Search for: All records

Indigenous Peoples across the Arctic have adapted to environmental change since time immemorial, yet recent climate change has imposed unprecedented and abrupt changes that affect the land and sea upon which communities rely. Co-created community-based observing programs offer an opportunity to harness the holistic breadth of knowledge in communities with the goal of tracking Arctic change while simultaneously supporting community priorities and local-scale needs. The Alaska Arctic Observatory and Knowledge Hub (AAOKH) is a network of Iñupiaq observers from northern Alaska coastal communities working in partnership with academic researchers. Here, we describe five core functions that have emerged through AAOKH, which include tracking long-term environmental changes; communicating Indigenous-led observations of the environment and their meaning; place-based and culturally relevant education; enabling scientific and Indigenous Knowledge exchange; and supporting community-led responses to environmental change. We outline and discuss specific actions and opportunities that have been used to increase knowledge exchange of AAOKH observations, make space for the next generation of Indigenous scholars, and create locally relevant data products and syntheses that can inform resource management and community planning. We also discuss our ongoing efforts to increasingly shift toward a knowledge coproduction framework as we plan to sustain AAOKH into the future.

 

Community monitoring can track environmental phenomena, resource use, and natural resource management processes of concern to community members. It can also contribute to planning and decision-making and empower community members in resource management. While community monitoring that addresses the environmental crisis is growing, it also gathers data on other global challenges: climate change, social welfare, and health. Some environmental community monitoring programs are challenged by limited collective action and community participation, insufficient state responsiveness to data and proposals, and lack of sustainability over time. Additionally, community members monitoring the environment are increasingly harassed and sometimes killed. Community monitoring is more effective with improved data collection, improved data management and sharing, andstronger efforts to meet community information needs, enable conflict resolution, and strengthen self-determination. Other promising areas for development are further incorporating governance issues, embracing integrated approaches at the community level, and establishing stronger links to national and global frameworks. 

The geographic settings and interests of diverse groups of rights- and stakeholders figure prominently in the need for internationally coordinated Arctic observing systems. Global and regional observing systems exist to coordinate observations across sectors and national boundaries, leveraging limited resources into widely available observational data and information products. Observing system design and coordination approaches developed for more focused networks at mid- and low latitudes are not necessarily directly applicable in more complex Arctic settings. Requirements for the latter are more demanding because of a greater need for cross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral prioritization and refinement from the local to the pan-Arctic scale, in order to maximize the use of resources in challenging environmental settings. Consideration of Arctic Indigenous Peoples’s observing priorities and needs has emerged as a core tenet of governance and coordination frameworks. We evaluate several different types of observing systems relative to the needs of the Arctic observing community and information users to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each framework. A typology of three approaches emerges from this assessment: “essential variable,” “station model,” and “central question.” We define and assess, against the requirements of Arctic settings, the concept of shared Arctic variables (SAVs) emerging from the Arctic Observing Summit 2020 and prior work by the Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks Road Mapping Task Force. SAVs represent measurable phenomena or processes that are important enough to multiple communities and sectors to make the effort to coordinate observation efforts worthwhile. SAVs align with essential variables as defined, for example, by global observing frameworks, in that they guide coordinated observations across processes that are of interest to multiple sectors. SAVs are responsive to the information needs of Arctic Indigenous Peoples and draw on their capacity to codesign and comanage observing efforts. SAVs are also tailored to accommodate the logistical challenges of Arctic operations and address unique aspects of the Arctic environment, such as the central role of the cryosphere. Specific examples illustrate the flexibility of the SAV framework in reconciling different observational approaches and standards such that the strengths of global and regional observing programs can be adapted to the complex Arctic environment. 

The Arctic is undergoing large-scale changes that are likely to accelerate in future decades such as introductions and expansions of invasive species. The Arctic is in a unique position to prevent new introductions and spread of existing invasive species by adopting policies and actions aimed at early detection. Responding to threats from invasive species to minimize impacts to ecosystems, communities, food security, and northern economies will necessitate extensive observations and monitoring, but resource managers often face decisions without having adequate data and resources at hand. Local observing programs such as citizen science and community-based monitoring programs present attractive methods for increasing observing capacity that span contributory and co-created approaches while raising awareness of an issue among stakeholders. While the co-created model has been widely applied and encouraged in the Arctic context, contributory citizen science programs offer an additional tool for addressing observing needs in the Arctic. We showcase three contributory citizen science programs related to freshwater, terrestrial, and marine environments that have supported the objectives of the Alaska Invasive Species Partnership. We discuss criteria for achieving ARIAS priority actions at the participant scale related to participants’ motivation and participants’ understanding of the value of their contributions, at the programmatic scale, for example promoting accessible, reciprocal, and transparent knowledge exchange, and at the policy and science scale where management action is data driven. The approach is aimed at successful integration of citizen science into Arctic policy making. Finally, we discuss challenges related to broader global data collection and future directions for contributory citizen science within Arctic observing networks. 

Abstract Effective responses to rapid environmental change rely on observations to inform planning and decision-making. Reviewing literature from 124 programs across the globe and analyzing survey data for 30 Arctic community-based monitoring programs, we compare top-down, large-scale program driven approaches with bottom-up approaches initiated and steered at the community level. Connecting these two approaches and linking to Indigenous and local knowledge yields benefits including improved information products and enhanced observing program efficiency and sustainability. We identify core principles central to such improved links: matching observing program aims, scales, and ability to act on information; matching observing program and community priorities; fostering compatibility in observing methodology and data management; respect of Indigenous intellectual property rights and the implementation of free, prior, and informed consent; creating sufficient organizational support structures; and ensuring sustained community members’ commitment. Interventions to overcome challenges in adhering to these principles are discussed. 

This study explores the relationships between chemical and sensory characteristics of wines in connection with their regions of production. The objective is to identify whether such characteristics are significant enough to serve as signatures of a terroir for wines, thereby supporting the concept of regionality. We argue that the relationships between characteristics and regions of production for the set of wines under study are rendered complicated by possible non-linear relationships between the characteristics themselves. Consequently, we propose a new approach for performing the analysis of the wine data that relies on these relationships instead of trying to circumvent them. This new approach follows two steps: We first cluster the measurements for each characteristic (chemical, or sensory) independently. We then assign a distance between two features to be the mutual entropy of the clustering results they generate. The set of characteristics is then clustered using this distance measure. The result of this clustering is a set of sub-groups of characteristics, such that two characteristics in the same group carry similar, i.e., synergetic information with respect to the wines under study. Those wines are then analyzed separately on the different sub groups of features. We have used this method to analyze the similarities and differences between Malbec wines from Argentina and California, as well as the similarities and differences between sub-regions of those two main wine producing countries. We report detection of groups of features that characterize the origins of the different wines included in the study. We note stronger evidence of regionality for Argentinian Malbec wines than for Californian wines, at least for the sub regions of production included in this study.