ARTICLE IN PRESS

0959-3780/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.gl

�CorrespondE-mail addr

Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 153–164

www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha

Perception of change in freshwater in remote resource-dependentArctic communities

Lilian (Na’ia) Alessaa, Andrew (Anaru) Kliskeya,�, Paula Williamsa, Michael Bartonb

aResilience and Adaptive Management Group, University of Alaska Anchorage, 3211 Providence Drive, Anchorage, AK 99508, USAbSchool of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, P O Box 872402, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA

Received 1 November 2006; received in revised form 23 May 2007; accepted 28 May 2007

Abstract

This paper provides empirical evidence to support existing anecdotal studies regarding the mechanisms by which human communities

become vulnerable to rapid changes in freshwater resources on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska. We interviewed adults, stratified by age,

sex, and extended family, in Inupiat communities on the Seward Peninsula. Using categorical indices as part of a semi-structured

interview we elicited a respondent’s perception of the availability and quality of freshwater resources in their community as well as their

perception of change in the availability and quality of freshwater during the period of their lifetime in that community. Significant

relationships were observed between age groups for the perception of change in the availability of the local water source and the

perception of change in its quality—older generations perceiving more change than younger age groups. These perceptions of change

were examined with respect to recent historic changes in precipitation and temperature on the Seward Peninsula. These findings suggest

that individual perceptions are instrumental in determining whether or not change merits response. The findings also provide evidence

that oral traditional knowledge systems have shifted from continuous to discontinuous transmission, distancing the users from

traditional resources. We discuss the role of collective knowledge, through the transmission of knowledge from elders to subsequent

generations, in aiding the development of a community’s ability to note and respond to changes in critical natural resources.

r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Resilience; Environmental perception; Freshwater; Environmental change; Human response; Traditional ecological knowledge

1. Introduction

In this paper, we report evidence that a phenomenon bywhich subsequent generations in a community fail toacquire traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), and thusaccurate awareness of rates of change and a consequentsynchronization between perceptions of a resource and itsmeasured change, may be occurring in remote, resource-dependent communities in Alaska. We propose thatacculturation and desensitization to change may be keymechanisms reducing adaptive capacity (Robards andAlessa, 2004) and explore this with respect to residents’perceptions of change in freshwater resources in the Arctic.Specifically, we predict that perception of change willdecrease across generations despite significant changes in

e front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

oenvcha.2007.05.007

ing author. Tel.: +1907 7861136; fax: +1 907 7861314.

ess: afadk@uaa.alaska.edu (A. Kliskey).

Arctic climate trends beginning in the 1950 s (Johannessenet al., 2004).In the last 50 years accelerations in a wide range of

hydrological changes in the Arctic have been detected throughphysical measurement (Overpeck et al., 1997). The combinedobservations and documentation form a case that the Arctichydrological system may rapidly be entering a state not seenbefore in historic times (Magnuson et al., 2000; Serreze et al.,2000)—a state that will have significant implications for theinhabitants of the region (ACIA, 2005). Humans in the Arcticare dependent on surface and ground water which is affectedby the type and distribution of permafrost (ground whichremains frozen all year to varying depths).Observed responses of Arctic river systems to recent

increases in temperature (ACIA, 2005), and winterprecipitation have been highly variable (Serreze et al.,2000). The magnitude of the warming has been about0.5 1C, enough to alter ground thermal conditions which

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1Through one or all of the following: developing infrastructure and

behaviors to acquire and conserve clean water, using alternative water

sources, or moving nearer to other sources.

L. Alessa et al. / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 153–164154

affects lateral transfers into conduits such as rivers andgroundwater (Hinzman et al., 2005). While continuouspermafrost exhibits highly variable responses to globalwarming trends (Osterkamp and Romanovsky, 1999),discontinuous permafrost shows a distinct thawing trendand is correlated to surface hydrology (Jorgenson et al.,2001), resulting in both increased winter base flow ratesand lateral transfers of sediment (Hinzman et al., 2005).Increased base flow rates potentially have a wide range ofimpacts, including changes in stream chemistry and aquatichabitat (Quinn et al., 1997), increased stream and rivericing (Pollard, 2005), and poorly understood effects onerosion and sediment flux, including activating latentcontamination by historic and current industrial activitiessuch as mining (Vorosmarty et al., 2001). All of these affectwater quantity and quality and may be perceived byresidents to different degrees.

Currently, climate models apply to large regional andglobal systems. They have poor resolution at local(community) and very fine (individual agent) scales andthe relationships between macro- and micro-phenomenaare poorly explored (Wilbanks and Kates, 1999). Thisrepresents a critical gap in our ability to understandcomplex systems: the human–freshwater system describedhere is affected by both slower, top-down (i.e., exogenousclimate change) as well as faster, bottom-up (e.g., localscale land use) factors to tightly couple both spatial andtemporal feedbacks. Changes are driven and mediated, butnot always perceived, by individual agents (Wilbanks andKates, 1999). Interactions between individuals (agents) arecomplex and nonlinear; agent populations are heteroge-neous and outcomes, based on decisions, can result inadaptations (Bonabeau, 2002) leading to responses tochanges in freshwater resources which may or may not besuccessful. Despite research which indicates that agentsmake decisions based on perceptions rather than measuredvariables (e.g., Adamowicz et al., 1997; Oba and Kotile,2001) most predictive models regarding the use of waterresources fail to incorporate social components, such asperceptions.

Due largely to a lack of empirical studies, perceptions asdrivers of behaviors are largely unexplored in the contextof specific natural resource challenges, and even less so inthe context of humans and freshwater. After an extensiveanalysis of existing data on regional and global change,Wilbanks and Kates (1999, p. 623) stated that ‘‘the globalchange research effort would benefit from a greateremphasis on a more local scale of data gathering andanalysis and on bottom-up perspectives on global changeissues, as well as more attention to interactions amongdomains and processes operating at different scales.’’

1.1. Perception: a key to resilience of communities to

changes in freshwater?

We have defined resilience in the context of this study tobe specific to the ability of human communities to

successfully respond to changes in freshwater resources.1

By this definition, we posit that our current understandingof this type of resilience is critically hindered by a lack ofstudies which examine the mechanisms leading to orimpeding it. To date, a growing body of researchexamining resilience of Arctic communities to environ-mental change has had several foci. Research that describestraditional knowledge with respect to environmentalchange has documented oral histories of climate changein the Arctic (Cruikshank, 2001) and contemporaryobservations of climate change (Reidlinger and Berkes,2001; Jolly et al., 2002; Krupnik, 2002; George et al., 2004).A more conceptual line of inquiry has focused on thediscussion and development of frameworks for assessingvulnerability of Arctic communities to climate change(Smithers and Smit, 1997; Kelly and Adger, 2000; Ford andSmit, 2004; Smit and Wandel, 2006), their adaptation tochange (Smit et al., 1999, 2000; Wheaton and MacIver,1999; Schneider et al., 2000; Ford et al., 2006), and generalsyntheses of resilience (e.g., Chapin et al., 2006). Thesestudies converge in their agreement that the ability ofArctic communities to adapt to change depends on theirflexibility in using resources (Berkes and Jolly, 2001) but donot evolve this concept further.In general, humans are largely incapable of basing

decisions on cost–benefit analyses as defined by economistsor extensive numerical datasets (Maule and Hodgkinson,2002). Instead, decisions are often based on an individual’sperception of accumulated and diverse information,including peer reference (Maule and Hodgkinson, 2002).Resource decisions have consequences in the ‘real’ world,with recursive feedbacks to society. A large differencebetween the perceived and measured value of a resourcemeans that decisions made about the resource (e.g.,resource conservation or extraction) may result in un-anticipated feedbacks. We believe that for resources likewater, which are essential for human life and well-being,the perceived and actual values of the resource cannotdiffer widely without incurring serious social and physicalconsequences (see, e.g., Reisner, 1993).The phenomenon by which subsequent generations may

‘‘forget’’ what levels of ecosystem services (i.e., intact andproductive soils, adequate water, diverse range of speciesavailable for subsistence, etc.) existed prior to them and therole of perception in responses of communities to environ-mental change has been poorly explored but may be key tohow resilient our society is to long-term change. We positthat the combination of inherent ecosystem features (e.g.,fragility), rates of change and the failure of knowledgesystems to balance these characteristics as quickly as theyoccur may create vulnerability in Arctic communities withrespect to their freshwater resources.

ARTICLE IN PRESSL. Alessa et al. / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 153–164 155

The Arctic is a high latitude, dry, cold desert with littlesoil and limited soil nutrients (Hinzman et al., 2005).Additionally, the Artic is undergoing unprecedentedenvironmental change (Overpeck et al., 1997; Magnusonet al., 2000; Serreze et al., 2000). In this project, we workedwith remote Arctic communities with a strong oraltradition and a history of subsistence use of resources(i.e., an ‘‘Elder’’ culture). While components of modernityexist (e.g., satellite, internet, television and equipment suchas All Terrain Vehicles, etc.) there is little or no builtenvironment. All communities are underlain by discontin-uous permafrost which is changing rapidly (specifically,melting) and this is related to changes in surface hydrologysuch as groundwater re-charge and river run-off (e.g.,Yoshikawa and Hinzman, 2003).

Elder cultures possess a deep knowledge base about thecomplex ecological systems with which they interactthrough the transmission of knowledge and wisdom fromone generation to another. This knowledge base has mostcommonly been termed traditional ecological knowledge(TEK) (Berkes et al., 2000, 2003; Kimmerer, 2002; Hunn etal., 2003). TEK is resource and locale specific (Kurien,1998). The acquisition of this knowledge (sometimesreferred to as ‘‘land schooling’’) is acquired over timethrough learning by doing and is communicated fromelders to subsequent generations verbally and by demon-stration. It is also transmitted through songs, stories,proverbs and dance (Kurien, 1998; Olick and Robins, 1998;Pierotti and Wildcat, 2000) and includes diverse sources ofinformation, including Western science.

TEK has the potential to extend the knowledge base ofthe community at least to the length of the life of the oldestmember of the community, and arguably longer. In thesecommunities, knowledge and awareness of changes in thequality and availability of resources, including water, heldby an individual can be, and usually are, transmitted fromgeneration to generation (Kurien, 1998; Berkes et al.,2000). We can view this cultural transmission as aninheritance system with adaptive consequences: if a culturehas continuous transmission of a diversity of options forfreshwater resources as well as the status of particularresources (e.g., plentiful, good) over several generations, anindividual with this inheritance will possess a longertemporal base for accessing resources and for assessingchange in a specific resource than just his/her lifetime, andtherefore promoting resilience (Folke et al., 1998). This issupported by cases of knowledge legacies that retainspecific interpretations of historically infrequent events.For example, during the December 26, 2004 tsunami insoutheast Asia the nomadic Moken sea gypsies moved tohigher ground based on collective memory of extreme tidalrecession despite such an event not occurring in even theeldest community member’s recollection nor the commu-nity having western training (e.g., tsunami announcements,drills, etc.) in tsunami response (Wong, 2005).

Human societies have been shaped by the availabilityand quality of freshwater and will continue to face

challenges regarding its management, particularly underconditions of climatic change (e.g., Lansing, 2002; Oki andKanae, 2006). Among natural resources, the perception ofsurface water bodies per se appears to more consistentlyconverge measured variables—a consequence of humans’preference and inherent need for water (Gobster, 1998;Kweon et al., 2006). Thus, decisions regarding waterresources are often based on the perceived availability ofthe resource, and are therefore especially sensitive to adifference between the measured or quantified resource(Oba and Kotile, 2001; Aronson and Le Floc’h, 1996;Brandenburg and Carroll, 1995).As successive generations inherit natural resources, their

perceptions rely on some measure of change based on a‘‘before’’ and a ‘‘now.’’ This difference in perception is notonly related to the amount of time that a particulargeneration has experienced the natural resource, but alsoon transmission of information from others and on thequality of their experience (Ford et al., 2006; Davidson-Hunt and Berkes, 2003), i.e., the type of interaction withthe resource. We posit that it is the difference in perceivedand actual change that contributes to an individual’s, andhence a community’s, ability to respond to change. Thisdifference strongly influences how adaptive, flexible andultimately, successful, a community’s TEK regarding waterresources is under conditions of change.Despite the implicit need for water resources and the

extensive history of human settlement reliant on them(Moss, 1998) most of the existing literature on freshwaterconsists of economic valuation, particularly that foragriculture (e.g., Wilson and Carpenter, 1999) and industry(e.g., Ogden and Watson, 1999), rather than social andcultural values. The identities of elder cultures, both in thisstudy and globally, are linked with water sources such asrivers, which provide both access and biota (e.g., fish). Thisis reflected in the following narrative from a 72-yearresident:

We have always been a salmon people. The salmoncome up the river because we are their people and we aregrateful for them. They feed us and we take care of theriver.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the values associatedwith water may affect a society’s sense of perceived andactual vulnerability leading to cooperative (e.g., Lansingand Kremer, 1993) or conflict-driven strategies to minimizerisk (e.g., Giordano et al., 2002), while failure to perceivevulnerability may lead to the resource reaching a supplythreshold (in quality and/or quantity). This threshold mayappear as a ‘‘sudden’’ change in the resource and representsan acute type of vulnerability if a plan for response has notbeen developed. It is this simple component of vulner-ability, the failure to match the perceptual to the actualresource, that we believe is one of the great challenges ofour time. For this reason, documenting and characterizingthe dynamics of sociocultural perceptions of freshwater iscritical to anticipating how communities will respond to

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 1. (A) Historic settlement pattern of Seward Peninsula, Alaska.

(B) Contemporary settlement pattern of Seward Peninsula, Alaska.

(C) Location map of Seward Peninsula, Alaska.

L. Alessa et al. / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 153–164156

changing hydrological regimes because they incorporatemicro-level dynamics, which explain how individual agentsbehave, which affect or influence broader macro-levelpatterns.

2. Methods

2.1. Study area

The study was done in collaboration with five villages onthe Seward Peninsula (Fig. 1) of western Alaska. Theregional population of 5500 is predominately InupiatEskimo with some Siberian Yupik and central Yup’ikEskimos. The villages are 490% native and have a citycouncil and a tribal or IRA (Indian Reorganization Act)council. Initially, the investigators explained the study toeach village council. With the council’s consent, investiga-tors visited households in the village explaining the studyand requesting individuals X18 years old to complete aninterview. Participants were asked for verbal informedconsent. The study was approved by the InstitutionalReview Boards of the University of Alaska Anchorage andthe University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Communities on the Seward Peninsula (Fig. 1A) wereonce seasonally mobile in order to sustain a subsistencelifestyle that utilized a wide array of biological and physicalresources, including both anadromous and freshwater fish,caribou and waterfowl, among many others (for a reviewand detailed history see Chance, 1990). Fig. 1A and Bshows the pattern of settlement on the Seward Peninsulafrom 1800 to 2000. Associated with these permanentsettlements was the establishment of modern day, seasonalresource use zones which are identified by watershedboundaries and represents the geographic extent for whichresidents have extensive knowledge regarding water re-sources (data not shown). Municipal water systemsinstalled in these communities since 1960 have, in largepart, led to a rapid increase in the domestic use offreshwater (Fig. 2) and large, spatially localized inputs ofwaste such as sewage (data not shown).

The eldest residents in these communities (defined in thisstudy as ages 60 and above), who relied entirely onsubsistence gathering for food in their youth, are those whohave had extensive ‘‘land schooling.’’ They retain the mostexposure to and familiarity with the landscape. The middlegeneration (ages 40–59) experienced land schooling early intheir lives. However, land schooling was interrupted if theywished to continue their education beyond 8th grade, forwhich they were required to leave their village and live in aboarding school usually many miles from their community(Seyfrit and Hamilton, 1997). The middle age generationplays the roles of facilitators and resource managers in thecommunity (Jolly et al., 2002). This generation is respon-sible for facilitating many of the activities of the oldestgeneration as well as supporting extended families. Theyounger generation (ages 18–39) have grown up with anever-increasing adoption of Western culture in their

villages. This includes telephones, use of motorized vehicles(generally ATVs and motorized boats), installation ofwater and sewer systems (municipal water supply), theadvent of grocery stores, television and the internet, toname a few. Although the younger generation fishes andhunts with older generations, communities no longer relyon these resources as their sole source of food. In similarcommunities, researchers have documented that the oldergeneration has commented on the lack of interest of the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

Pop

ulat

ion

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Wat

er U

se (

litre

s pe

r ca

pita

per

day

)

Population

Water use

Fig. 2. Domestic use of freshwater and population in Seward Peninsula communities. Sources: US Census Bureau and Village utility records.

L. Alessa et al. / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 153–164 157

younger generation in land schooling as well as theincreased interest in watching television and other ‘‘wes-tern’’ activities (Ford et al., 2006).

2.2. Methods

Preliminary visits and interviews in each communitywere conducted in July 2004. During July and August 2005the study recruited 103 individuals from four of thecommunities on the Seward Peninsula. In 2006, 31individuals from an additional community on the SewardPeninsula agreed to be interviewed. Approximately 5% ofindividuals we first approached with a request for aninterview either refused or agreed to at a later date butwere subsequently unavailable. We interviewed at least20% of the adult population in each community, andused a random-stratified sampling procedure combinedwith the snowball technique (Kelsall et al., 1972) to obtainequal numbers of male and female respondents, respon-dents of different ages, and respondents from differentextended families within each community. The respondentsample was distributed among the five communities inproportion to the community’s adult census population,and approximately evenly split between female (48%)and male (52%). The sample was divided into age groupssegmenting the population into three generations: 18–39years (36%), 40–59 years (43%), and 60–99 years (21%).Similar groupings into three generations have been usedin dietary studies of Inupiat Eskimo (Nobmann et al.,2005).

The 20–30min interview was conducted either in anindividual’s home or in a community building according tothat individual’s preference. The interviewers used astructured interview format to complete a questionnaire

survey but also allowed individuals the opportunity to talkopenly, which provided narratives. The structured inter-view contained questions about an individual’s use ofwater, their perceptions of water quality and availabilityand changes in quality and availability.Individuals were asked what their perception was of the

quality and availability (quantity) of community watersources. Water sources referred to typically included themunicipal water supply and the major river or creek usedby the village. We developed a perceived water qualityscale, which asked individuals to rate the quality of thewater source (high, high-medium, medium, medium-low,low). A perceived water quantity scale asked individuals torate the availability of the water source (scarce, scarce-sufficient, sufficient, sufficient-plentiful, and plentiful).Both indices were collapsed into three classes for dataanalysis. Individuals were also asked to rate whether theyperceived that change had occurred in the quality andavailability of water sources during the time they had usedthat water source. Indices of perceived change used 3-pointscales. Perception of change in quality was rated as: poorerquality, no change, or better quality. Perceived change inwater availability was rated as: less availability, no change,or greater availability.Quantitative data analyses were undertaken using

SPSS14.0. For nominal variables measuring perceivedchanges in water quality and quantity, Pearson chi-squareand the Phi measure for strength of association wereused. ANOVA was used to test for differences in means onscales measuring perceived water quality and quantity.Interview narratives were analyzed by extracting domi-nant themes under each of the structured interview topics(water use; and perception of water quality, quantity andchange).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Descriptive statistics for perception of river water quality and quantity by

age group

Quality Quantity

M SD M SD

Descriptive statistics of perception of river water quality and quantity

Younger 1.33 0.63 1.13 0.34

Middle 1.69 0.76 1.38 0.60

Older 1.96 0.92 1.96 0.92

Descriptive statistics of perception of municipal water quality and

quantity

Younger 1.51 0.49 1.14 0.35

Middle 2.00 0.76 1.49 0.53

Older 2.18 0.80 1.47 0.61

perceived change

no perceived change

perceived change

no perceived change

younger middle older

younger middle older

Fig. 3. (A) Perception of change in river water quality by age group. (B)

Perception of change in river water quantity by age group.

L. Alessa et al. / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 153–164158

3. Results

3.1. Perception of river quality, quantity and change

Respondents in our study typically rated their local riveror creek as being water of a high quality and a plentifulsupply—61% of respondents perceived river water to behigh quality versus only 18% perceiving it to be lowquality. A statistically significant (F(2, 124) ¼ 6.31,po0.01) relationship exists for perception of river waterquality by age group. The younger age group differed fromboth the middle age group, t(124) ¼ �2.420, p(2 taile-d)o0.01 and the older age group, t(124) ¼ �3.399,p(2 tailed)o0.01. There was not a statistically significantdifference between the perceptions of the middle and olderage groups. As age increased, the mean of the perception ofwater quality increased2 (Table 1).

A 65% of respondents perceived river water to be inplentiful supply. A statistically significant relationship (F(2,124) ¼ 3.19, p(2 tailed) ¼ 0.05) was also evident forperception of river water availability (quantity) by agegroup. The younger age group differed from both themiddle age group, t(124) ¼ �2.42, p(2 tailed)o0.01 andthe older age group, t(124) ¼ �3.40, p(2 tailed)o0.01(Table 1). There was not a statistically significant differencebetween the perceptions of the middle and older agegroups. As age increased, fewer respondents perceivedavailability of river water to be plentiful and morerespondents perceived the water to be only sufficient—norespondent indicated that river water was in scarce supply(Table 1). There was also not a statistically significantrelationship between perception of river water quality oravailability and sex.

Most respondents (76%) perceived no changes in riverwater quality, 17% perceived it to be of poor quality. Amoderately statistically significant relationship existed forperception of changes in river water quality by age group,w2(2, N ¼ 127) ¼ 10.85, po0.01, Cramer’s f ¼ 0.21. Se-venty-seven percent of respondents perceived no change inriver water availability (quantity). Perceptions of change toriver water quantity were also statistically significantamong age groups, w2(2, N ¼ 127) ¼ 8.67, po0.01, Cra-mer’s f ¼ 0.18 (Fig. 3).

3.2. Perception of municipal water quality, quantity and

change

Amajority of respondents (43%) perceived the quality oftheir municipal supply to be high, 42% of respondentsperceived medium quality and 16% perceived low quality.Again, there was a statistically significant relationshipbetween age group and perception of quality of themunicipal water supply: F(2, 97) ¼ 1.77, p (2 tailed)o0.01.Following the trend above, the younger age group, differed

21.0 ¼ worse quality or less availability, 2.0 ¼ the same or no change,

3.0 ¼ better quality or increased availability.

significantly from the middle age group, t(97) ¼ �3.49,p(2-tailed)o0.01, and from the older age group,t(97) ¼ �3.94, p (2 tailed)o0.01 (Table 1).Overall the majority of respondents (75%) perceived

their municipal water supply to be plentiful, while 22%perceived a sufficient supply and 3% a scarce supply. Theperceptions followed the same pattern; a statisticallysignificant difference by age group, F(2, 96) ¼ 5.937,po0.01. Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance wassignificant in this comparison. To adjust, test results thatdid not assume equal variance were used. The younger agegroup differed from the middle age group, t(96) ¼ �3.577

ARTICLE IN PRESSL. Alessa et al. / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 153–164 159

(equal variance not assumed), p(2-tailed)o0.01, and fromthe older age group, t(96) ¼ �2.235, p(2 tailed) ¼ 0.04(equal variance not assumed).

For perception of change in municipal water quality,76% of respondents perceived no change and 10%perceived it as poorer quality. Eighty-four percent per-ceived no change in the supply of municipal water with 8%and 8% perceiving increased and decreased municipalwater availability. There was not a significant difference inage groups for perception of change in municipal waterquality or for perception of change in municipal wateravailability.

3.3. Age, experience and perception of change

The relationship between perceptions of change and agegroup was not simply due to longer period of use orknowledge of the water source by respondents. Thenumber of years a respondent had used or had knowledgeof the major river in their community was independent ofthe age of the respondent (R2

¼ 0.24, po0.01), althoughthe mean number of years use of the river between agegroups was significant (F(2, 95) ¼ 5.28, po0.01), that is,middle and older age generations had, on average, longeruse and knowledge of the major river than the youngergeneration, there were no significant differences in themean number of years respondents had used the majorriver between the three response categories for perceptionsof change in river quality. There were similarly nosignificant differences in the mean number of yearsrespondents had used the major river between the responsecategories for perceptions of change in river availability,between the response categories for perceptions of riverquality, or between the response categories for perceptionsof river availability. Similarly, the aggregated perception ofchange using all four measures of perceived change showedno significant difference based on duration of use of theriver. Thus, the generational differences reported forperception of change in water resources are independentof the length of a respondent’s use of the specific watersource.

4. Discussion

Global environmental change, particularly in waterresources, exists as both perceived and measured condi-tions. Of these two, the former is more powerful (Eiseret al., 2000; Michaels, 2000) and, we argue, more importantin determining mechanisms by which societies are resilientor vulnerable to changes in water resources. If a commu-nity perceives there is ‘‘no change’’ in water supply andquality while in fact there is (e.g., it may be decreasing and/or degraded), they may not respond to it to the point whereit affects health and well being (leading to vulnerability)(e.g., Smith et al., 2003). Change is an intrinsic componentof our global system with rapid and acute changes in waterand climate evident throughout paleological and historic

records (e.g., Briffa et al., 1998; Waelbroeck et al., 2001;Leavesley, 1994).Hansen et al. (1998) pointed out the challenges of

perceiving change as a long-term trend (e.g., climatechange) versus a short-term fluctuation which naturallyoccurs in systems that are inherently noisy or chaotic suchas those found in hydrological systems in the Arctic(ACIA, 2005). As successive generations inherit naturalresources, their perceptions rely on some measure ofchange based on a ‘‘before’’ and a ‘‘now’’. An intact oralhistory (i.e., TEK) could connect older and youngergenerations such that the ‘‘before’’ measure is considerablyearlier than the chronological age of the younger genera-tions. This study provides data (Figs. 3–5, Table 1) whichsupport our prediction that perception of change hasdecreased from the oldest to the youngest generation inthese communities despite rapid changes in water resourcesand a strong Elder culture.A large difference between the actual status of a resource

and how it is perceived is a critical determinant in theability of individuals and their networks to respond tochange. If communities are able to maintain a longtemporal knowledge base through transmission of TEK,and this knowledge informs decision-making and patternsof resource utilization (Tainter, 1988), the greater thelikelihood that decisions will reflect rates and types ofenvironmental change. Particularly with freshwater, in-dividuals and societies can only respond effectively tovariations in supply and quality if they perceive theresource has changed (either positively or negatively) andif this perceived change converges on actual change.Ford et al. (2006) provide narrative from a resource-

based Elder culture in northeastern Canada indicating aloss of traditional knowledge and skills among youngergenerations. In interviews, the residents of the communityattributed the loss to several factors, including a decline inparticipation and interest in hunting and gathering,gathering competing with alternative activities such ascomputer games and TV, increasing dependence on wagedemployment, language differences between generations,and the desire among the youth to follow ‘‘western’’ socialnorms (E. Abraham, personal communication). Thisdisconnection of the younger generation from the land isreinforced by intergenerational segregation of older andyounger generations. These researchers observed that ‘‘theprocesses by which [TEK] is developed and learned,requires experience being regularly out on the land andobserving others.’’ (Ford et al., 2006, p.28). The loss of thisknowledge results in a reduction of adaptive capacityamong younger generations mainly because it reduces thediversity of options they have to access freshwater throughloss of familiarity with the location and reliability of waterresources in the landscape.In our study, the oldest age group was the last generation

to receive cohesive oral histories and land schooling bytheir elders whereas the middle age group was subject towidespread western institutional schooling and incomplete

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Year

Per

cept

ion

of c

hang

e fo

r ag

e gr

oups

-8.0

-7.0

-6.0

-5.0

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

Mea

n an

nual

tem

p. f

or N

ome,

Ala

ska

(°C

)

60-99 yrsOldest generation

40-59 yrsMiddle generation

18-39 yrsYoungest generation

Fig. 4. Temperature change over time for Nome, Alaska and year of birth versus aggregated perception of change in water. Note that the maximum

amount of climatic change experienced (red horizontal lines) is the same for all three age groups. Note also that the amount of change per time unit is

greater for the youngest age group.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1905

1910

1915

1920

1925

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Year

Per

cept

ion

of c

hang

e fo

r ag

e gr

oups

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Tot

al a

nnua

l pre

cip.

for

Nom

e, A

lask

a (m

m)

60-99 yrsEldest generation

40-59 yrsMiddle generation

18-39 yrsYoungest generation

Fig. 5. Precipitation over time for Nome, Alaska and year of birth versus aggregated perception of change in water. Note that the maximum amount of

climatic change experienced (red horizontal lines) is the same for all three age groups. Note also that the amount of change per time unit is greater for the

youngest age group.

L. Alessa et al. / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 153–164160

transmission of oral histories. Related to this is theinterruption of the oral tradition and the loss of culturalintegrity during the early and middle parts of the 20thcentury (Burch, 1998). Transmission of TEK as acontinuous, dynamic, and cohesive knowledge system iscentral to resilience to change because it enables commu-nities to identify appropriate responses to maintain the

sustainability of critical resources (Folke et al., 1998;Berkes et al., 2000; Berkes and Folke, 2002). Historicalcollective memory such as TEK, is expected to provide acontinuous accounting of modes of, and reasons for,acquiring diverse resources in the environment. It isbecause of this that the differences between age groups inthis study are notable. If the transmission of values and

ARTICLE IN PRESSL. Alessa et al. / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 153–164 161

perceptions was complete in these communities, then theyoungest age group should perceive some change in theirwater resources.

Again, the eldest generation received a much longertemporal accounting of freshwater availability and qualitythrough TEK which would be supplemented throughpersonal experience, whereas the youngest generation hashad limited access to this information. Mirroring the Fordet al. (2006) findings, another salient factor, to which ourcollaborators referred in interviews, is the introduction andproliferation of television and other global media in thevillages which they felt reduced the time that the youngestgeneration spent acquiring experience in the landscape. Inother words, they expressed concern that the youngestgenerations did not value, access and utilize the extensivedatabase that comprises traditional knowledge systems.

4.1. Experience on the land: perception of change

While historic and instrument-derived data are lackingfor finer scales on the Seward Peninsula, regional climatedata provide measures for comparison of perceptual versusobjective changes in the landscape. Fig. 4 shows tempera-ture trends for Nome where a cooling period during thebeginning of the 20th century was followed by a distinctwarming period beginning around 1951 (Polyakov andJohnson, 2000). Mean average annual temperature andtotal annual precipitation for Nome, the regional center onSeward Peninsula, shows an increasing trend since recordsbegan in 1915, and a more marked increase since the1976–1978 regime shift (Figs. 4 and 5). Superimposed onthe temperature record (Fig. 4) and on the precipitationdata (Fig. 5) is the aggregated perception of change in riverwater for each generational age group—positioned bymedian birth year of the age group. The older generationperceived greater change in river water quality andavailability while the middle generation perceived somethough less change. Despite the younger generation havingexperienced a period of dramatic temperature changeduring their lifetimes (since the 1976–1978 regime shift)they did not perceive a great deal of change in river waterresources.

4.2. Explaining age differences

The lack of correlation between length of use of waterand perception of change in water indicates that this is notsimply a phenomenon of accumulating exposure to change.While the oldest age group has acquired longer spatial andtemporal knowledge (i.e., ‘‘before to now’’), the youngestage group has been exposed to most rapid change as well asaccess to their elders without overt Western censorship.Notably, all three age groups have experienced the samemaximum range of climatic change (Figs. 4 and 5). Ourdata run counter to the intuitive interpretation of thesedata: that the youngest generation should perceive thegreatest amount of change because they experienced the

maximum range of temperature values over the shortesttime period.All regional climate models confirm that change affect-

ing permafrost and hence hydrology in these areas isoccurring rapidly but our data suggest that youngergenerations are not perceiving change. The data presentedin this paper are, in our opinion, profound. They show thatin older generations individuals are more likely to detectchange in water resources but this perception is notadopted by subsequent generations despite measurementssuggesting they have experienced the greatest rate ofchange. This is a phenomenon that requires furtherinquiry, especially if the resilience of a community is afunction of collective longitudinal information transfer(e.g., traditional knowledge) and learning. Since thesecommunities are gradually shifting to younger decisionmakers (the 35–50 year age group), questions ariseregarding whether the difference between the perceivedand actual resource may be key to the types of decisionsmade regarding water resources. This phenomenon appliesnot only to remote, resource-dependent communities inrapidly changing environments, but also to human societiesworldwide. A salient question which needs to be addressedis how do decision makers perceive and respond to changessuch that sustainability is promoted over time.

5. Conclusions

Our study, conducted in partnership with residents ofremote, resource-dependent communities, shows that theperception of change in water resources is positivelycorrelated with age. Older generations in Seward Peninsulacommunities perceived lower quality, less availability, andgreater change in local water resources than youngergenerations and there were no differences in perceptionsbetween male and female respondents. This relationshipbetween perception of change and age is particularlyinteresting since recent climate records show that increasedvariation in temperature and precipitation have occurred inthe region during the last 40 years (the lifetime of theyoungest generation) compared to 40–90 years ago (theearlier lifetime of older generations).It has been proposed that improving the understanding

of linkages between macroscale and microscale phenomenaand processes is an important challenge for science(Wilbanks and Kates, 1999). The way in which peoplethink about environmental change and their individual‘‘understandings’’ as perceptions are not necessarilyaccurate or complete. However, these cognitive processesare critical to their willingness and ability to respond tochange (Stamm et al., 2000). We believe that the observeddifferences between age group perceptions of change in aresource with respect to recorded changes suggest thatdifferences between perception and the actual status of aresource may be a determinant of resilience or vulner-ability. That is, a widening gap between perceived changeand actual change leads to an accumulation of change until

ARTICLE IN PRESSL. Alessa et al. / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 153–164162

a threshold is reached. Such a threshold could be describedas sudden or catastrophic, and is more easily perceived,such that the consequences are acute. Our study extendsthe literature on perception of environmental change byproviding evidence that perception mediates willingness toact (e.g., Stern, 2000)—while alternative views exist, that is,that vulnerability itself is experienced through perceptions,those appear to be specific to studies of individualvulnerability to personal risk (Satterfield et al., 2004), andare nonetheless formulated on the basis of perceptions as amediator of behavior (e.g., Kraus et al., 1992). It alsoextends a potentially critical area of inquiry, that ofunderstanding individual perceptions of environmentalchange and their role in creating collective responses, suchas formal and informal institutions.

There are several implications of these findings. Animportant one is that the loss of sensitivity to hydrologicalchanges in younger generations is occurring despite dataand information, both western and traditional, which pointtoward increasingly rapid variability (Overpeck et al., 1997;Jolly et al., 2002). Our results implicate the role of thetransmission of knowledge in aiding a community’s abilityto note and respond appropriately to changes in criticalnatural resources, a key factor in determining the vulner-ability/resilience of a community in the face of environ-mental change. We argue that the transmission ofknowledge from older to younger generations is a criticalprocess in maintaining an intimate familiarity with acommunity’s resource supplies. As this becomes increas-ingly impaired (e.g., fragmented or discontinuous) acommunity becomes less capable of responding to envir-onmental changes affecting critical resources because theymay not detect, and hence respond, to change until it isprofound. While this study of biophysical and socioculturaldynamics was conducted on the Seward Peninsula it yieldsinsight applicable to other systems where environmentalchange is expected to be rapid and communities are relianton a combination of inherent natural resources and a cash-economy. It speaks to a broader human condition ofbasing many decisions on our perceptions of the worldaround us and highlights the need to advance ourunderstanding of how this creates feedbacks betweensociocultural and biophysical systems and ultimately theircohesiveness, functionality, and maintenance of desiredtraits.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the National Science Foundation(OPP Arctic System Science #0327296 and #0328686) forfunding this research-the views expressed here do notnecessarily reflect those of the National Science Founda-tion. We acknowledge Dan White for providing the datapresented in Fig. 5. We thank faculty and graduatestudents at the Institute of Resources, Environment andSustainability at the University of British Columbia and atthe School of Human Evolution and Social Change at

Arizona State University for discussion, comments andsuggestions on earlier versions of these data and ideas. Weare grateful for the insightful comments on an earlierversion by two anonymous reviewers. To our communitycollaborators in the villages of Elim, Golovin, Teller, Walesand White Mountain, Quyana.

References

Adamowicz, W., Swait, J., Boxall, P., Louviere, J., Williams, M., 1997.

Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in

combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental

valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32

(1), 65–84.

ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment), 2005. ACIA Scientific Report.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Aronson, J., Le Floc’h, E., 1996. Vital landscape attributes: missing tools

for restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 4, 377–387.

Berkes, F., Folke, C., 2002. Back to the future: ecosystem dynamics and

local knowledge. In: Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S. (Eds.), Panarchy:

Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems.

Island Press, Washington, DC.

Berkes, F., Jolly, D., 2001. Adapting to climate change: social-ecological

resilience in a Canadian western Arctic community. Conservation

Ecology 5 (2), 18 [Online] http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art18.

Berkes, F., Colding, Folke, C., 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological

knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10 (5),

1251–1262.

Bonabeau, E., 2002. Agent-based modeling: methods and techniques for

simulating human systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences 99 (3), 7280–7287.

Brandenburg, A.M., Carroll, M.S., 1995. Your place or mine? The effect

of place creation on environmental values and landscape meanings.

Society & Natural Resources 8 (5), 381–398.

Briffa, K.P., Jones, F., Schweingruber, F.H., Osborn, T., 1998. Influence

of volcanic eruptions on Northern Hemisphere summer temperature

over the past 600 years. Nature (London) 393, 450–454.

Burch, E.S., 1998. The Inupiaq Eskimo Nations of Northwest Alaska.

University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks, AK.

Chance, N.A., 1990. The Inupiat and Arctic Alaska: An Ethnography of

Development. Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc., Fort Worth, TX.

Chapin III, F.S., Lovecraft, A.L., Zavaleta, E.S., Nelson, J., Robards,

M.D., Kofinas, G.P., Trainor, S.F., Peterson, G.D., Huntington, H.P.,

Naylor, R.L., 2006. Policy strategies to address sustainability of

Alaskan boreal forests in response to a directionally changing climate.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103 (45),

16637–16643.

Cruikshank, J., 2001. Glaciers and climate change: perspectives from oral

tradition. Arctic 54, 377–393.

Davidson-Hunt, I., Berkes, F., 2003. Learning as you journey: anishi-

naabe perception of social-ecological environments and adaptive

learning. Conservation Ecology 8 (1), 5–25.

Eiser, R.J., Reicher, S.D., Podpadec, T.J., 2000. Awareness of bad news,

environmental attitudes, and subjective estimates of coastal pollution.

Ecological Psychology 12 (3), 241–258.

Folke, C., Berkes, F., Colding, J., 1998. Ecological practices and social

mechanisms for building resilience and sustainability. In: Berkes, F.,

Folke, C. (Eds.), Linking Social and Ecological Systems. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Ford, J.D., Smit, B., 2004. A framework for assessing the vulnerability of

communities in the Canadian Arctic to risks associated with climate

change. Arctic 57, 389–400.

Ford, J.D., Smit, B., Wandel, J., 2006. Vulnerability to climate change in

the Arctic: a case study from Arctic Bay, Canada. Global Environ-

mental Change 16 (2), 145–160.

ARTICLE IN PRESSL. Alessa et al. / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 153–164 163

George, J.C., Huntington, H.P., Brewster, K., Eicken, H., Norton, D.W.,

Glenn, R., 2004. Observations on shorefast ice dynamics in Arctic

Alaska and the responses of the Inupiat hunting community. Arctic 57,

363–374.

Giordano, M., Giordano, M., Wolf, A., 2002. The geography of water

conflict and cooperation: internal pressures and international mani-

festations. The Geographical Journal 168, 293–312.

Gobster, P.H., 1998. Nearby neighborhood residents’ images and

perceptions of the river. In: Gobster, P.H., Westpahl, L.M. (Eds.),

People and the River: Perception and Use of Chicago Waterways for

Recreation. United States Department of the Interior, Milwaukee, WI.

Hansen, J., Sate, M., Glascoe, J., Ruedy, R., 1998. A common-sense

climate index: is climate changing noticeably? Procedures of the

National Academy of Sciences 95, 4113–4120.

Hinzman, L., Bettez, N.D., Bolton, W.R., Chapin, F.S., Dyurgerov, M.B.,

Fastie, C.L., Griffith, B., Huang, H.-P., Weickmann, K.M., Juno, C.,

2005. Evidence and implications of recent climate change in northern

Alaska and other Arctic regions. Climatic Change 14, 1525–1534.

Hunn, E.S., Johnson, D.R., Russell, P.N., Thornton, T.F., Alvard, M.S.,

Berkes, F., Broughton, J.M., Cruikshank, J., Moss, M.L., Rose, D.B.,

Tucker, B., 2003. Huna Tlingit traditional environmental knowledge,

conservation, and the management of a ‘‘wilderness’’ park. Current

Anthropology 44, S79–S103.

Johannessen, O.M., Bengtsson, L., Miles, M.W., Kuzmina, S.I., Semenov,

V.A., Alekseev, G.V., Nagurnyi, A.P., Zakharov, V.F., Bobylev, L.P.,

Pettersson, L.H., Hasselmann, K., Cattle, H.P., 2004. Arctic climate

change: observed and modeled temperature and sea-ice variability.

Tellus A 56, 328–341.

Jolly, D., Berkes, F., Castleden, J., Nichols, T., Community of Sachs

Harbor, 2002. We can’t predict the weather like we used to: Inuvialuit

observations of climate change. In: Krupnik, I., Jolly, D. (Eds.), The

Earth is Faster Now. ARCUS, Fairbanks, AK.

Jorgenson, M.T., Racine, C.H., Walters, J.C., Osterkamp, T.E., 2001.

Permafrost degradation and ecological changes associated with a

warming climate in central Alaska. Climatic Change 48, 551–579.

Kelly, P.M., Adger, W.N., 2000. Theory and practice in assessing

vulnerability to climate change and facilitating adaptation. Climatic

Change 47, 325–352.

Kelsall, R.K., Poole, A., Kuhn, A., 1972. The questionnaire in a

sociological research project. British Journal of. Sociology 23,

344–357.

Kimmerer, R.W., 2002. Weaving traditional ecological knowledge into

biological education: a call to action. BioScience 52 (5), 432–438.

Kraus, N., Malmfors, T., Slovic, P., 1992. Intuitive toxicology: expert and

lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Analysis 12, 215–232.

Krupnik, I., 2002. Watching ice and weather our way: some lessons from

Yupik observations of sea ice and weather in St. Lawrence Island. In:

Krupnik, I., Jolly, D. (Eds.), The Earth is Faster Now. ARCUS,

Fairbanks AK.

Kurien, J., 1998. Traditional ecological knowledge and system sustain-

ability: new meaning to Asian coastal proverbs. Ecological Applica-

tions 8 (1), S2–S5.

Kweon, B.-S., Ellis, C.D., Lee, S.-W., Rogers, G.O., 2006. Large scale

environmental knowledge: investigating the relationship between self-

reported and objectively measured physical environments. Environ-

ment and Behavior 38, 72–91.

Lansing, J.S., 2002. Complex adaptive systems. Annual Review of

Anthropology 32, 183–204.

Lansing, J.S., Kremer, J.N., 1993. Emergent properties of Balinese water

temple networks: coadaptation on a rugged fitness landscape.

American Anthropologist 95 (1), 97–114.

Leavesley, G.H., 1994. Modeling the effects of climate change on water

resources—a review. Climatic Change 28, 159–177.

Magnuson, J.J., Robertson, D.M., Benson, B.J., Wynne, R.H., Living-

stone, D.M., Arai, T., Assel, R.A., Barry, R.G., Card, V., Kuusisto,

E., Granin, N.G., Prowse, T.D., Stewart, K.M., Vuglinski, V.S., 2000.

Historic trends in lake and river ice cover in the northern hemisphere.

Science 289, 1743–1746.

Maule, A.J., Hodgkinson, G.P., 2002. Heuristics, biases and strategic

decision making. Psychologist 15 (2), 68–71.

Michaels, C.F., 2000. Information, perception, and action: what should

ecological psychologists learn from Milner and Goodale (1995)?

Ecological Psychology 12, 241–258.

Moss, B., 1998. Ecology of Fresh Waters: Man and Medium, Past to

Future. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.

Nobmann, E.D., Ponce, R., Mattil, C., Devereux, R., Dyke, B., Ebbesson,

S.O.E., Laston, S., Maccluer, J., Robbins, D., Romenesko, T.,

Ruotolo, G., Wenger, C.R., Howard, B.V., 2005. Dietary

intakes vary with age among Eskimo adults of northwest Alaska

in the GOCADAN study, 2000–2003. Journal of Nutrition 135,

856–862.

Oba, G., Kotile, D.G., 2001. Assessments of landscape level degradation

in southern Ethiopia: pastoralists versus ecologists. Land Degradation

& Development 12 (5), 461–475.

Ogden, S., Watson, R., 1999. Corporate performance and stakeholder

management: balancing shareholder and customer interests in the UK

privatized water industry. The Academy of Management Journal 42,

526–538.

Oki, T., Kanae, S., 2006. Global hydrological cycles and world water

resources. Science 313, 1068–1072.

Olick, J.K., Robins, J., 1998. Social memory studies: from ‘‘collective

memory’’ to the historical sociology of mnemonic practices. Annual

Review of Sociology 24, 105–140.

Osterkamp, T.E., Romanovsky, V.E., 1999. Evidence for warming and

thawing of discontinuous permafrost in Alaska. Permafrost and

Periglacial Processes 10 (1), 17–37.

Overpeck, J., Hughen, K., Hardy, D., Bradley, R., Case, R., Douglas, M.,

Finney, B., Gajewski, K., Jacoby, G., Jennings, A., Lamoureux, S.,

Lasca, A., Macdonald, G., Moore, J., Retelle, M., Smith, S., Wolfe,

A., Zielinski, G., 1997. Arctic environmental change of the last four

centuries. Science 278, 1251–1256.

Pierotti, R., Wildcat, D., 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge: the third

alternative. Ecological Applications 10 (5), 1333–1340.

Pollard, W.H., 2005. Icing processes associated with high Arctic perennial

springs, Axel Heiberg Island, Nunavut, Canada. Permafrost and

Periglacial Processes 16 (1), 51–68.

Polyakov, I.V., Johnson, M.A., 2000. Arctic decadal and interdecadal

variability. Geophysical Research Letters 27, 4097–4100.

Quinn, T.P., Hodgson, P.S., Peven, C., 1997. Temperature, flow, and the

migration of adult sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in the

Columbia River. Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences 54,

1349–1360.

Reidlinger, D., Berkes, F., 2001. Contributions of traditional knowledge

to understanding climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Polar Record

37, 315–328.

Reisner, M., 1993. Cadillac Desert: The American West and its

Disappearing Water. Penguin Books, NY.

Robards, M., Alessa, L., 2004. Timescapes of community resilience and

vulnerability in the circumpolar north. Arctic 57 (4), 415–427.

Satterfield, T.A., Mertz, C.K., Slovic, P., 2004. Discrimination, vulner-

ability, and justice in the face of risk. Risk Analysis 24, 115–129.

Schneider, S.H., Easterling, W.E., Mearns, L.O., 2000. Adaptation:

sensitivity to natural variability, agent assumptions and dynamic

climate changes. Climatic Change 45, 203–221.

Serreze, M.C., Walsh, J.E., Chapin III, F.S., Osterkamp, T., Dyurgerov,

M., Romanovsky, V., Oechel, W.C., Morison, J., Zhang, T., Barry,

R.G., 2000. Observational evidence of recent change in the northern

high-latitude environment. Climatic Change 46, 159–207.

Seyfrit, C.L., Hamilton, L.C., 1997. Alaska native youth and their

attitudes toward education. Arctic Anthropology 34 (1), 135–148.

Smit, B., Burton, I., Klein, R.J.T., Street, R., 1999. The science of

adaptation: a framework for assessment. Mitigation and Adaptation

Strategies for Global Change 4, 199–213.

Smit, B., Burton, I., Klein, R.J.T., Wandel, J., 2000. An anatomy of

adaptation to climate change and variability. Climatic Change 45,

223–251.

ARTICLE IN PRESSL. Alessa et al. / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 153–164164

Smit, B., Wandel, J., 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulner-

ability. Global Environmental Change 16, 282–292.

Smith, J.B., Klein, R.J.T., Huq, S., 2003. Climate Change, Adaptive

Capacity and Development. Imperial College Press, London.

Smithers, J., Smit, B., 1997. Human adaptation to climatic variability and

change. Global Environmental Change 7 (2), 129–146.

Stamm, K.R., Clark, F., Eblacas, P.R., 2000. Mass communication and

public understanding of environmental problems: the case of global

warming. Public Understanding of Science 9, 219–237.

Stern, P.C., 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant

behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56, 407–424.

Tainter, J.A., 1988. The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Vorosmarty, C.J., Hinzman, L., Peterson, B.J., Bromwich, D.L.,

Hamilton, L., Morison, J., Romanovsky, V., Sturm, M., Webb, R.,

2001. The Hydrologic Cycle and its Role in ARCTIC and Global

Environmental Change. ARCUS, Fairbanks, AK.

Waelbroeck, C., Duplessy, J.-C., Michel, E., Labeyrie, L., Paillard, D.,

Duprat, J., 2001. The timing of the last deglaciation in North Atlantic

climate records. Nature (London) 412, 724–727.

Wheaton, E.E., MacIver, D.C., 1999. A framework and key questions for

adapting to climate variability and change. Mitigation and Adaptation

Strategies for Global Change 4, 215–225.

Wilbanks, T.J., Kates, R.W., 1999. Global climate change in local places:

how scale matters. Climatic Change 43, 601–628.

Wilson, M.A., Carpenter, S.R., 1999. Economic valuation of freshwater

ecosystem services in the United States: 1971–1997. Ecological

Applications 9, 772–783.

Wong, P.P., 2005. A wave of geographical research. Singapore Journal of

Tropical Geography 26, 257–261.

Yoshikawa, K., Hinzman, L.D., 2003. Shrinking thermokarst ponds

and groundwater dymnamics in discontinuous permafrost

near Council, Alaska. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes 14 (2),

151–160.