Community perspectives on the environmental impacts of Arctic shipping: Case studies from Russia, Norway and Canada

Figures & data

Figure 1. A map of the case communities.

Table 1. Main indicators for marine transportation for the Solovetsky Archipelago, Longyearbyen and Cambridge Bay²

Year	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	% Increase 2008–2016
Number of ship calls in Solovetsky	466	410	516	490	563	545	540	595	596	128
Number of passengers (thousands of people)	22,9	27,8	31,0	33,6	30,3	30,1	62,8	78,5	74,4	324
Number of ship calls in Longyearbyen	771	799	814	773	777	802	1178	1163	1542	200
Number of passengers	38,6	41,4	40,1	39,0	55,1	56,9	54,8	63,7	75,2	197
Number of transits past Cambridge Bay	20	25	22	32	30	28	29	31	37	185

Table 2. Main characteristics of the three case communities¹

Characteristics	Solovetsky	Longyearbyen	Cambridge Bay
Geographic location	65 °N; Solovetsky Archipelago (also known as Solovki), White Sea, Arkhangelsk region, Russia	78 °N; Svalbard Archipelago, Barents Sea, Norway	69 °N; Victoria Island, Kitikmeot region, Nunavut, Canada
Settlement type	The transportation and administrative hub for the Solovetsky Archipelago	The transportation, administrative, and business hub for Svalbard	The transportation, administrative, and business hub for the Kitikmeot region
Demography	943 inhabitants, mostly native Russian, 10% are monks	2200 inhabitants from over 40 countries. Average residence period is 7 years	1,766 inhabitants, 80% art Inuit (Indigenous Peoples)
Employment	Museum, monastery, municipality, tourism combined with subsistence economy	Tourism, research and education, public sector, and different social services	Research center, public sector (municipality), tourism, combined with subsistence economy
Transport linkage with the mainland	Shipping (seasonal) and air transportation (year-round)	Year-round shipping and air transportation	Shipping (seasonal) and air transportation (year-round).
Type of shipping	Domestic (dominated by passenger and cargo/supply)	Domestic and destination (marine tourism, cargo/supply, research, fishing, Search and Rescue)	Destination and transit (re-supply, cruise and yacht tourism, research, government vessels, fishing)
Natural environment use	Recreation; fishing for subsistence and private income (year-round); and collecting local resources (berries, mushrooms, seaweed) for subsistence during summer season.	Recreation; fishing (year-round) and hunting (seasonal) for private purposes, not subsistence.	Recreation; fishing and hunting for subsistence. See Figure 2.
Important historical facts	1429 -Establishment of the Solovetsky Monastery 1862—Ferry transportation with Arkhangelsk established 1992- Solovetsky’s Cultural and Historical Assembly on the UNESCO World Heritage list.	1596-Discovery of Svalbard. Marine area has been used for whaling and fishing and later marine tourism 1906- Establishment of Longyearbyen 2002- Gained protection under the Environmental Protected Act. 2015—Heavy Fuel Oil-banned	1500 CE to present modern Inuit 1920s RCMP and Hudson Bay Company outpost established 1947 first permanent residents 2012–2018 construction of Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS).

Figure 2. Seasonal cycles in Cambridge Bay.

Table 3. Number and types of interviews

Community/codes	Type and number of interviews	Interviewees
Solovetsky (S1-S24)	19 semi-structured and 5 unstructured	Representatives from public bodies, shipping and marine tourism industry, Search and Rescue services and local population
Longyearbyen (L1-L22)	18 semi-structured and 4 unstructured	Representatives from public bodies, shipping and marine tourism industry, NGOs, Search and Rescue services, port authorities and local population
Cambridge Bay (CB1-CB24)	One focus-group interview with 8 stakeholders and 16 unstructured interviews	Representatives from Ekaluktutiak Hunters and Trappers Organization and local residents who were current, active users of local marine areas with expert knowledge of culturally significant marine sites and the impacts of shipping

Table 4. Local perceptions on impacts from shipping and implications for adaptive capacity (adopted from Olsen and Nenasheva, 2018)

Community	Perception and use of natural environment:	The impacts from shipping	Weaken adaptive capacity	Strengthen adaptive capacity
Solovetsky	Natural boundary for the shipping and tourism seasons (e.g., sea ice and weather conditions) Local natural capacity with limits for use Natural capital (i.e. natural resources) Natural heritage (an object for protection)	Animal disturbance by tourists Pollution and inappropriate behavior on sites Infrastructure development may have trade-offs with the natural environment and heritage Garbage collected on the island and not removed	Protective measures can affect residents’ and visitors’ use of the natural environment (hunting is already prohibited) Natural resources are collected by community visitors during summer navigation season (no conflicts are mentioned yet)	Protective measures and guidelines reduce ecological footprint. Extension of the navigation season improves food security Sea ice and weather conditions limit the tourism season and number of visitors and thus their ecological footprint
Longyearbyen	Vulnerable environment is exposed to climate change impacts and needs to be protected. Disturbance should be limited to its minimum. Local natural capacity with limits for use	- Potential for accident, pollution and emission, both off- shore and on sites - Spreading of invasive species via ballast water by international shipping - Animal disturbance - Missing the sense of wildness, isolation and exclusiveness of Svalbard - Marine litter	- Protective regulations affect residents’ use of the environment for recreational purposes (e.g. mobility restrictions) The pollution of the pristine environment affects people’s perception of “wilderness” that in turn affect sense of place	Increased environmental consciousness among residents and visitors resulted in the response strategies (cleaning initiatives, knowledge sharing with community visitors)
Cambridge Bay	Integrated part of the community livelihood (need to be protected) Natural capital a part of food security (i.e. natural resources) Sea ice and open water as platforms for animals and community mobility	Vessels disturb marine species and fish (that move away) Breaking sea ice affects people and animals’ mobility and local ability to hunt Noise pollution Pollution to the water that also affect the quality of local food Possibility for oil spills	- The describe impacts negatively affect community’s subsistence (limiting the healthy food availability) and mobility options for people and animals	Protect marine environment, better information dissemination about icebreaking activities and improving of preparedness system are described as necessary to limit the negative impact on the natural environment

Olsen, J., & Nenasheva, M. (2018). Adaptive capacity in the context of increasing shipping activities: A case from Solovetsky, Northern Russia. Polar Geography, 41, 241–261. doi:10.1080/1088937X.2018.1513960

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar