Introduction

The indigenous peoples of the Arctic have adapted to great environmental variability, cold, extended winter darkness, and fluctuations in animal populations, among many other challenges posed by geography and climate. Although the arctic climate has always undergone change, current and projected changes make it timely and important to reflect on the ways that such changes affect arctic residents, particularly the indigenous residents whose way of life is so closely linked to their surroundings. It is also important to consider how these indigenous residents observe and feel about the changes that are occurring. Together, such perspectives can help the global community understand what is at stake in a changing Arctic.

Much of the Arctic has been inhabited since at least the end of the last ice age, and some areas for far longer^[1]. During this time, human groups have come and gone, and evolved and adapted, their patterns of settlement changing, often abruptly, in response not only to climate but also to regional patterns such as resource availability, relations with neighbors, landscape change, hunting and fishing technology, and the rise of reindeer husbandry^[2]. In recent centuries and in particular the twentieth century, forces from outside the region have shaped human patterns in the Arctic, as the modern world has extended its reach and influence. Today, the Arctic is home to a large number of indigenous peoples with distinct cultures, languages, traditions, and ways of interacting with their environment^[3]. They have in common a close connection to their surroundings, an intimate understanding of their environment^[4], complex relationships with national and sub-national governments and non-indigenous migrants to the Arctic^[5], a way of life that mixes modern and traditional activities, and a major stake in the future of the region^[6]. An overview of humans in the Arctic is given in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), Chapter 1.

This article attempts to show some of the observations of change that indigenous inhabitants of the Arctic consider to be related to climate change. In doing so, the comments and perspective also show what climate change means to them and their communities within the context of the other forces affecting their lives and cultures. Although little material is available concerning indigenous perspectives on ultraviolet (UV) radiation and ozone depletion, this article includes a short summary of some related observations. Other chapters of the ACIA describe impacts on specific components of the environment and areas of human activity and so draw extensively on indigenous knowledge and perspectives, a level of inclusion that is unprecedented in an assessment of the type and scope of the ACIA.

This chapter addresses the impacts of climate change and variability on those affected most directly: the people whose ways of life are based on their use of the land and waters of the Arctic. This has been achieved using a series of case studies drawn from existing research projects that have been selected to give, through specific examples rather than general summaries, a sense of the variety of indigenous perspectives on climate change in the Arctic. The case studies are idiosyncratic, reflecting differences in the communities they describe as well as differences in the aims and methods of the studies from which they derive. Because they are examples, the case studies cannot reflect all the views held within arctic communities. Some communities, such as those in Greenland that fish for cod, may see benefits from climate change if fish stocks increase, a perspective that may be missing from case studies focusing more on the negative impacts of climate change. Nonetheless, the case studies are intended to give a human face to some of the impacts of weather and climate change observed by arctic residents.

Although people plan around expectations that reflect the climate of their area, their daily activities are affected more by the day’s weather. Many of the statements and perspectives contained in this chapter reflect perceptions of weather and changes in weather patterns and variability, which are also of interest to climatologists examining the ways that climate change is manifested in the Arctic^[7]. The distinction between weather change and climate change is not simple, and observations about weather may indicate something significant about the arctic climate. It is also likely that the publicity surrounding climate change has led many people in the Arctic, as elsewhere, to interpret observations in the light of climate, whether or not this is appropriate. This article presents the connections indigenous peoples draw between their own observations and the general phenomenon of climate change.

In describing the significance of climate change for indigenous peoples, it is important to remember that there are many forms of environmental change in the Arctic, as well as extensive social changes related to modernization and globalization^[8]. The challenges these pose often require great attention and effort by indigenous peoples and organizations. From negotiating the creation of Nunavut in Canada to responding to threats from oil and gas development in northern Russia, arctic indigenous peoples have had to organize themselves to articulate and fight for their values and ways of life. In some cases, they have been successful in promoting global action. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants was adopted in 2001, in no small part resulting from concerns about contaminants in the Arctic and their impacts on indigenous peoples and cultures^[9]. More recently, Inuit leaders have framed climate change as a human rights issue (Sheila Watt-Cloutier as quoted in Brown^[10]). Climate change is a topic about which indigenous peoples have a great deal to share with the world.

Indigenous knowledge

Indigenous peoples have long depended on their knowledge and skills for survival, including their ability to function in small, independent groups by dividing labor and maintaining strong social support and mutual ties both within and between their immediate communities^[11]. Knowledge about the environment is equally important. Understanding the patterns of animal behavior and aggregation is necessary for acquiring food. Successful traveling and living in a cold-dominated landscape requires the ability to read subtle signs in the ice, snow, and weather. Gradual shifts in social patterns and environmental conditions make this a continuous process of learning and adapting. In the past, sudden shifts in physical conditions, such as abrupt warming or cooling, led to radical changes including the abandonment of large areas for extended periods that is apparent from the archeological record^[12]. Knowing one’s surroundings was an often-tested requirement, one that remains true today for those who travel on and live off the land and sea^[13].

Academic engagement with indigenous knowledge

Those outside indigenous communities have not always recognized or respected the value of this knowledge. Occasionally used and less frequently credited prior to, and during most of the twentieth century, indigenous knowledge from the Arctic has received increasing attention over the past couple of decades^[14]. This interest, arising from research in the ethnosciences, has taken the form of studies to document indigenous knowledge about various aspects of the environment^[15], the increasing use of cooperative approaches to wildlife management and environmental management^[16], and a greater emphasis on collaborative research between scientists and indigenous people^[17]. This section describes some of the characteristics of indigenous knowledge and its relevance for studies of climate change and its implications.

The topic of indigenous knowledge is not without disputes and controversy. In fact, agreement has not even been found on the appropriate term – "traditional knowledge", "traditional ecological knowledge", "traditional knowledge and wisdom", "local and traditional knowledge", "indigenous knowledge", and various combinations of these words and their acronyms are among those that have been used^[18]. Terms specific to particular peoples are also common, such as "Saami knowledge" or "Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit". Although their definitions largely overlap, each raises difficulties. The term "indigenous" in this context excludes long-term arctic residents not of indigenous descent, implies that all indigenous persons hold this knowledge, and emphasizes ancestry over experience. "Traditional" has a connotation of being static and from past times, whereas this knowledge is current and dynamic. "Local" fails to capture the sense of continuity and the practice of building on what was learned by previous generations. "Knowledge" by itself omits the insights learned from experience and application, which are better captured by "wisdom". All of these terms neglect the spiritual dimensions of knowledge and connection with the environment that are often of greatest importance to those who hold this knowledge. Some groups, such as the World Intellectual Property Organization, identify "indigenous knowledge" as a subset of "traditional knowledge", with the latter incorporating folklore^[19]. The issue of terminology will not be resolved here, but the term "indigenous knowledge" is used in a broad sense, encompassing the various systems of knowledge, practice, and belief gained through experience and culturally transmitted among members and generations of a community^[20].

By any term, indigenous knowledge plays a vital role in arctic communities, and its perpetuation is important to the future of such communities. It has also become a popular research topic. Scholars within and outside the indigenous community discuss its nature, the appropriate ways in which it should be studied and used, how it can be understood, and how it relates to other ways of knowing such as the scientific. Many agree that indigenous knowledge offers great insight from people who live close to and depend greatly on the local environment and its ecology^[21]. Most of these scholars also recognize, however, that gaining access to and using this knowledge must be done with respect for community rights and interests, and with awareness of the cultural contexts within which the knowledge is gathered, held, and communicated^[22]. Successful efforts are typically built on trust and mutual understanding. It takes time for knowledge holders to feel comfortable sharing what they know, for researchers to be able to understand and interpret what they see and hear, and for both groups to understand how indigenous knowledge is represented and for what purpose.

The legal and political contexts of indigenous knowledge must also be taken into account. The intellectual property aspects of indigenous knowledge are being explored^[23]. Some jurisdictions in the Arctic require that it be considered in processes such as resource management and environmental impact assessment^[24]. Throughout the Arctic, there is increasing political pressure to use indigenous knowledge, but often without clear guidance on exactly how this should be achieved. Most existing ethical guidelines or checklists for community involvement in research identify the areas to be addressed in research agreements, but do not resolve how the controversial questions are best answered^[25]. Such uncertainty may lead to reluctance on the part of some researchers to engage in studies of indigenous knowledge, but at present there are many good examples of collaborative projects that have benefited both the communities involved and those conducting the research^[26].

The development and nature of indigenous knowledge

Careful observation of the world combined with interpretation in various forms is the foundation for indigenous knowledge^[27]. The ability to thrive in the Arctic depends in large part on the ability to anticipate and respond to dangers, risks, opportunities, and change. Knowing where caribou are likely to be is as important as knowing how to stalk them. Sensing when sea ice is safe enough for travel is an essential part of bringing home a seal. The accuracy and reliability of this knowledge has been repeatedly subjected to the harshest test as people’s lives have depended on decisions made on the basis of their understanding of the environment. Mistakes can lead to death, even for those with great experience. Thus, information of particular relevance to survival has been valued and refined through countless generations, as individuals combine the lessons of their elders with personal experience^[28].

Indigenous knowledge is far more than a collection of facts. It is an understanding of the world and of the human place in the world^[29]. From observations, people everywhere find patterns and similarities and associations, from which they develop a view of how the world works, a view that explains the mysteries surrounding them, that gives them a sense of place^[30]. In the Arctic, parallels may be drawn, for example, in the migrations of caribou, cranes, and whales^[31]. Systems of resource use are developed to make efficient use of available resources^[32]. Hunters develop rituals and practices that reflect their view of the world^[33]. Stories, dances, songs, and artwork express this worldview^[34]. In turn, culture shapes perception, and the world is interpreted according to the way it is understood. When personal memories and stories are retold to family members, relatives, neighbors, and others, as is common practice across the Arctic, an extensive local record is built. Non-verbal transmission of knowledge and skills, for example through observation and imitation, is also common. It often extends over several generations and represents the accumulated knowledge of many highly experienced and respected persons. Learning the knowledge of one’s people involves absorbing the stories and lessons, then watching closely to determine exactly what is meant and how to use it, and adapting it to one’s own needs and experiences. In these ways, indigenous knowledge is continually evolving^[35].

The use and application of indigenous knowledge

Fig. 1. Indigenous observations of changes in weather, seasons, wind, and sea ice. (Source: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment)

Studies of indigenous knowledge often make comparisons with scientific knowledge in an effort to determine the "accuracy" of indigenous knowledge as measured on a scale that is intended to be objective. Other studies use indigenous knowledge in the generation of new hypotheses or for the identification of geographic locations for research^[36]. While this can be worthwhile, the value of indigenous knowledge lies primarily within the group and culture in which it developed. Holders of this knowledge use it when making decisions or in setting priorities, and an understanding of the nature of this knowledge can help explain the rationale behind these processes^[37]. "Accuracy" in this context depends on the uses to which the knowledge is put, not on an external evaluation.

The emphasis on the cultural aspects of indigenous knowledge in this assessment is not intended to detract from the great utility it has in ecological and environmental research and management^[38]. In this setting, accuracy as evaluated externally may be a key concern because the information is being applied for a purpose that may be very different from that for which it was originally generated. There are many instances where indigenous knowledge of the habits of an animal such as the bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus)^[39] or the interactions within an ecosystem such as sea-ice phenomena^[40] were – and are – far in advance of scientific understanding, and in fact were used by scientists to make significant progress in ecology and biology^[41]. This is especially true in the Arctic, where scientific inquiry is a relatively recent phenomenon, and where researchers often depend on the knowledge and skills of their indigenous guides.

To apply indigenous knowledge to environmental research and management, consideration must be given to the ways in which it is acquired, held, and communicated. Indigenous knowledge is the synthesis of innumerable observations made over time^[42]. Added weight is often given to anomalous occurrences, in order to be better prepared for surprises and extremes. It is typically qualitative; when quantities are noted, they are more often relative than absolute. Indigenous knowledge evolves with changing social, technological, and environmental conditions^[43], and thus observations of change over time can be influenced by these as well as by the vagaries of memory. Indeed, one of the main challenges in evaluating observations of environmental change is that of addressing the many factors that influence the ways in which people remember and describe events. In addition, some communities today are experiencing erosion of indigenous knowledge and the esteem in which it is held, which has emotional and practical impacts on individuals and communities^[44].

Indigenous knowledge has been documented on various topics in various places in the Arctic, largely in North America. These efforts have rarely focused on climate change or even included climate change as an explicit topic of discussion. Nonetheless, substantial information is available, including evidence from place names and the archaeological record. Further documentation is highly desirable, both for increasing the understanding of climate dynamics and as a means of engaging arctic residents in the search for appropriate responses to the impacts of climate change.

Indigenous observations of climate change

Indigenous peoples have only recently been engaged in climate change research and only through a relatively small number of projects. However, these projects have amassed a large collection of indigenous knowledge and observations about climate and environmental change, reflecting the depth of knowledge held by these peoples. Figures 1 and 2 present examples of observations documented in these projects, and highlight five major topic areas: changes in weather, seasons, wind, and sea ice (Fig. 1), and changes in animals and insects (Fig. 2). This information is organized by community and region across the Arctic, but is derived from projects conducted in different ways, with different objectives, and at different times. This compilation provides a useful introduction to changes experienced by indigenous peoples, but should not be used for detailed comparisons across regions without referring to the original reports. Also, some of the changes were not necessarily considered by the observers to be climate-driven, and this is particularly true for information in Fig. 2, while some do have connections to climate. The original reports should be used for clarification.

Fig. 2. Indigenous observations of changes in animals and insects. (Source: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment)

Many of the topics addressed by indigenous observations in Figs. 1 and 2 are discussed in various chapters of the ACIA. There are many links between indigenous and scientific observations of arctic climate and environmental change and many opportunities for complementary perspectives on the nature of various phenomena and their impacts. For example, ACIA, Chapter 7 reports that biologists connect a changing climate to changing animal migration patterns, such as caribou (see ACIA, Section 7.3.5). Indigenous knowledge is cited as helping to explain how caribou migrations may be triggered by seasonal cues such as day length, air temperature, or ice thickness^[45]. Also, scientific descriptions of changes in the arctic climate (such as those reported in ACIA, Chapter 2) are often consistent with indigenous observations. For example, observational data from the scientific record indicate that the Arctic is warming in western Canada, Alaska, and across Eurasia, but experiencing no change or cooling in eastern Canada, Greenland, and the northwestern Atlantic (see ACIA, Section 2.6.2.1). This is supported by indigenous observations by comparing those from communities in Alaska with those from Igloolik and Iqaluit in Nunavut, Canada.

Indigenous and scientific observations do not always agree, however. For example, in the Kitikmeot region of Nunavut, Inuit have observed more abundant and new types of shrubs and lichens^[46]. While the increased abundance of shrubs corresponds with aerial photography of vegetation change, experimental evidence suggests that lichens should decrease under the changing environmental conditions seen in the Kitikmeot (see ACIA, Section 7.3.3.1). There are probably other disagreements between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Examining the reasons for these differences, however, may drive interesting questions for further research on environmental change. Trying to link different perspectives may result in meaningful insights into the nature and impacts of arctic environmental change^[47].

The spatial scale of the observations in Figs. 1 and 2 is significant. Models of arctic climate provide information on regional scales. Indigenous observations, by contrast, are more localized. A major challenge is to refine model outputs to finer scales, which requires the connection of large- and small-scale processes and information. A corresponding challenge is to combine indigenous observations from various areas to create a regional picture of environmental change. Using these different sources of information across different scales may help to identify the local components of regional processes as well as the regional processes that account for locally observed change.

The information in Figs. 1 and 2 provides a starting point for studies of the link between indigenous knowledge and other research, for example by cross-referencing different perspectives on climate and environmental change. In this context, several important points about the figures should be noted. First, the information is not comprehensive. The projects cited and even the observations taken from particular projects are only examples. There is not the space to record all documented observations here. Second, each observation is from a particular person, from a particular place, and with a particular history and point of view. Such details are lost when the information is reduced to fit this type of format, and so the information presented in the ACIA is out of context. The condensed format is valuable for certain purposes, such as a broad comparison across regions or with scientific findings, but the original sources should always be consulted when using the information presented in the ACIA.

Further Reading

• Acia.uaf.edu/ Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
• Arctic-council.org/ Arctic Council
• International Arctic Science Committee

Notes

1. ^ Pitulko,V.V., P.A. Nikolsky, E. Yu. Girya, A.E. Basilyan, V.E. Tumskoy, S.A. Koulakov, S.N. Astakhov, E. Yu. Pavlova and M.A. Anisimov, 2004. The Yana RHS Site: humans in the Arctic before the last glacial maximum. Science, 303:52–56.
2. ^ Krupnik, I., 1993. Arctic Adaptations: Native Whalers and Reindeer Herders of Northern Eurasia. University Press of New England, xvii + 355p.
3. ^ Freeman, M.M.R. (ed.), 2000. Endangered Peoples of the Arctic: Struggles to Survive and Thrive. The Greenwood Press, xix + 278p.
   –Nuttall, M., 1998. Protecting the Arctic: Indigenous Peoples and Cultural Survival. Harwood Academic Publishing, 204p.
4. ^ Fienup-Riordan, A., W. Tyson, P. John, M. Meade and J. Active, 2000. Hunting Tradition in a Changing World. Rutgers University Press, xx + 310p.
5. ^ Minority Rights Group (ed.), 1994. Polar Peoples: Self Determination and Development. London: Minority Rights Group.
   –Nuttall, M., 1992. Arctic Homeland: Kinship, Community and Development in Northwest Greenland. Belhaven Press, 194p.
   –Pika, A. (ed.), 1999. Neotraditionalism in the Russian North. Indigenous Peoples and the Legacy of Perestroika. Edited in English by B. Grant. Circumpolar Research Series 6. Canadian Circumpolar Institute and University of Washington Press.
   
6. ^ CAFF, 2001. Arctic Flora and Fauna: Status and Conservation. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, Helsinki, 272p.
   –Huntington, H.P., J.H. Mosli and V.B. Shustov, 1998. Peoples of the Arctic: characteristics of human populations relevant to pollution issues. In: AMAP Assessment Report: Arctic Pollution Issues, pp. 141–182. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo.
   –Nuttall, M. and T.V. Callaghan (eds.), 2000.The Arctic: Environment, People, Policy. Harwood Academic Publishers, xxxviii + 647p.
   –Slezkine, Y., 1994. Arctic Mirrors: Russia and the Small Peoples of the North. Cornell, xiv + 456p.
7. ^ Overland, J.E., W. Muyin and N.A. Bond, 2002. Recent temperature changes in the western Arctic during spring. Journal of Climate, 15:1702–1716.
   –Walsh, J., 2003. pers. comm. International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
8. ^ AMAP, 1998. AMAP Assessment Report: Arctic Pollution Issues. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo, xii + 859p.
   –AMAP, 2002. Arctic Pollution 2002. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo, xi + 111p.
   –CAFF, 2001. Arctic Flora and Fauna: Status and Conservation. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, Helsinki, 272p.
   –Freeman, M.M.R. (ed.), 2000. Endangered Peoples of the Arctic: Struggles to Survive and Thrive. The Greenwood Press, xix + 278p.
   –Gaski, H. (ed.), 1997. Sami culture in a new era: the Norwegian Sami experience. Davvi Girji, Karasjok, Norway, 223p.
   –Nuttall, M., 2000. Indigenous peoples, self-determination, and the Arctic environment. In: M. Nuttall and T.V. Callaghan (eds.). The Arctic: Environment, People, Policy, pp. 377–409. Harwood Academic Publishers.
9. ^ Downie, D.L. and T. Fenge (eds.), 2003. Northern Lights against POPs: Combating Toxic Threats in the Arctic. McGill University Press, xxv + 347p.
10. ^ Brown, P., 2003. Global warming is killing us too, say Inuit. The Guardian (UK), December 11, 2003.
11. ^ Burch, E.S. Jr., 1998. The Inupiaq Eskimo nations of northwest Alaska. University of Alaska, xviii + 473p.
    –Krupnik, I., 1993. Arctic Adaptations: Native Whalers and Reindeer Herders of Northern Eurasia. University Press of New England, xvii + 355p.
    –Freeman, M.M.R. (ed.), 2000. Endangered Peoples of the Arctic: Struggles to Survive and Thrive. The Greenwood Press, xix + 278p.
    –Usher, P.J., G. Duhaime and E. Searles, 2003. The household as an economic unit in Arctic aboriginal communities, and its measurement by means of a comprehensive survey. Social Indicators Research, 61(2):175–202.
    
12. ^ Fitzhugh, W.W., 1984. Paleo-Eskimo cultures of Greenland. In: D. Damas (ed.). Arctic. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 5, pp.528–539. Smithsonian Institution,Washington D.C.
    –McGhee, R., 1996. Ancient People of the Arctic. University of British Columbia Press, xii + 244p.
13. ^ Berkes, F., 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Taylor & Francis, xvi + 209p.
    –Berkes, F., J. Colding and C. Folke, 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10(5):1251–1262.
    –Fox, S., 1998. Inuit Knowledge of Climate and Climate Change. M.A. Thesis, University of Waterloo, Canada.
    –Huntington, H.P., 1998. Observations on the utility of the semi-directive interview for documenting traditional ecological knowledge. Arctic, 51(3):237–242.
    –Inglis, J.T. (ed.), 1993. Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases. International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, 142p.
    –Krupnik, I. and D. Jolly (eds.), 2002. The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change. Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S., Fairbanks, Alaska, xxvii + 356p.
14. ^ Freeman, M.M.R., (ed.), 1976. Report of the Inuit land use and occupancy project. 3 vols. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.
    –Inglis, J.T. (ed.), 1993. Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases. International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, 142p.
    –Nadasdy, P., 1999. The politics of TEK: power and the ‘integration’ of knowledge. Arctic Anthropology, 36(1):1–18.
    –Stevenson, M.G., 1996. Indigenous knowledge and environmental assessment. Arctic, 49(3):278–291.
15. ^ Ferguson, M.A.D. and F. Messier, 1997. Collection and analysis of traditional ecological knowledge about a population of arctic tundra caribou. Arctic, 50(1):17–28.
    –Fox, S., 2002. These are things that are really happening: Inuit perspectives on the evidence and impacts of climate change in Nunavut. In: I. Krupnik and D. Jolly (eds.).The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change, pp. 12–53. Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S., Fairbanks, Alaska.
    –Huntington, H.P. and the communities of Buckland, Elim, Koyuk, Point Lay and Shaktoolik, 1999. Traditional knowledge of the ecology of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in the eastern Chukchi and northern Bering seas, Alaska. Arctic, 52(1):49–61.
    –Kilabuck, P., 1998. A Study of Inuit Knowledge of Southeast Baffin Beluga. Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, Iqaluit, Northwest Territories, iv + 74p.
    –McDonald, M., L. Arragutainaq and Z. Novalinga, 1997. Voices from the Bay:Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Inuit and Cree in the James Bay Bioregion. Canadian Arctic Resources Committee and Environmental Committee of the Municipality of Sanikiluaq, Ottawa, 90p.
    –Mymrin, N.I., the communities of Novoe Chaplino, Sireniki, Uelen, and Yanrakinnot and H.P. Huntington, 1999. Traditional knowledge of the ecology of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in the northern Bering Sea, Chukotka, Russia. Arctic, 52(1):62–70.
    –Riedlinger, D. and F. Berkes, 2001. Contributions of traditional knowledge to understanding climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Polar Record, 37(203):315–328.
16. ^ Berkes, F., 1998. Indigenous knowledge and resource management systems in the Canadian subarctic. In: F. Berkes and C. Folke (eds.). Linking Social and Ecological Systems, pp. 98–128. Cambridge University Press.
    –Berkes, F., 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Taylor & Francis, xvi + 209p.
    –Freeman, M.M.R. and L.N. Carbyn (eds.), 1988.Traditional Knowledge and Renewable Resource Management in Northern Regions. Boreal Institute for Northern Studies, Alberta, 124p.
    –Huntington, H.P., 1992a.The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and other cooperative marine mammal management organizations in Alaska. Polar Record, 28(165):119–126.
    –Huntington, H.P., 1992b.Wildlife management and subsistence hunting in Alaska. Belhaven Press, xvii + 177p.
    –Pinkerton, E. (ed.), 1989. Cooperative Management of Local Fisheries. University of British Columbia Press, xiii + 299p.
    –Usher, P.J., 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge in environmental assessment and management. Arctic, 53(2):183–193.
17. ^ Huntington, H.P., 2000a. Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and applications. Ecological Applications, 10(5):1270–1274.
    –Krupnik, I. and D. Jolly (eds.), 2002. The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change. Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S., Fairbanks, Alaska, xxvii + 356p.
    
18. ^ Huntington, H.P., 1998. Observations on the utility of the semi-directive interview for documenting traditional ecological knowledge. Arctic, 51(3):237–242.
    –Kawagley, A.O., 1995. A Yupiaq Worldview: A Pathway to Ecology and fails to capture the sense of continuity and the practice of building on what was learned by previous generations. Spirit. Waveland Press, 166p.
    –Turner, N.J., M. Boelscher Ignace and R. Ignace, 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. Ecological Applications, 10(5):1275–1287.
19. ^ WIPO, 2001. Intellectual property needs and expectations of traditional knowledge holders.World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva.
20. ^ Berkes, F., 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Taylor & Francis, xvi + 209p.
    –Huntington, H.P., 1998. Observations on the utility of the semi-directive interview for documenting traditional ecological knowledge. Arctic, 51(3):237–242.
    
21. ^ Berkes, F., 1998. Indigenous knowledge and resource management systems in the Canadian subarctic. In: F. Berkes and C. Folke (eds.). Linking Social and Ecological Systems, pp. 98–128. Cambridge University Press.
    –Berkes, F., 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Taylor & Francis, xvi + 209p.
    –Freeman, M.M.R. and L.N. Carbyn (eds.), 1988. Traditional Knowledge and Renewable Resource Management in Northern Regions. Boreal Institute for Northern Studies, Alberta, 124p.
    –Huntington, H.P., 2000a. Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and applications. Ecological Applications, 10(5):1270–1274.
    –Inglis, J.T. (ed.), 1993. Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases. International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, 142p.
    –Mailhot, J., 1993. Traditional Ecological Knowledge:The Diversity of Knowledge Systems and Their Study. Great Whale Public Review Support Office, Montreal, 48p.
22. ^ Krupnik, I. and D. Jolly (eds.), 2002. The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change. Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S., Fairbanks, Alaska, xxvii + 356p.
    –Wenzel, G., 1999. Traditional ecological knowledge and Inuit: reflections on TEK research and ethics. Arctic, 52(2):113–124.
    
23. ^ WIPO, 2001. Intellectual property needs and expectations of traditional knowledge holders.World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva.
24. ^ Smith, D., 2001. Co-management in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. In: Arctic Flora and Fauna: Status and Trends, pp. 64–65. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, Helsinki.
25. ^ Grenier, L., 1998. Working with indigenous knowledge: a guide for researchers. International Development Research Center, Ottawa, 115p.
    –IARPC, 1992. Principles for the conduct of research in the Arctic. Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, Arctic Research of the United States, 6:78–79.
    
26. ^ Huntington, H.P. and the communities of Buckland, Elim, Koyuk, Point Lay and Shaktoolik, 1999. Traditional knowledge of the ecology of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in the eastern Chukchi and northern Bering seas, Alaska. Arctic, 52(1):49–61.
    –Huntington, H.P., P.K. Brown-Schwalenberg, M.E. Fernandez–Gimenez, K.J. Frost, D.W. Norton and D.H. Rosenberg, 2002. Observations on the workshop as a means of improving communication between holders of traditional and scientific knowledge. Environmental Management, 30(6):778–792.
    –Kilabuck, P., 1998. A Study of Inuit Knowledge of Southeast Baffin Beluga. Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, Iqaluit, Northwest Territories, iv + 74p.
    –McDonald, M., L. Arragutainaq and Z. Novalinga, 1997. Voices from the Bay:Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Inuit and Cree in the James Bay Bioregion. Canadian Arctic Resources Committee and Environmental Committee of the Municipality of Sanikiluaq, Ottawa, 90p.
27. ^ Cruikshank, J., 2001. Glaciers and climate change: perspectives from oral tradition. Arctic, 54(4):377–393.
    –Huntington, H.P., 2000a. Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and applications. Ecological Applications, 10(5):1270–1274.
    –Johnson, M. (ed.), 1992. Lore: capturing traditional environmental knowledge. Dene Cultural Institute and International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, 190p.
    –Kilabuck, P., 1998. A Study of Inuit Knowledge of Southeast Baffin Beluga. Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, Iqaluit, Northwest Territories, iv + 74p.
    –Krupnik, I. and D. Jolly (eds.), 2002. The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change. Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S., Fairbanks, Alaska, xxvii + 356p.
28. ^ Ingold, T. and T. Kurtilla, 2000. Perceiving the environment in Finnish Lapland. Body and Society, 6(3–4):183–196.
29. ^ Agrawal, A., 1995. Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change, 26(3):413–439.
    –Berkes, F., 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Taylor & Francis, xvi + 209p.
    –Berkes, F., J. Colding and C. Folke, 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10(5):1251–1262.
    –Fehr, A. and W. Hurst (eds.), 1996. A seminar on two ways of knowing: indigenous and scientific knowledge. Aurora Research Institute, Inuvik, Northwest Territories, 93p.
    –Kawagley, A.O., 1995. A Yupiaq Worldview: A Pathway to Ecology and Spirit. Waveland Press, 166p.
30. ^ Berkes, F., 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Taylor & Francis, xvi + 209p.
    –Brody, H., 2000.The other side of Eden: hunters, farmers and the shaping of the world. Douglas & McIntyre, 368p.
    –Nelson, R.K., 1983. Make prayers to the raven. University of Chicago Press, xvi + 292p.
31. ^ Huntington, H.P. and the communities of Buckland, Elim, Koyuk, Point Lay and Shaktoolik, 1999. Traditional knowledge of the ecology of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in the eastern Chukchi and northern Bering seas, Alaska. Arctic, 52(1):49–61.
32. ^ Berkes, F., 1998. Indigenous knowledge and resource management systems in the Canadian subarctic. In: F. Berkes and C. Folke (eds.). Linking Social and Ecological Systems, pp. 98–128. Cambridge University Press.
    –Berkes, F., 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Taylor & Francis, xvi + 209p.
    –Berkes, F., J. Colding and C. Folke, 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10(5):1251–1262.
33. ^ Cruikshank, J., 1998. The social life of stories: narrative and knowledge in the Yukon Territory. University of Nebraska Press, xvii + 211p.
    –Fienup-Riordan, A., 1994. Boundaries and Passages: Rule and Ritual in Yup’ik Eskimo Oral Tradition. University of Oklahoma Press, xxiv + 389p.
    
34. ^ Cruikshank, J., 1998. The social life of stories: narrative and knowledge in the Yukon Territory. University of Nebraska Press, xvii + 211p.
35. ^ Ingold, T. and T. Kurtilla, 2000. Perceiving the environment in Finnish Lapland. Body and Society, 6(3–4):183–196.
36. ^ Albert, T.F., 1988. The role of the North Slope Borough in Arctic environmental research. Arctic Research of the United States, 2:17–23.
    –Huntington, H.P., 2000a. Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and applications. Ecological Applications, 10(5):1270–1274.
    –Johannes, R.E., 1993. Integrating traditional ecological knowledge and management with environmental impact assessment. In: J.T. Inglis (ed.).Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases, pp. 33–39. International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and International Development Research Centre, Ottawa.
    –Nadasdy, P., 1999. The politics of TEK: power and the ‘integration’ of knowledge. Arctic Anthropology, 36(1):1–18.
    –Riedlinger, D. and F. Berkes, 2001. Contributions of traditional knowledge to understanding climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Polar Record, 37(203):315–328.
37. ^ Cruikshank, J., 1981. Legend and landscape: convergence of oral and scientific traditions in the Yukon Territory. Arctic Anthropology, 18(2):67–94.
    –Cruikshank, J., 1998. The social life of stories: narrative and knowledge in the Yukon Territory. University of Nebraska Press, xvii + 211p.
    –Feldman, K.D. and E. Norton, 1995. Niqsaq and napaaqtuq: issues in Inupiaq Eskimo life-form classification and ethnoscience. Etudes/Inuit/Studies, 19(2):77–100.
    –Kublu, A., F. Laugrand and J. Oosten, 1999. Introduction. In: J. Oosten and F. Laugrand (eds.), pp. 1–12. Interviewing Inuit elders. Vol. 1. Iqaluit: Nunavut Arctic College.
38. ^ Berkes, F., 1998. Indigenous knowledge and resource management systems in the Canadian subarctic. In: F. Berkes and C. Folke (eds.). Linking Social and Ecological Systems, pp. 98–128. Cambridge University Press.
    –Berkes, F., 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management.Taylor & Francis, xvi + 209p.
    –Fox, S., 2004. When the Weather is Uggianaqtuq: Linking Inuit and Scientific Observations of Recent Environmental Change in Nunavut, Canada. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Colorado.
    –Freeman, M.M.R. and L.N. Carbyn (eds.), 1988.Traditional Knowledge and Renewable Resource Management in Northern Regions. Boreal Institute for Northern Studies, Alberta, 124p.
    –Krupnik, I. and D. Jolly (eds.), 2002. The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change. Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S., Fairbanks, Alaska, xxvii + 356p.
    –Riedlinger, D. and F. Berkes, 2001. Contributions of traditional knowledge to understanding climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Polar Record, 37(203):315–328.
39. ^ Albert, T.F., 1988. The role of the North Slope Borough in Arctic environmental research. Arctic Research of the United States, 2:17–23.
40. ^ Norton, D.W., 2002. Coastal sea ice watch: private confessions of a convert to indigenous knowledge. In: I. Krupnik and D. Jolly (eds.). The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change, pp. 126–155. Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S., Fairbanks, Alaska.
41. ^ Freeman, M.M.R., 1992. The nature and utility of traditional ecological knowledge. Northern Perspectives, 20(1):9–12.
    –Krupnik, I. and D. Jolly (eds.), 2002. The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change. Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S., Fairbanks, Alaska, xxvii + 356p.
    
42. ^ Agrawal, A., 1995. Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change, 26(3):413–439.
    – Huntington, H.P., 1998. Observations on the utility of the semi-directive interview for documenting traditional ecological knowledge. Arctic, 51(3):237–242.
43. ^ Krupnik, I. and N. Vakhtin, 1997. Indigenous knowledge in modern culture: Siberian Yupik ecological legacy in transition. Arctic Anthropology, 34(1):236–252.
44. ^ Fox, S., 2002. These are things that are really happening: Inuit perspectives on the evidence and impacts of climate change in Nunavut. In: I. Krupnik and D. Jolly (eds.).The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change, pp. 12–53. Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S., Fairbanks, Alaska.
45. ^ Thorpe, N., N. Hakongak, S. Eyegetok and the Kitikmeot Elders, 2001. Thunder on the tundra: Inuit qaujimajatuqangit of the Bathurst caribou. Generation Printing, xv + 208p.
46. ^ Thorpe, N., N. Hakongak, S. Eyegetok and the Kitikmeot Elders, 2001. Thunder on the tundra: Inuit qaujimajatuqangit of the Bathurst caribou. Generation Printing, xv + 208p.
47. ^ Huntington, H.P., T. Callaghan, S. Fox and I. Krupnik, 2004. Matching traditional and scientific observations to detect environmental change: a discussion on Arctic terrestrial ecosystems. Ambio, 33(7):18–23.

[[category:|Indigenous knowledge and observations of climate change in the Arctic]]