Community-based vulnerability assessment of Tuktoyaktuk, NWT ...

Reg Environ Change DOI 10.1007/s10113-012-0299-0

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Community-based vulnerability assessment of Tuktoyaktuk, NWT, Canada to environmental and socio-economic changes Mark Andrachuk • Barry Smit

Received: 15 July 2011 / Accepted: 1 March 2012 Ó Springer-Verlag 2012

Abstract Environmental change in the Canadian Arctic has implications for livelihoods, food systems, infrastructure and Inuit culture. Although Inuit communities are located in industrialized countries, their integral connections with the natural environments contribute to significant exposures and sensitivities to changing conditions. This paper characterizes the vulnerability of Tuktoyaktuk in the western Canadian Arctic to climate change in the context of ongoing socio-economic and environmental changes. Existing stresses in the community influence infrastructure, livelihoods and wellbeing. Strategies for adapting to adverse conditions have largely been tactical and short term, rather than planned actions in anticipation of changes in climate. In light of projected intensification of climate change and a proposed natural gas pipeline in the Tuktoyaktuk area, the community is expected to experience new stresses in the future. Future adaptation planning and policy needs to enable community involvement in the protection of important community attributes. Keywords Vulnerability Climate change Adaptation Adaptive capacity Arctic Inuvialuit Settlement Region

Introduction Research on climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation has been undertaken in many countries, sectors and settings (Metzger and Schro¨ter 2006; Adger et al. 2007; Reidsma et al. 2009). It is commonly assumed that communities in developing countries are particularly M. Andrachuk (&) B. Smit University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected]

vulnerable, given their more direct dependence on and exposure to climate-related conditions and climate-sensitive resources and given limits to their adaptive capacity associated with economic circumstances, institutions and technology (Handmer et al. 1999; Thomas and Twyman 2005; Huq et al. 2006). Communities in industrialized countries are widely considered to be less exposed and less sensitive to climate stresses and to have greater adaptive capacity (Smith et al. 2003; Smit and Pilifosova 2003; Adger et al. 2007; Taenzler et al. 2008; Ford and BerrangFord 2011). Arctic communities are in some of the most wealthy and technologically advanced nations of Europe and North America, yet they share many features with communities in developing countries (e.g., Gionet 2008; Luo et al. 2010; Egeland et al. 2010). The livelihoods of people in indigenous communities in particular are integrally related to physical and biological resources and conditions that are always changing, and their adaptive options are limited by their economic, social and institutional circumstances (Berkes and Jolly 2001; Ford et al. 2008). In the Canadian Arctic, climate change, including its interaction with shifting political, social and economic influences, has implications for livelihoods, food systems, infrastructure and Inuit culture. Research has documented local observations of environmental changes, ways that communities are experiencing those changes and their adaptive strategies (Krupnik and Jolly 2002; ACIA 2005; Laidler 2006; Nickels et al. 2006; IPCC 2007; Ford et al. 2008; Furgal and Prowse 2008; Ford 2009; Pearce et al. 2009). This research has largely focused on place-based descriptions of climate-related impacts and has tended to focus on the physical dimensions of climate change. In the last decade there has been an increase in scholarship on the human dimensions, recognizing the need to improve our

123

M. Andrachuk, B. Smit

understanding of the ways that Inuit interact with, and are influenced by, environmental and socio-economic changes (e.g., Ford et al. 2010; Gearheard et al. 2011; Pearce et al. 2011a, b). Historically, Inuit have persisted through harsh conditions and periods of considerable change, but it is not clear how their relationships with Arctic environments will adjust in the context of future climate change. This paper documents and characterizes the vulnerability and adaptation of the community of Tuktoyaktuk, located in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region in the western Canadian Arctic, to current and future changes. Inuit organizations and researchers based in the Canadian Arctic have called for research that works in collaboration with communities to deal with multiple drivers of change (climatic and non-climatic) and, at the same time, builds local capacity (Berkes and Jolly 2001; Krupnik and Jolly 2002; Nickels et al. 2006). Vulnerability is understood to reflect the relationships between the climatic and non-climatic stresses experienced by a community and the ways that they are able to deal with those stresses (Smit and Pilifosova 2003). Community-based vulnerability assessments have become increasingly common internationally as a means of identifying ways that people are sensitive to climatic and other environmental changes in the context of dynamic political, social and economic conditions, and their capacity to deal with those conditions (O’Brien et al. 2004; Lim and Spanger-Siegfried 2005; Belliveau et al. 2006; Adger et al. 2007; Keskitalo 2008). Understanding these risks requires the identification of community-specific conditions and vulnerabilities (Berkes and Jolly 2001). This paper employs a community-based participatory approach to identify the conditions to which the residents of Tuktoyaktuk are exposed and sensitive, and to document the strategies they employ to deal with and adapt to changing conditions. The paper first provides a short summary of research on climate change impacts and adaptation in the Arctic. Then, the basic concepts and research approach employed in the Tuktoyaktuk study are outlined, and the study area and field methods are described. The results are presented first for current vulnerabilities, which serve as a foundation for an assessment of vulnerabilities under changing conditions in the future.

Climate change adaptation research in the Arctic There has been considerable research on climate change impacts in the Arctic in recent years (e.g., Cohen 1997; ACIA 2005; Hinzman et al. 2005; Anisimov et al. 2007; Lemke et al. 2007; Furgal and Prowse 2008; GNWT 2008). Much of this research has focused on measuring changes in climatic conditions and then estimating their impacts on

123

snow and ice, wildlife and sometimes humans. The Second International Conference on Arctic Research Planning (ICARP II) affirmed the need for research that characterizes the patterns of rapid changes in social–ecological systems in the Arctic, examines linkages within these systems that give rise to resilience and vulnerabilities, addresses drivers of change at various scales, identifies opportunities and constraints for adaptation and seeks to inform public policy (Kofinas et al. 2005). Although research on climate change impacts and vulnerability increasingly includes consideration of potential options for adaptation, there has been less investigation of the processes and mechanisms that stimulate or constrain adaptive capacity and promote or impede adaptive action (Smit et al. 2000; Adger 2006; Armitage et al. 2007; Pearce et al. 2011a). The need for this type of research is especially important in the Arctic, where changes in climate are occurring at an accelerated pace (Furgal and Prowse 2008; IPCC 2007) and climate change adaptation research has tended to focus on impacts-based approaches (ACIA 2005). In order for adaptation needs and opportunities to be identified, and practical actions initiated, either by reducing exposure-sensitivities or by enhancing adaptive capacities, the processes contributing to risks need to be understood in particular contexts (Dessai and Hulme 2004; Duerden 2004; Smit and Wandel 2006). Vulnerability of a community is generally understood to be a function of the stresses experienced by a community (exposure-sensitivity) and the community’s ability to deal with those stresses (adaptive capacity) (Adger and Kelly 1999; Kasperson and Kasperson 2001; Smit and Pilifosova 2001; Burton et al. 2002; Yohe and Tol 2002; Turner et al. 2003; Ford and Smit 2004; O’Brien et al. 2004; Adger 2006; IPCC 2007). There is an implicit recognition of multiple sources and scales of change and stress, including climatic and non-climatic forces. Some scholars emphasize the dynamic nature of vulnerability in light of variability in interactions within human–environmental systems (Westerhoff and Smit 2009). While vulnerability is generally defined relative to harm, it is also recognized here that changes or stresses related to climate change have the potential to provide benefits for communities. The research in Tuktoyaktuk made use of a vulnerability approach to capture these aspects of vulnerability and provide insights into opportunities for adaptation at the community level. The approach is based on an analytical framework that connects current and future conditions (Ford and Smit 2004; Smit and Wandel 2006; Hovelsrud and Smit 2010). The assessment began with an identification of current exposure-sensitivities and adaptive strategies. Exposure-sensitivities reflect the physical and socio-economic characteristics of a community (including governance, location, demographic characteristics and the environmental

Community-based vulnerability assessment

conditions), the susceptibility of people or livelihoods to particular stimuli and the dynamics of those stimuli over time (Smit et al. 2010). Adaptations are adjustments to processes, plans or actions that are intended to reduce stresses or take advantage of new opportunities (Smit et al. 1999; Adger et al. 2007). Documentation of current exposure-sensitivities and adaptive strategies included the identification of livelihoods and resources that are particularly important for the community and information about how people in the community have experienced, and responded to, past and current stresses (including environmental variability and extremes). Future vulnerability was assessed through an examination of future exposure-sensitivities and adaptive capacity. Assessment of future exposure-sensitivities included an estimation of changes in socio-economic or environmental conditions that are relevant to the community. Adaptive capacity refers to the ability of groups or individuals to perform adaptations. Empirically, adaptive capacity overlaps with exposure-sensitivity because many of the characteristics of a community that make it susceptible to stresses also play a role in enhancing or constraining adaptations (Smit and Wandel 2006). Future adaptive capacity was estimated by identifying ways in which institutions, resources and relationships will enhance or constrain adaptations. The four main elements of the analytical framework (current exposure-sensitivity, current adaptive strategies, future exposure-sensitivity and future adaptive capacity) provided a means of understanding how socio-economic and environmental stimuli interact and affect community susceptibility and adaptability. Several studies have employed approaches that are broadly consistent with this vulnerability model, although there are variations in foci and field methods (e.g., Turner et al. 2003; Chapin et al. 2004; Wesche and Armitage 2006; Tyler et al. 2007; Wolfe et al. 2007; Ford et al. 2008; Keskitalo 2008; Pearce et al. 2009). The work presented here is one of the 26 case studies from across the Arctic that took place as part of the International Polar Year project Community Adaptation and Vulnerability in Arctic Regions (CAVIAR). In summary, the analytical process for the case study of Tuktoyaktuk involved documentation and assessment of (1) current exposure-sensitivities, (2) current adaptive strategies, (3) future exposure-sensitivities and (4) future adaptive capacity.

Study area Tuktoyaktuk is located in Canada’s Northwest Territories, along the shores of the Beaufort Sea, and is one of the six communities in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) (see Fig. 1). Tuktoyaktuk’s population of roughly 900 people is

primarily Inuvialuit, a self-identified group of Inuit living in the Beaufort Sea and Mackenzie Delta areas (Statistics Canada 2007). Inuvialuit in Tuktoyaktuk are descendants of fur trappers, hunters, whalers and reindeer herders who lived along the Beaufort coast from Cape Bathurst to Alaska. With the exception of some elders, most residents of Tuktoyaktuk speak fluently in English and use it as their common language (Alunik et al. 2003; Statistics Canada 2007). More than half of all adults in Tuktoyaktuk report that they participate in harvesting (hunting and fishing) and that harvesting provides most or all of the meat consumed in their households (Statistics Canada 2002b; GNWT 2007). Tuktoyaktuk’s economy has elements of subsistence harvesting and wage employment. Subsistence harvesting is culturally important and it is also an affordable food source (Usher 2002; Alunik et al. 2003; Joint Secretariat 2003). Sources of employment in the community include government, health services, social services, education, oil and gas exploration, shipping, retail, construction and guiding for sport hunting (Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk 1984; Statistics Canada 2002a; GNWT 2007). Tuktoyaktuk has intermittently served as a base for oil and gas exploration in Beaufort Sea and surrounding land areas. The wage income has provided some adaptive potential within the community, but has also affected wildlife and contributed to some of the negative consequences of acculturation. Unemployment in Tuktoyaktuk has been persistently close to 30 % over the last decade, which is high compared with Canada’s average unemployment rate that has remained below 8 % for the same period (Statistics Canada 2002a; GNWT 2007; Statistics Canada 2007). The community has air travel access year-round, ice road access in the winter and boat access in the summer. Buildings in the community receive electricity through power lines, but water, sewage and propane are shipped by trucks. The Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk is responsible for the provision of water and sewage and for the maintenance of most roads. In 1984, the Inuvialuit and the Government of Canada signed the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA), which provided Inuit in the western Canadian Arctic with formal land ownership, financial compensation and participation in wildlife management. The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC), established to implement the IFA, is controlled by a board of directors, made up of representatives from Community Corporations in each of the six Inuvialuit communities. The Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) covers 906,430 square kilometers, with Inuvialuit owning 90,649 square kilometers of land. Effectively, Inuvialuit have rights to sand and gravel around each community and limited rights to oil and gas reserves. Inuvialuit do not have ownership or decision-making rights on crown land but can comment on any activity within the ISR through environmental impact assessments.

123

M. Andrachuk, B. Smit Fig. 1 Location of Tuktoyaktuk within the Inuvialuit Settlement Region

Inuvialuit have responsibility for wildlife stewardship throughout the entire ISR (Government of Canada 1984; Fast et al. 2001). A fundamental goal of the IFA was to ‘‘protect and preserve Arctic wildlife, environment and biological productivity through the application of conservation principles and practices’’ (Government of Canada 1984). To that end, a series of co-management organizations provide the institutional context for Inuvialuit participation in wildlife management. The Inuvialuit Game Council (IGC) works with representatives from various levels of government (Canada, NWT and Yukon) under co-management agencies responsible for terrestrial wildlife, marine wildlife and environmental impact assessments. The Inuvialuit have also entered in many co-operative agreements with neighboring Aboriginal groups for specific species that have transboundary migratory patterns (for example, polar bears and beluga whales). The tundra landscape and near-shore sea in the region surrounding the Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk support sparse but varied flora and fauna, including many species important to residents’ livelihoods and diets. Caribou, bears, musk-ox, fox, geese, ducks, seals, whales and fish are among the wildlife harvested for subsistence and income. The climate of the region is relatively dry with long, cold winters and short summers. The sea ice–free season is roughly 3–4 months long, with break-up typically occurring in June and freeze-up commencing in September (Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk 1984; Carmack and Macdonald 2002; Environment Canada 2004; Manson et al. 2005; Manson and

123

Solomon 2007; Cobb et al. 2008). There is evidence that the western Canadian Arctic has experienced a warming of 2–3 °C over the last 50 years (Zhang et al. 2000; Furgal and Prowse 2008). This warming has manifest in variations in sea-ice thickness and extent, milder winter temperatures, permafrost degradation, altered patterns of prevailing winds and impacts on terrestrial and marine wildlife (Berkes and Jolly 2001; Carmack and Macdonald 2002; Krupnik and Jolly 2002; ACIA 2005; Furgal and Prowse 2008). These environmental changes, in addition to socioeconomic transitions in Tuktoyaktuk and their implications for Inuvialuit, provided impetus for the analysis of vulnerability in Tuktoyaktuk.

Research methods A collaborative, community-based research approach was important for becoming familiar with Inuvialuit culture and customs, building rapport and trust with research participants and adequately involving local researchers in the collection and analysis of data. In addition to the practical reality that collaboration is absolutely necessary to gain insights into sensitivities, experiences and decisions of people, there are regulatory and ethical reasons for systematic involvement of local people (Huntington 1998; Gibbs 2001; Laidler 2006; ITK and NRI 2007; Pearce et al. 2009). Specific steps in the research process involved preliminary community consultation, including a research


licensing process that allowed community organizations to provide consent and feedback on the project; a 11-week field season that included hiring local research assistants, conducting interviews and participant observation; analysis of data; and a follow-up visit for reporting and verifying research results with community members. Collings (2009) expressed several issues that arise from research that takes place in small Arctic communities over relatively short periods of time, including the nature of interviewee responses. Inuit have a long history as interview subjects of academics, journalists and government agencies and, as Collings (2009) notes, many people do not respond directly to the questions at hand. The ideal solution to work through cross-cultural barriers and develop mutual interviewer–interviewee respect is to spend many years in the community building common understanding. The antithesis is the fly-in, fly-out approach where researchers only spend enough hours or days in the community to ask their set of questions. The approach adopted for the research presented here was intermediate of these two extremes. Consistent with the approach outlined in Pearce et al. (2009), the research was based upon a collaborative spirit that involved early input of the community on research design, respect for differing views on appropriate research objectives, recognizing multiple forms of knowledge, seeking triangulation of information, visiting the community several times over a 2-year period and verifying results with community members. While there are limitations to this approach, several of the issues raised above were addressed within practical and financial constraints. Primary data were collected through 40 semi-structured interviews. Interviewees reflected a cross-section of age, gender and livelihoods in the community, including fulltime hunters, board members of the HTC and TCC, members of the Elders Council, Hamlet employees, a former mayor and school employees. Interview participants were selected using purposive, snowball and opportunistic sampling techniques (Palys 1997; Berg 2001). The aim was to interview a cross-section of the community that reflected age, gender, types of employment or livelihood and participation in traditional activities. Purposive sampling was necessary for targeting groups such as members of the HTC, elders and community leaders, who have been identified in the literature (e.g., Huntington 1998; Ford and Smit 2004) and by community members as important sources of information regarding environmental changes and their effects on people. Interviewees were compensated according to local research protocols, and interviews were carried out with the local research assistants. Information from the interviewees was transcribed and tabulated according to the broad categories of the vulnerability framework. Participant observation during the three community visits provided additional information that

supplemented the interviews by providing further insight into the lives of Tuktoyaktuk residents and the challenges they face. Primary data were also complemented by information from secondary sources (e.g., journal articles, government reports and census data), which made it possible to draw connections between the experiences and observations of interviewees and broader forces such as climate change and globalization. The findings (below) were reviewed and discussed with local representatives and ultimately reflect the authors’ own interpretations. In the reporting of findings in this paper, quotes from interviewees are included to provide an indication of the ways in which local people express issues reported on in the text. They are included to illustrate some of the perspectives of community members.

Current exposure-sensitivities and adaptations The initial step in the research process was to work with Tuktoyaktuk residents to identify current exposure-sensitivities. People in the community experience multiple stresses related to infrastructure and municipal services, livelihoods and local economy, and health and wellbeing (see Table 1). These exposure-sensitivities are dynamic and not exclusive of one another. Building on the insights from the community, assessment of current exposure-sensitivities included gathering of all available information related to the identified stresses, as detailed below. Infrastructure and municipal services Infrastructure and municipal services in Tuktoyaktuk are at risk due to coastal erosion and permafrost degradation, which are influenced by the location of the community and changing climatic conditions. Tuktoyaktuk is situated on a low, narrow peninsula and is built on permafrost that is comprised of massive ice lenses and loose glacial and alluvial deposits, with a vegetative layer on the surface (Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk 1984; Manson et al. 2005). The southern coast of the Beaufort Sea shares these characteristics and is prone to erosion, with average retreat rates of 1 m per year (Carmack and Macdonald 2002). The shorelines of the community itself, prior to shoreline protection measures that were initiated in the 1970s, are known to have eroded on average one to two meters per year, but erosion of several meters has occurred during individual storms (Reimnitz and Maurer 1979; Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk 1984; Solomon et al. 1993; Solomon and Hart 2000; Couture et al. 2002; Johnson et al. 2003; Manson et al. 2005). Figure 2 provides an indication of the historical progression of shoreline erosion and the relative location of buildings to the shoreline.

123

M. Andrachuk, B. Smit Table 1 Current exposure-sensitivities in Tuktoyaktuk Community attribute

Stressors

Infrastructure and municipal services

Space constraints Coastal erosion Permafrost degradation

Livelihoods and local economy

Income from tourism Viability of sport hunting Employment opportunities Availability and access to wildlife

Health and wellbeing

Nutrition in traditional food versus store foods Availability and access to wildlife Alcohol and substance abuse Young and growing population Disconnect between generations Less time spent on land (school, employment)

Fig. 2 Coastal erosion along Tuktoyaktuk’s peninsula; the dotted line indicates the shoreline position in 1950 and gray land indicates its position in 2002 (based on aerial photos and Manson et al. 2006)

While erosion has been a long-term process, it has become a greater concern as the community’s population has grown over the last 80 years, and the space available

123

for new houses and other infrastructure has become constrained. Interviewees expressed concerns about coastal erosion and the possibility that the community will have to be relocated. Erosion of the shoreline has been happening for a while now. We are noticing it more and more as it gets warmer and warmer. -Maureen Gruben, Tuktoyaktuk resident The propensity for Tuktoyaktuk’s shorelines to erode results from a combination of physical characteristics of the shoreline (sediment size, ice content, arrangement of elements), relative sea-level (RSL) rise, air and water temperatures, the intensity of storms events during the open-water season and the presence or absence of sea ice (Manson et al. 2005; Manson and Solomon 2007; Solomon 2005). Warmer average summer and winter temperatures are resulting in a greater variability in the timing of sea-ice break-up and freeze-up and increasing the duration of the open-water season (ACIA 2005; Manson and Solomon 2007; Kwok and Cunningham 2010). Since sea ice provides protection for shorelines by suppressing the development of waves, longer open-water seasons enable greater rates of erosion (Carmack and Macdonald 2002; Rachold and Cherkashov 2003; Manson et al. 2005; Manson and Solomon 2007). These risks to infrastructure are not considered ‘‘catastrophic’’ in terms of large losses of life or infrastructure, and shoreline protection is considered to hold some promise for slowing erosion. Erosion is a relatively slow and observable process, which allows for planning. In addition to informal discouragement of building in highrisk zones, early attempts at shoreline protection began in 1976 with funding from the federal and territorial governments (see Fig. 3). Systems for shoreline protection through the 1970s to 1990s were largely experimental and not successful or financially sustainable. In the late 1990s, the territorial government provided funding for importing large boulders to be placed along the community’s northwest shoreline. These efforts were relatively successful and have been supplemented with additional boulder deposits and a series of massive concrete blocks. The Hamlet (municipal government) realizes that this is not a permanent solution but it is financially affordable in the short term and has allowed more time to consider long-term plans for the community. Construction aggregate (gravel) is critical for maintenance and repair of building foundations and roads. A significant challenge for Tuktoyaktuk is that there are no gravel sources remaining within the municipal boundaries and there are no viable means of transporting aggregate into the community other than the winter road. An adaptation of the Hamlet has been to stockpile aggregate


Livelihoods and local economy

Fig. 3 The locations of shoreline protection measures that have been implemented (based on personal observation, aerial photographs and Couture et al. 2002); locations indicated relative to the extent that they cover the shoreline; actual location of the material is on the shoreline and the lines here are offset for emphasis

that is imported during winter months when the ice road is open and then make use of it as needed during summer months. During winter 2009, construction began on an all-weather road that leads inland to a known gravel source. This road is estimated to require several winters to complete construction but will provide access to muchneeded material. The all-weather road stretching further inland will also create more options for relocating elements of the community that are most at risk from erosion or flooding (interviews with Hamlet employees indicate that the cemetery, sewage lagoon and garbage dump would be among top priorities but there are no current plans for relocation). Thus, an inland road is an example of strategic, anticipatory adaptation that will enable the community to address immediate and longterm risks to infrastructure (see summary of adaptations in Table 2). Another strategy employed by the Hamlet has been to relocate or remove particular buildings that have been put at imminent risk due to coastal erosion. Individuals and families have very little means of adapting to risks to their homes due to financial and technological restraints.

Livelihoods are influenced by the high cost of living, variability of employment opportunities between seasons, and changes in demand for tourism-related experiences and sport hunting. Inuvialuit who first settled in Tuktoyaktuk were lured by opportunities to sell furs at a Hudson’s Bay trading post and employment prospects from DEW Line construction and oil and gas exploration. These livelihood shifts were in many ways long-term adaptations by individuals who saw opportunities for easier, more comfortable lives. Notwithstanding the proposed construction of a gas pipeline and drilling sites in the Tuktoyaktuk area, these employment opportunities were short-lived and entirely dependent on large markets in southern North America and Europe. Tuktoyaktuk currently has high unemployment rates, similar to communities across the Canadian Arctic. There is considerable population movement between Tuktoyaktuk and other Inuvialuit communities depending on opportunities for seasonal work and resource development. Tourism, including both cultural tours and guided sport hunting, provides seasonal income but the local economy does not provide sufficient opportunities for the community’s population. Despite more youth graduating from high school in recent years, the proportion of the community going on to post-secondary education is still relatively low. Moving away from the community to attain higher education or training is not considered to be desirable, in no small part because there are so few prospects for employment when people return to Tuktoyaktuk. This leaves many young people in the community in a ‘‘holding pattern’’ where they lack a means of generating income, but also were not raised in the same manner as their parents and elders who spent most of their time on the land learning harvesting skills. Households thus face stresses related to covering their needs for housing, food and goods. Nevertheless, some youth, and a greater proportion of the adult population, are well accustomed to the local mixed economy and coping through flexibility. Inuvialuit are accustomed to fluctuations in their resource base and are able to adapt to environmental changes and livelihood stresses by switching between opportunities for harvesting or wage employment. For example, when wildlife herds roam close to the community, hunters may use that timing for harvesting. Likewise, in some winters, there is an abundance of industry jobs such as oil and gas exploration, contaminated site remediation or construction, and community members will seek out these temporary forms of employment (Table 2). Some community members participate in entrepreneurial activities such as artisanal crafts, tour operations, sport hunting guiding, or sale of prepared meats, hides or bones

123

M. Andrachuk, B. Smit Table 2 Current adaptive strategies in Tuktoyaktuk Current exposuresensitivities

Seasonal or year-to-year adaptive strategies

Permanent or long-term adaptive strategies

Risks for infrastructure and municipal services

Stockpile aggregate during winter months (for shoreline protection and to supplement protection under building foundations)

Shoreline protection (past: Longard tubes, sandbags; present: boulders, concrete slabs) Construction of inland road to gravel source

Relocate/remove buildings with immediate damage risk Stresses for livelihoods and local economy

Take advantage of (sometimes spontaneous) opportunities in subsistence harvesting or seasonal employment

Uptake of new technologies to make harvesting more efficient

Seek employment outside of the community

Stresses for health and wellbeing

Shift location, timing and/or frequency of harvesting certain species

Management plans for protecting important species (e.g., protected areas for beluga whales; quotas or moratoriums on hunting species with declining populations)

Food substitution (e.g., switching to a different species or buying more store foods) Small entrepreneurial enterprises (e.g., tour operators, artisanal crafts)

as means of generating income. Harvesters are able to sell meats, furs (wolverine, grizzly bear, polar bear, white fox) or obtain ‘‘in-kind’’ value through sharing or trading within the community (Usher 2002). These practices have taken place for some time, but in some ways they are also adaptive responses to current stresses (Table 2). The most lucrative (and controversial) sport hunt is for polar bears, where sport hunters (often Americans and Europeans) pay up to CAN$30,000 for the opportunity to go on a polar bear hunt. Many observers have considered this an example of successful wildlife management that is sensitive to the interests of Inuit (e.g., Clark et al. 2008). Inuvialuit guides must accompany each sport hunter, which has provided local economic benefits for several decades. In 2008, the USA listed polar bears as a threatened species, which has restricted any imports of polar bear hides or other body parts into their country. In light of climate change, the USA regulation could be viewed as a high-level proactive adaptation to the risk of sea-ice habitat loss. On another level, these regulatory decisions in the USA are exacerbating exposure-sensitivities for hunting guides in Tuktoyaktuk by limiting a source of income (Freeman and Wenzel 2006). It is still unclear whether these policy changes will have long-term local economic impacts by restricting opportunities for guiding of polar bear hunters in Tuktoyaktuk, although anecdotal evidence suggests that the distribution of polar bear hunting tags has been affected in recent years. In terms of ecological impact, the import ban does not affect the number of bears hunted because Inuit or other sport hunters will take on the extra quota. The dynamic relationships between governments, southern markets and polar bear hunting are addressed in much greater detail in Clark et al. (2008), Dowsley and Wenzel (2008) and Freeman and Foote (2009).

123

Altered food preparation practices (e.g., more care during hot summer days; use of freezers to store meats)

In contrast, the local co-management agencies have taken their own actions in response to suspected caribou herd declines. Population counts of the Bluenose West and Cape Bathurst caribou herds that migrate near Tuktoyaktuk have dropped dramatically since 2000. In order to protect this culturally and economically important species, a moratorium was placed on sport hunts for caribou, and Inuvialuit have been requested to voluntarily limit the number of caribou they take each year (Table 2). It is apparent that harvesting as a livelihood option that provides food and income and has a unique fit with Inuvialuit culture is now severely stressed. Right now for me its really hard to adjust to the drop in revenue and income to be out [on the land], and then you’ve got bills to pay. You know, harvesters like myself are wondering if it’s worth it to go out and get a job or something instead of being out there. It’s not like you don’t want to be out there, you just don’t even have the financial resources. It just takes so much more to be out there. Costs keep escalating for gas and the groceries and it makes it very difficult. -Randal Pokiak, Tuktoyaktuk resident Adaptation options are limited and, outlined above, mostly involve flexibility and switching between wage employment and harvesting as opportunities arise. Some residents choose to look for short- or long-term employment in neighboring communities or in the south as a means of breaking the cycle of livelihood stresses they face. Health and wellbeing As people who rely heavily on hunting and fishing, Inuvialuit have a historically strong link with marine and


terrestrial wildlife, sea ice and weather (Boas 1888; Wenzel 1991). With the introduction of new technologies and economic activities in the last century, certain aspects of these relationships have evolved, but the linkage between Inuvialuit and local environmental conditions has remained as a central feature of their culture, food systems and overall health. Despite the speculation that traditional (subsistence) livelihoods would decline following the oil boom of the 1970s (Berger 1977; Usher 1993), there are indications that diversification of the local economy has merely changed the livelihood and employment patterns. Inuvialuit are passionate about their culture and the role it plays in their lives. Technologies such as skidoos and powerful firearms have increased the efficiency of hunting and allow people to make shorter trips on the land; and as indicated by interviewees, it is their relationship with the local wildlife and environment that defines Inuvialuit culture, not the technologies they employ (Wenzel 1991). Fish, beluga whales, caribou and waterfowl are the main sources of traditional foods for resident of Tuktoyaktuk. Diets in Tuktoyaktuk are similar to food systems reported across the Canadian Arctic, which are characterized by both traditional and store-bought foods (e.g., Kuhnlein and Receveur 1996; Wein et al. 1996; Duhaime et al. 2002; Statistics Canada 2002b). Shifts toward more reliance on employment in Tuktoyaktuk have resulted in greater dependence on store foods and less time spent harvesting. Interviewees indicated their desire to spend more time harvesting because they feel less connected with Inuvialuit culture when employment prevents them from being on the land. I travel quite a bit but since I am working most of the time now I don’t get too much time to be out on the land. That’s what I really miss is the life on the land. -Ricky Wolki, Tuktoyaktuk resident Reliable financial income is necessary in the local economy but participation in employment, education and training allows less time and flexibility for harvesting. These findings are consistent with research across the Canadian Arctic (Kuhnlein 1995; Duhaime et al. 2002) and the resulting tensions are defining the aspects of livelihood exposure-sensitivities in Tuktoyaktuk (Table 1). With more time tied up in education and employment, many Tuktoyaktuk residents have less flexibility in terms of when and where they can participate in harvesting, hence restricting the quantity and variety of traditional foods consumed. More than half of the residents of Tuktoyaktuk report participation in harvesting and consumption of traditional foods (GNWT 2007). The spring hunt is an important time of year in Tuktoyaktuk, as many residents head inland to the Husky Lakes area and along the Beaufort Sea coast

each May for goose hunting and ice fishing. The spring hunt has the highest participation rate of any harvesting activity, with students and employees taking holiday time to spend with their families. However, self-reporting from interviewees and harvest data from Usher (2002) suggest that geese and other waterfowl are not a staple source of meat year-round. Geese compliment caribou and other country foods, but it is the social activity surrounding the spring hunt that holds the greatest value for most community members. These sentiments were reflected in the comments of interviewees. Our traditional activities are not as common as they used to be, and what our grandparents used to do on a regular basis each year has died. A lot of us don’t even know half the stuff they used to do to survive. -Tina Steen, Tuktoyaktuk resident There are many residents who join their extended families on the land during the spring hunt but purchase meat from hunters or rely on store-bought foods for most of the year. The reasons cited for low participation rates beyond the spring hunt include time constraints from school or work, lack of interest or lack of skills and equipment. Interviewees also discussed how stresses for the highly active harvesters take a different form compared to people who rely more heavily on employment income. As a user of the land and a person who has a subsistence lifestyle, definitely I will be affected a lot if the weather actually changes more drastically from year to year or animals start going further and further away. That’s a big impact. Everyone is affected by changes but they are affected in different ways. People who go to the grocery store and buy their meat, they will not be affected by any of these changes to weather and wildlife because they have the store to go to. -James Pokiak, Tuktoyaktuk resident The recent decline of caribou also has implications for subsistence and nutrition because caribou had been such a prominent food source. Since employment opportunities in Tuktoyaktuk are limited, some people now face stresses due to the perceived cost of nutritious food on a consistent basis. Many health benefits of consuming a higher proportion of traditional foods compared with store-bought foods have been identified. Obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases have all been linked to high consumption of storebought foods, which tend to be high in fats and sugars (Kuhnlein and Receveur 1996; Duhaime et al. 2002; GNWT 2008). People who rely mostly on store-bought foods also tend to be less physically active, compounding these problems. Traditional foods tend to be higher quality energy sources and provide a variety of important nutrients

123


(Blanchet et al. 2000; Kuhnlein and Receveur 2007). For example, bones in stews, blubber and fish are good sources of vitamin A and calcium, which are important for childhood growth (Kuhnlein and Receveur 2007). There is a risk with consuming traditional foods due to contaminants such as heavy metals and organic toxins, but several studies have concluded that the nutritional and cultural benefits of traditional foods outweigh the risks from contaminants since the presence and density of contaminants in below-accepted thresholds of tolerance (Kuhnlein 1995; DFO 2000; Dewailley and Furgal 2003; Duhaime et al. 2004). The adaptive responses to stresses associated with health and wellbeing documented in Tuktoyaktuk were mainly short-term tactical measures that parallel those employed to deal with livelihood stresses (Sect. 5.2). Many harvesters have adapted by supplementing the decline of caribou with other wildlife such as musk-ox or moose, or purchasing more store foods (Table 2). Others have taken on employment to supplement their income. These adaptive responses have been mostly reactionary and involved trade-offs between resources or livelihood activities. Limits on these strategies include the greater travel distance for harvesting musk-ox or moose as alternative species and a strong cultural preference for caribou. A significant constraint felt in the community is the high cost of living that mediates the choice between store-bought and harvested foods. Harvesting can be a cost-effective means of obtaining meat (Usher 2002) but with a dwindling number of active harvesters in the community, there is not widespread uptake of such actions among inexperienced community members. Dynamic vulnerability Sensitivities of Inuvialuit to changing environmental conditions and corresponding adaptive strategies evolve within dynamic arenas of economy, culture, wildlife harvesting and climate that are inter-connected. While it is possible to distinguish particular exposure-sensitivities related to community attributes in Tuktoyaktuk, the forces and processes that influence them are interconnected. Interrelationships among elements that influence current exposure-sensitivities in Tuktoyaktuk are represented in Fig. 4. For example, the Canadian government’s imposition of standardized education and the introduction of new technologies have been linked to the erosion of traditional hunting skills (e.g., Ford et al. 2008; Pearce et al. 2011b) and have contributed to the decline among youth in the pursuit of land-based livelihoods (or participate in traditional cultural activities such as drum dancing). Figure 4 traces how processes at multiple scales interact and influence vulnerabilities at the community level. For instance, co-management organizations link community leaders with

123

federal and territorial government agencies and develop policies in response to climatic conditions and economic developments that influence the migration and health of wildlife and in turn play an important role in the success of harvesters (important for community livelihoods and wellbeing). As another multi-scale interaction, erosion has been a long-term factor for Tuktoyaktuk that has more recently been compounded by climatic changes. The ways that erosion has been addressed have largely been dictated by financial contributions from territorial and federal governments, which in turn are influenced by local and national economic conditions and shifting perceptions of the urgency of the problem. It is apparent that adaptations are motivated by these synergistic influences, rather than by climate alone. The effects of climate-related changes and responses to them are greatly moderated by other forces of change in the community, some of which have considerable lags and non-linearities. For example, the residential school experience has influenced the language, traditional knowledge and connections with the land and southern culture over several generations of Inuvialuit. Current interest in traditional harvesting and in country food cannot be separated from these realities. While it would appear that with low employment, there would be increased opportunities for harvesting activities for food and income, the lack of experience and limited access to equipment are tied to time spent in school as youth, ‘‘dislocation’’ between generations and southern cultural influence on interest in harvesting activities (Pearce et al. 2011b). All of these factors contribute to suppress wider engagement of the community in harvesting, particularly younger members of the community. Clearly, the reported exposure-sensitivities and adaptive strategies are not found uniformly among all members the Tuktoyaktuk community. As noted above, some residents, such as experienced hunters with the resources to maintain equipment have adapted to changing environmental conditions by harvesting alternative species, whereas others have adapted by relying more on store-bought foods. Another example of differential vulnerability is in the area of residential property. Most community members in Tuktoyaktuk pay rent for their residences, but those who own houses near the high-risk erosion areas face greater risks. Thus, even among those community members with financial assets, there are disparities in exposures.

Future exposure-sensitivities Existing stresses faced by Tuktoyaktuk are expected to be exacerbated by climate change and the proposed Mackenzie Valley Pipeline. Of particular concern are changes in


Fig. 4 Relationships among elements influencing exposure-sensitivities in Tuktoyaktuk

the abundance and distribution of wildlife since harvesters rely on many species as both a food source and source of income through sport hunting or sale of animal products. Infrastructure exposure-sensitivities will be heightened due to climate change. Risks associated with coastal erosion and flooding will be greater when there are longer openwater seasons and stronger storm surges occurring in the fall months. Permafrost instability may also become a greater concern since warmer air temperatures and a longer summer season will disturb the thermal regime of the permafrost that underlies Tuktoyaktuk. Implications of climate change for future exposure-sensitivities Climate models generally agree on projections that relate to the Tuktoyaktuk area, as summarized in Table 3. These changes will be most noticeable as changes in the cryosphere (sea ice, permafrost and snow), which in turn will affect wildlife and community infrastructure. Decreased sea-ice extent and thickness (Sou and Flato 2009) will result in a longer open-water season and alter ecosystem and habitat conditions for marine wildlife. Several researchers have suggested that alterations to the timing of these conditions and seasonal events (e.g., timing of freezeup and break-up) will have the most profound influences on

ecosystems and wildlife (Carmack and Macdonald 2002; Hinzman et al. 2005; Anisimov et al. 2007). In addition to these marine impacts, changes in precipitation and temperature patterns will likely result in shifts in the movement and breeding success of terrestrial mammals (e.g., caribou) (Klein et al. 2005; Nuttall et al. 2005). Given that harvesting of beluga whales, fish and polar bears is dependent on seasonal events associated with sea ice, residents of Tuktoyaktuk are sensitive to future changes in the sea-ice dynamics of the Beaufort Sea. Variations in freeze-up and break-up events, nutrient and energy balances and circulation patterns have dominant influences on fish, whales and other marine animals (Dickson and Gilchrist 2002; Anisimov et al. 2007; Post et al. 2008). There are concerns that degradation of habitat or feeding conditions will cause dramatic declines in many wildlife populations that residents of Tuktoyaktuk depend on for subsistence and livelihoods. On the basis of Tuktoyaktuk residents’ dependence on caribou and waterfowl for food and culture, changes in climate that may influence these terrestrial species are particularly important. Recent decline in the abundance of caribou has been a major source of stress for people in Tuktoyaktuk. International research has shown that caribou reproductive success is linked to climate and the timing of seasonal events (e.g., Post and Forschhammer 2008; Gunn

123

M. Andrachuk, B. Smit Table 3 Projected climatic changes for the western Canadian Arctic Projected changes

Sources

Warmer air temperatures, with winters not being as cold and summers reaching higher maximums

Kattsov et al. (2005), Christensen et al. (2007), Lemke et al. (2007), Furgal and Prowse (2008), Sou and Flato (2009)

Increased precipitation, especially during winter

Carmack and Macdonald (2002), Christensen et al. (2007)

Increased storm frequency, especially in the autumn

Kattsov et al. (2005), Manson and Solomon (2007), Forbes (2011)

Greater variability of weather and timing of seasonal events

Carmack and Macdonald (2002), Hinzman et al. (2005), Nuttall et al. (2005)

2003). There are indications that warmer spring temperatures are leading to earlier commencement of primary production in vegetation, but that caribou do not reach calving grounds in time for the earlier peak availability of food resources because their migrations are cued by daylight (Post et al. 2008). It is not clear yet if such ‘‘trophic mismatch’’ has impacted the barren-ground caribou near Tuktoyaktuk, or if recent decline is solely due to normal population cycles (e.g., Gunn 2003; Adamczewski et al. 2009). In addition to caribou, mismatches in migration timing of waterfowl and availability of high-quality foraging could pose great risks for their health. It should also be noted that climate models do project longer growing seasons and increased biological productivity in the north. Some species may benefit and others may migrate north, and if the Inuvialuit can switch to harvesting these species, they can moderate the impacts on their food systems (albeit not replace the cultural value of preferred species). Increased shipping is expected in the Arctic with longer ice-free seasons (e.g., Stephenson et al. 2011), but the social and economic impacts for Tuktoyaktuk are not expected to be substantial in the near future. Although the community does have a sheltered harbor that accommodates shipping during the ice-free season, it is not deep enough for the requirements of large, deep-draft vessels (entrance to the harbor is as shallow as 4 m, whereas large vessels can require upwards of 20 m). Increased shipping associated with opening of sea routes or industrial activity will largely make use of large tankers that would not be able to enter Tuktoyaktuk’s harbor. However, Tuktoyaktuk’s harbor is expected to maintain its role as a re-supply station for barges traveling to nearby communities. Indeed, if the ice-free season becomes longer, there will be more potential shipping days for supplies coming from the south via the Mackenzie River. Land transportation will be influenced by both the construction of an all-weather road and the impacts of climate change on the winter ice road. The inland allweather road under construction from Tuktoyaktuk to a gravel source will likely be extended and connected to Inuvik and the Dempster Highway to the south. Such a development will have profound influences on the local economy through cost of living, employment opportunities and increased tourism. This development would also

123

eliminate the need for a winter ice road. In the interim years, the ice road (which currently connects Tuktoyaktuk to Inuvik from December to April each year) will be affected by changes in climate. In years when there is very little precipitation in the autumn, the ice road is constructed earlier since the ground is able to reach cool temperatures quickly. Snow cover acts as insulation and prevents the ground from cooling to necessary temperatures. If climate change results in more precipitation in the autumn, the length of the ice road season could be shortened. It is not likely that changing conditions will prevent the ice road from being built, but a shortened ice road season will affect the availability and cost of food and other consumable goods in Tuktoyaktuk. Exposure-sensitivities for Tuktoyaktuk’s infrastructure are related to the stability of permafrost under buildings, flooding and coastal erosion. Given that all of Tuktoyaktuk is built on permafrost, there are risks associated with disturbances to the permafrost’s thermal regime that can cause shifting and damage to buildings and other infrastructure. Warmer summer air temperatures and a longer summer season that are projected for the western Canadian Arctic will exacerbate existing risks to Tuktoyaktuk’s infrastructure (Manson and Solomon 2007). Projections of climate change indicate that permafrost melting may cause significant damage to infrastructure within the next 50 years (Furgal and Prowse 2008; Forbes 2011). There is some risk for personal safety if changes are rapid, but the greatest risks are damage and loss of personal or public property. Most of this damage can likely be avoided through construction techniques that minimize disturbance to the upper layer of permafrost and protect the underlying frozen ground. There remains the question as to whether ‘‘climate proofing’’ techniques will be adopted. Figure 5 presents modeled projections of sea-ice concentration and wind speeds in the Beaufort Sea during winter months. Declining sea-ice concentrations are indicative of a longer open-water season. The increase in wave action associated with higher wind speeds points to the likelihood of increased erosion along the Beaufort Sea coast (these projections are discussed more fully in Manson and Solomon 2007). Strong storm events, which typically occur in late summer and autumn, can have considerable impacts on the shoreline in relatively short periods of time

Community-based vulnerability assessment Fig. 5 Modeled sea-ice concentration and wind speed in the Beaufort Sea during winter months (reproduced from Manson and Solomon 2007 with permission from the authors and the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society)

(Reimnitz and Maurer 1979; Couture et al. 2002; Johnson et al. 2003; Manson et al. 2005). Tuktoyaktuk receives the highest frequency of storm events in October (Atkinson 2005), and thus, in years with a combination of later freezeup and intense storm events, there is a greater risk of rapid erosion. Under recent projections of sea-ice reduction, such combinations will be more frequent, and there is an expected increase in erosion rates. Johnson et al. (2003) projected the future progression of erosion in Tuktoyaktuk by assessing historical retreat rates and existing shoreline protection measures. These projections estimated that the community’s tip could disappear within 10 years and that within 25 years there could be at least 15 buildings damaged or destroyed as the shoreline recedes. As time draws closer to the 10 year benchmark, it is evident that erosion has not proceeded at this rate, and this is due to additional shoreline protection that was added since Johnson et al.’s (2003) analysis. The success of these adaptation efforts provide some optimism for continued shoreline protection that slows or halts erosion. The crucial areas are the northern tip of the community and the island at the entrance of the harbor (to the east of the tip) because if these areas continue to erode, there will be no protection for Tuktoyaktuk’s inner harbor, and strong storms will be more likely to flood the low-lying areas of the community. Future rates of shoreline erosion are difficult to project since it is unknown how the current shoreline protection measures will be respond to extreme storm events, relative sea-level rise and changing ice conditions over the long term. Mackenzie Valley Pipeline As of early 2011, the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline has received regulatory assent from the Canadian government and is nearing the final stages before construction can

commence. The proposal for the gas pipeline is based upon development of three anchor fields west of Tuktoyaktuk and will run south through NWT and connect to a gas pipeline network in Alberta. If the proposed pipeline and associated projects proceed, they will have numerous influences on livelihood and wellbeing exposure-sensitivities in Tuktoyaktuk. In particular, the abundance and distribution of wildlife, harvesters’ to access wildlife and employment rates are expected to be influenced by the pipeline and associated anchor field development. As a major development project, the project would generate a boom of employment for the construction of the pipeline and setting up drilling at the three anchor fields. Tuktoyaktuk residents will be able to attain employment during the construction phases of the project but there will be fewer jobs during operation, and it is likely that only those with sufficient education will be employed long term. At least 1,000 northern residents will be employed short term during the construction of the pipeline and related facilities, but as few as 50 long-term positions have been estimated for the operation and maintenance of the pipeline and anchor fields (Nuttall 2006; Joint Review Panel 2010). Furthermore, oil prices fluctuate greatly because of international events, and employment levels will go through boom and bust cycles. Infrastructure built up around the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline (secondary pipelines, roads, drilling sites) will fragment and shrink habitat areas for local wildlife, especially caribou and waterfowl because they migrate over the proposed development areas (Huntington 2007). The Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, tasked with assessing environmental and socio-economic impacts of the proposed pipeline, found that some of the adverse socio-economic and environmental impacts of the pipeline could be alleviated by appropriate planning and design (Joint Review Panel 2010). These include disaster preparedness,

123


economic diversification and early initiation of transition planning. Although oil and gas development will increase employment opportunities, flow of goods and services to the community and opportunities for skills training, it may suppress participation in harvesting activities, reduce livelihood flexibility and further inhibit transmission of traditional knowledge to younger generations.

Adaptive capacity for addressing future changes Adaptive capacity is related to the ability of (in this case) a community’s potential or ability to moderate potential damages, take advantage of opportunities or cope with the consequences of climate or other changes (Smit and Pilifosova 2001; Yohe and Tol 2002). Analysis of current responses to changing socio-economic and environmental conditions indicates that within Tuktoyaktuk there is considerable capacity to deal with the intensification of the existing exposure-sensitivities, although adaptive capacity is highly variable. In light of continual adjustments to harvesting practices, economic opportunities and social conditions over the last century, Inuvialuit in Tuktoyaktuk are accustomed to change and have experience with facing unprecedented circumstances. This community has been adaptive enough to meet the needs of whatever comes. And historically, our ancestors were able to do the same thing. Being ready for it and being prepared for it and taking advantage of it when it does comes I think reflects on the lifestyle we’ve been able to be comfortable with. We go with the flow. -Eddie Dillon, Tuktoyaktuk resident People who are able to take advantage of opportunities in both the wage economy and subsistence harvesting have flexibility and the greatest capacity to adapt to changing economic and environmental conditions. These people draw upon strong cultural heritage and demonstrate flexibility and willingness to innovate. In contrast, people who do not participate in subsistence harvesting have fewer options for obtaining food and other necessities when they are unable to secure employment. Issues surrounding substance abuse and decline in social cohesion within the community further exacerbate these constraints. There are indications that there is less trust within the community and that sharing networks are less reciprocal than they were in the past. The implication of these issues is that some Tuktoyaktuk residents face considerable constraints in dealing with current and future exposure-sensitivities related to livelihoods and food security. There are currently no institutions within the community that deal with this full suite of issues. Some financial assistance and opportunities

123

for skills development are available through the Community Corporation, but this organization does not have a broad mandate for systematically addressing issues such as substance abuse, and it has a limited ability to generate employment opportunities. In the context of international climate policy, Arctic communities fall under the provisions of developed nations, despite living in conditions similar to many developing nations. While the Arctic has enjoyed a raised profile in recent years, Canadian Arctic residents still do not command the same political clout or have access to a similar level of services and resources as their southern counterparts. These realities are reflected in basic social, housing and economic needs that are not met in many instances, let alone the provision of resources for planning and preparing for adaptation to risks posed by climate change. The resources that have been provided by the federal government tend to be directed toward Canadian sovereignty, security and research, with less attention to community needs and challenges. In particular, Canada’s Auditor General has reported that the federal government has not shown consistent commitment to the needs of northerners and has not followed through with their responsibilities under the Inuvialuit land claim settlement (Auditor General of Canada 2007). Addressing risks to infrastructure and buildings due to permafrost degradation, flooding and coastal erosion are generally beyond the capacity of the community due to financial and technical constraints. Individuals and families do not have the resources to protect the shorelines or relocate their property. Although the municipal government is the institution responsible for maintaining infrastructure, they do not hold the financial resources required for addressing these risks in a comprehensive way. They are entirely dependent upon funding, approval and support from territorial and federal government agencies. Given the sensitivity of infrastructure that will be exacerbated by climate change, and the limitations of adaptive capacity, this is a key area of future vulnerability for Tuktoyaktuk. A proposed extension of the inland all-weather road from Tuktoyaktuk to Inuvik would have several benefits for the community, including increased ability to adapt to shoreline erosion and risks to buildings and infrastructure (alleviating some technical and financial constraints). Advocates of the all-weather road also believe that the road would open up the community for new economic opportunities and enable more affordable transportation of food and goods into the community. Indeed, increased land connection to Tuktoyaktuk would alleviate some constraints to adaptive capacity by lowering the cost of food and supplies and generating new opportunities for tourism and employment.


Conclusions There are likely to be various climate-related changes that have implications for Inuvialuit other than those documented in this paper, including the release of contaminants from melting permafrost around DEW Line sites and longrange distribution of pollutants. The conditions addressed in this paper were those clearly identified by members of the community. Although there is considerable overlap among exposure-sensitivities related to infrastructure, livelihoods and health and wellbeing, they have been addressed in turn to highlight particular attributes of the community that are under stress. Infrastructure and municipal services face long-term pressures due to coastal erosion and instability of permafrost, which are being exacerbated by impacts from climate change. Livelihoods in Tuktoyaktuk, which are characterized within a mixed economy, face pressures due to dwindling participation in traditional harvesting, lack of consistent and sufficient employment opportunities. Similarly, health and wellbeing are stressed due to changes in the ways that people in the community participate in activities such as wildlife harvesting and the types of food they consume. This is not to say that Inuvialuit culture is in decline, but the ways in which young people interact with wildlife and their surrounding environment (central aspects of Inuvialuit culture) are different from their elders. The stresses documented in Tuktoyaktuk bear some similarities and differences with other Arctic communities. Concerns about loss of traditional knowledge and threats to indigenous cultures have been expressed among Inuit, Sami, Nenets and other cultural groups across the Arctic (AHDR 2004; Hovelsrud and Smit 2010). Many reports on climate change in the Arctic have pointed to increased safety risks while traveling on snow and sea ice (e.g., Krupnik and Jolly 2002; Ford et al. 2006; Nickels et al. 2006), but the interviewees in Tuktoyaktuk did not express similar sentiments. This difference is on account of the timing and type of travel residents of Tuktoyaktuk do on ice. Whereas hunters in communities such as Arctic Bay hunt for narwhals from the floe (ice) edge in spring (Ford et al. 2006), in Tuktoyaktuk harvesting of beluga whales occurs on open water during summer months. Livelihood and health and wellbeing exposure-sensitivities in Tuktoyaktuk are similar to other communities across the Arctic in terms of a decline in a natural resource base such caribou, fish or forests that have declined in recent years. Whereas in Tuktoyaktuk and much of North America harvesting is subsistence based, northern Scandinavia has much more commercial enterprise (e.g., Hovelsrud et al. 2010; Keskitalo 2010). Infrastructure risks due to coastal erosion in Tuktoyaktuk shares some resemblance to other Arctic communities, such as Barrow

and Shishmaref in Alaska (Lynch and Brunner 2007) but the magnitude of risk differs in each community due to variances in physical forcings. Other communities across the Arctic face risks to infrastructure due to floods (e.g., Inari, Finland and Dawson City, Yukon, Canada) or snow and rock avalanches (e.g., Arctic Bay, Canada and Hammerfest, Norway), which bring different types of risks and adaptive responses (e.g., Ford et al. 2010; Tennberg et al. 2010). Of the adaptations that have been documented among Tuktoyaktuk residents, very few are specific to climate change. The community generally views changes in weather and wildlife conditions as part of natural variability, with responses being consistent with year-to-year adjustments. In relation to livelihoods and wellbeing, residents of Tuktoyaktuk focus on short time scales of weather, employment and wildlife movements (hours, days or months), rather than looking years ahead with planning. The community has demonstrated adaptability in the shorter time scales. Pressures due to climate change and the proposed Mackenzie Valley Pipeline raise concerns about the long-term adaptability of segments of the community. Many Inuvialuit look beyond the perception of themselves as victims of climate change and would rather be part of the solutions by working with government agencies and industry. The ways that Tuktoyaktuk has addressed infrastructure risks have largely been influenced by financial and technical support from higher levels of government and have focused on slowing erosion as a preventative measure. The findings of this case study lend further support for the need for local communities and regional governments to play central roles in adaptation planning. In contrasting the ways that Tuktoyaktuk residents experience infrastructure, livelihoods and wellbeing stresses with other Arctic communities, it is evident that while there are some common experiences, local circumstances indicate that blanket solutions would have limited effectiveness. At the same time, it is apparent that local financial and technical resources alone are not sufficient for climate change adaptation—contributions from higher levels of governance are necessary. Adaptation planning and policy needs to enable local involvement in the protection of important community attributes. This article has contributed to the identification of key areas of risk and resources that can assist in this process. Acknowledgments Thank you to everyone in Tuktoyaktuk who supported and participated in this research, especially Rebecca Pokiak, Tessa Dillon, James Pokiak and Maureen Pokiak. Maps were created by Adam Bonnycastle and Marie Puddister. Thank you to Gavin Manson of the Geological Survey of Canada for support in reproducing Fig. 5. Funding for this research was provided by ArcticNet, Aurora Research Institute, SSHRC, CRC and IPY Canada.

123

M. Andrachuk, B. Smit The paper was improved by discussion with colleagues in the Global Environmental Change Group and comments from two anonymous reviewers.

References ACIA (2005) Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Adamczewski J, Boulanger J, Croft B, Cluff D, Elkin B, Nishi J, Kelly A, D’Hont A, Nicolson C (2009) Decline in the Bathurst caribou herd 2006–2009: a technical evaluation of field data and modeling. Bathurst Caribou Herd Decline: DRAFT Technical Report. p 105 Adger N (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Change 16:268–281 Adger W, Kelly MP (1999) Social vulnerability to climate change and the architecture of entitlements. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 4:253–266 Adger WN, Agrawala S, Mirza MMQ, Conde C, O’Brien K, Pulhin J et al (2007) Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 717–743 AHDR (2004) Arctic Human Development Report. Stefansson Arctic Institute, Akureyri, Iceland. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Alunik I, Kolausok ED, Morrison D (2003) Across Time and Tundra: the Inuvialuit of the Western Arctic. Raincoast Books, University of Washington Press, and Canadian Museum of Civilization, Vancouver Anisimov OA, Vaughn DG, Callaghan TV, Furgal C, Marchant H, Prowse TD et al (2007) Polar regions (arctic and antarctic). In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 653–685 Armitage D, Berkes F, Doubleday N (2007) Adaptive co-management: collaboration, learning, and mulit-level governance. UBC Press, Vancouver Atkinson DE (2005) Observed storminess patterns and trends in the circum-Arctic coastal regime. Geo-Mar Lett 25:98–109 Auditor General of Canada (2007) Chapter 3: Inuvialuit Final Agreement, in Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons. Oct 2007. ISBN 978-0-662-46984-1 Belliveau S, Smit B, Bradshaw B (2006) Multiple exposures and dynamic vulnerability: evidence from the grape and wine industry in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, Canada. Glob Environ Change 16:364–378 Berg BL (2001) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences, 4th edn. Allyn and Bacon, Toronto Berger TR (1977) Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland: Report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. Douglas and McIntyre, Vancouver/Toronto, p 272 Berkes F, Jolly D (2001) Adapting to climate change: socialecological resilience in a Canadian western Arctic community. Conserv Ecol 5:18 Blanchet C, Dewailley E, Ayotte P, Bruneau S, Receveur O, Holub BJ (2000) Contribution of selected traditional foods and market foods to the diet of Nunavik Inuit women. Can J Diet Pract Res 61:50–59 Burton I, Huq S, Lim B, Pilifosova O, Schipper EL (2002) From impacts assessment to adaptation priorities: the shaping of adaptation policy. Clim Policy 2:145–159

123

Carmack EC, Macdonald RW (2002) Oceanography of the Canadian Shelf of the Beaufort Sea: a setting for marine life. Arctic 55:29–45 Chapin FS, Peterson G, Berkes F, Callaghan TV, Angelstam P, Apps M et al (2004) Resilience and vulnerability of Northern regions to social and environmental change. Ambio 33:344–349 Christensen JH, Hewitson B, Busuioc A, Chen A, Gao X, Held I et al (2007) Regional climate projections. In: Solomon D, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB et al (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 847–940 Clark DA, Lee DS, Freeman MMR, Clark SG (2008) Polar bear conservation in Canada: defining the policy problems. Arctic 61(4):347–360 Cobb D, Fast H, Papst MH, Rosenberg D, Rutherford R, Sareault JE (2008) Beaufort Sea Large Ocean Management Area: Ecosystem Overview and Assessment Report. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Winnipeg, p 196 Cohen SJ (1997) Mackenzie Basin Impact Study (MBIS): Final Report. Atmospheric Environment Services, Environment Canada, Downsview, p 372 Collings P (2009) Participant observation and phased assertion as research strategies in the Canadian Arctic. Field Methods 21(2):133–153 Couture R, Robinson S, Burgess M, Solomon S (2002) Climate change, permafrost, and community infrastructure: a compilation of background material from a pilot study of Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories. Geol Surv Can Open File 3867:83 Dessai S, Hulme M (2004) Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Clim Policy 4:107–128 Dewailley E, Furgal C (2003) POPs, the environment and public health. In: Downie DL, Fenge T (eds) Northern lights against POPs: combating toxic threats in the arctic. Published for the Inuit Circumpolar Conference Canada by McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal and Kingston, pp 3–21 DFO (2000) Eastern Beaufort Sea Beluga Whales. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Stock Status Report E5-38 (2000), p 14 Dickson DL, Gilchrist HG (2002) Status of marine birds of the southeastern Beaufort Sea. Arctic 55:46–58 Dowsley M, Wenzel GW (2008) ‘‘The time of the most mears’’: a co-management conflict in Nunavut. Arctic 61(2):177–189 Duerden F (2004) Translating climate change impacts at the community level. Arctic 57(2):204–212 Duhaime G, Chabot M, Gaudreault M (2002) Food consumption patterns and socioeconomic factors among the Inuit of Nunavik. Ecol Food Nutr 41:91–118 Duhaime G, Chabot M, Frechette P, Robichaud V, Proulx S (2004) The impact of dietary changes among Inuit of Nunavik (Canada): a socioeconomic assessment of possible public health recommendations dealing with food contamination. Risk Anal 24(4):1007–1018 Egeland G, Pacey A, Cao Z, Sobol I (2010) Food insecurity among Inuit preschoolers: Nunavut Inuit child health survey, 2007–2008. CMAJ 182(3):243–248 Environment Canada (2004) Canadian climate normals 1971–2000: Tuktoyaktuk A, Northwest Territories Fast H, Mathias J, Banias O (2001) Directions toward marine conservation in Canada’s Western Arctic. Ocean Coast Manage 44:183–205 Forbes DL (ed) (2011) State of the Arctic Coast 2010—scientific review and outlook. International Arctic Science Committee, Land–Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, International Permafrost Association. Helmholtz-Zentrum, Geesthacht

Community-based vulnerability assessment Ford JD (2009) Vulnerability of Inuit food systems to food insecurity as a consequence of climate change: a case study from Igloolik, Nunavut. Reg Environ Change 9:83–100 Ford JD, Berrang-Ford L (eds) (2011) Climate change adaptation in developed nations: from theory to practice. Springer, Netherlands Ford JD, Smit B (2004) A framework for assessing the vulnerability of communities in the Canadian arctic to risks associated with climate change. Arcitc 57:389–400 Ford JD, Smit B, Wandel J (2006) Vulnerability to climate change in the Arctic: a case study from Arctic Bay, Nunavut. Glob Environ Change 16:145–160 Ford JD, Smit B, Wandel J, Allurut M, Shappa K, Ittusujurat H, Qrunnut K (2008) Resource harvesting in a changing Arctic: current and future vulnerability to climate change in two Inuit communities in Canada. Geogr J 174:45–62 Ford JD, Pearce T, Duerden F, Furgal C, Smit B (2010) Climate change policy responses for Canada’s Inuit population: the importance of and opportunities for adaptation. Glob Environ Change 20:177–191 Freeman MMR, Foote L (eds) (2009) Inuit, polar bears and sustainable use. CCI Press, Edmonton Freeman MMR, Wenzel GW (2006) The nature and significance of polar bear conservation hunting in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic 59(1):21–30 Furgal C, Prowse TD (2008) Northern Canada. In: Lemmen DS, Warren FJ, Lacroix J, Bush E (eds) From impacts to adaptation: Canada in a changing climate 2007. Government of Canada, Ottawa, pp 57–118 Gearheard S, Aporta C, Aipellee G, O’Keefe K (2011) The Igliniit project: Inuit hunters document life on the trail to map and monitor Arctic change. Can Geogr 55(1):42–55 Gibbs M (2001) Toward a strategy undertaking cross-cultural collaborative research. Soc Nat Resour 14:673–687 Gionet L (2008) Inuit in Canada: selected findings of the 2006 census. Canadian social trends. Statistics Canada Catalogue no.11-008 GNWT (2007) Summary of NWT community statistics—2007. Bureau of Statistics, Government of Northwest Territorie, Yellowknife s GNWT (2008) NWT Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Report. Government of Northwest Territories, Yellowknife Government of Canada (1984) The Western Arctic claim: the Inuvialuit final agreement. Government of Canada, Ottawa Gunn A (2003) Voles, lemmings and caribou—population cycles revisited? Rangifer 14:105–111 Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk (1984) Community plan for the Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T. Handmer JW, Dovers S, Downing TE (1999) Societal vulnerability to climate change and variability. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 4:267–281 Hinzman L, Bettez N, Bolton W, Chapin F, Dyurgerov M, Fastie C et al (2005) Evidence and implications of recent climate change in northern Alaska and other Arctic regions. Clim Change 72:251– 298 Hovelsrud GK, Smit B (eds) (2010) Community adaptation and vulnerability in Arctic Regions. Springer, Netherlands Hovelsrud GK, Dannevig H, West J, Amundsen H (2010) Adaptation in fisheries and municipalities: three communities in northern Norway. In: Hovelsrud GK, Smit B (eds) Community adaptation and vulnerability in Arctic Regions. Springer, Netherlands, pp 1–22 Huntington HP (1998) Observations on the utility of the semidirective interview for documenting traditional ecological knowledge. Arctic 51(3):237–242 Huntington, HP (2007) Arctic oil and gas 2007. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo

Huq S, Reid H, Murray LA (2006) Climate change and development links. International Institute for Environment and Development’s Gatekeeper Series 123 IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis: contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB et al (eds) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 996 ITK and NRI (2007) Negotiating research relationships with Inuit communities: a guide for researchers. Inuit Taparit Kanatami and Nunavut Research Centre, Ottawa and Iqaluit Johnson K, Solomon S, Berry D, Graham P (2003) Erosion progression and adaptation strategy in a northern coastal community. In: 8th international conference on Permafrost Joint Review Panel (2010) Foundation for a Sustainable Northern Future: Report of the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project. Available from www.ngps.nt.ca/report.html. Accessed 2 June 2010 Joint Secretariat (2003) Inuvialuit Harvest Study: Data and Methods Report 1988–1997. Inuvialuit Joint Secretariat, Inuvik Kasperson RE, Kasperson JX (2001) Climate change, vulnerability and social justice. Stockholm, Risk and Vulnerability Programme, Stockholm Environment Institute. ISBN: 91-8871473-X Kattsov VM, Kallen E, Cattle H, Christensen J, Drange H, HanssenBauer I et al (2005) Future climate change: modeling and scenarios for the arctic. In: Symon C, Ariss L, Heal B (eds) Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 100–150 Keskitalo ECH (2008) Climate change and globalization in the arctic: an integrated approach to vulnerability assessment. Earthscan, Sterling Keskitalo ECH (2010) Climate change, vulnerability and adaptive capacity in a multi-use forest municipality in northern Sweden. In: Hovelsrud GK, Smit B (eds) Community adaptation and vulnerability in Arctic regions. Springer, Netherlands, pp 285– 312 Klein DR, Baskin LM, Bogoslovskaya LS, Danell K, Gunn A, Irons DB et al (2005) Management and conservation of wildlife in a changing arctic environment. In: Symon C, Ariss L, Heal B (eds) Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 597–648 Kofinas G, Forbes B, Beach H, Berkes F, Berman M, Chapin T et al (2005) ICARP II—science plan 10: a research plan for the study of rapid change, resilience and vulnerability, in social-ecological systems of the Arctic Krupnik I, Jolly D (2002) The earth is faster now: indigenous observations of climate change. Arctic Research Consortium of the United States, Fairbanks Kuhnlein HV (1995) Benefits and risks of traditional food for indigenous peoples: focus on dietary intakes of Arctic men. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 73:771 Kuhnlein HV, Receveur O (1996) Dietary change and traditional food systems of indigenous peoples. Annu Rev Nutr 16:442 Kuhnlein HV, Receveur O (2007) Local cultural animal food contributes high levels of nutrients for Arctic Canadian indigenous adults and children. J Nutr 137:1110–1114 Kwok R, Cunningham GF (2010) Contribution of melt in the Beaufort Sea to the decline in Arctic sea ice coverage: 1993–2009. Geophys Res Lett 37:L20501. doi:10.1029/2010GL044678 Laidler GJ (2006) Inuit and scientific perspectives on the relationship between sea ice and climate change: the ideal complement? Clim Change 78:407–444 Lemke P, Ren J, Alley RB, Allison I, Carrasco J, Flato G et al (2007) Observations: changes in snow, ice and frozen ground. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB

123

M. Andrachuk, B. Smit et al (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 337–383 Lim B, Spanger-Siegfried E (2005) Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change: developing strategies, policies and measures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Luo Z-C, Senecal S, Simonet F, Guimond E, Penney C, Wilkins R (2010) Birth outcomes in the Inuit-inhabited areas of Canada. CMAJ 182(3):235–242 Lynch AH, Brunner RD (2007) Context and climate change: an integrated assessment for Barrow, Alaska. Clim Change 82:93– 111 Manson GK, Solomon SM (2007) Past and future forcing of Beaufort Sea coastal change. Atmos Ocean 45:107–122 Manson GK, Solomon SM, Forbes DL, Atkinson DE, Craymer M (2005) Spatial variability of factors influencing coastal change in the western Canadian Arctic. Geo-Mar Lett 25:138–145 Manson GK, Solomon SM, Forbes DL, Whalen D, Taylor B, Frobel D, Parlee K (2006) Hazards to coastal infrastructure in Canada and the implications of climate change: with special reference to the Mackenzie Delta and Tuktoyaktuk. In: Presentation at Coastal Zone Canada 2006 conference. Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories, Canada. 14–18 Aug 2006 Metzger MJ, Schro¨ter D (2006) Towards a spatially explicit and quantitative vulnerability assessment of environmental change in Europe. Reg Environ Change 6:201–216 Nickels S, Furgal C, Buell M, Moquin H (2006) Unikkaaqatigiit— putting the human face on climate change: perspectives from Inuit in Canada. Joint publication of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Nasivvik Centre for Inuit Health and Changing Environments at Universite Laval and the Ajunnginiq Centre at the National Aboriginal Health Organization, Ottawa Nuttall M (2006) The Mackenzie Gas Project: aboriginal interests, the environment and northern Canada’s energy frontier. Indig Aff 2–3:20–29 Nuttall M, Berkes F, Forbes B, Kofinas G, Vlassova T, Wenzel G (2005) Hunting, herding, fishing, and gathering: indigenous peoples and renewable resource use in the arctic. In: Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 649–690 O’Brien K, Leichenko R, Kelkar U, Venema H, Aandahl G, Tomkins H et al (2004) Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate change and globalization in India. Glob Environ Change 14:303–313 Palys T (1997) Research decisions: quantitative and qualitative perspectives, 2nd edn. Harcourt Canada, Toronto Pearce T, Smit B, Duerden F, Ford JD, Goose A, Kataoyak F (2009) Inuit vulnerability and adaptive capacity to climate change in Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories, Canada. Polar Rec 46:157–177. doi:10.1017/S0032247409008602 Pearce T, Ford JD, Duerden F, Smit B, Andrachuk M, Berrang-Ford L, Smith T (2011a) Advancing adaptation planning for climate change in the Inuvialuit settlement region (ISR): a review and critique. Reg Environ Change 11(1):1–17. doi:10.1007/s10113010-0126-4 Pearce T, Wright H, Notaina R, Kudlak A, Smit B, Ford JD, Ford JD, Furgal C (2011b) Transmission of environmental knowledge and land skills among Inuit men in Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories, Canada. Hum Ecol 39(3):271–288 Post E, Forschhammer MC (2008) Climate change reduces reproductive success of an Arctic herbivore through trophic mismatch. Philos Trans R Soc B 363:2369–2375 Post E, Pedersen C, Wilmers CC, Forschhammer MC (2008) Warming, plant phenology and the spatial dimension of trophic mismatch for large herbivores. Proc R Soc B 275:2005–2013

123

Rachold V, Cherkashov G (2003) Arctic Coastal Dynamics: Report of the 4th International Workshop. International Arctic Sciences Committee (IASC), the International Permafrost Association (IPA) and a regional project of IGBP-LOICZ (International Geosphere–Biosphere Programme–Land–Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone), St. Petersburg Reidsma P, Ewert F, Lansink AO, Leemans R (2009) Vulnerability and adaptation of European farmers: a multi-level analysis of yield and income responses to climate variability. Reg Environ Change 9:25–40 Reimnitz E, Maurer DK (1979) Effects of storm surges on the Beaufort Sea coast, northern Alaska. Arctic 32:329–344 Smit B, Pilifosova O (2001) Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and equity. In: McCarthy J, Canzianni OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (eds) Climate change 2001. Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: contribution of working group II to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 877–911 Smit B, Pilifosova O (2003) From adaptation to adaptive capacity and vulnerability reduction. In: Smith JB, Klein RJT, Huq S (eds) Climate change, adaptive capacity and development. Imperial College Press, London Smit B, Wandel J (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob Environ Change 16:282–292 Smit B, Burton I, Klein R, Street R (1999) The science of adaptation: a framework for assessment. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 4:199–213 Smit B, Burton I, Klein R, Wandel J (2000) The anatomy of adaptation to climate change and variability. Clim Change 45:223–251 Smit B, Hovelsrud GK, Wandel J, Andrachuk M (2010) Introduction to the CAVIAR project and framework. In: Hovelsrud GK, Smit B (eds) Community adaptation and vulnerability in arctic regions. Springer, Netherlands, pp 1–22 Smith JB, Klein RJT, Huq S (eds) (2003) Climate change, adaptive capacity and development. Imperial College Press, London Solomon SM (2005) Spatial and temporal variability of shoreline change in the Beaufort-Mackenzie region, Northwest Territories, Canada. Geo-Mar Lett 25:127–137 Solomon S, Hart E (2000) Storminess in the Western Arctic: extending the historical record using Hudson’s Bay company archives. http://www.emanrese.ca/eman/reports/ publications/ 99_national/hudsonbay.html. Accessed 20 July 2009 Solomon S, Forbes DL, Kierstead B (1993) Coastal impacts of climate change: Beaufort Sea erosion study. Geol Surv Can Open File 2890:35 Sou T, Flato G (2009) Sea ice in the Canadian Arctic archipelago: modeling the past (1950–2004) and the future (2041–60). J Clim 22:2181–2198 Statistics Canada (2002a) 2001 Community profiles: Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories (table). Available from http://www12. statcan.ca/english/Profil01/CP01/Index.cfm?Lang=E. Accessed 22 Feb 2009 Statistics Canada (2002b) 2001 census: aboriginal population profiles. Available from http://www12.statcan.ca/english/Profil01/AP01/ Index.cfm?Lang=E. Accessed 23 Feb 2009 Statistics Canada (2007) 2006 community profiles: Tuktoyaktuk Northwest Territories (table). Available from http://www12. statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index. cfm? Lang=E. Accessed 22 Feb 2009 Stephenson SR, Smith LC, Agnew JA (2011) Divergent long-term trajectories of human access to the Arctic. Nat Clim Change 1:156–160 Taenzler D, Carius A, Maas A (2008) Assessing the susceptibility of societies to droughts: a political science perspective. Reg Environ Change 8:161–172

Community-based vulnerability assessment Tennberg M, Vuojala-Magga T, Turunen M (2010) The Ivalo River and its people: there have always been floods—what is the difference now? In: Hovelsrud GK, Smit B (eds) Community adaptation and vulnerability in Arctic Regions. Springer, Netherlands, pp 221–237 Thomas DSG, Twyman C (2005) Equity and justice in climate change adaptation amongst natural-resource-dependant societies. Glob Environ Change 15:115–124 Turner BL, Matson PM, McCarthy J, Corell RW, Christensen L, Eckley N et al (2003) Illustrating the coupled human–environment system for vulnerability analysis: three case studies. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 100:8080–8085 Tyler NJC, Turi JM, Sundset MA, Strøm Bull K, Sara MN, Reinert E et al (2007) Saami reindeer pastoralism under climate change: applying a generalized framework for vulnerability studies to a sub-arctic social–ecological system. Glob Environ Change 17:191–206 Usher PJ (1993) Northern development, impact assessment, and social change. In: Dyck N, Waldram JB (eds) Anthropology, public policy, and native peoples in Canada. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal and Kingston, pp 98–130 Usher PJ (2002) Inuvialuit use of the Beaufort Sea and its resources, 1960–2000. Arctic 55:18–28

Wein EE, Freeman MMR, Makus JC (1996) Use and preference of traditional foods among the Belcher Island Inuit. Arctic 49:256–264 Wenzel GW (1991) Animal rights, human rights: ecology, economy and ideology in the Canadian Arctic. University of Toronto Press, Toronto Wesche S, Armitage D (2006) Adapting to environmental change in a northern delta system. In: Riewe R, Oakes J (eds) Climate change: linking traditional and scientific knowledge. Aboriginal Issues Press, Winnipeg, pp 105–120 Westerhoff L, Smit B (2009) The rains are disappointing us: dynamic vulnerability and adaptation to multiple stressors in the Afram Plains, Ghana. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Environ Change 14:317–337 Wolfe BB, Armitage D, Wesche S, Brock BE, Sokal ME, CloggWright KP et al (2007) From isotopes to TK interviews: towards interdisciplinary research in Fort Resolution and the Slave River Delta, Northwest Territories. Arctic 60:75–87 Yohe G, Tol RSJ (2002) Indicators for social and economic coping capacity—moving toward a working definition of adaptive capacity. Glob Environ Change 12:25–40 Zhang X, Vincent LA, Hogg WD, Niitsoo A (2000) Temperature and precipitation trends in Canada during the 20th century. Atmos Ocean 38(3):395–429

123