Methods and models for climate change vulnerability analysis in the Arctic

From The Encyclopedia of Earth
Jump to: navigation, search


Published: February 9, 2010, 5:54 pm
Updated: August 2, 2012, 3:38 pm
Author: International Arctic Science Committee
Topic Editor: Sidney Draggan
Topics:
Content Cover Image

Camel-icon.png

This is Section 17.3 of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Lead Authors: James J. McCarthy, Marybeth Long Martello; Contributing Authors: Robert Corell, Noelle Eckley Selin, Shari Fox, Grete Hovelsrud-Broda, Svein Disch Mathiesen, Colin Polsky, Henrik Selin, Nicholas J.C.Tyler; Corresponding Authors: Kirsti Strøm Bull, Inger Maria Gaup Eira, Nils Isak Eira, Siri Eriksen, Inger Hanssen-Bauer, Johan Klemet Kalstad, Christian Nellemann, Nils Oskal, Erik S. Reinert, Douglas Siegel-Causey, Paal Vegar Storeheier, Johan Mathis Turi

A successful vulnerability assessment is one that prepares specific communities for the effects of likely future change. A vulnerability assessment should: draw upon a varied and flexible knowledge base; focus on a “placebased” study area; address multiple and interacting stresses; allow for differential adaptive capacity; and be both prospective and historical[1]. Data and methodologies to support such an assessment vary widely and any given vulnerability study is likely to involve a variety of quantitative and qualitative forms of data and methodological techniques. Interviews with “key informants” and surveys[2] have been employed to obtain data on transience, immigration and education levels, income, education, age, family structure[3], literacy, infant mortality, and life expectancy[4]. Floodplain maps are important in analyzing the vulnerability of communities to extreme storm events[5]. Agricultural vulnerability analyses often require information about extent of land degradation, crop type, soil moisture, runoff, and groundwater[6]. As described by Cutter[7] analytical techniques can include historical narratives, contextual analyses, case studies, statistical analyses and GIS approaches, mapping, factor analysis and data envelopment analysis, and vulnerability index development[8].Thus, what is novel about vulnerability assessments is not the individual techniques used to explore specific parts of a coupled human–environment system, but the integration of these techniques across varied intellectual domains.

A framework, such as that proposed by Turner et al.[9] enables at least two approaches for investigating vulnerability (see Fig. 17.1). One approach is to begin with knowledge about stresses and trace them through to consequences, while another is to begin with consequences and trace these back to stresses. It is also possible to work in both directions in an iterative fashion to yield a more comprehensive analysis. Figure 17.4 presents a research approach that allows for iterative analysis, in which (reading from left to right) information about stresses and their interactions are used both to develop scenarios and to project impacts. Impact projections can be used in conjunction with interviews, focus groups, workshops, and other means for engaging residents of the place of interest to explore coping strategies and adaptive capacities of a human–environment system. Knowledge of impacts and adaptive capacity can then be used to characterize site-specific vulnerabilities. Proceeding from consequences to stresses (right to left), researchers can work with residents of a particular locale to identify consequences experienced within a coupled human–environment system and then trace them back to identify the specific nature of the stresses.

620px-ACIA Ch17 Figure 4.png Fig. 17.4. Methodological framework.

Application of a framework to understand vulnerabilities within a coupled human–environment system requires different types of knowledge, as well as tools from a wide range of disciplines and from local and indigenous sources. For example, vulnerability analysis in the form presented here requires integration of natural science, social science, indigenous and local knowledge, cooperation among researchers and people who are part of the coupled human–environment system under study, and reliance on diverse techniques such as interviews, participant observation, focus groups, climate modeling, and climate downscaling. A proper vulnerability analysis will engage (1) a number of scientific disciplines (ecology, biology, climate and global change research, meteorology, social anthropology, sociology, political and policy science, economics, geography, ocean sciences, physiology and veterinary science, and environmental chemistry) and (2) local people with significant knowledge of their environment, of relevant social, political, and economic factors, and of human–environment interactions concerning, for example, hunting, herding, gathering, processing, and production. The success of a vulnerability assessment depends on the success of partnerships among various groups of stakeholders[10].

Climate scenarios and downscaling to specific sites (17.3.1)

An active area of climate change research is the translation of atmosphere–ocean general circulation model (AOGCM) projections calculated at large spatial scales to smaller spatial scales, a process termed “downscaling”. In this way, selected study sites can be provided with customized climate projections. There are two principal approaches for downscaling: dynamical downscaling (also known as regional climate models) and statistical downscaling (also known as empirical downscaling). As described in Chapter 4, there are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. While both generate similar results for current climate, they have been known to generate different projections for future climates.

Greenhouse gas emissions scenarios used to drive the AOGCMs are based on projections of economic activity. In turn, the projected economic activity is a function of anticipated changes in global population, technology, and trends in international trade. As a result, each of the 40 scenarios used by the IPCC can be characterized by its anticipated trajectories of population, economy, environment, equity, technology, and globalization[11]. It is impossible to assign likelihoods to these or any other GHG emissions scenario.Thus the IPCC emissions scenarios are individually equally plausible, but collectively represent only a subset of the possible futures.

Current arctic climate projections are limited in their utility for vulnerability analyses for two main reasons. First, the AOGCMs that produce these projections do not capture all important features of regional climate. For example, local ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns, and topographic relief are not well represented in AOGCMs.These factors often play a decisive role in determining local climate in the Arctic. As a result, additional analytical techniques are needed to produce localscale climate projections. Chapter 4 reviews the various methods available for this task.

Second, for downscaling results to contribute to successful vulnerability assessments, local people must be involved in the planning and analysis of downscaling studies[12]. Otherwise, the downscaled climate projections may not reflect the climate factors relevant for decision-making to enable arctic residents to adapt or employ mitigation strategies. For example, one of the climate variables of concern for reindeer herders in northern Norway is snow quality. Too much snow hinders reindeer mobility and restricts their access to food on the ground, especially when the snow contains enough ice to mask the smell of the food.Too little snow, by contrast, makes it difficult for the herders to contain the reindeer (no restrictions on mobility) and to track the animals when they stray (no snow tracks). For these and other reasons, the Sámi employ many words to describe snow quality, as it relates to timing, amount, consistency, bearing, surface, trees, thawing, patches, accessibility, and other aspects[13]. The point here is that the way climate matters for any particular activity is specific to that activity. Thus a downscaled projection of, for example, mean monthly surface temperature may not be sufficient (or even necessary) information for contributing to the process of social adaptation to the effects of climate change for any group of arctic people.

Likelihoods of extreme conditions are difficult attributes to derive with confidence from climate scenarios, especially at the local scale, and this is the scale of most interest in assessing vulnerabilities in human– environment systems. As Smithers and Smit[14] pointed out, “frequency, duration, and suddenness” of climatic events influence the character of successful adaptation strategies. Higher frequency of a potentially harmful event will heighten decision-makers’ awareness of risk associated with a class of climate events. Greater duration of a climate event could inflict a correspondingly greater impact, or alternatively allow for more adaptation than would be possible with a shorter duration but otherwise similar event. Rapid onset of a particular climate event or condition, whether a specific flood or myriad aspects of the broader syndrome of climate change, will be much more limiting with respect to adaptation options than slowly rising water or very gradual climate change. Scales of social and political organization are important, since they reflect inertia in the response or adaptive capabilities of a human– environment system[15]. Future projections of arctic climate change models (see Chapter 4) do not yet systematically resolve details in climate extremes that will be useful for assessing changes in frequency, duration, and suddenness of most climate events.Within the last few years, however, some progress has been made with ensemble simulations, especially for precipitation[16].

Measurement and methodology for pollutant analyses (17.3.2)

Data on POPs and heavy metal pollution and impacts for many arctic locations are now available. Although analytical methodology has advanced significantly for both since the late 1970s, some older and more recent data can be difficult to compare. For example, early PCB studies reported concentrations relative to industrial mixtures (e.g., Aroclor). Current studies report PCBs as a sum of individual congeners. In addition, levels of POPs and metals in biota may differ dramatically depending on the species sampled, the part of the individual animal from which the sample was taken, and the age and sex of the sampled individual. Shifts in diet can also affect exposure. Few studies have monitored the same species at the same site over a long timescale, a procedure necessary for making reliable comments on trends. Heavy metals pose an additional challenge for measurement and assessment because they are derived from both anthropogenic and natural sources. It is not always possible to determine whether a given concentration measured in biota originated from a natural or an anthropogenic source[17]. In the last few years, the assessment and standardization efforts implemented by AMAP have dramatically improved knowledge of the pollutant situation in the Arctic. The data used here for analyzing interactions with multiple stresses and for identifying vulnerabilities draw heavily on the latest AMAP assessment[18].

Analysis of human and societal trends (17.3.3)

Data on trends in human and societal conditions can be obtained from published and unpublished institutional and governmental databases (e.g., Statistics Greenland) and from research in fields such as anthropology, sociology, political science, economics, and native studies. An in-depth analysis of human and societal trends requires a wide array of data sources, extensive statistical analysis, and knowledge shared and generated through interactions between researchers and arctic residents. Such an analysis might draw upon economic data pertaining to markets operating at various scales, employment, retail transactions, trade, imports, exports, and the processing and sale of natural and other resources. Public health information can also form an important part of human and societal trends analyses with information about contaminant levels in food and humans, diseases, and health care. Census data can provide information about general demographics, education, family structure, employment, and migration patterns. Election data can be useful in revealing trends in governance and the implementation and enforcement of regulations and policies emanating from transnational, national, and subnational decision-making bodies. Archives and other documentation that track negotiations and participation within such bodies are also useful. Surveys and interviews with local people are essential in ascertaining the views of individuals with, for example, respect to dietary practices, consumption patterns, values, and priorities.

Sources of local knowledge and stakeholders as participants (17.3.4)

The vulnerability of a coupled human–environment system will be perceived differently across cultures, age groups, economic sectors, etc. A reindeer herder will most likely define the vulnerability of his/her human– environment system differently than would an outsider assessing the same system.There may also be diverging opinions within a community.There may well be a range of different perspectives on what constitutes a vulnerable condition and it is essential to recognize and address these perspectives in carrying out a vulnerability analysis. Evaluation of the exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity of a coupled human–environment system will require the knowledge, observation, and participation of people who are part of the system. These people can, for example, identify important stresses, human–environment interactions, and outcomes that they seek to avoid.They can also identify changes in the human–environment system, describe coping and adaptive capacities, monitor environmental and social phenomena, and communicate research findings.The involvement of local people in research design, implementation, and the dissemination of research results should, therefore, be a central aspect of any comprehensive vulnerability study.

Participatory research has become increasingly common in arctic research on socio-ecological changes, as evident throughout this assessment and a number of other projects e.g., SnowChange[19], Scannet[20], the Mackenzie Basin Impact Study[21], Voices from the Bay[22], and Inuit Observations on Climate Change[23]. Participatory research follows from a long tradition. From the time people in the “South” began to take an interest in the high latitudes, indigenous peoples of northern regions have often had a role to play in arctic research and exploration. Early anthropologists and archaeologists frequently used indigenous peoples as guides, laborers, informants, and/or interpreters[24], as did arctic seamen and explorers[25]. Since those days, indigenous peoples have continued to work with visiting researchers and explorers.Throughout, there have been a variety of reports on the positive and negative outcomes of these interactions and relationships[26]. However, despite the many ways in which arctic indigenous peoples have contributed to arctic research, often there has been little mention of their role or acknowledgement of their efforts[27].

The way outside researchers worked with indigenous peoples changed considerably in the mid-1980s. Coinciding with the settlement of land claims, the emergence of co-management regimes, and the ascendancy of indigenous peoples’ power and influence in formal decision-making processes[28], indigenous knowledge became a topic of interest for many researchers who worked in the Arctic. It was centered around a few key themes: documentation of indigenous knowledge about various aspects of the environment[29]; the increasing use of cooperative approaches to wildlife and environmental management[30]; environmental impact assessment[31]; and collaborative research between scientists and indigenous peoples[32].This last theme has particular relevance for vulnerability studies. A brief literature review on the development of collaborative and participatory research in the Arctic follows.

Early efforts to involve arctic indigenous peoples in research and land management began with much discussion on the validity and utility of indigenous knowledge. Researchers who had worked with indigenous peoples for some time recognized that indigenous knowledge could reveal valuable information that could augment scientific understanding about many aspects of environment and ecology. Further, some researchers were beginning to recognize that indigenous knowledge holders needed to participate in the research process themselves[33]. Seminal edited volumes on northern indigenous knowledge[34] use case studies from the Arctic to present a number of perspectives on the validity and utility of this knowledge. The case studies illustrate that indigenous knowledge can make a key contribution to resource management and sustainability. Arguing for the inclusion of indigenous peoples in research and decision making, several case studies present examples of how these initiatives were needed, or underway, in a variety of settings. For example Eythorsson[35] explained why the knowledge of Sámi fishermen in northern Norway is integral to successful resource management there and Usher[36] discussed some of the successes of the Beverly-Kaminuriak Caribou Management Board, one of the earliest examples of wildlife co-management in North America.

As interest in indigenous knowledge in the Arctic picked up through the 1990s, many people continued to focus on promoting the validity and utility of indigenous knowledge and the need to integrate it into research and management. However, critiques began to surface that questioned the methods behind the “integration”, as well as the intentions. Bielawski[37] examined interactions between scientists and indigenous land users involved in co-management systems and noted that, although comanagement is supposed to combine scientific and indigenous expertise, the model and process for comanagement is not integrative at all, but scientific and bureaucratic. Usher[38] echoed this when stating that although indigenous knowledge (also called TEK, “traditional ecological knowledge”) is required to be incorporated into Canadian resource management and environmental assessments there is little understanding of what TEK is and how to implement it in policy. This confusion was especially visible during 1996 when a senior policy advisor with the Northwest Territories (NWT) government wrote an article claiming that the inclusion of indigenous knowledge in environmental assessments not only hinders the scientific process, but is against the constitutional rights of Canadian citizens since indigenous knowledge is based on spiritual beliefs, not facts[39]. The article created a heated debate[40] and caused both researchers and managers to look more closely at the reasons and methods for incorporating indigenous knowledge into research and policy. As shown by Usher[41], these reasons and methods remained unclear until the end of the 1990s. In 1999, others such as Nadasdy[42] still believed that indigenous knowledge and the engagement of indigenous peoples in research were not taken seriously and were merely paid lip-service for political reasons. Nadasdy[43] called for a more critical look at “successful” co-management efforts and the political, as well as methodological obstacles, to the integration of indigenous knowledge.

By 2000, a number of indigenous knowledge projects in the Canadian Arctic and Alaska had made advances in participatory methods for working with arctic communities[44]. For example the Tuktu (caribou) and Nogak (calves) Project[45], which documented Inuit knowledge of Bathurst caribou and calving grounds in the Kitikmeot region of Nunavut from 1996 to 2001, established a local advisory board for the project and relied on trained local researchers to help with interviews and data analysis. Fox[46], who has a long-term project with Nunavut communities regarding Inuit knowledge of climate and environmental change, has used an iterative approach to community work, incorporating community input and feedback in research methods. Jolly et al.[47] also used an iterative approach over a one-year project in Sachs Harbour, NWT to collect Inuvialuit observations of climate change. In the Sachs Harbour project, scientific experts worked one-on-one with local experts to understand a variety of phenomena and community workshops were held to establish common goals for the research and to clarify information. A number of other projects and management systems have incorporated participatory approaches with much success in recent years[48]. Common to many of these projects are some aspects of participatory research in the Arctic that have emerged as key including time, trust, communication, and meaningful goals and results. Many of these projects span multiple years, where researchers and community members form friendships and fruitful working relationships. In several projects, results were produced in forms that the community could use and found interesting. For example, the Tuktu and Nogak Project produced a community- directed book[49]. Fox[50] developed an interactive multi-media CD ROM and an Inuktitut book for participants, and the Sachs Harbour project created a documentary film[51].

Indigenous peoples themselves are also making an impact on participatory research in the Arctic. Many arctic communities and organizations are reaching out to scientists and decision-makers to set research priorities and form partnerships for investigations[52].

Chapter 17: Climate Change in the Context of Multiple Stressors and Resilience
17.1. Introduction (Methods and models for climate change vulnerability analysis in the Arctic)
17.2. Conceptual approaches to vulnerability assessments
17.2.1. A framework for analyzing vulnerability
17.2.2. Focusing on interactive changes and stresses in the Arctic
17.2.3. Identifying coping and adaptation strategies
17.3. Methods and models for vulnerability analysis
17.4. Understanding and assessing vulnerabilities through case studies
17.4.1. Candidate vulnerability case studies
17.4.2. A more advanced vulnerability case study
17.5. Insights gained and implications for future vulnerability assessments

References


Citation

Committee, I. (2012). Methods and models for climate change vulnerability analysis in the Arctic. Retrieved from http://editors.eol.org/eoearth/wiki/Methods_and_models_for_climate_change_vulnerability_analysis_in_the_Arctic
  1. ↑ Polsky, C., D. Schröter, A. Patt, S. Gaffin, M. Long Martello, R. Neff, A. Pulsipher and H. Selin, 2003. Assessing Vulnerabilities to the Effects of Global Change: An Eight-Step Approach. Research and assessment systems for sustainability program discussion paper 2003–05, Environment and Natural Resources Program, Harvard University.
  2. ↑ Kelly, P.M. and W.N. Adger, 2000.Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate change and facilitation adaptation. Climatic Change, 47:325–352.
  3. ↑ Clark, G.E., S.C. Moser, S.J. Ratick, K. Dow,W.B. Meyer, S. Emani, W. Jin, J.X. Kasperson, R.E. Kasperson and H.E. Schwarz, 1998. Assessing the vulnerability of coastal communities to extreme storms: the case of Revere, MA, USA. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 3:59–82.
  4. ↑ Downing,T.E., R. Butterfield, S. Cohen, S. Huq, R. Moss, A. Rahman, Y. Sokona and L. Stephen, 2001. Climate Change Vulnerability: Linking Impacts and Adaptation. Report to the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme. United Nations Environment Programme and Oxford: Environmental Change Institute.
  5. ↑ Clark et al., 1998, Op. cit.
  6. ↑ Downing et al., 2001, Op. cit.
  7. ↑ Cutter, S.L., 1996.Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in Human Geography, 20:529–539.
  8. ↑ see also Downing et al., 2001, Op. cit.
  9. ↑ Turner, B.L., II, R.E. Kasperson, P. Matson, J.J. McCarthy, R.W. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, J.X. Kasperson, A. Luers, M.L. Martello, C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher and A. Schiller, 2003a. A Framework for Vulnerability Analysis in Sustainability Science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100:8074–8079.
  10. ↑ Polsky et al., 2003, Op. cit.
  11. ↑ IPCC, 2001a. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Watson, R.T., and the CoreWriting Team (eds.). Cambridge University Press, 398 pp.
  12. ↑ Polsky et al., 2003, Op. cit.
  13. ↑ Ruong, I., 1967.The Lapps in Sweden. Swedish Institute for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries, Stockholm.
  14. ↑ Smithers, J. and B. Smit, 1997. Human adaptation to climatic variability and change. Global Environmental Change, 7:129–146.
  15. ↑ Berkes, F. and D. Jolly, 2001. Adapting to climate change: Socialecological resilience in a Canadian Western Arctic Community. Conservation Ecology, 5(2):18. <a class="external free" href="http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art18" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art18">http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art18</a>
  16. ↑ Palmer,T.N. and J. Räisänen, 2002. Quantifying the risk of extreme seasonal precipitation event: a changing climate. Nature, 415:512–514.
  17. ↑ Muir, D.C.G., B. Braune, B. DeMarch, R. Norstrom, R.Wagemann, L. Lockhart, B. Hargrave, D. Bright, R. Addison, J. Payne and K. Reimer, 1999. Spatial and temporal trends and effects of contaminants in the Canadian arctic marine ecosystem: a review.The Science of the Total Environment, 230:83–144.
  18. ↑ AMAP, 2002. Arctic Pollution 2002: Persistent Organic Pollutants, Heavy Metals, Radioactivity, Human Health, Changing Pathways. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo, Norway. xii+112p.
  19. ↑ Mustonen,T., 2002. Appendix: SnowChange 2000, Indigenous View on Climate Change, A Circumpolar Perspective. In: I. Krupnik and D. Jolly (eds.).The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change, pp. 351–356. Arctic Research Consortium of the United States, Fairbanks.
  20. ↑ Scannet. no date. Scandinavian l North European Network of Terrestrial Field Bases. <a class="external free" href="http://www.envicat.co/scannet/Scannet" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.envicat.co/scannet/Scannet">http://www.envicat.co/scannet/Scannet</a>. (14 Jan 2004)
  21. ↑ Cohen, S.J. (ed.), 1997. Mackenzie Basin Study (MBIS) Final Report. Environment Canada, 372p.
  22. ↑ McDonald, M., L. Arragutainaq and Z. Novalinga, 1997.Voices from the Bay:Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Inuit and Cree in the Hudson Bay Bioregion. Canadian Arctic Resources Committee and Environmental Committee of the Municipality of Sanikiluaq, Ottawa.
  23. ↑ IISD, 2001. Final Report:The Inuit Observations on Climate Change Project. International Institute for Sustainable Development,Winnipeg.
  24. ↑ e.g., Boas, F., 1888.The Central Eskimo. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC;--  Rasmussen, K., 1908.The people of the polar north: a record. J.B. Lippincott Co.;--  Stefansson,V., 1941. My Life with the Eskimo. Collier Books.
  25. ↑ Peary, R.E., 1907. Nearest the Pole: A narrative of the polar expedition of the Peary Arctic Club in the S.S. Roosevelt, 1905–1906. Doubleday, Page & Co.
  26. ↑ e.g., Harbsmeier, M., 2002. Bodies and voices from Ultima Thule: Inuit explorations of the Kablunat from Christian IV to Knud Rasmussen. In: M. Bravo and S. Sorlin (eds). Narrating the Arctic: a cultural history of Nordic scientific practices, pp. ix–373. Science History Publications.
  27. ↑ Brewster, K. 1997. Native contributions to Arctic science at Barrow, Alaska. Arctic, 50:277–283.
  28. ↑ Kuhn, R.G. and F. Duerden, 1996. A review of traditional environmental knowledge: an interdisciplinary Canadian perspective. Culture, 16:71–84.
  29. ↑ Ferguson, M.A.D. and F. Messier, 1997. Collection and analysis of traditional ecological knowledge about a population of Arctic tundra caribou. Arctic, 50:17–28.;--  Fox, S.L., 2004.When the Weather is Uggianaqtuq: Linking Inuit and Scientific Observations of Recent Environmental Change in Nunavut, Canada. PhD Thesis. Department of Geography, University of Colorado at Boulder;--  Huntington, H.P. and the communities of Buckland, Point Lay, and Shatoolik, 1999.Traditional knowledge of the ecology of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in the eastern Chukchi and northern Bearing seas, Alaska. Arctic, 52:49–61.;--  Jolly, D., S. Fox and N.Thorpe, 2003. Inuit and Inuvialuit Knowledge of Climate Change in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. In: J. Oakes and R. Riewe (eds.). Native Voices in Research: Northern and Native Studies, pp. 280–290. Native Studies Press.;--  Kilabuck, P., 1998. A Study of Inuit Knowledge of Southeast Baffin Beluga. Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, Iqaluit.;--  McDonald et al., 1997, Op. cit.;--  Mymrin, N.S. and the communities of Novoe Chaplino, and Yanrakinnot. 1999.Traditional knowledge of the ecology of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in the northern Bering Sea, Chukotka, Russia. Arctic 52:62–70.;--  Reidlinger, D. and F. Berkes, 2001. Contributions of traditional knowledge to understanding climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Polar Record, 37:315–328.
  30. ↑ Berkes, F., 1998. Indigenous knowledge and resource management systems in the Canadian subarctic. In: F. Berkes and C. Folke (eds.). Linking Social and Ecological Systems, pp. 98–128. Cambridge University Press.--  Berkes, F., 1999. Sacred Ecology:Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management.Taylor and Francis, xvi+209p.--  Freeman, M.M.R. and L.N. Carbyn (eds.), 1988.Traditional knowledge and renewable resource management in northern regions. Boreal Institute for Northern Studies, Edmonton;--  Huntington, H.P., 1992.The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and other cooperative marine mammal management organizations in Alaska. Polar Record, 28:119–126.;--  Pinkerton, E. (ed.), 1989. Cooperative management of local fisheries. University of British Columbia Press.;--  Usher, P., 2000.Tradition ecological knowledge in environment assessment and management. Arctic, 53:183–193.
  31. ↑ Stevenson, M.G., 1996a. Indigenous knowledge and environmental assessment. Arctic, 49:278–291.
  32. ↑ Huntington, H.P., 2000. Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and applications. Ecological Applications, 10:1270–1274.;Krupnik and Jolly, 2002, Op. cit.
  33. ↑ e.g.,Wenzel, G., 1984. L'ecologie culturelle et les Inuit du Canada: une approche applique. Etudes Inuit Studies, 8:89–101. (In French)
  34. ↑ e.g., Johnson, M. (ed.), 1992. Lore: Capturing Traditional Environmental Knowledge. Dene Cultural Institute and International Development, Ottawa.and Inglis, J.T. (ed.), 1993.Traditional ecological knowledge: concepts and cases. International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and International Development Research Centre, Ottawa.
  35. ↑ Eythorsson, E., 1993. Sámi fjord fishermen and the state: traditional knowledge and resource management in northern Norway. In: J.T. Inglis (ed.).Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases, pp. 132–142. International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and International Development Research Centre, Ottawa.
  36. ↑ Usher (1993)
  37. ↑ Bielawski, E., 1996. Inuit indigenous knowledge and science in the Arctic. In: L. Nader (ed.). Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiries into Boundaries, Power, and Knowledge. Routledge.
  38. ↑ Usher, 2000, Op. cit.
  39. ↑ Howard, A. and F. Widdowson, 1996.Traditional knowledge threatens environmental assessment. Policy Options, November:34–36.
  40. ↑ see Berkes, F. and T. Henley, 1997. Co-management and traditional knowledge: threat or opportunity. Policy Options, 18:29–30.;--  Stevenson, M.G., 1996b. Ignorance and prejudice threaten environmental assessment. Policy Options, 18:25–28.
  41. ↑ Usher, 2000, Op. cit.
  42. ↑ Nadasdy, P., 1999.The politics of TEK: power and 'integration' of knowledge. Arctic Anthropology, 36:1–18.
  43. ↑ Nadasdy, P., 2003. Reevaluating the co-management success story. Arctic, 56(4):367–380.
  44. ↑ Krupnik and Jolly, 2002, Op. cit.
  45. ↑ Thorpe, N., S. Eyegetok, N. Hakongak and elders, 2001.Thunder on the Tundra: Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit of the Bathurst Caribou. Generation Printing.--  Thorpe, N., S. Eyegetok, N. Hakongak and elders, 2002. Nowadays it's not the same: Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, climate and caribou in the Kitikmeot Region of Nunavut, Canada. In: I. Krupnik and D. Jolly (eds.).The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change, pp. 1998–1239. Arctic Research Consortium of the United States, Fairbanks, Alaska.
  46. ↑ Fox, S.L., 1998. Inuit knowledge of climate and climate change. Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, 145p.--  Fox, 2004, Op. cit.
  47. ↑ Jolly, D., F. Berkes, J. Castleden,T. Nichols and the community of Sachs Harbour, 2002.We can't predict the weather like we used to: Inuvialuit observations of climate change, Sachs Harbor,Western Canadian Arctic. In: I. Krupnik and D. Jolly (eds).The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change, pp. 92–125. Arctic Research Consortium of the United States, Fairbanks, Alaska.
  48. ↑ Huntington, H.P., 1998. Observations on the utility of the semidirective interview for documenting traditional ecological knowledge. Arctic, 51:237–242.--  Huntington, H.P., 2000. Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and applications. Ecological Applications, 10:1270–1274.;--  Kofinas and the communities of Aklavik, 2002, Op. cit.;--  Krupnik, I. and D. Jolly (eds.), 2002.The Earth Is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations Of Arctic Environmental Change. Arctic Research Consortium of the United States, Fairbanks.
  49. ↑ Thorpe et al., 2001, Op. cit.
  50. ↑ Fox, S.L., 2003.When the Weather is Uggianaqtuq: Inuit Observations of Environmental Change. A multi-media, interactive CD-ROM. Department of Geography, University of Colorado at Boulder. Distributed by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and Arctic System Sciences (ARCSS), National Science Foundation.
  51. ↑ IISD, 2000. Sila Alangotok: Inuit Observations on Climate Change, 2000.Videocassette. Directed by B. Dickie, produced by G. Ashford. International Institute for Sustainable Development.
  52. ↑ Fenge, R., 2001.The Inuit and climate change. Isuma, Winter:79–85.
Retrieved from "https://editors.eol.org/eoearth/index.php?title=Methods_and_models_for_climate_change_vulnerability_analysis_in_the_Arctic&oldid=136934"