chapter 12

Bridging Knowledge Systems for Drought Preparedness: A Case Study from the Swift Current Creek Watershed (Canada)

Jeremy Pittman, Darrell R. Corkal, Monica Hadarits, Tom Harrison, Margot Hurlbert, and Arlene Unvoas

Introduction

Every year droughts have significant impacts around the globe. These impacts cascade through social-ecological systems, meaning that even localized droughts can have global significance in today’s highly interconnected world. Despite the visibility of its effects, drought remains one of the most enigmatic disasters or climate-related disturbances, eluding even a broadly accepted definition.

As with most extreme events, it is typically better to address drought risk proactively, through preparedness planning, rather than solely reacting to drought events. Wilhite (2005, 1996) has demonstrated the benefit of drought preparedness in a number of contexts. Benefits from preparedness are derived from reduced stress on the system, improved ability to make decisions during crises, and lower costs associated with proactive adaptation—all aspects that help reduce the vulnerability of society in general and the rural population in particular. However, preparedness is not a panacea, and it must be accompanied by a suite of reactive adaptation strategies to be effective.

This chapter explores how deliberative, watershed-scale drought preparedness planning fits within broader adaptation strategies and programs in a case study of the Swift Current Creek watershed in Canada. The chapter begins with an overview of the conceptual framework that guided the research and follows with a detailed description of the case study. It then presents the methods used to explore the case and subsequently highlights the main results. Finally, the results are discussed in light of their implications for our understanding of multi-stakeholder, deliberative processes for drought preparedness, and conclusions are presented on the value of working with multiple and diverse stakeholders to bridge knowledge for drought preparedness.

Conceptual Framework

Human adaptation to climate is defined as “the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects, in order to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities” (IPCC 2012: 5). We see preparedness as a specific type of proactive adaptation, where actors anticipate options and become “ready to respond … and manage … consequences through measures taken prior to an event” (MREM 2011: 4). Preparedness is somewhat synonymous with what Smit et al. (2000) refer to as anticipatory and planned adaptation in that preparedness is deliberately undertaken prior to a potentially problematic climate event. Preparedness occurs in the context of uncertainty, meaning that actors must prepare with incomplete knowledge of the severity, magnitude, timing, and frequency of future events.

Berkes (2009) has shown how processes that engage knowledge from different sources (e.g., scientists, agricultural producers, different sector and industry groups, environmental groups, communities and social groups) can help navigate uncertainty. Here, uncertainty is conceptualized as an irreducible property of social-ecological systems. Social-ecological systems are inherently linked, co-dependent, and co-evolutionary systems comprised of social and ecological dimensions (Berkes and Folke 1998). The rationale for drawing on diverse knowledge to confront such uncertainty in social-ecological systems is to broaden active participation and the breadth of information used in decision making.

Bridging is the process of bringing different knowledge systems together to address problems that are relevant to different groups (Bohensky and Maru 2011). Bridging brings knowledge systems together in ways that maintain the integrity of each system (Reid et al. 2006), and knowledge is translated between actors without coercion (Sundberg 2007). Knowledge-bridging processes can be facilitated using boundary objects (Cash et al. 2003), which are objects that can take many forms (e.g., maps, models, concepts) and allow for knowledge communication and translation between actors with different understandings, interpretations, and interests associated with common problems (Brand and Jax 2007; Star and Griesemer 1989). Boundary objects must be flexible and adaptable to distinct contexts and situations. In this case study, a number of boundary objects were used to bridge knowledge for drought preparedness in the Swift Current Creek watershed.

Overview of the Swift Current Creek Watershed

The Swift Current Creek watershed is located in southwestern Saskatchewan, which is a relatively dry region of the Canadian Prairies (Figure 1). As part of the Palliser Triangle, the watershed has experienced recurring severe droughts over the last century. Some of the most notable droughts occurred in the 1930s, 1960s, 1980s, and 2000s, each having significant implications for agricultural production in the watershed (SRC 2011).

The watershed encompasses a total drainage area of 5,592 km2. It begins near the Cypress Hills in Saskatchewan and continues to the creek’s outlet on the South Saskatchewan River near Stewart Valley (Figure 1). The watershed contains mostly agricultural land and a number of rural communities. There are 5 urban municipalities (UMs) in the watershed, Swift Current and Shaunavon being the largest, and 12 rural municipalities (RMs).

The Swift Current Creek is supplied by snowmelt runoff and a number of groundwater springs. It flows about 160 km from its headwaters, contributing water into the South Saskatchewan River, which ultimately drains into Hudson Bay. The creek provides several services within the Swift Current Creek watershed, such as water for agricultural production (irrigation and livestock), municipal drinking water supplies, and recreation. Developed in 1943, the Duncairn Dam and Reid Lake Reservoir provide some drought protection within the watershed. This infrastructure stores 105,000 dam3 of water at its full supply level, which supports 7,000 ha of irrigated agricultural land and provides a dependable water supply for the city of Swift Current.

Figure 1. Map of the Swift Current Creek watershed, Saskatchewan

The Swift Current Creek Watershed Stewards (SCCWS), a not-for-profit corporation officially created in 2001, has sought to maintain or improve watershed health since it was organized (Table 1). In 2007, the SCCWS partnered with the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority (now the Water Security Agency), a provincial Crown corporation mandated to manage water in Saskatchewan, to implement a source water protection planning process. This process was part of a broader provincial initiative called the Long Term Safe Drinking Water Strategy, one component of which was aimed at producing community-based source water protection plans in a number of Saskatchewan’s watersheds. These plans were to be produced collaboratively with multiple watershed stakeholders.

In 2009, the Swift Current Creek Watershed Protection Plan was completed (SCCWS 2009). The plan contained 62 recommended action items aimed at improving sustainability in the Swift Current Creek watershed and identified different ways that stakeholders and organizations across different governance levels (i.e., local, regional, provincial, federal) could work together to achieve the desired outcomes. The result was two main recommendations, and four subsequent actions, directly related to drought preparedness (Table 2). These recommendations and actions included different elements of stakeholder engagement, adaptation planning, and hydro-climate analysis, and were to be implemented by the SCCWS, the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority, the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Methods for Drought Preparedness Planning

In early 2010, a drought preparedness planning project was initiated in the Swift Current Creek watershed to address the recommendations and action items in the Swift Current Creek Watershed Protection Plan. The project used a participatory action research (PAR) approach to bridge knowledge systems during development of the plan. PAR is a combination of participatory research, which is research that explicitly includes and engages stakeholders throughout the research process (Cargo and Mercer 2008), and critical action research, which is research undertaken with the intent of producing beneficial outcomes for stakeholders (Kemmis and McTaggart 2000). Rather than a method in itself, PAR is an approach to research that guides the use of a broad range of methods. As such, the specific methods used in PAR can span both qualitative and quantitative inquiry (Cargo and Mercer 2008), as well as draw from both the natural and social sciences (Ravera et al. 2011). PAR is a proven successful technique for bridging knowledge between different groups throughout a research project (Whitfield and Reed 2012).

This project was to be implemented collaboratively between the SCCWS and the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority, but it required the involvement of other stakeholder groups, government organizations, and research groups. These additional organizations were either engaged directly in the planning process or contributed specific pieces of work or studies that informed the planning process. Other organizations engaged in the planning process included the Southwest Enterprise Region, the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, the Saskatchewan Ministry of Municipal Relations (formerly Municipal Affairs), Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada through its Agri-Environment Services Branch, the Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative (PARC), and the Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC). These different groups were engaged during workshops, and many completed complementary studies that were used throughout the planning exercise (see the Acknowledgments). Most specifically, PARC conducted hydro-climate variability assessments and projections (Barrow 2011; St. Jacques et al. 2011; PARC 2010), and SRC completed extreme events characterizations (SRC 2011) that were used in the planning process.

The inclusion of these diverse groups and stakeholders required that knowledge be bridged across a number of boundaries. At the local level, there were participants involved with different modes of agricultural production, including both dryland and irrigation producers of crops, forage, and livestock. Other local-level participants included UMs and RMs, as well as additional community groups (e.g., Southwest Enterprise Region). At the provincial and federal levels, several different agencies were involved, each with different expertise (see above). Knowledge held by these agencies ranged from scientific knowledge regarding hydrology and agrology to more pragmatic knowledge regarding agricultural extension or program and policy development. In addition, climatological knowledge and expertise were provided by PARC and SRC.

The knowledge-bridging process involved two main components: a participatory vulnerability assessment and a participatory adaptation planning exercise. The vulnerability assessment aimed to understand how and why past droughts had been problematic and identify the variety of different adaptation options used to deal with past droughts. In addition, potential vulnerabilities and adaptation options for future droughts were explored. The vulnerability assessment provided the foundation for the adaptation planning exercise, which aimed to identify strategies that could increase preparedness to future droughts in light of existing and potential vulnerabilities. Three main boundary objects were used to bridge knowledge from diverse sources throughout the project: maps, timelines, and scenarios. The utility of these boundary objects has been demonstrated elsewhere (Ravera et al. 2011; Kok et al. 2007), but their applicability in the context of drought preparedness planning in Saskatchewan watersheds was untested prior to completion of this case study.

Outcomes of the Bridging Process

The knowledge-bridging process resulted in a number of outcomes. Most importantly, it facilitated the development of in-depth insights into current and future drought vulnerability within the watershed and provided the foundations for adaptation planning. These insights and outcomes are discussed below in relation to the boundary objects and bridging processes that facilitated the research.

Participatory Mapping and Timeline Construction

The participatory mapping and timeline exercises, using both maps and timelines as boundary objects, allowed participants to discuss the spatial and historical elements of drought vulnerability in the watershed. These exercises provided insights into the long history of the watershed’s agricultural sector in dealing with drought (Table 3) and the lessons learned throughout the course of this history. For example, participants discussed how the tillage practices of the 1930s had increased agricultural vulnerability to drought and how significant progress toward soil conservation had been made in the watershed since then (see Chapter 5 by Warren on min till in this volume). Additionally, participants identified a number of beneficial policy and practice cycles, such as water development projects that constructed farm dugouts in the 1980s or the promotion of shallow-buried pipelines in the late 1990s, which significantly reduced agricultural sensitivity and increased preparedness for droughts.

The mapping exercise identified different locations in the watershed that were more or less sensitive to drought and excessive moisture. Also, the locations of key events were recorded in ways that complemented the timeline activity. The mapping exercise provided some interesting insights into different biophysical vulnerabilities in the watershed as well, such as how certain fish populations can become trapped in deep pools along the Swift Current Creek when streamflow is low. Arguably, the mapping activity was the most successful of all the exercises, largely because it gave participants an opportunity to visualize issues and sparked valuable engagement between the different stakeholders.

Participatory Scenarios

Scenarios were an additional boundary object used during the planning process (Table 4). The scenarios were developed based on findings from complementary studies (see the Acknowledgments) and focus group discussions aimed at understanding vulnerabilities. These scenarios were framed as “what if” questions and were developed to represent a range of possibilities related to dry and wet conditions in the watershed. More specifically, these scenarios explored the vulnerabilities and adaptation options under extreme events of different intensity, duration, and frequencies. They also stimulated discussion of existing and potential vulnerabilities and adaptation options.

A number of interesting insights were gained from the participatory scenario process.

First, participants highlighted the need for long-term programming to reduce sensitivities and increase adaptive capacities to extreme events, rather than short-term programs or ad hoc responses aimed at coping with events already occurring. This discussion emerged during Scenario A, somewhat in response to excess moisture conditions being experienced during the time of the workshops.

Second, participants noted the challenges associated with adaptation to drought in the watershed and stated that the successes and failures of past adaptation strategies would have significant implications for future drought vulnerabilities. This discussion largely emerged during Scenario B. For example, the irrigation development in the watershed during the 1950s had not necessarily produced the benefits that were intended, such as the production of irrigated, high-value crops in the watershed. The irrigation infrastructure does provide important access to water for crops and forage in times of drought, but these crops and forage are typically of low economic value. At the time of the workshops, much of this infrastructure was publicly owned and required significant maintenance and investment to remain operational. The broad public benefit of this investment had been brought into question, along with the monetary value to the local economy actually added by the irrigation system. As such, the federal government was in the process of divesting the irrigation infrastructure to local groups (see Chapter 6 by Warren on irrigation in this volume). Participants noted how some sub-projects within the irrigation system would probably be sustained under local operation, but many were at risk of being decommissioned. This provided an interesting element to the scenario discussions in that irrigation expansion was not a major theme. Rather, program and policy strategies that promoted small-scale infrastructure investments (e.g., shallow buried pipelines for livestock watering) and improved agronomic practices (e.g., soil conservation) were favoured.

Third, participants viewed increased inter-annual hydro-climate variability as less problematic than longer-term drought or increased frequency of excessive moisture events (Scenario C in Table 4). As such, adaptation options recommended for increased inter-annual variability were similar to those already implemented in the watershed. Participants did highlight that vulnerability would largely depend on the response of international commodity markets to this variability and noted that frugal management of financial and environmental resources would be required. In addition, participants noted how vulnerability to increased variability largely depends on agricultural producers’ stage of career, with established producers less vulnerable than younger producers, since they typically have less debt.

Adaptation Planning and Prioritizing Actions

The adaptation planning and prioritization workshop followed the participatory mapping, timelines, and scenario exercises, and aimed to bridge diverse stakeholder knowledge in the co-production of a drought preparedness plan. During this workshop, participants were presented with synthesized findings related to vulnerability and adaptation from the first workshop and subsequently asked to develop adaptation strategies that could help address these vulnerabilities. In addition, participants were presented with information from studies by SRC that characterized extreme climate events to facilitate the planning and knowledge-bridging activities.

The exercises resulted in the development of adaptation strategies aimed at the municipal and agricultural sectors (Table 5). Strategies varied from those focused mostly on infrastructure (e.g., build redundancy into municipal water supply systems) to those focused on capacity-building approaches (e.g., provide training for municipal staff on emergency management). Many of the strategies related to modifying existing practices (e.g., define drought triggers for different levels of response), developing better climate information systems (e.g., increase number of climate observation stations), and then integrating these systems with decision making (e.g., base relief programs partly on reliable climate science).

Discussion: Opportunities and Challenges

Although many of the strategies listed in Table 5 are justifiable and have potential net benefits, several opportunities and challenges have been associated with implementation. This project bridged knowledge from diverse stakeholders while preparing the plan and built a core group of collaborators for implementing drought preparedness projects in the watershed. This coordination is exemplified in the ongoing collaboration between the SCCWS, the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada on PARC’s Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Extremes in the Americas (VACEA) project (2011–2016). VACEA is funded jointly by the International Development Research Centre and Canada’s Tri-Council. On VACEA, key actors have been able to maintain their collaborative relationships to advance drought preparedness in the watershed, despite having to take advantage of a different funding source.

The drought preparedness initiatives also had many synergies with different projects already underway by the SCCWS. These projects include their watershed monitoring and invasive species programs, which track and report on watershed health issues and invasive species prevalence. More specifically, the drought preparedness work had synergies with the SCCWS’s salt cedar monitoring and removal program, since salt cedar can have negative impacts (e.g., over-salinization) on existing water and soil resources. The negative impacts of salt cedar can amplify agricultural sensitivity to drought.

As noted earlier, several challenges are associated with implementation. For example, there is often a lack of clear responsibility for implementing different projects, which can paralyze the governance network. In some cases, local actors, such as the SCCWS, are left to implement projects on their own, even if they do not have a legislated mandate to do so. This problem is particularly apparent for addressing the salt cedar issue in the watershed, but it is also relevant for implementing many of the strategies in Table 5, such as promoting coordination between municipalities. Without formalized funding sources or programs, it is very difficult and often simply not possible to implement any course of action.

There are also several barriers to collaboration in the watershed. These include a pervasive rural-urban divide, which is relevant in many areas throughout the province (Partridge and Olfert 2009; Hoggart 1990), and also a fear in many municipalities that increased collaboration leads to forced amalgamation. Some of the participatory planning exercises and tools possibly helped address these barriers to some degree, since many of the strategies identified by participants in Table 5 relate to improved collaboration between municipalities, but the benefits of the activities are not necessarily long-lived and are at risk of easily being forgotten. Since the completion of this planning project in 2011, attempts to improve municipal collaboration regarding drought and excessive moisture have had limited success, and stakeholders have not been able to make real progress in developing more specific action plans.

Conclusions

This case study provides several preliminary insights regarding collaborative drought preparedness in Saskatchewan.

First, it demonstrates the key role of local watershed stewardship organizations in preparing for drought. These organizations are able to provide multi-stakeholder, deliberative forums for bridging different perspectives and values regarding the direction of drought adaptation. In addition, watershed groups are able to nurture a forum for collaboration with a broad range of non-government and government actors across different levels (i.e., local, municipal, regional, provincial, and federal). Accordingly, watershed groups help the diversity of stakeholders take advantage of opportunities arising from different funding sources and program frames. However, watershed stewardship organizations only have an informal role in drought preparedness and are not empowered by any formal legislation in the Saskatchewan context, which enables their flexibility but can constrain their ability to act or influence water management decisions.

Second, this case study demonstrates the value of different boundary objects, such as participatory mapping, timelines, and scenario assessments, for engaging with different knowledge systems in deliberative processes. The general utility of these tools has been demonstrated elsewhere (e.g., Ravera et al. 2011; Kok et al. 2007), but this case confirms that they can be useful and practical when working on drought preparedness in Saskatchewan’s watersheds. These boundary objects facilitated the development of an innovative drought preparedness plan, which, although preliminary, provided some guidance toward drought preparedness for key actors in the watershed.

Finally, this case reiterates that knowledge-bridging activities during planning are only the first piece of the puzzle in building drought preparedness. The role of the SCCWS has been crucial as a bridging organization to bring stakeholders together to begin preparedness planning. The research work of the case study, and related funding, were catalysts that helped begin participatory planning by diverse stakeholders to consider developing preparedness plans. But plans can only be effective if they are implemented, monitored, and adjusted to ensure the desired results are achieved. Without clearly defined roles for the diverse stakeholders, or sustained commitment by all actors (including all levels of government), preparedness plans will suffer from an implementation gap and fail to realize their potential. Also, changing policy priorities, programs, and funding sources will limit actors’ ability to implement plans. The lack of long-term, secure funding means even the sustainability of the watershed groups themselves is not assured. This case study suggests that continued collaboration between a core group of actors with varying interests and expertise can help improve capacity to adjust to changing priorities while maintaining general goals toward drought preparedness and sustainability. It must be emphasized that there is great value in participatory planning with a diversity of stakeholders. Once this planning process is initiated, a real challenge occurs when stakeholders need to move beyond planning into adaptive action.

Acknowledgments

Funding for the preparedness project was received from Natural Resources Canada as part of its Prairie Regional Adaptation Collaborative program (PRAC). As such, many of the ongoing PRAC research projects were used to inform the planning process. The Prairie Adaptation Research Collaboration (PARC) at the University of Regina led the PRAC, with the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority as the PRAC lead on the Drought and Excessive Moisture Preparedness theme for Saskatchewan. PARC contributed significant research expertise on climate change to the project, including on hydro-climate variability assessment and paleoclimate reconstruction. The community-based vulnerability assessment was completed by the University of Regina in collaboration with the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority, as part of both PRAC and a complementary Social Sciences Humanities and Research Council of Canada–funded project (the Rural Community Adaptation to Drought project). The Saskatchewan Research Council completed a characterization of extreme events in the watershed, and Dr. Steven Quiring from Texas A&M University completed an evaluation of climate extremes monitoring. The planning process was also aligned with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Drought Preparedness Partnership, which, although not officially part of PRAC, provided a provincial-level assessment of drought preparedness in Saskatchewan.

References

Barrow, E. 2011. Preliminary Probabilistic Analyses of Drought Indices in the Prairies. Regina: Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative. http://www.parc.ca/rac/fileManagement/upload/Prelimnary%20Probalistic%20Analysis%20of%20Drought%20Indices%20in%20the%20Prairies_June%202011.doc.pdf. Accessed October 2013.

Berkes, F. 2009. “Evolution of Co-management: Role of Knowledge Generation, Bridging Organizations and Social Learning.” Journal of Environmental Management 90: 1692–1702.

Berkes, F., and C. Folke. 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bohensky, E.L., and Y. Maru. 2011. “Indigenous Knowledge, Science, and Resilience: What Have We Learned from a Decade of International Literature on ‘Integration’?” Ecology and Society 16, no. 4. doi: 10.5751/ES-04342-160406. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss4/art6/.

Brand, F.S., and K. Jax. 2007. “Focusing the Meaning(s) of Resilience: Resilience as a Descriptive Concept and a Boundary Object.” Ecology and Society 12, no. 1.

Cargo, M., and S.L. Mercer. 2008. “The Value and Challenges of Participatory Research: Strengthening Its Practice.” Annual Review of Public Health 29, no. 1 (April): 325–50. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.091307.083824.

Cash, D.W., W.C. Clark, F. Alcock, N.M. Dickson, N. Eckley, D.H. Guston, J. Jäger, and R.B. Mitchell. 2003. “Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, no. 14: 8086–91.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hoggart, K. 1990. “Let’s Do Away with Rural.” Journal of Rural Studies 6, no. 3: 245–57.

Kemmis, S., and R. McTaggart. 2000. “Participatory Action Research: Communicative Action in the Public Sphere.” Pp. 559–603 in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kok, K., R. Biggs, and M. Zurek. 2007. “Methods for Developing Multiscale Participatory Scenarios: Insights from Southern Africa and Europe.” Ecology and Society 13, no. 1.

MREM (Ministers Responsible for Emergency Management). 2011. An Emergency Management Framework for Canada. 2nd edition. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada.

PARC (Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative). 2010. Hydroclimatic Variability: South Saskatchewan River Basin. Regina: PARC. http://www.parc.ca/rac/fileManagement/upload/Hydroclimatic%20Variability_South%20Saskatchewan_River_Basin_%20March10.pdf. Accessed October 2013.

Partridge, M.D., and M.R. Olfert. 2009. “Dissension in the Countryside: Bridging the Rural-urban Divide with a New Rural Policy.” Pp. 169–210 in M. Gopinath and H. Kim, Globalization and the Rural-Urban Divide. Seoul: Seoul National University Press.

Ravera, F., K. Hubacek, M. Reed, and D. Tarrasón. 2011. “Learning from Experiences in Adaptive Action Research: A Critical Comparison of Two Case Studies Applying Participatory Scenario Development and Modelling Approaches.” Environmental Policy and Governance 21, no. 6 (November): 433–53. doi: 10.1002/eet.585.

Reid, W., F. Berkes, T. Wilbanks, and D. Capistrano. 2006. Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems: Concepts and Applications in Ecosystem Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.

SCCWS (Swift Current Creek Watershed Stewards). 2009. Swift Current Creek Watershed Protection Plan. Swift Current, SK: SCCWS. https://www.wsask.ca/Global/Water%20Info/Watershed%20Planning/SwiftCurrentCreekWatershedProtectionPlanFinal.pdf. Accessed October 2013.

Smit, B., I. Burton, R. Klein, and J. Wandel. 2000. “An Anatomy of Adaptation to Climate Change.” Climatic Change 45: 223–51.

SRC (Saskatchewan Research Council). 2011. “Drought and Excessive Moisture—Saskatchewan’s Nemesis: Characterizations for the Swift Current Creek, North Saskatchewan River, Assiniboine River and Upper Souris River Watersheds.” Saskatoon, SK: SRC. http://www.parc.ca/rac/fileManagement/upload/2TSk%20Nemesis11%20SWA%20DEM%20Report%20updated.pdf. Accessed October 2013.

St. Jacques, J., Y.A. Huang, Y. Zhao, S.L. Lapp, and D.J. Sauchyn. 2011. The Effects of Atmosphere-Ocean Climate Oscillations on and Trends in Saskatchewan River Discharges. Regina: PARC.. http://www.parc.ca/rac/fileManagement/upload/The_Effects%20of%20Atmosphere_Ocean_Climate_Oscillations_on_and_Trends_in_Saskatchewan_River_Discharges.pdf. Accessed October 2013.

Star, S.L., and J.R. Griesemer. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39.” Social Studies of Science 19, no. 3 (August 1): 387–420. doi: 10.1177/030631289019003001.

Sundberg, M. 2007. “Parameterizations as Boundary Objects on the Climate Arena.” Social Studies of Science 37, no. 3 (June 1): 473–88. doi: 10.1177/0306312706075330.

Whitfield, S., and M.S. Reed. 2012. “Participatory Environmental Assessment in Drylands: Introducing a New Approach.” Journal of Arid Environments 77 (February): 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2011.09.015.

Wilhite, D.A. 1996. “A Methodology for Drought Preparedness.” Natural Hazards 13, no. 3: 229–52.

——— (ed.). 2005. Drought and Water Crisis: Science, Technology, and Management Issues. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.