Research

INTRODUCTION

Conservation is shifting alongside global and local movements to foreground Indigenous rights and resurgence (Artelle et al. 2019, Wong et al. 2020, Dawson et al. 2021, Hessami et al. 2021, M'sɨt No'kmaq et al. 2021). Despite these shifts in conservation thinking, many of its guiding frameworks remain rooted in western conceptualizations of nature, which critics argue commonly depict nature as mechanistic and humans as separate from and superior to their surroundings (Holling and Meffe 1996, Howitt and Suchet-Pearson 2006, Hessami et al. 2021, Urzedo and Robinson 2023, Moon et al. 2025). As an example, the adjacent field of nature-based solutions has been criticized as being dominated by non-Indigenous scholars who “evok[e] Indigenous values and worldviews” (Sinclair et al. 2021) while remaining rooted in paternalistic and utilitarian conservation frameworks, often without meaningfully listening to Indigenous people (Townsend et al. 2020, Melanidis and Hagerman 2022, Nelson and Reed 2025). Through their governance, knowledge systems, and lived relationships with the land, Indigenous peoples are vital in addressing the ongoing climate crisis (Berkes et al. 2000, Huntington 2000, Brondizio et al. 2021, Carroll et al. 2025). To work toward reconciliation, uphold Indigenous rights, and (re)center Indigenous knowledge systems, the conservation and environmental management fields must address their ongoing problematic assumptions and meaningfully center Indigenous peoples and their ways of knowing and being (Howitt and Suchet-Pearson 2006, Muller et al. 2019, David-Chavez et al. 2024, Menzies et al. 2024).

We describe a case study of conservation and climate change adaptation in Mi'kma'ki, the ancestral, contemporary, and unceded territories of the Mi'kmaq or L'nu. L'nu is the original, self-declared name of the Mi'kmaq. Young (2016:76) explained “[L'nu] means ‘The People of the Same Tongue.’ It denotes a group of people who have experienced the same forces of ecology and have a shared cognitive solidarity. The L'nu are also known as the Micmac or Mi'kmaq, words derived from the word Ni'kmaq, which means ‘My Kin-Friends’.” Recognizing the entanglements of culture and language, we use Mi'kmaw words and placenames as much as possible throughout this text. Despite extensive searching in archives, through discussions with community members, and online, we could not find a Mi'kmaw word for the Bay of Fundy, so we refer to this place in English. We acknowledge that translations from Mi'kmaq to English are not perfect; as with any translation they undoubtedly lose the richness, cultural context, and deeper meanings embedded in the original language.

The Mi'kmaq have resided on the east coast of Turtle Island since time immemorial, and the hypertidal Bay of Fundy spans the Siknikt, Sipekne'katik, and Kespukwik districts of their territories (Fig. 1). Turtle Island refers to the continent of North America (https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/turtle-island). The term stems from various First Nation oral histories depicting a turtle holding the world on its back. Turtle Island is used by both Indigenous (including Mi'kmaq) and non-Indigenous people to recenter Indigenous terms over settler-colonial names.

Our study focuses on the latter two districts in Nova Scotia, an eastern Canadian province. Early French settlers (called Acadians) began constructing coastal embankments, known as dykes, along the bay in the 1600s to prevent tidal intrusion and create farmland (Butzer 2002, Rudin 2022; https://www.unnaturallandscapes.ca/index.html). These dykes persist and the lands they protect, known locally as dykelands (elsewhere dikelands or polders), have more diverse uses than originally envisioned, such as residential, industrial, and commercial areas with tourism and recreational amenities (Sherren et al. 2021). In many areas, pressures from climate change, such as sea level rise and increased storm surges, mean the agricultural dykeland systems can no longer be maintained at their current scale (van Proosdij et al. 2018, Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Climate Change 2022).

Sherren et al. (2021) provided a baseline study of the Bay of Fundy context, highlighting the complexity of three primary adaptation options: restoring dykelands to tidal wetlands, realigning (pulling back) dykes, and/or raising dykes in their current footprint. Among the overlapping environmental, political, and cultural factors that have been assessed thus far, Sherren et al. (2021) suggested the most significant omission was L'nuwey in the Bay of Fundy, namely, how the Mi'kmaq value the dyke and tidal wetland systems as well as how Mi'kmaq navigate coastal adaptation decision making. Young (2016) and Deblois (1996), as cited by M'sɨt No'kmaq et al. (2021:848), explained, “L'nuwey translates roughly as ‘It belongs to the 'nu’ or ‘The way the L'nu think, behave or do something’.” This is the focus of the community-engaged research study described herein. We address the following research questions:

1. What is the significance of tidal wetlands to Mi'kmaq? How do Mi'kmaq use, relate to, and value tidal wetlands on Nova Scotia’s Bay of Fundy coast?
2. What is the significance of dykes and dykelands to Mi'kmaq? How do Mi'kmaq use, relate to, and value dykes and the dykelands on Nova Scotia’s Bay of Fundy coast?
3. How do Mi'kmaq approach coastal adaptation decisions in this context? What are factors to include in the decision process and how do Mi'kmaq navigate decisions between wetland restoration and dyke maintenance?

This study was conducted collaboratively by researchers at Dalhousie University and the Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq (CMM). Dalhousie University is a public academic research institution established in Kjipuktuk (Halifax, Nova Scotia) by British settlers in the early 1800s. The collaborators from Dalhousie University include the primary author, EW, who is a settler from Ktaqmkuk (Newfoundland); MZ, who is a settler originally from Treaty 1 territory (Winnipeg, Manitoba); and KS, a settler from Ktaqmkuk who grew up in the ancestral and unceded territory of the Wolastoqiyik (Western New Brunswick). These authors aim to align with several co-authors of M'sɨt No'kmaq et al. (2021) as “peace and friendship allies who also value the land, all peoples and their treaty agreements and obligations.” Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq is a non-profit tribal council that supports eight Mi'kmaq communities throughout mainland Nova Scotia. The primary collaborator from the CMM was KP, an L'nu'skw (Mi'kmaw woman) from Epekwitk (Prince Edward Island) and a member of Paqtnkek First Nation, Mi'kma'ki (Nova Scotia), located on the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mi'kmaq.

Our research approach was guided by principles of community-engaged research (Israel et al. 1998, Castleden et al. 2012). The project was initiated by Dalhousie University as part of Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) ResNet, a pan-Canadian, interdisciplinary project that aims to assess the utility of ecosystem services thinking for sustainably managing working landscapes (Bennett et al. 2021). Nova Scotia’s Bay of Fundy coast is one of NSERC ResNet’s six case study landscapes. The CMM is an official landscape partner for this case study. We recognize that it is considered ideal for research partners to co-initiate projects (Castleden et al. 2012); although the CMM did not co-initiate the project, they chose to join NSERC ResNet early in the project, during the grant-writing process, because they saw potential benefit for their constituent communities. This NSERC ResNet’s research specifically aligned with concerns expressed by community leaders about climate change. The CMM proposed band council resolutions to affirm their participation, which were passed by their board comprised of the eight constituent communities’ chiefs.

The roles of each research partner were outlined in a collaboration agreement at the outset of the study. The Dalhousie University team joined the CMM’s ongoing climate change monitoring project, led by KP at the time of this research, because the project had overlapping objectives and conducting the studies simultaneously would reduce the risk of fatigue among community members. KP led interview recruitment, communicated with participants, co-designed data collection methods, provided additional interview accommodations upon request (e.g., Mi'kmaq-English translation), and validated the research results. She and more senior CMM representatives separately reviewed and approved this manuscript prior to publication. The Dalhousie University team (EW, with the guidance of KS and MZ) was responsible for research design, implementation (i.e., writing ethics proposals, data collection and analysis), and knowledge mobilization of research outcomes. EW also handcrafted gifts for interview participants, pre-drafted recruitment emails, shared data governance resources, and presented at a workshop organized by the CMM. The partners conducted interviews together, but they separately analyzed the data for their respective projects. Appendix 1 in the supplemental materials summarizes the processes beyond the partnership agreement that EW pursued to build her cultural competency, aiming to support her critical reflexivity and foster trust with CMM partners and Mi'kmaw interview participants.

We recognize the complexities of working across different knowledge systems. We engage with western frameworks, such as ecosystem services, while acknowledging their critical shortfalls, especially in the context of Indigenous ways of knowing (Sangha and Russell-Smith 2017, Stoeckl et al. 2021). Though informed by Indigenous epistemologies, our approach does not center them fully; instead, we navigate a space between these worldviews, striving to be accountable to multiple ways of knowing. We reflect this commitment methodologically: we use blended inductive and deductive coding to search for themes using established language while creating space for emergent themes; we adapted semi-structured interviewing to encourage storytelling; we took extensive measures to validate the research outcomes with interviewees, research partners, and other Mi'kmaw traditional knowledge (TK) holders to support meaningful representation of L'nuwey. Although this position comes with tensions and complexities, we aim to approach it foremost with humility, striving to remain accountable to the diverse knowledge systems that inform our work.

The complex knowledge systems at play warrant important notes about vocabulary. Reconciliation, as discussed herein, is not a singular concept but a complex process of ongoing reflection and action. Corntassel (2012) framed reconciliation as a move toward Indigenous self-determination, highlighting the need for sovereignty and justice. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC; 2015a) further emphasized reconciliation as a process of addressing historical injustices to build equitable relationships. The interview participants of this research offer additional nuanced conceptions of reconciliation, emphasizing that there is no single definition of the term. Furthermore, we align with Indigenous resurgence as described by Simpson (2014): the revitalization and reclamation of Indigenous worldviews, cultural practices, and self-determination. Resurgence involves reimagining Indigenous ways of knowing and being in a contemporary context rather than demanding a return to the past. Unlike some frameworks that depict Indigenous cultures as static, resurgence is an active, forward-thinking process that challenges colonial systems while asserting Indigenous autonomy. Coulthard (2014) underscored that resurgence is inherently tied to the land because Indigenous governance and knowledge systems are inseparable from territory. We use “land” or “the land,” which is common in Mi'kma'ki and other places across Turtle Island, to encompass terrestrial environments as well as the air and water bodies (M'sɨt No'kmaq et al. 2021).

BACKGROUND

Mi'kmaw stewardship

Interconnectedness among all beings (e.g., human beings, other species, the land) emerges as a key theme in academic publications discussing Mi'kmaw approaches to environmental stewardship (Marshall et al. 2007, Prosper et al. 2011, McMillan and Prosper 2016, M'sɨt No'kmaq et al. 2021). This is expressed through M'sɨt No'kmaq, a Mi'kmaw word and concept that broadly translates to “all my relations” and embodies a “kin-relationship with the land, waters and all living beings” (M'sɨt No'kmaq et al. 2021:840). McMillan and Prosper (2016:630) explained how this kindred relation is all-encompassing and multifaceted, using water as an example: “Mi'kmaw relationships with aquatic resources were incorporated in every facet of their life, including cosmological belief systems, knowledge translation and education, political and family organization, and trade and economies.” Care for these kin relationships is embodied in the concept Netukulimk, which parallels the concept of sustainability and is generally considered “achieving adequate standards of community well-being without jeopardizing the integrity, diversity, or productivity of our environment” (M'sɨt No'kmaq et al. 2021:846). Netukulimk is increasingly being included in environmental policy and legislation in Mi'kma'ki, co-emerging with an increased focus on reconciliation and Indigenous resurgence across Turtle Island (Barsh 2002, United Nations 2007, Prosper et al. 2011, McMillan and Prosper 2016, M'sɨt No'kmaq et al. 2021). For instance, recent Government of Nova Scotia Acts (e.g., Sustainable Development Goals Act 2019, Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act 2021) have included Netukulimk as key principles and goals.

The Mi'kmaq, as well as other Indigenous peoples across Turtle Island (e.g., Jessen et al. 2022) play a critical role in environmental advocacy, often standing as “the eye, the ear and the voice, for the ones that cannot defend themselves, in human form” (M'sɨt No'kmaq et al. 2021). In the Bay of Fundy area, this advocacy is exemplified by Mi'kmaw activism for water protection. For instance, Mi'kmaw Water Protectors, Mi'kmaw Grassroots Grandmothers, and their allies have protested a tidal gate that disrupted water flow and fish passage at the Windsor Causeway along the Avon River (Baxter 2020). Mi'kmaw activists also protested a proposed natural gas project involving river water use and subterranean gas storage adjacent to dykelands over concerns for water contamination and fish health impacts (Howe 2016). These collectives have also carried out multiple Water Walks around the Bay of Fundy; Water Walks are multi-day or -week ceremonies to pray for healthy water and raise awareness of the sacredness of water (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/mi-kmaki-water-walk-underway-around-the-bay-of-fundy-1.6477063).

Political context

Politically, dykelands have been a site of tense relationships among different groups. Historically, the Mi'kmaq and Acadian settlers had amicable relations, though these were slightly strained by dyke construction (Rudin 2022). In the early 1700s, British colonization of mainland Nova Scotia drastically altered these dynamics: many Acadians were deported, and the British signed the Peace and Friendship Treaties with the Mi'kmaq and other eastern First Nations (Government of Canada 2010). These treaties did not involve the cession of land but instead affirmed Mi'kmaw title and sought to establish ongoing nation-to-nation relationships.

Despite this, many scholars, legal experts, Mi'kmaw individuals, and allies argue that Mi'kmaw sovereignty, as articulated in the treaties, has not been respected. The British and later Canadian governments forcibly relocated the Mi'kmaq onto 13 small reserves, many inland and away from traditional resource areas (Paul 2000). This infringement has led to repeated legal challenges over Mi'kmaw rights to self-determined resource use, particularly in relation to fisheries (McMillan and Prosper 2016, Wicken 2002). The R. v. Marshall decision (Supreme Court of Canada 1999) was a landmark ruling in this context, in which the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the Mi'kmaw treaty right to fish and trade for a moderate livelihood. The case marked a turning point in the legal recognition of Mi'kmaw treaty rights, though tensions over their implementation continue.

Mi'kmaw landscape values

The Bay of Fundy is highly significant to the Mi'kmaq as the setting for many stories and legends (Gloade [date unknown]). The tidal wetlands along the coast are important for seasonal fishing and hunting (Hornborg 2016, McMillan and Prosper 2016), while the wetlands and adjacent brackish marsh areas are habitat for certain medicines, including sweetgrass, which is one of four sacred medicines (Reynolds 2021, Sherren et al. 2021). The Mi'kmaq historically migrated seasonally to and from the coast (Hornberg 2016). Despite extensive research in the literature and archives, we found little additional information on how the Mi'kmaq specifically value tidal wetlands or dykes and dykelands. This is likely because archives and academic literature are western approaches to knowledge continuity. The absence of this knowledge in written sources does not indicate its absence altogether; rather, the goal of this research is to engage directly with Mi'kmaw TK holders and, with their consent and validation, share further insights.

Landscape values based in ecosystem service thinking

Tidal wetlands carry out a suite of ecological functions: they help regulate climate, sequester carbon, mitigate erosion, and promote soil formation and nutrient cycling (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000, Mitsch et al. 2013). Tidal wetlands are considered by many to be among the most important ecosystems on the planet for biodiversity and human benefit (Boyd and Wainger 2002, de Groot et al. 2012). They provide habitat for birds and fish, including fish nurseries, and may play an additional role in generating fish stock for commercial fishing (Sherren et al. 2021). Restored tidal wetlands may provide more effective protection than hard infrastructure (e.g., dykes) against climate change impacts, which could protect dyke infrastructure itself and foster more resilient coastal communities (Temmerman et al. 2013, Narayan et al. 2017, Van Coppenolle and Temmerman 2019).

The Bay of Fundy dykes provide a range of provisioning, cultural, and ecological benefits. They have enabled some of the most fertile agricultural lands in Atlantic Canada (Butzer 2002). On the Nova Scotia side of the bay, 70% of dykeland areas remain in agricultural use, supporting livestock as well as food and turf/sod production (Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture 2019). Dykes are also closely tied to Acadian identity and cultural legacy (Sherren et al. 2021). For many dykeland landowners, primarily of European settler descent, these provisioning and cultural associations underpin support for maintaining the structures, despite growing awareness of their vulnerability to climate change and the high cost of upkeep (Champagne 2021).

In addition to these services, dykes offer coastal access for recreation, including walking and birdwatching. However, although birdwatchers may use the dykes as viewing platforms, it is the tidal wetlands on the seaward side of dykes that serve as vital bird habitat (Sherren et al. 2021). Recreational users and members of dykeland-associated cultural groups often perceive dykes as better storm protection than wetlands (Sherren et al. 2016). Bax et al. (2023) highlighted that cultural ecosystem services, like recreation, are a primary influence on stakeholder support for coastal realignment. They suggest that maintaining or enhancing access to such services during dyke realignment may increase public support for this adaptation strategy. Nonetheless, dismantling dykes, whether actively or passively, could remove such access and likely cause asset loss (e.g., land for agriculture) because of saltwater intrusion and flooding, especially in low-lying areas (Sherren et al. 2016, Champagne 2021).

Governance and legal context

At the time of writing, the primary decision makers in the Bay of Fundy dykelands were the Government of Nova Scotia, the CMM, and individual dykeland landowners. Dykeland landowners in Nova Scotia are members of Marsh Body groups that have the right and responsibility to deliberate and vote upon proposals (whether made by Marsh Body members or the Nova Scotia Government) to change land uses within their dykeland. A two-thirds majority is required for proposals to pass. This is more fully described in Rahman et al. (2019). The Government of Nova Scotia is currently responsible for dyke maintenance within Nova Scotia, though the dykes extend into the neighboring province, New Brunswick. The Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq operates across mainland Nova Scotia, including Piktuk, Siknikt, Sipekne'katik, and Kespukwitk (Fig. 1). The most relevant provincial Acts include the Agricultural Marshland Conservation Act 2000 (C22; Can.) and the Fisheries and Coastal Resources Act 1996 (C25; Can.). Though neither outline obligations to the Mi'kmaq, such obligations are written into other provincial and federal legislation. Archaeological resource assessments are required to be completed with and approved by Kwilmu'kw Maw-klusuaqn (Mi'kmaw Rights Initiative) through the Special Places Protection Act (1989) before proceeding with any changes (Sherren et al. 2019). The Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act 2021 (C12; Can.), Section 4a, states that “The achievement of sustainable prosperity in the Province must include (i) Netukulimk.” Federally, the Impact Assessment Act (Government of Canada 2019) considers impacts on Indigenous rights, sustainability, and other factors, prohibiting projects that are likely to cause significant environmental, health, social, or economic effects. The Government of Canada is also working to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights on Indigenous People (UN Declaration) as well as the TRC’s “Calls to Action” (United Nations 2007, TRC 2015b). The UN Declaration recognizes that “respect for Indigenous knowledge, cultures and traditional practices contributes to the sustainable and equitable development and proper management of the environment” (United Nations 2007:2). It affirms Indigenous peoples’ right to determine what takes place on their territories. The TRC’s Calls to Action serve to guide all Canadians with “constructive action on addressing the ongoing legacy of colonialism” (TRC 2015c:3). Decision makers across Canada, including the Bay of Fundy, have a responsibility to uphold Indigenous rights, which includes honoring Indigenous knowledge, culture, and traditions.

METHODS

The authors align with a constructivist paradigm, which understands knowledge as constructed or interpreted by people (Moon and Blackman 2014). Although positivism assumes that a single, objective reality exists independent of individuals, constructivism recognizes that people interpret reality differently based on their experiences (Moon and Blackman 2014). We take this approach because it creates space for new understandings to emerge, validating the situated perspectives of interview participants. This paradigm also helps the researcher remain open to diverse ways of knowing, an especially important consideration when working with multiple knowledge systems.

Recruitment and data collection

Together, KP and EW conducted semi-structured Mi'kmaw TK interviews between Jan. 17, 2022, and April 20, 2022. Mi'kmaw TK interviews are distinct from standard semi-structured approaches: they are not time restricted but rather respect the natural flow of dialogue, gifts are given before the occasion (e.g., tobacco, honoraria, handmade gifts), and Mi'kmaw-specific supports are available during and after the interview (e.g., a Mi'kmaq-language to English language translator, social support workers). Participants were asked a series of low-risk questions, first by KP and then EW. Only the responses to the latter questions, which focused on the Bay of Fundy rather than all of Mi'kma'ki, were considered for this research project. The interviews were between 50 minutes to 2 hours in length; EW’s portion of the interviews ranged from 35 to 60 minutes. Participants were given the option to schedule an additional interview if they did (or felt they would) become fatigued covering so much content at once; this occurred once.

All participants agreed and indeed preferred to have their names known in this research (Table 1). We refer to these participants as Mi'kmaw TK Holders throughout the text; however, most had additional titles and roles they wished to be known. EW conducted subject matter interviews with non-Indigenous key informants independent of KP on May 20, 2022, and June 17, 2022. These aligned more with standard semi-structured interviewing practices (i.e., approximately one hour in length without honoraria; e.g., Bernard 2006).

We conducted seven interviews: five with Mii'kmaw TK holders from Bear River, Millbrook, Sipeknei'katik (two), and Glooscap, and two with subject matter key informants. All interviews were guided by prepared questions (Table 2). EW would follow the questions and use probing techniques to match the narrative flow of interviews while still achieving the goals of the question set (Bernard 2006). We continued with interviews until we observed thematic saturation, i.e., when key themes began to repeat, and concluded in alignment with the project’s time limitations. Interviews took place either remotely (Zoom or Microsoft Teams) or in-person if permitted by public health measures, community leadership, and the participants themselves. Six interviews took place online and one was in-person at a location of their choice. The in-person interview may have favored trust-building through richer rapport and non-verbal communication, while online interviews provided greater accessibility, especially considering COVID-19 public health concerns (Lobe et al. 2022).

Thematic analysis and results validation

With consent, all interviews were audio recorded, and the recordings were transcribed. Participants were given 30 days to optionally review their transcript and comment on, revise, or omit any of the contents. Three Mi'kmaw TK Holders of the seven interviewees responded with minor revisions of specific content or clarifications of intent, but there were no substantial revisions. The transcripts were thematically coded with NVivo 12 using a blended deductive and inductive coding method (QSR International 2018). We deductively coded relational values and landscape use (i.e., instrumental value) based on nature’s contributions to people (sensu Pascual et al. 2017, Chan et al. 2018). We used emergent vocabulary throughout this text when describing nature’s contributions to people to align with the language used by interview participants. We inductively coded any other relevant descriptions of Mi'kmaw experiences in dyke, dykelands, and tidal wetland systems and descriptions of how Mi'kmaq navigate coastal adaptation decision making.

The results of thematic coding were summarized in a seven-minute video, uploaded as an unlisted video on YouTube, and shared with the interview participants on November 10, 2022. They had the option to provide feedback; we specifically asked whether they agreed with and felt represented by the themes we identified. Four of seven interviewees responded with feedback: three people expressed their support for the research findings, and one person asked for increased nuance in how dykes were discussed. The refined themes were subsequently shared with the CMM, who expressed their support for the research findings. An additional opportunity arose to ground-truth the research findings at a small-scale event on November 29, 2022, with several Mi'kmaw Water Protectors, Grassroots Grandmothers, elders, and guests, including two interview participants who had not originally provided feedback on the research results. The attendees were supportive of the research findings: they did not express any disagreement, demonstrated supportive body language (e.g., head nodding, smiling), and some personally voiced their support for this work following the presentation. All direct quotes were provided to the respective participants for verification and approval to use. The member checking and community review processes validate the dependability and credibility of this qualitative research (Moon et al. 2016) and also help mitigate community harm and support self-representation in research (Toombs et al. 2019; M. Liboiron, A. Zahara, and I. Schoot, unpublished manuscript).

RESULTS

To describe the results, we used “few,” “some,” “most,” and “all” to indicate how many participants contributed to a theme. “Few” represents one or two participants, “some” represents three or four participants, “most” represents five or six, and “all” represents all seven participants. Relative contributions to a theme serve as a proxy for its strength based on this set of interviews (Sandelowski 2001).

The participants had variable amounts of experience in the Bay of Fundy and along the coast. Among the Mi'kmaw TK holders, a few said they “do not have much of a personal history” with the Bay of Fundy. We still considered these appropriate people to interview because they are recognized community knowledge holders with long-term, embodied knowledge of their community and Mi'kmaw values. Overall, most participants had a strong presence in the Bay of Fundy through their upbringing, livelihood, work, and/or activism.

Relating to the land

All participants described the Mi'kmaq as inherently connected with other beings and the land. This was demonstrated through the participants’ approach to answering interview questions and by directly calling other beings relatives. When Mi'kmaw TK holder Dorene Bernard was asked about the implications of dyke maintenance for herself and her community, she immediately responded by considering the implications “on the water, on the groundwater, on the rivers, on the springs” as well as “the animals, the flyers, the swimmers” and “all the living beings that rely on that water.” This demonstrates a connectedness and kinship with other beings as well as the land; a few participants used the Mi'kmaw term, M'sɨt No'kmaq. Mi'kmaw TK holder Ducie Howe similarly referred to “our relatives” throughout the interview when discussing the fish and birds that rely on tidal wetlands. She said, “We’re made of the land. When we say we come from the land, partially that’s what that means: we are the land.” A few participants noted that interfering with other beings and the land inherently interferes with Mi'kmaq because they are all connected and relatives.

All participants described an ethic of relating to the land that embodied respect and prioritizing natural flow. They described “letting this land do what it’s supposed to do,” “what was meant for Mother Nature,” and “living with that rhythm,” which was described as “how we live in Mi'kma'ki,” “sustainability” and, in Mi'kmaq, “Netukulimk.”

When broadly discussing the Bay of Fundy region, most interviewees described it as an important and sacred place for the Mi'kmaq. It is the setting of many stories and legends, was created by Kluscap, and is a unique and beautiful location. Kluscap is a warrior and important figure in many Mi'kmaw legends and teachings (Gloade [date unknown]). Mi'kmaw TK holder Gerald Gloade Sr. concisely summarized its significance by saying, “the history that we have from there, the connection, and plus it’s just damn beautiful.” Mi'kmaw TK holder Ducie Howe highlighted the significance of the Bay for Kluscap, stating, “most of [Kluscap’s] teachings come from the Bay of Fundy... there are a lot of sacred places and a lot of legends and lessons all tied to that area... The landscape was all created through Kluscap.”

Tidal wetland relations

Most participants described tidal wetlands as “important,” “resting and nourishing spots,” and “medicinal.” Most said the wetlands are important for fish habitat and health; sturgeon, tommy cod, and bass were specifically mentioned. Tidal wetlands are also considered significant for the habitat and health of birds, especially migratory birds. They are likewise a source of medicines, primarily sweetgrass. A few participants mentioned that there is tidal wetland habitat on the foreshore of dykes where sweetgrass may grow. Some participants said they also provide other culturally relevant materials like cat tails, natural grains, marsh reeds, and other plants. Some participants referred to the species that inhabit wetlands as relatives, and a few participants described the pre-dyked coast as a “Mi'kmaw cultural landscape.” As an ecological consideration, some mentioned that tidal wetlands sequester carbon, which was described as important for mitigating climate change.

Overall, these considerations informed a general preference for wetland restoration. Indeed, a few participants considered restoration an opportunity for reconciliation. Mi'kmaw TK holder Ducie Howe explains:

I know that probably [settlers] are not going to give [the land] back. But they can, as a way of reconciling, reconcile with the land. And do right by the land...that means our medicines that grow in that marsh, and our food, our relatives that need that land to be restored and viable for them to continue... That would be a form of reconciliation.

Not all considerations bore equal weight. The participants primarily discussed Mi'kmaw responsibility to care for kin, honor Mother Nature, and honoring Mi'kmaw rights and stewardship.

Dyke and dykeland relations

When discussing dykes, some participants occasionally seemed to be discussing those that act as tidal gates across rivers, rather than linear dykes alongside them. This was evidenced by interchanging the words dyke and dam as well as how participants explained dykes interrupting up-river fish passage. Linear dykes inhibit fish access to former wetlands, but only tidal gate dykes inhibit fish passage up rivers. The tidal gates were put in place on numerous rivers partly to reduce the need for expensive dyke construction and maintenance upstream, as well as to provide causeways for transportation. No participants distinguished between different kinds of dykes.

Personal connections to the dyked landscapes varied widely. Two participants associated dykes with recreation, specifically walking with friends and pets or playing in the vegetation as a child. None of the participants said they used dykes to access sweetgrass for harvesting, though they mentioned that they are aware of other Mi'kmaq doing so further south along the Bay of Fundy coast, within the Kespukwitk district (Fig. 1). No one expressed concern that loss of dykes would negatively affect their access to wetland or sweetgrass. Some participants stated that some areas would be flooded if dykes were removed; the town of Annapolis Royal and the Chignecto Isthmus (Siknikt district) joining New Brunswick to Nova Scotia were specifically cited by one participant as at risk of flooding, but the other participants spoke in general terms. No one described any personal value in the dykelands; Mi'kmaw TK holder Rob McEwan said, “to me, they’re really of no use.”

Dykes were described as “man-made,” “obstructive,” and structures associated with farmers, Acadians, and other settlers. Some participants said that the Mi'kmaq helped build dykes. Their involvement was depicted variously as hired labor, helping a neighbor, or strategically ensuring dykes would not be constructed near sacred areas. Mi'kmaw TK holder Gerald Gloade Sr. confirmed that there are historical records of Mi'kmaw collaboration on dyke construction in the Grand Pré and Annapolis Royal regions. Dr. McLeod-Leslie highlighted that assisting in dyke construction does not mean the Mi'kmaq were supportive of it: “two people can work on one thing together and have a different vision of the future... Just because they helped a neighbor and helped a friend doesn’t mean that they adopted that technology.” The Mi'kmaq did not necessarily support dyke construction for the same reasons the Acadians built dykes; they may have been supporting their Acadian allies, not the technology.

When prompted about archeological resources in dykelands, some participants emphasized that there are Mi'kmaw archeological resources all over Mi'kma'ki. Dr. McLeod-Leslie, a key informant on archaeology, explained that these resources are significant for the Mi'kmaq, as well as other Indigenous peoples, in the context of colonization, residential schooling, and racism. They may provide evidence of occupation, help to recognize treaties and title to land, serve as a source of collective and individual identity, and provide emotional, physical, and spiritual healing. Archeological materials may be impacted by the physical disruption associated with dyke removal and wetland restoration, such as earthworks and inundation. Although Mi'kmaw materials would have been deposited when dykeland areas were tidal wetlands, those materials are also susceptible to damage from rewetting associated with restored tidal access.

Most participants stated that dykes have been and continue to be a source of injustice for the Mi'kmaq. Some participants emphasized that dykes do not abide by original laws, dyke decisions were made without considering Mi'kmaw perspectives, and dykes, especially those that act as tidal gates, do not respect their kin species. Darren Porter, a key informant on fish, explained that dykes in their current state violate federal laws and infringe on treaty rights. Specifically, the Fisheries Act 1985 (C14) s. 34.3.F (Can.) states that water flow must be maintained to permit fish passage and, if an obstruction to flow occurs, it must “maintain at all times the characteristics of the water and the water flow downstream of the obstruction or thing that are sufficient for the conservation and protection of the fish and fish habitat” (s. 34.3.G). Many aboiteaux (one-way drains) within dykes do not meet these conditions. The Fisheries Act 1985 (C14; Can.) must also uphold the rights of Indigenous peoples (s 2.3) and related decisions must be informed by Indigenous peoples and their knowledges (s. 34.1G). Darren Porter also discussed the Peace and Friendship Treaties, which state that Mi'kmaq have the right to continue fishing, hunting, and carrying out other traditional practices (Government of Canada 2010). Dykes, by harming fish habitat and obstructing their movement, impede this right.

For these reasons, all participants generally considered dyke maintenance less favorable. Mi'kmaw TK holder Rob McEwan echoed the opinion of many participants when he said, “Any [dyke] that can be removed, should be removed.”

Balancing responsibilities

Though there was a general favoring of wetland restoration and aversion toward dyke maintenance, most participants voiced the need for balance (Fig. 2). They appreciated that wetland restoration has challenging implications for some people; one example is that dyke breaching would cause flooding in some areas. They considered the impacts on landowners and farmers specifically. Mi'kmaw TK holder Gail Tupper said, “[Dykes] have protected the lowlands from flooding and over the years those land areas have built up with either homes or businesses, and you don’t want to flood them out and ruin all that.” If restoration was to occur, some participants emphasized that it should be done in a good way: by avoiding contamination from pesticides embedded in soil and by re-introducing tidal wetland vegetation.

Certain dykes were regarded as significant and potentially worth maintaining for Acadian history (UNESCO World Heritage Site Landscape of Grand Pré), for recreation (Blomidon, Port Williams, and Wolfville areas), and for flood protection (Annapolis, Chignecto Isthmus). Notably, no dykes were described as useful to keep for agriculture. When deliberating whether dykes should be kept for protecting archeological resources, most participants maintained their affinity for wetland restoration. They suggested approaching archeological resources on a case-by-case basis: though these resources may be impacted by digging to remove dykes and re-establish drainage, or during dyke rewetting. There is a large variety of possible archeological resources as well as a variety of options for managing them. Mi'kmaw TK holder Gerald Gloade Sr. explained how certain artifacts are extremely abundant: “you get a little arrowhead for $5, and you get a spearhead, probably five inches, $8. They were just so common.” Such highly abundant materials may be of lower priority to conserve, whereas novel materials may be of higher priority because of their contributions to the archeological record.

Decision-making process

Most participants underscored that decision making in this context is complex and challenging. Some emphasized the importance of considering a longer timeline, especially in the context of the powerful hydrodynamics of the Bay of Fundy. A few participants considered dyke adaptation decisions as “coming too late” because the dykes have been impacting the land, the waters, and the Mi'kmaq since their construction. Many asserted that decisions should consider the impacts on future generations. Some stated that it is important to involve all impacted communities in the decision process. Dr. Macleod-Leslie underscored the specific significance of Mi'kmaw traditional knowledge, saying, “Mi'kmaq have been adapting to climate change in Mi'kma'ki since time immemorial.”

DISCUSSION

Participants’ knowledge and approaches to climate change adaptation in the Bay of Fundy challenge dominant conservation frameworks by foregrounding relational responsibilities to the land and by using a pluralistic approach. Their insights ultimately outline how decision making, like those taking place in the Bay of Fundy, presents an opportunity to enact commitments toward reconciliation and for the support of Indigenous resurgence.

Relational values of nature

The participants’ values in the Bay of Fundy’s tidal wetlands and dykes were most profoundly shaped by relational responsibilities (sensu Chan et al. 2016). Because fish, birds, medicines, and plants are kin, the participants demonstrated a moral responsibility to care for them. This relational responsibility equally emerged from Netukulimk, a guiding principle to maintain and honor the natural integrity of the environment. The participants also described how tidal wetlands sustain social and cultural well-being by providing, for example, sites where sweetgrass grows, and connecting them to the land, to others, and to their culture. Care responsibilities, social cohesion, cultural continuity: these are all forms of relational values, values rooted in relationships and responsibilities rather than an instrumental outcome. They were the foremost considerations shaping the participants’ support for tidal wetland restoration.

Relationality is prominent theme in studies on environmental governance in Mi'kma'ki, highlighting principles of M'sɨt No'kmaq and Netukulimk in particular (Barsh 2002, Marshall et al. 2007, McMillan and Prosper 2016, Prosper et al. 2011, Young 2016, M'sɨt No'kmaq et al. 2021). Centering relationality is similarly strong among Indigenous governance frameworks beyond the region (Suchet-Pearson et al. 2013, Noble et al. 2016, Chowdhooree 2019, Gould et al. 2023, Nelson and Reed 2025), and relational values have gained prominence in conservation settings because they better reflect interconnectedness than instrumental or intrinsic framings (Chan et al. 2016, Sheremata 2018, Gould et al. 2019, Bataille et al. 2021, Urzedo and Robinson 2023). Intertidal zones specifically emerge in Indigenous literature as sites of shared responsibility, in which some peoples hold a duty to care for the beings and places that sustain food harvesting and cultural practices, fostering community, kinship, and resilience (Pew Charitable Trusts 2021, Lepofsky and Salomon 2023). Seeing nature as kin, and grounding decision making in responsibility to that kinship, disrupts the “command and control” paradigms dominant in Western environmental relations, which rest on management and superiority over nature (Holling and Meffe 1996, Howitt and Suchet-Pearson 2006, Moon et al. 2025). Marshall et al. (2007), co-led by two Mi'kmaw elders, stated: “We [humans] protect wildlife corridors, regulate the environment, manage land. Such metaphors represent a language of containment and separation, much of which originates in human abuse of nature.” This work highlights relationality as a pathway to move beyond such destructive logics.

Embracing complexity and pluralism

Rather than strict trade-offs or binaries, participant decision making reflected a pluralistic approach that was nuanced, contextual, and rooted in justice. Participants tended to prioritize restoring environmental integrity over preserving archaeology in dykes, but this was not absolute. They emphasized case-by-case decisions guided by respect for Mi'kmaw sovereignty and rights. Similarly, participants broadly favored tidal wetland restoration over dyke maintenance, but they acknowledged the potential consequences of restoration for other communities, such as Acadians, and understood that not all dyked landscapes ought to be restored.

The participants’ nuanced approaches to decision making contrast with western frameworks, which critics have long called rigid and binary (Holling and Meffe 1996, Howitt and Suchet-Pearson 2006, Loos et al. 2023). Such frameworks tend to reduce environmental management to either/or choices (e.g., conserve/develop, dykes/wetlands), which simplify complex relationships into administratively convenient binaries and obscure how responsibilities, values, and relationships can coexist. Literature on Indigenous and relational governance highlight approaches that embody such nuance, and the participants reflected these by refraining from absolutes and instead striving for balance in their multiple responsibilities (Howitt and Suchet-Pearson 2006, Corntassel 2012, Loos et al. 2023).

Land-based reconciliation and Indigenous resurgence

The participants advocated approaches to coastal decision making that were not only practical or ecological but deeply tied to sovereignty, justice, and repairing relationships. When discussing dykes, the participants described minimal personal attachment and echoed the views of other Indigenous peoples about drained agricultural lands as something imposed by settlers (Gasteyer and Flora 2000, Dillon 2022). Dykes were described as a source of injustice: by obstructing water flow and fish habitat, and violating original Mi'kmaw law (e.g., Netukulimk), federal fisheries laws, or the Peace and Friendship treaties. This coastal decision context was framed as an opportunity to remediate these historical and ongoing injustices. Mi'kmaw TK holder Ducie Howe explained that restoring the crucial habitat for birds, fish, and other non-human kin is a way to “do right by the land,” and that, ultimately, “real reconciliation has to come through the land.”

Positioning reconciliation as land-based action aligns with scholarship in Indigenous education and health that underscores the central role of place-based practices rather than intangible gestures (Marom and Rattray 2024, Johnson-Jennings et al. 2025). Building on this, critical Indigenous scholarship emphasizes that reconciliation without centering the land fails to address the foundations of colonial injustice: reconciliation is fundamentally about land (Tuck and Yang 2014, Whyte 2018). As Whyte (2018) argued, reconciliation is unattainable so long as settler colonialism persists; rather, “reconciliation processes must always be associated with Indigenous territorial reclamation.” Coulthard (2014) and Simpson (2014) similarly argued that Indigenous resurgence requires territory-centered action because Indigenous governance and knowledge systems are inseparable from territory.

Conservation, environmental management, and climate change adaptation are fundamentally about land. Participants and scholars alike stressed that reconciliation must also be realized through the land. The TRC (2015a) affirmed that reconciliation requires rethinking “virtually all aspects of Canadian society.” Among these aspects, land decisions are a pivotal opportunity, as described by the participants, and obligation, as set out by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), to rethink and recenter Indigenous governance and Indigenous peoples. This means not simply consulting Indigenous peoples but centering their authority and knowledge from the outset to support ethically sound and ecologically resilient decisions. We reinforce that call, informed by this work.

Implications of this research

The themes emerging from this research are not simply opinions in the Bay of Fundy adaptation context but guidance on how to respectfully live with the land from those who have stewarded it since time immemorial. Previous documentation in the Bay of Fundy outlines support for wetland restoration rooted in efficiency and pragmatism among settler communities (Sherren et al. 2016). Though there is more recent evidence that such attitudes toward wetlands are shifting (Howard 2023), this study clarifies that Mi'kmaw support for wetlands is largely rooted in relational responsibilities and justice. The range of tidal wetland values articulated herein also contrasts extant scholarship on this topic, which often mentions Indigenous traditional use in tidal wetlands but rarely describes this use in detail or consider ongoing values (Eliot et al. 1999, Bhiry et al. 2011, Jorgenson et al. 2018, Saintilan et al. 2019). Studies on wetland restoration are similarly limited. They emphasize the significance of tidal wetlands for Indigenous peoples and their contributions to restoration but again do not elaborate on the nature of this significance (e.g., Gerwing et al. 2020, Harmon et al. 2021, Karim et al. 2021). This study presents a granular description of tidal wetland values and highlights the significance of tidal wetlands and tidal wetland restoration for the Mi'kmaq, both historically and in the present day.

The participants’ affinities for tidal wetland also contrast with common settler perspectives of tidal wetlands as barren and void of use (Gasteyer and Flora 2000, Rudin 2022). The general aversion to dykes contrasts with earlier Bay of Fundy studies that described cultural ties and status quo biases as strong sources of settler affinity for dyke maintenance (Sherren et al. 2016, Champagne 2021). In contrast with previous studies, only a few participants associated dykes with recreation (Sherren et al. 2016, Chen et al. 2020). Although recognizing that archaeological materials can hold great significance, participants clarified that they often prioritize maintaining ecological integrity through wetland restoration over protecting historical culture through dyke maintenance (Sherren et al. 2021).

Beyond the Bay of Fundy, this study highlights three interwoven dimensions of Indigenous environmental governance: relationality, pluralism, and land-based action. Scholars have already called for a turn toward relationality and pluralism in environmental management and climate change adaptation (Moon et al. 2025). Our research reinforces the importance of this shift. It also underscores that land-focused decision making is a pivotal pathway to the actions necessary to support justice, reconciliation, and Indigenous resurgence. Ultimately, justice and reconciliation require more than inserting Indigenous voices into existing western frameworks; they demand centering Indigenous authority and reshaping environmental governance at its core.

Future directions

This research would benefit from engagement with even more Mi'kmaw TK holders and subject matter key informants. As Mi'kmaw TK holder Ducie Howe said, “We don’t all think the same.” It would be enriching to engage with people from communities not represented in this study, especially Annapolis Valley First Nation considering the community’s proximity to the target landscapes (Fig. 1), as well as Mi'kmaq who have more extensive personal experiences with the dykes and dykelands, such as any Mi'kmaw farmers. For more detailed histories of the Mi'kmaq in the context of dykes, participants also suggested consulting subject matter key informants at Fundy Geological Museum and Parks Canada (Fort Anne and Port Royal, both early European settlements near Annapolis Royal). We could not do so because of time limitations.

It would be beneficial to engage more with language through Mi'kmaw language specialists. Though participants were asked (Table 2), none shared Mi'kmaw words associated with the target landscapes. Marshall et al. (2007) said, “Anything you need to know is in the language. The voice of the language is in the land.” Language has embodied meanings and lessons that enlighten how the Mi'kmaq value the coastal landscapes and approach adaptation (Young 2016, M'sɨt No'kmaq et al. 2021). The lack of Mi'kmaw language for dykes and dykelands may itself be telling. As suggested by many participants, this research would also be enriched by incorporating Mi'kmaw legends and stories. M'sɨt No'kmaq et al. (2021) emphasized “Indigenous stories are the platform for teaching Indigenous worldviews, values, culture, and how to live with and uphold responsibilities to the land."

CONCLUSION

This study examines how Mi'kmaq use, value, and relate to dyke and tidal wetland systems along Nova Scotia’s Bay of Fundy, as well as how they navigate coastal adaptation decisions. Mi'kmaw TK holders and key informants shared the considerations that shape their approaches to tidal wetland restoration, dyke maintenance, and dyke realignment as alternative adaptation options.

Overall, participants demonstrated an affinity for wetland restoration because it honors their responsibilities to support the well-being of kin species, as embodied by M'sɨt No'kmaq, as well as the integrity, diversity, and productivity of the coast, aligning with Netukulimk. Indeed, wetland restoration was described as an opportunity to “do right by the land,” thereby enacting reconciliation. Tidal wetlands are also a milieu for harvesting sacred medicines, and they support climate change mitigation. Correspondingly, the participants were cautious of dyke maintenance because dykes are human constructed, interrupt water flow, and obstruct habitat. Dykes generally do not support Netukulimk or the well-being of other beings, and they were framed as an injustice because they infringe on Mi'kmaw original law, fisheries laws, and treaty rights.

Lessons include a need for balance when approaching the adaptation alternatives. Participants considered the livelihoods of landowners and farmers for whom wetland restoration will be difficult and disruptive. Some dykes may be worth maintaining due to flood protection, recreation, and Acadian history. Dykes that store archeological records must be approached on a case-by-case basis to honor Mi'kmaw sovereignty and rights. If restoration is to occur, the participants advised it be done in a sustainable way. The participants emphasized that the decision process is highly complex and must involve all impacted communities. They encouraged thinking on a longer timeline by considering the impacts on future generations and suggested that the current-day approach may be an opportunity to enact reconciliation in the spirit of future generations and ancestors.

On a local scale, this study informs urgent decision making in the Bay of Fundy, emphasizing lessons on Mi'kmaw values in the dykelands and tidal wetlands. More broadly, this work further illuminates how reconciliation and Indigenous resurgence are rooted in the land, requiring environmental decision making that meaningfully centers Indigenous peoples from the outset and embraces relational and pluralistic approaches.

LITERATURE CITED

Allen, L., A. O’Connell, and V. Kiermer. 2019. How can we ensure visibility and diversity in research contributions? How the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) is helping the shift from authorship to contributorship. Learned Publishing 32:71–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1210

Artelle, K. A., M. Zurba, J. Bhattacharyya, D. E. Chan, K. Brown, J. Housty, and F. Moola. 2019. Supporting resurgent Indigenous-led governance: a nascent mechanism for just and effective conservation. Biological Conservation 240:108284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108284

Barsh, R. L. 2002. Netukulimk Past and Present: Mi'kmaw ethics and the Atlantic fishery. Journal of Canadian Studies 37:15–42. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcs.37.1.15

Bataille, C. Y., S. K. Malinen, J. Yletyinen, N. Scott, and P. O'B. Lyver. 2021. Relational values provide common ground and expose multi‐level constraints to cross‐cultural wetland management. People and Nature 3:941–960. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10244

Bax, V., W. I. van de Lageweg, T. Terpstra, J.-M. Buijs, K. de Reus, F. de Groot, R. van Schaik, M. A. Habte, J. Schram, and T. Hoogenboom. 2023. The impact of coastal realignment on the availability of ecosystem services: gains, losses and trade-offs from a local community perspective. Journal of Environmental Management 345:118675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118675

Baxter, J. 2020. Small dam, big controversy. Halifax Examiner, 8 December. https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/environment/small-dam-big-controversy/

Bennett, E. M., P. Morrison, J. M. Holzer, K. J. Winkler, E. D. G. Fraser, S. J. Green, B. E. Robinson, K. Sherren, J. Botzas-Coluni, and W. Palen. 2021. Facing the challenges of using place-based social-ecological research to support ecosystem service governance at multiple scales. Ecosystems and People 17:574–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.1995046

Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10:1251–1262. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:ROTEKA]2.0.CO;2

Bernard, H. R. 2006. Interviewing: unstructured and semistructured. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Bloomsbury, New York, New York, USA.

Bhiry, N., A. Delwaide, M. Allard, Y. Bégin, L. Filion, M. Lavoie, C. Nozais, S. Payette, R. Pienitz, É. Saulnier-Talbot, and W. F. Vincent. 2011. Environmental change in the Great Whale River region, Hudson Bay: five decades of multidisciplinary research by Centre d’études nordiques (CEN). Ecoscience 18:182–203. https://doi.org/10.2980/18-3-3469

Boyd, J., and L. Wainger. 2002. Landscape indicators of ecosystem service benefits. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84:1371–1378. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8276.00404

Brondízio, E. S., Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, P. Bates, J. Carino, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, M. F. Ferrari, K. Galvin, V. Reyes-García, P. McElwee, Z. Molnár, and A. Samakov. 2021. Locally based, regionally manifested, and globally relevant: Indigenous and local knowledge, values, and practices for nature. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 46:481–509. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-012127

Butzer, K. W. 2002. French wetland agriculture in Atlantic Canada and its European roots: different avenues to historical diffusion. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92:451–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8306.00299

Carroll, D., N. Redvers, and D. McGregor. 2025. Rebuilding a KINShip approach to the climate crisis: a comparison of Indigenous knowledges policy in Canada and the United States. Journal of Indigenous Social Development 13:66–93. https://doi.org/10.55016/ojs/jisd.v13i1.79286

Castleden, H., V. S. Morgan, and C. Lamb. 2012. “I spent the first year drinking tea”: exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community-based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples. Canadian Geographer/Géographe canadien 56:160–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00432.x

Champagne, B. 2021. The future of Nova Scotia’s dykelands: understanding the landowners’ perspective. Thesis. Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. https://library2.smu.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/01/29943/Champagne_Brandon_MASTERS_2021.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Chan, K. M. A., P. Balvanera, K. Benessaiah, M. Chapman, S. Díaz, E. Gómez-Baggethun, R. Gould, N. Hannahs, K. Jax, S. Klain, G. W. Luck, B. Martín-López, B. Muraca, B. Norton, K. Ott, U. Pascual, T. Satterfield, M. Tadaki, J. Taggart, and N. Turner. 2016. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113:1462–1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113

Chan, K. M. A., R. K. Gould, and U. Pascual. 2018. Editorial overview: relational values: what are they, and what’s the fuss about? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 35:A1–A7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.11.003

Chen, Y., C. Caesemaecker, HM. T. Rahman, and K. Sherren. 2020. Comparing cultural ecosystem service delivery in dykelands and marshes using Instagram: a case of the Cornwallis (Jijuktu'kwejk) River, Nova Scotia, Canada. Ocean and Coastal Management 193:105254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105254

Chowdhooree, I. 2019. Indigenous knowledge for enhancing community resilience: an experience from the south-western coastal region of Bangladesh. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 40:101259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101259

Cooke, S. J., V. M. Nguyen, N. Young, A. J. Reid, D. G. Roche, N. J. Bennett, T. Rytwinski, and J. R. Bennett. 2021. Contemporary authorship guidelines fail to recognize diverse contributions in conservation science research. Ecological Solutions and Evidence 2:e12060. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12060

Corntassel, J. 2012. Re-envisioning resurgence: Indigenous pathways to decolonization and sustainable self-determination. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society 1:86–101.

Coulthard, G. S. 2014. Red skin, white masks: rejecting the colonial politics of recognition. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. https://doi.org/10.5749/minnesota/9780816679645.001.0001

David-Chavez, D. M., M. C. Gauvin, N. Ortiz, S. Valdez, and S. R. Carroll. 2024. A values-centered relational science model: supporting Indigenous rights and reconciliation in research. Ecology and Society 29(2):11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14768-290211

Dawson, N. M., B. Coolsaet, E. J. Sterling, R. Loveridge, N. D. Gross-Camp, S. Wongbusarakum, K. K. Sangha, L. M. Scherl, H. P. Phan, N. Zafra-Calvo, W. G. Lavey, P. Byakagaba, C. J. Idrobo, A. Chenet, N. J. Bennett, S. Mansourian, and F. J. Rosado-May. 2021. The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. Ecology and Society 26(3):19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12625-260319

De Groot, R., L. Brander, S. van der Ploeg, R. Costanza, F. Bernard, L. Braat, M. Christie, N. Crossman, A. Ghermandi, L. Hein, S. Hussain, P. Kumar, A. McVittie, R. Portela, L. C. Rodriguez, P. ten Brink, and P. van Beukering. 2012. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services 1:50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005

Dillon, L. 2022. Civilizing swamps in California: formations of race, nature, and property in the nineteenth century U.S. West. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 40:258–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/02637758211026317

Eliot, I., C. M. Finlayson, and P. Waterman. 1999. Predicted climate change, sea-level rise and wetland management in the Australian wet-dry tropics. Wetlands Ecology and Management 7:63–81. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008477110382

Gasteyer, S. P., and C. B. Flora. 2000. Modernizing the savage: colonization and perceptions of landscape and lifescape. Sociologia Ruralis 40:128–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00135

Gerwing, T. G., E. Plate, J. Kidd, J. Sinclair, C. W. Burns, S. Johnson, S. Roias, C. McCulloch, and R. C. Bocking. 2020. Immediate response of fish communities and water chemistry to causeway breaching and bridge installation in the Kaouk River estuary, British Columbia, Canada. Restoration Ecology 28:623–631. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13110

Gloade, G. [date unknown]. Kisiujek Kluscap aq Mi'kmaq | The creation of Kluskap and the Mi'kmaq, ancestors live here. Mi'kmawey Debert Cultural Centre, Debert, Nova Scotia, Canada. https://www.mikmaweydebert.ca/ancestors-live-here/blomidon/the-creation-of-kluskap-and-the-mikmaq/

Gould, R. K., D. E. Martinez, and K. R. Hoelting. 2023. Exploring Indigenous relationality to inform the relational turn in sustainability science. Ecosystems and People 19:2229452. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2023.2229452

Gould, R. K., M. Pai, B. Muraca, and K. M. A. Chan. 2019. He ʻike ʻana ia i ka pono (it is a recognizing of the right thing): how one Indigenous worldview informs relational values and social values. Sustainability Science 14:1213–1232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00721-9

Government of Canada. 2010. Peace and friendship treaties. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100028589/1539608999656

Government of Canada. 2019. Impact assessment act. SC 2019, c 28, s 1. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.75/index.html

Harmon, K. C., K. B. Winter, N. Kurashima, C. H. Fletcher, H. H. Kane, and M. R. Price. 2021. The role of Indigenous practices in expanding waterbird habitat in the face of rising seas. Anthropocene 34:100293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2021.100293

Hessami, M. A., E. Bowles, J. N. Popp, and A. T. Ford. 2021. Indigenizing the North American model of wildlife conservation. FACETS 6:1285–1306. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2020-0088

Holling, C. S., and G. K. Meffe. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology 10:328–337. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10020328.x

Hornborg, A.-C. 2016. Mi'kmaq landscapes: from animism to sacred ecology. Routledge, London, UK.

Howard, S. C. 2023. Understanding psychological drivers of attitudes towards coastal climate adaptations in the Minas Basin, Nova Scotia. Thesis. Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. https://dalspaceb.library.dal.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/a9a250d2-16d2-4635-aa46-f6cdafd570da/content

Howe, M. 2016. Going against the tide: The fight against Alton Gas: Sipekne'katik band files appeal to save Shubenacadie River. The Coast Halifax, 18 February. https://www.thecoast.ca/news-opinion/going-against-the-tide-the-fight-against-alton-gas-5221542/

Howitt, R., and S. Suchet-Pearson. 2006. Rethinking the building blocks: ontological pluralism and the idea of ‘management’. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 88:323–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0459.2006.00225.x

Huntington, H. P. 2000. Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and applications. Ecological Applications 10:1270–1274. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1270:UTEKIS]2.0.CO;2

Israel, B. A., A. J. Schulz, E. A. Parker, and A. B. Becker. 1998. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health 19:173–202. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173

Jessen, T. D., N. C. Ban, N. X. Claxton, and C. T. Darimont. 2022. Contributions of Indigenous knowledge to ecological and evolutionary understanding. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 20:93–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2435

Johnson-Jennings, M., K. R. Huyser, K. A. Collins, M. G. Jessome, T.-I. D. Christianson, T. Chavez, and F. J. Lockhart. 2025. “And they are still the guardians of these sacred waters...”: land as a process of reconciliation. American Psychologist 80(4):494–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001372

Jorgenson, M. T., G. V. Frost, and D. Dissing. 2018. Drivers of landscape changes in coastal ecosystems on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Remote Sensing 10(8):1280. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10081280

Karim, F., J. Wallace, B. N. Abbott, M. Nicholas, and N. J. Waltham. 2021. Modelling the removal of an earth bund to maximise seawater ingress into a coastal wetland. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 263:107626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2021.107626

Lepofsky, D., and A. Salomon. 2023. Clam gardens across generations and places support social-ecological resilience to global change. Pages 139–157 in J. A. Whitaker, C. G. Armstrong, and G. Odonne, editors. Climatic and ecological change in the Americas. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003316497-9

Lobe, B., D. L. Morgan, and K. Hoffman. 2022. A systematic comparison of in-person and video-based online interviewing. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 21. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221127068

Loos, J., R. Benra, M. Berbés-Blázquez, L. L. Bremer, K. M. A. Chan, B. Egoh, M. Felipe-Lucia, D. Geneletti, B. Keeler, B. Locatelli, L. Loft, B. Schröter, M. Schröter, and K. J. Winkler. 2023. An environmental justice perspective on ecosystem services. Ambio 52:477–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01812-1

Marom, L., and C. Rattray. 2024. On the land gathering: education for reconciliation. Pages 114–130 in G. Vass and M. Hogarth, editors. Critical studies and the international field of Indigenous education research. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032695440-8

Marshall, A., M. Marshall, and M. Iwama. 2007. Approaching Mi'kmaq teachings on the connectiveness of humans and nature. Pages 21–26 in S. Bondrup-Nielsen, K. Beazley, G. Bissix, D. Colville, S. Flemming, T. Herman, M. McPherson, S. Mockford, and S. O’Grady, editors. Ecosystem based management: beyond boundaries. Proceedings of the sixth international conference of science and the management of protected areas. Science and Management of Protected Areas Association, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada. http://integrativescience.ca/uploads/articles/2010-Beyond-Boundaries-ecosystem-based-management-Marshall-Iwama-SAMPAA-2007-proceedings.pdf

McMillan, L. J., and K. Prosper. 2016. Remobilizing netukulimk: Indigenous cultural and spiritual connections with resource stewardship and fisheries management in Atlantic Canada. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 26:629–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-016-9433-2

Melanidis, M. S., and S. Hagerman. 2022. Competing narratives of nature-based solutions: leveraging the power of nature or dangerous distraction? Environmental Science and Policy 132:273–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.02.028

Menzies, A. K., E. Bowles, D. McGregor, A. T. Ford, and J. N. Popp. 2024. Sharing Indigenous values, practices and priorities as guidance for transforming human-environment relationships. People and Nature 6:2109–2125. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10707

Mitsch, W. J., B. Bernal, A. M. Nahlik, Ü. Mander, L. Zhang, C. J. Anderson, S. E. Jørgensen, and H. Brix. 2013. Wetlands, carbon, and climate change. Landscape Ecology 28:583–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9758-8

Mitsch, W. J., and J. G. Gosselink. 2000. The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting. Ecological Economics 35:25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00165-8

Moon, K., and D. Blackman. 2014. A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists. Conservation Biology 28:1167–1177. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12326

Moon, K., T. D. Brewer, S. R. Januchowski-Hartley, V. M. Adams, and D. A. Blackman. 2016. A guideline to improve qualitative social science publishing in ecology and conservation journals. Ecology and Society 21(3):17. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08663-210317

Moon, K., D. Marsh, B. Cooke, and R. Kingsford. 2025. Relational commons: an ontological and governance framework beyond protected areas and the boundaries of conservation. Conservation Letters 18(5):e13137. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.13137

M'sɨt No'kmaq, A. Marshall, K. F. Beazley, J. Hum, S. Joudry, A. Papadopoulos, S. Pictou, J. Rabesca, L. Young, and M. Zurba. 2021. “Awakening the sleeping giant”: re-Indigenization principles for transforming biodiversity conservation in Canada and beyond. FACETS 6:839–869. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2020-0083

Muller, S., S. Hemming, and D. Rigney. 2019. Indigenous sovereignties: relational ontologies and environmental management. Geographical Research 57:399–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12362

Narayan, S., M. W. Beck, P. Wilson, C. J. Thomas, A. Guerrero, C. C. Shepard, B. G. Reguero, G. Franco, J. C. Ingram, and D. Trespalacios. 2017. The value of coastal wetlands for flood damage reduction in the Northeastern USA. Scientific Reports 7:9463. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09269-z

Nelson, M. K., and G. Reed. 2025. Indigenous critiques and recommendations for reclaiming nature-based solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122(29):e2315917121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2315917121

Noble, M., P. Duncan, D. Perry, K. Prosper, D. Rose, S. Schnierer, G. Tipa, E. Williams, R. Woods, and J. Pittock. 2016. Culturally significant fisheries: keystones for management of freshwater social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 21(2):22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08353-210222

Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture. 2019. Nova Scotia provincial dykelands summaries, November 11, 2019. Based on data from the Agricultural Land Identification Program (ALIP) beta dataset compiled in 2018 by Environment and Agriculture Technology (EAT) group of the Nova Scotia Community College. Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture, Truro, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Climate Change. 2022. Weathering what’s ahead: climate change risk and Nova Scotia’s well-being. Government of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. https://climatechange.novascotia.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/climate-change-risk-report.pdf

Pascual, U., P. Balvanera, S. Díaz, G. Pataki, E. Roth, M. Stenseke, R. T. Watson, E. B. Dessane, M. Islar, E. Kelemen, V. Maris, M. Quaas, S. M. Subramanian, H. Wittmer, A. Adlan, S. Ahn, Y. S. Al-Hafedh, E. Amankwah, S. T. Asah, P. Berry, and N. Yagi. 2017. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26:7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006

Paul, D. N. 2000. We were not the savages: a Mi'kmaq perspective on the collision between European and Native American civilizations. Fernwood Publishing, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Pew Charitable Trusts. 2021. African descendants have a stake in saving U.S. southeast salt marshes. Trust Magazine, 11 November. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/trust/archive/fall-2021/african-descendants-have-a-stake-in-saving-us-southeast-salt-marshes

Prosper, K., L. J. McMillan, A. A. Davis, and M. Moffitt. 2011. Returning to Netukulimk: Mi'kmaq cultural and spiritual connections with resource stewardship and self-governance. International Indigenous Policy Journal 2:1–17. https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2011.2.4.7

QSR International. 2018. NVivo. QSR International, Burlington, Massachusetts, USA. https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home

Rahman, H. M. T., K. Sherren, and D. van Proosdij. 2019. Institutional innovation for nature-based coastal adaptation: lessons from salt marsh restoration in Nova Scotia, Canada. Sustainability 11(23):6735. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236735

Reynolds, A. 2021. L'nuk connect with their culture, land through traditional Cape Breton sweetgrass harvest. Saltwire, 10 August. https://www.saltwire.com/atlantic-canada/lifestyles/lnuk-connect-with-their-culture-land-through-traditional-cape-breton-sweetgrass-harvest-100622165/

Rudin, R. 2022. Against the tides: reshaping landscape and community in Canada’s maritime marshlands. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA. https://doi.org/10.59962/9780774866774

Saintilan, N., K. Rogers, J. J. Kelleway, E. Ens, and D. R. Sloane. 2019. Climate change impacts on the coastal wetlands of Australia. Wetlands 39:1145–1154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-018-1016-7

Sandelowski, M. 2001. Real qualitative researchers do not count: the use of numbers in qualitative research. Research in Nursing and Health 24:230–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.1025

Sangha, K. K., and J. Russell-Smith. 2017. Towards an Indigenous ecosystem services valuation framework: a north Australian example. Conservation and Society 15:255–269. https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_16_156

Schnarch, B. 2004. Ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) or self-determination applied to research: a critical analysis of contemporary First Nations research and some options for First Nations communities. International Journal of Indigenous Health 1:80–95.

Sheremata, M. 2018. Listening to relational values in the era of rapid environmental change in the Inuit Nunangat. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 35:75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.017

Sherren, K., T. Bowron, J. M. Graham, H. M. T. Rahman, and D. van Proosdij. 2019. Coastal infrastructure realignment and salt marsh restoration in Nova Scotia, Canada. Pages 111–135 in Responding to rising seas: OECD country approaches to tackling coastal risks. OECD Publishing, Paris, France. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264312487-en

Sherren, K., K. Ellis, J. A. Guimond, B. Kurylyk, N. LeRoux, J. Lundholm, M. L. Mallory, D. van Proosdij, A. K. Walker, T. M. Bowron, J. Brazner, L. Kellman, B. L. Turner, II, and E. Wells. 2021. Understanding multifunctional Bay of Fundy dykelands and tidal wetlands using ecosystem services-a baseline. FACETS 6:1446–1473. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2020-0073

Sherren, K., L. Loik, and J. A. Debner. 2016. Climate adaptation in ‘new world’ cultural landscapes: the case of Bay of Fundy agricultural dykelands (Nova Scotia, Canada). Land Use Policy 51:267–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.11.018

Simpson, L. B. 2014. Land as pedagogy: Nishnaabeg intelligence and rebellious transformation. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society 3(3):1–25. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/22170

Sinclair, R., J. Gobby, and S. Hanson. 2021. Nature-based climate solutions report (sneak peek). Indigenous Climate Action, Claremont, California, USA. https://www.indigenousclimateaction.com/entries/new-nature-based-climate-solutions-report-sneak-peek

Stoeckl, N., D. Jarvis, S. Larson, A. Larson, D. Grainger, and Ewamian Aboriginal Corporation. 2021. Australian Indigenous insights into ecosystem services: beyond services towards connectedness - people, place and time. Ecosystem Services 50:101341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101341

Suchet-Pearson, S., S. Wright, K. Lloyd, and L. Burarrwanga on behalf of the Bawaka Country. 2013. Caring as Country: towards an ontology of co-becoming in natural resource management. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 54:185–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/apv.12018

Supreme Court of Canada. 1999. R. v. Marshall. 3 S. C. R. 456. Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1739/index.do

Temmerman, S., P. Meire, T. J. Bouma, P. M. J. Herman, T. Ysebaert, and H. J. De Vriend. 2013. Ecosystem-based coastal defence in the face of global change. Nature 504(7478):79–83. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12859

Toombs, E., A. S. Drawson, L. Chambers, T. L. R. Bobinski, J. Dixon, and C. J. Mushquash. 2019. Moving towards an Indigenous research process. International Indigenous Policy Journal 10(1):6. https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2019.10.1.6

Townsend, J., F. Moola, and M.-K. Craig. 2020. Indigenous peoples are critical to the success of nature-based solutions to climate change. FACETS 5:551–556. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2019-0058

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC). 2015a. Honouring the truth, reconciling for the future: summary of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/trc/IR4-7-2015-eng.pdf

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada(TRC). 2015b. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: calls to action. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. https://ehprnh2mwo3.exactdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC). 2015c. What we have learned: principles of truth and reconciliation. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. https://ehprnh2mwo3.exactdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Principles_English_Web.pdf

Tuck, E. and K. W. Yang. 2012. Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society 1(1):1–40.

United Nations. 2007. United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. Resolution 61/295. United Nations, New York, New York, USA. https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf

Urzedo, D., and C. J. Robinson. 2023. Decolonizing ecosystem valuation to sustain Indigenous worldviews. Environmental Science and Policy 150:103580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103580

Van Coppenolle, R., and S. Temmerman. 2019. A global exploration of tidal wetland creation for nature-based flood risk mitigation in coastal cities. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 226:106262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2019.106262

van Proosdij, D., R. Jahnke, and C. Ross. 2018. Fundy agriculture marshland flood maps. Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture, Land Protection, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Whyte, K. P. 2020. On resilient parasitisms, or why I’m skeptical of Indigenous/settler reconciliation. Pages 155–167 in K. Watene and E. Palmer, editors. Reconciliation, Transitional and Indigenous Justice. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003035268-15

Wicken, W. 2002. Mi'kmaq treaties on trial: history, land, and Donald Marshall Junior. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442670211

Wong, C., K. Ballegooyen, L. Ignace, M. J. Johnson, and H. Swanson. 2020. Towards reconciliation: 10 calls to action to natural scientists working in Canada. FACETS 5:769–783. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2020-0005

Young, T. 2016. L'nuwita'simk: a foundational worldview for a L'nuwey justice system. Indigenous Law Journal 13:75–102. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/ilj/article/view/26700/19755