Ensuring continuity and impact in Arctic monitoring: a solution-orientated model for community-based environmental research

Community-based monitoring (CBM) is increasingly cited as a means of collecting valuable baseline data that can contribute to our understanding of environmental change whilst supporting Indigenous governance and self-determination in research. However, current environmental CBM models have specific limitations that impact program effectiveness and the progression of research stages beyond data collection. Here, we highlight key aspects that limit the progression of Arctic CBM programs which include funding constraints, organisational structures, and operational processes. Exemplars from collaborative environmental research conducted in the acutely climate change impacted Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk, Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR), Canada, are used to identify co-developed solutions to address these challenges. These learnings from experience-based collaborations feed into a new solution-orientated model of environmental community-based research (CBR) that emphasises continuity between and community ownership in all research stages to enable a more complete research workflow. Clear recommendations are provided to develop a more coherent approach to achieving this model, which can be adapted to guide the development of successful environmental CBR programs in different research and place-based contexts.


Introduction
Indigenous Peoples are uniquely sensitive to climate change with their vulnerability determined by interacting geographical, social, economic and political dimensions (Andrachuk and Pearce 2010, Ford 2012, Ford et al 2012, Nakashima et al 2012, Carmona et al 2023, Fadairo et al 2023).The Arctic is warming faster than any other region globally (Rantanen et al 2022), causing rapid and multifaceted environmental and socio-ecological impacts to local communities over both short-(event-driven) and long-term (e.g.climate and sea-level) timescales.Coastal landscape thaw and erosion, for example, are of pressing concern across much of the Arctic including Inuit Nunangat (Inuit homeland in Canada) and the wider Alaskan Beaufort and Chukchi Sea coasts with implications for local infrastructure, food security and Inuit culture (Andrachuk and Smit 2012, Cunsolo Willox et al 2012, Pearce et al 2015, Worden et al 2020).Uncertainty over current and future rates of change and their nature at local as well as regional scales, makes appropriate prioritisation, strategic decisions, and effective adaptation planning extremely challenging.
As stewards of the land, water, and ice throughout recorded history (Wong et al 2020), Indigenous Peoples have demonstrated exceptional resilience to Arctic conditions, yet the increasing frequency and severity of environmental change and ecosystem processes are increasing the vulnerability of communities located on permafrost landscapes (Furgal and Seguin 2006, Ford et al 2012, 2013, 2023, Barnhart et al 2014, Watt-Cloutier 2018, IRC 2021).
Community-based adaptation to climate-change operates at a local level and centres on the priorities, knowledge and capacities of communities that are vulnerable to climate change impacts (Ayers and Forsyth 2009).This community-led process empowers people to plan development activities that aid the ability of people to live in a riskier and more unpredictable environment (Reid et al 2009), a trend perhaps most acutely seen in the Arctic (Gearheard et al 2011, Simonee et al 2021).Strategies are required that bring together scientific information (i.e.continuous baseline data sets) and local knowledge (i.e.changes and strategies to cope with changes at a local level) that can feed into community-led adaptation planning processes (Reid et al 2009, Ford et al 2016).Adaptation to climate change has been recognised as being an important policy issue by national governments and international bodies including the United Nations (Ford and Smit 2004).Climate change is projected to continue over future decades even under severely curbed emission scenarios (IPCC 2007(IPCC , 2023)), thus efforts to strengthen adaptation and resiliency of those most vulnerable are urgently required (Ayers and Forsyth 2009).However, Arctic research processes have been hindered by mismatches in priorities and timelines, between communities, and the research programs that collect the baseline data that underpins decision-making processes.Funding structures that place an emphasis on research-specific rewards (i.e.number of published scientific journal articles) over equity in outcomes have meant that often the data required for decision-making processes is fragmented and research priorities, timelines and needs of Indigenous Peoples, organisations and communities are not directly addressed (Pfeifer 2018, Pedersen et al 2020, Wilson et al 2020, Doering et al 2022, Kater 2022, Yua et al 2022).Equity here is referred to as fairly providing the space for all knowledge holders and knowledge systems in an agreed upon process (Yua et al 2022).A focus on the production of high-quality results and their publication often contrasts with community priorities which can include economic development, education and youth engagement (Gérin-Lajoie et al 2018, Wilson et al 2020, Sadowsky et al 2022).Externally driven data collection, fragmented data sets and ownership disputes challenge adaptation and resiliency efforts.Therefore, there is a need for more inclusive research processes emphasising Indigenous governance and self-determination in research (Brunet et al 2016, ITK 2018, Schott et al 2020).Arctic research processes are changing.The development of ethical statements, guidelines and policies have helped to address previous and ongoing power imbalances and support community autonomy in research (Castleden et al 2012, ITK 2018, Pedersen et al 2020, Wong et al 2020, Inuit Circumpolar Council 2022).The Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK)'s National Inuit Strategy on Research (NISR) (ITK 2018), for example, represented a key policy document that has produced a clear shift in research occurring in Inuit Nunangat, working to increase community engagement in research processes and equity of research outcomes (Mercer et al 2023).
There is increasing interest in environmental community-based monitoring (CBM) approaches in the Arctic (2015, Kouril et al 2016, Lam et al 2019, Danielsen et al 2020, Johnson et al 2021, Mercer et al 2023).The advantages of using CBM approaches are commonly viewed in relation to practicalities of conducting research in remote locations (Wilson et al 2018, McNicholl et al 2021).CBM has enabled data collection to continue over multiple seasons (Moore and Hauser 2019, Wilson et al 2020, Rode et al 2021) which adds a temporal scale not possible by conventional scientific monitoring initiatives alone (Gadgil et al 1993, Wheeler andRoot-Bernstein 2020).CBM can also ensure study resilience, as exemplified during the COVID-19 pandemic and on-going war in Ukraine which has prevented access for external researchers to field sites and severely limited collaboration, stopping data collection in some of the most understudied locations in the Arctic (Petrov et al 2020).CBM also advances scientific understanding (Gérin-Lajoie et al 2018, Gagnon et al 2020, Danielsen et al 2021, Wilson et al 2021, Hauser et al 2023), provides early detection of change (Henri et al 2018, Abu et al 2020) and can reduce the time between data collection and decision-making (Danielsen et al 2009(Danielsen et al , 2018)).Findings have informed decision-making at different levels such as advising local travel safety (Simonee et al 2021, Wilson et al 2021), wildlife co-management (Henri et al 2020) and the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) that feeds into international chemical policy (Ostertag et al 2018, Waugh et al 2018, AMAP 2021).These approaches are often considered more inclusive, enhancing self-determination and empowerment of Indigenous Peoples in environmental governance (Bonney et al 2009, Peters et al 2016, Bronen et al 2020, Reed et al 2020, Parlee et al 2021, Tengö et al 2021).It provides local people with opportunities, skill-sets and information to influence external political and economic forces affecting their landscapes and livelihoods by asserting their rights and identifying breaches of national or international standards.There is clear potential for CBM to aid understanding of human dimensions of climate change in the Arctic (Ford and Pearce 2012).By working with Indigenous Peoples and local communities, CBM research processes can provide key information on climate change and its impacts that can feed into community-based adaptation planning processes (Ebi andSemenza 2008, Lam et al 2019).However, there are critical funding, organisational, and operational aspects of CBM programs that limit long-term capabilities and ultimately program success.Though challenges to effective CBM persist, the benefits outweigh these, and can be overcome (Conrad andHilchey 2011, Mercer et al 2023).
Success in CBM is largely associated with its ability to become sustained and achieve sufficient longevity of the dataset (Johnson et al 2016).Under this definition there is a risk that CBM programs fixate on the process of data collection rather than the proceeding stages of analysis, interpretation, and translation into targeted deliverables with wider impact.Continuing to collect more data or 'monitoring for the sake of monitoring' (Conrad andDaoust 2008, Conrad andHilchey 2011) produces little benefit without it leading to applicable and usable outcomes.Therefore, it is appropriate to redefine how success is measured and henceforth we refer to success as research that can meaningfully inform strategic decision-making.
Research is a process with multiple iterations that progress beyond data collection to later stages in the research process such as data analysis and interpretation; these can, in turn, inform better data collection practices and enhance equity in research outcomes.Here we use environmental community-based research (CBR) to emphasise the requirement to extend beyond an overemphasis on data collection.New ways of working are required to facilitate sustainable and equitable environmental CBR that can feed into decision-making processes.Reflecting on past research processes is essential to informing solution-development that can guide these new ways of working.Learning from experience-based collaborations, we orientate our approach away from an emphasis on data collection to responsive actions using exemplars of community-based environmental research from the acutely threatened community of Tuktoyaktuk, Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR), Canada, (Andrachuk and Pearce 2010, Andrachuk and Smit 2012, IRC 2016, Whalen et al 2022).We present a solution-orientated model that can be applied to overcome key funding, organisational, and operational challenges to environmental CBM programs to extend beyond data collection towards informing critical decision-making that address the long-term climate change priorities of the Inuvialuit (IRC 2021).This contributes to the growing body of literature surrounding environmental CBM that track the effects of climate change in Canada (Tremblay et al 2008, Gérin-Lajoie et al 2018, Lam et al 2019, Mamun and Natcher 2023).From an understanding of climate-driven environmental change at the local scale, we present examples of how this solutions-orientated model is being applied to different environmental research contexts-including water contaminants and changing navigational routes-designed to specifically address key community priorities in Tuktoyaktuk.In doing so, we show how the model can support a complete community research workflow from data collection to decision-making.

Setting
While climate change is a global process, local impacts are place-based (Orlove et al 2014).The Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk is located on the shores of the Beaufort Sea coast, east of the Mackenzie Delta in the ISR, Canada.Under the terms of the 1984 Final Agreement, the Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk lies within the land claim boundary of the Inuvialuit People (Government of Canada 1984).The coastal location supports hunting, fishing and trapping on both the land and sea ice which are culturally important activities (Andrachuk and Pearce 2010, Andrachuk and Smit 2012, Chila et al 2022).The Inuvialuit community is undergoing continued environmental and socio-economic changes (Andrachuk and Smit 2012).Changes to sea ice, seasonal patterns and weather variability are impacting these cultural activities (Andrachuk and Pearce 2010).Coastal erosion, exacerbated by climate change, has damaged infrastructure and led to the relocation of homes (Wolfe et al 1998, Johnson et al 2003, Whalen et al 2022).The current location of the community continues to be threatened by rising sea levels (James et al 2021) and ongoing coastal erosion rates measuring up to 2 m yr −1 (Whalen et al 2022).Previous erosion mitigation strategies have failed, and new ones are currently being explored (Baird 2019).There is a clear need for strategic and continuous data sets documenting environmental changes to support local adaptation and resiliency efforts.

Learning through experience-based collaboration
The foundation of intercultural collaborations between non-Indigenous scientists and Indigenous Knowledge holders is building trusting and equitable partnerships (Lazrus et al 2022).Developing trust is an ongoing iterative process that requires investment in continuity and genuine sharing of power and authenticity (Yua et al 2022).Informal communications over time help develop the mutual trust and understanding required for effective community research (Ford et al 2013).In Tuktoyaktuk, community members and external researchers have worked together for decades, creating career-long collaborative partnerships and informal two-way knowledge exchange.This two-way knowledge exchange is unattainable through books, articles or formal interviews alone (Kater 2022, Quinton et al 2022).
Transdisciplinary learning often occurs as part of experience-based collaborations.This learning process happens when a group of people regularly interact through informal learning activities (e.g.conversations and learning by doing) to foster knowledge sharing (Barth et al 2023).Through the process, reflections on whether specific actions are working or not and learning how to do things better helps guide solution development to addresses specific problems (Cundill et al 2015, Barth et al 2023).Doing so requires personal relations based on trust and diverse participants to draw from different worldviews, backgrounds and methodological perspectives (Snyder and Wenger 2010).
We present our approach to experience-based collaboration from the transdisciplinary Nuna project, a Canada-Inuit Nunangat-United Kingdom Arctic Research Programme (CINUK).Our research process centres on respectful and beneficial research according to the five NISR priority policy areas (ITK 2018).The first months of the project involved multiple face-to-face meetings in Tuktoyaktuk and building relationships with community organisations and the wider community.An early career researcher from the team (classically-trained environmental scientist) joined the Tuktoyaktuk Community Climate Resiliency Project (TCCRP) community-based climate monitoring program (Mercer et al 2023) during repeat visits in the winter and summer periods of 2022 (14 weeks total in Tuktoyaktuk).This collaboration was built from pre-existing long-term partnerships between the TCCRP and Nuna team members.
At an initial face-to-face meeting in the Winter, TCCRP leaders and climate monitors identified ways to further develop CBM efforts and key areas of the program that could be supported over the Summer monitoring period to strengthen the capacity to sustain environmental monitoring aligned to community-identified research priorities.This experience of supporting day-to-day monitoring efforts provided an invaluable opportunity to learn first hand the challenges associated with sustaining a CBM program in the Arctic and feasible solutions to overcoming them.Time spent in Tuktoyaktuk during 2022, enabled not only engagement with participants in the program but with members of the wider community which helped gain an improved understanding of community research priorities and socio-economic factors influencing environmental research processes.Learnings from this period provided the TCCRP with information to help guide the next iteration of the climate-monitoring program.We present some practical examples of how solutions to funding, organisational and operational challenges fed into the co-development of new community-based environmental research projects in Tuktoyaktuk.

Funding as a key determinant of fragmented research outcomes
Fragmented funding cycles is one of the largest barriers to CBM programs (Danielsen et al 2018).Short funding cycles has limited data collection to a few seasons (Ford et al 2013, Henri et al 2018, Hovel et al 2020, McNicholl et al 2021), delayed the transition from data collection to analysis (Peacock et al 2020) and continues to limit the flexibility and adaptability of CBM programs to evolve through different iterations.Externally-led and often top-down driven funding typically limits the ability of research to be built upon community needs and ensure research outcomes are genuinely applicable and relevant (ITK 2018, Eicken et al 2021, Parlee et al 2021, Doering et al 2022).Current application processes for funding tend to result in fragmented studies, always producing new data, with significant time and administrative requirements required to write competitive grants sometimes limiting reflexive and responsive research innovations.Funding structures challenge community engagement approaches that facilitate the development of informal and long-term collaborations overtime (Ruckelshaus et al 2020, Tengö et al 2021, Quinton et al 2022).While engagement should occur before research projects proposals are written (Pedersen et al 2020), proposals are commonly written and funding awarded prior to sufficient engagement (Doering et al 2022).Additionally, CBM approaches rarely adequately fund both community members and external researchers with the former being only funded for part of the research process or the latter having to dedicate unfunded time to support research externally.This limits the ability to develop an appropriately diverse and coherent research team.The resources required to spend large periods in communities within Inuit Nunangat can present a barrier to the development of long-term partnerships as the extra financial and time requirements required to initiate and sustain dialogue are significant (Gérin-Lajoie et al 2018, Hovel et al 2020, Wilson et al 2020).These constraints often do not allow sufficient time to continually feedback and interpret findings with community members.However, if results are to be used by the community to inform decision-making, the benefits can outweigh the costs (Hudson et al 2022).Collaborative research requires collaborative funding calls to enable this level of impact (Doering et al 2022).
The means by which research is funded and the expectations of funding agencies impact research collaborations (Quinton et al 2022).Long-term and flexible funding structures are required to enable local innovation in monitoring programs (Tengö et al 2021, Mclennan et al 2022, Polar Knowledge Canada 2022), facilitate knowledge exchange across the North and scale research at a regional scale (Polar Knowledge Canada 2022).To do so requires sufficient collaboration and coordination between countries, funding organisations, and communities.

Overcoming fragmentation in funding structures
There are large volumes of past and ongoing research investigating environmental changes to permafrost landscapes surrounding Tuktoyaktuk (Government of the Northwest Territories 2023).When referring to a small selection of these projects that focus on co-development of environmental solutions, academic funding has often only available for short periods of time, which can contribute to the fragmented nature of programs.Since 2017, four short-term bursaries have been awarded consecutively (figure 1) which facilitated the development of new scientific techniques and collaborative partnerships that fed into larger research programs.These bursaries alone did not provide the necessary resources (time or financial) to enact mobilisation of co-developed CBR approaches.One year is not enough time to develop long-term collaborative partnerships but if strategically planned, these seed programs can feed into proposals for larger funding calls and continue to build long-term collaborative partnerships.Seed funding can build a foundation to ensure collaborative partnerships meet the requirements of Indigenous communities from early in the research process (Doering et al 2022).When applying to receive seed funding, a long-term goal in mind is important as well as maintaining regular contact with the community to ensure outcomes address community needs.For example, the NERC Arctic Office, UK, offered small bursaries to set up strategic working relationships and establish common priorities, ahead of a larger funding call.The larger funding call, CINUK, a collaboration between the UK and Canadian Government funding and the ITK was built upon an innovative memorandum of understanding ensuring equitable and appropriate outcomes to the funded research.The ITK continues to be influential in guiding research in Inuit Nunangat with the release of the NISR (ITK 2018).Sharing learnings across funding agencies is important to provide understanding of the resources and processes required to operationalise these collaborative funding calls.
The TCCRP has worked in collaboration with external researchers to help diversify funding, targeting different sources to achieve an overall goal of co-developing and sustaining community-based environmental monitoring (figure 1) (Mercer et al 2023).The program has continuously evolved despite the fragmentation in funding.This has taken time and aligned projects (supported by different sources) to develop relationships and methods that supported the longevity of the program.By diversifying funding and receiving the Arctic Inspiration Prize (AIP), a philanthropy source, the TCCRP can now sustain monitoring efforts consecutively beyond the four years enabled by the previous government awarded grant.This succession has overcome program fragmentation and increased the longevity of the program and climate-change impacts to continuously be monitored.Philanthropic investments often only constitute a small proportion of available funding to Arctic communities however, they are well suited to drive policy changes using community solutions to address the socio-ecological consequences of Arctic change (Henshaw 2013).Philanthropic funding strategies directly support community-based organisations, working to build capacity and empower Indigenous Peoples to have an active role in shaping their futures (Henshaw 2013).The AIP supports an array of innovative, community-based projects in the North (Taylor 2021).The flexible nature of the philanthropy model enables CBR projects to be sustained overtime, focusing training and resources when necessary (Mercer et al 2023) and adapting to external factors including the COVID-19 pandemic (Taylor 2021).Philanthropy supported programs including the AIP and the Lenfest Ocean Program (Hudson et al 2022) have goals that extend beyond traditionally sought after academic achievements (such as the number of published articles) to engagement strategies that produced results that address community specific research priorities, support northern innovation and inform decision-making.Linking funding from different sources can enable more time to build long-term relationships with communities overtime.This is important given the time and effort required to understand the socio-political landscape surrounding a research site (Wong et al 2020).While programs with different funding sources in Tuktoyaktuk aligned priorities, is not always a straightforward process.It is common for different funding bodies to have different research priorities and measures of research impact (Landrum et al 2022).
The Nuna project continues the community's progression towards more inclusive and collaborative solution-orientated research.Previously funded projects in Tuktoyaktuk (figure 1) ensured ongoing, meaningful relationships were built between external researchers and the Hamlet prior to the onset of the project.The Nuna project comprises a multi-lateral partnership, an approach which supports equity, diversity and inclusion (Quinton et al 2022).One leadership role is occupied by a community member (Natural Resources Canada 2023), ensuring the voices and perspectives of Indigenous Peoples are heard throughout the entire funding cycle (Doering et al 2022) and community-specific priorities are addressed.Doing so works to build Indigenous self-determination in research (ITK 2018, Doering et al 2022).Academic support is required to drive research innovation associated with monitoring and analysis approaches while ensuring scientific integrity (Tremblay et al 2008).Government support ensures research outcomes have wider policy implications and creates the potential to hire permanently employed staff to develop working partnerships that drives appropriate dissemination and utility of research outcomes.Partnerships between communities, governments and universities have been foundational to the initiation of the Access to Territory and Resources program by the Kativik Regional Government following concerns raised by northern Nunavik communities at workshops (Tremblay et al 2008).These multi-lateral partnerships can work to address community specific priorities while ensuring credible and relevant information is produced to feed into strategic decision-making supporting climate change adaptation (Tremblay et al 2008).
There is a need for Indigenous-led research in the Arctic (ITK 2018).Indigenous-led data collection and monitoring efforts must continue to be supported in Arctic environmental research to promote greater self-determination and empower community knowledge in decision-making (ITK 2018, Robards et (Government of Canada 2018).Given the lack of autonomous, Indigenous-led CBM approaches in Arctic regions (Kouril et al 2016) specifically surrounding Indigenous-led environmental contaminant research (Johnson et al 2023), further support is required to drive Indigenous-led research from the onset and aid the transition from externally driven approaches towards more collaborative and autonomous approaches.
We present an overview of positions commonly held within CBM programs and key challenges associated with them.Drawing from experiences from the Nuna project, we show how changing roles within program structures have the potential to facilitate two-way knowledge exchange processes and continuity in research programs.

Roles and their impact on effective CBR program structure
Key roles within project structures can add vulnerability to modes of working within research programs.While a project coordinator has been determined to be a critical component of CBM programs (Kouril et al 2016, Danielsen et al 2020), the loss of a coordinator has the potential to severely disrupt or even halt the progress of CBM programs.Coordinators tasks can include but are not limited to the day-to-day oversight of programs, scheduling of data collection days and analysis of collected data.CBM programs have been challenged by administrative capacity (Ndeloh Etiendem et al 2020) and data being stored in different places (Sawatzky et al 2020).The time and training required to analyse, interpret and communicate results are extensive (Castleden et al 2012).This is a large responsibility (often placed on one position due to funding limitations) with high training requirements often inadequately provided for, potentially limiting the effectiveness of different stages of the research program.
Challenges arise when local actors are assigned data collection roles (Turreira-García et al 2018).Data collectors or 'monitors' are commonly only paid to collect data and not trained to contribute to other stages of the research process.With current models, monitors are not continuously advancing their skillsets.This limits the potential of upskilling in these roles and the ability of a program to be sustained if the coordinator is absent.Inconsistency in pay due to the sporadic nature of monitoring (Johnson et al 2015), lack of clarity in goals (Danielsen et al 2020), and the draw of seasonal work opportunities can increase staff turnover rates and significantly impact the reliability of data collection procedures.Monitors are only paid to collect data, which leaves little incentive to progress beyond data collection.If monitors do not download, quality assess, and analyse the data, both data quality and motivation can both suffer.This also limits the ability to link Indigenous Knowledge and field observational information to instrumental measurements.Thus, both a lack of human and financial resources can challenge the development of new CBM initiatives (Peters et al 2016).
Dependence on face-to-face external support can cause large gaps in program progress because certain aspects do not progress during periods when external partners are not present.While bottom-up approaches are needed to guide CBM program design and decision-making (Eicken et al 2021), inclusive approaches also come with challenges.Opportunities provided by monitoring systems do not always support community members equitably within communities (Danielsen et al 2021).Externally-led programs can be challenged by consistently engaging with certain individuals such as a local elite which can accentuate inequities and unequal balances of power further (Eicken et al 2021).While time spent in communities is required to build trusting relationships and culturally appropriate working practices, doing so creates a risk of unintentionally participating in interpersonal community or organisational dynamics (Castleden et al 2012).Further work is required to better understand how to avoid elite capture when establishing monitoring programs (Lund et al 2018).
Relationships between Indigenous Peoples and academic researchers can develop into research partnerships; however, this practice remains uncommon (ITK 2018).Out of an understanding that process is just as important as the outcome (Smith 2012), working collaboratively and meaningfully with Indigenous Peoples and ensuring inclusion in the research process can help address community priorities, increase equitable outcomes of research and produce better science (ITK 2018, Peacock et al 2020, Pedersen et al 2020, Reed et al 2020).An absence of meaningful collaborative partnerships with Indigenous communities leads to the use of Indigenous Knowledge in a way that is extractive, harmful, and tokenistic (Haelewaters et al 2021).There remains a requirement for more research based on long term equitable partnerships, including on how projects are most effectively developed and how those involved align priorities and goals (Wong et al 2020, Nation and Hansen 2021, Henri et al 2022).Creating the space and opportunities to facilitate intercultural work and scientific expansion is a critical next step for sustainable and equitable actions (Lazrus et al 2022).

Changing roles within program structures
Directed funding to the community of Tuktoyaktuk from Polar Knowledge Canada, CIRNAC and the CINUK Nuna project support a Community Liaison Officer position in Tuktoyaktuk that acts as a bridge to enhance communication efforts both within the community and between the community and external researchers.Drawing from an understanding of both Indigenous and scientific knowledge systems, this key role provides a representative and mediator (Eicken 2010), to build equity of research outcomes.In past research, youth have acted as another such successful bridge to enhance relationship building between communities and researchers (Pedersen et al 2020).
A salaried position enables upskilling to be embedded into environmental CBR design from the onset.Training has been designed specifically around the individuals' requirements and resources to be targeted gradually overtime.This extends beyond training in sampling techniques to data collation, analysis, and scientific communication.Training is designed around transferable skills that can contribute to career development following project conclusion.Face-to-face training occurred multiple times during the first year of the hiring term for varying lengths of time (2-12 weeks).However, face-to-face training is limited to periods of time when external researchers can access the community, or the Community Liaison visits external researchers' institutions.To prevent fragmentation, weekly dialogue is sustained via online meetings with multiple Nuna project team members, enabling training and partnership development to progress.Sustaining dialogue can be challenging given bandwidth limitations and time zone differences between the Upskilling is required of both community members and scientists (Fox et al 2017).This position has facilitated the development of intercultural respect and appreciation gradually over time and supports capacity sharing (figure 2).Where capacity sharing is a two-way knowledge exchange process developed from a foundation of reciprocity, communication, and collaboration (Mercer and Ovitz 2023).The role provides vital time for external researchers to develop cross-cultural partnerships and learn about the environment and culture from a different lens by spending time listening and learning.In doing so, this ensures researchers engage and undertake their work appropriately to the place-based context where research is occurring (Wong et al 2020).Additionally, the position enables appropriate support for data collection to continue year-round as quality sampling is now within local capabilities (figure 2).This supports long-term environmental monitoring of baseline information and creates resiliency in data sets.Community Liaisons facilitate and sustain effective communication in remote locations (Wong et al 2020), where it is common for external researchers to visit during a select number of weeks throughout the year.Additional benefits extend to assisting with administration activities tied to research including the arrangement of seasonal employment opportunities (Wong et al 2020).Though invaluable, this is a level of investment not often available to projects but advances the common model of CBM working with more continuity, coherence, and progression than is possible with more limited (e.g.seasonal or data collection focused) roles.
Early in the funding process it was clear to the Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk and research partners that there needed to be a salaried position for a Community Liaison built into the program design and resources allocated accordingly from the beginning.The value of face-to-face meetings, training and continuous dialogue should not be understated when fostering relationships between external researchers and Community Liaisons.Understanding the available capacity, technology and shared goals requires feedback opportunities (Wong et al 2020).When supported adequately, a salaried Community Liaison position creates a centre of community engagement for external researchers, acting as a bridge between the community and researchers.Coming together as partners in learning facilitates two-way knowledge exchange (figure 2), project co-development and builds the next generation of cross-cultural collaborative partnerships between western trained scientists and Indigenous Knowledge holders (Doering et al 2022).

Barriers to achieving usable data
Despite the potential for CBM programs to inform decision-making (Danielsen et al 2010, Wilson et al 2018), CBM initiatives often struggle to surpass data collection efforts.Operational aspects limiting CBM program progression toward decision-making are often associated with linearity in program design, causing a perpetuation of higher-level issues, such as a lack of training and infrastructure towards later stages of research workflows (figure 3(A)).
Programs that lack data quality and the ability to link to other stages of the research process limit the usability of the data collected (Martinez-Levasseur et al 2016).It is common for CBM programs to collect both quantitative and qualitative data opportunistically through observations and activities chosen by harvesters (Peacock et al 2012, Henri et al 2018, Ndeloh Etiendem et al 2020).Resultingly, a lack of experimental design produces data that may not meet quality assurance and control standards making it difficult to compare with data collected through conventional scientific methods (Johnson et al 2015).Issues associated with institutions, culture and values can act to limit the use of Indigenous Knowledge with scientific knowledge to inform decision-making (Wheeler et al 2020, Wilson et al 2021).Small sample sizes (MacMillan et al 2017), unbalanced design (Ndeloh Etiendem et al 2020), sample biases (Henri et al 2018, Peacock et al 2020) and delays between data collection and analysis (Peacock et al 2012(Peacock et al , 2020) ) slow progression between research stages.The logistical challenges associated with conducting CBM in the extreme Arctic environment can lead to missed data collection days (Henri et al 2018, Pentinsaari et al 2020) and breakdown of equipment (Gearheard et al 2011, Johnson et al 2021) which impacts data quantity and quality accordingly.Site locations may pose a barrier to effective environmental CBM programs.In wildlife CBM programs, it is common for monitoring activities to tie in with daily activities such as subsistence hunting (Ostertag et al 2018, Waugh et al 2018, Ndeloh Etiendem et al 2020, Peacock et al 2020, Mercer et al 2023).Therefore, monitors are not necessarily going out of their way to collect data and the process becomes routine.In contrast, monitoring for environmental CBM programs can occur at a range of remote sites that are resource intensive (labour, time and fuel) to reach, potentially requiring multiple methods of transport.Such challenges can reduce motivation, contributing to high staff turnover and increase program vulnerability, for example, poor weather can prevent safe data collection and lead to gaps in data sets.
It is common for communities in Inuit Nunangat to lack the infrastructure commonly found in southern research institutions including high speed internet and laboratory facilities.These restrictions can increase the time between data collection and analysis by inhibiting the use of certain software and platforms (Simonee et al 2021).This can also act to limit sustained, flowing, and timely dialogue and feedback between external researchers and community members by reducing the access and use of collaborative platforms such as videoconferencing (Wilson et al 2021).
Supporting data sovereignty has previously been largely overlooked in CBM development (Reyes-García et al 2022).Environmental CBM programs face challenges of recognizing Indigenous data sovereignty to reduce extractive practices that can lead to misuse or misappropriation of Indigenous Knowledge (Reyes-García et al 2022).Using community collected data outside of communities can induce challenges relating to intellectual property, interpretation and free, prior and informed consent (Brook and McLachlan 2008, Ndeloh Etiendem et al 2020, Reyes-García et al 2022).In this era of emerging technologies there are associated requirements for improved data management (Newman et al 2012).
While there is no one-size-fits all approach to CBM (Johnson et al 2015, Parlee et al 2021) there are reoccurring challenges that prevent continuity across CBM research processes and limit the potential of the data produced (figure 3(A)).Learning from examples of community-based environmental research in Tuktoyaktuk, we present a solutions-orientated model (figure 3(B)) to overcome some of the most prevalent challenges presented.

Co-developing sustainable, appropriate, and accessible monitoring
If adequately considered, the solutions-orientated model can help guide CBR to extend beyond models of data collection towards equitable and actionable outcomes (figure 3(B)).Since no two Indigenous communities or projects are the same (Wilson et al 2020, Johnson et al 2023), defining the appropriate and inclusive actions built into the research design from the onset will be dependent on project goals and the place-based context in which the research is occurring (Danielsen et al 2009, Johnson et al 2016, Pedersen et al 2020, Tengö et al 2021).The flexible nature ensures the length of steps over which the model (figure 3(B)) is applied can be adapted to meet the priorities and desired goals of specific programs.It is challenging to apply local Indigenous Knowledge to larger scales (Laidler et al 2008).Therefore, the  Tengö et al 2017, Henri et al 2021, 2022).Multiple evidence based (MEB) approaches can guide collaborations between knowledge systems, weaving them together to create a better understanding of a phenomenon of study than could be achieved by one knowledge system alone (Gagnon et al 2020, Tengö et al 2021).Knowledge weaving requires collaboratives pathways and active efforts to respect the contributions and integrity of different knowledge systems (Johnson et al 2016).Emphasis is placed on relationship building and sustaining dialogue which is required when weaving different ways of knowing (Johnson et al 2023).For decades the Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Society's 'Community Based Ecological Monitoring Program' has brought together scientific and Indigenous knowledge systems to better understand caribou ecology and inform co-management decisions (Eamer 2006, Russell et al 2013, Gagnon et al 2020).Weaving scientific and Indigenous Knowledge systems through MEB approaches is clearly an important aspect to be considered when developing a long term environmental CBR program that is guided by place-based historical context.
A community priority of concern in Tuktoyaktuk relates to contaminant release from legacy infrastructure and how this may alter under future climate-driven changes (e.g.enhanced storm surges and erosion).Applying the model, legacy infrastructure sites that might be waterborne contaminant sources were initially identified using historical context provided by a diverse range of community members (e.g.elders, harvesters, women) during informal conversations.This context was key to the Community Liaison co-developing a water quality monitoring program together in partnership with an external academic researcher.Accessibility can be viewed in reference to data availability in addition to proximity to sampling locations.The accessibility and applicability of sampling locations were refined during the co-development process as it was concluded that sites needed proximity to roads with off-road parking availability and to be within an hour from the community to achieve responsive, frequent, and sustainable sampling capabilities.Training of the Community Liaison to process, analyse, collate and manage data storage ensures that access to and ownership of data remains in the community.Providing suitable infrastructure for data management including a long-term database that is open to researchers and communities can support Indigenous sovereignty over community collected data.Additionally, identifying early on what the desired outcomes of the sampling will look like enabled the development of maps to aid interpretation during co-dissemination processes.Boundary objects (Akkerman andBakker 2011, Bishop et al 2022) like maps can facilitate discussions surrounding observed changes which can aid to community-informed decision-making.
Digital platforms are becoming increasing seen as an essential component of CBM programs (Johnson et al 2021).New technologies such as drones, mobile applications and other digital platforms have the potential to advance CBM research processes forward (Newman et al 2012).The use and benefit of low-cost instruments and cloud based processing is an innovative solution to aid the transition from CBM to CBR.Emerging technologies offer the opportunity to streamline data collection (Willett et al 2010), improve quality control and enhance data management processes (Kelling et al 2009).In this era of emerging technologies, low-cost tool kits that can improve efficiency and accessibility of in-situ measurements over time are becoming more popular (Newman et al 2012).Cost-effective and operationally robust SmartICE systems (Bell et al 2014) have enabled in-situ measurements of sea ice properties in many communities across Inuit Nunangat including Tuktoyaktuk.In combination with remote sensing data and Inuit Knowledge, a sea-ice classification system that meets ice classification standards (Bell et al 2014) has been produced to inform community decision-making relating to travel safety (Wilson et al 2021).Coordination of training and technical advice is required to support the use of these emerging technologies (Newman et al 2012, Wilson et al 2021).
In Tuktoyaktuk, historical context from community members revealed that environmental changes including increasing storminess are changing navigation channels.Low-cost sonar devices have the potential to identify storm-induced bathymetric changes and potential navigation and health hazards.Low-cost devices for monitoring coastal bathymetry change and habitat assessment are appropriate given the potential for regular, community-collected baseline data when fitted to local boats.Additionally, surveying and mapping the sea floor can aid in ecosystem management, marine spatial planning, and in setting baselines before changes to ocean heritage (natural and cultural) (Wölfl et al 2019).This targeted bathymetric mapping survey approach can be applied in real-time to critical areas that pose navigation and critical habitat threats.Data management software for bathymetry data including C-MAP Genesis (www.genesismaps.com/)enables instantaneous data processing and enhances data sovereignty over community-collected data: helping to decide what to share and with whom.The availability of this data supports Inuit access and ownership over the data while still utilising the benefit of an online cloud-based visualisation and storage tool.Usability of this data is directly linked to the Emergency Marine Situational Awareness web platform that is available to all users in the Tuktoyaktuk region, working to improve situational awareness and travel safety (Government of Canada 2022).
We investigated the coverage achievable in a 1-hour time frame to look at how focused mapping can produce detailed coverage of known areas of importance highlighting how data collection can go from generalised CBM methods/data collection to creating something that is understandable and usable.The process of training and fitting devices onto boats and interpretation provides the opportunity for community members to come together to share knowledge, similar to that of SmartICE (Bell et al 2014, Wilson et al 2021).Examples provided highlight the flexibility and adaptable nature of the solutions-orientated model which enables it to be applied to different place-based contexts.This requires accessible and applicable monitoring sites, sampling based on context from community members, and infrastructure put in place to enable storage and analysis of data (figure 3(B)).Focusing on local community issues and planning by hourly time frames that link to CBM costing models means that resources are optimised for the collection of valuable, clearly defined baseline data.Low-cost technologies can advance availability and communication of results aiding to reduce the time between data collection and informed decision-making.Improved infrastructure within the community and training are required to facilitate the growth in emerging low-cost technologies and store, manage and analyse community collected data.

Better outcomes start with appropriate questions
Meaningful and sustainable projects begin dialogue and relationship building before project initiation (ITK 2018).Experts from both scientific and Indigenous Knowledge systems must collaborate to identify appropriate research questions (Yua et al 2022).Engagement of communities early enough in the research process can ensure high quality scientific and community outcomes (figure 3(B)), and generate solution-orientated research (Wong et al 2020).This process will also enable the identification of quality assurance standards to standardise methods and produce usable and relevant data to inform decision-making.Funding agencies must support dialogue between natural scientists and social scientists early in program planning and development.Social scientists can act to facilitate discussions, critical reflexivity, and safeguard the legitimacy of the process as well as the outputs (Nogueira et al 2021).
Collaborative funding calls can facilitate transdisciplinary dialogue to develop multiple evidence-based processes that are context-based, acknowledging socio-political factors and colonial history (Tengö et al 2021) and ensure Indigenous representation in leadership positions.Research question and problem identification by Indigenous Peoples helps to build the foundation of environmental CBR programs.Research questions can evolve from and adapt to information from different sources (e.g.community meetings, prior research, and grey literature).Developing research questions and methods that produce results that are timely and usable by decision-makers requires more inclusive and collaborative research methods involving scientists, policymakers and stakeholders (Tseng et al 2017, Hakkarainen et al 2022).More support is required for researchers (from relevant fields) to spend time in communities, building a better understanding of questions that could be answered in achievable ways and what is feasible given time, cost, and infrastructure constraints.This is difficult to do given the short timeframes and funding requirements commonly associated with academic-led research programs (figure 1).For this to be achieved Universities must target training towards developing good listeners as well as good communicators (Quinton et al 2022).Developing good listeners is critical to ensuring effective community engagement and two-way knowledge exchange (Quinton et al 2022, Mercer andOvitz 2023) (figure 2).A test of a CBR program is not only overcoming barriers to early-dialogue-but sustaining engagement between external researchers and community members from project design through to decision-making processes.Continuous dialogue and feedback from community members are integral to the study design of CBR (Hovel et al 2020).For example, a salaried Community Liaison position enables capacity sharing processes that allow for continuous training, feedback and targeted address of specific concerns raised.Additionally, pilot data and information from both Indigenous and scientific knowledge systems can be used to inform good question development.The translation from more general pilot study questions to those that are informed and actionable could take well over a year with associated time and financial costs.Visual displays of results in the form of colourful maps could act as boundary objects (Bishop et al 2022) to facilitate discussions surrounding initial baseline data collection, enabling progression to informed question development and the refinement of the CBR program activities.

Orienting the research process towards continuity
To ensure program feasibility, it is important to acknowledge that infrastructure and resources available to conduct data collection will differ between communities.Identifying appropriate sampling within the capacity of the specific community will help ensure that the research process can extend beyond data collection (figure 3(B)).This will require identification of available and required infrastructure early in the research process to ensure adequate data collection, sample storage, and information collation (data upload, management and storage).Appropriate sampling could utilise low-cost equipment (e.g.Secchi disks) that require simple monitoring protocols, are robust and can be easily replaced if broken.Furthermore, initial pilot studies that test equipment capabilities followed by a focus on localised priorities can help to avoid unnecessary monitoring by concentrating resources on key areas of concern.Challenges with data collection can have knock on effects in the later stages of the research process so it is important to determine appropriate strategies early.Informing strategic decision-making requires both the consideration of practical issues such as accessible sites, synergies with current everyday activities wherever possible, and sustained feedback from a range of interest groups.Continuous feedback from community members is critical to ensuring that data collection continues to address community research priorities.This can be channelled through a Community Liaison position when external researchers are not present in the community.Salaried community research-related positions enable consistency and flexibility in data collection, which are critical for environmental monitoring (such as before and after a forecast storm).They can also help guide data collection towards an agreed outcome (facilitating decision-making, awareness raising, hazard identification, community communication, lobbying, conference engagement, or written deliverables, for example).
A resilient research program is one that can be managed effectively and sustained when external researchers are not in the community.Sustaining dialogue with external researchers or partners can be challenging at times due to bandwidth speeds, time zone differences, or other demands on time (community events or academic duties).Where possible, physical equipment should be kept in one secure but suitably accessible place and regularly inventoried and maintenance checked.This requires formatting processes that can be understood.Digital platforms (e.g.iPads) have the potential to ensure data are regularly transferred to management software but need to be regularly checked to ensure the process is operating properly.While digital platforms can provide practical solutions in remote environments (Johnson et al 2021), information recorded in hard copy format (i.e.all weather books) effectively prevents data loss in the event of electronic devices failing (mechanical faults or inclement weather).
From the examples provided, preparatory activities such as pilot data and test collections highlight essential improvements and refinements that will help achieve program objectives.Research processes that progress beyond data collection should be a clearly stated goal, to inform CBR sample design and create actionable outputs from program activities.In addition to the infrastructure requirements, specifically designated time to conduct trial runs and reflexive co-development of program activities, the speed between data collection, upload, analysis and interpretation needs to be suitably controlled to enable meaningful community decision-making.Current models of CBM typically do not account for the time required to collate and analyse data immediately preceding data collection (figure 3(A)).To achieve this will require a quarter to a third increase in allocated funding.Suitably flexible funding structures, salaried positions, and regular training/re-training built into environmental CBR programs can make this possible.However, the skillsets required to make key coordinator positions truly effective are rare, both from the skills base within Indigenous communities and the necessary support skills from the external research community.Adequate time and resources must be continuously allocated overtime to target and continually build the skills, confidence and relationships required to carry out this role.
Communities must be involved throughout the research process, which includes accessing, interpreting and utilising results (Loseto et al 2020).External researchers require additional support to return to co-disseminate results and gain feedback to guide future monitoring efforts and enable non-Indigenous researchers to contextualise their research findings with diverse epistemological understanding.Contributing local and context specific knowledge can increase the capacity to transform decisions into actions that are sustained over time (Danielsen et al 2009(Danielsen et al , 2010)).Co-interpretation of findings will add greater context and understanding of environmental change data, improving both scientific outputs and practical outcomes.

Generating impact from model application
Co-authorship should be supported not only in conventional scientific journal articles, but posters and presentations at international conferences.Indigenous research partners should determine their involvement in publication processes and/or alternative methods of communicating results (Loseto et al 2020).The process of co-creation provides the opportunity to reflect and provide space to share feedback and experiences of the entire workflow process (figure 3(B)).It provides a path to build trust by sharing initial findings and evoke discussion surrounding the research process (Nogueira et al 2021).Co-development of posters and presentations can be a helpful scientific communication tool to summarise the story of the research in a way that is accessible and understandable to translate across scientific, cultural and political boundaries.Together, team members including the Community Liaison presented at the ArcticNet Annual Scientific Meeting (Archambault et al 2023).This not only provided the opportunity to present our research approach together, but provided experience of networking with other researchers, community members from across Inuit Nunangat and representatives of funding bodies.Communicating results back to communities and wider audiences is a critical research activity that requires funding to be acquired as a standard budget item when planning funding proposals (Loseto et al 2020).
Addressing climate change requires a culture change, a social movement to be reached (Lazrus et al 2022).Progress has been made to support community researchers present their work on large influential platforms.Research from Tuktoyaktuk has been showcased at international events including a youth led film 'Happening to Us' at the 25th annual meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP 25) in Spain.Here, nations gathered to discuss progress made with addressing climate change and to negotiate climate change mitigation and adaptation measures creating the opportunity for community-research to have an impact on leaders who can take action on climate change.Attending these events enables community researchers to showcase their work and share knowledge (Indigenous and scientific) with attendees which includes government representative's, scientists, policy-makers and practitioners.Participation of community researchers at these large international events highlights the concern communities hold about the effects of climate change and sharing information with others can help to create awareness and incite policy change (Peace and Myers 2012).
It has been suggested that successful outcomes of the research process might not be measured by the number of scientific journal publications (Wong et al 2020) but instead be related to Indigenous leadership, employment opportunities, youth engagement or mentorship (Wilson et al 2020, Doering et al 2022).The research process itself should also be seen as an outcome if there is equity in funding (community salaried positions), supporting Indigenous scholarship through further training and increasing participation of women and youth in scientific research.Supporting outputs that extend beyond research project timelines including co-authorship can support mentorship and the development of long-term collaborative partnerships (Doering et al 2022).
It takes time to develop trust and collaborative partnerships, time that extends beyond the length of short-term research projects (Wilson et al 2020, Quinton et al 2022); this time and long-term commitment should be acknowledged by funding bodies accordingly (Chanteloup et al 2019, Doering et al 2022).The value of time spent face-to-face is unparalleled (Yua et al 2022).Face-to-face training provided the space and flexibility to provide training at different parts of the research process in real-time (e.g.data collection and metadata upload on computers) and have reflexive conversations where any doubts or concerns were raised.Investing in the resources required to support face-to-face communication was key to relationship development and effective training.It provided the basis for establishing an initial rapport, trust, and two-way knowledge exchange.Sustaining dialogue via weekly online meetings has been important to providing regular feedback, collaborating on ongoing tasks (i.e.project reporting) and continuing to build a rapport between team members.
Training and resource requirements vary at different stages of the CBR workflow.For example, resource input (time, travel support) was high early in the research process to support question development and training was built around simple data collection and management methods.Later in the research process, there is a large gap in the knowledge and skillset required to train Indigenous team members to conduct data analysis and laboratory training.This stage of the research process requires more investment in specialised training and resources (infrastructure and equipment) to bridge this gap.Team members continuously work on building mutually trustful and respectful relationships.Transparency and honesty have enabled us to better understand how team members work together collaboratively.Understanding how we work together is an iterative process developed from a foundation of transparency, accountability, and trust building.
The transdisciplinary learning approach taken in this study counteracts research practices where natural scientists visit sites for brief periods and extract data with limited or no community engagement in research processes, producing inequity in research outcomes (Haelewaters et al 2021, Yua et al 2022, Minasny et al 2020).In co-created or co-produced research key non-scientific outcomes such as additional time, trust building activities, or changes to activities as co-development evolves are not commonly reported (Hudson et al 2022).Such observations can provide valuable insight into improving the research processes adopted by future programs, benefitting both the research quality and the community that can often suffer from research fatigue associated with more extractive and fragmented research programs.Ultimately, this requires a more diverse approach that extends beyond traditional reporting in scientific articles towards impact narratives (Hudson et al 2022).Including community perspectives on environmental CBR processes in these narratives will provide better understanding of the full scope of research outcomes (Mamun and Natcher 2023).

Conclusions and recommendations
Community-based environmental research in the Arctic has the potential to collect information that can feed into adaptation and resiliency efforts whilst working to enhance Inuit governance and self-determination in research.Given the potential of environmental CBR, case studies are required to better understand the challenges and opportunities associated with this collaborative research process.Learning through experience-based collaboration from a transdisciplinary Arctic research program, we demonstrate the need to overcome critical challenges at funding, organisational, and operational levels to ensure that environmental CBR outcomes can inform strategic decision-making.As a result, two key recommendations are suggested to ensure continuity and impact in community-based environmental research.

More flexible funding structures that centre on the practical aspects of co-development
There is a need to identify early on appropriate and achievable goals for environmental CBR programs which can be achieved through funding structures aligned to support early and transdisciplinary dialogue such as seed funding and calls utilising multi-lateral partnerships (community, academic and government) (Doering et al 2022).In the example provided, seed funding helped to initiate collaborative partnerships and test field techniques prior to the onset of larger transdisciplinary funding calls to ensure the relevance of outcomes that support community priorities.There is also a need to include some redundancy in this support as not all seed funding will lead to successful outcomes.This trade-off of risk against the potential for improved research quality and effectiveness will prove more challenging for less solution-orientated funders.In many cases this requires a fundamental shift to support more flexibility and recognition of the need to develop effective working relationships over time, which often is tensioned against the needs and time-limited pressures of the different funding sources (e.g. government, philanthropy, international or national funding).The quantification of environmental process changes, and the development of effective decisions based on these datasets requires funding that supports the processes required to co-develop effective environmental research that can inform strategic decision-making.
Identification of specific resource requirements at each stage of the research process can feed into overcoming operational challenges of community-based initiatives.This could act to enhance program continuity between stages of the research process.If environmental datasets are to be sustained, they must produce deliverables that can address community priorities and influence decision-making processes.The time and financial support required to achieve collaborative partnerships should be acknowledged directly as impact.Outcomes should extend beyond traditional methods of reporting (data reports, peer reviewed publications) to applied deliverables and creative ways of reflecting on the research process (such as posters) and other means of highlighting the collaborative development of partnerships (dedicated time, listening, and mentorship).

Salaried community research leads
Short-term positions that facilitate participation in limited stages of the research process (i.e., data collection alone) can challenge CBM program continuity and equity of research outcomes.Key roles within program structures should be supported and recognised wherever possible with long-term salaried positions like that of a Community Liaison instead of seasonal coordinators and data collectors.A Community Liaison is necessary to ensure research fits the appropriate place-based context and sustained community engagement occurs.Dialogue between external researchers and community members must be sustained throughout the research process to ensure programs are adapted to address community feedback accordingly.The position enables upskilling to be built into program design, supporting specific training toward low-cost innovative solutions and data accountability to ensure CBR progresses beyond data collection to later stages in the research workflow.The ability to translate research outcomes into informed decision-making is a vital indicator of success in applied research.The solution-orientated model (figure 3(B)) can be applied in different place-based and research contexts to aid strategic decision-making across permafrost landscapes and beyond.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.A small selection of research projects awarded funding between the years of 2017 and 2022 that progress towards co-development of innovative environmental solutions in Tuktoyaktuk, ISR, Canada.Funding to support these highlighted projects has come from a variety of different sources: academic, governmental, and philanthropic.The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), Arctic Coastal Dynamics Program (ACDPs), Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC), Arctic Inspiration Prize (AIP) and the Nuna Project funding (CINUK) all originate from different sources e.g. research councils (UK Research and Innovation), government (Natural Resources Canada) and philanthropy (AIP).However, collaboration between funding bodies has increased over time and projects have become more inclusive of community members.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Indigenous Knowledge holders and non-Indigenous researchers contribute different forms of knowledge and capacities to research processes.Two-way knowledge sharing processes are required to bring different knowledge systems together to add greater understanding than one knowledge system alone and produce greater equity in research outcomes.Key elements on the outer periphery are required to be embedded into program design from the beginning to facilitate multi-directional knowledge exchange in research processes.

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. (A) There is key funding, organisational, and operational challenges to environmental CBM programs that can pose barriers ('B1-4') to continuity in the research process, stopping the progression from community-informed data collection to decision-making and equity in research outcomes.(B) Key solutions applied at different stages of the research process to overcome barriers challenging progression between different stages of the research process to ensure continuity of research workflow and enhance the sustainability of environmental CBR programs.
al 2018, Wilson et al 2018, Moore and Hauser 2019, Danielsen et al 2022, Hauser et al 2023).A successful environmental CBR program starts with empowering community members to take the lead on writing their own funding proposals.Canadian agencies are taking steps to ensure more inclusive and accessible grant writing processes and criteria.ArcticNet's Inuit Nunangat Research Program: Inuit Qaujisarnirmut Pilirijjutit supports Indigenous leadership and governance, promoting Inuit self-determination in research (ArcticNet 2023).The Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada Indigenous Community-Based Climate Monitoring Program supports Indigenous Peoples to design, implement and sustain CBM projects (Government of Canada 2017, Mercer et al 2023).Furthermore, the Northern Contaminants Program Community-Based Monitoring and Research subprogram promotes the application of community knowledge by providing more inclusive criteria and informative webinars to aid with different parts of the application process