The ecosystem approach to marine management in the Arctic: Opportunities and challenges for integration

Wienrich, Nicole; Buschman, Victoria; Coon, Catherine; Fuller, Susanna; Hennicke, Janos C.; Humrich, Christoph; Prip, Christian; Wenzel, Lauren

doi:10.3389/fmars.2022.1034510

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Promisingly, legal systems are psychological in nature and are constantly changing alongside society (Ogloff and Schuller, 2001;Coates, 2020). There are many calls to transform governance approaches, from Indigenous to state to international governance, introducing terms such as multispecies justice (Celermajer et al, 2021), planetary health (Redvers et al, 2022), Indigenous environmental justice (McGregor, 2018;McGregor et al, 2020), Indigenous climate justice (Whyte, 2018(Whyte, , 2020, ethnogeographies (Reibold, 2022), inherent dignity (Youngblood Henderson, 2019), and ecosystem-based management (Fisher et al, 2022;Wienrich et al, 2022). Commonalities among these suggestions return environmental governance to include interconnected networks of beings with no division between culture and nature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting Inuit food sovereignty through collaborative research of an at-risk caribou herd

Hanke,

Niptanatiak Dumond,

Di Francesco

et al. 2024

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionClimate change is increasing vulnerability to food insecurity and biodiversity loss for many Indigenous Peoples globally. For Inuit, food sovereignty is one expression of Indigenous self-determination, and it includes the right of all Inuit to define their own conservation policies. Caribou conservation is particularly pertinent because of the central role caribou play in Inuit food systems. The “Dolphin and Union” (DU) caribou herd is a critical component of Inuit food systems in the Canadian Arctic and has declined by 89% in 2020 (3,815) from the peak measured by aerial survey in 1997 (34,558).MethodsOur first objective was to identify insights about this herd from and with Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (knowledge). Using thematic analysis, we created a collective account on the DU caribou herd through a research partnership among Indigenous knowledge keepers, government, and academia. Our second objective was to put our findings into the broader literature on the DU caribou herd and connect isolated data on their abundance and distribution.ResultsWe found understanding Inuit knowledge of caribou meant situating harvesters’ knowledge within their family history, harvesting methods, conservation ethics, and in relation to other harvesters. Through this framework, we conceptualized Inuit-described metrics of caribou status, resulting in three sub-themes of caribou trends over time – their abundance, distribution, and health, − and ending with conservation concerns and potential actions. The synthesized data indicated that the overall population size increased since ~1990s and then decreased after ~2000s alongside a range contraction. Our results add value to co-management literature by (1) articulating Inuit-described metrics of a population decline that inform continued monitoring and incorporation of these metrics into management planning and (2) synthesizing data from various studies on the DU caribou herd abundance and distribution that assists management to make informed conservation decisions based on Inuit and Western knowledge.DiscussionResults from this research contribute to understanding the six dimensions of environmental health, i.e., availability, stability, accessibility, health and wellness, Inuit culture, and decision-making power and management relating to caribou. The results contribute information that is used by to support environmental health, i.e., knowledge systems, policy, and co-management relating to caribou. Thus, this collaborative research study supports the expression of Inuit food sovereignty through caribou conservation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting Inuit food sovereignty through collaborative research of an at-risk caribou herd

Hanke,

Niptanatiak Dumond,

Di Francesco

et al. 2024

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The study area in the Arctic includes 39 locations in Beringia: 24 in Alaska, USA, and 15 in Chukotsky Autonomous Okrug (Chukotka), Russia. The locations were selected based on population size-as the most densely populated locations, touristic importance-as the locations most promising for the development of tourism (Drage et al 2022;Schwoerer and Dawson 2022;Wienrich and Lukyanova 2022), and representativeness of the Köppen-Geiger subclasses. As the next step, they are grouped into smaller subregions.…”

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This change in bioclimate is very important, especially given the growing demand for tourism development in the Arctic, and in particular in Alaska and Chukotka. The tourism sector here is small, but is expected to grow rapidly in the future, namely cruise and aviation tourism, adventure tourism, ecotourism-observation of attractions such as glaciers, coastal cliffs, waterfalls, and (or) birds and marine mammals such as whales and polar bear (Drage et al 2022;Schwoerer and Dawson 2022;Wienrich and Lukyanova 2022;Lau et al 2023).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Universal thermal climate index in the Arctic in an era of climate change: Alaska and Chukotka as a case study

Grigorieva,

Alexeev,

Walsh

2023

Int J Biometeorol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The modern unambiguous climate change reveals in a rapid increase of air temperature, which is more distinctly expressed in the Arctic than in any other part of the world, affecting people health and well-being. The main objective of the current research is to explore the inter- and intra-annual changes in thermal stress for people in the Arctic, specifically for two parts of Beringia: Alaska, USA, and Chukotka, Russia, using climatology of the universal thermal climate index (UTCI). Data for 39 locations are taken from the ERA5-HEAT reanalysis for the period 1979–2020. Climatologically, the study area is divided into four subregions in Alaska: North, Interior, West and South, and two in Chukotka: Interior and Coast. The extreme coldest UTCI categories (1 and 2) are most common in coastal locations of northern Alaska and Chukotka, where strong winds exacerbate the low temperatures during winter. The results show that the frequency of category 1 (UTCI<−40°C) varies spatially from a quarter of all hours annually in Alaska North to almost zero in Alaska South. On the other hand, the warmest categories are rarely reached almost everywhere in Alaska and Chukotka, and even categories 7 and 8 (UTCI between +26 and +38°C) are found occasionally only at interior locations. Category 6 with no thermal stress (UTCI between +9 and+26°C) has frequencies up to 3% and 25% in Alaska North and Interior, respectively. The extremely cold thermal stress frequencies have substantially decreased over the 1979–2020 period, especially in Alaska North and Chukotka Coast. At the same time, the number of hours with UTCI in the comfortable category of thermal perception has increased depending on subregion, from 25 to 203 h/year. Overall, a decrease in the UTCI categories of extremely cold stress is coupled with an increase in the comfortable range in both Alaska and Chukotka. The salient conclusion is that, from the point of view of comfort and safety, global warming has a positive impact on the climatology of thermal stress in the Arctic, providing advantages for the development of tourism and recreation.

show abstract

“…Polyakov et al, 2020). The division of the Arctic region into sub-regions as introduced by LMEs can be a useful approach in terms of marine management in the Arctic (Wienrich et al, 2022), because the different LME has different physical environments and fates with respect to climate change In this study, we provide estimates of future temperature and salinity changes in the Central Arctic Ocean LME for the period 2025-2055. The ocean under the sea ice in the Central Arctic is for now perhaps the ocean environment with least changes up to now, but also a region where we expect large changes with climate change.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constraining CMIP6 estimates of Arctic Ocean temperature and salinity in 2025-2055

Langehaug,

Sagen,

Stallemo

et al. 2023

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global climate models (CMIP6 models) are the basis for future predictions and projections, but these models typically have large biases in their mean state of the Arctic Ocean. Considering a transect across the Arctic Ocean, with a focus on the depths between 100-700m, we show that the model spread for temperature and salinity anomalies increases significantly during the period 2025-2045. The maximum model spread is reached in the period 2045-2055 with a standard deviation 10 times higher than in 1993-2010. The CMIP6 models agree that there will be warming, but do not agree on the degree of warming. This aspect is important for long-term management of societal and ecological perspectives in the Arctic region. We therefore test a new approach to find models with good performance. We assess how CMIP6 models represent the horizontal patterns of temperature and salinity in the period 1993-2010. Based on this, we find four models with relatively good performance (MPI-ESM1-2-HR, IPSL-CM6A-LR, CESM2-WACCM, MRI-ESM2-0). For a more robust model evaluation, we consider additional metrics (e.g., climate sensitivity, ocean heat transport) and also compare our results with other recent CMIP6 studies in the Arctic Ocean. Based on this, we find that two of the models have an overall better performance (MPI-ESM1-2-HR, IPSL-CM6A-LR). Considering projected changes for temperature for the period 2045-2055 in the high end ssp585 scenario, these two models show a similar warming in the Mid Layer (300-700m; 1.1-1.5°C). However, in the low end ssp126 scenario, IPSL-CM6A-LR shows a considerably higher warming than MPI-ESM1-2-HR. In contrast to the projected warming by both models, the projected salinity changes for the period 2045-2055 are very different; MPI-ESM1-2-HR shows a freshening in the Upper Layer (100-300m), whereas IPSL-CM6A-LR shows a salinification in this layer. This is the case for both scenarios. The source of the model spread appears to be in the Eurasian Basin, where warm waters enter the Arctic. Finally, we recommend being cautious when using the CMIP6 ensemble to assess the future Arctic Ocean, because of the large spread both in performance and the extent of future changes.

show abstract

The ecosystem approach to marine management in the Arctic: Opportunities and challenges for integration

Cited by 6 publications

References 15 publications

Supporting Inuit food sovereignty through collaborative research of an at-risk caribou herd

Supporting Inuit food sovereignty through collaborative research of an at-risk caribou herd

Universal thermal climate index in the Arctic in an era of climate change: Alaska and Chukotka as a case study

Constraining CMIP6 estimates of Arctic Ocean temperature and salinity in 2025-2055

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About