Sources and Uses of Knowledge in Co-designing Sustainable Futures in the Arctic

  • Ilan ChabayEmail author
Part of the Ecological Research Monographs book series (ECOLOGICAL)


The challenges for human society of rapid, unprecedented global change are nowhere more evident now than in the Arctic, where climate change and its biophysical manifestations and social impacts are seen and felt most strongly. In the context of local change and global implications, this chapter focuses on transdisciplinary research with actors in the Arctic regions and stakeholders outside the Arctic boundaries. The research described constitutes initial steps in developing processes that enable effective decision-making on relevant issues by and for the Arctic rights-holders and stakeholders. The approach was initially developed in two prior projects and is now used to inform the societal engagement process in a new European Commission Horizon 2020 project. The goal is to catalyze and support transformation to sustainable futures in appropriate contexts and simultaneously to learn how this can be done well. This involved a long-term process of developing trust, relationships, and co-design of research with a wide range of actors within and beyond the Arctic regions. It involved the establishment of multiple dialogues in which mutual learning and bi-directional knowledge translation occurred between the rights-holders/stakeholders and the scientists, but also importantly among the participating scientists who were grounded in different disciplinary domains and traditions.


  1. ACIA (2004) Impacts of a warming arctic: arctic climate impact assessment. ACIA Overv Rep 2004.
  2. Alessa L, Kliskey A, Gamble J, Fidel M, Beaujean G, Gosz J (2015) The role of Indigenous science and local knowledge in integrated observing systems: moving toward adaptive capacity indices and early warning systems. Sustain Sci.
  3. Arctic Council (2009) Arctic marine shipping assessment 2009 report. Arctic 1–194. Available at:
  4. Arctic Council (2013) Arctic resilience interim report. Environmental Institute/Stockholm Resilience Center, Stockholm, pp 1–134 Available at: Google Scholar
  5. Beveridge L, Fournier M, Pelot R (2015) Maritime activities in the Canadian arctic: a tool for visualizing connections between stakeholders. In: Arctic Yearbook 2015, Arctic Governance and Governing, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  6. Budzik P (2009) Arctic oil and natural gas potential. US Energy Information Administration. Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, Oil and Gas DivisionGoogle Scholar
  7. Claes DH (2010) Global energy security: resource availability, economic conditions and political constraints. Panel: contextualizing energy security and transition. In: Concepts, framing and empirical evidence SGIR 7th Pan-European International Relations Conference 911.9Google Scholar
  8. Cornell S, Berkhout F, Tuinstra W, Tàbara JD, Jäger J, Chabay I, de Wit B, Langlais R, Mills D, Moll P et al (2013) Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change. Environ Sci Pol 28:60–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fidel M, Kliskey A, Alessa L, Sutton OP (2014) Walrus harvest locations reflect adaptation: a contribution from a community-based observation network in the Bering Sea. Polar Geogr 37:48–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. General Assembly, United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. A/RES/70/1:1–41. Available at:
  11. Glomsrød S, Aslaksen J (2009) The economy of the North. Statistics Norway. Available at:
  12. Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Hum Values 26:399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hirsch Hadorn G, Bradley D, Pohl C, Rist S, Wiesmann U (2006) Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecol Econ 60:119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson N, Alessa L, Behe C, Danielsen F, Gearheard S, Gofman-Wallingford V, Kliskey A, Krümmel EM, Lynch A, Mustonen T et al (2015) The contributions of community-based monitoring and traditional knowledge to arctic observing networks: reflections on the state of the field. Arctic 68:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kates RW (2011) What kind of a science is sustainability science? Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:19449–19450 Available at: CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Keil K (2013) Cooperation and conflict in the arctic: the cases of energy, shipping and fishing. PhD thesis, Freie Universität, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  17. Keil K (2015) Economic potential. In: Jokela J (ed) Arctic security matters. European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), Brussels, pp 21–31Google Scholar
  18. Keil K, Wiertz T, Chabay I (2014) Engaging stakeholders in interdependent arctic and global change. Developing the SMART research project. IASS working paper.
  19. Koivurova T (2012) New ways to respond to climate change in the Arctic. Am Soc Int Law 16(33).
  20. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7:25–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Larsen RJ et al (2016) The Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON). Arctic observing summit papers on SAON 2016. Available at:
  22. National Petroleum Council (2011) Arctic oil and gas. Retrieved from
  23. National Research Council (2015) Arctic matters: the global connection to changes in the arctic. National Research Council of the US National Academies, 1–36. Available at:
  24. Nilsson, AE, Wilkinson C, Sommerkorn M, Vlasova T (2013) Background, aims and scope. In: Arctic Council (ed) Arctic resilience interim report. Arctic Council, pp 3–13Google Scholar
  25. Northern Sustainability (2014) Keynote presentations and other highlights from the eighth international congress of arctic social sciences. In: Wilson GF, Gary N (eds) International Arctic Social Sciences Association, Umeå, vol 8, pp 1–180. Available at:
  26. Pulsifer P (2015) Indigenous knowledge: key considerations for arctic research and data management (By participants of the sharing knowledge: traditions, technologies, and taking control of our future workshop, Boulder, Colorado) Organized by the Exchange for Local Observations and Knowledge of the Arctic (ELOKA). Available at:
  27. Pulsifer P, Huntington HP, Pecl GT (2014) Introduction: local and traditional knowledge and data management in the arctic. Polar Geogr 37(1):1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Renn O, Schweizer PJ (2009) Inclusive risk governance: concepts and application to environmental policy making. Environ Policy Gov 19:174–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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, Dordrecht, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  30. Sommerkorn M, Hassol SJ (2009) Arctic climate feedbacks: global implications. Arctic 2009:1–100Google Scholar
  31. Tàbara JD, Chabay I (2013) Coupling human information and knowledge systems with social–ecological systems change: Reframing research, education, and policy for sustainability. Environ Sci Pol 28:71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Advanced Sustainability StudiesPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations