Abstract

Dramatic climatic change in the Arctic elevates the importance of determining the risk of exposure for people living in vulnerable areas and developing effective adaptation programs. (Smith) Climate change assessment reports are valuable, and often definitive, sources of information for decision makers when constructing adaptation plans, yet the scope of these reports is too coarse to identify site-specific exposure to the impacts of climate change and adaptation needs. Subsistence hunters and gatherers in the Arctic are valuable knowledge holders of climate-related change in their area. Incorporating both their traditional ecological knowledge and information found in climate science assessment reports can offer adaption planners a deeper understanding of exposure to climate change and local adaptation needs. In this study, we compare information found in assessment reports of climate change in the Arctic with what we have learned from the Alaskans Sharing Indigenous Knowledge project from 2009 to 2012, a research project documenting traditional ecological knowledge in two Native villages in Alaska, Savoonga and Shaktoolik.1 Content analysis of the interviews with hunters and gatherers reveal the site-specific impacts of climate change affecting these two villages. We find that their traditional ecological knowledge is complimentary and largely corroborates the climate science found in assessment reports. Traditional ecological knowledge, however, is more current to the social and local conditions of the villages, and presents a more unified social and biophysical portrayal of the impacts of climate change. If taken together, these two forms of knowledge can focus adaptation planning on the pertinent needs of the communities in question.1

Climate Change in the Arctic

Climate change is more pronounced in the Arctic than any other region, warming at twice the rate as the rest of the planet [1]. As a result, dramatic and sustained ecosystem change in the Pacific Arctic is being called the “new normal” [2] to contend with for decision makers and residents of this region. We cannot assume, however, all elements of climate change in this rapidly changing region are obvious and/or disruptive to its residents. Climate change risks are experienced unequally and are often location-specific [3] and indigenous communities in Alaska are particularly vulnerable [4]. It is therefore instructive for decision makers working on climate change adaptation to determine the perceptions of risk held by indigenous people living in this rapidly transforming region. It is also important to identify the particular adaptation needs of indigenous peoples and to assess climate change risk from their perspective.

Climate change is more pronounced in the Arctic than any other region, warming at twice the rate as the rest of the planet [1]. As a result, dramatic and sustained ecosystem change in the Pacific Arctic is being called the “new normal” [2] to contend with for decision makers and residents of this region. We cannot assume, however, all elements of climate change in this rapidly changing region are obvious and/or disruptive to its residents. Climate change risks are experienced unequally and are often location-specific [3] and indigenous communities in Alaska are particularly vulnerable [4]. It is therefore instructive for decision makers working on climate change adaptation to determine the perceptions of risk held by indigenous people living in this rapidly transforming region. It is also important to identify the particular adaptation needs of indigenous peoples and to assess climate change risk from their perspective.

Community-Based Adaptation

An egg

Photo:  Jonathan Ignatowski

To its practitioners, CBA seeks to empower high-risk, poor, and marginalized communities that have contributed the least to climate change to plan for its impacts [34–36]. The IPCC concludes that the intent of CBA is “to foster active participation in collecting information that is rooted in the communities and enables affected people to participate in their own assessment of risk and identify responses that can enhance resilience by strengthening social-institutional measures including social relations” [3] (p. 321). In other words, CBA directly allows at risk people being affected by climate change to communicate how they perceive its risks and to determine adaptation practices [37]. While CBA focuses on the local context of climate change [3], it is also a political statement of the necessity, and value, of including community voices in their own development efforts [37]. An underlying assumption with CBA initiatives is that people know their local risks and vulnerabilities better than non-locals; in this case, residents of Savoonga and Shaktoolik are capable of determining what climatic changes are more obvious and disruptive to them than others. At the same time CBA recognizes that broader scaled knowledge, such as regional climate modeling, is also needed to get a full picture of vulnerabilities and risks [37]. For greater impact, CBA initiatives should be scaled-up and communicated to decision makers, and scaled-out by expanding to larger regions [34].

Risk Assessment

Climate risk management, the incorporation of climate change information into decision making to reduce climate change risks [41], is an emerging field that begins with assessment of risk. Mercer et al. [6] develop a four-step process “for integrating indigenous and scientific knowledge” for risk reduction—community engagement, identification of vulnerabilities, identifying indigenous and scientific strategies for risk reduction, and develop

It is obvious to TEK holders in both villages that storms have changed over the last 20 years, in fact the more intense storms have, as one respondent from Shaktoolik put it, “Increased awareness of change in general.” This commonality between the two villages is not surprising since the large fall storms encompass the entire Bering Sea region and these two villages are only 280 miles apart. In particular, an increase in storm intensity is highly obvious in Shaktoolik and moderately obvious in Savoonga, but in both villages larger fall storms are increasingly disruptive to their lives

Savoonga is a federally recognized Siberian Yupik village on the northern coast of St. Lawrence Island in the Bering Sea.  The island itself has been occupied for at least 2,000 years and the city of Savoonga was established in 1969. 

Today 95% of the 650 village members are native and most speak both English and Siberian Yupik.  Traditional subsistence culture is of utmost importance to the people of Savoonga.  The culture is said to be an extension of the land and sea with intricate and ancient rituals revolving around walrus and whale hunting. 

References

  1. ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) (2004) Arctic climate impact assessment: impacts of a warming climate. Cambridge, New York

  2. ACRGE (Alaska Commission on Rural Governance and Empowerment) (1999) Final report to the governor. www.dced.state.ak.us/dca/RGC/Cover.pdf Accessed 28 June 2013

  3. AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme) (2011) Snow, water, ice and permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA): climate change and the cryosphere. Narayana, Gylling, DenmarkGoogle Scholar

  4. AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme) (2012) Arctic climate issues 2011: changes in snow, water, ice and permafrost. SWIPA 2011. Overview Report. Oslo, Norway

  5. Armitage D, Berkes F, Dale A, Kocho-Schellenberg E, Patton E (2011) Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Glob Environ Chang 21:995–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  6. Bennholdt-Thomsen V, Mies M (1999) The subsistence perspective: beyond the globalised economy. Zed, LondonGoogle Scholar

  7. Berkes F (2009) Indigenous ways of knowing and the study of environmental change. J R Soc N Z 39(4):151–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  8. Berkes F (2012) Sacred ecology, 3rd edn. Routledge Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

  9. Bohensky EL, Maru Y (2011) Indigenous knowledge, science, and resilience: what have we learned from a decade of international literature on “integration”? Ecol Soc 16(4):6Google Scholar

  10. CAFF (Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna) (2010) Arctic biodiversity trends 2010: selected indicators of change. Working Group of the Arctic Council, IcelandGoogle Scholar

  11. CPC (Canadian Polar Commission) (2012) International polar year Canadian science report: highlights. Canadian Polar Commission, OttawaGoogle Scholar

  12. DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) (2010) Key findings from international polar year 2007–2008 at fisheries and oceans Canada. Communications Branch Fisheries and Oceans Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar

  13. Fabricius C, Scholes R, Cundill G (2006) Mobilizing knowledge for integrated ecosystem assessments. In: Reid WV, Berkes F, Wilbanks TJ, Capistrano D (eds) Bridging scales and knowledge systems: concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

  14. Folke C (2004) Traditional knowledge in social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 9(3):7Google Scholar

  15. Ford JD, Furgal C (2009) Special issue: climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability in the Arctic. Polar Res 28(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  16. Ford JD, Smit B (2004) A framework for assessing the vulnerability of communities in the Canadian Arctic to risks associated with climate change. Arctic 57(4):389–400Google Scholar

  17. Ford JD, Pearce T, Duerden F, Furgal C, Smit B (2010) Climate change policy responses for Canada’s Inuit population: the importance of and opportunities for adaptation. Glob Environ Chang 20:177–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  18. G8 (Group of Eight) (2005) Gleneagles plan of action: climate change, clean energy and sustainable development. Gleneagles, England http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/summit/2005gleneagles/climatechangeplan.html Accessed 6 August 2012

  19. Gagnon CA, Berteaux D (2009) Integrating traditional ecological knowledge and ecological science: a question of scale. Ecol Soc 14(2):19Google Scholar

  20. Glaser B (2008) Grounded theory institute http://www.groundedtheory.com/ Accessed 29 September 2011

  21. Gratani M, Butler JRE, Royee F, Valentine P, Burrows D, Canendo WI, Anderson AS (2011) Is validation of indigenous ecological knowledge a disrespectful process? A case study of traditional fishing poisons and invasive fish management from wet tropics, Australia. Ecol Soc 16(3):25Google Scholar

  22. Green D, Raygorodetsky G (2010) Indigenous knowledge of a changing climate. Clim Change 100(4):239–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  23. Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Hum Values 26(4):399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  24. Houde N (2007) The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: challenges and opportunities for Canadian co-management arrangements. Ecol Soc 12(2):34Google Scholar

  25. Huntington H (2000) Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and applications. Ecol Appl 10(5):1270–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  26. Huntington H, Callaghan T, Fox S, Krupnik I (2004) Matching traditional and scientific observations to detect environmental change: a discussion on Arctic terrestrial ecosystems. Ambio 13:18–23Google Scholar

  27. Huntington HP, Hamilton LC, Nicolson C, Brunner R, Lynch A, Ogilvie EJ, Voinov A (2007) Toward understanding the human dimensions of the rapidly changing Arctic system: insights and approaches from five HARC projects. Reg Environ Chang 7:173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  28. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Cambridge, New York

  29. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2012) Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. Field CB et al. (eds) Cambridge, New York

  30. Keller AC (2010) Credibility and relevance in environmental policy: measuring strategies and performance among science assessment organizations. J Public Adm Res Theory 20(2):357–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  31. Krupnik I, Jolly D (2002) The earth is faster now: indigenous observation on Arctic environmental change. Arcus, FairbanksGoogle Scholar

  32. Mastrandrea, MD, Field C.B, Stocker TF, Edenhofer O, Ebi KL, Frame DJ, Held H, Kriegler E, Mach KJ, Matschoss PR, Plattner GK, Yohe GH and Zwiers FW (2010) Guidance note for lead authors of the IPCC fifth assessment report on consistent treatment of uncertainties. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

  33. Moller H, Berkes F, Lyver PO, Kislalioglu M (2004) Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: monitoring populations for co-management. Ecol Soc 9(3):2Google Scholar

  34. Oozeva C, Noongwook C, Noongwook G, Alowa C, Krupnik I (2004) Watching ice and weather our way. Arctic Studies Center, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

  35. Pearce TD, Ford JD, Laidler GJ, Smit B, Duerden F, Allarut M, Andrachuk M, Baryluk S, Dialla A, Elee P, Goose A, Ikummaq T, Joamie E, Kataoyak F, Loring E, Meakin S, Nickels S, Shappa K, Shirley J, Wandel J. (2009) Community collaboration and climate change research in the Canadian Arctic. Polar Res 28:10–27Google Scholar

  36. Rosales J, Montan J (2010) Citizen science as an organizing principle for the environmental work of the local government in the Adirondack region. Adiron J Environ Stud 16.1 http://www.ajes.org/v16/rosal2010.php Accessed 21 November 2012

  37. Salick J, Ross N (2009) Traditional peoples and climate change. Glob Environ Chang 19:137–139Google Scholar

  38. Siebenhuner B (2003) The changing role of nation states in international environmental assessments—the case of the IPCC. Glob Environ Chang 13(2):113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  39. State of Alaska (2012) Alaska community database community information summaries. http://commerce.alaska.gov/dca/commdb/CF_CIS.htm. Accessed 14 May 2012

  40. Teixeira JB, Martins AS, Pinheiro HT, Secchin A, de Moura RL, Bastos AC (2013) Traditional ecological knowledge and the mapping of benthic marine habitats. J Environ Manage 115:241–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  41. Tol RSJ (2011) Regulating knowledge monopolies: the case of the IPCC. Clim Change 108(4):827–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  42. UN (United Nations) (2008) United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar

  43. USGCRP (United States Global Change Research Program) (2009) Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Karl T R, Melillo J M, Peterson T C (eds) Cambridge, New York

  44. Usher PJ (2000) Traditional ecological knowledge in environmental assessment and management. Arctic 53(2):183–193