Search for: All records

Abstract Cities located in the Arctic often have extreme geographic and environmental contexts and unique sociopolitical and economic trajectories that, when combined with amplified effects of climate change in the region, impact future sustainable development. Well-recognized and standardized sustainable development indicator (SDI) frameworks such as ISO 37120 or UN-Habitat City Prosperity Index are often used to compare data across cities globally using comprehensive sets of indicators. While such indexes help characterize progress toward development and guide short- and long-term decision-making, they often lack relevance to specific contexts or characterize future visions of urban growth. To evaluate the extent of these deficiencies and to provide a comparative analysis of approaches to sustainable urban growth in the Arctic, this paper analyzes city planning documents for five northern cities - Anchorage (USA), Utqiagvik (USA), Reyjavik (ISL), Iqaluit, (CAN), Whitehorse, (CAN) - for goals, targets, and indicators and compare these to thematic areas and indicators defined by ISO 37120:2018 Sustainable Cities and Communities. The results confirm that although international SDI frameworks may be useful for comparative analysis of cities across diverse regions, they exclude important local factors that influence goal-oriented urban sustainability planning strategies employed in the Arctic region. 

Abstract. Permafrost degradation in Arctic lowlands is a critical geomorphic process, increasingly driven by climate warming and infrastructure development. This study applies an integrated geophysical and surveying approach – Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT), Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), and thaw probing – to characterize near-surface permafrost variability across four land use types in Utqiaġvik, Alaska: gravel road, snow fence, residential building and undisturbed tundra. Results reveal pronounced heterogeneity in thaw depths (0.2 to >1 m) and ice content, shaped by both natural features such as ice wedges and frost heave and anthropogenic disturbances. Roads and snow fences altered surface drainage and snow accumulation, promoting differential thaw, deeper active layers, and localized ground deformation. Buildings in permafrost regions alter the local thermal regime through multiple interacting factors – for example, solar radiation, thermal leakage, snow cover dynamics, and surface disturbance – among others. ERT identified high-resistivity zones (>1,000 Ω·m) interpreted as ice-rich permafrost and low-resistivity features (<5 Ω·m) likely associated with cryopegs or thaw zones. GPR delineated subsurface stratigraphy and supported interpretation of ice-rich layers and permafrost features. These findings underscore the strong spatial coupling between surface infrastructure and subsurface thermal and hydrological regimes in ice-rich permafrost. Geophysical methods revealed subsurface features and thaw depth variations across different land use types in Utqiaġvik, highlighting how infrastructure alters permafrost conditions. These findings support localized assessment of ground stability in Arctic environments. 

Arctic vegetation is the visible surface expression of Arctic terrestrial systems. It is the key to monitoring and modeling changes to most components of the system, such as shrub distribution; greening patterns, plant and animal habitats and biodiversity, hydrological networks, and snow distribution, as well as the less visible aspects, such as permafrost, soil carbon stocks, and greenhouse-gas emissions. Currently, there are no standardized approaches to sample, describe, map, and analyze circumpolar patterns of Arctic vegetation across a hierarchy of spatial scales and international boundaries. There is a need for a well-distributed Arctic vegetation observatory network and a set of internationally accepted protocols for sampling, data information systems, classifying, and mapping vegetation to aid in addressing priority research topics for the Fourth International Conference on Arctic Research Planning (ICARP IV) and the The Fifth International Polar Year (IPY5). The Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Science Initiative (CAVSI) is a response to these needs and those expressed by ICARP IV Research Priority Team 1 (RPT 1) (Zhang and Rasouli 2025) and Research Priority Team 2 (RPT2) (Bret-Harte 2025), which focus on the role of the Arctic in the global system and observing, reconstructing, and predicting future Arctic climate dynamics and ecosystem responses. CAVSI is also a response to the recommendation by the Arctic Council for long-term biodiversity monitoring to address key gaps in Arctic-system knowledge (Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) 2013, Christiansen et al. 2020, Barry 2023). It aligns with several national and international Arctic research plans and policies that involve observation, monitoring, modeling, and prediction, including those of the United States (Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) 2022, United States Army Reserve Command (USARC) 2023) and the international Sustaining Arctic Research Network (Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON), Starkweather et al. 2021). This white paper provides a framework for vegetation description and monitoring. It includes: (1) a network of sites across the full range of Arctic climates, phytogeographic regions, local habitats, and disturbance regimes; (2) standardized methods to describe and monitor local floras, vegetation composition, and key environmental factors; (3) a pan-Arctic vegetation plot archive to store legacy and recent plot data; (4) a consistent hierarchical classification and checklist of Arctic vegetation; (5) an archive of Arctic vegetation and landcover maps; (6) applications and ideas for CAVSI IPY5 initiatives; (7) an 11-year timeline for CAVSI activities leading up to and including synthesis from IPY5 activities; and (8) recommendations for priority activities and research related to ICARP IV RPTs 1 and 2. 

Air quality assessments often require source apportioning of the air pollutants observed at the receptor site. Conventional source apportionment models are subject to high uncertainties due to the lack of accurate emission profiles of all the contributing sources and a limited number of measurements at the receptor sites. Recent advances in the development and application of low-cost PM2.5 sensors have facilitated the formation of a more robust database with greater numbers of measurements per location and time. The main objective of this study is to combine a large database of PM2.5 concentration records to records from low-cost sensors in Denver, Colorado, during January 2021. Using wind speed and wind direction at the receptors, we developed a visualization tool for source tracing of PM2.5 with resulting statistical analyses and back-trajectory modeling. For this purpose, a combination of in-house and existing packages of R scripts along with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s trajectory model and climate and weather toolkits were used. In general, the results show that the PM2.5 measurements obtained from such a network of PM2.5 sensors incorporated with hourly wind field data, which are publicly available, can provide a powerful screening tool to discover the transport pathways of PM2.5 before requiring costly source apportionment approaches. The fraction of PM2.5 concentration detected by each sensor in regard to wind direction and speed bins were quantified using this method. The results of cluster analysis identified the area groups in respect to wind speed and wind direction bins, which shines a light on how far and in which direction polluting sources are. Finally, the back-trajectory modeling outputs illustrated the exact travel path of the PM2.5-laden air parcels of each day to each sensor. 

When it comes to climate crisis research, current debates are increasingly thematizing the needs but also the challenges of collaborative, transdisciplinary work. Geophysical characterizations of climate change are increasingly deemed insufficient to respond to the challenges that vulnerable communities face worldwide. In this paper, I describe the work of studying‐while‐caring for an environmental data infrastructure in order to address this issue. I suggest framing “data management” anthropologically as a question of collective stewardship that is better conceived as a “knowledge infrastructure” (Edwards 2010) instead of a formal approach to automated data curation. To examine the sociotechnical blindspots of data management, I elaborate on the anthropological concept of “infrastructural blues” based on the data engineering work I conducted. For the conclusion, I discuss the concept of “common” as a substitute for “open” technologies and address the broader implications of the proposed shift toward community stewardship and self‐determination as guiding practices for socio‐environmental data governance. 

Understanding and redressing the climate crisis in the Arctic demands acknowledging and translating perspectives from frontline communities, environmental scientists, Indigenous knowledge bearers, and social scientists. As a first approximation to the question of how Arctic scientists conceptualize and enact “knowledge co-production,” we analyze how they write about it in their academic publications through a systematic literature review. Based on the results, we identify the lack of clear definition and practical engagement with “co-production” understood as a practice of integrating knowledges and methodological approaches from various disciplines and cultures. We raise concerns regarding researchers’ claims of co-production without understanding what it means, which is particularly harmful for Arctic communities whose knowledge practices scientists have long marginalized and exploited. In response, we argue that feminist STS scholarship provides crucial guidance on how to create and sustain meaningful relationships for knowledge co-production. These relationships can potentially subvert power inequities that have prevented many Arctic science teams from breaking out of traditional disciplinary silos to create new forms of knowledge exchange, particularly those based on notions of care for collaborators, communities, and equity. 

Proceedings of the ARCUS Interdisciplinary Research Committee, an ad-hoc committee established in 2021 by the ARCUS Board of Directors to play an active volunteer leadership role in realizing ARCUS’ 2021–2025 Strategic Plan goals and objectives. The committee convened virtually for 1–1.5 hour-long meetings six times between May 2021 and January 2022 to discuss interdisciplinary research collaboration in the context of wider Arctic research programs and initiatives; identify challenges; explore existing collaborative research programs, tools, and resources; and to recommend specific actions that might be taken to increase the capacity of the wider Arctic research community to productively undertake collaborative, co-produced, and convergence research. This report synthesizes the ideas compiled by the committee and is intended to serve as a resource for anyone working to support the growing number of collaborative research projects and programs taking place in the Arctic today.