Report on Environment and Climate Change Canada’s national meeting on building an interdisciplinary urban research mobilization network.

What we heard

Executive summary

On September 17 2024, Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Wildlife and Landscape Science Directorate hosted an open, virtual, national meeting to convene interested parties across Canada and hear their perspectives on the creation of a national, interdisciplinary urban research mobilization network. The meeting was designed following the principles of an unmeeting/unconference to ensure a high level of participation and inclusivity, and enable connection-building and knowledge exchange.

Approximately 260 stakeholders and rightsholders from a range of sectors attended the session, including different federal Departments, levels of Government, academia, nonprofit organizations, educators, municipal practitioners and decision-makers, Indigenous urban organizations and researchers, and youth groups. A post-meeting survey was also issued to ~400 meeting registrants (72 respondents).   

This report provides a summary of the information that emerged from the meeting breakout discussions and the post-meeting survey. The majority of feedback from meeting and survey participants has been captured and grouped into the most appropriate thematic areas (see challenges and barriers; establishing the need; solutions and outputs). However, comments that were difficult to interpret or lacked necessary context (given the meeting was not recorded) were omitted. Attributions have been limited to sectors and do not identify individuals by name or organization. 

Overview

Context

The Wildlife and Landscape Science Directorate at Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) has launched a dedicated initiative to help conserve and promote nature in Canadian municipalities. The aim is to build an interdisciplinary urban research mobilization network to connect different groups, interests and sectors (including academia, federal, provincial/territorial and municipal governments, nonprofit, municipal practitioners, Indigenous urban organizations and researchers and youth groups), and enable research mobilization and implementation to help drive action at the local level. Ideally, the network will enable the co-development of research with municipalities.

One of the central objectives is to acquire a dedicated research grant to support the network and, potentially, fund research projects. The network development process has been designed with this ultimate goal in mind. However, the network’s development will remain flexible, and its outcomes and areas of focus will be guided by resources, capacity, and stakeholder interests and needs (as identified in this meeting and in subsequent focus consultations). 

The approach to network development is relational and inclusive, with a focus on building relationships and trust with stakeholders and rightsholders and taking the necessary time to achieve these goals. The network will be built collaboratively, bringing interested parties in from onset, ensuring they are an active part of the initial planning and conception phase all the way out to the final implementation.

The unmeeting is the first foundational step in this co-development process.

Objectives

In convening interested stakeholders and rightsholders from across sectors and regions in Canada, and providing a platform for them to share their perspectives, knowledge and experience, the unmeeting sought to achieve several key objectives:

• Gauge interest and capacity. To confirm the need for such a network across sectors and get a general idea of capacity to support/participate in it. 
• Gain important insights from across sectors. To gain a fuller understanding of work barriers, research and knowledge gaps across sectors, priority areas of focus, and best practices around network building. 
• Spark connections and enable knowledge sharing across sectors: In line with the broader aims of this project, this event was also designed with the aim of initiating some cross-sectoral connections and enabling knowledge exchange across this diverse group of stakeholders (see also planning and design).
• Showcase a different kind of meeting format that centres on inclusive and participatory design as an alternative to more formal consultation sessions run by federal Departments

Planning and design

A first step in the planning of the unmeeting involved the assembly of a multisectoral Steering Committee to support unmeeting planning and promotion of the event. The Steering Committee is made up of a diverse group of representatives from key sectors and groups, including academia, nonprofit, federal Departments (Natural Resources Canada, Parks Canada, Health Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, ECCC), provincial and municipal governments, municipal practitioners, Indigenous researchers, youth groups and educators (see also annex C. Steering committee membership). This group played a significant role in event planning, contributing advice, sharing perspectives on barriers and best practices in network building.   

To achieve the desired objectives, the meeting was designed following some key principles of the unmeeting/unconference format. The unmeeting is structured differently than a traditional meeting or conference to enable a high level of participation and inclusivity, connection-building between participants and the exchange of knowledge and ideas.

In line with the unmeeting format, the session was open to anyone interested in the initiative and participating in the conversation. However, a curated invite list from across sectors and disciplines was also developed to ensure representation from across sectors, disciplines and municipalities across Canada.   

Promotion was largely organic, and word-of-mouth. Steering committee members helped to promote the event amongst their respective sectors. The invite was also shared on ECCC departmental and branch social media channels. 

The duration of the meeting was 3.5 hours and it was held virtually on Zoom. Two rounds of breakout discussion sessions (40 minutes each) provided the opportunity for meeting participants to share their thoughts on two key questions related to barriers and challenges as well as opportunities and best practices around successful network development (see also annex A. Meeting agenda).

The meeting was moderated by two contract facilitators, Toby Michaud (Linksides) and Carmen Watson (Anaavan). Additional experienced facilitators were present in each breakout room, to help monitor discussions and ensure all participants had the opportunity to contribute. However, in line with the unmeeting format, the facilitators did not direct the conversation, to enable free flow of ideas and give agency to the participants to discuss their key issues.

Invited keynote speakers with expertise and knowledge from relevant sectors gave brief (10 minute) talks to help ground and inspire each breakout discussion round (see annex B. Keynote Speakers for more on keynote speakers).

A post-meeting survey was also distributed to all meeting registrants (including those unable to attend the meeting) to gain additional insights. (See also annex D. Post-meeting survey)

Data collection and dissemination

Pre-meeting survey: Attendees registering for the event were provided with a short survey to gather basic information such as sector, organization, and geographical location. 

Meeting: The meeting breakout discussions focused on several key questions. These questions were designed to get specific feedback from participants, including identification of barriers and opportunities, but were phrased in a general way, to enable a less restrictive, open discussion.

Responses and emerging ideas and themes were captured by a dedicated notetaker in each breakout room, with additional feedback provided by breakout room facilitators. 

Meeting participants had the opportunity to participate verbally in conversations or share their comments in a written format via whiteboard (Jamboard) postits. *These sessions were not recorded to respect preferences of individuals and groups in attendance and to enable a more comfortable, ‘organic’ discussion. 

Post-meeting survey: All meeting registrants were issued a brief survey to gain additional feedback, including those who were not in attendance, to assess participants’ experiences and the effectiveness of this meeting format.  

Summary “What We Heard” (WWH) report: This report compiles all the information from the surveys and the meeting breakout sessions. The report will be shared with all meeting registrants.  

Addressing barriers to participation

The meeting was designed to accommodate the diversity of participants and their needs and promote inclusivity as much as possible. This included considerations around:  

Language: To accommodate francophone and French-speaking attendees, all promotion and meeting materials were provided in both official languages. The meeting included bilingual content where possible, and a francophone keynote speaker who presented in French. Bilingual facilitators were on hand during the meeting. Captioning was also available (although some participants experienced technical issues with this capability). Depending on interest, a French focus session may also be offered in the future.

Neurodiversity and Inclusion: Multiple channels for feedback were offered to ensure participants were able to contribute in a way that was most comfortable for them. Meeting materials and discussion questions were also offered in advance to ensure participants could prepare in advance, if needed. During the meeting, participants were able to contribute verbally or in written form via whiteboard post-its. The post-meeting survey also provided participants with an additional opportunity to further reflect on the questions and share feedback when they were able to do so.  

Regional Representation: To ensure broad representation from regions across Canada, the meeting was held virtually on Zoom at midday from 12-3:30pm EST (9am-12:30pm PT) to accommodate those joining from different time zones. 

Diverse Participation: To ensure diverse participation, including underrepresented, marginalized groups, a curated invite list was developed with key groups, organizations and individuals, such as Indigenous urban organizations. A personalized, tailored outreach approach was taken, to ensure invitees were aware of how valuable their participation would be, and how this was a first step in working on this project collaboratively, with respectful integration of diverse perspectives.  

Online Fatigue and Meeting Length: To help relieve potential online fatigue with the length of screen time involved, the meeting was designed to be dynamic and interactive. The session opened with an informal ice breaker activity, allowing attendees to connect in small groups. Keynote speaker presentations were interspersed with breakout discussions to break up longer, more participation-intensive blocks and a health break was offered midway through the meeting.

Meeting participants

Given the challenges of gathering information on meeting participants in real-time, we do not have a precise record in terms of sectoral and regional representation. However, information gathered on meeting registrants indicated that approximately 380 people registered for the event, with representation from every province with the exception of Nunavut: Ontario (39%), British Columbia (20.5%), Quebec (14.4%), Alberta (9%), Nova Scotia (3%), Saskatchewan (1.5%), New Brunswick (1.5%), Manitoba (1%), Prince Edward Island (1%), Yukon (1%) and the Northwest Territories (1%). Sectors represented included academics (37.5%), federal government (21.7%), Nonprofit (18.2%), municipal (decision-makers and practitioners) 14.1%, other- including Conservation Authorities, Indigenous organizations and youth groups (3%), P/T government (2.5%), the general public (2%), and the private sector (1%).

The meeting was attended by 262 participants, though there was some drop-off throughout the meeting. 

The post-meeting survey was completed by 72 participants. Regional representation was similar to what was observed in terms of registration numbers; Ontario (45%), British Columbia (19.4%), Quebec (16.7%), Alberta (8.3%), Nova Scotia (4.2%), New Brunswick (2.8%), Manitoba (1.4%), Northwest Territories (1.4%), although Saskatchewan, Yukon and Prince Edward Island were not represented. 

The sectoral distribution was also fairly similar to the registration pattern: academia (36%), federal government (22%), municipal (practitioners and decision-makers) 17%, nonprofits (14%), P/T government (4%), private sector (4%), general public (4%) and other 3% (which included a regional conservation authority) and youth (1%).

The collection of responses from the meeting breakout sessions and post-meeting survey is a subjective, qualitative exercise. However, a comprehensive review of all responses received from both sources (this including meeting whiteboard post-it notes, notes submitted by the volunteer notetakers and facilitators and survey responses) did identify some major themes which emerged consistently across breakout sessions and, generally, in the post-meeting survey. Sections 2-6 present each of the questions that were posed to participants, outlining key themes that emerged for each.

Challenges and barriers

When prompted, meeting participants and survey respondents readily identified a wide range of challenges and barriers they experienced in their work. 

Eight major themes emerged from these responses that were common across sectors and regions. 

Lack of communication and collaboration

A lack of necessary connections and work siloing emerged consistently as a major barrier in work by meeting participants and survey respondents from across sectors and regions. Disconnects and limited crosstalk were most prominently noted between different sectors. Participants wanted to know who was doing what where, how connections were being made, and who they might partner with, as well as who might benefit from their work. Academics expressed an interest in better connecting with practitioners and local communities and policy makers. Similarly, practitioners and nonprofits were interested in strengthening connections with researchers and different levels of government. Several participants wanted to know the roles of different agencies and departments, for example, who was responsible for biodiversity initiatives?

Participants also identified disciplinary siloes, even within the same institution, as well as disconnects between different levels of Government. Similar communication barriers were also noted at the jurisdictional and regional level, as well as between academic and community-based research. 

There was a consensus amongst participants from different regions, sectors and disciplines, that these work siloes needed to be broken down and bridges built across areas, to raise awareness and knowledge of each other’s work, strengthen collaborations, avoid missed opportunities, and reduce potential overlap and duplication of work. 

Differences in culture, language and timescale

Participants also identified several barriers which further hindered effective collaboration and communication. These included differences in culture (academic, organizational, or professional) and language. Participants noted how vocabulary and terminology can vary across domains, despite common goals, and that a common language was necessary to achieve shared objectives. 

In addition, differences in timescale were also noted between sectors, specifically, how researchers and municipal staff/practitioners work within different time frames; “…academics have time to study problems, practitioners need solutions today!” It was further noted that these differences in organizational timelines (fiscal/academic) might impact a network’s ability to ensure member inclusivity.

Need for relationship and trust-building

A related discussion theme centred on the importance of building and sustaining relationships with partners at different levels and across areas, and some of the associated challenges. The most significant barrier identified was the time constraint – that establishing relationships and building trust takes time. One participant gave the example of the quick turnaround required for grant deliverables, such as Ontario Nature (see also annex E. networks and programs) which resulted in a pattern of “creating and severing connections” with stakeholders, rendering it difficult to enable stakeholder engagement and maintain trust. The challenge of building relationships in an online setting was also noted by several participants.

Lack of resources

Participants from different levels of government, academic and nonprofit sectors consistently noted a significant lack of resources in terms of work/personnel capacity and time in their respective areas. This barrier also emerged consistently in subsequent discussions focused on solutions, and recommendations and best practices for network building (see also dedicated resources and time).

A few participants also noted the need for more tools in their work.

Limited funding

Lack of funding was another very strong discussion theme, emerging in many breakout room discussions and within the post-meeting survey. Some general concerns, along with a few more specific issues, were raised by participants. These related to the lack or scarcity of:

• stable funding
• funding for research
• coordinated funding across organizations 
• multiyear funding sources
• funding for young/early researchers
• matching funds and funding partners 
• funding for rural municipalities, versus larger population centres (regional differences) 
• funding for natural infrastructure projects

A few participants also noted that there were knowledge gaps in terms of knowing where to go to acquire necessary funding. The issue of competition for funding amongst various groups seeking the same thing was also raised. 

Access to research and data

Limited access to necessary research and data was another prominent theme for meeting and survey participants. Academics noted challenges in accessing data and studies conducted by municipalities and their consultants (for example, road salt effects on water quality), while municipalities and NGOs reported having difficulty accessing scientific studies and literature that was not open access. 

Additional data barriers included lack of standardization (including “standardized data on municipal factors...” with “…different metrics for each city” and “…larger cities having more data”, and common methods for measuring and collecting data across cities, which rendered comparisons difficult. Integration of data across scales and ability to scale data down to the local level was also noted by several participants. There were also related concerns over data sharing, specifically how sharing data across disciplines and organizations may raise issues related to data privacy, security, and intellectual property.

Insufficient outreach, engagement and education

Another common theme centred on outreach, engagement and education, with discussions focused largely on the public and youth. 

Need for more public/community education and engagement

Public or community education and engagement, or lack thereof, was identified by a number of participants across sectors as a significant barrier to their work. There appeared to be a general consensus that there was a (growing) lack of awareness and education in the area of [urban] biodiversity, its importance, and a general ‘lack of emphasis on nature!”  These knowledge gaps extended to the co-benefits of nature, interconnections with health (or a more holistic understanding of our health), as well as associated longer-term economic gains. One example provided was the lack of awareness around the link between urban canopy and its multiple benefits. These knowledge gaps contributed to a lack of understanding around why actions and decisions in the area of conservation and biodiversity are so important, and diminished buy-in from the public and from local communities. 

There was some discussion of challenges around communicating such information, these including the public’s lack of prioritization and sense of urgency, and the difficulty in communicating such complex systems, concepts and issues to communities as well as some general misconceptions around ecology and environmental action – that there are associated costs and tradeoffs. A lack of a mandate and capacity for public education was also raised. 

Growing lack of interest among youth

Participants in several breakout rooms and in the post-meeting survey expressed some concern over youth’s growing loss of connection with nature, and reduced time spent outdoors, and the lack of interest and capacity for youth education in the areas of biodiversity, climate change, conservation and environmental science. It was noted that enrolment in environmental sciences is dropping in Canada. It was also noted that interest can drop from undergraduate to graduate levels- that it can be a challenge to retain students in programs. An educator also relayed that although climate change is part of the high school curriculum, it is “..squeezed out by other subjects, and there is a lot of doom and gloom framing.”  It was also noted that there are scientists who are eager to connect with youth, but these connections are not being made.  

It should be noted that these issues were raised largely by sectors outside of education, given that very few educators attended the meeting (due largely to the timing of the event and conflicts with school schedules). 

Lack of inclusion of indigenous people and communities

Another prominent discussion theme centred on inclusion of Indigenous People and communities. Participants in several breakout rooms discussed the lack of Indigenous (and immigrant) voices in urban initiatives and planning processes and noted insufficient engagement and the challenges in restoring relationships with Indigenous communities. There were also some questions raised by participants around how to include Indigenous (and other marginalized) voices/learning and thinking in urban projects and enable participate and take part in projects in a respectful and meaningful way through all stages, from initial design to decision-making. 

Several participants raised points related to the risk of over-burdening these groups, and how this was already an issue, with some people, organizations and nations being over-solicited with multiple engagement requests. The siloing at the federal level was raised with “…12 Departments trying to do the same type of engagement.” Additional barriers identified by participants included the challenge of restoring relationships within the confines of current practices, historical miscommunications between Indigenous communities and researchers and the “shocking” lack of awareness of the impact on Indigenous People and communities.

Governmental, legislative and regulatory barriers

Governmental and legislative barriers were raised in several breakouts and identified within the post meeting survey (see also lack of communication and collaboration). Participants identified issues such as:

• Political cycles at different levels – challenges in withstanding this
• Frequency of government turnovers - can be disruptive to availability of funding and coordination across levels of government
• Lack of political will 
• Lack of prioritization: “…biodiversity, climate often at bottom of political priority list, urban greenspaces not seen as important natural areas!”
• Lobbying and influences on government not matched by environmental groups
• Overlapping jurisdictions: “…provinces put onus on municipalities to identify conservation [needs] but do not provide the tools to do so.” And “…provinces can grant permits to remove areas without municipal knowledge.”
• Lack of regulatory and voluntary tools “…to promote biodiversity protection and conservation, particularly on local government and private lands”

Barriers broken down by sector

This section explores barriers by sector, describing sector-specific challenges and considerations, as identified by those working in respective areas.

This feedback is largely sourced from the post-meeting survey, given it provided the opportunity to link comments to self-identified sectors, which was not always possible in the breakout sessions. 

Municipal-level

Municipal participants and survey respondents (practitioners and decision makers) strongly identified a lack of/limited resources and capacity at their level (this including funding, skills, staff and tools) which impacted people’s work and its implementation. Lack of necessary data was also raised, particularly in terms of tracking progress over time and measuring success. 

Other challenges raised by some municipal survey respondents, and within several breakout discussions included organizational barriers, which affected municipal practitioners’ work and its impact. The two issues raised most consistently were: 

• the organizational inertia of local government and risk aversion to change status quo in response to recommendations and advice 
• the lack of political will, divisiveness and conflict – “…municipalities view environmental planners as getting in the way of development

The presence of “gatekeepers” and supervisory committees who “…use information from elected officials…” was also noted. 

Some additional challenges were noted by a few municipal respondents, these included:

• the challenge in navigating regulations and limitations
• a lack of mandate for local government to work on biodiversity
• the roleback of bylaws (due to housing need)
• the inability to make policies that go against provincial priorities, yet “...not being clear what these are”
• the reactionary environment and challenges in forward planning, lack of “...time to consider and weigh what research would be helpful and useful to support the work we do to protect the environment.”
• development pressures, including housing, being high on biodiverse lands
• The general predominance of researchers and research practice over practitioners in the urban space

Some additional challenges were noted by a few municipal respondents, these included:

Provincial

Although this sector was less represented than some of the others, which limited the number of responses, several provincial participants and survey respondents did identify some provincial level challenges. Insufficient funding (and lack of sustained funds) emerged at this level as well. Additional challenges that were noted included:

• Differences in legal and policy structures across provinces – and how it is “…a challenge to align these differences to create a baseline, and work towards a common goal”
• Disparity in legislation – It was specifically noted that not all provinces have legislation for species at risk

Federal

Barriers that were raised by meeting and survey participants from the federal government (including researchers and management) included lack of connections/network, limited resources, funding constraints and lack of, and ability, to share data. Several participants also noted the lack of prioritization, focus and support of urban research at the federal level.

Additional barriers noted by federal participants, included:

• Institutional resistance
• Coordination challenges
• Diverse stakeholder interests
• Uneven expertise

Academic

A lack of connections, limitations in resources, money and time and data availability were similarly identified by academics in breakout sessions and in the post-meeting survey as being significant barriers to their work. The area of interdisciplinary research came up specifically with respect to funding, connecting with necessary researchers, such as social scientists, and data sharing and access. A few participants noted research siloes, with one academic survey respondent commenting on ecological barriers; that there was a tendency to “…keep impacts of urbanization on landscape characteristics separate from impacts on water.” Another academic pointed to the lack of capacity for translating research into practice, noting that “…academics don't produce products that can be readily taken up by practitioners.” Additional academic specific barriers included job stability, particularly in the case of early-stage career researchers.

Nonprofit

Participants and survey respondents from the nonprofit sector similarly identified many of the same challenges in their own sector. These included work siloing, lack of necessary connections, lack of capacity, resources and funding (see also lack of communication and collaboration; lack of resources; limited funding). However, there were some additional contextual considerations.

In terms of isolation and siloed work, several participants from nonprofit organizations expressed that there were few opportunities to work across different sectors, particularly given they did not have conferences, these being largely for academics, and that this impacted their ability to connect and share knowledge across sectors.

It was also noted that small nonprofits struggle to connect more with people and organizations “...who understand the importance of urban ecosystems, especially when they are at a small scale.”

A lack of capacity of nonprofits, was also noted, and this included the concern voiced by one participant that “…it takes up bandwidth to have to prove why the work is necessary, then also do the work.”

Private sector

There were very few survey respondents from the private sector (n=3), however, these individuals did share some insights with respect to work barriers, which related to stakeholder interests, budget, and their knowledge and expertise not being leveraged as much as it could be at the municipal level.

Establishing the need

Question: Is there a need for an interdisciplinary urban research mobilization network?

Participants across breakout rooms and respondents to the post-meeting survey from across sectors and regions resoundingly confirmed that there was a need for a national, interdisciplinary urban research mobilization network. The necessity and value of such a network was echoed strongly across sectors, particularly in terms of the interdisciplinary and mobilization aspects. The following section highlights some responses to this question, as examples of the interest and potential utility across sectors.

Solutions and outputs

From your/your sector’s perspective, in what ways could the network address these barriers and gaps? What kind of research mobilization tactics could it employ? What are some key outputs it could generate?

Meeting participants had fewer responses for solutions and outputs (ie) how a network might address these barriers, as compared to identifying the challenges and barriers themselves (see challenges and barriers). Given that identification of solutions is a more reflective, time-dependent process, this is not totally unexpected. The post-meeting survey provided such an opportunity, and as anticipated, there were more comprehensive responses to this question via this feedback channel. 

It should be noted that a few participants found the open-ended nature of these questions to be challenging, stating they could not come up with solutions without having a more precise idea of research objectives and specific aims of the network.

Facilitating communication and collaboration across sectors

The network’s capacity to strengthen communication and facilitate connections and collaboration across sectors were recurrent themes across meeting breakout rooms as well as in the post-meeting survey. 

Breaking down siloes: The potential for the network to build bridges and facilitate communication was echoed by participants across sectors. More specifically, participants expressed how a network could help coordinate introductions between academia, organizations and citizens/communities and establish cross-disciplinary teams, enable connections to other professionals, and establish connections between regions. 

Establishing relationships and trust: Generally, participants expressed enthusiasm over how the network could help to build/value relationships and establish trust, and maintained that this was an important aspect to focus on. It was also noted that in bringing people together, the network could help to motivate others, initiating the “…hard work of hope.”

Enabling cross-sectoral collaboration: Participants noted how the network could enable effective and easy collaboration across sectors as well as provide an opportunity to “launch collaborative research between people who don’t normally work together,” to help “find collaborators with specific expertise” and “...increase the relationship circles of established individuals, and create pathways for new individuals.” One survey participant noted that the network could serve as a platform for ideas; “…learning about where others are coming up with ideas and sharing inventive ways to do research, hearing about what others are partnering on to generate ideas.” It was also noted that the network could strengthen cross-sectoral collaboration by making it easier to access funding and programs.

The strongest theme in this area was specifically enabling connections and collaborations, and building partnerships between research/researchers and practice/practitioners.

For academics, it was noted that establishing connections and collaborations with partner organizations through the network could also facilitate their research and grant writing and further dissemination of research.

It was also proposed the network could provide a collaborative space by theme, as well as by region- potentially, serving as a multijurisdictional committee.

Strengthening municipal connections

Participants, particularly those working at the municipal level, shared how municipalities tend to face things in parallel and that the network could facilitate connections and consortiums across municipalities and jurisdictional boundaries, even inspire neighbouring municipalities’ councils via “intermunicipal peer pressure.” Participants described how the network could provide the opportunity to share needs, lessons learned, case studies as well as identify overlaps and opportunities to collaborate (grants, etc).

In thinking longer term, it was noted that the network might enable top-down empowerment and mobilization. Specifically, it was suggested that the network could enable communication with elected officials via delegations or local advisory committees. It was also proposed that the network might enable conservation partnerships with First Nations by providing necessary resources.

Providing necessary resources and tools

Multiple ideas were put forward by participants in considering how barriers in data collection and access might be addressed via a network. Participants proposed the network might be useful to:

• Help to determine what data needs to be collected
• Strengthen understanding of where to access data – research on how research is connecting and what is working (and how/where it might be best to place efforts on accessing existing data and research)
• Address the technical challenges that impact data availability
• Provide access to who is doing what and where (this including clarification around different levels of government- who is responsible for what, the role of municipalities, how to access a university)
• Identify partnership opportunities for research and government to create new knowledge and data
• Make environmental and biodiversity data better available, by providing best management practices/standardization (potentially enabled by pairing academia with local government)
• Integrate knowledge and establish a community between cities, disciplines and sectors

Suggested outputs*

• Directory of local experts: to help direct questions, and make sure concerns find their way to relevant people who can help
• A filterable library to seek out access to experts and case studies
• Database of initiatives, projects and contacts across municipalities, research database (could include global perspectives)
• Job-board to match opportunities with people, money and ideas
• Develop standards for data collection, measurement, and output
• Accessible data sets (eg) UWIN
• Tracking tools for stewardship initiatives
• Grant funding to support monitoring and access to data
• Funding access tools/leads for new grant and research opportunities
• Sharing of case studies from different regions 

*A few survey respondents cautioned that more than tools may be required; and that sustained incentives were also necessary to encourage uptake and use as well as keep the tools up to date.

Enabling knowledge mobilization

Knowledge mobilization (KM) was another prominent solutions-oriented theme at the meeting and within the post-meeting survey. KM emerged in different discussion contexts, as a means to effectively address a variety of the barriers identified. Participants discussed how the network could serve as a platform to present research findings and garner project support and solicit action on the part of all levels of government.

Participants also discussed how the network could help to translate research to make it more accessible, relevant and useful to other sectors and groups, including municipal decision-makers, practitioners and others working directly on the ground with communities, to provide opportunities for learning and action in urban areas.

The ability of the network to serve as a bridge to the general public came up consistently. For example, it was noted that the network could help to translate and disseminate information (and tools).  

The idea of knowledge co-production was also raised in several breakout discussions and in the survey, including with municipalities, and involving Indigenous First Nations.

At the same time, questions were raised as to how to the network might effectively achieve these aims and who would be charged with this work – “whose job is it to translate research into other spaces?”, “where are the points for communication/connections for people?” In considering these questions, the concern over lack of capacity on both the academic and municipal sides re-emerged.

Interestingly, despite the strong theme of KM and the interest in making research more accessible to different audiences, several academics remained focused on publications as a primary output, stating that the production of peer-reviewed research and publications would be the most valuable and that a network could provide best practices for data publishing. It was also noted that the network might bring longevity to short-term academic-driven projects.

Sharing successes…and failures

The possibility for the network to enable the sharing of best practices was a common general theme.

A couple of breakout sessions also discussed the importance of sharing failures, how these are not stories that are commonly shared, but how valuable they are in providing important experience and lessons learned. It was noted how negative feedback to implementation programs should also be considered as areas for improvement and help to outline next steps. 

The importance of demonstrating humility in this process was emphasized by several participants, including how being transparent about not having all the answers is an equal part of sharing successes.

Tactics and focus areas

Participants recommended various knowledge mobilization approaches and tactics, which included:

• Taking a more creative approach - incorporating creative and artistic approaches to engage more people (was raised in several breakout sessions) 
• Telling stories in such a way that people will listen and engage with – focus on knowledge end users
• Sharing stories of lived experience and community impacts
• Workshops and training/outreach during field courses
• “...perhaps offering a variety of research mobilization tactics eg start by listing a few topics raised during this first session and develop some sub-groups to tackle them and who then decide the best tactics for that group.” 

Specific areas of focus included:

• Increased understanding of urban processes and areas at risk of climate change flooding 
• Better knowledge of how to maintain urban species diversity 
• Training for protectors of urban waterways (hidden and above ground) 

A range of knowledge mobilization outputs were also proposed including webinars, conferences (including in-person sessions to connect with colleagues across sectors), events, online platforms (to share case studies and experience), newsletters (with academia sharing latest research on urban biodiversity and practitioners identifying research that is needed to support funding their work), and creating subject area communities of practice.

However, several respondents and participants also noted a caveat- that knowledge mobilization tactics were very much dependent on the type of research the network will focus on, available resources and the intended audience(s).

In line with this point, participants also made some specific recommendations in terms of knowledge mobilization tactics and outputs intended for decision and policymakers. These included;

• Delegations or presentations to committees at the municipal level to counter the organizational inertia and risk aversion and get past the gatekeepers and supervisory committees  
• Co-development of projects with municipalities to achieve buy-in from decision-makers
• Policy recommendations, and materials such as briefs and syntheses of research that could be presented to all levels of government (including local) and move agendas on conservation and projects forward and help to establish why these spaces are important
• Reports (rather than scientific papers) that municipalities can cite which lend credibility and help advance policy
• Collecting/sharing academic research – one-stop library  
• Municipal government-focused: 
• Annotated bibliographies (proposed as helpful, given there is not always access to peer-reviewed journals)
• Webinars targeted towards city officials “for example, why you shouldn’t be afraid to spend money on environmental causes..”

Supporting existing and/or new research

In discussing how the network might strengthen or mobilize research, participants raised the fundamental question of what type of research this would pertain to. Specifically, participants debated whether the network was best placed to mobilize existing research, and/or should it be supporting something completely new?

Some participants held that the network would be most useful in identifying, coordinating and mobilizing research and knowledge already taking place. They pointed to the significant amount of urban data and research that has been collected that would benefit from being made more accessible. These participants emphasized the importance of identifying and connecting existing research/work with work that is happening at the community level, and also considering environmental justice.

On the other hand, other participants expressed how the network might inform and support new (interdisciplinary) research. Related ideas also came up in discussions around how the network could help to set research goals and priorities and what type of research gaps the network might address.

A few specific research areas were proposed, these included:

• natural assets, green infrastructure (including greening of existing grey infrastructure), nature-based climate solutions
• interdisciplinary studies (e.g. land-river-lake) impacts; whole watershed & sewershed to lake or downstream system studies
• ecosystem services and low-impact development 

There were also some specific suggestions around filling various data gaps, such as those related to:   

• the spatial scale of data – collecting biodiversity data at larger spatial scales (beyond municipalities)
• eDNA - long-term monitoring – lack of capacity and funding for monitoring amongst academics was noted
• environmental and biodiversity data: enhancing availability to local government. Example: lack of water flow data (collected at federal and provincial level) which local government relies upon  
• socioeconomic vulnerability assessments and bio-eco-evo impacts

While the network’s capacity to support both existing and new research is not necessarily incompatible, its ability to do so would inevitably depend upon resources and funding (see also dedicated resources and time; funding).  

Strengthening outreach, engagement and education

Insufficient or ineffective outreach, engagement and education emerged strongly as barriers across sectors (see insufficient outreach, engagement and education). Participants also shared some corresponding thoughts on network-related opportunities to strengthen these key areas.  

Engaging and supporting students and youth

Youth and students were strongly seen as an essential part of the network, generating innovative approaches, ideas and helping to communicate and more effectively disseminate information. Stories were shared by some participants of some of the remarkable student achievements they’d witnessed or initiatives they’d been a part of. There was a strong interest in the network’s potential to support students in a variety of ways, such as delivering funding for graduate student’s research projects, as well as facilitating and maintaining engagement, and providing mentorship and training opportunities (including formal training of students to help get them involved in community science). 

Participants also noted the potential for the network to serve as inspiration for the young generation, to “generate the feeling of being part of something bigger” and how engaging and mentoring students could help them to understand the broader impact of their work and contributions to the community.

Overcoming the challenge of maintaining engagement of youth in related programs and activities was raised independently in several breakout sessions and how the network could provide a support pathway to sustain interest. The recommendation was made to engage young people and students at a younger age (secondary/high school etc) to raise their awareness around opportunities and help ensure this becomes “a lifestyle going forward” – encouraging environmentally friendly practices. It was also noted that using social media platforms may be helpful in reaching the next generation (see also academia for success story on social media and engaging youth).  

Environmental education

While consistently identified as an area in need of improvement (see also insufficient outreach, engagement and education), the capacity of the network to strengthen environmental education efforts for youth was not extensively explored in meeting discussions and few solutions were put forth by participants. This may be attributed to the fact that the education sector, who may have provided some very useful recommendations in this area, were poorly represented. One suggestion did emerge which proposed “…going “back into the schools to teach local environment or civic classes to get young people more involved in their own municipalities.” 

Building public and community engagement and awareness

Participants discussed how the network could help to address the lack of engagement with communities and the general public (see insufficient outreach, engagement and education), and how this engagement was essential in achieving desired work objectives across sectors. It was proposed that the network could serve as a platform to provide more education opportunities for the general public, starting at the local level. It was also noted that the network could provide clearer communications to the general public on a range of things, including governance of the city and environmental impacts of various actions. The need to focus on the citizen’s perspective and mobilize knowledge around “why and what we are doing in the neighbourhood”, in order to avoid misunderstandings and potential public backlash on necessary actions was also raised. 

At the same time, some participants questioned how engagement with the public might be effectively achieved, most notably with systematically excluded groups. 

Tactics and outputs

Tools or mechanisms to facilitate communication with the public were considered important. Specific examples included;

• Webinar series which provides a platform for people to speak about different environmental challenges in different areas that they are facing, as well as highlight how people can get engaged and what actions they can take
• Developing public-facing stories highlighting the co-benefits and community impacts of environmental actions

Community science

There was some discussion in several breakout rooms around how a network might support community science. Participants noted that there was a wealth of community science data currently being generated, but that much of it was not being used or properly integrated with formal research, resulting in significant wastage of data and efforts.

Participants expressed how the network could better mobilize this data, and help to ensure community scientists are aware of the needs of researchers and government. Some recommended tactics included running workshops or programs with grassroots environmental groups/community science groups, to provide an opportunity for scientists to share their methods, and ensure collected data is useful to everyone (including academics) and accessible to those who need it.

It was also proposed that the network might engage or train students to help get them involved in community science.

Recommendations on successful network development

A range of different recommendations, considerations and best practices on building a successful network emerged over the course of the breakout discussions and within the survey. 

Dedicated resources and time

Establishing dedicated resources and time to develop and maintain the network was strongly recommended by some meeting and survey participants. The significant amount of time and resources required for coordinating, bringing people together, and garnering funding was emphasized, and how this would require at least one dedicated individual, as well as dedicated staff support for running and maintaining the network. 

A couple of specific recommendations were made, including enabling different levels of commitment and involvement on the part of network members, so that they could consider how and when to allocate their time, and how the membership might start small- for example, with key stakeholders and expertise, and scale up over time. 

Funding

There were several different lines of discussion which revolved around network funding, the first being the critical, fundamental need for funding to support the network.

Specific funding program examples were cited, such as NSERC’s CREATE program, and the necessity of government funding programs such as the previous Networks of Centers of Excellence of Canada, which can foster collaboration between researchers and end-users.

The importance of gaining organizational buy-in when financial resources are lacking was also conveyed.

At the same time, some meeting participants and survey respondents also discussed how the network could potentially support funding. For example, it was noted that the network could strengthen cross-sectoral collaboration by making it easier to access funding and programs and help mobilize funds towards urban interdisciplinary research.

It was also proposed that the network might attract larger and more diverse funding sources. Relatedly, several participants noted the importance of having a mix of funding sources, a ‘bridge across NSERC, SSHRC and CIHR would be ideal “…given “no models address everything.” However, at the same time it was noted that combining different funding sources would also bring an even larger administrative and coordination resource burden (see also dedicated resources and time).  

Network design

Purposeful

One of the recommendations that came up consistently across the meeting and survey was the importance of careful design in developing the network; this including identifying how the network is unique and establishing a clear vision, mission, purpose/focus, objectives, aims/goals and expectations.  A few related recommendations included being clear on the terms being used – (ie) landing on an exact definition for key terms such as ‘urban’ and ‘interdisciplinary,’ and developing Terms of Reference to help maintain focus and reinforce the purpose of the network. Several points were also raised around being clear about who the audience or end user of the research will be and considering what would be most useful to them. One specific suggestion for primary network focus was building local relations.

Inclusive

Meeting participants and post-meeting survey respondents considered the possible makeup of network governance/leadership as well as network membership and shared various recommendations on both aspects.  

There were several specific recommendations for network structure and leadership, that it be non-hierarchical and enable sharing of power, as opposed to top-down hierarchical structures that have historically caused harm and excluded voices.

The idea of co-leadership emerged in several discussions, pairing a researcher with a practitioner and, potentially, a nonprofit. 

The importance of inclusive design was raised consistently. This included ensuring that all sectors were well-represented, and although a few questioned exactly which groups and sectors the network would extend to (for example, should it include the general public?), there appeared to be some consensus that the network should integrate practitioners with researchers. 

It was noted how the network might represent a cross-section of professionals and practitioners (versus emphasis on experts) to help increase inclusivity and “the principle of humility.” The importance of including smaller organizations was also noted.

In addition, having some level of oversight or involvement of the provincial government (as opposed to only local or municipal) was also recommended, as was involving conservation authorities (to help ensure planning at the bioregional level). 

A municipal respondent noted the importance of including an elected official to help champion the issues.

Participants emphasized the need to include diverse voices in the network, such as youth, students, artists and most notably, marginalized groups. This included the voices of Indigenous People (communities, urban organizations and researchers) – a priority that was strongly echoed across sectors in breakout sessions. Some participants questioned how this could best be achieved while avoiding tokenism. 

However, at the same time, there were some recommendations made on how to effectively support network inclusivity and broad engagement:

• “Have a balance of in-person and online activities for accessibility and feasibility”
• Ensure “communications on ALL channels – meet people in cities who want to champion nature where they are at!”
• Recommended training related to collaborative decision-making (versus traditional hierarchical model): “Upcoming Reconciliation: Journey of our Generation Workshops offered by the Quw’utsun’ Cultural Connections Society

The importance of ensuring an intergenerational capacity was also emphasized in several breakout discussions; that the network should also include those individuals who bring deep experience to the table- this including potentially leadership, and the importance of considering lived experience equal to subject matter experts. It was noted how this could be a platform for knowledge exchange between youth and those early in their careers with those who hold many years of experience, and/or are in later stages of their careers. 

The importance of demonstrating vulnerability and humility in building relationships and trust and enabling deep systems change was also conveyed by several participants.

Tracking impact

Meeting participants also touched on how the network might monitor its success and track the impact it is having. Related recommendations included:

• Tracking the number of engagements with the project (KPIs)
• Creating KPIs and goals collaboratively
• Considering metrics beyond quantitative measures - including community well-being, dignity and justice
• Local governments and First Nations: tracking how the initiative is impacting decision making
• Leveraging social media – tracking how people are engaging with network communications

Avoid redundancies and overlap

In line with comments made in terms of knowledge barriers in their respective work areas, some meeting participants and survey respondents reiterated the importance of avoiding redundancies in developing the network - ensuring awareness of any other similar initiatives and networks in Canada and alignment of work with these groups. It was suggested that the network development start with an exercise that explores what networks exist, where the gaps may be, and builds in response to these gaps.

Best practices and success stories

Follow-up Question: Sharing research/knowledge mobilization network success stories – what has worked? 

When asked about their best practices and success stories around network-building, meeting participants and survey respondents provided a variety of examples of successful urban and conservation-related networks, programs and tools (see annex E. networks and programs and annex F. tools, catalogues, database platforms and additional resources). 

Success stories

Some success stories were also shared by participants and survey respondents from across sectors and have been included in this section. These accounts also helped to highlight participants’ diverse expertise and collective experience around network building and development of related initiatives and products. 

Municipal level

Provincial/territorial government

Federal level

Academia

Non-for-profit

Continued engagement

Follow-up questions: engagement opportunities

As outlined in the Meeting Objectives, one of central objectives of this session was to initiate some connections across sectors and regions. To explore how we might maintain these connections, and facilitate organic growth of the network, several questions were included in the post-meeting survey on the preferred means of engagement moving forward.  

Annual meetings and email correspondence were the most popular options (with 71% and 78% of respondents rating these as important and extremely important, respectively), followed by an online Government (secure) knowledge sharing platform (at 64% of respondents). See also annex D. Post-meeting survey). 

What’s next

Network development

The unmeeting and post-meeting survey indicate there is a strong interest in developing a national, interdisciplinary urban research mobilization network.  

Through this meeting and survey, we have gained a better understanding of the barriers to people’s work in the urban space across sectors and the ways in which an interdisciplinary urban research mobilization network may address these barriers. We have also acquired a number of recommendations and best practices around network building. All these insights will inform network development.

Next steps may include:

• Identifying key stakeholders, from across sectors and regions to lead and support the establishment of a new urban research mobilization network and confirming support capacity 
• Engaging with existing networks and organizations to avoid redundancies and enable synergy with ongoing work 
• Building a network framework based on recommendations and success stories of other national networks and programs and applying best practices into network design 
• Establishing clear network purpose, focus and research themes  
• Defining measures of success and impact 
• Exploring and applying to available funding mechanisms 
• Continued engagement with interested stakeholders and rightsholders

Unmeeting – sharing successes

Given the success of the unmeeting in meeting its objectives; gaining key insights, building connections and enabling knowledge exchange, and its cost-effectiveness, this methodology will also be shared across Environment and Climate Change Canada branches, as well as more broadly to other Government Departments and Agencies, to promote an inclusive and relational approach to stakeholder engagement and a potential alternative to more formal consultations.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank everyone who participated in the meeting and completed our post-meeting survey. We appreciate all the input and thoughtful, comprehensive feedback. 

Annexes

Annex A. meeting agenda

Welcome and introductions (30 minutes) 

Time: 12:00-12:30pm  

• Welcome: Dr. Liz Girolami (Project Lead), Patrice Simon (Director General)
• Territorial Acknowledgement: Carmen Watson (Co-Facilitator)
• Community commitments and agenda: Carmen Watson 
• Introduction, Mini breakout session, icebreaker activity: Toby Michaud (Co-Facilitator)

Keynote Speakers Block 1: Inspiring and setting the stage (25 minutes)

Time: 12:30-1:00pm

• Carmen Watson: Introductions
• Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin: Former Mayor, City of Gatineau, author, speaker.
  Topic: Exploring municipal perspectives and challenges.”
• Kamala Todd: Indigenous urban geographer, filmmaker, community planner
  Topic: Focus on relational ways of working together.”

Breakout Session 1: Barriers and challenges (40 minutes)

Time: 1:00-1:40pm

• Focus on barriers/challenges and establishing needs:
  • What are the barriers and gaps you face in your work?
  • Is there a need for an interdisciplinary urban research mobilization network?

Bio Break (10 minutes)

Keynote Speakers Block 2: Inspiring and setting the stage (25 minutes)

Time: 1:50-2:20pm

• Carmen Watson: Introductions
• Sadhu Johnston: Former City Manager, City of Vancouver, consultant, thought leader on cities.
  Topic: How cities handle challenges, power of networks- the Urban Sustainability Directors Network
• Dr. Paul Snelgrove: Professor of Biological Oceanography, Memorial University, Departmental Science Advisor, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  Topic: Network success stories: The Canadian Healthy Oceans Network
• Dr. Trish O’Kane: Professor, University of Vermont, environmental educator, author

Topic: Environmental education, community-driven advocacy and action

Breakout Session 2: Solutions and outputs (40 minutes)

Time: 2:20-3:00pm

• From your/your sector’s perspective, in what ways could a network address these barriers and gaps?
  • What kind of research mobilization tactics could it employ?
  • What are some key outputs it could generate?
• Follow up: Sharing research/knowledge mobilization network success stories - what has worked?

Wrap Up and close (10 minutes)

Time: 3:00-3 :10pm

• Carmen Watson, Toby Michaud, Liz Girolami, Patrice Simon (Director General): Next steps and action items

Annex B. keynote speakers

Dr. Paul Snelgrove

Dr. Paul Snelgrove is a Research Professor of Ocean Sciences and Biology at Memorial University in Newfoundland. 

From 2008-2021, Dr. Snelgrove led the (NSERC) Canadian Healthy Oceans Network, a national research network that supported sustainable oceans. He currently serves as Associate Scientific Director of The Ocean Frontier Institute. Dr. Snelgrove led the synthesis of the International Census of Marine Life program and was a member of its Scientific Steering Committee. In 2020, he was appointed Departmental Science Advisor to Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Dr. Snelgrove has published numerous journal articles, book chapters and several books on his research on sustaining marine biodiversity and functioning in Canada’s oceans.

Dr. Trish O’Kane

Dr. Trish O’Kane is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Vermont in Burlington, Vermont, where she integrates social justice into ornithology through her course “Birding to Change the World.” In this community-based course she pairs college students as mentors with local kids. College mentors teach their young ‘co-explorers’ about birds, and the kids teach their college mentors about life. Dr. O’Kane received her PhD from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is also the author of Birding to Change the World: A Memoir (HarperCollins-ECCO, 2024). A former human rights journalist in Central America and the Deep South, she has written for the New York Times, Time, and the San Francisco Chronicle.

Dr. Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin

Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin is an engaged citizen, author, speaker and former Mayor of Gatineau (2013-2021). Under his leadership, while contending with a series of climate related-crises, Mr. Pedneaud-Jobin implemented a range of innovative policies, agreements and strategies that helped to define the new role of cities, including that related to social economy, homelessness, addressing climate change, equality, waste management and revision of urban planning by-laws. In 2021, Gatineau was ranked as one of the most cyclable cities in Canada. Before entering politics, Mr. Pedneaud-Jobin contributed to the revival of the Laiterie de l'Outaouais, a social economy project which mobilized the whole region. He holds a master's degree in regional development from the Université du Québec en Outaouais. In 2020, he published Passer de la ville à la cité, faire place à la participation citoyenne, l'expérience de Gatineau. 

Kamala Todd

Kamala Todd is a Métis-Cree mother, community planner, filmmaker, curator, and educator. She has a Master’s degree in urban Geography from UBC and works at the intersection of film and urban planning, towards decolonizing the city. Kamala was the City of Vancouver’s first Indigenous Arts and Culture Planner and she is Associate Professor of Professional Practice at SFU Urban Studies. She was part of the team who created the Vancouver UNDRIP Strategy and works as an advisor with municipalities on Indigenous relations. Kamala's media production company is Indigenous City Media, and she holds numerous film credits. In May 2024, Kamala was selected for the Indigenous Arts: Story Sharing residency at Banff Centre. She is a research collaborator on the SAGA project, an international project looking at more-than-English languages of sustainability.

Sadhu Johnston

Sadhu Johnston is a consultant and thought leader on cities. He was the City Manager of Vancouver from 2016 to 2021 and was responsible for managing the operations of the city. During his time in this role, he spearheaded multiple initiatives to address the growing housing, homelessness and climate change issues in Vancouver. He was deeply involved in the City of Reconciliation initiatives and efforts. Prior to this role, he served as Deputy City Manager in Vancouver from 2009 to 2016 where he oversaw the Greenest City Action Plan. Mr. Johnston previously acted as Chief Environmental Officer of Chicago and Deputy Chief of Staff to the Mayor of Chicago, where he led the development of the first climate action plan in a major North American city. He is co-author of "The Guide to Greening Cities" published by Island Press in 2013 and is a co-founder of the Urban Sustainability Directors Network.

Annex C. steering committee membership

Membership at time of unmeeting- September 2024.

Annex D. Post-meeting survey

Session feedback

Question 1: I found the meeting to be useful:

Strongly disagree: 6%
Disagree: 0%
Somewhat disagree: 6%
Neither agree nor disagree: 7%
Somewhat agree: 20%
Agree: 44%
Strongly agree: 17%

Question 2: I liked the dynamic format of the meeting:

Strongly disagree: 4%
Disagree: 2%
Somewhat disagree: 8%
Neither agree nor disagree: 4%
Somewhat agree: 17%
Agree: 33%
Strongly agree: 33%

Question 3: I learned something new:

Strongly disagree: 2%
Disagree: 2%
Somewhat disagree: 2%
Neither agree nor disagree: 11%
Somewhat agree: 17%
Agree: 39%
Strongly agree: 28%

Question 4: I had an opportunity to connect with someone new:

Strongly disagree: 2%
Disagree: 0%
Somewhat disagree: 4%
Neither agree nor disagree: 17%
Somewhat agree: 19%
Agree: 26%
Strongly agree: 33%

Means of continued engagement

Question 5: Annual or biannual meetings:

Not at all important: 2%
Not very important: 0%
Slightly important: 11%
Moderately important: 16%
Important: 31%
Very important: 27%
Extremely important: 13%

Question 6: Informal monthly/bi-monthly virtual coffee chats:

Not at all important: 2%
Not very important: 20%
Slightly important: 9%
Moderately important: 31%
Important: 25%
Very important: 5%
Extremely important: 7%

Question 7: Online knowledge sharing Government platform:

Not at all important: 4%
Not very important: 2%
Slightly important: 5%
Moderately important: 25%
Important: 27%
Very important: 24%
Extremely important: 13%

Question 8: Online Messaging platform – Slack:

Not at all important: 4%
Not very important: 28%
Slightly important: 13%
Moderately important: 26%
Important: 22%
Very important: 6%
Extremely important: 2%

Question 9: Email correspondence:

Not at all important: 2%
Not very important: 4%
Slightly important: 7%
Moderately important: 9%
Important: 35%
Very important: 26%
Extremely important: 17%

Question 10: Please select your desired role(s) and include your name and contact information in the space provided.

Leadership position (e.g. director, theme lead, to be determined): 28%
Potential funder: 0%
Network Steering Committee member: 45%
Advisor (consulted on as-needed basis): 59%
Other: 31%

Question 11: Keeping informed: I would like to receive email updates on this initiative moving forward:

100% of respondents opt in.

Annex E. networks and programs

National

• Bird Friendly City program run by Nature Canada: An example of establishing successful networks (which include municipal decision-makers, nature groups, and other community groups partnering with Nature Canada), that have Canada-wide communities of practice.
• Naturehood program run by Nature Canada, which works with regional partners to help connect Canadians to nature, focusing on young people and marginalized communities.
• Canadian Centre for Evidence-based Conservation (CEBC) at Carleton University (one of 6 Collaboration for Environmental Evidence global centres, and the only one based in North America). The centres conduct evidence syntheses to support evidence-based decision making and policy development around conservation actions. Carleton’s CEBC is made up of academics and students with backgrounds in conservation and environmental management. It was noted this might be a potential model for the network to use. 
• Canadian Wildlife Federation (CWF). A nonprofit organization dedicated to wildlife and habitat conservation which includes “…a huge network of volunteers doing conservation efforts”
• Ontario Nature Network: Made up of 150 local conservation groups, this group leads grassroots conservation initiatives and engages with provincial decision-makers.
• Our Living Waters Network, a collaborative network of organizations focused on protect Canada’s waters and achieving ‘all waters in good health by 2030.’
• The Planning Institute of British Columbia’s Peer Learning Network (PLN): Partnership with the BC Ministry of Housing to support local government staff with their provincial counterparts, to enable knowledge, experience and best practices sharing, and receive targeted education, related to the province’s Development Approvals Process Review. 
• xʷc̓ic̓əsəm Garden: Urban Indigenous garden in Vancouver that does youth outreach with artists. A good example of integrating Indigenous knowledge, arts and engaging youth.
• Species and Ecosystems at Risk Local Government Working Group: This group has been in place since 2009 and consists of a collection of staff from municipal, regional and provincial governments who work together to find ways to protect species and ecosystems at risk on private and local government lands.
• Sustainable Neighourhoods Action Plan (SNAP) A program developed by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to help municipalities “… improve efficiencies, draw strong community support, and build implementation partnerships for a broad range of initiatives in the public and private realms.” It aims to address urban challenges by “integrating environmental improvements, community engagement and local partnerships.”
• The Partnership for Water Sustainability in BC is a not-for-profit society that serves as a bridge between local and provincial governments and is aimed at promoting strategies that integrate decisions about land use and conservation with water sustainability outcomes. They are an intergenerational group that focus strongly on building partnerships and supporting their partners. A participant described this group’s Ambassador program, which identified people important to the network, and recognized them publicly, and how inspiring and successful this was. 
• Naturalist clubs: One participant noted these could be “...a good place to look for established networks of community members and experts”

International 

• Biophilic cities global network partners with a network of cities, academics and advocates to “build understanding of the value and contribution of nature in cities to the lives of urban residents.” Canadian partner cities include Edmonton and Toronto.
• Urban Wildlife Information Network (private network, no further information available on site)

Annex F. tools, catalogues, database platforms and additional resources

• Ecocat: Ecological Report Catalogue. An online catalogue that provides access to ecological activities in British Columbia, as well as maps, datasets and published inventories. As noted by a participant; “…you can search for reports by keyword and map so you can find information related to the ecosystem of interest…nice to have long-term storehouse available…though mostly limited to wildlife biology and watershed hydrology.”
• Living Lakes Canada Columbia Basin Water Hub: A central platform where water data is easily accessible to anyone who needs it, this including decision-makers, researchers, students, community volunteers, professionals and the public and noted by one respondent to “.. have done a great job at bringing together information on the Columbia basin.”
• University of Guelph’s Knowledge Translation and Transfer Services and Resources Skills for Research Impact workshop. A workshop focused on building knowledge mobilization skills, including effective research communication and engagement to non-academic audiences, including policymakers, industry and the public. 
• Workshops offered by the Quw’utsun’ Cultural Connections Society:  Recommended training related to collaborative decision-making (versus traditional hierarchical model).
• StreamNet cooperative information and data dissemination project that provides community level stream/water quality monitoring.
• Caddisfly Collective: A community science project which aimed to study regional influences on the responses of the stream Caddisfly to urbanization in Canada and the United States. This was a volunteer-powered project, which was very effective in collecting data at a large spatial scale.