community groups and this has been shown on several occasions in Haida Gwaii (and other BC coastal nations) when the government of Canada has permitted/endorsed commercial harvesting of forests, fish, and other natural resources in a manner that the Haida People have viewed as unsustainable and ecologically damaging (Hawkes, 1996; Takeda & Ropke, 2010). In these cases, such as the logging rights that were granted to Rayonier Canada Ltd. for Moresby Island in the 1970’s, the Haida felt the integrity of the environment was at risk whereas the commercial operators (and the government) felt the proposed plans were sustainable and acceptable overall (May, 1990). One of the core issues at play in that situation was the definition of ‘sustainable’ and the perspectives of the different stakeholders and rights holders on old growth forests. The logging company saw old growth forests as high quality products waiting to be harvested, whereas the Haida saw these same forests as part of their cultural history and an integral part of the local ecosystem (South Moresby Resource Planning Team, 1983). How can these values be reconciled? The first step is to identify these different values and then share them amongst core stakeholder and rights holder groups. Sumaila and Teh have used in-person consultative workshops to determine different values First Nations held with respect to fisheries (2021). Similar consultative methods have been used to determine social and economic values for other natural resources and ecosystem services (Arias-Arévalo et al., 2018; Luisetti et al., 2011; Lyver et al., 2017; Ruiz-Frau et 134 al., 2011). It is important to attempt to attempt to capture these values from the community living within the coastal zone because as Kumar and Kumar have shown, the values of ecosystem services are highly multi-dimensional and incorporate relational, identity, and psycho-social aspects in addition to market values (M. Kumar & Kumar, 2008). With the key social values of the environment and ecosystem services established one can go about comparing, or mapping, the values of the different core stakeholder and rights holder groups. A basic way of doing this is to compare values maps and identify where there are similar and contrasting values. Stakeholder analysis is a participatory method of analyzing decision making with respect to natural resources and it is increasingly used to determine whose interests are pertinent to processes of implementing programs or policies (Ahmadi et al., 2019). To assess diverse stakeholder and rights holder perspectives qualitative information can be systematically gathered using semi-structured interviews or focus groups which can then be translated into interest-influence matrices or knowledge maps (Reed et al., 2009; Schmeer, 1999). Economic values are directly influenced by social preference. If an individual perceives that a good or service has utility, they will then ascribe some level of economic value depending on the context, the market, and their preferences. The core values that are determined for the stakeholder and rights holder groups can be used to determine the influence on their economic values. In some cases, they are directly utilized such as with the relative valuation methodology developed by Sumaila and Teh, and in other cases they can provide an indication of what the stated preferences or contingent valuations might be (Andersson, 2007; Arrow et al., 1993; Sumaila, 2022b). Regardless of the economic valuation methodology utilized, knowing the most significant community values related to the environment will help with implementation of the CZM-CF. Knowledge Systems As previously mentioned, it is important to recognize that different stakeholder and rights holder groups may use different knowledge systems to assess the environment in which they live. First Nations groups 135 in particular are known to use IK (Indigenous Knowledge) / TEK (Traditional Ecological Knowledge), learnings passed down from generation to generation, as opposed to science (N. J. Turner et al., 2020). Local ecological knowledge possessed by resource users can also provide valuable insights into the status of the environment (Joa et al., 2018). It is critical, from a co-management standpoint, to ensure that when stakeholders and rights holders have a knowledge system that they feel can legitimately contribute to the overall assessment of ecosystem health, it be recognized and incorporated in to coastal zone management planning (Berkes & Folke, 2002; Olsson et al., 2004). The process of evaluating results from the various knowledge systems utilized was addressed in previous sections, but to reiterate, these respective findings must be internally validated within the stakeholder rights holder group as opposed to taking a ‘cross-knowledge system’ approach to verification/validation (Tengö et al., 2014). A comprehensive review of ecosystem information can provide the data and insights which are essential to decision making and to informing the process of economic valuation of ecosystem services. Economic valuation of ecosystem services and its application in environmental management and business decision making has evolved significantly over the past twenty years with it becoming increasingly accepted as a means of disincentivizing environmental destruction, but there remain challenges with connecting it with timely, credible, and accurate ecosystem data (K. G. Turner et al., 2016). The approach of combining knowledge systems exemplified in the CZM-CF will ideally provide qualitatively and quantitatively derived multi-dimensional data gathered with a frequency that enables ongoing monitoring of the status of selected ecosystem services. The quality of the ecosystem knowledge provided will influence the economic valuation process, but it may also provide a more socio-culturally balanced approach to coastal zone management because LEK and TEK (TEK in particular) encapsulate local social values and observations (Joa et al., 2018; Wenzel, 1999, 2004). The goal will be to have an inclusive and equitable data gathering process which draws on pertinent knowledge systems and provides quality assured, comprehensive, and timely ecosystem data to base management decisions on and to support economic valuation of ecosystem services. 136 Policies & Management Plans / Regulations & Governance The formation of the governing body to enact the CZM-CF may depend on several different factors which are particular to the location it is being applied in. The governance organization may evolve through top-down processes or from bottom-up social pressures. In either case the result will need to be a group of individuals who represent the interests of the local population and will have the responsibility of making decisions about natural resource and economic policies, plans, and regulations. In the case of Haida Gwaii there is the existing example of the Archipelago Management Board of the Gwaii Haanas reserve. In other BC coastal nations, the structure and composition of the governing group implementing the CZM-CF will need to be established before the application of the framework starts. Policies, regulations, management plans, and governance processes are the guiding elements for making the CZM-CF work, so it is especially important to outline how they work in relation to one another. The CZM-CF is a framework or model, and it shows the different elements that need to be considered in a coastal zone management area, but the concrete enforcement and specific guidelines for the management of various natural resources, conservation measures, and socio-economic activities are enshrined in policies and regulations. The following are operational definitions: Policy: A set of general principles about the goals and means of a formal organization (Bunge, 2003) Environmental Management Plan: An organized set of actions that address environmental and socio-economic issues by: (1) identifying goals, (2) establishing whether they can be met, and (3) developing and implementing the means to address what is possible (Barrow, 2006). Environmental Regulation: Organized set of laws, statutes, and guidelines, that minimize, prevent, and punish the consequences of damage to the environment (Theodore & Theodore, 2021). Governance Process: “Structures and processes that are designed to ensure accountability, transparency, responsiveness, rule of law, stability, equity and inclusiveness, empowerment, and broad-based participation” (UNESCO International Bureau of Education, 2015) 137 In the case of the coastal zone management in BC coastal nations there are different policies, management plans, regulations, and even governance processes that need to be considered, some of which are applicable at different scales. One of the challenges that has traditionally faced coastal zone management is the fact that there are several overlapping policies and regulations because different governmental departments tend to be responsible for separate biophysical and socio-economic components in the coastal zone (e.g. forests, fisheries, agriculture, tourism, etc.). To gain an understanding of the impacts of the different policies, plans, regulations, and governance processes and how they may or may not complement / conflict with one and other, they must be examined systematically for each ecosystem service of interest. An example of how various issues of concern can be assessed for each policy, plan, regulation, and governance process that relates to a specific ecosystem service (in this case herring) is shown in Appendix D. The influence of a policy, plan or program on an ecosystem service is how the management tool impacts the ecosystem service. For example, fishing quotas may impact stock levels and reproductive rates. The spatial and temporal extents are important because some management tools are focused on specific areas or short time frames whereas others cover a broader area and longer time frames. Laying out the analysis of management tools per ecosystem service as shown in Appendix D will show how some regulations and management plans may be complementary and work towards the same objective, whereas there may be other instances where a regulation may be in stark contrast to the objectives of a management plan. Also included in the table is an explanation of the data/knowledge used, the process for managing enforcement, and the impacts of enforcement. All these aspects are important to delineate to see where there is overlap or conflict with respect management tools. Systematic analysis of management policies and plans as laid out in Appendix D can help inform the development of harmonized management directives that can also align with economic valuation of ecosystem services. The management policies and plan applied in the coastal zone will have a direct impact on how natural resources will be consumed and therefore on the economy, as shown in the CZM-CF. Regulations, policies, 138 and plans can have a direct influence on provisioning services such as fisheries, forestry, and aquaculture and therefore there must be a clear understanding of these relationships when implementing the framework. In fact it would be ideal if when crafting policies, plans, or regulations, the interactions between the economy and ecosystem services were considered. There are some situations where these dynamics are not intuitively understood such as the potentially negative economic consequences of development proposals like oil and gas ports and pipelines on recreational/aesthetic ecosystem services which form the basis of the ecotourism industry (Cirer-Costa, 2015; McDowell Group, 1990; Nelson et al., 2018). The CZM-CF seeks to make these connections such that the broader ecological and economic impacts of development decisions are understood, and systematic and integrated planning can be done. Dynamic Interaction between Policies & Management Plans / Regulations & Governance and Core Stakeholders / Rightsholders Regulatory frameworks and the populations they are applied to are not static, there is a dynamic between them in which feedback from stakeholder/rightsholder groups can help to inform management tools (policies, plans, regulations, and governance processes). Correspondingly, stakeholder consultation is one of the main elements of environmental impact assessment in Canada (Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, 2021). Fostering socio-ecological resilience through adaptive management is predicated on the fact that the impacts of policies and plans on ecosystem health are continuously monitored and that uncertainty is embraced, with unexpected outcomes (surprises) being considered opportunities for learning (Gladstone-Gallagher et al., 2019; Holling, 1996). Coastal zones are particularly dynamic environments in which communities need to have some degree of agility with respect to how they respond to changes (Armitage et al., 2017; Whitney & Ban, 2019). In Haida Gwaii regulatory processes have evolved in conjunction with social conflicts, through which the Haida Nation have progressively asserted their rights to land and resources, and taken positions enabling shared decision making with the Canadian and British Columbian governments on co-management boards 139 (Takeda & Ropke, 2010). The Gwaii Haanas Agreement’s management structure initially had four board seats with two allocated to Haida representatives and two from the Canadian government, with decisions made by consensus (Government of British Columbia and Council of the Haida Nation, 1993). This represents a significant shift in the distribution of power compared to early stages of colonialization and resource industrialization in which First Nations groups were essentially marginalized. Given this context of shared power and decision making, the dynamic feedback between management, regulatory and governance bodies, and stakeholders and rights holders serves not only the purpose of ensuring regulations are fulfilling their purpose, but it also fosters cohesion amongst the different groups and provides an opportunity for their values to be recognized and knowledge systems to be utilized. A similar model of shared power is recommended for CZM-CF implementation in other BC coastal nations. Adaptive Management & Governance The concept of adaptive governance emerged out of the study of how to manage uncertainty and complexity in socio-ecological systems (Dietz et al., 2003; Folke et al., 2005). Coastal zone environments are wrought with uncertainty due to the many social, ecological, and economic forces that intersect and the macro-environmental impacts, such as climate change, that are present today (Dolan & Walker, 2006; Lane et al., 2015; Sano et al., 2015). Top down, command and control management regimes tend not to have the agility and flexibility required to address these dynamic situations, which are driven by ecological and socio-economic complexity (Cumming et al., 2006; O. R. Young, 2002). Coastal zone management issues tend to be highly dependent on the local biophysical, economic, and socio-cultural context and top down management regimes characteristically are not well suited to address these situations (Lemos & Agrawal, 2006). In contrast, bottom up approaches are driven from the perspective of local populations and capture community nuances and details and therefore more accurately reflect the ‘on the ground’ reality (Brosius et al., 2005). The problem is that it can be challenging coordinating and aligning several small scale, bottom up management regimes across complex landscapes (Cosens & Stow, 2014; G. R. Marshall, 2008). What is needed in the coastal zone is a management regime that can sufficiently cover landscape/marine-scape 140 scale issues in a flexible, agile, and dynamic way to address the multi-scale trajectory from the local to global scales as well as the unexpected feedbacks between social, ecological, and economic systems. The combination of adaptive management and adaptive governance may be able to meet this need. Adaptive management and governance are similar but distinct and you cannot have one without the other, but they must be contextually defined to have them co-implemented. Adaptive management has grown out of study of social and ecological systems starting in the 1970’s to the point at which it is a commonly accepted, if not mandatory, part of natural resource management and environmental assessment doctrine today (Dovers, 2009; Pahl-Wostl, 2009). Despite its popularity, there remains confusion about its specific definition with various scholars and practitioners using their own interpretation, thus limiting its propagation as a generally understood concept, and resulting in competing conceptual frameworks (Plummer et al., 2012; Scarlett, 2013). Holling’s work in defining ecological resilience (1973) and then processes for managing for resilience through adaptive management (1978) was the starting point for a working definition (Holling, 1973, 1978). He defined it as a: “process of adaptive environmental management and policy design, which integrates environmental with economic and social understanding at the very beginning of the design process, in a sequence of steps during the design phase and after implementation.” (Holling, 1978). With the evolution of its application, diverse interpretations have emerged, largely based on two perspectives, that of active and passive adaptive management, both of which address uncertainty in different ways. Active adaptive management involves collaboration between planners, policy-makers, and scientists to construct environmental management plans that include experiments which involve hypothesis testing, replication and control, and modelling (Holling, 1978; Walters & Holling, 1990). Passive adaptive management involves less prescribed experiments (some even refer to it as non-experimental) and is based on observations of trial and error (Lee, 1999). Both methods have merit and there is room to find a common 141 ground between them, particularly when a more collaborative management approach is suggested, as is the case with the CZM-CF, however, one issue that needs clarification is how uncertainty is understood and dealt with. Uncertainty can be broken into three categories: imperfect knowledge, incomplete knowledge, and unpredictability (Brugnach et al., 2011; Pahl-Wostl, 2007; Walker et al., 2003). Imperfect knowledge can be improved through research; incomplete knowledge can be addressed through bringing multiple different perspectives together through participation of stakeholders rights holders; and unpredictability is comprised of the ‘unknown unknowns’ and inherent variability of complex systems and can only be reacted to and not reduced (Berkes, 2007; Brugnach et al., 2008; Olsson et al., 2004). In the coastal zone of BC coastal nations, the biophysical context presents inherent complexity due to the various interacting environmental systems, therefore there must be some degree of acceptance of uncertainty. On the other hand, there isn’t necessarily a vacuum of understanding when it comes to the management of natural resources due to the knowledge gained by governing bodies, and especially in Haida Gwaii where the Haida people have accumulated tremendous indigenous knowledge over thousands of years (Fedje & Mathewes, 2011). Therefore, a hybrid approach to adaptive management is recommended in which planned management actions can be implemented as experiments (active) and historical records and observations from the current context can be assessed (passive) while recognizing that surprizes may occur and resilience must be fostered (embracing uncertainty). This approach follows a definition proposed by Berkes which takes a more pluralistic approach and recognizes that different kinds of knowledge can be used - “science and traditional knowledge” (Berkes, 2007; Berkes et al., 2007). The following is a working definition of adaptive management provided by Hasselman, which aligns closely with the objectives of the CZM-CF: “... a systematic process for improving policy and its implementation. It seeks to address at least one type of uncertainty with varying emphasis on experimentation to discover new knowledge; participatory process 142 to engage multiple perspectives in decision making; and monitoring of outcomes and changes with responsive adjustment” (Hasselman, 2017) In their explanation of adaptive governance, Folke et al cite that the application of adaptive management is mainly focused on ecosystem outcomes whereas adaptive governance is the social contexts enabling active management of the resilience of socio-ecological systems (Folke et al., 2005). Adaptive management (and adaptive co-management) are scaled resource management processes that occur as a result of, and coordinated within, a collaborative learning environment fostered by adaptive governance (Olsson et al., 2006). Therefore there is a mutual dependence between the two, with adaptive management producing the ecological information required by adaptive governance and adaptive governance creating the social context, including functioning social networks and a learning-centric culture, in which adaptive management can occur (Folke et al., 2005). Folke et al also identify criteria for governance transformation to adaptive governance: - Knowledge generation and learning - Organizational learning - Collaboration, devolution of management rights or power sharing, participation, organization flexibility - Trust - Leadership - Social memory - Formation of actor groups or teams (Folke et al., 2005) Based on a review of the literature, the most appropriate working definition of adaptive governance for the CZM-CF is: “... a range of interactions between actors, networks, organizations, and institutions emerging in pursuit of a desired state for social-ecological systems” (Chaffin et al., 2014). 143 Adaptive governance is particularly relevant in Haida Gwaii because of its collaborative and flexible character which aligns very much with the current desire to see co-management and collaboration between the governments of Canada and British Columbia and the Haida Nation (Council of the Haida Nation and the Government of Canada, 2018; Thomlinson & Crouch, 2012). The coastal zone of Haida Gwaii and other BC coastal nations are extremely biophysically and socio-economically dynamic and the resilience of ecosystems, social systems, and institutional systems must be considered and adaptive governance’s ‘poly-resilience’ orientation and iterative nature make it highly appropriate (Arnold et al., 2017). General Environment-Society Impacts. General environment-society impacts as depicted in the CZM-CF represents the interactions between the environment and society that are not specific to ecosystem service use and impacts in the area under study. For example, sea surface temperature change, sea level rise, cumulative effects of pollutants such as persistent organic pollutants (POPs), or the presence of microplastics in water are all environmental impacts that, although they result from human consumption of materials derived from nature (i.e. ecosystem services), are not directly connected to consumption patterns in that area, rather they are more general in nature (Avellan et al., 2022; Griggs & Reguero, 2021; Li et al., 2022) . As an example, recent studies have shown that extremes in high marine temperature amplify the effects of climate change on fisheries through the reduction of biomass, which results in reduced economic output of fisheries (Cheung et al., 2021). Broader scale phenomenon such as these are important to consider, as are the local/regional contributions to them (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions), but they are represented in the CZM-CF as ‘general environment-society impacts’. 144 4.4 Implementation of Coastal Zone Management Framework The approach for implementation The implementation of the framework must be stakeholder and rights holder centred, particularly with First Nations groups. The CZM-CF presents a suggested conceptual organization, but this is not to say it cannot be modified. In fact, a ‘co-development’ and ‘co-implementation’ approach is recommended with the main impacted groups contributing to the implementation process cooperatively. Co-development is defined by the Canadian government as: “a collaborative approach that acknowledges the distinct nature and lived experience of First Nations, Inuit, and Metis” and it is guided by: o the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action o the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples o the Calls for Justice in the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls o the Principles respecting the Government of Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples (Indigenous Services Canada, 2023) The last annual report on the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (from the legislative period from June 2021 to March 2022) emphasized the role of co-development in the implementation of the Act and defined it as “a joint, consensus-based process premised on a solemn and equal partnership, and a commitment to engage in meaningful collaboration towards a shared objective”. This objective is to embody nation-to-nation relationships and recognize Canada’s constitutional system of responsible government whilst respecting and supporting the rights to self-determination held by indigenous peoples in Canada (Department of Justice, 2022). Transdisciplinary approaches in environmental management connect disciplines through interdisciplinary thinking to address problems across spatial, temporal, and organizational scales and help to bridge world views to address natural resource management challenges (Virapongse et al., 2016). Transdisciplinary methods also emphasize knowledge co-creation and the ‘democratization’ of the scientific process and represent 145 “knowledge co-production which transcends disciplinary, academic, and epistemic boundaries” (Thompson et al., 2017). The implementation of the CZM-CF should follow an inclusive and respectful approach utilizing transdisciplinary methods with special emphasis on recognizing the unique rights of First Nations peoples, in this case the Haida. Key stakeholders and rights holders and their role in implementation First Nations and representatives from the British Columbian and Canadian governments are expected to be the main stakeholders and rights holders (the First Nations) with respect to governance, but there will likely be other impacted groups, such as local resource users, that will need to be consulted. The governance approach used with the Archipelago Management Board of the Gwaii Haanas Reserve in Haida Gwaii could serve as a good model in which there is equal representation between Haida and the government in decision making. Power imbalances have historically marginalized indigenous peoples in Canada and to foster equitable and respectful nation-to-nation relationships, decision making power must be shared. A cooperative and collaborative implementation process is suggested with the rights and beliefs of First Nations being prioritized. The coastal zones of BC coastal nations, and coastal zones in general, are not static, they are in a constant state of flux, both with respect to the biophysical dynamics of the Earth System and the continuously changing socio-economic context. Given such dynamics the implementation of the CZM-CF should not be static or rigid, rather, it should follow an iterative and dynamic approach in keeping with adaptive governance and adaptive management. The framework should be periodically reviewed to ensure that it is meeting the objectives of the local community and that it is producing the development outcomes desired by key rights holders and stakeholders. This will require that there be some sort of iterative review process in which the performance of the framework is periodically assessed. 146 4.5 Conclusion Key Points The CZM-CF is intended to be a starting point for collaborative efforts towards sustainable and equitable environmental management policy and is not to be rigidly applied in a top-down manner, rather quite the opposite. It seeks to address the following pressing issues: o Re-orientation of economic activity bounded within the environment and ecological systems o Recognize and respect value systems of different impacted rights holders and stakeholders o Recognize and respect knowledge systems used by different rights holders and stakeholders and facilitate their use in decision making o Provide a process for addressing social, economic, and environmental pressures that occur in the coastal zone in an integrated and systematic manner o Identify and place economic value on environmental externalities that were previously unaccounted for o Enable adaptive governance across spatial and temporal scales, recognizing that global and regional environmental changes can impact local coastal zones and vice versa o Facilitate processes of reconciliation between First Nations and the Government of Canada as well as other colonized or marginalized groups with those that had oppressed them Potential application in other jurisdictions The focus of this work has been on the coastal zones of BC coastal nations, but the framework is intended to be applicable to coastal zones in general. All coastal zones rest at the intersection of different environmental spheres (terrestrial, hydrological, atmospheric) and socio-economic and political structures (policies, regulations, plans). The decision to take a systems approach to the design of the framework speaks to the nature of general systems theory which seeks to find operational patterns and articulate them in universally applied structures. The resulting coastal zone management framework can be applied to other areas than BC coastal nations however in all cases, the biophysical, social, economic, and cultural context must be understood and factored into its implementation. The key ecosystem services, stakeholder and rights holder groups, regulatory and policy frameworks, and historical developments must be 147 researched and integrated throughout the implementation process. This is a generalized framework but understanding context is critical. As an example one can consider the potential application of the CZM-CM in another environment such as the Caribbean. Small Island Developing States (SIDS) in the Caribbean region are faced with tremendous challenges in coastal zone management due to unprecedented environmental changes such as sea level rise, coastal inundations, ocean acidification, and increased frequency of high energy storms are causing havoc on coastal communities (Griggs & Reguero, 2021; Pathak et al., 2021). The economies of these countries are heavily dependent on tourism and natural resources connected to the coastal zone therefore the ecosystem service-focused CZM-CM would help target specific high priority provisioning and recreational ecosystem services for the analysis (Spencer, 2019). Conflicts have recently arisen between stakeholders in the coastal zone of Jamaica where bauxite producers seeking to operate in St. Ann’s Cockpit Country have come head to head with local populations who seek a more conservation-focused approach to development in the coastal zone rather than an extractive model (Staff, 2023). The differential values held by these two stakeholder groups illustrates the need for a model that can squarely address the fact that groups may have divergent values/world views and even different ways of knowing when assessing the environment. The CZM-CM could be applied in this case to help frame the problem in a more systematic and balanced manner, providing a space for local populations, who often feel disenfranchised by larger industrial interests, to have a say in development decisions. Detailed analysis of the policies, regulations, and planning processes that impact this region, determination of key ecosystem services, and identification of, and consultation with, the core stakeholder groups would be the first steps in applying the CZM-CM. It would also be helpful to conduct a review of the history of the region because as shown with Haida Gwaii, there can be patterns of prevalent inequity between social groups historically that manifest in deep resentment and distrust in the present day. If such issues exist, they should be unearthed at the outset of the assessment. 148 Areas for further research A thorough attempt has been made to explain the coastal zone management framework presented in this thesis, but there remain further aspects to be researched and tested with its application. The context of BC coastal nations has proven to be a challenging and interesting area to assess with unique characteristics in terms of governance and resource rights. A beneficial next step would be to take a closer look at the economic valuation of ecosystem services and rather than use illustrative examples, collaborate closely with local rights holders and stakeholders to get more precise numbers, and further test the valuation methodologies, particularly the relative valuation approach. Additional ecosystem services could also be included such as recreational services (ecotourism) and supporting services (biodiversity). Incorporating multiple different knowledge systems into one environmental management framework is difficult and although there has been significant progress made in both the research literature and in practical applications, there is much more work to be done in this area. Detailed assessment of the status of different ecosystem components and ecosystem services in the coastal zone using various lenses (indigenous knowledge, science, and local knowledge) can help determine appropriate policies, plans, and procedures. This could also be conducted in various cultural contexts to evaluate how the implementation of the framework would differ. Lastly, the process of implementing an adaptive governance approach which integrates regulatory frameworks, policies, and plans which operate at potentially different scales, and apply to social, environmental, and economic systems is incredibly complex. A detailed study that examines specifically the governance aspects of the implementation of this coastal zone management framework would help to better understand how the regulations and policies intersect and where there are conflicts and synergies. 149 Over the course of this study issues such as climate change adaptation, addressing the degradation of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and charting a path of reconciliation with First Nations in Canada have grown even more critical. Hopefully this research, and subsequent steps forward with its development, can help to address these important issues and contribute to a more equitable, sustainable, and healthier world. 150 Chapter 5: Conclusion 5.1 Overview The initial purpose of this study was to address long-standing issues in coastal zone management related to silo-like approaches that were used to address environmental and socio-economic issues and the lack of integration of regulatory/policy frameworks and disciplinary knowledge. Another key challenge identified was that policy and development decisions do not factor in the whole cost of environmental impacts because there lacks a flexible and context-adaptable approach for economic valuation of ecosystem services in coastal zones. While seeking to address these problems in BC coastal nations an array of other critical issues in coastal zone management emerged, such as the need to recognize historical inequities between First Nations and Canada, to bridge various knowledge systems and ways of knowing, and to recognize and align different values systems held by rights holder and stakeholder groups. These issues were revealed through deep analysis of the problem, and as the complexity of the situation became clearer it was apparent that a coherent and systematic coastal zone management framework needed to be created. The first step, however, was to critically assess the discipline of coastal zone management. Coastal zone management has been practiced for thousands of years but as populations have grown, societies and economies have become more complex and pressures on the environment have increased warranting more integrated, comprehensive, and inclusive approaches. It has been difficult for the discipline to advance and incorporate emergent changes and this is most evident in the current era, referred to as the “Anthropocene”, in which the most significant influence on Earth System function is human activity (Lewis & Maslin, 2015). Climate change and other cross-scale impacts have forced humanity to redefine how it looks at local to global environmental phenomena, and even the definition of ‘coastal zone’ needed close examination. The review of the literature concluded that the standard method of looking at the different components of the coastal zone in isolation needed to be transformed to a multidisciplinary, systems-oriented approach in which the interactions between social, political, cultural, ecological, and 151 economic factors are considered (Birch & Reyes, 2018; Brambati, 2004). The problem with this transformation is that in many cases the thinking that goes into coastal zone management is ‘hard coded’ into legislation and policies, making it very difficult to change. BC coastal nations are no exception. With that said, the natural resource policy landscape in British Columbia is rapidly evolving with greater emphasis being placed on integrated approaches including the adoption of ecosystem-based management, as demonstrated with the implementation of the Marine Plan Partnership in the northwest coastal region (Diggon et al., 2022). The Gwaii Haanas Gina Wadluxan Kilgulhga Land-Sea-People Management Plan, developed by the Haida Nation and the Government of Canada, also demonstrates a more holistic and integrated approach to coastal zone management. (Council of the Haida Nation and the Government of Canada, 2018). However, as an initial policy framework, it identified critical components that require further consideration, integration, and historical contextualization. The holistic nature of this plan reflects a less reductionist approach to environmental management which tends to be taken by indigenous peoples. However, to bridge knowledge systems, values, and management approaches amongst the different groups involved, there needs to be a collectively accepted schematic framework which outlines these key components and how they connect. Advancement of coastal zone management towards a more systematic approach is particularly important when attempting to connect economic valuation to key ecosystem services in the coastal zone and to address the problem of environmental impacts that are economically unaccounted for. Linking economic valuation to aspects of the environment is difficult in several ways: ethically, conceptually, and technically; but it is important to consider because policy decisions that impact the coastal zone environment are often driven by a narrow economic rationale which does not factor in broader social and ecological impacts and historical background. By bringing economic visibility to impacts on ecosystems, more balanced and sustainable decisions can be made. Some of the stakeholders and rights holders involved in a coastal zone management process may have values that do not align with ‘putting a 152 price on nature’. This is the case with the Haida as noted by their response to the research proposal that was submitted for review in which they stated “our Haida laws and ways are the driving model of multiple management plans co-developed by our own people and shouldn’t be adapted to fit into an economic management model” (Haida Nation, personal communication, 2021). However, as demonstrated by the initial pilot of the “relative economic valuation” methodology with First Nations Fisheries Council participants, giving economic visibility to the indigenous cultural value of natural resources such as fish can be extremely useful and powerful (Sumaila & Teh, 2021). The research literature identified that there are specific challenges with non-market valuation of indigenous peoples’ values and that in order to proceed the following must be clearly delineated: (a) clear purpose for valuation; (b) indigenous knowledge must inform the valuation process; (c) recipients of benefits are transparently communicated; (d) ethical frameworks that recognize indigenous rights and inclusion in research and knowledge sharing processes are used; (e) values used are congruent with rights holders and stakeholders involved; (f) expected outcomes and changes are communicated; and (g) limitations are addressed (Manero et al., 2022). In the case of this study, the COVID pandemic hindered closer collaboration with the Haida and other First Nations groups and the proposed framework should be considered a starting point for co-development of localized coastal zone management frameworks with indigenous peoples in situations where they are impacted. A range of methods for assessing the economic value of ecosystem services were explained and two were chosen as illustrative examples, however it should be recognized that there are a wide variety of approaches that can be taken for this aspect of the CZM-CF implementation. Different types of contingent valuation are commonly applied in economic valuation of the environment, but they tend to require a significant amount of data gathered either through surveys or analysis of proxy data sets (R. T. Carson, 2011). For the initial testing of the CZM-CF the two ecosystem services chosen to demonstrate economic valuation were climate regulation and the herring fishery. The economic valuation methodologies for each of them were 153 chosen based on how appropriate they are for the context in Haida Gwaii and BC coastal nations more broadly. The social cost of carbon was selected for climate regulation because it is one of the most widely used values in governmental policy and reflects the socio-economic reality of climate change rather than the somewhat socially disconnected transactional market values of carbon (Ricke et al., 2018). The ‘relative valuation’ method was chosen for the herring fishery based on its efficacy in capturing potentially diverging stakeholder and rights holder perspectives and values through using focus groups (Sumaila, 2022b). This is particularly important in BC coastal nations because historically, First Nations values have not been recognized in natural resource policy development. Early tests of the relative valuation methodology were positively received by First Nations participants and its application to BC coastal nations could be a good next step to assess how well it can incorporate indigenous values into economic valuation. The illustration of these two methods provides examples of the practical application of the CZM-CF but only a relatively small portion of impacted ecosystem services are included. To see more comprehensive benefits of the framework, a greater number of ecosystem services should be selected for economic valuation. This would provide a better perspective on how the different components of the CZM-CF work together. The CZM-CF is the product of a critical examination of the academic and grey literature in the domain of coastal zone management and adaptive management/governance, review of the history of natural resource management in BC coastal nations (particularly Haida Gwaii), and analysis of the intersection of ecosystem-based management and environmental economics. What was lacking in the literature was a systematic approach to coastal zone management that incorporated differential values, knowledge systems, environment-economy interactions and dependencies, and governance processes. The framework that has been proposed in this thesis recognizes the fact that impacted stakeholder and rights holder groups may have considerably different value systems. Differences in values between the First Nations and governments of British Columbia and Canada have been a common feature in natural resource conflicts that have occurred historically in coastal British Columbia. Clearly establishing the values of each group and how they may (or may not) align is critical to fostering equitable decision making. In addition, 154 assessing the status of ecosystems in the coastal zone is greatly influenced by the knowledge systems that are used by each group. Science has traditionally been the dominant ‘way of knowing’ in natural resource decision making in Canada, but local knowledge held by longstanding members of the community and indigenous knowledge which has been passed down through multiple generations can provide a more contextually rich and comprehensive perspective of the environment. The proposed CZM-CF allows for multiple different knowledge systems to be used together, giving equal weight to their application, and respecting the value they bring. One of the key features of the proposed framework is the relationship between the environment and the economy and the role of economic valuation of ecosystem services in mediating how they interact. The economy is firmly positioned within the environment in the proposed framework, with the intention of reinforcing the fact that all socio-economic activities are dependent on ecosystem services. There has traditionally been a disconnect between the environment and the economy with the negative environmental impacts of economic activity often being disregarded and these costs unaccounted for. By placing economic activity within the environment the notion that society is operating within an Earth System that has boundaries for its life support systems and a limited carrying capacity is reinforced. It also shows that all economic transactions impact the environment in some way. The CZM-CF allows for multiple ecosystems services to be addressed and is therefore scalable as needed. Different economic valuation methodologies can be used for the chosen ecosystem services, providing flexibility in its application and opportunities for local stakeholders and rights holders to have input on the analytical methods. Governance and management of coastal zone resources has generally defaulted to a ‘silo’ approach that is statically applied with little recognition of the connections between different policies and legislation and the dynamic nature of socio-ecological systems. This coastal zone management framework attempts to allow for systematic analysis of the different policies and legislation that impact natural resources in the coastal zone at different spatial scales and levels of governance. It also seeks to recognize the fact that 155 coastal socio-ecological systems do not remain in a steady state and are in a perpetual state of change. This is particularly important with the growing impacts of climate change and the non-linear and cascading effects that it brings (IPCC, 2022). Coastal zone management and governance processes need to be responsive to these changes and therefore the principles of adaptive management and governance are represented in the coastal zone management framework. This is visually represented in the framework by feedback between the core stakeholder / rights holder groups and policies, management plans, regulations, and governance, as well as the dynamic interactions between society and the environment. The CZM-CF presented in this thesis is a first step at addressing some of the long-standing problems in coastal zone management, environmental economics, and values alignment amongst different social groups. The BC coast provides an important context for this framework due to its dynamic coastal zones and the historical relationship between the First Nations and the governments of British Columbia and Canada. The framework also captures the fundamentally important point that socio-economic activity is ultimately reliant on ecosystem services and occurs within the environment rather than being removed from it. The rationale for the decisions leading to the design of the framework have been expressed in this thesis, but there remain issues related to local consultation and input and ‘testing’ the framework with data from the field. These issues are linked to challenges faced throughout the project. 5.2 Challenges Faced, Areas of Uncertainty, and Acknowledgement of Shortcomings This project was challenging on many fronts – conceptually, logistically, and even emotionally, however for every setback that was presented an alternate approach was taken to advance the research. The two biggest issues faced were the lack of connection with local stakeholders and First Nations rights holders and the corresponding dearth of local data. The COVID-19 pandemic started in March of 2020, at the time in the project when field data acquisition was being planned. Haida Gwaii ended up being closed off to 156 visitors for the better part of the following two years, making it impossible to visit the site to gather data and conduct interviews. As previously noted, when the research proposal for the project was sent to the Council of the Haida Nation for review, they responded by indicating that their natural resource management processes were guided by Haida Laws and customs and are not linked with economic planning and they were therefore not interested in engaging with the research. This was obviously disappointing but upon further reflection it became clear why they may be hesitant to endorse a project whose philosophical basis appeared to be in contrary to their core values (at least at first review). The Haida have been subjected to natural resource policies and practices from colonial settlers since the time of first contact with the result being that economically driven practices have been prioritized over Haida values. This has begun to change since the designation of the Gwaii Haanas area as a Haida Heritage Site in 1985 and the subsequent signing of the Gwaii Haanas agreement in 1993, and as the Haida have continuously asserted their rights through developing their own land and marine use plans (Council of the Haida Nation and the Government of Canada, 2018). Although progress has been made with respect to the advancement of the Haida’s control over the natural resources in their territory, there is still much more work to be done and it is understandable that the Haida would be hesitant to dive into this project given its economic focus and the history of resource exploitation in this region. With that said, there were extremely positive responses from the First Nations representatives who participated with the First Nations Fisheries Council in the trial process of ‘relative economic valuation’ methodology when it was shown how their cultural values of fish were given more weight in economic terms than the market value of fish (Sumaila & Teh, 2021). If given the opportunity to participate in a similar workshop, other coastal First Nations, including the Haida, may very well have the same reaction. 157 The COVID-19 restrictions also made it impossible to connect with other local non-Haida resource users. It would have been beneficial to get their perspectives on coastal zone management and economic valuation of specific ecosystem services. The incapability to go to the site and connect with local rights holders and stakeholders also limited the amount of primary data that could be gathered. When the COVID-19 access restrictions were announced it was decided that a systematic analysis of the literature was going to be performed and the data would be derived from the review of grey and academic literature. This allowed for a conceptual assessment of the various aspects of coastal zone management issues but obviously did not allow for direct consultation with locals. This project is in some ways conceptual in the sense that the goal is to develop a systematic framework for coastal zone management that incorporates economic valuation of ecosystem services, but it is also clear that the process of developing the framework should be grounded in the local context. Therefore, in an ideal world the development of the framework would utilize primary data, but in this situation, it was not feasible. To address this shortcoming, the recommended next step for development of the framework is to work directly with local rights holders and stakeholders to do a ‘pilot’ review and test it on a specific set of ecosystem services in the coastal zone. The utilization of primary data with the economic valuation methods will be necessary to assess how well they work. It is also critical that consultation with local rights holder and stakeholders be conducted to determine the cores values of each group. Gathering quantitative and qualitative data such as this will assist with addressing uncertainty with the broader application of the framework. The high degree of focus on Haida Gwaii throughout the development of the coastal zone management framework helped create understanding of the specificities of how it should be applied, but by focusing on just one site, the capability to generally apply it elsewhere may be limited. The objective of the study was to propose a framework for BC coastal nations in general, therefore focus on one area is a limitation. It would have been ideal to choose at least one other site to apply the coastal zone management framework 158 to. In this way, the local differences could be observed, and context-specific factors better understood. There will inevitably be some uncertainty with how effective the framework will be as a general model since it has only been developed with one site in mind. The logical next step to address this issue would be to pilot the framework in other communities that are facing similar coastal zone management problems. In doing so, the general model could be refined, and local applications could be documented, both of which will improve the framework itself. The greatest limitation of the study is the fact that there was very little primary research and data gathering directly from the site. Developing a pilot project where stakeholders can be engaged with a specific focus on one or two ecosystem services would be a reasonable next step. There are several future research possibilities with the CZM-CF as the basis for further inquiry. It would be beneficial to apply the framework in different geographic and cultural contexts to assess what provisions need to be made when working with different stakeholder and rights holder groups in diverse regions. Historical issues will likely have significant influence as will socio-economic and cultural characteristics of the region. Therefore, an interdisciplinary research approach, such as used in this project, will be recommended. The impacts of climate change on coastal zones are growing as are development pressures, so research focused specifically on coastal resilience to climate change using the CZM-CF could also be an interesting future project. 5.3 Value of Coastal Zone Management Framework, Applicability, and Policy Implications The purpose of embarking on this study was to address critical issues in coastal zone management and environmental economics in general and to do so by focusing the analysis on BC coastal nations. The systematic framework for coastal zone management that was designed (CZM-CF) can provide value to decision makers and researchers in different ways such as: enhancing policy development and decision making in coastal zone management, improving community engagement with coastal zone management; fostering empowerment of First Nations rights holders and supporting processes of reconciliation; bringing 159 new perspectives to economic valuation of ecosystems and the environment; and providing insights for environmental management and sustainable development as a whole. One of the main ways this new framework can be helpful is by providing decision makers with an integrated model/schematic that they can use to link divergent values and knowledge systems to decision making processes. In many cases local values are not even considered in natural resource policy and development decisions. By explicitly outlining their importance as shown in the coastal zone management framework, greater weight can be given to them. There is a growing understanding that different knowledge systems such as science, indigenous knowledge, and local ecological knowledge have their own unique strengths and weaknesses and can be used together to report on progress on environmental policies (King, 2004; Tengö et al., 2017). The proposed framework accommodates different ways of knowing that are relevant for coastal zone management. One critically important feature of the framework is the fact that it explicitly frames the economy as functioning within the environment, not disconnected or removed from it. This may seem like a simple point, but it is symbolic of a fundamentally different way of viewing impacts of development decisions on the environment. The “silo approach” of coastal zone management has led to disconnects and misalignments in legislation and policy with the result being decisions that adhere to one set of governmental directives but work in opposition to others. The proposed framework takes a systematic approach which allows for policy alignment across different scales – local, provincial, federal, and international. One of the driving motivations in the development of this coastal zone management framework was to have local stakeholder and rights holder groups engaged with decision making processes that impact their local environment. By explicitly outlining in the framework the importance of the values of each group impacted, as well as the knowledge system they identify with, the emphasis is shifted to the local groups, encouraging more of a bottom-up governance process than a top down one. Identifying core stakeholder and rights holder groups in the framework also brings importance to cross cultural communication amongst different 160 impacted groups and the need to bring voice to those that previously may not have been heard. The framework can map out these relationships, but it is the implementation process that is critical in ensuring that the principles of inclusion and equal representation are actualized, particularly for First Nations rights holders. As outlined in this dissertation, the history of relations between First Nations and the governments of British Columbia and Canada has often been contentious, with many of the problems connected to natural resource rights and management. The intent of this project from the outset was to examine the many factors that have impacted coastal zone management in BC coastal nations and one of the most imperative issues that emerged was that First Nations values and knowledge be included in decision making and that decision making power was shared. This approach has been reflected in the management and governance processes established with the Archipelago Management Board of the Gwaii Haanas Reserve, and a similar approach can be used for coastal zone management in other BC coastal nations. Canada is at a pivotal point in the history of relations with First Nations and the stated desire for nation-to-nation interactions on the part of the current federal government can be realized through a framework such as the one presented in this dissertation. The path of reconciliation will likely be a long one, but it requires clear governance processes to enable the changes that are required. Through emphasizing the importance of First Nations rights holders and their values and knowledge systems in the CZM-CF, steps forward can be taken towards reconciliation through implementation of the framework. There are several policy implications for contributions of this research ranging from new ways to engage with indigenous peoples in natural resource management through to broader perspectives on economic valuation of the environment in natural resource policy development. At the international level there is a growing desire for identifying synergies between policy directives for different environmental issues such as climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity conservation, combatting land degradation, and the achievement of the SDGs (Baldwin-Cantello et al., 2023). The CZM-CF can serve as a model for 161 connecting these issues through an ecosystem service-centred approach. The desire to promote more inclusive and equitable development policies with consideration of the rights of indigenous peoples, as reflected in UNDRIP, can also be realized with the CZM-CF Research and development in environmental economics and environmental management is in a period of rapid evolution driven by the enactment of new environmental policies such as carbon taxation, and by demands of the private sector for greener production. The long-standing issue of factoring negative environmental externalities into the cost of production is now becoming a priority as reflected by the growing use of frameworks such as TEEB by businesses and governments (Hedden-Dunkhorst et al., 2015). As a result there is a substantial amount of work going into developing new and improved methods for economic valuation of ecosystem services and how to incorporate this information into environmental management processes and systems. The proposed coastal zone management framework in this thesis can contribute to this body of work and demonstrate novel approaches such as the ‘relative economic valuation’ method developed by Sumaila (Sumaila, 2022b). The flexibility of using different economic valuation methods for each ecosystem service to calculate the total economic value of the environment is also a fresh approach in coastal zone management that can hopefully stimulate further dialog and research. One of the most significant obstacles in sustainable development today is understanding how to decouple economic activity from environmental degradation and to apply it in practical frameworks. The proposed coastal zone management framework attempts to systematically link ecosystem services and their economic value to decision making. It also shows that socio-economic activity occurs within the environment and is not an adjunct to it. By bringing together stakeholder values, knowledge systems and economic value of impacts on ecosystem services, it is hoped that a broader perspective can be taken by decision makers and some of the previously unaccounted for externalities be internalized in decision making processes. The emphasis on dynamic interactions amongst system components, including large scale environmental change, encourages less static and more adaptive forms of management and governance. These different 162 elements of the framework will hopefully stimulate more discussion about environmental assessment and how First Nations rights and perspectives can better be addressed in Canada. 5.4 Next steps and Additional Research Required Although a substantial amount of effort has gone into the research and development leading to this coastal zone management framework, there is still much to do in terms of assessing its implementation. The recommended next step is to conduct a pilot study with representatives from the key rights holder and stakeholder groups in one or more BC coastal nations. The general systematic nature of the framework will allow it to be tested in any coastal zone situation. It is important to delve deeper into each one of the framework components to determine how it can be applied. For example, how best to determine the values of the different stakeholder and rights holder groups. In the study conducted by Sumaila and Teh, they used a focus group format in which the local representatives collectively agreed upon their core values (Sumaila & Teh, 2021). A similar approach could be applied with this framework. Determination of the knowledge system of each group and how it would be used in the assessment of ecosystem services would follow a similar approach. Further research will be required to determine how best to use different knowledge systems together. The MEB (Multiple Evidence Base) is one approach that has shown merit in connecting diverse knowledge systems for ecosystem governance and it could be applied through the pilot study (Tengö et al., 2014). The economic valuation methods for selected ecosystems services should also be tested in a pilot study. Two illustrative examples were chosen for this project but at least an additional two would be ideal to examine the data required, appropriate valuation methodologies, and approach for calculating total economic value of the selected ecosystem services. Communication and perception of environmental systems and their components was initially included as an aspect of this study, drawing on the theoretical and applied work in semiotics and ecosemiotics. Unfortunately due to the large scope of project and limited time, this part of the study had to be removed. 163 However it is nonetheless an important aspect to consider because the perception of the environment will greatly influence the values and ways of knowing that each rights holder and stakeholder group subscribes to. Further study of the theoretical basis of ecosemiotics and methods for practically assessing the ways different cultural groups find meaning and ‘signs’ from ecosystems would be a worthy and fascinating extension of this research. 164 Bibliography Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913200701540465 Agardy, T., Alder, J., Dayton, P., Curran, S., Kitchingman, A., Wilson, M., Catenazzi, A., Restrepo, J., Birkeland, C., Blaber, S. J. M., Saifullah, S., Branch, G. M., Boersma, D., Nixon, S., Dugan, P., Davidson, N., & Vorosmarty, C. (2005). Coastal systems. Washington, DC, Island Press. https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/pub?list=BRO&pid=procite:ba0a0e61-f45d-4417-8ed9-ff6bf0824962 Ahmadi, A., Kerachian, R., Rahimi, R., & Emami Skardi, M. J. (2019). Comparing and combining Social Network Analysis and Stakeholder Analysis for natural resource governance. Environmental Development, 32, 100451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2019.07.001 Aidt, M. (2022, October 26). Climate emergency declarations in 2,291 jurisdictions and local governments cover 1 billion citizens. Climate Emergency Declaration. https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/climate-emergency-declarations-cover-15-million-citizens/ Ainsworth, D., Collins, T., & d’Amico, F. (2022). Nations adopt four goals, 23 targets for 2030 in Landmark UN Biodiversity Agreement. www.infra.cbd.int/sites/default/files/2022-12/221219-CBD-PressRelease-COP15-Final_0.pdf Alexander, S. M., Provencher, J. F., Henri, D. A., Taylor, J. J., Lloren, J. I., Nanayakkara, L., Johnson, J. T., & Cooke, S. J. (2019). Bridging Indigenous and science-based knowledge in coastal and marine research, monitoring, and management in Canada. Environmental Evidence, 8(1), 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0181-3 Alexandrakis, G., Manasakis, C., & Kampanis, N. A. (2015). Valuating the effects of beach erosion to tourism revenue. A management perspective. Ocean & Coastal Management, 111, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.04.001 Alford, J. B., Peterson, M. S., & Green, C. C. (2014). Impacts of Oil Spill Disasters on Marine Habitats and Fisheries in North America. CRC Press. Allen, C. R., & Garmestani, A. S. (2015a). Adaptive Management. In C. R. Allen & A. S. Garmestani (Eds.), Adaptive Management of Social-Ecological Systems (pp. 1–10). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9682-8_1 Allen, C. R., & Garmestani, A. S. (Eds.). (2015b). Adaptive Management of Social-Ecological Systems. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9682-8 Alongi, D. M. (2012). Carbon sequestration in mangrove forests. Carbon Management, 3(3), 313–322. https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.12.20 Alper, D. K. (1997). Transboundary environmental relations in British Columbia and the Pacific northwest. The American Review of Canadian Studies, 27(3), 359. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1080/02722019709481555 Altieri, M. A. (1999). The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 74, 19–31. Anderson-Teixeira, K. J., Snyder, P. K., Twine, T. E., Cuadra, S. V., Costa, M. H., & DeLucia, E. H. (2012). Climate-regulation services of natural and agricultural ecoregions of the Americas. Nature Climate Change, 2(3), 177–181. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1346 Andersson, J. E. C. (2007). The recreational cost of coral bleaching—A stated and revealed preference study of international tourists. Ecological Economics, 62(3–4), 704–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.001 Andrade, M. M., & Turra, A. (2021). Advancing towards the implementation of ecosystem-based environmental impact assessment for coastal zone. Ocean & Coastal Management, 215, 105973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105973 165 Antweiler, W., & Gulati, S. (2016). Frugal Cars or Frugal Drivers? How Carbon and Fuel Taxes Influence the Choice and Use of Cars. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2778868 Arias, M. E., Cochrane, T. A., Lawrence, K. S., Killeen, T. J., & Farrell, T. A. (2011). Paying the forest for electricity: A modelling framework to market forest conservation as payment for ecosystem services benefiting hydropower generation. Environmental Conservation, 38(4), 473–484. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000464 Arias-Arévalo, P., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., & Pérez-Rincón, M. (2018). Widening the Evaluative Space for Ecosystem Services: A Taxonomy of Plural Values and Valuation Methods. Environmental Values, 27(1), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327118X15144698637513 Arkema, K. K., Verutes, G., Bernhardt, J. R., Clarke, C., Rosado, S., Canto, M., Wood, S. A., Ruckelshaus, M., Rosenthal, A., McField, M., & de Zegher, J. (2014). Assessing habitat risk from human activities to inform coastal and marine spatial planning: A demonstration in Belize. Environmental Research Letters, 9(11), 114016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/11/114016 Arkema, K. K., Verutes, G. M., Wood, S. A., Clarke-Samuels, C., Rosado, S., Canto, M., Rosenthal, A., Ruckelshaus, M., Guannel, G., Toft, J., Faries, J., Silver, J. M., Griffin, R., & Guerry, A. D. (2015). Embedding ecosystem services in coastal planning leads to better outcomes for people and nature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(24), 7390–7395. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1406483112 Armitage, D. R., Charles, A., & Berkes, F. (Eds.). (2017). Governing the coastal commons: Communities, resilience and transformation. Routledge. Armitage, D. R., Loë, R. de, & Plummer, R. (2012). Environmental governance and its implications for conservation practice. Conservation Letters, 5(4), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00238.x Arnold, C. A. (Tony), Gosnell, H., Benson, M. H., & Craig, R. K. (2017). Cross-interdisciplinary insights into adaptive governance and resilience. Ecology and Society, 22(4). http://www.jstor.org/stable/26799023 Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R., & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation (p. 67). NOAA. Avellan, A., Duarte, A., & Rocha-Santos, T. (2022). Organic contaminants in marine sediments and seawater: A review for drawing environmental diagnostics and searching for informative predictors. Science of The Total Environment, 808, 152012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152012 Baldwin-Cantello, W., Tickner, D., Wright, M., Clark, M., Cornelius, S., Ellis, K., Francis, A., Ghazoul, J., Gordon, J. E., Matthews, N., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Smith, P., Walmsley, S., & Young, L. (2023). The Triple Challenge: Synergies, trade-offs and integrated responses for climate, biodiversity, and human wellbeing goals. Climate Policy, 23(6), 782–799. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2023.2175637 Bandara, R., & Tisdell, C. (2004). The net benefit of saving the Asian elephant: A policy and contingent valuation study. Ecological Economics, 48(1), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.01.001 Bani, R., Fortin, M.-J., Daigle, R. M., & Guichard, F. (2019). Dispersal traits interact with dynamic connectivity to affect metapopulation growth and stability. Theoretical Ecology, 12(1), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-018-0393-0 Barbier, E. B. (2016). The protective service of mangrove ecosystems: A review of valuation methods. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 109(2), 676–681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.01.033 Barbier, E. B., Acreman, M., & Knowler, D. (1997). Economic valuation of wetlands: A guide for policy makers and planners. Ramsar Convention Bureau. 166 Barbier, E. B., Hacker, S. D., Kennedy, C., Koch, E. W., Stier, A. C., & Silliman, B. R. (2011). The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecological Monographs, 81(2), 169–193. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-1510.1 Barlow, P. M., & Reichard, E. G. (2010). Saltwater intrusion in coastal regions of North America. Hydrogeology Journal, 18(1), 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-009-0514-3 Barragán, J. M., & de Andrés, M. (2016). Expansión urbana en las áreas litorales de América Latina y Caribe. Revista de Geografía Norte Grande, 64, 129–149. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-34022016000200009 Barrie, J. V., Conway, K. W., & Harris, P. T. (2013). The Queen Charlotte Fault, British Columbia: Seafloor anatomy of a transform fault and its influence on sediment processes. Geo-Marine Letters, 33(4), 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00367-013-0333-3 Barrow, C. (2006). Environmental Management for Sustainable Development. Taylor & Francis Group. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ubc/detail.action?docID=273733 Bartkowski, B., Lienhoop, N., & Hansjürgens, B. (2015). Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: A critical review of economic valuation studies of biological diversity. Ecological Economics, 113, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.02.023 Bastian, O. (2013). The role of biodiversity in supporting ecosystem services in Natura 2000 sites. Ecological Indicators, 24, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.05.016 Bateman, I. J., Harwood, A. R., Mace, G. M., Watson, R. T., Abson, D. J., Andrews, B., Binner, A., Crowe, A., Day, B. H., Dugdale, S., Fezzi, C., Foden, J., Hadley, D., Haines-Young, R., Hulme, M., Kontoleon, A., Lovett, A. A., Munday, P., Pascual, U., … Termansen, M. (2013). Bringing Ecosystem Services into Economic Decision-Making: Land Use in the United Kingdom. 341, 7. BC Environmental Assessment Office. (2022). Environmental Assessments—Province of British Columbia. Province of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/environmental-assessments BC Ministry of Agriculture and Food. (2022). Ministry of Agriculture and Food 2022/23—2024/25 Service Plan. 12. BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. (2022). Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy 2022/23—2024/25 Service Plan. 16. BC Ministry of Forests. (2022). Ministry of Forests 2022/23—2024/25 Service Plan. 16. BC Ministry of Health. (2022). Ministry of Health 2022/23—2024/25 Service Plan. 30. BC Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. (2022). Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation 2022/23—2024/25 Service Plan. 12. Bearman, G. (2013). Waves, Tides and Shallow-Water Processes. Butterworth-Heinemann. Beatley, T., Brower, D., & Schwab, A. K. (2002). An Introduction to Coastal Zone Management: Second Edition. Island Press. Beaumont, N. J., Austen, M. C., Mangi, S. C., & Townsend, M. (2008). Economic valuation for the conservation of marine biodiversity. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56(3), 386–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.11.013 Bellver-Domingo, A., Hernández-Sancho, F., & Molinos-Senante, M. (2016). A review of Payment for Ecosystem Services for the economic internalization of environmental externalities: A water perspective. Geoforum, 70, 115–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.02.018 Bennett, R. J., & Chorley, R. J. (2015). Environmental Systems: Philosophy, Analysis and Control. Princeton University Press. Benson, E. D., Hansen, J. L., Schwartz, A. L., & Smersh, G. T. (1998). Pricing Residential Amenities: The Value of a View. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 16(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007785315925 167 Berkes, F. (1993). Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective. In J. T. Inglis (Ed.), Traditional ecological knowledge: Concepts and cases (pp. 1–9). International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and International Development Research Centre. Berkes, F. (2007). Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: Lessons from resilience thinking. Natural Hazards, 41(2), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-006-9036-7 Berkes, F. (2009). Indigenous ways of knowing and the study of environmental change. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 39(4), 151–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014220909510568 Berkes, F. (2012a). Implementing ecosystem-based management: Evolution or revolution? Fish and Fisheries, 13(4), 465–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00452.x Berkes, F. (2012b). Sacred Ecology. Routledge. Berkes, F., Berkes, M. K., & Fast, H. (2007). Collaborative Integrated Management in Canada’s North: The Role of Local and Traditional Knowledge and Community-Based Monitoring. Coastal Management, 35(1), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920750600970487 Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (2002). Back to the future ecosystem dynamics and local knowledge. In L. Gunderson & C. S. Holling (Eds.), Panarchy understanding transformations in human and natural systems (pp. 121–146). Island Press. Berkes, F., Folke, C., & Colding, J. (2000). Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press. Bertalanffy, L. von. (1973). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications (Rev. ed). G. Braziller. Bhandari, A. K., & Heshmati, A. (2010). Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27(6), 612–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2010.507156 Bhattacharya, T. R., & Managi, S. (2013). Contributions of the private sector to global biodiversity protection: Case study of the Fortune 500 companies. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 9(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.710250 Bhattacharya, Y., & Nakamura, H. (2021). Spatial hedonic analysis to support tourism-sensitive tsunami mitigation planning. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 60, 102283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102283 Birch, T., & Reyes, E. (2018). Forty years of coastal zone management (1975–2014): Evolving theory, policy and practice as reflected in scientific research publications. Ocean & Coastal Management, 153, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.12.003 Blasiak, R., Yagi, N., Kurokura, H., Ichikawa, K., Wakita, K., & Mori, A. (2015). Marine ecosystem services: Perceptions of indispensability and pathways to engaging citizens in their sustainable use. Marine Policy, 61, 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.08.005 Boelscher, M. (2011). The Curtain Within: Haida Social and Mythical Discourse. UBC Press. Boisvert, V., Méral, P., & Froger, G. (2013). Market-Based Instruments for Ecosystem Services: Institutional Innovation or Renovation? Society & Natural Resources, 26(10), 1122–1136. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2013.820815 Börger, T., Böhnke-Henrichs, A., Hattam, C., Piwowarczyk, J., Schasfoort, F., & Austen, M. C. (2018). The role of interdisciplinary collaboration for stated preference methods to value marine environmental goods and ecosystem services. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 201, 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2017.03.009 Bourassa, S., Hoesli, M., & Sun, J. (2005). The Price of Aesthetic Externalities. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 13(2), 165–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/10835547.2005.12090160 Boxall, P. C., Adamowicz, W. L., Swait, J., Williams, M., & Louviere, J. (1996). A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecological Economics, 18(3), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(96)00039-0 168 Bradley, G. L., & Reser, J. P. (2017). Adaptation processes in the context of climate change: A social and environmental psychology perspective. Journal of Bioeconomics, 19(1), 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-016-9231-x Brambati, A. (2004). Coastal zone problems and management: A brief review. Chemistry and Ecology, 20(sup1), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/02757540310001642698 Brander, L. M., Van Beukering, P., & Cesar, H. S. J. (2007). The recreational value of coral reefs: A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 63(1), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.11.002 Braun, B. (2002). The Intemperate Rainforest: Nature, Culture, and Power on Canada’s West Coast. U of Minnesota Press. Bremer, S., & Glavovic, B. (2013). Mobilizing Knowledge for Coastal Governance: Re-Framing the Science–Policy Interface for Integrated Coastal Management. Coastal Management, 41(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2012.749751 Brier, S. (2003). The Integration of Second Order Cybernetics, Cognitive Biology (Autopoiesis), and Biosemiotics. Cybernetics & Human Knowing - A Journal of Second Order Cybernetics, Autopoiesis and Cyber-Semiotics, 10(1), 106–109. Brierley, G., Fryirs, K., Cullum, C., Tadaki, M., Huang, H. Q., & Blue, B. (2013). Reading the landscape: Integrating the theory and practice of geomorphology to develop place-based understandings of river systems. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, 37(5), 601–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133313490007 Bringhurst, R. (2011). A Story as Sharp as a Knife: The Classical Haida Mythtellers and Their World. Douglas & McIntyre. Brosius, J. P., Tsing, A. L., & Zerner, C. (Eds.). (2005). Communities and conservation: Histories and politics of community-based natural resource management. AltaMira Press. Brouwer, R., Langford, I. H., Bateman, I. J., & Turner, R. K. (1999). A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies. Regional Environmental Change, 1(1), 47–57. Brown, T. C. (1984). The Concept of Value in Resource Allocation. Land Economics, 60(3), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146184 Brugnach, M., Dewulf, A., Henriksen, H. J., & van der Keur, P. (2011). More is not always better: Coping with ambiguity in natural resources management. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(1), 78–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.08.029 Brugnach, M., Dewulf, A., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Taillieu, T. (2008). Toward a Relational Concept of Uncertainty: About Knowing Too Little, Knowing Too Differently, and Accepting Not to Know. Ecology and Society, 13(2), art30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02616-130230 Brunner, R. D., & Lynch, A. H. (2010). Adaptive governance and climate change. American Meteorological Society. Bukvic, A., Rohat, G., Apotsos, A., & de Sherbinin, A. (2020). A Systematic Review of Coastal Vulnerability Mapping. Sustainability, 12(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072822 Bunge, M. (1999). Social Science Under Debate: A Philosophical Perspective. University of Toronto Press. Bunge, M. (2000). Systemism: The alternative to individualism and holism. 11. Bunge, M. (2003). Philosophical dictionary (Enl. ed). Prometheus Books. Burak, S., Dogˇan, E., & Gaziogˇlu, C. (2004). Impact of urbanization and tourism on coastal environment. Ocean & Coastal Management, 47(9), 515–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2004.07.007 Burbridge, P. R. (1999). The Challenge of Demonstrating the Socio-economic Benefits of Integrated Coastal Management. In W. Salomons, R. K. Turner, L. D. de Lacerda, & S. Ramachandran (Eds.), Perspectives on Integrated Coastal Zone Management (pp. 35–53). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-60103-3_3 169 Burger, F. A., John, J. G., & Frölicher, T. L. (2020). Increase in ocean acidity variability and extremes under increasing atmospheric CO2. Biogeosciences, 17(18), 4633–4662. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-4633-2020 Burke, L., Greenhalgh, S., Prager, D., & Cooper, E. (2008). Economic Valuation of Coral Reefs in Tobago and St. Lucia (p. 76). World Resources Institute. Burke, L., & Maidens, J. (2004). Reefs at Risk in the Caribbean (p. 58). World Resources Institute. Canada, I. A. A. of. (2021, May 20). Indigenous Knowledge Policy Framework for Project Reviews and Regulatory Decisions. https://www.canada.ca/en/impact-assessment-agency/programs/aboriginal-consultation-federal-environmental-assessment/indigenous-knowledge-policy-framework-initiative/indigenous-knowledge-policy-framework-project-reviews-regulatory-decisions.html Cantillon, R. (2014). Essai Sur La Nature Du Commerce En General (1755). Literary Licensing, LLC. Carlsson, L., & Berkes, F. (2005). Co-management: Concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.11.008 Carpenter, S. R., Mooney, H. A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., DeFries, R. S., Díaz, S., Dietz, T., Duraiappah, A. K., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Pereira, H. M., Perrings, C., Reid, W. V., Sarukhan, J., Scholes, R. J., & Whyte, A. (2009). Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(5), 1305–1312. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808772106 Carr, M. H., Neigel, J. E., Estes, J. A., Andelman, S., Warner, R. R., & Largier, J. L. (2003). Comparing marine and terrestrial ecosystems: Implications for the design of coastal marine reserves. Ecological Applications, 13(sp1), 90–107. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0090:CMATEI]2.0.CO;2 Carson, R. (2000). Silent Spring. Penguin Books. Carson, R. T. (2011). Contingent valuation: A comprehensive bibliography and history. In Cheltenham, U.K. and Northampton, Mass.: Elgar, 2011, pp. Viii, 455 (p. viii). https://go.exlibris.link/lYshn6q9 Cashion, T. (2019). The Economic Value of Pacific Herring in the Strait of Georgia Prepared by for Pacific Wild March 11, 2019. Pacific Wild. https://timcashion.github.io/PacificHerring/ Castro Noblejas, H., Vías Martínez, J., & Mérida Rodríguez, M. F. (2022). Relation between the Views and the Real Estate Application to a Mediterranean Coastal Area. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 11(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi11070365 Cavender-Bares, J., Polasky, S., King, E., & Balvanera, P. (2015). A sustainability framework for assessing trade-offs in ecosystem services. Ecology and Society, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06917-200117 CCA (Council of Canadian Academies). (2022). Nature-Based Climate Solutions, Ottawa (ON): The Expert Panel on Canada’s Carbon Sink Potential. CCA. https://cca-reports.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Carbon-Sinks_EN_Final.pdf Cesar, H. S. J. (Herman S. J. ), & Beukering, P. van. (2004). Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of Hawai’i. Pacific Science, 58(2), 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1353/psc.2004.0014 Chaffin, B. C., Gosnell, H., & Cosens, B. A. (2014). A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: Synthesis and future directions. Ecology and Society, 19(3), 56. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06824-190356 Chakraborty, S., Gasparatos, A., & Blasiak, R. (2020). Multiple values for the management and sustainable use of coastal and marine ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 41, 101047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101047 170 Champ, P. A., Bishop, R. C., Brown, T. C., & McCollum, D. W. (1997). Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1997.0988 Chan, C., Armitage, D., Alexander, S. M., & Campbell, D. (2019). Examining linkages between ecosystem services and social wellbeing to improve governance for coastal conservation in Jamaica. Ecosystem Services, 39, 100997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100997 Chan, K., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gould, R., Hannahs, N., Jax, K., Klain, S., Luck, G. W., Martín-López, B., Muraca, B., Norton, B., Ott, K., Pascual, U., Satterfield, T., Tadaki, M., Taggart, J., & Turner, N. (2016). Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(6), 1462–1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113 Chan, K., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011 Charles, A. T. (2001). Sustainable fishery systems. Blackwell Science. Charnley, S., Fischer, A. P., & Jones, E. T. (2007). Integrating traditional and local ecological knowledge into forest biodiversity conservation in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management, 246(1), 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.03.047 Cheng, X., Van Damme, S., Li, L., & Uyttenhove, P. (2019). Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services: A review of methods. Ecosystem Services, 37, 100925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100925 Cheung, W. W. L., Frölicher, T. L., Lam, V. W. Y., Oyinlola, M. A., Reygondeau, G., Sumaila, U. R., Tai, T. C., Teh, L. C. L., & Wabnitz, C. C. C. (2021). Marine high temperature extremes amplify the impacts of climate change on fish and fisheries. Science Advances, 7(40), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abh0895 Chilton, S. M., & Hutchinson, W. G. (1999). Some Further Implications of Incorporating the Warm Glow of Giving into Welfare Measures: A Comment on the Use of Donation Mechanisms by Champ et al. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 37, 202–209. Chmura, G. L., Anisfeld, S. C., Cahoon, D. R., & Lynch, J. C. (2003). Global carbon sequestration in tidal, saline wetland soils. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GB001917 Christie, G. (2020). Potential Aboriginal Rights-Holders: Canada and Cultural Communities versus Indigenous Peoples and Socio-Political Bodies Special Issue: A Right without a Rights-Holder Is Hollow. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 57, 1–36. Christie, M., Fazey, I., Cooper, R., Hyde, T., & Kenter, J. O. (2012). An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies. Ecological Economics, 83, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.012 Chua, T.-E., Bonga, D., & Bermas-Atrigenio, N. (2006). Dynamics of Integrated Coastal Management: PEMSEA’s Experience. Coastal Management, 34(3), 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920750600686695 Cicin-Sain, B., & Belfiore, S. (2005). Linking marine protected areas to integrated coastal and ocean management: A review of theory and practice. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48(11–12), 847–868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2006.01.001 Cicin-Sain, B., Knecht, R. W., Jang, D., & Fisk, G. W. (1998). Integrated coastal and ocean management: Concepts and practices. Island Press. Cirer-Costa, J. C. (2015). Tourism and its hypersensitivity to oil spills. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 91(1), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.027 Clark, J. R. (2018). Coastal Zone Management Handbook. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315139654 171 Clarke Murray, C., Agbayani, S., Alidina, H. M., & Ban, N. C. (2015). Advancing marine cumulative effects mapping: An update in Canada’s Pacific waters. Marine Policy, 58, 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.04.003 Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute (CZMAI). (2016). Belize Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan. CZMAI, Belize City. Cole, D., & Chaikin, I. (1990). An Iron Hand Upon the People: The Law Against the Potlatch on the Northwest Coast. Douglas & McIntyre. Conroy, S. J., & Milosch, J. L. (2011). An Estimation of the Coastal Premium for Residential Housing Prices in San Diego County. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 42(2), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-009-9195-x Constitution Act. (1982). Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. Cornell, S., Berkhout, F., Tuinstra, W., Tàbara, J. D., Jäger, J., Chabay, I., de Wit, B., Langlais, R., Mills, D., Moll, P., Otto, I. M., Petersen, A., Pohl, C., & van Kerkhoff, L. (2013). Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change. Environmental Science & Policy, 28, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.008 Cosens, B. A., Craig, R. K., Hirsch, S. L., Arnold, C. A. (Tony), Benson, M. H., DeCaro, D. A., Garmestani, A. S., Gosnell, H., Ruhl, J. B., & Schlager, E. (2017). The role of law in adaptive governance. Ecology and Society, 22(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08731-220130 Cosens, B. A., & Stow, C. A. (2014). Resilience and Water Governance Addressing Fragmentation and Uncertainty in Water Allocation and Water Quality Law. In Five. Resilience and Water Governance Addressing Fragmentation and Uncertainty in Water Allocation and Water Quality Law (pp. 142–175). Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/garm16058-007 Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., & Van Den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature; London, 387(6630), 253–260. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1038/387253a0 Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S., & Grasso, M. (2017). Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services, 28, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008 Costanza, R., Kubiszewski, I., Ervin, D., Bluffstone, R., Boyd, J., Brown, D., Chang, H., Dujon, V., Granek, E., Polasky, S., Shandas, V., & Yeakley, A. (2011). Valuing ecological systems and services. F1000 Biology Reports, 3. https://doi.org/10.3410/B3-14 Costanza, R., Kubiszewski, I., Giovannini, E., Lovins, H., McGlade, J., Pickett, K. E., Ragnarsdóttir, K. V., Roberts, D., De Vogli, R., & Wilkinson, R. (2014). Development: Time to leave GDP behind. Nature, 505(7483), Article 7483. https://doi.org/10.1038/505283a Council of the Haida Nation. (2006a). Protocol Agreement Between The Council of the Haida Nation (CHN) and The Municipalities of Port Clements and Masset. Haida Laas. https://www.haidanation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/jl.jun_.06.pdf Council of the Haida Nation. (2006b). Protocol Agreement Between The Council of the Haida Nation (CHN) and The Village of Queen Charlotte. Haida Laas. https://www.haidanation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Protocol_QCC.pdf Council of the Haida Nation. (2008). Protocol Agreement Between The Council of the Haida Nation (CHN) and The Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District Electoral Area “E.” Haida Laas. https://www.haidanation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/h-CHN-District-E-Protocol-Agreement.pdf 172 Council of the Haida Nation. (2018). Haida Constitution. https://www.haidanation.ca/haida-constitution/ Council of the Haida Nation. (2021). Personal Communication—First Nations Fishery Council Stakeholder Interviews with Economic Valuation Workshop—March 2021. Council of the Haida Nation. (2022). Haida Gwaii. https://www.haidanation.ca/haida-gwaii/ Council of the Haida Nation and the Government of Canada. (2018). Gwaii Haanas Gina ’Waadluxan KilGuhlGa Land-Sea-People Management Plan. https://haidamarineplanning.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Gina_Waadluxan_Kilguhlga_Land_Sea_People_Plan.pdf Cousineau, J., & Murphy, E. (2022). Numerical Investigation of Climate Change Effects on Storm Surges and Extreme Waves on Canada’s Pacific Coast. Atmosphere, 13(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13020311 Crain, C. M., Kroeker, K., & Halpern, B. S. (2008). Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecology Letters, 11(12), 1304–1315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01253.x Crandall, C. A., Monroe, M., Dutka-Gianelli, J., & Lorenzen, K. (2019). Meaningful action gives satisfaction: Stakeholder perspectives on participation in the management of marine recreational fisheries. Ocean & Coastal Management, 179, 104872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104872 Crossland, C. J., Baird, D., Ducrotoy, J.-P., Lindeboom, H., Buddemeier, R. W., Dennison, W. C., Maxwell, B. A., Smith, S. V., & Swaney, D. P. (2005). The Coastal Zone—A Domain of Global Interactions. In C. J. Crossland, H. H. Kremer, H. J. Lindeboom, J. I. Marshall Crossland, & M. D. A. Le Tissier (Eds.), Coastal Fluxes in the Anthropocene: The Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone Project of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (pp. 1–37). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27851-6_1 Crossland, C. J., Kremer, H. H., Lindeboom, H. J., Crossland, J. I. M., & Tissier, M. D. A. L. (2006). Coastal Fluxes in the Anthropocene: The Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone Project of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme. Springer Science & Business Media. Crutzen, P. J., & Stoermer, E. F. (2021). The ‘Anthropocene’ (2000). In S. Benner, G. Lax, P. J. Crutzen, U. Pöschl, J. Lelieveld, & H. G. Brauch (Eds.), Paul J. Crutzen and the Anthropocene: A New Epoch in Earth’s History (pp. 19–21). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82202-6_2 Cumming, G. S., Cumming, D. H. M., & Redman, C. L. (2006). Scale Mismatches in Social-Ecological Systems: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions. Ecology and Society, 11(1). http://www.jstor.org/stable/26267802 D’Aloia, C. C., Daigle, R. M., Côté, I. M., Curtis, J. M. R., Guichard, F., & Fortin, M.-J. (2017). A multiple-species framework for integrating movement processes across life stages into the design of marine protected areas. Biological Conservation, 216, 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.10.012 Daly, H. E. (2007). Ecological Economics and Sustainable Development. Edward Elgar Publishing. Daly, H. E., & Cobb, J. (1994). For The Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Beacon Press. Daniel, T. C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J. W., Chan, K. M. A., Costanza, R., Elmqvist, T., Flint, C. G., Gobster, P. H., Grêt-Regamey, A., Lave, R., Muhar, S., Penker, M., Ribe, R. G., Schauppenlehner, T., Sikor, T., Soloviy, I., Spierenburg, M., … von der Dunk, A. (2012). Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(23), 8812–8819. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109 173 Das, S., & Crépin, A.-S. (2013). Mangroves can provide protection against wind damage during storms. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 134, 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.09.021 Dasgupta, P. (2008). Discounting climate change. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 37(2), 141–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-008-9049-6 Datta, R. (2019). Indigenous Reconciliation: Why, What, and How. International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies, 12(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcis.v12i2.1276 Davis, L. (2009). The High Stakes of Protecting Indigenous Homelands: Coastal First Nations’ Turning Point Initiative and Environmental Groups on the B.C. West Coast. International Journal of Canadian Studies, 39–40, 137. https://doi.org/10.7202/040827ar Department of Justice. (2022). Reporting on progress—Implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Government of Canada. Department of Justice of Canada. (2023). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan (p. 67). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Implementation Secretariat. Diaz, D. (2014). Evaluating the Key Drivers of the US Government’s Social Cost of Carbon: A Model Diagnostic and Inter-Comparison Study of Climate Impacts in DICE, FUND, and PAGE (SSRN Scholarly Paper 2655889). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2655889 Dick, C. A., Sewid-Smith, D., Recalma-Clutesi, K., Deur, D., & Turner, N. J. (2022). “From the beginning of time”: The colonial reconfiguration of native habitats and Indigenous resource practices on the British Columbia Coast. FACETS, 7, 543–570. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2021-0092 Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The Struggle to Govern the Commons. Science, 302(5652), 1907–1912. Diggon, S., Bones, J., Short, C. J., Smith, J. L., Dickinson, M., Wozniak, K., Topelko, K., & Pawluk, K. A. (2022). The Marine Plan Partnership for the North Pacific Coast – MaPP: A collaborative and co-led marine planning process in British Columbia. Marine Policy, 142, 104065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104065 Diggon, S., Butler, C., Heidt, A., Bones, J., Jones, R., & Outhet, C. (2021a). The Marine Plan Partnership: Indigenous community-based marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 132, 103510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.04.014 Diggon, S., Butler, C., Heidt, A., Bones, J., Jones, R., & Outhet, C. (2021b). The Marine Plan Partnership: Indigenous community-based marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 132, 103510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.04.014 Diop, S., Barusseau, J.-P., & Descamps, C. (Eds.). (2014). The Land/Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone of West and Central Africa. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06388-1 Dolan, A. H., & Walker, I. J. (2006). Understanding Vulnerability of Coastal Communities to Climate Change Related Risks. Journal of Coastal Research, 1316–1323. Domínguez-Tejo, E., Metternicht, G., Johnston, E., & Hedge, L. (2016). Marine Spatial Planning advancing the Ecosystem-Based Approach to coastal zone management: A review. Marine Policy, 72, 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.06.023 Dovers, S. (2009). Normalizing adaptation. Global Environmental Change, 19(1), 4–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.06.006 Dupuits, E., & Cronkleton, P. (2020). Indigenous tenure security and local participation in climate mitigation programs: Exploring the institutional gaps of REDD+ implementation in the Peruvian Amazon. Environmental Policy and Governance, 30(4), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1888 Durlauf, S. N., & Blume, L. E. (Eds.). (2008). The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan US. 174 Eccleston, C. H. (2011). Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Best Professional Practices. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b10717 Eckert, L. E., Ban, N. C., Frid, A., & McGreer, M. (2018). Diving back in time: Extending historical baselines for yelloweye rockfish with Indigenous knowledge. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 28(1), 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2834 Eckert, L. E., Claxton, N. X., Owens, C., Johnston, A., Ban, N. C., Moola, F., & Darimont, C. T. (2020). Indigenous knowledge and federal environmental assessments in Canada: Applying past lessons to the 2019 impact assessment act. FACETS. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2019-0039 Enriquez-Acevedo, T., Botero, C. M., Cantero-Rodelo, R., Pertuz, A., & Suarez, A. (2018). Willingness to pay for Beach Ecosystem Services: The case study of three Colombian beaches. Ocean & Coastal Management, 161, 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.04.025 Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2016). Technical Update to Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Social Cost of Greenhouse Gas Estimates. Environment and Climate Change Canada. Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2022). Environment and Climate Change Canada [Organizational descriptions]. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change.html Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2023, April 20). Social Cost of Greenhouse Gas Estimates – Interim Updated Guidance for the Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/science-research-data/social-cost-ghg.html) Evans, K. S., Chen, X., & Robichaud, C. A. (2017). A Hedonic Analysis of the Impact of Marine Aquaculture on Coastal Housing Prices in Maine. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 46(2), 242–267. https://doi.org/10.1017/age.2017.19 Ezebilo, E. E. (2016). Economic value of a non-market ecosystem service: An application of the travel cost method to nature recreation in Sweden. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 12(4), 314–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2016.1202322 Faber, J. H., & van Wensem, J. (2012). Elaborations on the use of the ecosystem services concept for application in ecological risk assessment for soils. Science of The Total Environment, 415, 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.059 Falaleeva, M., O’Mahony, C., Gray, S., Desmond, M., Gault, J., & Cummins, V. (2011). Towards climate adaptation and coastal governance in Ireland: Integrated architecture for effective management? Marine Policy, 35(6), 784–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.01.005 FAO. (2018). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018 (SOFIA): Meeting the sustainable development goals. FAO. https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/I9540EN/ Farahbakhsh, I., Bauch, C. T., & Anand, M. (2022). Modelling coupled human–environment complexity for the future of the biosphere: Strengths, gaps and promising directions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 377(1857), 20210382. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0382 Farber, S. C., Costanza, R., & Wilson, M. A. (2002). Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00088-5 Farnsworth, K. D., Adenuga, A. H., & de Groot, R. S. (2015). The complexity of biodiversity: A biological perspective on economic valuation. Ecological Economics, 120, 350–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.003 Fedje, D. W., & Mathewes, R. (2011). Haida Gwaii: Human History and Environment from the Time of Loon to the Time of the Iron People. UBC Press. 175 Fercovic, J., & Gulati, S. (2016). Comparing household greenhouse gas emissions across Canadian cities. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 60, 96–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2016.06.010 Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., Huntington, H. P., & Frost, K. J. (2006). Integration or co-optation? Traditional knowledge and science in the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee. Environmental Conservation, 33(4), 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892906003420 Ferreira, A. M., Marques, J. C., & Seixas, S. (2017). Integrating marine ecosystem conservation and ecosystems services economic valuation: Implications for coastal zones governance. Ecological Indicators, 77, 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.01.036 Field, A. (2020). Survey fatigue and the tragedy of the commons: Are we undermining our evaluation practice? Evaluation Matters—He Take Tō Te Aromatawai, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.18296/em.0054 Fine, I. V., Cherniawsky, J. Y., Thomson, R. E., Rabinovich, A. B., & Krassovski, M. V. (2015). Observations and Numerical Modeling of the 2012 Haida Gwaii Tsunami off the Coast of British Columbia. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 172(3), 699–718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-014-1012-7 Fish, R., Church, A., & Winter, M. (2016). Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosystem Services, 21, 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.002 Fisher, B., & Turner, K. (2008). Ecosystem services: Classification for valuation. Biological Conservation, 141(5), 1167–1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.02.019 Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 643–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014 Fisher, R. (2011). Contact and Conflict: Indian-European Relations in British Columbia, 1774-1890 (2nd edition). UBC Press. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2009a). A fishery decision-making framework incorporating the precautionary approach. A Fishery Decision-Making Framework Incorporating the Precautionary Approach. https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/precaution-eng.htm Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2009b). Policy for managing the impact of fishing on sensitive benthic areas. Policy for Managing the Impact of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas. https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/benthi-back-fiche-eng.htm Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2009c). Policy on New Fisheries for Forage Species. Policy on New Fisheries for Forage Species. https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/forage-eng.htm Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2012). Strategic framework for fishery monitoring and catch reporting in the Pacific fisheries. 40. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2013). Ecological Risk Assessment Framework for Coldwater Corals and Sponge Dominated Communities. https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/risk-ecolo-risque-eng.htm Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2022a). Fisheries and Oceans Canada—Mandate and role. https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/about-notre-sujet/mandate-mandat-eng.htm Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2022b). Guidelines for writing rebuilding plans per the Fish Stocks Provisions and A Fishery Decision-making Framework Incorporating the Precautionary Approach. Guidelines for Writing Rebuilding Plans per the Fish Stocks Provisions and A Fishery Decision-Making Framework Incorporating the Precautionary Approach. https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/precautionary-precaution-eng.htm Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2022c). Pacific Region Integrated Fisheries Management Plan, Pacific Herring, November 20, 2021 to November 6, 2022 (2–2124; p. 223). Fisheries an 176 Oceans Canada. https://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/mplans/herring-hareng-ifmp-pgip-sm-eng.html Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2023). Pacific Region Integrated Fisheries Management Plan, Pacific Herring, November 7, 2022 to November 6, 2023 (p. 234). https://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/mplans/herring-hareng-ifmp-pgip-sm-eng.html Fleming, C. M., & Cook, A. (2008). The recreational value of Lake McKenzie, Fraser Island: An application of the travel cost method. Tourism Management, 29(6), 1197–1205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.02.022 Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(1), 441–473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511 Folke, C., Jansson, Å., Rockström, J., Olsson, P., Carpenter, S. R., Chapin, F. S., Crépin, A.-S., Daily, G., Danell, K., Ebbesson, J., Elmqvist, T., Galaz, V., Moberg, F., Nilsson, M., Österblom, H., Ostrom, E., Persson, Å., Peterson, G., Polasky, S., … Westley, F. (2011). Reconnecting to the Biosphere. AMBIO, 40(7), 719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0184-y Foster, S. B., & Allen, D. M. (2015). Groundwater—Surface Water Interactions in a Mountain-to-Coast Watershed: Effects of Climate Change and Human Stressors. Advances in Meteorology, 2015, e861805. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/861805 Fu, B.-J., Su, C.-H., Wei, Y.-P., Willett, I. R., Lü, Y.-H., & Liu, G.-H. (2011). Double counting in ecosystem services valuation: Causes and countermeasures. Ecological Research, 26(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-010-0766-3 Gallagher, J. B., Shelamoff, V., & Layton, C. (2022). Seaweed ecosystems may not mitigate CO2 emissions. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 79(3), 585–592. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsac011 Galois, R. (2017). GOLD ON HAIDA GWAII: The First Prospects, 1849-53. BC Studies, 196, 15–42. Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists. (2010). Haida Gwaii Marine Market Sector Analysis (p. 79). https://haidamarineplanning.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/HG_Marine_Market_Sector_Analysis.pdf Gauvreau, A. M., Lepofsky, D., Rutherford, M., & Reid, M. (2017). “Everything revolves around the herring”: The Heiltsuk–herring relationship through time. Ecology and Society, 22(2). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26270079 Gee, K., Kannen, A., Adlam, R., Brooks, C., Chapman, M., Cormier, R., Fischer, C., Fletcher, S., Gubbins, M., Shucksmith, R., & Shellock, R. (2017). Identifying culturally significant areas for marine spatial planning. Ocean & Coastal Management, 136, 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.11.026 Gibbs, M. T. (2009). Resilience: What is it and what does it mean for marine policymakers? Marine Policy, 33(2), 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.08.001 Gibson, R. B. (2002). From Wreck Cove to Voisey’s Bay: The evolution of federal environmental assessment in Canada. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 20(3), 151–159. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154602781766654 Gilani, H. R., Innes, J. L., & Kent, H. (2018). Developing Human Well-being Domains, Metrics and Indicators in an Ecosystem-Based Management Context in Haida Gwaii, British Columbia, Canada. Society & Natural Resources, 31(12), 1321–1337. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1481548 Gill, D. A., Schuhmann, P. W., & Oxenford, H. A. (2015). Recreational diver preferences for reef fish attributes: Economic implications of future change. Ecological Economics, 111, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.004 Gladstone-Gallagher, R. V., Hope, J. A., Bulmer, R. H., Clark, D. E., Stephenson, F., Mangan, S., Rullens, V., Siwicka, E., Thomas, S. F., Pilditch, C. A., Savage, C., & Thrush, S. F. (2019). 177 Old Tools, New Ways of Using Them: Harnessing Expert Opinions to Plan for Surprise in Marine Socio-Ecological Systems. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00696 Godschalk, D. R. (1992). Implementing coastal zone management: 1972–1990. Coastal Management, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/08920759209362167 Goetze, T. (2005). Empowered Co-Management: Towards Power-Sharing and Indigenous Rights in Clayoquot Sound, BC. Anthropologica, 47(2), 247–265. Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Ruiz-Pérez, M. (2011). Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, 35(5), 613–628. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133311421708 Gordon, L. J., Finlayson, C. M., & Falkenmark, M. (2010). Managing water in agriculture for food production and other ecosystem services. Agricultural Water Management, 97(4), 512–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.03.017 Government of British Columbia. (2022). Haida Gwaii Strategic Land Use Agreement. Province of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/crown-land-water/land-use-planning/regions/west-coast/haidagwaii-slua Government of British Columbia and Council of the Haida Nation. (1993). Gwaii Haanas Agreement. https://www.haidanation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/GwaiiHaanasAgreement.pdf Government of British Columbia and Council of the Haida Nation. (2007). Haida Gwaii Strategic Land Use Agreement between the Indigenous People of Haida Gwaii as represented by The Council of the Haida Nation (the “Haida”) AND The Province of British Columbia (the “Province”) as represented by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. Government of British Columbia and the Haida Nation. (2009). Kunst’aa Guu – Kunst’aayah Reconciliation Protocol. https://www.haidanation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Kunstaa-guu_Kunstaayah_Agreement.pdf Government of British Columbia and the Haida Nation. (2010). Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act. https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/10017_01 Government of British Columbia and the Haida Nation. (2016). Haida Gwaii Marine Plan Implementation Agreeement betwen the Government of British Columbia and the Haida Nation. https://www.haidanation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/HG_IA_Signed_2016.pdf Government of Canada. (2019). Policy on Managing Bycatch. Policy on Managing Bycatch. https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/bycatch-policy-prise-access-eng.htm Government of Canada. (2023). Social Cost of Greenhouse Gas Estimates – Interim Updated Guidance for the Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/science-research-data/social-cost-ghg.html Government of Canada and Council of the Haida Nation. (2010). Gwaii Haanas Marine Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Haida Nation. https://www.haidanation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/GHMarineAgreement.pdf Gratani, M., Butler, J. R. A., Royee, F., Valentine, P., Burrows, D., Canendo, W. I., & Anderson, A. S. (2011). Is Validation of Indigenous Ecological Knowledge a Disrespectful Process? A Case Study of Traditional Fishing Poisons and Invasive Fish Management from the Wet Tropics, Australia. Ecology and Society, 16(3). http://www.jstor.org/stable/26268947 Gregory, R., Failing, L., Harstone, M., Long, G., McDaniels, T., & Ohlson, D. (2012). Structured decision making: A practical guide to environmental management choices. John Wiley & Sons. Greiner, J. T., McGlathery, K. J., Gunnell, J., & McKee, B. A. (2013). Seagrass Restoration Enhances “Blue Carbon” Sequestration in Coastal Waters. PLoS ONE, 8(8), e72469. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072469 178 Greiner, R. (2010). Payments For Environmental Services (PES): Contribution To Indigenous Livelihoods. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 131, 163–174. https://doi.org/10.2495/EEIA100141 Griggs, G., & Reguero, B. G. (2021). Coastal Adaptation to Climate Change and Sea-Level Rise. Water, 13(16), Article 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13162151 Grizzetti, B., Lanzanova, D., Liquete, C., Reynaud, A., & Cardoso, A. C. (2016). Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management. Environmental Science & Policy, 61, 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.04.008 Guerry, A. D., Plummer, M. L., Ruckelshaus, M. H., & Harvey, C. J. (2011). Ecosystem service assessments for marine conservation. Oxford University Press. https://www-oxfordscholarship-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588992.001.0001/acprof-9780199588992-chapter-17 Guerry, A. D., Ruckelshaus, M. H., Arkema, K. K., Bernhardt, J. R., Guannel, G., Kim, C.-K., Marsik, M., Papenfus, M., Toft, J. E., Verutes, G., Wood, S. A., Beck, M., Chan, F., Chan, K. M. A., Gelfenbaum, G., Gold, B. D., Halpern, B. S., Labiosa, W. B., Lester, S. E., … Spencer, J. (2012). Modeling benefits from nature: Using ecosystem services to inform coastal and marine spatial planning. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 8(1–2), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2011.647835 Guichard, F., Levin, S. A., Hastings, A., & Siegel, D. (2004). Toward a Dynamic Metacommunity Approach to Marine Reserve Theory. BioScience, 54(11), 1003–1011. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[1003:TADMAT]2.0.CO;2 Haida Marine Traditional Knowledge Participants and Haida Oceans Technical Team. (2011). Haida marine traditional knowledge study. Council of the Haida Nation. Haida Marine Traditional Knowledge Study participants, Winbourne, J., & Haida Oceans Technical Team. (2011). Haida Marine Traditional Knowledge Study, vol. 1 Methods and Results Summary, vol. 2 Seascape Unit Summary and vol. 3 Focal species summary (p. 96). Council of the Haida Nation. Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2014). The Ecosystem Approach as a Framework for Understanding Knowledge Utilisation. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(2), 301–319. https://doi.org/10.1068/c1329j Halpern, B. S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K. A., Kappel, C. V., Micheli, F., D’Agrosa, C., Bruno, J. F., Casey, K. S., Ebert, C., Fox, H. E., Fujita, R., Heinemann, D., Lenihan, H. S., Madin, E. M. P., Perry, M. T., Selig, E. R., Spalding, M., Steneck, R., & Watson, R. (2008). A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems. Science, 319(5865), 948–952. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1149345 Hanley, N., Bell, D., & Alvarez-Farizo, B. (2003). Valuing the Benefits of Coastal Water Quality Improvements Using Contingent and Real Behaviour. Environmental and Resource Economics, 24(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022904706306 Hanson, E., Gamez, D., & Manuel, A. (2022, June 19). The Residential School System. Indigenous Foundations. https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/the_residential_school_system/ Hao, C., Chu, J., Wang, Y., Yu, T., Bao, W., & Wang, L. (2022). Assessing the Environmental Profit and Loss of Cotton T-shirts. Journal of Natural Fibers, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2022.2091716 Hardy, K., & Wickham-Jones, C. (2002). Scotland’s First Settlers: The Mesolithic seascape of the Inner Sound, Skye and its contribution to the early prehistory of Scotland. Antiquity, 76, 825–833. Harley, C. D. G., Randall Hughes, A., Hultgren, K. M., Miner, B. G., Sorte, C. J. B., Thornber, C. S., Rodriguez, L. F., Tomanek, L., & Williams, S. L. (2006). The impacts of climate 179 change in coastal marine systems: Climate change in coastal marine systems. Ecology Letters, 9(2), 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00871.x Harris, C. (1997). The Resettlement of British Columbia: Essays on Colonialism and Geographical Change. UBC Press. Harris, C. (2001). Fish, Law, and Colonialism: The Legal Capture of Salmon in British Columbia. University of Toronto Press. Harris, C. (2002). Making Native Space: Colonialism, Resistance, and Reserves in British Columbia. UBC Press. Harris, C. (2004). How Did Colonialism Dispossess? Comments from an Edge of Empire. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94(1), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.09401009.x Hasselman, L. (2017). Adaptive management; adaptive co-management; adaptive governance: What’s the difference? Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 24(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2016.1251857 Hawkes, S. (1996). The Gwaii Haanas Agreement: From conflict to cooperation. Environments, 23(2), 87–100. Heath, M. S. Jr. (1974). Legislative History of the Coastal Area Management Act. North Carolina Law Review, 53(2), 345–398. Heckwolf, M. J., Peterson, A., Jänes, H., Horne, P., Künne, J., Liversage, K., Sajeva, M., Reusch, T. B. H., & Kotta, J. (2021). From ecosystems to socio-economic benefits: A systematic review of coastal ecosystem services in the Baltic Sea. Science of The Total Environment, 755, 142565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142565 Hedden-Dunkhorst, B., Braat, L., & Wittmer, H. (2015). TEEB emerging at the country level: Challenges and opportunities. Ecosystem Services, 14, 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.03.007 Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R. S., & van Ierland, E. C. (2006). Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 57(2), 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005 Hernández-Morcillo, M., Hoberg, J., Oteros-Rozas, E., Plieninger, T., Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Reyes-García, V. (2014). Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Europe: Status Quo and Insights for the Environmental Policy Agenda. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 56(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2014.861673 Hickel, J., & Kallis, G. (2020). Is Green Growth Possible? New Political Economy, 25(4), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964 Hill, K., Rife, M., & Twining-Hard, T. (2015). The Strategic Value of GEF Cross-Cutting Capacity Development (p. 67). UNDP. https://www.undp.org/publications/strategic-value-gef-cross-cutting-capacity-development Hodder, B. W., Lee, R., & Lee, R. (2015). Economic Geography. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315715742 Hoegh-Guldberg, O., & Bruno, J. F. (2010). The Impact of Climate Change on the World’s Marine Ecosystems. Science, 328(5985), 1523–1528. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1189930 Hoekstra, G. (2022, November 9). A year after floods, B.C. estimates cost of climate-resilient highway rebuilds at $1 billion. Vancouver Sun. https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/bc-floods-estimate-highway-rebuilds-1-billion Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245 Holling, C. S. (1978). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. John Wiley & Sons. https://iiasa.dev.local/ Holling, C. S. (1996). Surprise for Science, Resilience for Ecosystems, and Incentives for People. Ecological Applications, 6(3), 733–735. https://doi.org/10.2307/2269475 180 Hope, C. (2020). Integrated Assessment Models of climate change. In Handbook on the Economics of Climate Change (pp. 114–126). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/edcoll/9780857939050/9780857939050.00013.xml Horowitz, J. K., & McConnell, K. E. (2002). A Review of WTA/WTP Studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44(3), 426–447. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.2001.1215 Hotelling, H. (1947). Letter cited in the economics of public recreation: An economic study of the monetary evaluation of recreation in the national parks. .: Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Park Service. Hotte, N., Wyatt, S., & Kozak, R. (2019). Influences on trust during collaborative forest governance: A case study from Haida Gwaii. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 49(4), 361–374. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2018-0222 Howarth, R. B., & Farber, S. (2002). Accounting for the value of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 421–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00091-5 Hubacek, K., & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2006). Changing concepts of ‘land’ in economic theory: From single to multi-disciplinary approaches. Ecological Economics, 56(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.033 Huntington, H. P. (2000). Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: Methods and applications. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1270–1274. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1270:UTEKIS]2.0.CO;2 Ignace, M., & Ignace, R. E. (2017). Secwépemc People, Land, and Laws: Yerí7 re Stsq’ey’s-kucw. McGill-Queen’s Press - MQUP. Impact Assessment Act, S.C. § c 28 (2019). https://canlii.ca/t/543j0 Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. (2021, July 20). Basics of Impact Assessments. https://www.canada.ca/en/impact-assessment-agency/services/policy-guidance/basics-of-impact-assessments.html Indigenous Services Canada. (2023). Co-developing distinctions-based Indigenous health legislation. Government of Canada. https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1611843547229/1611844047055 International Maritime Organization. (2022). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Legal/Pages/UnitedNationsConventionOnTheLawOfTheSea.aspx IPCC. (2013). Glossary. IPCC. IPCC. (2019). IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (p. 755). IPCC. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157964. IPCC. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (H. O. Portner, Roberts, D.C., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E.S., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Löschke, S., Möller, V., & Okem, A., Eds.). Cambridge University Press. Irving, A. D., Connell, S. D., & Russell, B. D. (2011). Restoring Coastal Plants to Improve Global Carbon Storage: Reaping What We Sow. PLoS ONE, 6(3), e18311. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018311 Jala, & Nandagiri, L. (2015). Evaluation of Economic Value of Pilikula Lake Using Travel Cost and Contingent Valuation Methods. Aquatic Procedia, 4, 1315–1321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqpro.2015.02.171 Jamieson, G. S., & Levings, C. O. (2001). Marine protected areas in Canada—Implications for both conservation and fisheries management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58(1), 138–156. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-58-1-138 181 Jentoft, S., & Chuenpagdee, R. (2009). Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem. Marine Policy, 33(4), 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.12.002 Jim, C. Y., & Chen, W. Y. (2009). Value of scenic views: Hedonic assessment of private housing in Hong Kong. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(4), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.01.009 Joa, B., Winkel, G., & Primmer, E. (2018). The unknown known – A review of local ecological knowledge in relation to forest biodiversity conservation. Land Use Policy, 79, 520–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.001 Jones, M. L., M, Sowerby, A., Williams, D. L., & Jones, R. E. (2008). Factors controlling soil development in sand dunes: Evidence from a coastal dune soil chronosequence. Plant and Soil, 307(1–2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-008-9601-9 Jones, R., Rigg, C., & Lee, L. (2010). Haida Marine Planning: First Nations as a Partner in Marine Conservation. Ecology and Society, 15(1), art12. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03225-150112 Jones, R., Rigg, C., & Pinkerton, E. (2017). Strategies for assertion of conservation and local management rights: A Haida Gwaii herring story. Marine Policy, 80, 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.031 Jones, R., & Williams-Davidson, T. L. (2000). Applying Haida ethics in today’s fishery. In Just fish: Ethics and Canadian marine fisheries (pp. 100–115). Jordan, S., Smith, L., & Nestlerode, J. (2009). Cumulative Effects of Coastal Habitat Alterations on Fishery Resources: Toward Prediction at Regional Scales. Ecology and Society, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02713-140116 Kenchington, R, & Crawford, D. (1993). On the Meaning of Integration in Coastal Zone Management Richard Kenchington. Ocean & Coastal Management, 21, 109–127. Kenter, J. O., O’Brien, L., Hockley, N., Ravenscroft, N., Fazey, I., Irvine, K. N., Reed, M. S., Christie, M., Brady, E., Bryce, R., Church, A., Cooper, N., Davies, A., Evely, A., Everard, M., Fish, R., Fisher, J. A., Jobstvogt, N., Molloy, C., … Williams, S. (2015). What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecological Economics, 111, 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.006 Kieslich, M., & Salles, J.-M. (2021). Implementation context and science-policy interfaces: Implications for the economic valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 179, 106857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106857 King, L. (2004). Competing Knowledge Systems in the Management of Fish and Forests in the Pacific Northwest. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 4(2), 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:INEA.0000040418.31663.61 Kirkby, C. A., Giudice-Granados, R., Day, B., Turner, K., Velarde-Andrade, L. M., Dueñas-Dueñas, A., Lara-Rivas, J. C., & Yu, D. W. (2010). The Market Triumph of Ecotourism: An Economic Investigation of the Private and Social Benefits of Competing Land Uses in the Peruvian Amazon. PLOS ONE, 5(9), e13015. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013015 Köhn, J., & Gowdy, J. (1999). Coping with complex and dynamic systems. An approach to a transdisciplinary understanding of coastal zone developments. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 5(2), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02802754 Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. Sage. Kooiman, J., Jentoft, S., Bavinck, M., & Pullin, R. (2005). Fish for Life: Interactive Governance for Fisheries. Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.5117/9789053566862 Krause-Jensen, D., & Duarte, C. M. (2016). Substantial role of macroalgae in marine carbon sequestration. Nature Geoscience, 9(10), 737–742. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2790 Kroeger, T., & Casey, F. (2007). An assessment of market-based approaches to providing ecosystem services on agricultural lands. Ecological Economics, 64(2), 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.021 182 Kron, W. (2013). Coasts: The high-risk areas of the world. Natural Hazards, 66(3), 1363–1382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0215-4 Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions ([2d ed., enl). University of Chicago Press. Kumar, M., & Kumar, P. (2008). Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective. Ecological Economics, 64(4), 808–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.008 Kumar, R., Surma, S., Pitcher, T., Varkey, D., Lam, M., Ainsworth, C., & Pakhomov, E. (2016). An Ecosystem Model of the Ocean Around Haida Gwaii, Northern British Columbia: Ecopath, Ecosim and Ecospace. Fisheries Centre Research Reports, 24, 1–76. Kuwae, T., & Hori, M. (Eds.). (2019). Blue Carbon in Shallow Coastal Ecosystems: Carbon Dynamics, Policy, and Implementation. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1295-3 La Notte, A., D’Amato, D., Mäkinen, H., Paracchini, M. L., Liquete, C., Egoh, B., Geneletti, D., & Crossman, N. D. (2017). Ecosystem services classification: A systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework. Ecological Indicators, 74, 392–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.030 Laidler, G. J., Ford, J. D., Gough, W. A., Ikummaq, T., Gagnon, A. S., Kowal, S., Qrunnut, K., & Irngaut, C. (2009). Travelling and hunting in a changing Arctic: Assessing Inuit vulnerability to sea ice change in Igloolik, Nunavut. Climatic Change, 94(3), 363–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9512-z Lakshmi, A., & Rajagopalan, R. (2000). Socio-economic implications of coastal zone degradation and their mitigation: A case study from coastal villages in India. Ocean & Coastal Management, 43(8–9), 749–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-5691(00)00057-0 Lam, M. E., Pitcher, T. J., Surma, S., Scott, J., Kaiser, M., White, A. S. J., Pakhomov, E. A., & Ward, L. M. (2019). Value- and ecosystem-based management approach: The Pacific herring fishery conflict. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 617–618, 341–364. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12972 Lane, D. E., Clarke, C. M., Clarke, J. D., Mycoo, M., & Gobin, J. (2015). Managing Adaptation to Changing Climate in Coastal Zones. In Coastal Zones (pp. 141–160). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802748-6.00009-7 Larson, S., De Freitas, D. M., & Hicks, C. C. (2013). Sense of place as a determinant of people’s attitudes towards the environment: Implications for natural resources management and planning in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Journal of Environmental Management, 117, 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.11.035 Latinopoulos, D. (2018). Using a spatial hedonic analysis to evaluate the effect of sea view on hotel prices. Tourism Management, 65, 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.09.019 Leal Filho, W., Levesque, V., Sivapalan, S., Salvia, A. L., Fritzen, B., Deckert, R., Kozlova, V., LeVasseur, T. J., Emblen-Perry, K., Azeiteiro, U. M., Paço, A., Borsari, B., & Shiel, C. (2022). Social values and sustainable development: Community experiences. Environmental Sciences Europe, 34(1), 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00641-z Lee, K. (1999). Appraising Adaptive Management. Conservation Ecology, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00131-030203 Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental Governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31(1), 297–325. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.31.042605.135621 Leonard, L. J., & Bednarski, J. M. (2015). The Preservation Potential of Coastal Coseismic and Tsunami Evidence Observed Following the 2012 Mw 7.8 Haida Gwaii Thrust Earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 105(2B), 1280–1289. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120140193 183 Levin, P. S., Francis, T. B., & Taylor, N. G. (2016). Thirty-two essential questions for understanding the social–ecological system of forage fish: The case of pacific herring. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 2(4), e01213. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1213 Lewis, S. L., & Maslin, M. A. (2015). Defining the Anthropocene. Nature, 519(7542), Article 7542. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14258 Li, W., Pan, Z., Xu, J., Liu, Q., Zou, Q., Lin, H., Wu, L., & Huang, H. (2022). Microplastics in a pelagic dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) from the Eastern Pacific Ocean and the implications for fish health. Science of The Total Environment, 809, 151126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151126 Limburg, K. E., O’Neill, R. V., Costanza, R., & Farber, S. (2002). Complex systems and valuation. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 409–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00090-3 Liquete, C., Piroddi, C., Drakou, E. G., Gurney, L., Katsanevakis, S., Charef, A., & Egoh, B. (2013). Current Status and Future Prospects for the Assessment of Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e67737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067737 Liquete, C., Zulian, G., Delgado, I., Stips, A., & Maes, J. (2013). Assessment of coastal protection as an ecosystem service in Europe. Ecological Indicators, 30, 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.02.013 Littles, C. J., Jackson, C. A., DeWitt, T. H., & Harwell, M. C. (2018). Linking people to coastal habitats: A meta-analysis of final ecosystem goods and services on the coast. Ocean & Coastal Management, 165, 356–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.09.009 Londoño, L. M., & Johnston, R. J. (2012). Enhancing the reliability of benefit transfer over heterogeneous sites: A meta-analysis of international coral reef values. Ecological Economics, 78, 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.03.016 Loomis, J. B. (1988). The Bioeconomic Effects of Timber Harvesting on Recreational and Commercial Salmon and Steelhead Fishing: A Case Study of the Siuslaw National Forest. Marine Resource Economics, 5(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1086/mre.5.1.42871964 Loomis, J., Kent, P., Strange, L., Fausch, K., & Covich, A. (2000). Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: Results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics, 33(1), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00131-7 Loomisa, J., Kentb, P., Strangec, L., Fauschc, K., & Covichc, A. (2018). Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: Results from a contingent valuation survey. In Economics of Water Resources (pp. 77–91). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351159289-6 Loring, P. A., Harrison, H. L., & Gerlach, S. C. (2014). Local Perceptions of the Sustainability of Alaska’s Highly Contested Cook Inlet Salmon Fisheries. Society & Natural Resources, 27(2), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2013.819955 Loring, P. A., & Hinzman, M. S. (2018). “They’re All Really Important, But…”: Unpacking How People Prioritize Values for the Marine Environment in Haida Gwaii, British Columbia. Ecological Economics, 152, 367–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.06.020 Luisetti, T., Turner, R. K., Bateman, I. J., Morse-Jones, S., Adams, C., & Fonseca, L. (2011). Coastal and marine ecosystem services valuation for policy and management: Managed realignment case studies in England. Ocean & Coastal Management, 54(3), 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.11.003 Luisetti, T., Turner, R. K., Jickells, T., Andrews, J., Elliott, M., Schaafsma, M., Beaumont, N., Malcolm, S., Burdon, D., Adams, C., & Watts, W. (2014). Coastal Zone Ecosystem Services: From science to values and decision making; a case study. Science of The Total Environment, 493, 682–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.05.099 184 Lyver, P. O., Timoti, P., Gormley, A. M., Jones, C. J., Richardson, S. J., Tahi, B. L., & Greenhalgh, S. (2017). Key Māori values strengthen the mapping of forest ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 27, 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.009 M. Brander, L., J. Wagtendonk, A., S. Hussain, S., McVittie, A., Verburg, P. H., de Groot, R. S., & van der Ploeg, S. (2012). Ecosystem service values for mangroves in Southeast Asia: A meta-analysis and value transfer application. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.003 Mackie, R. (1997). Trading Beyond the Mountains: The British Fur Trade on the Pacific, 1793-1843. UBC Press. Macreadie, P. I., Costa, M. D. P., Atwood, T. B., Friess, D. A., Kelleway, J. J., Kennedy, H., Lovelock, C. E., Serrano, O., & Duarte, C. M. (2021). Blue carbon as a natural climate solution. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 2(12), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00224-1 Mahan, B. L., Polasky, S., & Adams, R. M. (2000). Valuing Urban Wetlands: A Property Price Approach. Land Economics, 76(1), 100–113. https://doi.org/10.2307/3147260 Maldonado, J. H., Moreno Sanchez, R. del P., Vargas Morales, M. E., Henao Henao, J. P., González Tarazona, Y., Guerrero Compeán, R., & Schling, M. (2020). Innovation in Economic Analysis and Evaluation Approaches for Coastal Protection and Restoration Investments in the Caribbean. Inter-American Development Bank. https://doi.org/10.18235/0002184 Malthus, T. (1798). An Essay on the Principle of Population. Manea, E., Di Carlo, D., Depellegrin, D., Agardy, T., & Gissi, E. (2019). Multidimensional assessment of supporting ecosystem services for marine spatial planning of the Adriatic Sea. Ecological Indicators, 101, 821–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.12.017 Manero, A., Taylor, K., Nikolakis, W., Adamowicz, W., Marshall, V., Spencer-Cotton, A., Nguyen, M., & Grafton, R. Q. (2022). A systematic literature review of non-market valuation of Indigenous peoples’ values: Current knowledge, best-practice and framing questions for future research. Ecosystem Services, 54, 101417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101417 Maran, T., & Kull, K. (2014). Ecosemiotics: Main Principles and Current Developments. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 96(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/geob.12035 Marine Planning Partnership Initiative. (2015). Haida Gwaii Marine Plan. http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/pubdocs/bcdocs2015/587843/marineplan_northcoast_webver_22042015.pdf Marshall, A. (1898). Principles of Economics. Macmillan and Company, limited. Marshall, G. R. (2008). Nesting, subsidiarity, and community-based environmental governance beyond the local level. International Journal of the Commons, 2(1), 75–97. Martin-Ortega, J., Mesa-Jurado, M. A., Pineda-Vazquez, M., & Novo, P. (2019). Nature commodification: ‘A necessary evil’? An analysis of the views of environmental professionals on ecosystem services-based approaches. Ecosystem Services, 37, 100926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100926 Masood, E. (2018). The battle for the soul of biodiversity. Nature, 560(7719), 423–425. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05984-3 Mathews, D. L., & Turner, N. J. (2017). Ocean Cultures. In Conservation for the Anthropocene Ocean (pp. 169–206). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805375-1.00009-X Mathieu, L. F., Langford, I. H., & Kenyon, W. (2003). Valuing marine parks in a developing country: A case study of the Seychelles. Environment and Development Economics, 8(2), 373–390. 185 Maúre, E. de R., Terauchi, G., Ishizaka, J., Clinton, N., & DeWitt, M. (2021). Globally consistent assessment of coastal eutrophication. Nature Communications, 12(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26391-9 May, E. (1990). Paradise Won: The struggle for South Moresby. McClelland & Stewart Inc. Mayer, M., & Woltering, M. (2018). Assessing and valuing the recreational ecosystem services of Germany’s national parks using travel cost models. Ecosystem Services, 31, 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.12.009 McAlpine, S. A., & Porter, J. R. (2018). Estimating Recent Local Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on Current Real-Estate Losses: A Housing Market Case Study in Miami-Dade, Florida. Population Research and Policy Review, 37(6), 871–895. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-018-9473-5 McConnell, V., & Walls, M. (2005). The Value of Open Space: Evidence from Studies of Nonmarket Benefits (p. 83). Resources for the Future. McDowell Group. (1990). An Assessment of the Impact of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on the Alaska Tourism Industry: Initial Assessment. Preston, Thorgrimson, Shidler, Gates, and Ellis. McFadden, L. (2007). Governing Coastal Spaces: The Case of Disappearing Science in Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Coastal Management, 35(4), 429–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920750701525768 McGonagle, M. P., & Swallow, S. K. (2005). Open Space and Public Access: A Contingent Choice Application to Coastal Preservation. Land Economics, 81(4), 477–495. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.81.4.477 McGowan, J., Weary, R., Carriere, L., Game, E. T., Smith, J. L., Garvey, M., & Possingham, H. P. (2020). Prioritizing debt conversion opportunities for marine conservation. Conservation Biology, 34(5), 1065–1075. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13540 McGregor, D. (2021). Indigenous Knowledge Systems in Environmental Governance in Canada. KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.18357/kula.148 McKenna, J., & Cooper, A. (2006). Sacred cows in coastal management: The need for a ?cheap and transitory? model. Area, 38(4), 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2006.00708.x McKenzie, E., Posner, S., Tillmann, P., Bernhardt, J. R., Howard, K., & Rosenthal, A. (2014). Understanding the Use of Ecosystem Service Knowledge in Decision Making: Lessons from International Experiences of Spatial Planning. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(2), 320–340. https://doi.org/10.1068/c12292j Mcleod, E., Chmura, G. L., Bouillon, S., Salm, R., Björk, M., Duarte, C. M., Lovelock, C. E., Schlesinger, W. H., & Silliman, B. R. (2011). A blueprint for blue carbon: Toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO 2. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(10), 552–560. https://doi.org/10.1890/110004 McMillan, A. D. (1999). Since the time of the transformers: The ancient heritage of the Nuu-Chah-nult, Ditidaht, and Makah. UBC Press. McShane, T. O., Hirsch, P. D., Trung, T. C., Songorwa, A. N., Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B., Mutekanga, D., Thang, H. V., Dammert, J. L., Pulgar-Vidal, M., Welch-Devine, M., Peter Brosius, J., Coppolillo, P., & O’Connor, S. (2011). Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biological Conservation, 144(3), 966–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038 Mehvar, S., Filatova, T., Dastgheib, A., De Ruyter van Steveninck, E., & Ranasinghe, R. (2018). Quantifying Economic Value of Coastal Ecosystem Services: A Review. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 6(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse6010005 Menger, C. (1950). Principles of Economics. Ludwig von Mises Institute. 186 Menzel, S., & Teng, J. (2009). Ecosystem Services as a Stakeholder-Driven Concept for Conservation Science: Participative Ecosystem Services. Conservation Biology, 24(3), 907–909. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01347.x Menzies, C. R. (2016). People of the saltwater: An ethnography of git lax m’oon. University of Nebraska Press. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program) (Ed.). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press. Miller, A. (1983). Coastal Management: An Unfinished Undertaking. In Man and the Marine Environment. CRC Press. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. (2022). Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation 2022/23—2024/25 Service Plan. 14. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. (2002). Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure 2022/23—2024/25 Service Plan. 33. Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (2013). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. RFF Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315060569 Mitsch, W. J., Bernal, B., & Hernandez, M. E. (2015). Ecosystem services of wetlands. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 11(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2015.1006250 Miyasaka, T., Le, Q. B., Okuro, T., Zhao, X., & Takeuchi, K. (2017). Agent-based modeling of complex social-ecological feedback loops to assess multi-dimensional trade-offs in dryland ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology, 32(4), 707–727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0495-x Moberg, F., & Rönnbäck, P. (2003). Ecosystem services of the tropical seascape: Interactions, substitutions and restoration. Ocean & Coastal Management, 46(1–2), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-5691(02)00119-9 Moola, F. M., Martin, D., Wareham, B., Calof, J., Burda, C., & Grames, P. (2004). The Coastal Temperate Rainforests of Canada: The need for Ecosystem-Based Management. Biodiversity, 5(3), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2004.9712734 Mooney, H. A., & Ehrlich, P. R. (2012). Ecosystem Services: A Fragmentary History. In G. Daily (Ed.), Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence On Natural Ecosystems (p. 412). Island Press. Mortimer, R., Saj, S., & Christophe, D. (2018). Supporting and regulating ecosystem services in cacao agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems, 92(6), 1639–1657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0113-6 Mortimer, R., Saj, S., & David, C. (2018). Supporting and regulating ecosystem services in cacao agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems, 92(6), 1639–1657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0113-6 Naess, A., & Sessions, G. (1986). The basic principles of deep ecology. The Trumpeter, 3(4). Naredo, J. M. (2015). La economía en evolución: Historia y perspectivas de las categorías básicas del pensamiento económico. Siglo XXI de España Editores. National Energy Board. (2016). National Energy Board Report—Trans Mountain Expansion Project—May 2016 (OH-001-2014; p. 531). Government of Canada. National Research Council. (2009). Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12209 Natural Capital Project. (2019). InVEST [Text]. Natural Capital Project. https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/software/invest Natural Resources Canada. (2022). Natural Resources Canada. Natural Resources Canada. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/home Navrud, S., & Ready, R. C. (Eds.). (2007). Environmental value transfer: Issues and methods. Springer. 187 Nellemann, C., Corcoran, E., & GRID--Arendal (Eds.). (2009). Blue carbon: The role of healthy oceans in binding carbon: a rapid response assessment. GRID-Arendal. Nelson, J. R., Grubesic, T. H., Sim, L., & Rose, K. (2018). A geospatial evaluation of oil spill impact potential on coastal tourism in the Gulf of Mexico. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 68, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2017.10.001 Neumann, B., Vafeidis, A. T., Zimmermann, J., & Nicholls, R. J. (2015). Future Coastal Population Growth and Exposure to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Flooding—A Global Assessment. PLOS ONE, 34. Newell, D. (1993). Tangled Webs of History. In Tangled Webs of History. University of Toronto Press. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.3138/9781442680357/html Newton, A. (2012). A Systems Approach for Sustainable Development in Coastal Zones. Ecology and Society, 17(3), art41. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04711-170341 Nicholls, R. J., & Small, C. (2002). Improved estimates of coastal population and exposure to hazards released. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 83(28), 301–305. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002EO000216 Nicholls, S. (2019). Impacts of environmental disturbances on housing prices: A review of the hedonic pricing literature. Journal of Environmental Management, 246, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.05.144 Nienstedt, K. M., Brock, T. C. M., van Wensem, J., Montforts, M., Hart, A., Aagaard, A., Alix, A., Boesten, J., Bopp, S. K., Brown, C., Capri, E., Forbes, V., Köpp, H., Liess, M., Luttik, R., Maltby, L., Sousa, J. P., Streissl, F., & Hardy, A. R. (2012). Development of a framework based on an ecosystem services approach for deriving specific protection goals for environmental risk assessment of pesticides. Science of The Total Environment, 415, 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.057 NOAA. (2004). New Priorities for the 21st Century- NOAA’s Strategic Plan: Updated for FY 2005-FY 2010 (p. 28). NOAA. (2021). Coastal Hazards. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/natural-hazards/ Noble, B. F. (2000). Strengthening EIA through adaptive management: A systems perspective. 15. Noble, B. F. (2015). Introduction to environmental impact assessment: A guide to principles and practice (Third edition). Oxford University Press. NOEP Coastal Data. (2022). https://www.oceaneconomics.org/Market/coastal/coastalEconResults.asp?IC=N&selState=99&selCounty=99000&selYears=2021&selToYear=none&selSector=NALL+&selValue=All&selOut=display&noepID=unknown Norgaard, R. B. (1985). Environmental economics: An evolutionary critique and a plea for pluralism. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 12(4), 382–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(85)90007-5 Odulaja, O. O., & Halseth, R. (2018). The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and Indigenous Peoples in Canada (p. 48). National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health. Odum, H. T. (1983). Systems ecology; An introduction. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5545893 Ojea, E., Martin-Ortega, J., & Chiabai, A. (2012). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for economic valuation: The case of forest water services. Environmental Science & Policy, 19–20, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.02.002 Olsen, S., Tobey, J., & Kerr, M. (1997). A common framework for learning from ICM experience. Ocean & Coastal Management, 37(2), 155–174. Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Berkes, F. (2004). Adaptive Comanagement for Building Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Environmental Management, 34(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-0101-7 188 Olsson, P., Gunderson, L. H., Carpenter, S. R., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C., & Holling, C. S. (2006). Shooting the Rapids: Navigating Transitions to Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1). http://www.jstor.org/stable/26267806 Oswald, D. (2021, April 27). LEO Network Overview with Mike Brubaker [Interview]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyrCFBlvCd8&t=2751s Owens, P. N., Batalla, R. J., Collins, A. J., Gomez, B., Hicks, D. M., Horowitz, A. J., Kondolf, G. M., Marden, M., Page, M. J., Peacock, D. H., Petticrew, E. L., Salomons, W., & Trustrum, N. A. (2005). Fine-grained sediment in river systems: Environmental significance and management issues. River Research and Applications, 21(7), 693–717. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.878 Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007). The implications of complexity for integrated resources management. Environmental Modelling & Software, 22(5), 561–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.12.024 Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001 Pandeya, B., Buytaert, W., Zulkafli, Z., Karpouzoglou, T., Mao, F., & Hannah, D. M. (2016). A comparative analysis of ecosystem services valuation approaches for application at the local scale and in data scarce regions. Ecosystem Services, 22, 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.015 Pascual, U., Muradian, R., Brander, L., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., Verma, M., Armsworth, P., Christie, M., Cornelissen, J., Eppink, F., Farley, J., Loomis, J., Pearson, L., Perrings, C., & Polasky, S. (2012). The Economics of Valuing Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity. In The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations (pp. 183–256). Routledge. Pathak, A., van Beynen, P. E., Akiwumi, F. A., & Lindeman, K. C. (2021). Impacts of climate change on the tourism sector of a Small Island Developing State: A case study for the Bahamas. Environmental Development, 37, 100556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2020.100556 Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Guénette, S., Pitcher, T. J., Sumaila, U. R., Walters, C. J., Watson, R., & Zeller, D. (2002). Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature, 418(6898), 689–695. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01017 Pearce, D. (2002). An Intellectual History of Environmental Economics. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 27(1), 57–81. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.27.122001.083429 Pendleton, L., Donato, D. C., Murray, B. C., Crooks, S., Jenkins, W. A., Sifleet, S., Craft, C., Fourqurean, J. W., Kauffman, J. B., Marbà, N., Megonigal, P., Pidgeon, E., Herr, D., Gordon, D., & Baldera, A. (2012). Estimating Global “Blue Carbon” Emissions from Conversion and Degradation of Vegetated Coastal Ecosystems. PLoS ONE, 7(9), e43542. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043542 Perry, R. I., Ommer, R. E., Barange, M., Jentoft, S., Neis, B., & Sumaila, U. R. (2011). Marine social–ecological responses to environmental change and the impacts of globalization. Fish and Fisheries, 12(4), 427–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00402.x Peterson St-Laurent, G., Hagerman, S., & Hoberg, G. (2017). Emergence and influence of a new policy regime: The case of forest carbon offsets in British Columbia. Land Use Policy, 60, 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.025 Petrolia, D. R., & Kim, T.-G. (2009). What are Barrier Islands Worth? Estimates of Willingness to Pay for Restoration. Marine Resource Economics, 24(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1086/mre.24.2.42731376 189 Petrolia, D. R., & Kim, T.-G. (2011). Preventing land loss in coastal Louisiana: Estimates of WTP and WTA. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(3), 859–865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.040 Petty, S. W. (1899). The Economic Writings of Sir William Petty. The University Press. Pinsky, M. L., Guannel, G., & Arkema, K. K. (2013). Quantifying wave attenuation to inform coastal habitat conservation. Ecosphere, 4(8), art95. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES13-00080.1 Plummer, R., Crona, B., Armitage, D. R., Olsson, P., Tengö, M., & Yudina, O. (2012). Adaptive Comanagement: A Systematic Review and Analysis. Ecology and Society, 17(3), art11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04952-170311 Polasky, S., Guerry, A. D., Lubchenco, J., & Ruckelshaus, M. (2015). Reply to Phelps et al: Liability rules provide incentives to protect natural capital. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(39), E5380–E5380. Pomeroy, R., & Douvere, F. (2008). The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process. Marine Policy, 32(5), 816–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.017 Pratt, M. L. (2007). Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation (2 edition). Routledge. Prayaga, P. (2017). Estimating the value of beach recreation for locals in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia. Economic Analysis and Policy, 53, 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2016.10.001 Price, K., Roburn, A., & MacKinnon, A. (2009). Ecosystem-based management in the Great Bear Rainforest. Forest Ecology and Management, 258(4), 495–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.10.010 Proverbs, T., Lantz, T., & Gwich’in Tribal Council Department of Cultural Heritage. (2020). Cumulative Environmental Impacts in the Gwich’in Cultural Landscape. Sustainability, 12(11), 4667. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114667 R. v Gladstone. (1996). 2 SCR 723. Rajala, R. (2006). Up-coast: Forests and Industry on British Columbia’s North Coast, 1870-2005. Royal BC Museum. Rao, N. S., Ghermandi, A., Portela, R., & Wang, X. (2015). Global values of coastal ecosystem services: A spatial economic analysis of shoreline protection values. Ecosystem Services, 11, 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.011 Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G. D., & Bennett, E. M. (2010). Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(11), 5242–5247. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907284107 Raworth, K. (2012). A Safe and Just Space for Humanity: Can we live within the doughnut? Oxfam. Ray, G. C., & Grassle, J. F. (1991). Marine biological diversity: A scientific program to help conserve marine biological diversity is urgently required. BioScience, 41(7), 453–458. Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn, C. H., & Stringer, L. C. (2009). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933–1949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001 Reimchen, T. E. (2017). Diverse Ecological Pathways of Salmon Nutrients Through an Intact Marine-terrestrial Interface. The Canadian Field-Naturalist, 131(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.22621/cfn.v131i4.1965 Remoundou, K., Koundouri, P., Kontogianni, A., Nunes, P. A. L. D., & Skourtos, M. (2009). Valuation of natural marine ecosystems: An economic perspective. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(7), 1040–1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.06.006 Reyes-García, V., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., García-del-Amo, D., & Cabeza, M. (2020). Operationalizing Local Ecological Knowledge in Climate Change Research: Challenges and Opportunities of Citizen Science. In M. Welch-Devine, A. Sourdril, & B. J. Burke (Eds.), Changing Climate, Changing Worlds: Local Knowledge and the Challenges of 190 Social and Ecological Change (pp. 183–197). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37312-2_9 Ricke, K., Drouet, L., Caldeira, K., & Tavoni, M. (2018). Country-level social cost of carbon. Nature Climate Change, 8(10), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0282-y Risser, P. G. (1985). Toward a Holistic Management Perspective. BioScience, 35(7), 414–418. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310020 Rivas Casado, M., Serafini, J., Glen, J., & Angus, A. (2017). Monetising the impacts of waste incinerators sited on brownfield land using the hedonic pricing method. Waste Management, 61, 608–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.10.036 Robinson, J. (2008). Being undisciplined: Transgressions and intersections in academia and beyond. Futures, 40(1), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2007.06.007 Rodríguez, J. P., T. Douglas Beard, J., Bennett, E. M., Cumming, G. S., Cork, S. J., Agard, J., Dobson, A. P., & Peterson, G. D. (2006). Trade-offs across Space, Time, and Ecosystem Services. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01667-110128 Rose, S. K., Diaz, D. B., & Blanford, G. J. (2017). Understanding the social cost of carbon: A model diagnostic and inter-comparison study. Climate Change Economics, 08(02), 1750009. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2010007817500099 Rosenberger, R. S., & Stanley, T. D. (2006). Measurement, generalization, and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management. Ecological Economics, 60(2), 372–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.018 Ruan, L., Yan, M., Zhang, L., Fan, X., & Yang, H. (2022). Spatial-temporal NDVI pattern of global mangroves: A growing trend during 2000–2018. Science of The Total Environment, 844, 157075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157075 Ruiz-Frau, A., Edwards-Jones, G., & Kaiser, M. (2011). Mapping stakeholder values for coastal zone management. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 434, 239–249. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09136 Sagoff, M. (1998). Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: A look beyond contingent pricing. Ecological Economics, 24(2), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00144-4 Salomons, W., Turner, R. K., Lacerda, L. D., & Ramachandran, S. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-60103-3 Sander, H. A., & Haight, R. G. (2012). Estimating the economic value of cultural ecosystem services in an urbanizing area using hedonic pricing. Journal of Environmental Management, 113, 194–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.031 Sandhu, H. S., Wratten, S. D., & Cullen, R. (2010a). The role of supporting ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable farmland. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 302–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.04.006 Sandhu, H. S., Wratten, S. D., & Cullen, R. (2010b). The role of supporting ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable farmland. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 302–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.04.006 Sangha, K. K., Preece, L., Villarreal-Rosas, J., Kegamba, J. J., Paudyal, K., Warmenhoven, T., & RamaKrishnan, P. S. (2018). An ecosystem services framework to evaluate indigenous and local peoples’ connections with nature. Ecosystem Services, 31, 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.017 Sangha, K. K., Stoeckl, N., Crossman, N., & Costanza, R. (2019). A state-wide economic assessment of coastal and marine ecosystem services to inform sustainable development policies in the Northern Territory, Australia. Marine Policy, 107, 103595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103595 Sano, M., Gainza, J., Baum, S., Choy, D. L., Neumann, S., & Tomlinson, R. (2015). Coastal vulnerability and progress in climate change adaptation: An Australian case study. 191 Regional Studies in Marine Science, 2, 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2015.08.015 Sapkota, Y., & White, J. R. (2020). Carbon offset market methodologies applicable for coastal wetland restoration and conservation in the United States: A review. Science of The Total Environment, 701, 134497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134497 Satterfield, T., Gregory, R., Klain, S., Roberts, M., & Chan, K. M. (2013). Culture, intangibles and metrics in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 117, 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.11.033 Saz-Salazar, S. del, García-Menéndez, L., & Merk, O. (2015). Port–City Relationship and the Environment: Literature Survey and Methodological Approach for Project Appraisal in Presence of Environmental Externalities. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 141(3), 04014029. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000230 Scarlett, L. (2013). Collaborative Adaptive Management: Challenges and Opportunities. Ecology and Society, 18(3), art26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05762-180326 Schmeer, K. (1999). Guidelines for Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis (Partnerships for Health Reform, p. 42). Abt Associates Inc. Schröter, M., Zanden, E. H. van der, Oudenhoven, A. P. E. van, Remme, R. P., Serna‐Chavez, H. M., Groot, R. S. de, & Opdam, P. (2014). Ecosystem Services as a Contested Concept: A Synthesis of Critique and Counter-Arguments. Conservation Letters, 7(6), 514–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12091 Schweigert, J., & Ware, D. (1995). Review of the biological basis for B.C. herring stock harvest rates and conservation levels (H95: 2; PSARC Working Paper). Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Scott, B. (2004). Second‐order cybernetics: An historical introduction. Kybernetes, 33(9/10), 1365–1378. https://doi.org/10.1108/03684920410556007 Scura, L. F., Chua, T. E., Pido, M. D., & Paw, J. N. (1992). Lessons for integrated coastal zone management: The ASEAN experience. Regional Workshop on Coastal Zone Planning and Management in ASEAN Lessons Learned, Bandar Seri Begawan (Brunei Darussalam), 28-30 Apr 1992. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Lessons+for+integrated+coastal+zone+management%3A+the+ASEAN+experience&author=Scura%2C+L.F.&publication_year=1992 Seenprachawong, U. (2016). An Economic Analysis of Coral Reefs in the Andaman Sea of Thailand. In N. Olewiler, H. A. Francisco, & A. J. G. Ferrer (Eds.), Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Valuation, Institutions, and Policy in Southeast Asia (pp. 31–45). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0141-3_3 Sejati, A. W., Buchori, I., Kurniawati, S., Brana, Y. C., & Fariha, T. I. (2020). Quantifying the impact of industrialization on blue carbon storage in the coastal area of Metropolitan Semarang, Indonesia. Applied Geography, 124, 102319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102319 Senge, P. M. (Ed.). (1994). The Fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. Currency/Doubleday. Service, C. N., Adams, M. S., Artelle, K. A., Paquet, P., Grant, L. V., & Darimont, C. T. (2014). Indigenous Knowledge and Science Unite to Reveal Spatial and Temporal Dimensions of Distributional Shift in Wildlife of Conservation Concern. PLoS ONE, 9(7), e101595. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101595 Shepard, C. C., Crain, C. M., & Beck, M. W. (2011). The Protective Role of Coastal Marshes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 6(11), e27374. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027374 Sillitoe, P. (2002). Globalizing indigenous knowledge. In Participating in Development—Approaches to indigenous knowledge (pp. 108–138). Routledge. 192 Sillitoe, P., Bicker, A., & Pottier, J. (Eds.). (2002). Participating in Development: Approaches to Indigenous Knowledge. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203428603 Silver, J. J., & Campbell, L. M. (2018). Conservation, development and the blue frontier: The Republic of Seychelles’ Debt Restructuring for Marine Conservation and Climate Adaptation Program. International Social Science Journal, 68(229–230), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/issj.12156 Silver, J. J., Okamoto, D. K., Armitage, D., Alexander, S. M., (Kam’ayaam/Chachim’multhnii), C. A., Burt, J. M., Jingwas), R. J. (Nang, Lee, L. C., Muhl, E.-K., Salomon, A. K., & Stoll, J. S. (2022). Fish, people, and systems of power: Understanding and disrupting feedback between colonialism and fisheries science. The American Naturalist, 720152. https://doi.org/10.1086/720152 Simard, S., & Ryan, T. (Sm’hayetsk). (2020, January 20). Haida Gwaii Timber Supply Review Public Discussion Paper. https://www.discoveryislandsforestconservationproject.ca/solutions/bc-forest-scientist-suzanne-simards-letter-on-a-new-direction-for-forestry-on-haida-gwaii-r1/ Simas, T., Nunes, J. P., & Ferreira, J. G. (2001). Effects of global climate change on coastal salt marshes. Ecological Modelling, 139(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(01)00226-5 Simpson, S., Brown, G., Peterson, A., & Johnstone, R. (2016). Stakeholder perspectives for coastal ecosystem services and influences on value integration in policy. Ocean & Coastal Management, 126, 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.03.009 Sloan, G. M. (1945). Report of the Commissioner relating to The Forest Resources of British Columbia. . ., 185. Slocombe, D. S. (1993). Implementing Ecosystem-Based Management. BioScience, 43(9), 612–622. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312148 Smessaert, J., Missemer, A., & Levrel, H. (2020). The commodification of nature, a review in social sciences. Ecological Economics, 172, 106624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106624 Smith, D. J., & Rodríguez-Labajos, B. (2021). Turning the wheel away from biophysical indicators in coastal zone management: Towards a stakeholder-based systemic framework. Ecological Indicators, 125, 107527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107527 Smithwick, E. A. H., Harmon, M. E., Remillard, S. M., Acker, S. A., & Franklin, J. F. (2002). Potential Upper Bounds of Carbon Stores in Forests of the Pacific Northwest. Ecological Applications, 12(5), 1303–1317. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[1303:PUBOCS]2.0.CO;2 Snowden, D. (2012). The Social Ecology of Knowledge Management. In Knowledge Horizons (pp. 237–265). Routledge. Sorensen, J. (1993). The international proliferation of integrated coastal zone management efforts. Ocean & Coastal Management, 21(1), 45–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/0964-5691(93)90020-Y Sorensen, J. (1997). National and international efforts at integrated coastal management: Definitions, achievements, and lessons. Coastal Management, 25(1), 3–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920759709362308 South Moresby Resource Planning Team. (1983). South Moresby Land Use Alternatives (p. 230). https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/SouthMoresbyLandUse.pdf Spalding, M. D., Ruffo, S., Lacambra, C., Meliane, I., Hale, L. Z., Shepard, C. C., & Beck, M. W. (2014). The role of ecosystems in coastal protection: Adapting to climate change and coastal hazards. Ocean & Coastal Management, 90, 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.09.007 193 Spash, C. L. (2007). Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecological Economics, 63(4), 690–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.014 Spencer, A. (2019). Tourism and Economic Realities in the Caribbean. In A. Spencer (Ed.), Travel and Tourism in the Caribbean: Challenges and Opportunities for Small Island Developing States (pp. 47–71). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69581-5_3 Staff. (2023, January 30). Jamaican Supreme Court Halts Noranda Bauxite Mining In St. Ann’s Cockpit Country. Aluminium Insider. https://aluminiuminsider.com/jamaican-supreme-court-halts-noranda-bauxite-mining-in-st-anns-cockpit-country/ Stanley, T. D. (2001). Wheat from Chaff: Meta-analysis as Quantitative Literature Review. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(3), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.15.3.131 Statistics Canada. (2022). Tourism gross domestic product, constant prices. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3610023401&cubeTimeFrame.startMonth=01&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2021&cubeTimeFrame.endMonth=10&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2021&referencePeriods=20210101%2C20211001 Steel, B. S., Lach, D., & Weber, E. P. (2017). New Strategies for Wicked Problems: Science and Solutions in the 21st Century. Oregon State University Press. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/205/edited_volume/book/56396 Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C. A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G. M., Persson, L. M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., & Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855 Stephenson, J., & Moller, H. (2009). Cross‐cultural environmental research and management: Challenges and progress. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 39(4), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014220909510567 Stiglitz, J. E., Fitoussi, J. P., & Durand, M. (Eds.). (2018). For Good Measure Advancing Research on Well-being Metrics Beyond GDP: Advancing Research on Well-being Metrics Beyond GDP. OECD Publishing. Stojanovic, T., Ballinger, R. C., & Lalwani, C. S. (2004). Successful integrated coastal management: Measuring it with research and contributing to wise practice. Ocean & Coastal Management, 47(5–6), 273–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2004.08.001 Stojanovic, T., & Barker, N. (2008). Improving governance through local Coastal Partnerships in the UK. Geographical Journal, 174(4), 344–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2008.00303.x Stojanovic, T., Green, D. R., & Lymbery, G. (2010). Approaches to knowledge sharing and capacity building: The role of local information systems in marine and coastal management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 53(12), 805–815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.10.020 Stronghill, J., Rutherford, M., & Haider, W. (2015). Conservancies in Coastal British Columbia: A New Approach to Protected Areas in the Traditional Territories of First Nations. Conservation and Society, 13(1), 39–50. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.4103/0972-4923.161219 Su, J., Friess, D. A., & Gasparatos, A. (2021). A meta-analysis of the ecological and economic outcomes of mangrove restoration. Nature Communications, 12(1), 5050. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25349-1 Sumaila, U. R. (2004). Intergenerational cost–benefit analysis and marine ecosystem restoration. Fish and Fisheries, 5(4), 329–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2679.2004.00166.x Sumaila, U. R. (Ed.). (2021). Infinity Fish: Economics and the Future of Fish and Fisheries. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-823816-5.00001-1 194 Sumaila, U. R. (2022a). Chapter 4 - Making future generations count via discounting to ensure Infinity Fish: A static model. In U. R. Sumaila (Ed.), Infinity Fish (pp. 27–46). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-823816-5.00021-7 Sumaila, U. R. (2022b). Chapter 17—Epilogue—Knowing the cost of everything but the value of nothing. In U. R. Sumaila (Ed.), Infinity Fish (pp. 225–230). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-823816-5.00013-8 Sumaila, U. R. (2024). Reflections on Breaking Down Silos in Fisheries Science. Fisheries, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.11076 Sumaila, U. R., & Tai, T. C. (2020). End Overfishing and Increase the Resilience of the Ocean to Climate Change. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2020.00523 Sumaila, U. R., & Teh, L. (2021). First Nations Fisheries Valuation Project Report. UBC Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries. Sun, D., & Hallin, L. (2018). British Columbia’s Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector, 2016 Edition (p. 112). BC Stats. Swanton, J. R. (1905). Haida texts and myths: Skidegate dialect. Govt. print. off. Sweet, W. V., Dudsek, G., Obeysekera, J., & Marra, J. J. (2018). Patterns and projections of high tide flooding along the US coastline using a common impact threshold (NOS CO-OPS 086; p. 44 pp.). NOAA. Tàbara, J. D., & Chabay, I. (2013). Coupling Human Information and Knowledge Systems with social–ecological systems change: Reframing research, education, and policy for sustainability. Environmental Science & Policy, 28, 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.005 Takeda, L., & Ropke, I. (2010). Power and contestation in collaborative ecosystem-based management: The case of Haida Gwaii. Ecological Economics, 70, 178–188. Tang, J., Ye, S., Chen, X., Yang, H., Sun, X., Wang, F., Wen, Q., & Chen, S. (2018). Coastal blue carbon: Concept, study method, and the application to ecological restoration. Science China Earth Sciences, 61(6), 637–646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-017-9181-x Tang, Q., Zhang, J., & Fang, J. (2011). Shellfish and seaweed mariculture increase atmospheric CO2 absorption by coastal ecosystems. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 424, 97–104. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08979 TEEB. (2010a). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. http://teebweb.org/publications/teeb-for/synthesis/ TEEB. (2010b). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M. (2014). Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced Ecosystem Governance: The Multiple Evidence Base Approach. AMBIO, 43(5), 579–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3 Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C. M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., Elmqvist, T., & Folke, C. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—Lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005 Tennant, P. (2011). Aboriginal Peoples and Politics: The Indian Land Question in British Columbia, 1849-1989. UBC Press. Terrados, J., Duarte, C. M., Fortes, M. D., Borum, J., Agawin, N. S. R., Bach, S., Thampanya, U., Kamp-Nielsen, L., Kenworthy, W. J., Geertz-Hansen, O., & Vermaat, J. (1998). Changes in Community Structure and Biomass of Seagrass Communities along Gradients of Siltation in SE Asia. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 46(5), 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1006/ecss.1997.0304 195 Theodore, M. K., & Theodore, L. (2021). Introduction to Environmental Management (2nd ed.). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003171126 Thia-Eng, C. (1993). Essential elements of integrated coastal zone management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 21(1–3), 81–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/0964-5691(93)90021-P Thinh, N. A., Thanh, N. N., Tuyen, L. T., & Hens, L. (2019). Tourism and beach erosion: Valuing the damage of beach erosion for tourism in the Hoi An World Heritage site, Vietnam. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 21(5), 2113–2124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0126-y Thomashow, M. (2001). Bringing the Biosphere Home: Learning to Perceive Global Environmental Change. MIT Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/royalroads-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5966125 Thomlinson, E., & Crouch, G. (2012). Aboriginal peoples, Parks Canada, and protected spaces: A case study in co-management at Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve. Annals of Leisure Research, 15(1), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2012.670965 Thompson, M. A., Owen, S., Lindsay, J. M., Leonard, G. S., & Cronin, S. J. (2017). Scientist and stakeholder perspectives of transdisciplinary research: Early attitudes, expectations, and tensions. Environmental Science & Policy, 74, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.006 Tinch, R., Beaumont, N., Sunderland, T., Ozdemiroglu, E., Barton, D., Bowe, C., Börger, T., Burgess, P., Cooper, C. N., Faccioli, M., Failler, P., Gkolemi, I., Kumar, R., Longo, A., McVittie, A., Morris, J., Park, J., Ravenscroft, N., Schaafsma, M., … Ziv, G. (2019a). Economic valuation of ecosystem goods and services: A review for decision makers. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 8(4), 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2019.1623083 Tinch, R., Beaumont, N., Sunderland, T., Ozdemiroglu, E., Barton, D., Bowe, C., Börger, T., Burgess, P., Cooper, C. N., Faccioli, M., Failler, P., Gkolemi, I., Kumar, R., Longo, A., McVittie, A., Morris, J., Park, J., Ravenscroft, N., Schaafsma, M., … Ziv, G. (2019b). Economic valuation of ecosystem goods and services: A review for decision makers. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 8(4), 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2019.1623083 Tintoré, J., Medina, R., Gómez-Pujol, L., Orfila, A., & Vizoso, G. (2009). Integrated and interdisciplinary scientific approach to coastal management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 52(10), 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2009.08.002 Tobey, J., Rubinoff, P., Robadue, D., Ricci, G., Volk, R., Furlow, J., & Anderson, G. (2010). Practicing Coastal Adaptation to Climate Change: Lessons from Integrated Coastal Management. Coastal Management, 38(3), 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2010.483169 Torres, C., & Hanley, N. (2016). Economic valuation of coastal and marine ecosystem services in the 21st century: An overview from a management perspective (Working Series Paper DEA WP no. 75; p. 218). Universitat de les Isles Balears - Departament de Economica Aplicada. Trudeau, J. (2021a). Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard Mandate Letter. Office of the Prime Minister of Canada. Trudeau, J. (2021b). Minister of Natural Resources Mandate Letter. Office of the Prime Minister of Canada. Tulloch, V. J. D., Adams, M. S., Martin, T. G., Tulloch, A. I. T., Martone, R., Avery-Gomm, S., & Murray, C. C. (2022). Accounting for direct and indirect cumulative effects of anthropogenic pressures on salmon- and herring-linked land and ocean ecosystems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 377(1854), 20210130. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0130 Turner, K. G., Anderson, S., Gonzales-Chang, M., Costanza, R., Courville, S., Dalgaard, T., Dominati, E., Kubiszewski, I., Ogilvy, S., Porfirio, L., Ratna, N., Sandhu, H., Sutton, P. C., 196 Svenning, J.-C., Turner, G. M., Varennes, Y.-D., Voinov, A., & Wratten, S. (2016). A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration. Ecological Modelling, 319, 190–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.07.017 Turner, N. J., Davidson-Hunt, I. J., & O’Flaherty, M. (2003). Living on the Edge: Ecological and Cultural Edges as Sources of Diversity for Social–Ecological Resilience. Human Ecology, 31(3), 439–461. Turner, N. J., Ignace, M. B., & Ignace, R. (2000). Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Wisdom of Aboriginal Peoples in British Columbia. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1275–1287. https://doi.org/10.2307/2641283 Turner, N. J., Ignace, M. B., & Ignace, R. (2020). Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Wisdom of Aboriginal Peoples in British Columbia. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1275–1287. Turner, R. K. (2000). Integrating natural and socio-economic science in coastal management. Journal of Marine Systems, 25(3–4), 447–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-7963(00)00033-6 Turner, R. K., Perrings, C., & Folke, C. (1997). Ecological Economics: Paradigm or Perspective. In J. C. J. M. van den Bergh (Ed.), Economy and ecosystems in change: Analytical and historical approaches. 1997, pp. 25-49 (pp. 25–49). Advances in Ecological Economics series. Cheltenham, U.K. and Lyme, N.H.: Elgar; distributed by American International Distribution Corporation, Williston, Vt. https://www.proquest.com/docview/56991284?parentSessionId=IJ3YB6zLaHNGElJiDsqlCf6Gi4gTFtPegeMfIVkV1Zw%3D&pq-origsite=summon&www.proquest.com/econlit/advanced/accountid=14656 Turner, R. K., Subak, S., & Adger, W. N. (1996). Pressures, trends, and impacts in coastal zones: Interactions between socioeconomic and natural systems. Environmental Management, 20(2), 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01204001 Ulrich, W. (1993). Some difficulties of ecological thinking, considered from a critical systems perspective: A plea for critical holism. Systems Practice, 6(6), 583–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01059480 UN General Assembly. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Resolution / adopted by the General Assembly. UNCBD. (2022). United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/ UNCCD. (2022). Land Degradation Neutrality. Land Degradation Neutrality. https://www.unccd.int/land-and-life/land-degradation-neutrality/overview UNEP-WCMC. (2011). Marine and coastal ecosystem services: Valuation methods and their application (33; UNEP-WCMC Biodiversity Series, p. 46). UNEP-WCMC. https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/8546 UNESCO International Bureau of Education. (2015, May 26). Concept of Governance [Text]. International Bureau of Education. http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/geqaf/technical-notes/concept-governance United Nations. (2022). System of Environmental Economic Accounting. https://seea.un.org/ United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2022). The 17 Goals | Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/goals van Beukering, P., Haider, W., Longland, M., Cesar, H., Sablan, J., Shjegstad, S., Beardmore, B., Liu, Y., & Garces, G. O. (2007). The economic value of Guam’s coral reefs (p. 130). van der Weide, J. (1993). A systems view of integrated coastal management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 21(1), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/0964-5691(93)90023-R van Kerkhoff, L., & Szlezák, N. A. (2016). The role of innovative global institutions in linking knowledge and action. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(17), 4603–4608. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900541107 197 van Zanten, B. T., van Beukering, P. J. H., & Wagtendonk, A. J. (2014). Coastal protection by coral reefs: A framework for spatial assessment and economic valuation. Ocean & Coastal Management, 96, 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.05.001 Vasquez-Lavín, F., Ponce Oliva, R. D., Hernández, J. I., Gelcich, S., Carrasco, M., & Quiroga, M. (2019). Exploring dual discount rates for ecosystem services: Evidence from a marine protected area network. Resource and Energy Economics, 55, 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2018.11.004 Vatn, A. (2009). An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal. Ecological Economics, 68(8), 2207–2215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.04.005 Ventikos, N. P., & Sotiropoulos, F. S. (2014). Disutility analysis of oil spills: Graphs and trends. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 81(1), 116–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.02.007 Verutes, G. M., Arkema, K. K., Clarke-Samuels, C., Wood, S. A., Rosenthal, A., Rosado, S., Canto, M., Bood, N., & Ruckelshaus, M. (2017). Integrated planning that safeguards ecosystems and balances multiple objectives in coastal Belize. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 13(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1345979 Vesterinen, J., Pouta, E., Huhtala, A., & Neuvonen, M. (2010). Impacts of changes in water quality on recreation behavior and benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(4), 984–994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.12.005 Vihervaara, P., Rönkä, M., & Walls, M. (2010). Trends in Ecosystem Service Research: Early Steps and Current Drivers. AMBIO, 39(4), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0048-x Virapongse, A., Brooks, S., Metcalf, E. C., Zedalis, M., Gosz, J., Kliskey, A., & Alessa, L. (2016). A social-ecological systems approach for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 178, 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.02.028 Vogel, B., & Bullock, R. C. L. (2021). Institutions, indigenous peoples, and climate change adaptation in the Canadian Arctic. GeoJournal, 86(6), 2555–2572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10212-5 Wakita, K., Shen, Z., Oishi, T., Yagi, N., Kurokura, H., & Furuya, K. (2014). Human utility of marine ecosystem services and behavioural intentions for marine conservation in Japan. Marine Policy, 46, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.12.015 Walker, W. E., Harremoës, P., Rotmans, J., van der Sluijs, J. P., van Asselt, M. B. A., Janssen, P., & Krayer von Krauss, M. P. (2003). Defining Uncertainty: A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Support. Integrated Assessment, 4(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1076/iaij.4.1.5.16466 Wallace, K. J. (2007). Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions. Biological Conservation, 139(3), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.015 Walters, C. J., & Holling, C. S. (1990). Large-Scale Management Experiments and Learning by Doing. Ecology, 71(6), 2060–2068. https://doi.org/10.2307/1938620 Wang, X., Chen, W., Zhang, L., Jin, D., & Lu, C. (2010). Estimating the ecosystem service losses from proposed land reclamation projects: A case study in Xiamen. Ecological Economics, 69(12), 2549–2556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.07.031 Wattage, P., & Soussan, J. (2003). Incorporating Environmental Value and Externality in Project Evaluation as a Sustainability Indicator to evaluate Bangladesh Water Development. Water Resources Management, 17(6), 429–446. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:WARM.0000004957.49020.c3 Wenzel, G. W. (1999). Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Inuit: Reflections on TEK Research and Ethics. Arctic, 52(2), 113–124. Wenzel, G. W. (2004). From TEK to IQ: Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and Inuit Cultural Ecology. Arctic Anthropology, 41(2), 238–250. https://doi.org/10.1353/arc.2011.0067 198 Werner, A. D., Bakker, M., Post, V. E. A., Vandenbohede, A., Lu, C., Ataie-Ashtiani, B., Simmons, C. T., & Barry, D. A. (2013). Seawater intrusion processes, investigation and management: Recent advances and future challenges. Advances in Water Resources, 51, 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2012.03.004 White, C., Halpern, B. S., & Kappel, C. V. (2012). Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(12), 4696–4701. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114215109 Whitney, C. K., & Ban, N. C. (2019). Barriers and opportunities for social-ecological adaptation to climate change in coastal British Columbia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 179, 104808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.05.010 Wilderness Committee. (2010, November 17). Lyell Island: 25 years later. https://www.wildernesscommittee.org/news/lyell-island-25-years-later Wilson, J. (1998). Talk and Log: Wilderness Politics in British Columbia, 1965-96. UBC Press. Winthrop, R. H. (2014). The strange case of cultural services: Limits of the ecosystem services paradigm. Ecological Economics, 108, 208–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.10.005 Witman, J. D., Lamb, R. W., & Byrnes, J. E. K. (2015). Towards an integration of scale and complexity in marine ecology. Ecological Monographs, 85(4), 475–504. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-2265.1 Woodward, R. T., & Wui, Y.-S. (2001). The economic value of wetland services: A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 37(2), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00276-7 World Bank. (2022). Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services. https://www.wavespartnership.org/en/home Worster, D., Worster, D., & Worster, H. D. P. of H. D. (1994). Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas. Cambridge University Press. Wright, G., Salk, C., Magnuszewski, P., Stefanska, J., Andersson, K., Benavides, J. P., & Chazdon, R. (2023). Conformity and tradition are more important than environmental values in constraining resource overharvest. PLOS ONE, 18(2), e0272366. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272366 Wright, L. D., & Nichols, C. R. (Eds.). (2019). Tomorrow’s Coasts: Complex and Impermanent (Vol. 27). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75453-6 Wright, L. D., Syvitski, J. P. M., & Nichols, C. R. (2019). Coastal Complexity and Predictions of Change. In L. D. Wright & C. R. Nichols (Eds.), Tomorrow’s Coasts: Complex and Impermanent (pp. 3–23). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75453-6_1 Wyllie de Echeverria, V. R., & Thornton, T. F. (2019). Using traditional ecological knowledge to understand and adapt to climate and biodiversity change on the Pacific coast of North America. Ambio, 48(12), 1447–1469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01218-6 Yanagisawa, H., Koshimura, S., Goto, K., Miyagi, T., Imamura, F., Ruangrassamee, A., & Tanavud, C. (2009). The reduction effects of mangrove forest on a tsunami based on field surveys at Pakarang Cape, Thailand and numerical analysis. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 81(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2008.10.001 Yang, Z. (Ed.). (2020). The Environment and Externality: An Overview. In The Environment and Externality: Theory, Algorithms and Applications (pp. 1–11). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108762557.002 Yoshida, G., Hori, M., Shimabukuro, H., Hamaoka, H., Onitsuka, T., Hasegawa, N., Muraoka, D., Yatsuya, K., Watanabe, K., & Nakaoka, M. (2019). Carbon Sequestration by Seagrass and Macroalgae in Japan: Estimates and Future Needs. In T. Kuwae & M. Hori (Eds.), Blue Carbon in Shallow Coastal Ecosystems: Carbon Dynamics, Policy, and Implementation (pp. 101–127). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1295-3_4 199 Young, J. W. S. (1997). A framework for the ultimate environmental index—Putting atmospheric change into context with sustainability. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 46, 135–149. Young, O. R. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change: Fit, interplay, and scale. MIT Press. Yu, B., Cai, Y., Jin, L., & Du, B. (2018). Effects on Willingness to Pay for Marine Conservation: Evidence from Zhejiang Province, China. Sustainability, 10(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072298 Zhang, F., Wang, X. H., Nunes, P. A. L. D., & Ma, C. (2015). The recreational value of gold coast beaches, Australia: An application of the travel cost method. Ecosystem Services, 11, 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.09.001 Zulpikar, F., Tambunan, L. A., Utami, S. R., & Kiyat, W. E. (2018). Economic Valuation of Marine Tourism in Small Island Using Travel Cost Method (Case Study: Untung Jawa Island, Indonesia). Omni-Akuatika, 14(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.20884/1.oa.2018.14.1.465 200 Appendices Appendix A: Response of Council of Haida Nation to Research Proposal (email) 201 Appendix B: Overview of Methodologies for Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services Table 9: Overview of economic valuation methods Valuation Method Type of Values Description Relevance to Ecosystem services and Coastal Zone Management Market Price Use Values Used for ecosystem services that are traded / purchased in conventional market systems and therefore have a clear economic/monetary price signal (Barbier et al., 1997). Several goods come from the coastal zone including food products (seafood, kelp, etc.), building materials, and cultural products (art materials etc.) (Gilani et al., 2018). Benefit Transfer Use Values The procedure of estimating the value of ecosystem good and services by applying existing valuation estimates derived from similar ecosystems (Navrud & Ready, 2007). Often applied for overall value of coastal ecosystems linked to recreation (Mehvar et al., 2018). Studies from other coastal ecosystems can provide insights as to possible economic values which can be helpful for framing policy and planning decisions, for example the Baltic Sea (Heckwolf et al., 2021). Contingent Valuation (Stated Preference) Use and Non-Use Peoples’ willingness to pay (WTP) is determined from surveys asking people what they are willing to pay to access various ecosystem services (for both use and non-use applications) (Enriquez-Acevedo et al., 2018; Petrolia & Kim, 2009). There are many situations in which coastal zone ecosystem services are not valued in monetary terms nor traded on markets. In these cases ‘proxy values’ can be used. For example, if a conservation project was proposed for a part of the coastline, residents could be asked what they would be willing to pay to see the land conserved. This essentially becomes the cost that people ascribe to having a section of the coast left pristine (Bhandari & Heshmati, 2010; Yu et al., 2018). Contingent Choice (Stated Preference) Use and Non-Use Peoples’ WTP is assessed based on choices between different constructed scenarios of ecosystem states). Several attributes are ‘bundled’ together into different scenarios from which the participants make a choice. Scenarios in the coastal zone can be constructed and levels of each attribute systematically changed – this then allows for more precise determination of the importance of the different attributes. (Boxall et al., 1996). Coastal zones are complex systems with several unique attributes that when combined present a variety of different permutations as to what a coastal environment can be for a community (i.e. developed vs. pristine, recreationally-focused or resource extraction-based, etc.). The contingent choice methodology is an excellent way of constructing different scenarios in the individual attributes can be modified to see how people will respond in economic terms. It can therefore provide more focused evaluation of the economic values of specific parameters (Börger et al., 2018). 202 Valuation Method Type of Values Description Relevance to Ecosystem services and Coastal Zone Management Hedonic Pricing (Revealed Preference) Use Values Used to value ecosystem services that contribute to amenities, a good example being property value. Price differentials in property can often be attributed to ecosystem amenities such as views or proximity to coastlines. (Evans et al., 2017; S. Nicholls, 2019). Coastal zones have a variety of ecosystem services that contribute to amenities. In fact, coastlines are heavily sought-after destinations for development and housing for exactly this reason – marine transportation, recreational activities, and aesthetic quality all contribute to the value of coastal developments. Therefore, these specific ecosystem services can be valued based on the differential contribution to certain amenities – the classic example being the different in price of beachfront property vs. non-beach front (Jim & Chen, 2009; Latinopoulos, 2018) Travel Cost (Revealed Preference) Use Values The costs of travel of visitors to a recreation site to enjoy its associated environmental value (Jala & Nandagiri, 2015; Mayer & Woltering, 2018). Coastal zones are very often a destination for tourists. Therefore, the travel cost method can be a useful way of assessing the economic value of ecosystem services by using the wide array of travel cost data that is available (Zhang et al., 2015) Damage Avoided or Replacement cost (Revealed Preference) Use Values The cost that people are willing to pay to avoid damages, cost of loss ecosystem services, or the cost of substituting ecosystem services that provide the same benefits (Barbier, 2016; Farber et al., 2002). Coastal zones provide ecosystem services with direct economic benefits such as avoided losses via protection of settlements. If these ecosystem services are degraded (such as with coral reefs in the Caribbean) there will be socio-economic impacts on coastal communities. Replacement cost methods can be used to assess the value of these protective ecosystem services based on the losses that are expected to occur as a result of their degradation (Burke & Maidens, 2004) Production based (Revealed Preference) Use Values The value of the ecosystem services that contribute to the production of commercial products that are sold on markets (Wang et al., 2010). Changes in ecosystem services such as oxygen production that regulate / contribute to the production of commercial products such as fish can be quantified economically using this method. For example, if it were determined that climate change was to reduce oxygen production in the coastal zone, economic impacts could be assessed in terms of the scientifically-determined reduction in fish stocks (van Beukering et al., 2007). Relative Valuation** Use and Non-Use A new methodology that seeks to incorporate the diversity of values that a community may have for a given ecosystem service. It involves identifying core community values and then surveying participants as to what relative weighting they Economic valuation is inherently connected to socio-cultural values and how communities perceive and value nature and the benefits they derive from it. Coastal zones are home to different communities that may have widely varying values which are heavily influenced by cultural factors. Relative valuation is a means of capturing the differential ‘weight’ that individuals 203 Valuation Method Type of Values Description Relevance to Ecosystem services and Coastal Zone Management give to each value in relation to the determined market value. The result is a monetary equivalent to the ‘whole value’ of the ecosystem service from the perspective of the community (Sumaila, 2022b) give to different ecosystem services by breaking them into their cultural dimensions. The result is the ‘whole value’ of an ecosystem service (Arias-Arévalo et al., 2018; Loring & Hinzman, 2018; Luisetti et al., 2014). 204 Appendix C: Regulations and Legislation Relevant to Coastal Zone Management in Haida Gwaii Table 10: Regulations and legislation and their impact on coastal zone management in Haida Gwaii Governance Level Agency/ Organization Policy / Legislation Connection to Coastal Zone Management International United Nations United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) Coastal zones are home to a high degree of biodiversity and the UNCBD post 2020 targets will impact how Parties strategically prepare their national programs to align with NBSAPs (National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plans). (UNCBD, 2022). International United Nations United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions as well as adaptation to climate change both impact the coastal zone. Coastal zones may be sources or sinks of GHG emissions, particular examples being wetlands (Mcleod et al., 2011; Sapkota & White, 2020). Storms, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and storm surges are all linked to climate change and will need to be considered in terms of adaptation in coastal zone management (IPCC, 2022). International United Nations United Nations Convention on Combatting Desertification (UNCCD) Land degradation impacts biophysical processes in the coastal zone and may also contribute to increased vulnerability. Clearing of forested lands can lead to siltation and impacts on biota in the coastal zone (Terrados et al., 1998). Unfettered development and land alteration in the coastal zone can result in communities being more vulnerable to hazards such as storm surges, sea level rise, and tsunamis (Bukvic et al., 2020) . The UNCCD aims to reduce land degradation with Parties committing to net zero land degradation by 2030 (UNCCD, 2022). International United Nations United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) UNDRIP provides directives in the form of 46 distinct legal articles that signatories are to exercise in their respective countries. There are various articles that relate to coastal zone management in Haida Gwaii, but the most pertinent are: Article 4: Right to Self Determination; Article 5: Right to maintain distinct political, legal, economic, social, and cultural institutions; Article 11: Right to practice cultural traditions and customs; Article 13: Right to revitalize, use, develop, and transmit to future generations their oral traditions and philosophies; Article 18: Right to participate in decision making processes that affect their rights; Article 19: Right to be consulted and provide free, prior, and informed consent on decisions that impact them; Article 20: Right to develop political, economic, and social systems or institutions; Article 21: Right to improvement of economic and social conditions; Article 23: Right to develop priorities and strategies for development; Article 25: Right to maintain and strengthen spiritual relationship with traditional territories; Article 26: Right to land, territory, and resources; Article 27: Right to be included in fair, independent, impartial, open, and transparent processes with respect to lands, territories, and resources; Article 28: Right to fair and equitable compensation for lands, territories, and resources which have been traditionally owned and have been confiscated or occupied without consent; Article 29: Right to conservation and protection of the environment and productive capacity of indigenous lands; Article 31: Right to 205 maintain, control, protect, and develop cultural heritage and traditional knowledge; Article 32: Right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development of lands, territories, and resources; Article 34: Right to promote, develop and maintain institutional structures and customs; Article 37: Right to have treaties and agreements with States be recognized (UN General Assembly, 2007). International United Nations UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) UNCLOS is an international agreement that governs the balance between national and international interests in the marine environment. Specifically relevant to coastal zone management are the provisions in UNCLOS that relate to national rights to natural resource exploitation in a country’s EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone), which is generally considered to be twelve miles from the established shore baseline. UNCLOS also establishes broadened jurisdiction for coastal and port states to enforce international environmental regulations within their territory and on the high seas (outside of their designated marine territory). UNCLOS may require consideration in coastal zone management depending on the degree of international activity within or in close proximity to a nation’s marine territory (International Maritime Organization, 2022) National (Canada) Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) - Coastal Fisheries Protection Act - Fisheries Act - Oceans Act - Species at Risk Act The acts and regulations that fall within DFO’s jurisdiction address protection of national fisheries territory from foreign entities, delineate fishing quotas and practices, define marine territory and marine protected areas, and outline marine species at risk (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2022a). DFO policies, acts, and regulations and directly impact how many socio-economic activities and environmental management practices in the coastal zone are to transpire and thus must be considered. National (Canada) Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada - The Constitution Act of 1982 - Indian Act - Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Act - First Nations Land Management Act Relations between Canada and First Nations in Canada are complex and governed by a series of policies and Acts which are also embedded in the process of reconciliation. Land use and treaty negotiations, which are at various stages depending on the First Nations group, are also a significant factor. In coastal zone management one of the most important issues to understand is how natural resource rights are delineated between Canada and First Nations groups in the region in question. Aboriginal, Metis, and Inuit peoples in Canada have inherent rights to land, resources, and activities as distinct societies that predate Canadian sovereignty as it was established through colonialization. Section 35 of the 1982 Constitution of Canada recognizes Aboriginal and Treaty rights of First Nations (Constitution Act, 1982). However, these rights were not clearly defined, and as a result legal conflicts have emerged over the past 30 years through which court decisions have been made that have defined First Nations rights to resources. In terms of fisheries, First Nations have the inherent rights to fish for food, but this can be limited by conservation measures deemed necessary by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. First Nations rights to resources, land, and activities in the coastal zone are subject to Canadian laws as well as rights that are defined by treaties and legal precedent. This can 206 sometimes result in unique local rights such as the Heiltsuk First Nation of the pacific northwest coast of BC who had their legal rights for commercial harvesting of herring spawn-on-kelp clarified by the Gladstone case of 1996 (R. v Gladstone, 1996). In all cases, it is necessary to review Canadian legislation as it applies to First Nations as a whole and to also look at the local context including the treaty rights of the First Nation group(s) in the area, their specific rights, and the impact of legal precedents that are relevant to the natural resource issues at hand. Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN) - Department of Natural Resources Act - Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act - Canada Petroleum Resources Act - Emergency Management Act - Forestry Act - NRCAN is responsible for overseeing and regulating resource extraction activities such as oil and gas and mining. It also provides provisions for natural hazards and emergencies (Natural Resources Canada, 2022). The coastal zone can be impacted by offshore oil and gas operations and potentially from mining activities as well. It is important to identify any natural resource extraction activities that take place in the coastal zone region being assessed in order to determine potential impacts on ecosystem services and the local community. Parks Canada - Canada National Parks Act - Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act - Historic Sites and Monuments Act - Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act - Species at Risk Act (SARA) Several locations along the Pacific Northwest coast are part of national parks and therefore subject to conservation measures and restricted uses. Park boundaries need to be considered in coastal zone management plans such that these restrictions can be respected and impacts to the parks minimized. This is also pertinent to economic valuation processes as the use values of national parks are predicated on recreational and aesthetic ecosystem services being intact. Transport Canada - Canada Marine Act - Canada Shipping Act - Canadian Navigable Waters Act - Department of Transport Act - Transportation of Dangerous Good Act Coastal zones serve as transportation corridors for various types of passenger and freight traffic. Regulations related to shipping, dangerous goods, and transport as a whole must be considered and adhered to when developing coastal zone management plans. This is particularly important in areas of heavy industrial activity where there are ports. Risk management procedures need to be implemented so as to reduce potential impacts on ecosystems and communities. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) - Canada Water Act - Canadian Environmental Protection Act (1999) - Navigable Waters Protection Act - Migratory Birds Convention Act - Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (WAPPRIITA) - Canada Wildlife Act - Federal Sustainable Development Act There are a variety of regulatory considerations that need to be made in the coastal zone with respect to environmental conservation, impacts assessment, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and environmental protection as a whole. ECCC is responsible for critical legislation related to environmental impact assessment and conservation and stewardship of the environment (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2022). It is particularly important to consider impacts on biodiversity and the health of local species, especially those that are at risk. Special conservation measures and legislative requirements for impact assessment must be reviewed for each unique coastal environment where management plans are being developed. 207 - Impact Assessment Act Provincial (British Columbia) Environment and Climate Change Strategy - Environmental Management Act - Integrated Pest Management Act - Park Act - Climate Change Accountability Act - Environmental Assessment Act For situations in which there are disturbances to the environment in the coastal zone, such as new development proposals, invasive species or pests, or infringement on a designated provincial park, the regulations directed by the BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy should be consulted. In many cases (EIA in particular) there may be overlap with Federal regulations. (BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, 2022) Forests - Forest Act - Forest and Range Practices Act - Forest Practices Code of British Columbia - Land Act - Riparian Areas Protection Act - Water Sustainability Act - Wildfire Act - Fish and Seafood Act The Ministry of Forests is responsible for the management of forests, lands and range and integrated decision making for fish and wildlife, archaeology permits, and natural resource compliance and authorization (BC Ministry of Forests, 2022). Although its mandate is centred on forests and land management, these decisions can have wide ranging impacts on the coastal zone – directly and indirectly. Forestry developments inshore from the coastal zone can have biophysical impacts and can also influence socio-economic activities (J. B. Loomis, 1988; Owens et al., 2005; Perry et al., 2011). Therefore it is important to consider the implications of land-based decisions in Haida Gwaii as there may be impacts on the coastal zone. Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation - Federal Port Development Act - Geothermal Resources Act - Mineral Tenure Act - Mines Act - Oil and Gas Activities Act - Petroleum and Natural Gas Act This Ministry is responsible for electricity, alternative energy, hydrogen, oil, natural gas, as well as mining and mineral exploration in BC (Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation, 2022). Some of these activities may occur in the coastal zone or alternatively, they may have impacts on the coastal zone. Therefore, consideration must be given to the appropriate legislation should it apply to energy or mining projects taking place in the coastal zone of Haida Gwaii. Environmental Assessment Office - Environmental Assessment Act The Environmental Assessment Office is responsible for managing the environmental assessment process for any major project that is proposed in BC. The well-defined process is focused on ensuring that any potential environmental, economic, social, or cultural impacts that could occur over the lifetime of a project are assessed. Any manor developmental activities in the Haida Gwaii coastal environment would have to follow this process. (BC Environmental Assessment Office, 2022) Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport - Tourism Act Tourism is a vital part of the economy of British Columbia with an estimated 7.1B in revenue created in 2020, much of which is dependent on the quality of the environment (Statistics Canada, 2022). Consideration must be given to any tourism developments or activities that occur in the coastal zone of Haida Gwaii as they can have significant impacts if not conducted responsibly and equitably. Whale watching is one example of a tourism activity that is both dependent on the environment but can also have significant impacts. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure - Coastal Ferry Act - Commercial Transport Act - Railway Act The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is responsible for all transportation planning, policies, and infrastructure development in British Columbia. As such, any tourism activities that occur in the coastal zone of Haida 208 - Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act - Transportation Act Gwaii must be considered in terms of their impact on the environment and their feasibility and safety (e.g. coastal ferries). This includes both passenger and commercial /industrial transportation (Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, 2002) Ministry of Health - Drinking Water Protection Act - Emergency Health Services Act - Food Safety Act - Public Health Act - The Ministry of Health is tasked with managing the health care system and ensuring access to it. It has overall responsibility for issues that will impact the health of the communities in British Columbia such as in the case of viral outbreaks or environmental factors impacting health. The Ministry has relationships with different regional health authorities which are responsible for delivery of health care services. Partnership agreements are in place between the Ministry of Health and First Nations Health Authority (FNHA) and the First Nations Health Council (FNHC) through which support for health and wellness of indigenous peoples is provided (BC Ministry of Health, 2022). Any coastal zone management issues in Haida Gwaii that impact the health of communities needs to consider the mandate of the Ministry of Health and the regulations and legislation it enacts. Ministry of Agriculture and Food - Fish and Seafood Act - Plant Protection Act Farming and Fishing Industries Development Act The Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for the production and outward business development of agriculture and seafood products as well as advisory on this sector and collection of relevant data (BC Ministry of Agriculture and Food, 2022). This mandate involves overseeing the safe and effective production of food products, some of which may originate from coastal zones. Therefore, any and all agriculture-related activities in Haida Gwaii must be considered in coastal zone management plans. This includes seafood harvesting and cultivation (aquaculture). Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation - Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act - First Peoples’ Heritage, Language and Culture Act - Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act - The Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation guides the activities of the Province of British Columbia’s actions and efforts to achieve reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples through developing effective and respectful partnerships that recognize their rights (BC Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, 2022). Several coastal zones in British Columbia are situated in the ancestral and/or legal territory of Indigenous Peoples and therefore any land or natural resource use decisions must be done with full respect of their inherent rights. In some cases there are co-management agreements in place where natural resource decision making processes and power are shared. The Gwaii Haanas Agreement is a perfect example of co-management at work (Government of British Columbia and Council of the Haida Nation, 1993). The BC Government recognizes UNDRIP and correspondingly enacted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People Act in 2019. Several specific agreements such as the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act have also been developed between the Province of BC and different First Nations groups. These agreements typically delineate respective rights to land and natural resources and processes for governance of their use. A coastal zone management 209 framework for Haida Gwaii needs to recognize these agreements and their implications. 210 Appendix D: Policies, Plans, and Regulations Impacting Herring Fishery in Haida Gwaii Example of an Assessment of the Policies/Plans/Regulations used for the Herring fishery in Haida Gwaii: Table 11: Impact of management plans and policies on herring fishery in Haida Gwaii Plan/Policy Program/Process/ Regulation Influence on ES Spatial Extent Temporal Extent Data/Knowledge Used Management Of Enforcement Impacts of Enforcement Fishery Decision Making Framework Incorporating the Precautionary Principle (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2009a) Gives direction to decision makers with respect to harvesting amounts based on stock status zones (Healthy, Cautious, Critical). The framework encourages the precautionary approach when scientific knowledge is uncertain. Applies to specific fisheries in specific areas. Therefore, it will apply to herring fishery in different parts of the Pacific coast. It is applied on an ongoing basis but is reviewed based on the new data that comes in. When warranted, changes to harvest levels and practices are applied. Stock status zones are defined by the Limit Reference Point (LRP) at the barrier between Critical and Cautious zones, and the Upper Stock Reference Point (USR) between the Cautious and Healthy zones. These points and the stock status are assessed based on scientific survey data (biomass and harvest metrics) that are collected as well as model output. The framework provides direction for harvest levels. Actual enforcement is done by DFO Officers and staff. Stock and harvest levels will be directly influenced by the changes invoked through this policy. Managing Impacts of Fishing on Benthic Habitat, Communities and Species (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2009b) A systematic, transparent, and consistent policy approach to prevent or minimize the effect of fishing practices on the health and vitality of benthic (seafloor) ecosystems and species. This framework may influence fishing time and area closures, gear restrictions, and gear modification – all of which may impact harvest levels. The policy is applied on an as-required basis, particularly focusing on two areas: (a) historically fished areas, and (b) frontier areas. Ecological risk analysis is applied to areas to determine vulnerability of benthic environments. Where they are at risk, these policy directives are applied. The policy is applied over the duration of time warranted based on the ecological risk assessment. If the benthic area is deemed sensitive, then these guidelines will remain in place in order to preserve these sensitive ecosystems. The application of the policy is based on the results of the Ecological Risk Analysis Framework. This framework entails gathering data and information and mapping where benthic communities are, determining their degree of sensitivity, and delineating if fishing activities may impact them. Based on this data and the risk assessment, mitigation measures are applied. These may be gear modification, or at the extreme – restricting fishing. The framework provides direction for areas that may have sensitive benthic ecosystems and where precautions ought to be taken. The appropriate actions are prescribed for these areas (restrictions, gear restrictions / modifications). Enforcement is carried out by DFO Officers and staff. The goal of enforcement is to reduce impacts on benthic ecosystems. What this may mean for herring fisheries is limitation of catch in certain areas. Policy on New Species for Forage Species (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2009c) This policy is specifically targeted at forage species such as herring and lays out objectives that may influence harvest rates and Applied to designated forage (in this case herring) fishery zones as per above. The policy is applied continuously and monitored, with changes evoked based Similar knowledge used for the Fishery Decision making Framework, but specifically focused on ecological impacts of the herring fishery Enforcement of orders or mandates that evolved from this policy will be performed by The desired outcome of enforcement is to maintain ecological integrity and stock 211 Plan/Policy Program/Process/ Regulation Influence on ES Spatial Extent Temporal Extent Data/Knowledge Used Management Of Enforcement Impacts of Enforcement management practices. The objectives are: (1) maintain target and bycatch within natural abundance fluctuations; (2) maintain ecosystem relationships influenced by fishery (e.g. predator – prey); (3) minimize risk of changes to species’ abundance and relationships; (4) maintain full reproductive potential of forage species; (5) allow opportunities to conduct commercially viable fisheries on forages species. These guidelines will impact the harvest rates and stock of herring in different management zones. on insights gleaned from ecological information that is gathered. – i.e. predator-prey relationships and the broader ecological impacts. Therefore, more detailed studies may be required. DFO Officers and staff. abundance of herring. Guidance for the Development of Rebuilding Plans under the Precautionary Approach Framework: Growing Stocks out of the Critical Zone (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2022b) Rebuilding plans are triggered when a major fish stock has fallen to or below its limit reference point. This policy outlines the process for developing rebuilding plans for these stocks. If a rebuilding plan is triggered there is a 24 month period during which time the plan is to be developed and actions taken to promote stock regeneration – conservation, management measures, etc. If herring stocks fall to or below the limit reference points this policy will likely be applied, thus impacting harvest This policy applies to over spatial areas where the stock is observed to be at or below the limit reference point. Once a stock has been identified as being at or below the limit reference point there is a 24 month period for developing the rebuilding plan. At that time the plan will be reviewed and implemented if approved, with the impacts being changes to licences etc. The 24 month period can be extended if necessary. The plan will be implemented Data and information pertaining to stock status is used to assess progress with the rebuilding plan. Scientific studies, models, indigenous knowledge, and local knowledge contribute to the assessment of stock levels. Factors contributing to stock decline are also assessed through review of data. The measures that are established in the rebuilding plan are, once the plan is approved, implemented and then monitored by DFO staff and officers. Enforcement actions will impact herring stock levels. For instance, harvest bans will provide time and space for stock regeneration. However, there will also be socio-economic impacts that will result too. 212 Plan/Policy Program/Process/ Regulation Influence on ES Spatial Extent Temporal Extent Data/Knowledge Used Management Of Enforcement Impacts of Enforcement and management practices. and monitored to the point at which the stock has reached its rebuilding target. Policy on Managing Bycatch (Government of Canada, 2019) Fishing practices can often impact non-target species, called bycatch. Bycatch is retained or returned. This policy has two objectives: (1) promote sustainable fisheries and minimize bycatch; (2) account for total catch including retained and non-retained bycatch. The impact on herring provision will be that harvesting practices may be impacted by guidelines to help reduce bycatch. This policy is applied generally to all fisheries and fishing zones. This policy is applied generally and is not temporally bounded. Bycatch is monitored and accounted for in-situ. These procedures and practices are also built into Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) Enforcement is conducted in accordance with that associated with other Fishery Management Plans. It is carried out by DFO staff and officers. Enforcement of bycatch management practices can result in impacts on herring catch and stock. The intent of this policy is to enhance ecological well-being by minimizing bycatch. Therefore the ultimate impact of enforcement could be greater overall ecosystem health. Strategic Framework for Fishery Monitoring and Catch Reporting in the Pacific Fisheries (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2012) Sustainable fisheries require timely and reliable catch and monitoring data. This policy outlines approaches, guidelines and standards for gathering this data. Having more comprehensive data for the herring fishery ultimately leads to better management and greater capability to make decisions leading to sustainable fisheries. This policy is applied generally to all fisheries and fishing zones This policy is applied generally to all fisheries and fishing zones Data is gathered on board vessels and/or at shore – depending on the species being monitored. Commercial sales slips, logbooks, fisher hail-ins/hail-outs, harvester/creel surveys, fisher-collected biological data, samples, aerial gear counts, on water gear counts, on-board observers, camera systems, dockside monitoring, and post season buyer / supplier surveys are all examples of the various means of data acquisition. First Nations food, social, and ceremonial fisheries (FSC) Data Management Advisors have been established to better Resource managers work with various fishery representatives to implement data gathering processes. The better the data gathered, the better the management decisions can be. Given the fact that comprehensive data gathering processes are in place, one can expect that at least the basis for sound decisions is available. This can lead to more sustainable fisheries. 213 Plan/Policy Program/Process/ Regulation Influence on ES Spatial Extent Temporal Extent Data/Knowledge Used Management Of Enforcement Impacts of Enforcement plan and coordinate data gathering. Ecological Risk Assessment Framework (ERAF) for Coldwater Corals and Sponge Dominated Communities (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2013) This framework is to be used to support decision making in relation to Canada’s Policy to Manage the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas. The ERAF outlines a method for assessing risk of fishing activity on benthic areas. The outcomes of this assessment may impact fishing practices and therefore could influence herring stock. In addition, by safeguarding the benthic marine ecosystems greater ecological integrity will be realized. The ERAF is applied over fishery zones where there may be sensitive benthic environments. The ERAF is applied on a continuous basis where there are situations where there is risk to benthic environments. Fisheries Managers in DFO will lead the risk assessment process but they will draw data from a variety of sources. The Science sector of DFO will be one of the main sources of data but input from other sources may be warranted as well. The output of the ERAF will lead into regulatory and management decisions within the Managing Impacts of Fishing on Benthic Habitat, Communities and Species policy through which appropriate enforcement action will be developed. Enforcement will lead to reduced risk to benthic ecosystems in the marine environment which is expected to ultimately lead to a more robust herring fishery. Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2022c) Provides guidelines for the catch and conservation of Herring Covers the extent of Pacific Coast of BC with specific (seven) major and minor stock and fishing areas designated For 2021 and 2022, with periodic updates Data is gathered through catch and stock surveys from the seven areas, two minor, five major. A statistical catch-age model is used to provide estimates. Ongoing peer review scientific studies support the use of models. Indigenous Knowledge pertaining to behaviour, spawn timing, abundance, is provided by First Nations. TEK from the public and DFO staff also contributes to the knowledge base used to support decision making DFO Conservation and Protection staff monitor and enforce issues and problems pertaining to the Herring Fishery and the guidelines outlined in this plan. Violation of rules may result in fines, legal orders/ prohibitions, or forfeiture of catch.
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Interdisciplinary Studies
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Lavkulich, L. M.
Newell, Dianne
A systematic framework for coastal zone management and economic valuation of ecosystem services in BC coastal nations
Text