Letsemot, “Togetherness”: Exploring How Connection to Land, Water, and Territory Influences Health and Wellness with First Nations Knowledge Keepers and Youth in the Fraser Salish Region of British Columbia

Abstract


 
 
 Connection to land has been identified as a central determinant of the health and well-being of First Nations in Canada. The wholistic, interconnected, spiritual, and sacred relationship that many Indigenous Peoples have with the land is an integral part of strengthening physical, spiritual, mental, and emotional health and well-being. However, there has been little empirical evidence on how to assess, measure, and report on connection to land for First Nations Peoples. Using a Two- Eyed Seeing approach, this study explores what connection to land, water, and territory means for health and wellness for First Nations in the Fraser Salish region in the province of British Columbia (BC), Canada. Data were collected through a sharing circle with five First Nations Knowledge Keepers and five youth from Stó:lō communities as part of a land-based gathering in Stó:lō territory. Three themes were identified: (a) “the spirits of the land, water, and territory are within us”: the intersection of cultural identity, spirituality, ancestral knowledge, and health and well-being; (b) letsemot, “togetherness”: relationality; and (c) disruptions and new ways of living. For Stó:lō Peoples, connection to the land is an integral component of health and well-being. Connection to land was found to strongly influence physical, spiritual, mental, and emotional aspects of health while also intersecting with Stó:lō cultural identity, spirituality, ancestral knowledge, and ways of living. The findings can be used to inform the development of an indicator for connection to land, water, and territory as a measurement of ecological wellness for the First Nations Population Health and Wellness Agenda in BC.
 
 

Two-Eyed Seeing Application in Research Analysis: An Integrative Review

“…This theme was divided into four sub-themes including: (a) analysis results presented to an Indigenous advisory group for feedback and comment, (b) Indigenous community member(s) involved with coding and analysis, (c) analysis results reviewed with research participants via member checking, and (d) partnership with an Elder or Knowledge Keeper during analysis. Member checking with research participants was the most commonly used strategy to involve Indigenous community members representing nearly half ( n = 15/32; 47%) of the articles (Carter et al, 2017; Danto et al, 2021; Hatala et al, 2020; Latimer et al, 2020; Marsh et al, 2015; Martin et al, 2017, 2018; Quinn, 2022; Rand, 2016; Rowan et al, 2015; Stelkia et al, 2021; Vorobyova et al, 2022; Whiting et al, 2018; Whitty-Rogers et al, 2016; Wright et al, 2019). According to Marsh et al (2015), transparency and member checking is grounded in the Two-Eyed Seeing Indigenous decolonizing approach and Aboriginal research ethics/protocol.…”

“…Involvement of an Indigenous community member with the coding and analysis process was the next most common strategy ( n = 9/32; 28%) (Bruner et al, 2019; Galway et al, 2022; Hunt et al, 2018; Latimer et al, 2020; Marsh et al, 2015; VanEvery et al, 2022; Vorobyova et al, 2022; Ward et al, 2023; Wright et al, 2019). Finally, analysis in partnership with an Elder or Knowledge Keeper was the last strategy ( n = 7/32; 23%) (Clark, 2014; Hall et al, 2015; Jackline et al, 2020; Kurtz et al, 2017; Latimer et al, 2020; Rowan et al, 2015; Stelkia et al, 2021). One article identified that the Elder was part of the research team (Stelkia et al, 2021).…”

“…In an article by Marsh et al (2015), the Elders and Aboriginal advisory group provided input into the cultural components of the data to gain more accurate meaning of the analysis. Nine articles (Bruner et al, 2019;Carter et al, 2017;Hall et al, 2015;Hatala et al, 2020;Jacklin et al, 2020;Martin et al, 2018;Stelkia et al, 2021;Vorobyova et al, 2022;Wright et al, 2019c) used two of the strategies and three articles (Latimer et al, 2020;Marsh et al, 2015;Rowan et al, 2015) used three strategies to involve Indigenous community members. Overall, all but five article (Jaworsky, 2023;Pilarinos et al, 2023;Sam et al, 2022;Shrivastava et al, 2020;Sylliboy, 2021) used a strategy to involve Indigenous community members during data analysis.…”

Structural racism and violence: Routine healthcare access in a cohort of marginalized Indigenous women and Two-Spirit Peoples during the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…Barriers that impact health access are rooted in racism and discrimination. In Canada, racism remains a key determinant of health and signi cantly impacts Indigenous Peoples access to non-Indigenous-led health services and is well documented in reports such as the British Columbia (BC) Commissioned In Plain Sight report (7,10,11). The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have left gaps in knowledge that are not only essential to address now but also in preparation for future pandemic planning in the health system.…”

Predictors of Land-Based Activity Participation in a National Representative Sample of Indigenous Individuals Living Off-Reserve

“…This can be one's interconnection with spirit, land, people, animals, and plants, including how such entities co-exist together in a shared environment. Land-based activities emphasize the connectivity within these relationships, and situate an individual within meaningful culturally and spiritually significant contexts [5]. It is this spiritual significance of engaging in land-based activities that differentiates these approaches from other nature-focused activities or programs, which can have similar psychological benefits, but do not emphasize connection to place or cultural significance [6].…”