• No results found

Arctic Ecosystem Services : interviews from Norway, Russia, Alaska and Canada

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Share "Arctic Ecosystem Services : interviews from Norway, Russia, Alaska and Canada"

Copied!
25
0
0

Laster.... (Se fulltekst nå)

Fulltekst

(1)

Arctic Ecosystem Services:

Interviews from Norway,

Russia, Alaska..(and Canada)

Vera Helene Hausner Associate Professor

….and the tundra team

(2)

Measuring changes in ecosystem services depends on both ecosystem functions and human well-being

Ecosystems Human well-

being Ecosystem

services

Shifting

functions Shifting

values

DRIVERS

(3)

The Environmentalist’s Paradox

Human Development Index

adult literacy,

life expectancy

income

What is the link between

ecosystems – services and HI??

Average human well-being is improving globally, despite resource depletion and degradation of ecosystem

(4)

What ecosystem services do people say they

are dependent on?

(5)

Design –selection of 28 communities

• Similar tundra ecosystems

• Governance contrasts

• Socioeconomic contrasts

Access to wage income Low

High

(6)

Design - Selection of participants

Demography Leaders Non- leaders

Total

Male Younger 2 2 4

Elders 2 2 4

Female Younger 2 2 4

Elders 2 2 4

Total 8 8 16

Ranked list of leaders for participation

1. Community mayor/chief

2. Cultural organization (incl schools)

3. Local environmental or recreational NGO’s 4. People in local boards of relevance for management of ecosystem services 5. Local politicians

(7)

Which methods are suitable for cross-cultural

comparison of ecosystem services in the Arctic?

Daniel, T. C.et al 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109:8812-8819.

• Key informant PPGIS

• Structured questions on harvest

(8)

Field work

1. Those who designed interviews were the leaders of fieldwork in each country

2. Two fieldworkers, 1-2 weeks in each community

3. Selection of participants:

Norway – municipal list of leaders - cross-references for members Alaska - Tribal council - interpreter – select members

Canada – Hunters and trappers org – interpreter – select members Russia -Administration – helper – select members

(9)

Dependency on ecosystem services

Material (e.g. species and landscape features important for subsistence or commercial purposes)

Social (e.g. species and landscape features important for social ties or social activities today),

Cultural (e.g. species and landscape features important for ceremonies, solitude or cultural continuity)

(10)

Contact with nature is suggested as a measure of well being in the Arctic

1. Harvest of traditional food

2. Consumption of traditional food

3. %Population accessing traditional food

(11)

Preliminary results: average harvest of top 3

resources

(12)

Methodology: Commercialization of traditional foods is prohibited in Alaska, but in Russia it is common –

Need to include consumption and food security to compare

provisional ES

(13)

Food Security is an issue in Alaska (not in Norway!):

When food was not available at the store what did you do?

57 of 62 interviewees in Alaska say food has not been available at store

(14)

If you were not able to hunt or use nature anymore, what would you do?

Norway – Cultural dependency:

“Being out in the nature is an irreplaceable good. Would have turned ill”

Russia – economic income:

“Catastrophical economic consequences, but also catastrophic in other respects”

“Catastrophy”

“Horribly sad. Would have consequences for the way of life. Would not move to a city, but comparable place, like Greenland.”

“Would move if he could not drive snowmobile”

“There would not be anything to do anymore, neither in terms of work or in terms of recreation”

Alaska – subsistence sharing network:

“Get from relatives, brothers and sisters, nieces.”

“The majority of food here is shared so I don´t need to ask. All depends on the hunter - benevolent or not. Some hang on to all their catch.”

(15)

PPGIS to uncover bundles of ecosystem services – i. e. multiple values of ES in one place

To explore the diversity of ES we let participants categorise and rank the importance of resource and landscape features themselves (open questions)

(16)

. .BUT also need to have some comparative measures…

What harvest or recreational activities did you do last year?

1. Extensiveness

– Area km2 used for harvest or recreation – Length km travelled

2. Intensity

1. How often?

2. How long?

Daytrip 2-6 days 1 week >week

3. Purpose of visit – Harvest

– Recreation

(17)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

ALASKA

NORWAY

We could compare the total

area used by an individual

during a year

(18)

What other areas are important for you? Why?

Specifically asked about:

Long term attachment to places (incl cabins, turf huts)

Memories

Length of stay and childhood

Peace and quiet

Areas for social gathering

(19)

Social values: Visiting friends and family on the tundra, often for several week, while participating in harvest activities is important

No sharp border between nature use and social activities

(20)

Norway:

63% have a cabin

(21)

Harvest and recreation in the top 3 priority sites

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Alaska Norway Taimyr

%

(22)

Alaska: Do you think the following animals should be

increased, decreased, or left alone?

(23)

Norway: Do you think the following animals should be increased, decreased, or left alone?

0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %

Moose Wolf Bear Wolverine Lynx RedFox ArcticFox Hare Grouse Mink Duck Crow/Raven Eagle Otter

Increase Decrease Remain

(24)

Challenges for further analyses of dependency on ecosystem services

Material –Can’t sell traditional foods in Alaska, but in Russia and Norway (reindeer) it is common to sell.

 The premises for calculating the dependency differs

 The importance of traditional food for food security differs

Social - Social activities are linked to cabins/camps, especially in Russia and Norway

 Not clear when ES is included as a part of the social activity

Cultural – the cultural importance of ES in open questions need to be analysed

(25)

THANK YOU!

TUNDRA TEAM - DESIGN

• Else Grethe Broderstad (Centre for Sami Studies, UiT)

• Dorothee Ehrich (UiT)

• Jen Schmidt, Terry Chapin (University of Alaska, Fairbanks)

• Douglas Clark, Nils Lokken (Univerity of Saskachewan)

• Konstantin Klokov (St Petersburg State University)

• Per Fauchald (Norwegian Institute for Nature Research)

• Alma Thuestad (Norwegian Insitute for Cultural Heritage Research) ALL FIELD WORKERS

Referanser

RELATERTE DOKUMENTER

Sep- tember 2006 by The Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine in cooperation with Professor Bernardino Fantini (Geneva) and the chair- man of the WHO Commission on

The agitation against caste-based quotas in education and employment that are pre-dominantly urban-based, display a very high level of caste consciousness and use overt

These commitments lie in the social life of workers outside and around the cooperative environment, a social life including kinship and friend- ship relations, memories of

Reflections on the client-social worker relationship from single mothers and social workers in Australia, USA, Canada, Russia and Norway:.. Close but not

Hence, this chapter seeks to shed light on how the South Saami society relates to the cultural landscape in this struggle, and how landscape, history and traditions act as an

The potential use of biological threat agents results in an urgent need for rapid and reliable detection and identification techniques of these agents in order to quickly respond to

The main objetives of the meeting were to provide background descriptions of important enviromental features and species interactions in three boreal systems

Norwegian authorities with overall responsibility for cultural heritage sites in the country had little knowledge of South Sami remains at that time and the knowledge of