human adaptation to climate change in alaska: overview and ... · this lack of climate adaptation...

Human Adaptation to Climate Change in Alaska: Overview and Recommendations for Future Research and Assessment

Sarah F. Trainor1, 2, 3, John E. Walsh1, 2, J. Brook Gamble1 1Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy, 2International Arctic Research Center, 3School of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences

University of Alaska, Fairbanks

Recommended Citation: Trainor, S. F., Walsh, J. E., Gamble, J. B. (2017). Human Adaptation

to Climate Change in Alaska: Overview and Recommendations for Future Research and

Assessment. Technical Report #16-1. International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska

Fairbanks.

Photo Credits: Alaska DNR, Ned Rozell, Gary Hufford

Human Adaptation to Climate Change in Alaska

2

Abstract

The magnitude of climate warming in Alaska and the Arctic has been more than twice the global

average, and related terrestrial and marine impacts are well established. As such, there is a

need for climate adaptation as well as a need for research that directly informs adaptation

practice. We report results of a pilot assessment of climate change adaptation across a range of

natural resource dependent sectors in Alaska and provide recommendations for conducting

climate adaptation research and assessment in Alaska. Sectors addressed include

forestry/wildfire, coastal vulnerability, Native subsistence food harvest, commercial fishing, the

oil and gas industry, shipping and maritime transport, and terrestrial infrastructure. Planning,

research, and monitoring occur at a broad range of scales from international to local, however

adaptation actions occur largely at a local scale with a few instances of state and regional scale

action. Adaptation actions are analyzed according to Pelling’s (2010) classification of

purposeful/ incidental, planned/ spontaneous and proactive/reactive revealing intermediary

categories, further analysis of which has the potential to provide useful insights for adaptation

research and action. Multi- and cross-sector research and assessment is also important in the

region due to cumulative and cascading climate impacts.

Keywords: adaptation; Alaska; Arctic; assessment; climate change; multiple sectors; planning;

coping; disaster risk management; boundary organizations


3

1. Introduction

Over the past 60 years, Alaska and the Arctic have experienced some of the largest

climate changes on Earth, as manifested not only in increasing surface air temperatures but

also in sea ice loss, glacial retreat, permafrost warming, increased river discharge and changing

seasonality (Markon, et al., 2012). Rapid climate change coupled with the multi-decadal

residence time of heat trapping gases in the atmosphere make it imperative that Arctic residents

and governments prepare for and adapt to the changing climate and associated environmental

changes (Larsen, et al., 2014; Warren and Lemmen, 2014).

Human and natural systems are intimately connected and this study focuses on human

adaptation. We use the terms climate adaptation and climate change adaptation synonymously

to refer to human actions in response to climate change and associated environmental change.

Following definitions used by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which are derived

from those used by the U.S. National Academy and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC), we consider adaptation to be an “adjustment in … human systems to a new or

changing environment that exploits beneficial opportunities or moderates negative effects”

(National Academies of Sciences 2010:19).

This paper reports findings from a pilot study in Alaska, USA, designed to better

understand the range of climate adaptation occurring in Alaska and to inform more extensive

future climate adaptation research and assessment. Scientific assessments evaluate the state

of knowledge and synthesize existing peer-reviewed literature on a particular topic at a given

point in time (Howden and Jacobs, 2016). Assessment of climate change and related science

on international and national scales in the United States and Canada are well established and

include a range of topical areas of societal impacts and adaptations (IPCC, 2014; Warren and

Lemmen, 2014; Melillo, et al., 2014). These topical areas are known as sectors and include

water, energy, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, human health, land use, forestry, and

industrial development. While work is more advanced in Canada (Eyzaguirre and Warren,

2014), some scholars argue that studies analyzing existing adaptations to climate change in

developed countries are relatively sparse (Tompkins, et al., 2010; Bierbaum, et al., 2013; Ford,

et al., 2014). This lack of climate adaptation research and assessment in Alaska is evident in

the Artic Council’s compendium of Artic adaptation (The Arctic Council, 2013b).

Existing climate adaptation research and assessment cover a range of activities. Some

focus on the type of activity such as planning and strategic management, creating decision-

support tools, developing technological approaches, conducting research, building and

engaging networks, enacting legislation, creating financial incentives, raising awareness,


4

conducting training and education, advocacy, and mainstreaming climate adaptation with other

activities (Scientific Expert Group on Climate Change, 2007; Tompkins, et al., 2010; The Arctic

Council, 2013b). Other classification schemes center around a societal goal or overall outcome

achieved by the action. These include managing risk, reducing vulnerability, enhancing

resilience, facilitating transition, and initiating transformation (Eakin, et al., 2009; Pelling, 2010;

Kates, et al., 2012). Pelling (2010) summarizes classification of adaptation according to whether

a climate driver is a primary or secondary motivation, the degree of forethought or planning, and

whether actions are proactive or reactive to changing conditions (Table 1).

Variable Type Definition Type Definition Motivation Purposeful Response to

climate driver as a primary motivation

Incidental Response to climate driver as a secondary motivation

Degree of forethought and

planning

Planned High degree of forethought or planning

Spontaneous Little forethought or planning

Action in preparation or

response

Proactive Anticipating driver, hazard or threat

Reactive Responding to driver, hazard or threat

Table 1. Types of Adaptation. Based on (Pelling, 2010). Also reproduced in (Trainor, et

al., 2017).

Recent literature emphasizes the need for evaluation of adaptation policies and actions

in the Arctic, the potential for learning from these evaluations in designing future actions, and

the need for cross- and multi-scale adaptation initiatives that foster networking and learning

(Loboda, 2014). Effectiveness, efficiency, legitimacy and social equity have been proposed as

metrics for evaluating successful adaptation (Adger, et al., 2005a). In their ability to mediate

between scientific knowledge and adaptation practice, boundary organizations can serve an

essential role in climate adaptation and policy (Guston, 2001; Tribbia and Moser, 2008; Dilling

and Lemos, 2011). The capacities and effectiveness of these boundary organizations have

been described in agriculture, climate change, and water resource sectors (Agrawala, et al.,

2001; Cash, 2001; Feldman and Ingram, 2009). Boundary organizations can be especially

helpful in building tribal community empowerment, spanning across-scale, and in facilitating


5

adaptive management (Cash and Moser, 2000; Chapin, et al., 2016). Examples of boundary

organizations in Alaska that support climate adaptation are provided in Table 2.

Name and Location Key Foci Description

Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy (ACCAP), University of Alaska, Fairbanks

Building climate adaptation capacity in coastal communities and research on societal impacts of extreme events.

Funded by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) since 2006 as one of 10 Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) programs. ACCAP works directly with communities to build community-based adaptation plans and conducts relevant use-inspired climate and social science, and partners directly with tribal, local, state, and federal organizations and agencies to bring science to bear in solving problems.

Alaska Fire Science Consortium (AFSC), University of Alaska, Fairbanks

Wildfire research and management application

The primary purpose of the Alaska Fire Science Consortium (AFSC) is to strengthen the link between fire science research and on-the-ground application in Alaska by promoting communication between managers and scientists, providing an organized fire science delivery platform, and facilitating collaborative scientist-manager research development. AFSC is funded by the Joint Fire Science Program as part of their regional Knowledge Exchange Network, and has been building relationships and conducting knowledge exchange activities between scientists and managers in Alaska since 2010.

Community Partnerships for Self-Reliance (CPS), University of Alaska, Fairbanks

Building community self-reliance

CPS has a mission to enhance collaboration between university researchers and Alaska communities to address community-identified research priorities related to self-reliance and sustainability. CPS connects local indigenous knowledge and community information needs with university scientists conducting relevant research, thereby fostering use-inspired science. Leveraged with NSF and NASA funding and focusing on the integrated factors of climate, energy, economics, environmental change, policy, and subsistence practices, this program works closely with rural indigenous communities in Alaska to bridge top-down and bottom-up adaptation planning (Chapin et al. in review).

Table 2. Examples of Boundary Organizations that Support Climate Adaptation in

Alaska. Modified from similar table in (Trainor, et al., 2017)


6

2. Methods

This research was designed as a pilot study to collect preliminary data and identify key

issues for consideration in future research and more in-depth assessments of climate

adaptation in Alaska. We focus on six sectors, or areas of social/environmental interaction, that

were selected based on 2009 U.S. National Climate Assessment (Karl, et al., 2009):

forestry/wildfire, coastal vulnerability, Native subsistence food harvest, commercial fishing, oil

and gas industry, shipping and maritime transport, and terrestrial infrastructure. As a pilot study,

our findings capture only a sample of adaptation actions to inform both on-going and future

adaptation assessment, research, and action. This study is limited by the end of data collection

in July 2013.

We started with a scoping process including focus groups, informal interviews, and a

map exercise. These were aimed at verifying our sector selection and identifying adaptation

actions, key informants, and grey literature. Three targeted focus groups were conducted at

state-wide meetings of coastal managers, tribal environmental professionals, and resource

managers. A short presentation about climate change and its impacts in Alaska was presented

followed by focus group questions: What have you done in your community to respond to

environmental change? What are your next steps? And what do you need to take these steps

effectively? Initial scoping also included an interactive map at the 2011 Alaska Forum on the

Environment conference. Conference participants included tribal environmental leaders from

rural communities across Alaska as well as representatives of state and federal agencies and

non-governmental organizations. Over 60 conference participants responded to the same

questions as focus group participants by filling out a pre-printed card and attaching it to a large

map.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with at least two key informants from each

sector (n=16). Informants were identified through the scoping process and in consultation with

individuals engaged in climate change science, services, and adaptation in Alaska and were

selected based on expertise in the field and state-wide experience (Bernard, 1995). Expertise

was determined by number of years working in Alaska within the respective sector, direct

involvement with communities, industry, or state or federal agencies, and authorship of relevant

publications. Interviewees included representatives from state and federal agencies, industry

trade organizations and consultants, and university scientists. Interviews were conducted by the

three authors between February 2011 and March 2012. Hand-written notes were typed

independently, compared, verified with respondents, and coded using NVivo, a qualitative


7

research software (Gorden, 1992; Bernard, 1995). Relevant reports, memos, brochures and

other forms of grey and white literature were identified in the interview process.

Interviews, grey, and white literature were coded for sector, actor, type of action, and

level of action (international, national, regional, local). Codes for type of action (planning,

research, adaptive action) were identified through the inductive technique of grounded theory

whereby concepts, categories, and relationships are based on interview content, rather than

pre-determined by existing classifications in the literature (Bhattacherjee, 2012). Search and

review of peer-reviewed literature was also conducted with the search terms: Alaska,

adaptation, climate change, environmental change, and sector identifiers.

3. Results

3.1 Planning

Community and strategic planning activities are occurring at international, federal, state,

regional, tribal and community levels and encompass a range of spatial scales. Some of these

activities are part of a national network of climate change planning and strategizing, while others

are unique to Alaska. Many of these plans are being implemented (see 3.3.2) and updated,

however, there are notable exceptions including the recommendations made by the Alaska

State Climate Change Sub-Cabinet.

Internationally, strategic planning is occurring in response to increased Arctic marine

access due to diminishing sea ice extent and the resulting potential for a future increase in

Arctic marine shipping, fishing, oil and gas exploration, and tourism (The Arctic Council, 2009).

For example, the Arctic Council has released an implementation strategy and status report for

the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (The Arctic Council, 2015). In addition to research and

monitoring, international policy has been enacted, guidebooks created, and task forces

established.

At the federal level, strategic planning has occurred in the USA at the Executive Office

level as well as more targeted planning involving the military and a wide range of agencies. The

U.S. Navy’s Task Force on Climate Change released the Arctic Roadmap in 2009, providing a

three-phase action plan for response to rapid Arctic change, with goals including promoting

strong interagency and international partnerships and actively promoting the safety, stability,

and security of the region. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10 Action

Plan from the 2010 Tribal Leaders Summit includes explicit action items related to climate

change including education and communication, tribal consultation and interagency

collaboration. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Arctic Vision &

Strategy was released in 2011, pointing the way for that NOAA’s strategic research, forecasting,


8

partnership and vision of regional resilience. The 2009 National Arctic Policy specifically

identifies climate change and increasing human activity in the Arctic as significant

considerations in U.S. policy and interests related to homeland security, environmental

conservation, energy development, transportation, and scientific research. The 2013 National

Strategy for the Arctic recognizes the need to respond to changing environmental conditions to

safeguard national security, strengthen international cooperation and engage in responsible

stewardship. Unique to Alaska is the Alaska Climate Change Executive Roundtable (ACCER),

which was collaboratively established in 2007 as a forum for senior level executives of federal

agencies to coordinate and share information about climate change research, monitoring and

response. ACCER also includes State of Alaska Departments of Environmental Conservation,

Fish and Game, and Natural Resources.

At the state level, the Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet was established in 2007 to

advise the Office of the Governor on the preparation and implementation of an Alaska climate

change strategy. Advisory groups focused on climate change adaptation, mitigation, immediate

action and research needs. Technical working groups for the adaptation and mitigation advisory

groups included specific analysis of issues such as public infrastructure, health and culture,

natural systems, economic activities, greenhouse gas mitigation through conservation, energy

supply and demand, agriculture, waste, and cross-cutting issues. Final reports for the advisory

and technical working groups were issued in January 2010; as of this writing, however, a

comprehensive state implementation plan has not yet been issued. Unlike most other planning

efforts that could be described as preparedness planning for future impacts, the Immediate

Action Working Group (IAWG) of the Governor’s Subcabinet explicitly addressed actions

needed to respond to imminent threats to rural villages, such as from storm surge and coastal

erosion, and as such put forward recommendations for reactive adaptation. However, while

those imminent threats remain, the IAWG last met in March 2011. Similarly, the Alaska Climate

Change Impact Mitigation Program (ACCIMP) provides grants to communities for planning and

hazard impact assessment to address the immediate planning needs of communities imminently

threatened by climate change-related impacts such as erosion, flooding, storm surge, and

thawing permafrost (Bronen and Chapin, 2013). As of this writing, eight communities have

received planning grants, and six communities have received funding for hazard impact

assessments (S. Russell-Cox, pers. comm.). The community of Newtok is also engaged in

village relocation planning (see 3.3.2).

While not explicitly motivated by climate drivers (incidental), the Alaska State Legislature

established a Northern Waters Task Force in 2010 to identify how the state of Alaska can best


9

meet the political and resource opportunities and challenges of rapidly diminishing Arctic sea

ice. Findings and recommendations of the Task Force emphasize greater state involvement in

Arctic policy and governance, including a top recommendation to ratify the United Nations

Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game developed a Climate Change Strategy (2010)

outlining expected impacts, research needs, management principles, key strategies, and key

actions for pursuing the agency’s mission given expected changes. Key actions include

research and monitoring; coordination with state, federal and university organizations;

developing policy for invasive species; dedicating staff and building program capacity; and

public outreach and involvement. The Alaska Division of Forestry Statewide Forest Resources

Strategy (2010) explicitly highlights goals for response to climate change, including planning for

longer and more intense fire seasons, maintaining forest health through adaptive management,

and participating in carbon sequestration measures. Risk assessment, mapping, and planning

are conducted by the Alaska Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning Program (RiskMAP) and

by the Alaska State Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys.

At the local scale, climate change action plans and vulnerability assessments have been

completed by several municipalities including Homer, Juneau, and the Interior Issues Council of

the Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation. Local community planning and monitoring

has also accompanied climate change health assessments (Brubaker, et al., 2011). These

efforts were in explicit response to climate change and as such purposeful. The community

planning is largely proactive, however in some cases community health assessments report

current health impacts including for example threats to drinking water sources. As such they can

be considered reactive responses.

Several of the communities that received funding through the ACCIMP program outlined

above have completed hazard impact assessments and community climate change plans;

others are still in progress. Twenty wildfire protection plans have been approved, engaging

nearly 90 Alaska communities in collaborative efforts between wildfire suppression agencies,

federal, state and local governments, community groups, and private land owners.

Most of the strategic planning we found is a purposeful, proactive response to climate

change. However, especially in the case of rural, primarily Indigenous communities faced with

flooding, erosion and health impacts, reactive planning is also occurring. Similarly, the state

shifted focus away from purposeful climate change planning with the Governor’s Subcabinet on

Climate change toward incidental planning with the Northern Waters Task Force.


10

3.2 Research and Monitoring

Research and monitoring are forms of climate adaptation under some classification

schemes (Scientific Expert Group on Climate Change, 2007; Tompkins, et al., 2010). Alaska

and the Arctic are scientifically data poor, compared to other regions (U.S. Arctic Research

Commission, 2013). Ongoing climate change related research and monitoring in Alaska address

climate impacts, geographical distribution and rates of climate change, interactions between

climate change and other stressors, and the viability of adaptive responses to change. These

research and monitoring efforts are being carried out across disciplines and by a wide range of

institutions, including federal and state agencies, universities, non-governmental organizations,

local communities, and private industry. Due to the nature of research and monitoring, it is by

and large planned, purposeful, and proactive. However we found examples of reactive

monitoring, such as increased U.S. Coast Guard monitoring and patrols in the Arctic. The

following summary provides select examples of research and monitoring activities that may

directly or indirectly guide adaptive responses to climate change.

On a federal level, agencies such as the NOAA, the U.S. Geological Survey, the

National Park Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy

Management conduct a range of research and monitoring to fulfill their agency missions. In

particular, in 2009, the NOAA National Center for Environmental Information (NCEI) deployed

twenty nine stations in Alaska as part of their U.S. Climate Reference Network. The Department

of Interior (DOI) Alaska Climate Science Center and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

(LCCs) also fund research with specific land and resource management application, including

climate downscaling and integrated modeling. In 2006, NOAA funded the Alaska Center for

Climate Assessment and Policy (ACCAP), one of a network of Regional Integrated Sciences

and Assessments (RISA) programs nation-wide that conduct research on climate science,

adaptation and vulnerability.

Bathymetric charting of Alaska waters has been spurred by both the increase in marine

traffic and the likelihood of offshore oil and gas activity. The U.S. Coast Guard has increased

training missions, patrols, and traffic monitoring in the Arctic. These activities are motivated by

the increase of commercial ship traffic that is expected to continue following the reduction of sea

ice extent and lengthening of the open water season in parts of the Arctic Ocean. The National

Science Foundation and North Pacific Research Board co-funded the Bering Sea Ecosystem

Research Project (2007-2012) investigating a variety of marine ecosystem, oceanographic and

human dimensions questions with climate change components (Sigler, et al., 2010).


11

On a state level, many of the recommendations in the reports of the Governor’s Sub-

Cabinet on Climate Change Immediate Action Working Group and the Research Needs

Working Group pertain to monitoring and research activities in support of adaptation. These

recommendations, however, have yet to be officially implemented. As of this writing, the Alaska

Department of Transportation is in the process of conducting, with federal funds, a climate

change vulnerability assessment of state transportation assets.

On the community level, city and tribal governments as well as community residents

have become increasingly involved with federal and state agencies to address issues of

environmental change (e.g., erosion, river and lake levels, and water availability). Local

community observer programs have been established through several organizations, including

the National Weather Service (NWS) for weather and river ice observations and the University

of Alaska for invasive species (BioMap), and the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium for

local observations of environmental change (LEO Network), especially related to water

availability and the health and availability of subsistence food species. NWS further partners

with the University of Alaska, the Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S., and the Eskimo

Walrus Commission to sponsor the Sea Ice Outlook for Walrus and both the Yukon-Intertribal

Watershed Council and Cook Inletkeeper host community water monitoring programs.

Additional examples of community-based monitoring include the can be found through the

website of the Alaska Ocean Observing System.

There are, of course, research and monitoring activities conducted at universities, much

of which is funded by federal or state agencies. This research spans a wide range of marine,

terrestrial, and climatological investigation, including impacts of climate variability and change

on hydroelectric production; long-term ecological monitoring of terrestrial ecosystems; research

and monitoring of ocean chemistry and ecosystem impacts of ocean acidification; research and

monitoring of the range, health, and population dynamics of fish and marine mammals,

important for commercial and subsistence harvest; and a monitoring program for invasive

species that includes engaging ecotourists in citizen science (Markon, et al., 2012). In addition,

the Alaska non-profit organization, Cook Inletkeeper monitors regional stream temperatures for

sensitive thresholds in key salmon reproductive phases.

A climate change vulnerability assessment was commissioned in 2009 by one of the

major oil and gas producers in the state (Dell and Pasteris, 2010). This study considered the

vulnerability of oil and gas operations to ten climate change related variables including coastal

erosion, increased wildfire on the tundra, ocean acidification impacts on the speed of sound

wave travel, ambient warming impacts on duration of tundra travel season, sea ice coverage


12

and thickness, snow depth and related snow load on structures, permafrost thaw, sea level rise,

and potential disease vectors. Oil and gas companies also routinely monitor caribou and polar

bear populations as well as surface water use as required by the state of Alaska (J. Dell, pers.

comm.).

Figure 1. Summary of adaptive action and scale of response to changing

environmental conditions. This figure summarizes adaptive actions across the range of

sectors. “Local” includes individual, household and community; “regional” refers to a sub-region

of Alaska (such as the Arctic Ocean, North Slope, Southeast, etc.); and “state” refers to

statewide action or a decision made by state level governance or regulatory entity.

3.3 Adaptive Action

In contrast to planning and research, action in response to climate change includes

active implementation of plans, changes in policy, protocol or standard operating procedures, as

well as direct reaction to hazards and opportunities created by rapidly changing environmental

conditions. We describe here identified climate adaptation actions by sector across local,


13

regional and state-wide scales (Figure 1). Table 3 classifies each action according to the types

of adaptation defined in Table 1 (based on Pelling 2010): purposeful, planned, proactive,

incidental, spontaneous and reactive. The criteria for characterizing actions as purposeful is

explicit mention of climate change in documentation of the action.

3.3.1 Wildfire Suppression and Management

Since the year 2000, severe wildfire years in the boreal forest of the Interior Alaska have

become more frequent (Mann, et al., 2012; Partain, et al., 2016), and the recent burning of the

boreal forest exceeds the fire regime limits of the past 10,000 years (Kelly, et al., 2013). There

have also been unprecedented fire occurrences on the tundra of northern and western Alaska

(Chipman, et al., 2015). These increases in fire occurrence correlate with increasing

temperatures in the late spring and early summer (Partain, et al., 2016) and have coincided

with, and likely been at least partially driven by, increases in lightning frequency and decrease in

sea ice extent over the past 15-20 years (Bhatt, et al., 2010). Lightning frequency is projected to

increase further in association with climate warming (Romps, et al., 2014).

In the wildfire management and response sector in Alaska, adaptations include

establishment of new suppression crew training, evolution of tools used to suppress fire, change

in the statutory start date of fire season, and the implementation of community wildfire protection

plans. Fire suppression agencies reported logistical challenges in meeting the increasing

demand for fire suppression in Alaska as well as increasing expenditures on wildfire

suppression annually. The Alaska State Division of Natural Resources initiated several new fire

academies throughout the state motivated by the increasing demand for more highly skilled

workers as well as the need for income in rural Native villages (incidental) (Chapin, et al., 2008).

Experts in wildfire suppression in Alaska also report an evolution in the use of hand tools and

aerial resources in fire suppression. Environmental conditions such as reduced soil and

vegetative (i.e. fuel) moisture have changed such that former hand tool methods are no longer

effective in fire suppression (J. Gould, pers. comm.).

The State of Alaska has moved the statutory start of the fire season forward by one

month from May 1 to April 1, enabling seasonal employees and required trainings to begin

earlier in the season (Fire Season, 2006). This was a direct and deliberate response to the

occurrence of large fires that require more highly trained personnel starting earlier in the season

(C. Maisch, pers. comm.). There is no direct mention, however, of climate change in the statute.

In communities where Community Wildfire Protection Plans have been implemented, wildfire

risk in the immediate vicinity of the community has been reduced through hazard fuel mitigation

projects and shaded fuel breaks.


14

These actions are responses to drier landscape conditions, more flammable fuels, and

large wildfires starting earlier in the season, all of which can be attributed to warmer and drier

climatic conditions (Kasischke and Turetsky, 2006; Balshi, et al., 2008; Chapin, et al., 2008).

These ecological impacts of climate change motivate the emphasis on climate change response

in the state-wide Forest Resources Strategy (2010), however climate change is not identified as

a driver of adaptive actions. There were both spontaneous (e.g. tool evolution) and planned

adaptations (e.g. implementation of community hazard fuel reduction projects). There is

proactive adaptation via community hazard fuel reduction projects, however, adaptations in the

fire suppression sector are also largely reactions to immediate threats (J. Gould, pers. comm.).

3.3.2 Coastal Vulnerability and Community Relocation

Coastal erosion rates are influenced by the frequency and intensity of coastal storms, by

the duration of a protective buffer of sea ice and ultimately, by changes in sea level. A decrease

in late summer and autumn sea ice extent has led to an increase in severe storms occurring

when the shoreline is not protected by shore-fast sea ice (1951-2010), leaving the coast

vulnerable to high waves, storm surges, and related coastal erosion (Melillo, et al., 2014;

Overeem, et al., 2011). The increase is primarily a function of the longer ice-free season, rather

than storm frequency. Overall storm frequencies show little trend south of the Bering Strait. Lack

of sea ice has extended the season for off-shore oil and gas development and maritime

transportation and shipping as well as increased local hazards for Indigenous subsistence

hunters (see 3.3.3.).

In 2009 the US Government Accountability Office identified 31 villages “facing imminent

threat” from both coastal and riverine flooding and erosion noting “limited progress” in village

relocation since the previous assessment six years earlier (US Government Accountability

Office, 2009). In 2006 and 2007, $10 million was invested in the coastal communities of

Kivalina, Shishmaref, and Unalakleet to reinforce the shoreline and provide temporary

protection to infrastructure, much of which was destroyed by subsequent erosion. Other

communities, such as Shaktoolik, are also implementing engineering solutions to guard against

severe flooding, yet remain in immediate danger from storm surge and flooding. While efforts

continue in these communities to create more sustainable solutions, substantial historical and

institutional barriers remain (Marino, 2012; Melillo, et al., 2014).

While several coastal villages are in need of relocation, only one has begun the process

of moving to escape severe erosion, Newtok/Mertarvik. The efforts of the collaborative Newtok

Planning Group in marshaling community support, multi-agency resources, and ongoing

collaboration toward community relocation are an example of both proactive and reactive


15

adaptive action to community risk related to climate change (Bronen, 2011). The village of

Newtok, located on the west-central coast of Alaska, has experienced river bank erosion in

combination with permafrost degradation and repeated flooding over the past several decades,

with the shoreline projected to erode beyond homes, the school, and the community water

source by 2022. Formed in 2006, the Newtok Planning Group has brought together multiple

local, regional, state, and federal entities to contribute time, resources and expertise in planning,

financing and constructing new village infrastructure in a new location. While ongoing funding

and logistical challenges remain, as of this writing a new barge landing, access road, and

foundation for an evacuation shelter have been constructed in the new townsite known as

Mertarvik. A village relocation report was completed in 2011 and a strategic management and

relocation plan was completed in March, 2012. Relocation of the entire community was

scheduled for 2016, however, further progress is stalled (Community of Newtok and the Newtok

Planning Group, 2011, 2012). While these actions have been described as transformative

adaptation (Kates, et al., 2012), the Mertarvik relocation process represents decades of

community planning, fund-raising and lobbying, the relocation is only partly accomplished, and

institutional barriers still exist for full implementation (Bronen and Chapin, 2013; Melillo, et al.,

2014).

3.3.3 Native Subsistence Food Harvest

In rural Alaska, there are over 250 federally recognized tribes and predominantly

Indigenous communities that rely on hunting, fishing and gathering of traditional foods.

Subsistence food harvest is also an important aspect of traditional ways of life and cultural

knowledge. Communities that have relied on intact and predictable ecosystems for food for

generations are adjusting the timing, target, location, and storage of their subsistence food

harvest activities in response to warming temperatures, and changes in seasonal phenology,

hydrologic conditions, and ecosystems (Kofinas, et al., 2010; Cochran, et al., 2013; Wilson,

2014). While Indigenous impacts and opportunities from climate change are not limited to

subsistence food harvest (Cameron, 2012), we emphasize them here in part because food

security is consistently cited by Indigenous peoples in Alaska as a primary concern related to

the environmental impacts of climate change (Markon, et al., 2012, Appendix C).

Similar to adaptations reported elsewhere, most of these activities are occurring on an

individual or household scale in order to meet family and community nutritional requirements

(Kofinas, et al., 2010; Ford, et al., 2014; Mimura, et al., 2014). These actions are motivated by

the need for food harvest rather than response to climate drivers per se and are spontaneous

and reactive (Table 3). For example, Inupiat whalers in Barrow and Point Hope have adapted


16

their whaling practices to changing environmental conditions (Sakakibara, 2010). Similarly, as a

result of diminishing sea ice, residents of the St. Lawrence Island Yupik communities of Gambell

and Savoonga on St. Lawrence Island in the Bering Sea are now able to boat every month of

the year, giving them increased access to marine food sources (Noongwook, et al., 2007).

However, inter-annual variability in marine ecosystem and sea ice conditions create hazards as

well as opportunities. Warming conditions that degrade both river and sea ice make travel and

traditional hunting more dangerous and in 2013 a state of emergency was declared on St.

Lawrence Island because the subsistence walrus harvest failed to meet community nutritional

requirements (Caldwell, 2013; Cochran, et al., 2013).

These subsistence food harvest adaptations to environmental change are neither

purposeful nor planned. They are incidental, spontaneous, reactive, real-time response to

changing environmental conditions in order to continue cultural traditions and meet household

and community nutritional needs. As Henry Huntington, a long-time research partner with Arctic

communities explained, “It is not surprising. If conditions change, people will change their habits

in response.” Deputy Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Craig

Fleener, points out that climate change planning and adaptation “is going on because it has to

go on. It is a matter of survival and of [people] feeding themselves…” Fleener also notes,

however, that “communities are talking a lot about change and what they can do about it,”

indicating a trend toward more purposeful planning and collaborative problem solving in the

subsistence food harvest sector. There is also evidence of networking and advocacy by means

of litigation in response to immediate hazards or threats (Schwartz, 2010; Liebelson, 2013).

3.3.4 Commercial Fishing

The commercial fisheries of Alaska, primarily pollock, crab, and salmon, yield 50% (by

weight) of the seafood produced in the United States. Commercial fishing is the top employer in

Alaska and the third largest economic sector in Alaska (Markon, et al., 2012). To buffer

unknowns about future marine conditions and related cascading impacts to the marine food

web, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) proactively implemented risk-

averse management measures in recent years. Actions include closing the Arctic Ocean to

commercial fishing pending further research on potential ecosystem impacts, limiting bottom-

trawl operation, and instituting adaptive management procedures in instances where changing

climatic variables can be linked to changing fish and shellfish distributions (North Pacific Fishery

Management Council, 2009; Stram and Evans, 2009). This proactive policy follows the

precautionary principle and motivations including the impact of climate drivers on the marine

ecosystem.


17

In 2004 toxic vibrio bacteria found in oysters from Prince William Sound made headlines

as cruise ship passengers were afflicted after consuming the shellfish (McLaughlin, et al., 2005).

Toxic vibrio and paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) blooms are both triggered by warming water

temperatures. To avoid future shellfish poison outbreaks, Alaska Sea Grant Marine Advisory

Program (MAP) agents helped implement a water temperature monitoring and alert system. In a

direct response to warming water temperatures, commercial shellfish farmers now monitor

water temperatures and raise and lower their nets in the water column to ensure they are placed

at an optimal temperature. This spontaneous response involves monitoring linked directly to

action in response to changing environmental conditions that are secondary impacts of climate

change. It requires some planning, but not a high degree.

Commercial fishermen in other parts of the state are also responding to changing marine

conditions by investigating aquaculture and adjusting their timing and location of catch (Loring,

et al., 2011). However, climate change is not the only possible cause of changing fish stocks;

multiple environmental and human factors play a role (Dew and McConnaughey, 2005).

Terry Johnson, Alaska Sea Grant MAP agent highlighted the reactive and incidental

nature of commercial fishers adaptations, “Most adaptation has been on an individual basis. It is

simply a response to changes in the fisheries or the marine environment. People wouldn’t

necessarily identify themselves as responding to climate change.”

Thus, in the commercial fishing sector we found evidence of purposeful, planned and

proactive policy linked to the best available science to mitigate risk. Other adaptive actions in

this sector are largely spontaneous, reactive, and motivated primarily by harvest needs rather

than climate drivers (incidental).

3.3.5 Oil and Gas Industry

In the oil and gas sector, we find evidence of planning and research in addition to what is

noted above. We report this planning and research here because it is directly linked to

purposeful, planned, proactive changes related to infrastructure placement and maintenance as

well as to exploration and drilling activities. Interviews indicate a change in mind-set in the oil

and gas industry and point to specific changes in long-term management, planning, and

development of oil and gas operations that explicitly include consideration of projected future

conditions under climate change (Dell and Pasteris, 2010). “Companies are not just relying on

historic data. They are looking at projections and they are seeing a trend. As they plan new

investments and designs, they are planning for change,” remarked Jan Dell, then Oil and Gas

Industry Consultant with CH2MHill.


18

Oil companies are responding in the near-term to permafrost thaw, changing species

migrations, increased wildfire risk, increased ambient temperatures, and increased river

flooding. These environmental changes have impacted long-term management, operations

planning and design, and worker safety precautions for terrestrial oil and gas operations on

Alaska’s North Slope. For example, companies are changing the design of vertical supports and

infrastructure to prepare for projected future permafrost thaw (J. Dell pers. comm.). In response

to changing polar bear movements related to declining sea ice, oil companies have built roads

around new polar bear dens and halted operations for up to several weeks. Companies are

changing the design of infrastructure as well as health and safety measures at both manned

and un-manned facilities to reduce risk of wildfire and lightning, now more common on the

tundra (Dell and Pasteris, 2010). Companies are also accounting for accelerated coastal

erosion in their design and planning. Existing operations have been analyzed for vulnerability to

erosion. However, to the best of our knowledge, none have been relocated. The increased

threat of ice jams and river bank flooding during spring break-up on the North Slope has led

companies to routinely design for two supply routes into and out of near-river sites to ensure

that the supply chain is not interrupted by flooding.

As ambient soil temperatures warm, vehicle travel on frozen ice roads is limited to fewer

days per operational season. This limits access to resources, forcing required activities to occur

in a shorter time window, and increasing competition for existing roads. Combined, these factors

pose overland travel and safety concerns. Interviews also told of a change in methodology for

ice road construction on the tundra—an adaptation in response to an increasingly shorter ice

road construction season. Companies are engaging in purposeful, planned, proactive

adaptation. They are relying on scientific assessments and changing infrastructure

development, planning, and operations to improve efficiency, output, and worker safety. From

the oil and gas perspective, “Adaptation is primarily local.” (Jan Dell, Oil and Gas Industry

Consultant, CH2MHill).

3.3.6 Shipping and Marine Transport

Diminishing summer sea ice has provided opportunity for expansion in maritime

transport and off-shore oil and gas development in the Chukchi, Beaufort, and Bering Seas.

Taking advantage of this opportunity will require investment in infrastructure and emergency

management for both human safety and environmental protection (Ho, 2010). Commercial

vessel traffic in the Bering Sea has increased, posing risks to human safety, food security,

cultural heritage sites, and the ecosystem (Huntington, et al., 2015). The U.S. Coast Guard is

the lead federal agency for ensuring maritime safety and security in the Arctic. The northern-


19

most year-round Coast Guard station in Alaska, located in Kodiak, is over 1,000 land miles from

Barrow on the Arctic Ocean and over 600 miles from Nome on the Bering Sea. The U.S. Coast

Guard implemented the purposeful, planned, proactive Arctic Shield program in 2011 (formerly

Operation Arctic Crossroads, 2010) and has been building annually on this effort. The program

increases maritime domain awareness while providing operations, outreach, and capability

assessment around the Seward Peninsula, Bering Strait and the Northern Alaska Continental

Shelf from June through October.

3.3.7 Terrestrial Infrastructure

Climate change has been a factor in decision-making related to coastal road and airport

construction and bridge construction for over a decade (McBeath, 2003). Current research

investigating vulnerability to climate change not-withstanding (see 3.2), adaptive actions taken

by the Alaska State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT) have been largely

immediate responses to hazardous conditions (incidental and reactive). Roads, bridges,

airports, and other infrastructure in Alaska are impacted or damaged by floods, landslides,

warming permafrost temperatures, and extreme weather events such as winter rain, and icing.

The DOT has undertaken erosion control, airport rehabilitation, installation of larger culverts,

and new roadway de-icing procedures in addition to research and monitoring. Clint Adler, Chief

of Research, Development and Technology Transfer for the DOT explains that,

The [DOT] activities are often reactive….There are also erosion control projects, flooding studies, airports that are eroding and rehabilitation. You can see that DOT is reacting to damage already occurring. Most can be characterized as emergency response, but we are doing some research to get an idea of what to expect.

While infrastructure projects require a certain degree of planning, long-term, state-level planning

for climate adaptation is in the beginning stages. Climate related permafrost warming is

projected to increase maintenance costs for public infrastructure in Alaska by an estimated 10%

(Larsen, et al., 2008; Hong, et al., 2014).


20

Purposeful Planned Proactive Incidental Spontaneous Reactive Wildfire

Fire fighting crew training X X

X (Staffing

considerations and village

employment opportunity)

Tool evolution X

(Real-time wildfire suppression)

X X

Change in fire season statutory start date

X X

X (Earlier start

dates of wildfire; no mention of

climate change in statute)

Implementation of community wildfire protection plans

X X X

(Wildfire hazard mitigation)

Coastal Vulnerability

Shoreline reinforcement X

Both Anticipating future

events

X (Coastal erosion

hazard mitigation)

Both Responding to

past events

Community relocation (Mertarvik)

Both (Planning for

climate related changes)

X Both

Anticipating future events

Both (Response to

existing erosion)

Both Responding to

past events

Native Subsistence Food Harvest

X (Food harvest) X X

Commercial Fishing

NPFMC moratorium X X X

Mariculture oyster net setting

Between high degree and some planning

X (Oyster harvest,

commercial viability)


X

Adjusting timing and location of catch

X

(Commercial fish harvest, viability)

X X

Oil & Gas Industry Infrastructure and supply route redesign

X X X

Shipping USCG Arctic Shield

Both (Climate change one of several

motivating factors)

X X

Both (Maritime safety

additional motivating factor)

Terrestrial Infrastructure


X Between

high degree and some planning

X


21

Table 3. Adaptation actions classified within Pelling’s typology: purposeful, planned,

proactive, incidental, spontaneous, reactive. Identified adaptation actions in Alaska included

purposeful and incidental, planned and spontaneous as well as proactive and reactive (see

Table 1 for definitions). Several adaptation actions fit into both categories of

purposeful/incidental and proactive/reactive. Results also suggest a spectrum between planned

(high degree of forethought and planning) and spontaneous (little forethought and planning).

Primary motivations for incidental adaptations are in parenthesis.

4. Discussion - Recommendations for climate adaptation research and assessment in

Alaska

This pilot study suggests the following recommendations for climate adaptation research

and assessment in Alaska. Many of these are also applicable Arctic-wide. Given the rapid

environmental changes and the associated need for societal response, these recommendations

focus on ways to build meaningful links between scientific research and adaptation action at

multiple levels, tribal, local, regional, national and international (Cash, et al., 2003; Chapin, et

al., 2016; Arctic Observing Summit, 2016), including creating actionable science (The Arctic

Council, 2013b). Recommendations include strategies to avoid maladaptation, evaluating the

effectiveness of adaptation action, and ways to remain flexible in adjusting adaptation actions

accordingly in response to these evaluations (The Arctic Council, 2013a; Eyzaguirre and

Warren, 2014).

4.1. Comparisons of Adaptation Types

This overview suggests that future climate adaptation research and assessment in

Alaska would benefit from deliberate attention to motivation, degree of forethought and

planning, and the extent to which the adaptation is proactive versus reactive (Tables 1 & 2).

These distinctions are likely to be important variables in building bridges between science and

adaptation action as well as in assessing adaptation success and in adjusting adaptation

actions accordingly for continued effectiveness.

4.1.1. Purposeful vs Incidental Adaptation - Building Bridges Between Science and

Adaptation Action

Adaptations with climate change as the primary motivation are purposeful. While

motivation may be less significant in terms of evaluating the outcomes of adaptation actions, it

can be an important variable for climate science communication and application in decision-

making. If adaptation actions are incidental, i.e. response to climate change is not the primary


22

motivation of adaptation action, then scientists who intend their research to have broader

impacts to decision-making and the boundary organizations that work to build bridges between

science and adaptation will need to:

• Expand their vision of their audience. Scientists, science translators, and science

communicators may miss important audiences if the relevant decision-makers or

stakeholders are not explicitly looking for climate related information (Meadow, et al.,

2015).

• Explicitly investigate and describe links between climate variables and decision-

maker concerns. Conversely, when decisions and actions are primarily motivated by

factors other than climate change, scientists and boundary organizations that bridge

science and decision-making need to investigate and clearly articulate how climate

variables impact the variables of primary concern (see Table 3).

• Understand the broader context of decision-making. When the primary motivation for

action is a factors other than climate change, making climate related science relevant

to decision-making will require having a nuanced understanding of decision-makers’

motivations, priorities, and values (O'Brien and Wolf, 2010).

Better understanding the primary motivation for decisions will allow scientists to more

effectively collaborate with decision-makers and design their research to be relevant in specific

decision contexts. Investigation of the motivations of adaptation action will also help scientists

better analyze potential barriers and catalysts to adaptation. For example, if motivations for

action are not climate related, overcoming barriers to action may require cross-disciplinary

consideration and a range of innovative approaches. Furthermore, measuring the success of

these adaptations will require assessing the extent to which outcomes achieve a range of goals,

including non-climate related motivations.

4.1.2. Planned vs Spontaneous Adaptation - Building Adaptive Capacity and

Assessing Adaptation Action

In Alaska, there is a range of planning happening on international, federal, state,

regional, and local levels. This demonstrates that leadership and governance on multiple levels

recognize that climate and environmental change is underway, that this change has societal

implications, and that there is a need to accurately anticipate, plan, and prepare for continued

change. Planning efforts are an important and necessary step toward adaptation. However,

time, resources, leadership, political will, and motivation are required for planning and

coordination as well as for follow-up, implementation, and subsequent monitoring and

evaluation. These assets may be inequitably distributed across sectors (Adger, et al., 2006).


23

Planning in and of itself does not necessarily lead to effective adaptation, as plans and policy

recommendations face an array of challenges and barriers (Moser and Ekstrom, 2010; The

Arctic Council, 2013b) and, as with the case of Alaska’s Governor’s Climate Change Sub-

Cabinet, may fail to be implemented due to political, economic, or other obstacles.

Spontaneous adaptations do occur, especially in key sectors such as indigenous

subsistence food harvest. Analysis and assessment of these adaptations can help identify key

factors for building adaptive capacity and adaptation learning networks. Comparing barriers,

effectiveness, efficiency, and equity components of planned and spontaneous actions may

provide insights for scientists and decision-makers interested in avoiding maladaptation and in

working to build adaptive capacity.

4.1.3. Proactive vs Reactive Adaptation– Links Between Climate Adaptation and

Disaster/Hazard Response

While we identified actions in response to climate change that are proactive planning to

prepare for future conditions, we found several adaptation actions that are reactions to hazards,

threats, or imminent emergency conditions (Table 3). Coping with hazards has been addressed

in the food security and disaster risk management literature and discussed largely from the

standpoint of individual or household level actors (Pelling 2010). Various models in the climate

adaptation literature have been proposed to distinguish coping and coping capacity from

adaptation and adaptive capacity, most of which similarly view coping as a shorter-term

situational response on an individual or household level and distinguish adaptation as change in

the contextual legal, cultural, and other institutional conditions within which individuals and

households operate (Berkes and Jolly, 2001; Pelling, 2010). While some work has been done to

build conceptual linkages between the disaster risk management and climate adaptation fields

(Thomalla, et al., 2006; Birkmann and Teichman, 2010; IPCC, 2012), in northern latitudes where

rapid warming is linked to extreme hazards as well as to economic impacts and opportunities,

there are existing research gaps in both theory building and case study analysis to bridge these

fields (Bronen and Chapin, 2013; Cochran, et al., 2013; Ford, et al., 2014; Eicken and Mahoney,

2015; Taylor, et al., 2016).

In Alaska,, we found reactive actions occurring across a range of actors, several of

which extend beyond the existing theoretical framework for coping with hazards. While

individual and household level response to changes in immediate environmental conditions is

clearly apparent in subsistence food harvest and also in the case of mariculture, reactive coping

responses to short-term emergency and hazard conditions occur on regional and collective

levels, such as with terrestrial infrastructure. In addition, the collective efforts of agents across a


24

range of levels (local, state and federal) to relocate the Native village of Newtok to Mertarvik is

another example. This efforts is on-going for over a decade and is a complex situation in which

proactive and reactive adaptation occurs simultaneously as the village is coping with short-term

immediate threats of erosion while planning for longer-term adaptation and relocation.

Due to the rate and magnitude of climate and related environmental change in the Arctic,

we are likely to see an increase in both proactive and reactive adaptation in Alaska and northern

latitudes. Additional research could explore how actors can remain nimble to correct

maladaptive short-term coping if it is recognized to be detrimental in the longer term (Barnett

and O’Neill, 2010) and compare cost and effectiveness between proactive and reactive

measures (Easterling, et al., 2004).

4.1.4. Assessing Adaptation Classifications and Cross-Case Learning

Several of the adaptation actions that we identified did not fit squarely into the

dichotomous categories of purposeful/incidental, planned/spontaneous, and proactive/reactive

(Table 3). Some of the actions, such as community relocation and the US Coast Guard Arctic

Shield program, are both purposeful and incidental in that they are motivated equally by

response to climate change and other goals and considerations. Similarly, actions in response

to coastal vulnerability, both shoreline reinforcement and community relocation, are

simultaneously reacting to immediate hazard conditions and proactively planning for future

conditions. In the cases of mariculture net setting and adaptations undertaken by the Alaska

DOT, adaptation actions required a degree of forethought and planning somewhere between a

“high degree” and “little.” Understanding these nuances in adaptation classification and

identifying adaptation actions with similar characteristics can facilitate cross-case learning and

building adaptive capacity (Loboda, 2014).

4.2. Cross-scale Linkages, Learning, and Networking

Scale is an important factor in assessing adaptation effectiveness (Adger, et al., 2005a).

We found that while planning, research, and monitoring occur at a broad range of scales from

international to local, adaptation actions occur largely at a local scale with a few instances of

state and regional scale action (Figure 1). In some cases, such as Native subsistence food

harvest, action occurs in a local area, however, multiple individuals throughout a region may

engage in similar activities. Similarly, actions in response to coastal vulnerability occur at the

local scale yet may be implemented in multiple locales in a region. Thus, these individual

actions are not limited to the local level, but collective actions of multiple individuals can have

regional impact.


25

As local-scale innovation responds to changing conditions, boundary organizations

whose mission is to specifically facilitate collaborative information flow between research and

policy communities can help bridge the top-down and bottom-up approaches to climate

adaptation and also help build communication networks (Cash and Moser, 2000; Cash, et al.,

2006; Chapin, et al., 2016). Furthermore, research has shown that especially for rural

Indigenous communities, there is a ceiling to localized action, which is constrained by political

history, policy, regulatory, and funding barriers (Bronen, 2011; Loring, et al., 2011; Marino,

2012; McNeeley, 2012; Wilson, 2014). Solutions for these communities, must thus also involve

institutional change, which requires cross-scale connections (Pahl-Wostl, 2009; Cochran, et al.,

2013). Bridging the local, regional, state, and national needs, perceptions, and values (O'Brien,

2010) can help ensure that higher level institutional planning sets a trajectory that is

complimentary to locally derived needs and resulting adaptations.

As illustrated in the Newtok Planning Group, an informal boundary organization that has

overseen relocation of the erosion vulnerable community of Newtok to a new location of

Mertarvik, considerable coordination of multiple actors across local, tribal, state, and federal

jurisdiction is required (Community of Newtok and the Newtok Planning Group, 2011; Bronen

and Chapin, 2013). Overcoming historical patterns of settler-colonial relations between Tribes

and state and federal governments, as well as policy and financial obstacles inherent in this

type of cross-scale action, will be critical for climate adaptation in Alaska and the Arctic,

especially in remote, rural, Indigenous communities that face immediate and complex

adaptation challenges (Ostrom, 2010; Cameron, 2012; Marino, 2012; Bronen and Chapin, 2013;

Cochran, et al., 2013; The Arctic Council, 2013b). Networks that include actors at multiple levels

are effective problem solving mechanisms and foster reflexive learning (Valente, 1996;

Agranoff, 2006; Pahl-Wostl, 2009). Cross-scale linkages and the social learning they foster are

core elements of adaptive capacity (Adger, 2003; Cash, et al., 2006; Pelling, et al., 2008).

Thus, cross-scale networking and social learning are likely to be important elements for climate

adaptation in Alaska throughout all sectors.

However, if independent localized adaptations are effectively meeting short-term needs,

there may be longer-term unintended consequences to cross-scale integration, the relative

benefits of which have yet to be determined. For example, engaging regional or state-level

institutions in locally specific adaptation may introduce inhibiting regulation or bureaucratic

delays or it may disempower local stakeholders (Adger, et al., 2005b). Balancing the short and

long-term practical advantages and disadvantages of cross-scale integration may require case-


26

by-case evaluation (Barnett and O’Neill, 2010) keeping short, medium and long-term goals in

mind. Either way, local empowerment is critical (Cochran, et al., 2013).

4.3. Multi- and Cross-sector Adaptation Research and Assessment

More extensive work is needed on a sector by sector basis in Alaska to identify adaptive

actions, investigate motivations and barriers to action, analyze components of successful

adaptation, and interrogate the institutional structures that both facilitate and inhibit adaptive

action. Existing assessments of climate adaptation research in the Arctic note a research

emphasis on Indigenous Peoples at the community, household and individual levels (Ford, et

al., 2014; Larsen, et al., 2014). Comprehensive assessment of adaptation in multiple sectors

and by government, industry, trade organizations, has been done in Canada (Warren and

Lemmen, 2014), however minimal comparable work has occurred in Alaska (see e.g. The Arctic

Council, 2013b). The need to more fully incorporate commercial sectors such as manufacturing

and services into climate and adaptation assessments has been emphasized with regard to

Indigenous communities (Cameron, 2012) and more recently in terms of national level climate

assessment (Liverman, 2016). Multi- and cross sector analysis has academic and practical

advantages.

First, multi- and cross-sector research and assessment can illuminate areas for cross-

sector learning. For example, research to identify the structural and functional aspects of the

Newtok Planning Group and the multi-level process of planning and implementation of

community relocation in response to coastal vulnerability that this group oversees, may inform

parallel adaptation efforts in Indigenous communities related to food security or processes for

adapting to increased shipping traffic. Similarly, state level adaptations in the wildfire sector may

provide helpful models for adaption in transportation and infrastructure.

Second, multi-sector research and cross-sector comparisons can help us better

understand the cascading and cumulative impacts of climate change, industrial development

and societal change, and the complex dynamics of the multi-level linked social and

environmental system (Gunn and Noble, 2009; Huntington, et al., 2012; Noble, et al., 2013).

Adaptations in one sector may increase or decrease adaptive capacity in other sectors. For

example, actions by terrestrial and off-shore resource developers will influence community

adaptation and adaptive capacity. This is especially relevant in situations where, for example,

industrial development will impact rural indigenous communities and potentially their capacity to

adapt to both ecological and industrial changes that effect their subsistence food harvest.

Adaptation research and assessment with the singular focus on local indigenous traditional

activities, overlooks important community economic opportunity and environmental concerns of


27

resource development. The policy implications from such research are similarly limited

(Cameron, 2012).

5. Conclusion

Rapid climate related environmental change in Alaska and the Arctic require human

response and adaptation on multiple levels from local to international. This pilot study identifies

existing adaptation planning, research, and action in Alaska across a range of sectors.

Planning, research, and monitoring occur at a broad range of scales from international to local,

however adaptation actions occur largely at a local scale with a few instances of state and

regional scale action. While purposeful, planned, and proactive adaptations are needed,

analysis and assessment of incidental, spontaneous, and reactive adaptations can provide both

practical and theoretical insights including building bridges between science and adaptation

action, building adaptive capacity, assessing adaptation actions, and linking the fields of

disaster response and climate adaptation. However, these classifications of adaptation are not

dichotomous and considering each as occurring along a spectrum has the potential to provide

insight and innovation in climate adaptation. Overcoming adaptation barriers and evaluating

adaptation success will benefit from analysis of cross-scale linkages and social learning

networks. Due to the complex nature of the regional human/natural system adaptation research

and assessment will be most beneficial if it incorporates multi- and cross-sectoral consideration.

Acknowledgements: This research was supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Climate Program Office Grant NA11OAR4310141 through the Alaska Center for Climate

Assessment and Policy at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, by Alaska EPSCoR NSF award #OIA-

1208927, and the State of Alaska and by the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI)

CRN 2015 and SGP-CRA2015, which were supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation (grants

GEO-0452325 and GEO-1138881). The authors thank all interviewees for their time and insights as well

as F.S. Chapin III and Philip Loring for thoughtful review and helpful comments on previous versions and

Nathan Kettle, Alison York and Carolyn Rosner for suggestions and assistance with the tables and figure.


28

6. References The National Academies. 2010. Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change. The National

Academies Press. Adger, W. N. 2003. Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change.

Economic Geography, 79: 4, 387-404. Adger, W. N., Arnell, N. W. and Tompkins, E. L. 2005a. Successful adaptation to climate

change across scales. Global Environmental Change, 15: 2, 77-86. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.005

Adger, W. N., Brown, K. and Tompkins, E. L. 2005b. The Political Economy of Cross-Scale Networks in Resource Co-Management. Ecology and Society, 10: 2,

Adger, W. N., Paavola, J., Huq, S., Mace, M. J. and Mace, M. J. 2006. Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change. The MIT Press. Cambridge.

Agranoff, R. 2006. Inside Collaborative Networks: Ten Lessons for Public Managers. Public Administration Review, 66: 56-65. 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00666.x

Agrawala, S., Broad, K. and Guston, D. H. 2001. Integrating Climate Forecasts and Societal Decision Making: Challenges to an Emergent Boundary Organization. Science, Technology & Human Values, 26: 4, 454-477. 10.1177/016224390102600404

Balshi, M. S., McGuire, A. D., Duffy, P., Flannigan, M., Walsh, J. and Melillo, J. 2008. Assessing the response of area burned to changing climate in western boreal North America using a Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS) approach. Global Change Biology, 15: 3, 578-600.

Barnett, J. and O’Neill, S. 2010. Maladaptation. Global Environmental Change, 20: 2, 211-213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.11.004

Berkes, F. and Jolly, D. 2001. Adapting to Climate Change: Social-Ecological Resilience in a Canadian western Arctic community. Conservation Ecology, 5: 2, 18.

Bernard, H. R. 1995. Research Methods in Anthropology. Alta Mira Press. Walnut Creek, CA. Bhatt, U. S., Walker, D. A., Raynolds, M. K., Comiso, J. C., Epstein, H. E., Jia, G., Gens, R., et

al. 2010. Circumpolar Arctic Tundra Vegetation Change Is Linked to Sea Ice Decline. Earth Interactions, 14: 8, 1-20. 10.1175/2010ei315.1

Bhattacherjee, A. 2012. Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices. University of South Florida. Tampa.

Bierbaum, R., Smith, J., Lee, A., Blair, M., Carter, L., Chapin, F. S., III, Fleming, P., et al. 2013. A comprehensive review of climate adaptation in the United States: more than before, but less than needed. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 18: 3, 361-406. 10.1007/s11027-012-9423-1

Birkmann, J. and Teichman, K. v. 2010. Integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: key chalenges - scales, knowledge and norms. Sustainability Science, 5: 171-184. 10.1007/s11625-010-0108-y

Bronen, R. 2011. Climate-Induced Community Relocations: Creating an Adaptive Governance Framework Based in Human Rights Doctrine. N.Y.U. Review of Law and Social Change, 35: 356-406.

Bronen, R. and Chapin, F. S. 2013. Adaptive governance and institutional strategies for climate-induced community relocations in Alaska. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110: 23, 9320-9325.

Brubaker, M., Berner, J., Chavan, R. and Warren, J. 2011. Climate change and health effects in Northwest Alaska. Global Health Action, 4: 0,

Caldwell, S. 2013. Disaster declared for subsistence walrus hunt on St. Lawrence Island. Alaska Dispatch News.http://www.adn.com/article/20130902/disaster-declared-subsistence-walrus-hunt-st-lawrence-island.


29

Cameron, E. S. 2012. Securing Indigenous politics: A critique of the vulnerability and adaptation approach to the human dimensions of climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Global Environmental Change, 22: 1, 103-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.11.004

Cash, D. W. and Moser, S. C. 2000. Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Global Environmental Change, 10: 2, 109-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00017-0

Cash, D. W. 2001. "In Order to Aid in Diffusing Useful and Practical Information": Agricultural Extension and Boundary Organizations. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26: 4, 431-453.

Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D., Jager, J., et al. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, 100: 14, 8086-8091.

Cash, D. W., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., et al. 2006. Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World. Ecology and Society, 11: 2,

Chapin, F. S., Trainor, S. F., Huntington, O., Lovecraft, A. L., Zavaleta, E., Natcher, D. C., McGuire, A. D., et al. 2008. Increasing Wildfire in Alaska's Boreal Forest: Pathways to Potential Solutions of a Wicked Problem. BioScience, 58: 6, 531-540. 10.1641/b580609

Chapin, F. S., Knapp, C. N., Brinkman, T. J., Bronen, R. and Cochran, P. 2016. Community-empowered adaptation for self-reliance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 19: 67-75. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.12.008

Chipman, M. L., Hudspith, V., Higuera, P. E., Duffy, P. A., Kelly, R., Oswald, W. W. and Hu, F. S. 2015. Spatio-temporal patterns of tundra fires: Quaternary charcoal records from Alaska. Biogeosciences, 12: 4012-4027.

Cochran, P., Huntington, O., Pungowiyi, C., Tom, S., Chapin, F. S., III, Huntington, H., Maynard, N., et al. 2013. Indigenous frameworks for observing and responding to climate change in Alaska. Climatic Change, 120: 557-567. 10.1007/s10584-013-0735-2

Community of Newtok and the Newtok Planning Group. 2011. Relocation Report: Newtok to Mertarvik.

Community of Newtok and the Newtok Planning Group. 2012. Strategic Management Plan. Dell, J. J. and Pasteris, P. 2010. Adaptation in the Oil and Gas Industry to Projected Impacts of

Climate Change. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Dew, C. B. and McConnaughey, R. A. 2005. Did Trawling on the Brood Stock Contribute to the

Collapse of Alaska's King Crab? Ecological Applications, 15: 3, 919-941. 10.1890/03-5231

Dilling, L. and Lemos, M. C. 2011. Creating usable science: Opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Global Environmental Change, 21: 2, 680-689. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.11.006

Eakin, H., Tompkins, E. L., Nelson, D. R. and Anderies, J. M. 2009. Hidden costs and disparate uncertainties: trade-offs involved in approaches to climate policy. In: Adger, W. N., et al. Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. 212-226.

Easterling, W. E. I., Hurd, B. H. and Smith, J. B. 2004. Coping with Global Climate Change: The Role of Aadaptation in the United States. Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Eicken, H. and Mahoney, A. R. 2015. Sea Ice: Hazards, Risks, and Implications for Disasters. In: Sherman, J. F., et al. Coastal and Marine Hazards, Risks, and Disasters. Elsevier. Boston. 381-401.

Eyzaguirre, J. and Warren, F. J. 2014. Adaptation: Linking Research and Practice. In: Warren, F. J. and Lemmen, D. S. Canada in a Changing Climate: Sector Perspectives on Impacts and Adaptation. Government Canada. Ottawa, ON. p. 253-286.


30

Feldman, D. L. and Ingram, H. M. 2009. Making Science Useful to Decision Makers: Climate Forecasts, Water Management, and Knowledge Networks. Weather, Climate, and Society, 1: 1, 9-21. 10.1175/2009wcas1007.1

Fire Season § 41.15.050. 2006. State of Alaska. Ford, J., D. , McDowell, G. and Jones, J. 2014. The state of climate change adaptation in the

Arctic. Environmental Research Letters, 9: 10, 104005. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/10/104005

Gorden, R. L. 1992. Basic Interviewing Skills. Waveland Press, Inc. Prospect Heights, IL. Gunn, J. H. and Noble, B. F. 2009. Integrating cumulative effects in regional strategic

environmental assessment frameworks: lessons from practice. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 11: 267–290.

Guston, D. H. 2001. Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction. Science, Technology & Human Values, 26: 4, 399-408.

Ho, J. 2010. The implications of Arctic sea ice decline on shipping. Marine Policy, 34: 3, 713-715. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.10.009

Hong, E., Perkins, R. and Trainor, S. F. 2014. Thaw Settlement Hazard of Permafrost Related to Climate Warming in Alaska. Arctic, 67: 1, 93-103.

Howden, M. and Jacobs, K. L. 2016. Innovations in assessment and adaptation: building on the US National Climate Assessment. Climatic Change, 135: 1, 157-171. 10.1007/s10584-015-1519-7

Huntington, H. P., Goodstein, E. and Euskirchen, E. 2012. Towards a Tipping Point in Responding to Change: Rising Costs, Fewer Options for Arctic and Global Societies. Ambio, 41: 66-74.

Huntington, H. P., Daniel, R., Hartsig, A., Harun, K., Heiman, M., Meehan, R., Noongwook, G., et al. 2015. Vessels, risks, and rules: Planning for safe shipping in Bering Strait. Marine Policy, 51: 119-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.07.027

IPCC. 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC. Geneva, Switzerland.

Karl, T. R., Melillo, J. M. and Peterson, T. C. 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press.

Kasischke, E. S. and Turetsky, M. R. 2006. Recent changes in the fire regime across the North American boreal region: spatial and temporal patterns of burning across Canada and Alaska. Geophysical Research Letters, 33: doi:10.1029/2006GL025677,

Kates, R. W., Travis, W. R. and Wilbanks, T. J. 2012. Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109: 19, 7156-7161.

Kelly, R., Chipman, M., Higuera, P. E., Stefanova, I., Brubaker, L. N. and Hu, F. S. 2013. Recent burning of boreal forests exceeds fire regime limits of the past 10,000 years. Proceedings, Nat. Acad. Sci, 110: 32, 4012-4027.

Kofinas, G. P., Chapin III, F. S., BurnSilver, S., Schmidt, J. I., Fresco, N. L., Kielland, K., Martin, S., et al. 2010. Resilience of Athabascan subsistence systems to interior Alaska's changing climate. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 40: 7, 1347-1359. 10.1139/x10-108

Larsen, J. N., Anisimov, O. A., Constable, A., Hollowed, A. B., Maynard, N., Prestrud, P., Prowse, T. D., et al. 2014. Polar regions. In: Barros, V. R., et al. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of


31

Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 1567-1612.

Larsen, P., Goldsmith, S., Smith, O., Wilson, M., Strzepek, K., Chinowsky, P. and Saylor, B. 2008. Estimating future costs for Alaska public infrastructure at risk from climate change. Global Environmental Change, 18: 3, 442-457.

Liebelson, D. 2013. Alaska's Supreme Court Will Rule on This College Freshman's Global Warming Lawsuit. Mother Jones.http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/10/meet-college-freshman-suing-alaska-not-stopping-global-warming.

Liverman, D. 2016. U.S. National climate assessment gaps and research needs: overview, the economy and the international context. Climatic Change, 135: 1, 173-186. 10.1007/s10584-015-1464-5

Loboda, T. V. 2014. Adaptation strategies to climate change in the Arctic: a global patchwork of reactive community-scale initiatives. Environmental Research Letters, 9: 11, 111006.

Loring, P. A., Gerlach, S. C., Atkinson, D. E. and Murray, M. S. 2011. Ways to Help and Ways to Hinder: Governance for Effective Adaptation to an Uncertain Climate. Arctic, 64: 1, 73-88.

Mann, D. H., Rupp, T. S., Olson, M. A. and Duffy, P. A. 2012. Is Alaska's boreal forest now crossing a major ecological threshold? Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 44: 3, 319-331.

Marino, E. 2012. The long history of environmental migration: Assessing vulnerability construction and obstacles to successful relocation in Shishmaref, Alaska. Global Environmental Change, 22: 2, 374-381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.09.016

Markon, C. J., Trainor, S. F. and Chapin III, F. S. 2012. The United States National Climate Assessment – Alaska Technical Regional Report. U. S. Geological Survey, Circular 1379.

McBeath, J. 2003. Institutional Responses to Climate Change: The Case of the Alaska Transportation System. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 8: 3-28.

McLaughlin, J. A., DePaola, A., Boop, C. A., Martinek, K. A., Napolilli, N. P., Allison, C. G., Murry, S. L., et al. 2005. Outbreak of vibrio parahaemolyticus gastroenteritis associated with Alaskan oysters. New England Journal of Medicine, 353: 14, 1463-1470.

McNeeley, S. 2012. Examining barriers and opportunities for sustainable adaptation to climate change in Interior Alaska. Climatic Change, 111, 835-857. 10.1007/s10584-011-0158-x

Meadow, A. M., Ferguson, D. B., Guido, Z., Horangic, A., Owen, G. and Wall, T. 2015. Moving toward the Deliberate Coproduction of Climate Science Knowledge. Weather, Climate, and Society, 7: 2, 179-191. 10.1175/WCAS-D-14-00050.1

Melillo, J. M., Richmond, T. T. C. and Yohe, G. W. 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Mimura, N., Pulwarty, R. S., Duc, D. M., Elshinnawy, I., Redsteer, M. H., Huang, H.-Q., Nkem, J. N., et al. 2014. Adaptation planning and implementation. In: Field, C. B., et al. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 869-898.

Moser, S. C. and Ekstrom, J. A. 2010. A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107: 51, 22026-22031.

Noble, B., Ketilson, S., Aitken, A. and Poelzer, G. 2013. Strategic environmental assessment opportunities and risks for Arctic offshore energy planning and development. Marine Policy, 39: 296–302.


32

National Academies of Sciences (2010). America's Climate Choices: Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change. National Academies Press.

Noongwook, G., Savoonga;, T. N. V. o., Gambell;, T. N. V. o., Huntington, H. P. and George, J. C. 2007. Traditional Knowledge of the Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus) around St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Arctic, 60: 1, 47-54.

North Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2009. Fishery Management Plan for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area.

O'Brien, K. L. and Wolf, J. 2010. A values-based approach to vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1: 2, 232-242. 10.1002/wcc.30

Ostrom, E. 2010. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20: 4, 550-557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004

Overeem, I., Anderson, R. S., Wobus, C. W., Clow, G. D., Urban, F. E. and Matell, N. 2011. Sea ice loss enhances wave action at the Arctic coast. Geophysical Research Letters, 38: 17,

Pahl-Wostl, C. 2009. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19: 3, 354-365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001

Partain, J. L., Alden, S., Bhatt, U. S., Bieniek, P. A., Brettschneider, B. R., Lader, R., Olsson, P. Q., et al. 2016. An assessment of the role of anthropogenic climate change in the Alaska fire season of 2015. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Submitted:

Pelling, M., High, C., Dearing, J. and Smith, D. 2008. Shadow spaces for social learning: a relational understanding of adaptive capacity to climate change within organisations. Environment and Planning A, 40: 4, 867-884.

Pelling, M. 2010. Adaptation to Climate Change : From Resilience to Transformation. Taylor and Francis.

Romps, D. M., Seeley, J. T., Vollaro, D. and Molinari, J. 2014. Projected increase in lightning strikes in the United States due to global warming. Science, 346: 6211, 851-854.

Sakakibara, C. 2010. Kiavallakkikput Agviq (Into the Whaling Cycle): Cetaceousness and Climate Change Among the I˜nupiat of Arctic Alaska. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100: 4, 1003-1012.

Schwartz, J. 2010. Courts as Battlefields in Climate Fights. The New York Times.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/business/energy-environment/27lawsuits.html?_r=0.

Scientific Expert Group on Climate Change. 2007. Confronting Climate Change: Avoiding the Unmanageable and Managing the Unavoidable. United Nations Foundation. Washington, D.C.

Sigler, M. F., Harvey, H. R., Ashjian, J., Lomas, M. W., Napp, J. M., Stabeno, P. J. and Van Pelt, T. I. 2010. How Does Climate Change Affect the Bering Sea Ecosystem? Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 91: 48, 457-457.

Stram, D. L. and Evans, D. C. K. 2009. Fishery management responses to climate change in the North Pacific. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66: 1633-1639. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsp138

The Arctic Observing Summit 2016 - Conference Statement. 2016. http://www.arcticobservingsummit.org/sites/arcticobservingsummit.org/files/AOS%20Conference%20Statement_Final_0.pdf.

Taylor, K., Hum, R. and Kontar, Y. 2016. Comparative Analysis of Virtual Relief Networks and Communication Channels During Disaster Recovery After A Major Flood in Galena, Alaska, Spring 2013. Springer.

The Arctic Council. 2009. The Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment.


33

The Arctic Council. 2013a. Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic (a), Draft Synthesis Report. The Arctic Council. 2013b. Taking Stock of Adaptation Programs in the Arctic. The Arctic

Council. The Arctic Council. 2015. Status on the Implementation of the AMSA 2009 Report

Recommendations. The Arctic Observing Summit 2016 - Conference Statement. 2016.

http://www.arcticobservingsummit.org/sites/arcticobservingsummit.org/files/AOS%20Conference%20Statement_Final_0.pdf.

Thomalla, F., Downing, T., Spanger-Siegfried, E., Han, G. and Rockström, J. 2006. Reducing hazard vulnerability: towards a common approach between disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation. Disasters, 30: 1, 39-48. 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2006.00305.x

Tompkins, E. L., Adger, W. N., Boyd, E., Nicholson-Cole, S., Weatherhead, K. and Arnell, N. 2010. Observed adaptation to climate change: UK evidence of transition to a well-adapting society. Global Environmental Change, 20: 4, 627-635. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.05.001

Trainor, S. F., L. Abruitina, F. Stuart Chapin III, Valery Chashin, David Driscol, Lawrence Hartig, Nathan Kettle, et al. 2017. Adaptation. Chapter 7 in: Hinzman, L. D., et al. Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic, Bering/Chukchi/Beaufort Region. The Arctic Council.

Tribbia, J. and Moser, S. C. 2008. More than information: what coastal managers need to plan for climate change. Environmental Science & Policy, 11: 4, 315-328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2008.01.003

U.S. Arctic Research Commission. 2013. Goals and objectives for Arctic Research 2013-2014. US Government Accountability Office. 2009. Limited Progress has been made on Relocating

Villages Threatened by Flooding and Erosion. Valente, T. W. 1996. Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Social Networks,

18: 1, 69-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(95)00256-1 Warren, F. J. and Lemmen, D. S. 2014. Canada in a Changing Climate: Sector Perspectives on

Impacts and Adaptation. Government Canada. Ottawa, ON. Wilson, N. J. 2014. The Politics of Adaptation: Subsistence Livelihoods and Vulnerability to

Climate Change in the Koyukon Athabascan Village of Ruby, Alaska. Human Ecology, 42: 87-101. 10.1007/s10745-013-9619-3

human adaptation to climate change in alaska: overview and ... · this lack of climate adaptation...

Documents