This document provides a literature review on local food production and community food security in Canada's North. It discusses two main approaches: 1) Commercializing traditional/country foods which faces challenges around regulations, social acceptability, and infrastructure; and 2) Developing northern community greenhouses which have had some success improving access to fresh foods but face challenges related to resources, communities, marketing, and economics. The document examines current research and outlines these approaches and challenges to provide background for a proposed Master's thesis on supporting food security through community-based food production projects in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region of the Northwest Territories.

1. 1 | P a g e
Local Food Production: Addressing Food Security in Canada’s North
State of Research
Nicholas Girard: 5935777
Presented to Professor Brian Ray
As per required by GEG 5109
Places and Social Transformation
December 18th 2015
University of Ottawa
Department of Geography

2. 2 | P a g e
Table of Contents
1.0 Background............................................................................................................................ 3
1.1 Purpose of this document....................................................................................................................................4
1.2 Research Proposal – Master’s thesis.............................................................................................................4
2.0 What is the current state-of research on community food production in
addressing food security?..........................................................................................................5
2.1 Commercialization of traditional foods.......................................................................................................5
2.2 Challenges......................................................................................................................................................................6
2.2.1 Regulatory requirements............................................................................................................................6
2.2.3 Social acceptability..........................................................................................................................................7
2.3 Northern community greenhouses................................................................................................................7
2.4 Challenges......................................................................................................................................................................9
2.4.1 Resources..............................................................................................................................................................9
2.4.2 Communities .......................................................................................................................................................9
2.4.3 Marketing..............................................................................................................................................................9
2.4.4 Economics..........................................................................................................................................................10
3.0 Community food production – Theoretical approaches & concepts.......................10
3.1 Local food movement (concept)...................................................................................................................10
3.2 Community capacity building (concept)..................................................................................................11
3.3 Community-based participatory research / action research approach...............................11
3.3.1 Case Study – community greenhouse in Kuujjuaq (Nunavik) ...........................................12
3.4 Methodological issues of CBPR & solutions...........................................................................................13
3.4.1 Outsider issue selection.............................................................................................................................13
4.4.2 Scientific quality of research..................................................................................................................13
4.4.3 Insider-Outsider tension...........................................................................................................................13
4.4.4 Proving intervention success.................................................................................................................14
4.4.5 Time demands.................................................................................................................................................14
5.0 Closing remarks ..................................................................................................................15
6.0 Bibliography........................................................................................................................16

3. 3 | P a g e
1.0 Background
Food insecurity presents a serious and growing problematic in Canada’s northern and
aboriginal communities. The Council of Canadian Academies (CCA, 2014) assessed the state
of knowledge on aboriginal food security in Canada’s North and concluded that food
insecurity will have long-term implications for the health and well-being of aboriginal
northerners. Likewise, the Inuit Health Survey conducted during the International Polar
Year (2007-2008) assessed the prevalence of food insecurity in Arctic Inuit households,
identifies 62.6 percent of households as moderately food insecure, and 27.2 percent as food
insecure (Huet et al., 2012). Research conducted by the Arctic Council’s Arctic Monitoring
and Assessment Program (2009), outlined key factors impacting food security, including:
 Poverty and unemployment;
 Climate change;
 Land access to practice subsistence activities;
 Extent to which food sharing networks are in place;
 Costs; and
 Availability and quality of store-purchased foods and country foods.
Access to nutritious food is fundamental to a healthy lifestyle. Food security can impact a
number of health-related issues such as obesity and diabetes, as well as mental and
spiritual health if barriers prevent the practice of traditional activities (Kuhnlein et al.,
2004; Guyot et al., 2006; Furgal & Seguin, 2006; Lambden et al., 2007; CCA, 2014).
According to the CCA (2014), food security research can be classified under the following
themes:
 Healthy food affordability &
availability
 Health & education
 Community wellbeing &
knowledge sharing
 Harvester support & wildlife
management
 Poverty reduction & community
economic development
 Local food production &
infrastructure innovation
 Youth engagement

4. 4 | P a g e
Because food systems are inherently complex and food security is experienced differently
among, individuals, households, community, and regions, it is understood that strategies to
research and mitigate food insecurity must be equally diverse and holistic (Wesche, 2015).
1.1 Purpose of this document
In understanding that strategies to mitigate food security are equally complex as they
are diverse, the aim of this document is to synthesis and focus on one segment of food
security research: local food production. The following research questions will guide this
state of research process:
 What is the current state-of research on community food production in addressing
food security?
 What are challenges associated with commercializing country foods and northern
greenhouses?
 What theoretical concepts are used in community-based food production initiatives?
 What are some challenges with Community-Based Participatory Research? How can
they be overcome?
This document will also provide the research foundation needed for my research proposal,
thesis preparation and statement, and will supplement the fieldwork component of my
research.
1.2 Research Proposal – Master’s thesis
There is a clear need to address some of the more indirect factors affecting food
security in northern Canada, to evaluate initiatives already in place and to share best
practices at both a community and regional scale (Wesche, 2015). My research inserts itself
in a broader initiative by the University of Ottawa in collaboration with the Inuvialuit
Regional Corporation to research, design, and implement a number of food security
initiatives in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (NWT). More specifically, key objectives
include (Wesche, 2015):
 Work with partners to identify and prioritize viable community-based projects to
support food security;
 Support practices pertaining to country food procurement;

5. 5 | P a g e
 Develop and implement user-friendly assessment tools for evaluating food;
security status and program effectiveness; and
 Disseminate best practices across and beyond the Inuvialuit Settlement Region.
2.0 What is the current state-of research on community food
production in addressing food security?
The following section will explore the current state-of-research on local food
production and infrastructure in Canada’s North. Specifically, this review will focus on
access to traditional foods and developing northern greenhouses.
2.1 Commercialization of traditional foods
There is an increased understanding that country food plays a critical role from a
physical and mental health perspective. Lambden et al., (2007) argue that traditional foods
are healthy and nutritious, inexpensive, socially and culturally beneficial, and contribute to
sustainable, self-reliant communities. However, there is concern that country foods are
playing less of a role in the contemporary diet of northerners (Huet et al., 2012). The
literature points towards a loss of traditional knowledge, high costs of harvesting
equipment, changing food preferences, rapid population growth, and changing climate
conditions as factors affecting the availability and quality of country foods (CCA, 2014). It is
argued that commercialization of country foods could increase the accessibility of country
foods (CCA, 2014). Research by Petrasek MacDonald et al. (2014) examined the feasibility
of developing and promoting country foods markets in Nunavut based on a comparative
study of Greenland’s open air traditional food markets.
Kalaaliminerniarfiit, or open-air food markets, have been operating in Greenland for 150
years (Minogue, 2005). They are found in most communities, and prices are set by the
association of hunters and fishers. Once the food is processed, country food is shipped to
Nuuk for distribution throughout Greenland. Their system of producing, distributing, and
exchanging country foods at local markets is intended to promote sustainable community
development (CCA, 2014). By encouraging this exchange system, Greenland’s government
reduces the need for imports, promotes indigenous hunting and traditional practices, and
encourages the consumption of nutritious and culturally-valued foods (Marquardt &

6. 6 | P a g e
Caulfield, 1996). Several aspects of the Greenlandic model may have merit in the Canadian
context. Commercial access to country food was identified as a key area of focus at the
2013 Nunavut Food Security Symposium (NFSS). In particular, participants were interested
in the following outcomes (NFSS, 2013):
 improving community-based infrastructure to provide hunters with places to store,
prepare, exchange, and market their product;
 Exploring compensation options for hunters providing food for the community; and
 Clarifying inspection requirements to make country food available in local stores at
competitive prices.
In Canada, Iqaluit’s country food market (Project Nunavut, 2013) and Yellowknife’s
farmer’s market (Francoeur, 2013) represent two initiatives that are promoting locally-
produced food directly to consumers in the community (CCA, 2014).
2.2 Challenges
2.2.1 Regulatory requirements
The commercialization of country foods in Canada’s North is limited by a number of
factors, some international and others domestic. At the international level, various
regulations in place have limited the sale of country foods. For example, the Migratory
Birds Act prohibits any sale of migratory birds (Gombay, 2004). The ban of seal products by
the European Union in the 1980s also crippled the northern economy, effectively shutting
down the commercial seal harvest (Wenzel, 1991). Commercial whaling is also restricted
by the International Whaling Commission, which only permits subsistence hunting of
whale by aboriginal peoples (International Whaling Commission, 2004). Domestically,
other regulations have affected the sale of country foods. For instance, the James Bay and
Northern Quebec Agreement (1975) stipulates in Section 24, with the exception of
commercial fisheries, non-Inuit are prohibited from buying or selling country foods
(Gombay, 2004). Gombay (2004) also argues that In Nunavik (Quebec), the sale of country
foods is prohibited outside the territory, or within the territory to non-beneficiaries (i.e.
non-Inuit) unless they meet provincial federal (or if they export outside of Canada)
international regulations governing the standards for slaughter and processing. Respecting

7. 7 | P a g e
all these requirements in the North is challenging, where the infrastructure is lacking, and
the training that people require in food safety is limited.
2.2.3 Social acceptability
Among the Inuit peoples of Canada, country food continues to be circulated based on the
principles of sharing that is a pillar of the vernacular economy. It was only in the recent
move into settled communities that the Inuit become deeply connected into the market
economy (Gombay, 2004). According to Gombay (2004) Inuit are taught to share food
among others, rather than sell it to them. The sale of country foods is judged to be immoral
and many are against this practice. She argues that the end result leads to only a small
proportion of the total production of country foods in Nunavik is commercialized. Chabot
(2011) calculated that in 1995, 85 percent of the total consumption of country foods in
Nunavik stayed within vernacular economy.
Hunter Support Programs (HTP) are seen as a form of commoditization of country foods
that is generally accepted by the Inuit people. In practice, municipalities through the HSP,
compensate hunters who are not otherwise employed to supply the community with
country foods. During certain periods, when access to meat is limited, the HSP meat may be
reserved for community members who might otherwise have difficulty accessing country
foods such as the elderly or single mothers. Therefore while the meat is paid for and does
have monetary value, it is not bought by people. The HSP thus presents a hybrid solution—
part sharing, part commodity—since it is not sold to a broader market, nor a true reflection
of the core principles of sharing and reciprocity of the Inuit (Gombay, 2004).
2.3 Northern community greenhouses
High costs of importing food into northern communities due to remoteness,
accessibility, and sparseness of the population are a major barrier to food security (Chan et
al., 2006; Willows, 2005). Healthy food alternatives such as fruits and vegetables in remote
northern communities are often five times more expensive that of urban centers, and when
available, are often poorer quality (Exner-Pirot, 2012). While increasing local food
production might facilitate better access to fresh produce, most northern communities
experience conditions unfit for growing conditions. Given this and a number of other

8. 8 | P a g e
logistical issues, year-round local food production has traditionally been viewed as
unfeasible (Exner-Pirot, 2013).
In response to the lack of accessible fresh produce, several communities in Canada’s North
have developed greenhouse projects over the last decade (Avard, 2013) as a means to
promote local food self-reliance, gain access to healthier foods, and empower community-
building (Mahr et al., 2010). The most prominent among these are the Iqaluit Community
Greenhouse and the Inuvik Community Greenhouse. Other examples of greenhouse
projects include the following (Avard, 2013):
 Small commercial operation in the community of Narsaq (Greenland);
 Community greenhouse in Little Salmon, Carmacks First Nation (Yukon);
 Greenhouse research activities in Whapmagoostui-Kuujjuarapik (Nunavik), on
Devon Island (Nunavut), and in Qaqortoq (Greenland); and
 A series of small commercial greenhouse operations of varying sizes in Finland,
Island, and Alaska (USA).
Benefits of a community greenhouse include (Exner-Pirot, 2013):
 Living science lab; innovative way to promote youth engagement
(school curriculum)
 Improve food security/self-reliance over food sources
 Improved health by consuming fresh produce
 Opportunity for volunteerism; contributing the individual and community wellbeing
 Develop work and life skills through caring of growing and harvesting a crop
There is currently no single, economically viable greenhouse producing food ona
commercial scale in Canada’s North (Exner-Pirot, 2012). Recent research by Agriteam
Canada Consulting Ltd (2013) examined the sustainability of commercial northern
greenhouse production in Canada, including design components, technologies, marketing,
and cost-benefit considerations as a way to spur economic development opportunities in
the north and strengthen food security in remote northern communities (CPC, 2014).

9. 9 | P a g e
2.4 Challenges
The following challenges were associated with commercial application of
greenhouses in northern communities (Agriteam Canada Consulting Ltd., 2013; Exner-
Pirot, 2013):
2.4.1 Resources
Human resources are a key barrier to northern greenhouse development. It is important
that communities and/or entrepreneurs establish a greenhouse with a level of complexity
based on the level of available skill and experience in communities. Low-technology
greenhouse systems can be operated by an operated by an experienced gardener, however;
large-scale operations with commercial technologies would require a combination of
appropriate education and industry knowledge.
2.4.2 Communities
The interaction between the community and desired outcomes for a greenhouse venture
will be a determining factor for the success of a commercial operation. Based on
community consultation conducted in several studies (Agriteam Canada Consulting Ltd.,
2013; Avard, 2013) three main themes were identified in the communities’ desired
outcomes for greenhouse development:
1. Improve health, wellbeing and diet;
2. Increased affordability, availability, and quality of foods and food security; and
3. Increase community independence and self-sufficiency.
Profitability was not the primary objective in any of the communities studied. Break-even
models that also meet other community objectives, including employment, were the norm
identified by Agriteam Canada Consultation Ltd (2013). They concluded that communities
that seek limited profitability may need to consider non-commercial options for
greenhouse since it is less likely that a commercial greenhouse will success if profitability is
not the dominant objective.
2.4.3 Marketing
Pockets of small, isolated communities in the north, will put limits on market demands and
scalability for individual greenhouses. This will limit the viability of modern large-scale

10. 10 | P a g e
greenhouses from achieving significant economies of scale in many cases. Even for the
largest population centers in the north, populations are relatively dispersed compared to
similar areas in Europe at northern latitudes with greenhouse industries (Agriteam Canada
Consultation Ltd., 2013).
2.4.4 Economics
It is important to consider a range of factors when evaluating the economic viability of a
commercial northern greenhouse. Agriteam Canada Consultation Ltd (2013) identified the
following inputs that need to be considered:
 A range of different technologies (gutter-connected greenhouses, Chinese solar
greenhouse, high-tunnel, as well as stand-alone) ranging from low-cost, low-tech to
higher cost and higher-tech greenhouses.
 The return on scaled based greenhouse size for both small and large market
opportunities.
 Return on investment from year-round versus seasonal production
Energy costs and heating are critical elements in the economic viability of a northern
greenhouse venture. The challenge for an individual greenhouse will be to negotiate
between capital costs and reduced operating costs of heating systems that provide greater
energy efficiency and energy use.
3.0 Community food production – Theoretical approaches
& concepts
Northern regions are addressing food security in various ways, with theoretical
approaches ranging from holistic strategies to a series of specific community-based
programs and policies. This segment will focus on theoretical approaches and concepts
associated with local food production.
3.1 Local food movement (concept)
The local food movement is a social phenomenon that is gaining more traction
worldwide each year (Avard, 2013). At the root of this movement are the concepts referred
to as either Community-based Food Systems or Local Food Systems (LFS). Together, these

11. 11 | P a g e
concepts are understood to be collaborative initiatives to build locally-based food systems
and economies (Peters, 1997). As well, when local agriculture and food production become
incorporated into a community vision, food becomes a motor for problem solving and
capacity building rather than just a commodity that is bought and sold (Heller, 2005).
Avard (2013) argues that for those living in the north, the concept of local food has always
been part of the Inuit way of life. Traditionally, Inuit have always practiced what is
essentially a local food system: food harvested from the land (Avard, 2013). It is only
within the last few decades that food imported from the south plays a larger role in the
northern diet (Ford et al., 2012). Given that LFS share many similarities to indigenous food
systems, they mesh well with traditional Inuit ways of creating food. Within this cultural
framework, a new mode of producing local foods (northern horticulture) is seen as a
sustainable way to address food insecurity concerns, in tandem with indigenous traditional
practices (Avard, 2013).
3.2 Community capacity building (concept)
Community Capacity Building (CCB) is a process whereby local stakeholders add
value to the community. It is about strengthening the adaptive capacity of communities to
meet and respond to their own challenges and opportunities (DITRD, 2012). In a document
produced for the Arctic Council Sustainable Development Working Group, Gregorich sates
that: “Capacity building is making sure that individual, communities, businesses, industries,
institutions, governments, and other organisations, have the information, knowledge, and
skills they need to solve today’s problems and adapt to change in a way that protects
resources for future generations” (2004, p. 44). Absence of capacity is reflected in the
people, economy, environment, culture, attitudes and appearance of the community (Flo &
Smith, 1999). Community food production initiatives such as open-air traditional food
markets and greenhouses are initiatives aimed at addressing food security by building local
capacity and self-reliance.
3.3 Community-based participatory research / action research approach
Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has emerged over the last several
decades as an alternative research paradigm that combines education and social action
(Wallerstein & Duran 2006). CBPR approaches differ from others in the way that they

12. 12 | P a g e
attempt to incorporate active community engagement in all aspects of the research
(Figure 1), draw on their knowledge and expertise, share decision-making responsibilities,
and build community capacity (Minkler & Wallerstein, 2003). CBPR is based on inclusivity
and collaboration, tends to stem from the social and cultural norms of a community, and
reflects the community’s needs and wants (LaVeaux & Christopher, 2009).
Figure 1 – Community-based participatory research framework. Community members are actively engaged
in all aspects of the research process (adapted from Israel et al., 1988).
3.3.1 Case Study – community greenhouse in Kuujjuaq (Nunavik)
Avard (2012) participated and documented the development of a greenhouse pilot
project in Kuujjuaq, Nunavik. Her research was based on the CBPR approach and aimed to
develop a community-based northern agricultural model that addressed food security and
social challenges in arctic communities. The underlying hypothesis of her research was that
a greenhouse based local food system in Nunavik could be sustainable, contribute to
community capacity building, grounded in Inuit traditional practices, and developed in a
way that is responsive to present and future needs of Inuit communities. Her study results
show that certain aspects of the food security issues experienced in northern communities
Identify food
security
concern
Study design
Community
member
recruitement
Develop
measuring
instruments
Intervention
design
Data
collection,
analysis &
interpretation
Desseminate
results to
community

13. 13 | P a g e
could be comprehensively addressed by the development of a new type of local food
system in the north—a system centered around locally owned and managed greenhouses.
Avard (2012) concludes that greenhouses and other forms of local food production are
initiatives where community capacity can be strengthened and by working within the CBPR
framework, local greenhouse projects can become places where stakeholders work
together towards addressing food security in Canada’s North.
3.4 Methodological issues of CBPR & solutions
Engaging in community-based food security research with diverse peoples can
enrich both the quality and the outcomes of the study. At the same time, it is important to
understand the ethical and related challenges associated with CBPR (Minkler, 2005),
several of which are now highlighted:
3.4.1 Outsider issue selection
One of the main tenets of CBPR is a commitment to ensuring that the research topic comes
from the community, therefore; outside researches must pay critical attention to
community understandings of what the issue or topic of concern is. In some cases, the
community may be divided over an issue. In such situations, outside researchers can play a
facilitator role in helping community partners sort through the pros and cons of
undertaking a project to begin with (Minkler, 2005). Hosting community meetings and
other forums are effective solutions in helping achieve consensus on an issue that is truly
directed by the needs and desires of the community (Kelly, 1987).
4.4.2 Scientific quality of research
Community-based research is often challenges by questions regarding its validity,
reliability, reproducibility, and objectivity; principles of the scientific method. This makes it
challenging to convince academic colleagues, potential partners, and funders of the value
and quality of collaborative research (Israel et al., 1998).
4.4.3 Insider-Outsider tension
One major example of insider-outsider tension involves the diverging reward structures for
partners in CBPR. Even if a major aim of such research is to strengthen community capacity
building, the outside researcher typically stands to gain most from such collaboration,
pocketing grants, getting new publications, peer recognition, etc. (Minkler, 2005). To

14. 14 | P a g e
address insider-outsider tensions and other issues in working with indigenous
communities, researchers in Canada have developed ethical guidelines (see Stuart, 1998)
for conducting collaborative research. Including protocols that address (Minkler, 2005):
 Negotiating with community political and spiritual leaders to obtain their input
and consent for the proposed project;
 Ensuring equitable benefits for project participants, including appropriate
training and hiring of community members in exchange for their contributions
and resources; and
 Develop an agreement over the ownership and publication of findings, and the
dissemination of research to community members.
4.4.4 Proving intervention success
The success of a particular intervention in a community-based research effort may be
challenging to single out. For instance, such studies are often conducted in communities
with concurrent initiatives already in place, and it is difficult to pinpoint causality of the
particular intervention being evaluated (Israel et al., 1988). It is important to develop
desired outcomes prior to the intervention and evaluate if those measures were achieved
following the implementation of the intervention.
4.4.5 Time demands
The active participation of all community members in the research process demands a
significant level of time investment from all participants (Israel et al., 1988). Building
mutual collaboration, reciprocal trust, and understanding necessitates time to develop.
Israel et al. (1988) argue that researchers must also prepare comprehensive feedback
sessions/reports in a timely manner. They also argue that analysis of data and preparation
of feedback is a lengthy process that often creates frustrations among partners.

15. 15 | P a g e
5.0 Closing remarks
Issues surrounding poverty and environmental disposition underlie the inherent
complexity of food security for indigenous peoples in Canada’s North. Improving food
security will require culturally appropriate, grassroots, and bottom-up actions that address
local needs, along with regional strategies to create effective policies and programs
(CCA, 2014). This document has reviewed and assessed the state of knowledge of
community-driven food production to address one segment of food security.
The literature indicates that the commercialization of country foods may improve access to
healthy and nutritious, inexpensive, socially and culturally beneficial foods (Lambden et al.,
2007), however; regulatory requirements as well as the social acceptability with the
practice of selling foods are challenges associated with this alternative. Greenhouse
projects on the other hand, have also surfaced over the last decade as a way to promote
local food self-reliance, gain access to healthier foods, and empower community-building
(Mahr et al., 2010). Agriteam Canada Consulting LTD (2013) notes the following challenges
in the successful development of a sustainable northern greenhouse:
 The skills and experience required to successfully operate a commercial greenhouse
in Canada’s North;
 Governance issues in First Nation communities;
 Achieving scalability and/or productive levels; and
 Energy costs and usage which are magnified in northern greenhouses given heating
requirements in the cold and dark winter in northern latitudes.
We saw that Community-Based Participatory Research is a process whereby local
stakeholders add value to the community. It is about strengthening the adaptive capacity of
communities to meet and respond to their own challenges and opportunities (DITRD,
2012), and it is particularly well-suited when working collaboratively with communities.
We also identified some challenges associated with this research approach, as well as some
solutions to overcome them.

16. 16 | P a g e
6.0 Bibliography
 Agriteam Canada Consulting LTD. (2013).Understanding Sustainable Northern
Development Technologies for Creative Economic Development Opportunities and
Supporting Food Security. Calgary, Alberta. Retrieved from
http://en.indigenoushealth-santeindigene.ca/images/Agriteam_Report_1.pdf
 Allard, Michel, and Lemay, Mickëal. 2012. Nunavik and Nunatsiavut: From Science to
Policy : An Integrated Regional Impact Study (IRIS) of Climate Change and
Modernization. Université Laval, ArcticNet Incorporated.
 Avard, E. (2013). The Kuujjuaq Greenhouse Project: Developing a New Type of
Northern Food System. Inditerra: Revue Internationale Sur l’Autochtonie, (5), 38–51.
Retrieved from
http://www.reseaudialog.qc.ca/Docs/04INDITERRA052013AVARD.pdf
 Canadian Council of Academies (CCA). (2014). Aboriginal Food Security in Northern
Canada: An Assessment of the State of Knowledge. Expert Panel on the State
Knowledge. Expert Panel on the State of Knowledge of Food Security in Northern
Canada. Retrieved from
http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications
%20and%20news%20releases/food%20security/foodsecurity_fullreporten.pdf
 Canadian Polar Commission (CPC). (2014, March 31). Food Security in the Canadian
North: Recent Advances and Remaining Knowledge Gaps and Research
Opportunities. Retrieved from
http://www.polarcom.gc.ca/sites/default/files/food_security_summary.pdf
 Chabot, M. (2011) De la production domestique au marché: l’économie
contemporaire des familles Inuit du Nunavik. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Sociology,
Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec.
 Chan, H., Fediuk, K., Hamilton, S., Rostas, L., Caughey, A., Kuhnlein, H., Egeland, G., &
Loring, E. (2006). Food security in Nunavut, Canada: barriers and
recommendations. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 65(5). doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v65i5.18132
 Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development (DITRD). (2012).
Community Capacity Building. Retrieved from
http://www.btcrd.gov.nl.ca/regionaldev/capacitybuilding.html
 Exner-Pirot, H. (2012, May 31). Greenhouses can help food security in Canada’s
vulnerable North [Opinion]. Retrieved December 9, 2015, from
http://www.farmnwt.com/content/greenhouses-can-help-food-security-canadas-

17. 17 | P a g e
vulnerable-north
 Exner-Pirot, H. (2013).Guideline for Establishing a Northern Greenhouse Project.
Saskatchewan: International Centre for Northern Governance and Development.
Retrieved from http://www.usask.ca/icngd/publications/reports/Reports-
Files/Northern%20Greenhouse%20Guidelines_FINAL.pdf
 Flo, F., & Smith, A. (1999). The Community Development Handbook: A Tool to Build
Community Capacity. Minister of Public Works and Government Services. Retrieved
from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/MP33-13-1999E.pdf
 Ford, J., Lardeau, M.-P., & Vanderbilt, W. (2012). The characteristics and experience
of community food program users in arctic Canada: a case study from Iqaluit,
Nunavut. BMC Public Health, 12, 464. http://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-464
 Francoeur, R. (2013, March 19). Farmers’ Market Set to Open in Yellowknife,
Northern Journal. Retrieved from http://norj.ca/2013/03/farmers-market-set-to-
open-in-yellowknife/
 Furgal, C., & Seguin, J. (2006). Climate Change, Health, and Vulnerability in Canadian
Northern Aboriginal Communities. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(12),
1964–1970. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8433
 Gombay, N. (2005). The Commoditization of Country Foods in Nunavik: A
Comparative Assessment of its Development, Applications, and
Significance. ARCTIC, 58(2), 115–128. Retrieved from
http://arctic.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/view/405
 Gregorich, J. (2004). Capacity Building Overview of the Arctic Council. Ottawa,
Ontario: Arctic Council Sustainable Development Working Group. Retrieved
from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/28
 Guyot, M., Dickson, C., Paci, C., Furgal, C., & Chan, H. (2006). Local observations of
climate change and impacts on traditional food security in two northern Aboriginal
communities. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 65(5). Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v65i5.18135
 Heller, Martin. (2005). Food Connections: Capital Area Community Food
Profile. East Lansing: C.S. Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems at Michigan
State University. Retrieved from
http://www.farmlandinfo.org/sites/default/files/CACfoodprofile_1.pdf
 Huet, C., Rosol, R., & Egeland, G. M. (2012). The Prevalence of Food Insecurity Is High
and the Diet Quality Poor in Inuit Communities. The Journal of Nutrition, 142(3),

18. 18 | P a g e
541–547. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.3945/jn.111.149278
 International Whaling Commission. (n.a.). Aboriginal subsistence whaling. Retrieved
from https://iwc.int/aboriginal
 Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (1998). Review of community-
based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual
Review of Public Health, 19, 173–202.
http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173
 Kelly, J. (1987). Seven criteria when conducting community-based prevention
research: A research agenda and commentary. In Preventing Mental Disorders: A
Research Perspective (pp. 57–72). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental
Health.
 Kuhnlein, H. V., Receveur, O., Soueida, R., & Egeland, G. M. (2004). Arctic Indigenous
Peoples Experience the Nutrition Transition with Changing Dietary Patterns and
Obesity. The Journal of Nutrition, 134(6), 1447–1453. Retrieved from
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/134/6/1447
 Lambden, J., Receveur, O., & Kuhnlein, H. (2007). Traditional food attributes must be
included in studies of food security in the Canadian Arctic. International Journal of
Circumpolar Health, 66(4). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v66i4.18272
 LaVeaux, D., & Christopher, S. (2009). Contextualizing CBPR: Key Principles of CBPR
meet the Indigenous research context. Pimatisiwin, 7(1), 1. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2818123/
 Mahr, M., Pilsner, J., Bokstrom, A., Wilson, M., & Meier, G. (2010). North Slocan
Community Greenhouse Feasibility Study. Retrieved from
http://www.hort.vt.edu/ghvegetables/documents/Economics/Reference%20Othe
r/CAN%20New%20N_Slocan%20Feasibility%20Study%20FINAL_Oct2010.pdf
 Marquardt, O., & Caulfield, R. (1996). Development of west Greenlandic markets for
country foods since the 18th century. Arctic, 49(2), 107–119. Retrieved from
http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/arctic49-
 Minkler, M. (2005). Community-based research partnerships: Challenges and
opportunities. Journal of Urban Health : Bulletin of the New York Academy of
Medicine, 82 (Suppl 2), ii3–ii12. http://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/jti034

19. 19 | P a g e
 Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (2003). Community-Based Participatory Research for
Health: From Process to Outcomes (2nd ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley.
 Minogue, S. (2005, October 28). Professional hunters provide food for
Greenlanders. Nunatsiaq News. Retrieved from
http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/archives/51028/news/nunavut/51028_09.html
 NFSS (Nunavut Food Security Symposium). (2013). Priority Areas for Action in a
Nunavut Food Security Strategy. Iqaluit, (NU): Results of proceedings from Nunavut
Food Security Symposium, January 22-24, 2013
 Peters, J. (1997). Community food systems: working toward a sustainable
future. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 97(9), 955–956.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-8223(97)00230-7
 Petrasek MacDonald, Joanna; Huet, Catherine; Ford, James; Statham, Sara, &
MacRury, Allison. (2014). The Commercialization of Country Food and Food
Security: the Case of Greenland and Considerations for Nunavut in Moving Forward.
McGill Department of Geography & Nunavut Department of Health. Retrieved from
http://www.nunavutfoodsecurity.ca/sites/default/files/files/Resources/Commerci
alizationOfCountryFoodAndFoodSecurity_EN.pdf
 Project Nunavut. (2013). Current Projects. Retrieved from
www.projectnunavut.com/projects.html.
 Stuart, C. A. (1998). Care and Concern: An Ethical Journey in Participatory Action
Research. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy / Revue Canadienne de
Counseling et de Psychothérapie, 32(4). Retrieved from http://cjc-
rcc.ucalgary.ca/cjc/index.php/rcc/article/view/720
 Wallerstein, N. B., & Duran, B. (2006). Using community-based participatory
research to address health disparities. Health Promotion Practice, 7(3), 312–323.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1524839906289376
 Wenzel, G.W. (1991) Animal rights, human rights: Ecology, economy, and ideology
in the Canadian Arctic. London: Belhaven Press.
 Wesche, S., Fillion, M., & Kenny, T.-A. (2015). Inuvialuit Settlement Region Food
Security Strategic Plan: Report to the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. Ottawa,
Ontario: University of Ottawa.
 Willows, N. D. (2005). Determinants of healthy eating in Aboriginal peoples in
Canada: The current state of knowledge and research gaps. Can J Public
Health, 96(3), S32–S36. http://doi.org/10.17269/cjph.96.1503