Activity Report

Our half-day workshop at ASSW 2025 focused on the review of research on drivers and cumulative effects of infrastructure and climate on Arctic socio-ecological systems done since ICARP III and on sketching a roadmap for innovative community-engaged research on Arctic infrastructural development and environmental changes in the next decade. This community event was a continuation of a series of workshops, online talks and meeting of the IASC Research Initiative “Rapid Arctic Transitions due to Infrastructure and Climate (RATIC)”. Young and advanced-career researchers, including an Indigenous scholar, from the fields of history, social sciences, natural sciences, engineering and architecture who have been actively involved in the RATIC network, were invited to present and to lead small group discussions. The workshop was open to the public and was attended by around fifty participants, including international researchers, students, and artists, Arctic residents, and Indigenous peoples. The workshop organizers opened the event with an introduction of its goals, its relevance for IASC and contribution to the ICARP IV process. During Session I of our workshop, we heard seven short presentations on the state of various aspects of Arctic infrastructure research including a history of Arctic infrastructure, social sciences perspectives, indirect costs of infrastructure due to permafrost degradation, engineering perspectives on energy infrastructure, permafrost management in Arctic urban design and construction, community engaged ethical research on infrastructure, remote sensing and infrastructure mapping. During Session II, we held four breakout groups on different aspects of planning for future Arctic infrastructure research: natural sciences, social sciences, engineering and architecture, and research methods and ethics. The workshop ended with reports from each of the breakout groups and a general discussion on research challenges, gaps and priorities for the next decade.

Workshop outcomes include recommendations made to two specific ICARP IV Research Priority Teams: RPT3 (Vulnerability and Resilience of Arctic Environments/Societies and Sustainable Development) and RPT7 (Technology, Infrastructure, Logistics and Services). As a final product, we are preparing a white paper that will briefly present the current state of Arctic infrastructure research and then address the scientific goals that can and should be achieved over the next decade. While the workshop participants identified multiple research goals and priorities, they can be roughly clustered into the following groups: 1) establishment of new integrated research approaches and protocols to observe, monitor, and measure the cumulative effects of infrastructure and climate on Arctic ecosystems and communities; 2) pan-Arctic comparison of infrastructural and climatic changes across different geo-ecological, socio-economic and cultural settings; 3) an international interdisciplinary research framework for studying the intersections between Arctic infrastructure and climate; 4) improved accessibility, standardization and exchange of data on locally informed engineering solutions for sustainable and energy-efficient Arctic infrastructure; 5) increased engagement of Arctic residents, Indigenous peoples and youth in co-production of different types of knowledge regarding planning, maintenance and mitigation of environmental impacts of large-scale infrastructure. Finally, we propose –- as future directions for the RATIC initiative, its mission and goals – to explore opportunities for establishing an IASC Infrastructure Action Group, an Arctic Infrastructure Observing Network, and other structured initiatives to support international collaboration on infrastructure-related research priorities.

Photo: Jonathan Galle, RATIC workshop participants in Boulder, Colorado (US)

 

Three highlights:

1. Presentations and small groups discussions provided a review of research on the intersection between Arctic infrastructure and climate, which has been conducted over the past decade in several disciplinary fields. Speakers and participants highlighted specific findings of their infrastructure-focused projects, which are at the core of the RATIC network, demonstrated the scientific value of the existing body of knowledge and addressed questions related to challenges to research.

2. The workshop has been the culmination of a long process of identifying research gaps and priorities, methods and partnerships needed to achieve these priorities. The RATIC members, who organized and participated in the workshop, had been meeting regularly online to discuss their individual contributions to the workshop. Still, the actual workshop discussions and interactions were necessary to formulate joint research goals for ICARP IV.

3. The event mobilized and extended the RATIC network, thereby demonstrating the relevance of its central research foci and the value of long-term international interdisciplinary collaboration and of the dialogue between academia, local communities, practitioners and other stakeholders. The RATIC Steering Committee soon will resume its meetings to finalize a resulting collective white paper and to discuss funding opportunities to support future activities.

 

Summary of input provided for the ICARP IV process

Input from our activity for the ICARP IV process came largely from the four breakout group reports on future infrastructure-related research. Four break-out groups (natural sciences, social sciences, engineering and architecture, research ethics and methods) discussed key findings and challenges, identified research gaps and priorities in their fields, and revisited methods and ethics in Arctic infrastructure studies. The group discussions were informed by infrastructure-focused projects that have constituted the core of the RATIC Initiative over the recent decade, but also included input from the broader audience joining the discussion.

 

Recommendations for priorities in Arctic research for the coming decade

The social science group shared the following findings:

• Infrastructure projects rarely start from scratch and are multi-temporal projects,
• Many visionary projects that are temporarily postponed ultimately materialize,
• Infrastructure shapes communities, memories, and identities,
• They are critical for permanent residency in the Arctic,
• Industrial infrastructure (oil / gas extraction) accounts for most of the environmental footprint in the Arctic,
• Community-oriented infrastructure can mitigate risks, connect people, and enhance wellbeing,
• Extractivist infrastructure serving outside interests results in loss of culture and diversity

The following challenges to social science research were identified:

• Lack of common language and approaches across the disciplines,
• Blurred definition and classification of infrastructure,
• Insufficient integration of different types of data and knowledge,
• Imbalance between community engagement and research processes (e.g. preoccupation with facilitation of a dialogue between stake- and knowledge holders at expense of data collection),
• At the same time, lack of funding for building long-term relationships with communities,
• Underrepresentation of social and economic perspectives on infrastructural development,
• Fragmentation of knowledge due to restricted access to field sites and data under the current geopolitical pressures.

Social scientists suggested addressing such research questions, gaps, and priorities as:

• How can infrastructure contribute to individual and communal well-being in the Arctic?
• How do we integrate societal, economic, ecological, and engineering dimensions of infrastructure in research?
• How do we make infrastructure sustainable and integrate community perspectives?
• How do we balance different social positions and interests in research on (industrial and energy) infrastructure?
• How do we address the lack of knowledge about local permafrost conditions and implications of permafrost thaw on construction and human activities?
• How should we study the impacts of invisible infrastructure?

The natural science group discussed the following findings:

• Sharing must occur among scientists, engineers, health experts, and community members,
• The effects of infrastructure on ecosystem stability may be greater than those of climate change

Overall challenges for research relating to natural sciences and Arctic infrastructure include:

• The current geopolitical situation,
• A greater understanding of Arctic hydrology,
• Better high-resolution (spatial and temporal) data on ground thermal regimes in areas with infrastructure,
• Meta-data for existing infrastructure,
• Improvement in working with communities,
• Practices for new construction,
• Constraints on satellite observing operations.

The knowledge gaps and research priorities that can be addressed in the next 10 years in the natural sciences include:

• Increasing spatial and temporal resolutions of data on ecosystem variables that affect and are influenced by infrastructure,
• Better monitoring and understanding of the controls on land subsidence,
• Understanding legacy and cumulative effects over time,
• Increase complexity of models for coastal areas,
• Use of renewable energy and smart technologies.

The group on engineering and architecture shared the following insights and findings:

• Urban systems require a culturally specific design,
• Infrastructure needs are driven by new weather events/patterns caused by climate change
• Nature-based solutions contribute to resilience,
• Engineering of energy efficient infrastructure should be informed by communities’ needs, priorities, and capacities,
• Financing of building new infrastructure (e.g. 1.200$ qf normal building 3.000$ qf energy efficient) is often not feasible,
• The upfront cost for energy facilities,
• A look back at the history of traditional Indigenous architecture is helpful for learning and transferring to modern architecture,
• Sharing the best practices is of great value.

The following topics should be prioritized in Arctic engineering and architecture in the next decade:

• Entrenched ideas of infrastructure,
• Community-engaged development,
• Equity in future development,
• Integration of new technologies without compromising the traditional way of life,
• Data (timeframe past and future, sharing and the format, accessibility vs. paywall).

The research ethics and methods group shared the following insights and findings:

• Not enough actionable steps are made leaving a gap between research and action,
• Research takes time, and time constraints and deadlines affect research,
• Building relationships with communities takes time,
• Research is restricted by external funding requirements and is affected by political whims,
• Lack of decision-making power from communities and Arctic perspective; external agendas define research.

The challenges related to research ethics and methods include:

• Increasing knowledge co-production of research with Indigenous and local communities without a colonial approach/extractive mindset and methodologies, and actionable science,
• Increased involvement of the arts in research,
• Unstable environment for international cooperation,
• Lack of funding for qualitative research,
• Lack of motivation and metrics for mindful and engaged research,
• Underrepresentation of urban areas in research.

The group also identified their most interesting topics and priorities for future research, such as:

• How can we produce more high-quality literature, especially in the social sciences, about the Arctic?
• Trans-disciplinary research with meaningful community engagement with clear evaluation methods,
• Nature-based solutions,
• How to make research less extractive and focus more on Indigenous methodologies and ways of knowing and empowering?
• Ethical use of AI and other new technologies,
• How to build ethical and efficient international cooperation to have knowledge and methods shared across other climate change-affected nations outside of the Arctic?

 

Recommendations for the implementation of the suggested priorities

Social sciences:

• Combine classical fieldwork with innovative methods involving social anthropology, storytelling, modelling, artists, natural sciences, remote sensing, etc.
• Devote more attention to multidisciplinary collaboration and methods,
• Engage local communities through participatory and collaborative tools,
• Avoid research fatigue and address community needs,
• Critically revisit the process of knowledge co-production and steps towards equitable science,
• Allocate more time, funding and other resources to building trust relations, community consultations, collaboration and outreach

Natural sciences:

• Develop the next generation of researchers,
• Practice international student exchange,
• Provide online education and connections among international researchers,
• Consider new and upcoming satellite missions (e.g. SAR, SBG),
• Implement actionable science,
• Coordinate on reporting from existing monitoring efforts on carbon, water, active layer thaw, etc.

Engineering and design:

• Involve local people in infrastructure projects, so they can steer them and provide input (e.g. traditional/local knowledge),
• Benefit local communities through infrastructure projects,
• Critically discuss and adapt standards and procedures from temperate areas to polar regions,
• Decrease data paywalls and make more data accessible in order to standardize data formats and increase data sharing,
• Continue increasing the efficiency of buildings, energy generation, and other technologies.
• Break entrenched ideas of infrastructure standards through integration of local perspectives and knowledge exchange

Ethics and methods:

• Developing systematic reviews, strengthening agencies that follow up on the effect of infrastructure projects, Indigenous Data Sovereignty,
• Provide more funding for social sciences and the humanities,
• Create more funding agencies for international research,
• Elaborate and introduce guidelines for the ethical use of generative AI with their enforcement mechanisms and protocols for ethical knowledge co-creation,
• Introduce comprehensive international research frameworks regulating enactment of geoengineering projects.

   

Main Organiser

Olga Povoroznyuk (University of Vienna, Austria); Howard Epstein, University of Virginia (USA); Vera Kuklina (George Washington University, USA)

 

Type of Activity

• Workshop,

 

Dates and Locations

•  24 March 2025 in Boulder, Colorado, USA (ASSW 2025 / ICARP IV Summit)

 

 

Back

 

Activity Report

A Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Science Initiative (CAVSI) Workshop was held from 21-24 March 2025 during Arctic Science Summit Week (ASSW) 2025 and the ICARP IV Summit in Boulder, CO. The 3-day workshop was attended by 85 participants representing 15 countries. A summary of workshop outcomes that are described at more length in a white paper in preparation for submission to the ICARP IV RPT 2 and attached below under.

 

Three highlights:

1. The 3-day CAVSI Workshop drew in 85 participants from 15 countries, including many young investigators. As a result of the workshop, a new early career Arctic vegetation science network was formed.
2. Workshop participants generated:
   1. 100 science questions to guide Arctic vegetation research for the next 10 years
   2. and overview of developing an Arctic Vegetation Monitoring Network
   3. guidance for developing protocols for major element sof the intitiatve
3. On the final day of the workshop, a resolution was signed by over 60 participants expressing their intent to address in principle the initiative’s goals, which will be summarized in a white paper that will be submitted to the ICARP IV Research Priority Team 2 (a draft is included below).

 

Summary of input provided for the ICARP IV process

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE CIRCUMPOLAR ARCTIC VEGETATION SCIENCE INITIATIVE

GOAL
The goal of the Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Science Initiative (CAVSI) is to organize the international community of Arctic vegetation researchers to address the critical vegetation-related priorities during the next ten years of Arctic research, including the Fifth International Polar Year (IPY-5, 2032–2033).

THE NEED FOR AN ARCTIC VEGETATION-FOCUSED INITIATIVE
A vegetation component is needed for U.S. and international Arctic observing networks to coordinate ongoing Arctic vegetation research planned for IPY-5. Currently, there is not a cohesive circumpolar framework to observe and monitor changes to Arctic vegetation that includes: (1) a network of sites across the full range of Arctic climates, phytogeographic regions, and local habitats; (2) standardized methods to describe and monitor local floras, vegetation composition, and key environmental factors; (3) a pan-Arctic vegetation plot archive to store legacy and recent plot data; (4) a consistent hierarchical classification and checklist of Arctic vegetation; and (5) an archive of Arctic vegetation and landcover maps.

The Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Science Initiative (CAVSI) is a response to these needs and those expressed by ICARP IV Research Priority Team 1 (Zhang and Rasouli 2025) and RPT2 (Bret-Harte 2025), which focus on the role of the Arctic in the global systems and observing, reconstructing, and predicting future Arctic climate dynamics and ecosystem responses. CAVSI is also a response to the recommendation by the Arctic Council for long-term biodiversity and monitoring to address key gaps in Arctic-system knowledge (CAFF 2013, Christiansen et al. 2020). It also aligns with several U.S. and international Arctic research national plans and policies that involve observation, monitoring, modeling, and prediction, including those of the United States Arctic Research Commission (USARC 2023), the international Sustaining Arctic Research Network (SAON, Starkweather et al. 2021).

CAVSI WORKSHOP AT ARCTIC SCIENCE SUMMIT WEEK 2025
This document is a result of a three-day CAVSI workshop and two CAVSI science sessions that occurred during Arctic Science Summit Week, March 20–28, 2025 Eighty-five workshop participants from 15 countries were asked to identify priority questions related to Arctic vegetations and discuss CAVSI approaches to answer them. The resulting questions were grouped into eleven broader questions and refined further into four umbrella questions with strategic approaches that CAVSI could use for answering the questions.

The full proceedings from the CAVSI Workshop and science sessions will be summarized in a separate proceeding document of the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (Walker et al. 2025 in prep.). The following describes the key elements of CAVSI that build on structures that already exist in prototype form for some the Arctic countries and regions.

CAVSI ORGANIZATION
(a) The CAVSI Organizing Group (COG) is responsible for overall program development, organization, and communication.
(b) The Early Career Arctic Vegetation Researchers is a self-organized group of early-career Arctic scientists interested in vegetation-related themes.

AN ARCTIC VEGETATION OBSERVATION NETWORK
The core of CAVSI is an Arctic Vegetation Observation Network (AVON) that will be organized mainly within established Arctic observation stations and networks.

PROTOCOLs
The Arctic vegetation-observing sites would be encouraged to use standardized methods that will be spelled out in methods manuals containing protocols for: (1) Species lists and local floras, including a regularly updated Pan-Arctic Species List that includes vascular plant, bryophytes, and lichens; (2) Sampling of vegetation composition, vegetation structure, and key site factors in permanent vegetation plots; (3) Archiving vegetation plot data, including standardized archives for plot data in each region of the Arctic; and the merging the regional archives into a Pan-Arctic vegetation archive: (4) Arctic vegetation classification that would include an Arctic vegetation-type checklist and be compatible with the European, U.S. and Canadian classification approaches; (5) Vegetation mapping, that includes revision and publication of a new very-high-resolution raster version of the Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map (CAVM v. 3) and development of a hierarchical map archive that contains maps of vegetation and other geoecological information at global, regional, landscape, and plot scales.

APPLICATIONS
The existing sets of the first version of the Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map and archived Arctic plot data have been applied to wide range of circumpolar activities, most of which remain relevant for IPY-5, including analyses of: (a) circumpolar patterns of phytomass and NDVI (b) summer-temperature – vegetation relationships along north-south bioclimatic gradients in North America and Eurasia; (c) changes in vegetation greening patterns in relation to changing sea-ice conditions and land-surface temperatures (; (d) diversity of plants, fungi, and terrestrial ecosystems (; (e) analysis of vegetation change and consequences to ; (f) large-scale cumulative impact analyses including oil and gas development at Prudhoe Bay and circumpolar assessment of oil and gas development ; (g) Arctic species diversity models ); and (h) vegetation changes in relation to snow, water, ice, and permafrost

TOWARDS IPY-5
While it is still early to formulate well-developed IPY-5 projects, several ideas are being developed by a group of collaborative projects that would utilize CAVSI data and maps.

 

Recommendations for priorities in Arctic research for the coming decade

1. Work with existing Arctic observing network and vegetation-related networks to establish an Arctic Vegetation Observing Network across the full range of Arctic climates, phytogeographic regions, and local habitats
2. Develop standardized protocols to (a) describe and monitor local floras, vegetation composition, and key environmental factors at permanent vegetation plots represenative of the range of vegetation habitats at each observing station; (b) a pan-Arctic vegetation plot archive to store legacy and recent plot data; (c) a consistent hierarchical classification and checklist of Arctic vegetation; and (d) an archive of Arctic vegetation and landcover maps.

   

Main Organisers 

Donald A. Walker, University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA
Amy L. Breen, University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA
Helga Bültmann, University of Münster, Germany
David Cooper, Colorado State University, USA
Sarah C. Elmendorf, University of Colorado, USA
Howard E. Epstein, University of Virginia, USA
Gerald J. Frost, Alaska Biological Research, Fairbanks, USA
Robert D. Hollister, Grand Valley State University, USA
Stefanie Ickert-Bond, University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA
Shawnee A. Kasanke, Alaska Biological Research, USA
William H. MacKenzie, Province of British Columbia, Smithers, BC, Canada
Donald McClennan, Coenosis Consulting, Canada
Ladislav Mucina, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia
Martha K. Raynolds, University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA
Jozef Šibík, Slovak Academy of Science, Bratislava, Slovakia
Mária Šibíková, Slovak Academy of Science, Bratislava, Slovakia
Gabriela Schaepman-Strub, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Kevin Timoney, Treeline Ecological Research, Canada
Craig E. Tweedie, University of Texas at El Paso, USA
Vitalii Zemlianskii, University of Zurich, Switzerland

 

Type of Activity

• Workshop

 

Dates and Locations

• 21-24 March 2025 at Arctic Science Summit Week 2025, Boulder, Colorado, USA

  

 

Back

 

Activity Description:

The IARPC Atmosphere Community of Practice will host a series of webinars this spring (January-April) to raise US Arctic research community awareness of the ICARP-IV process and provide a platform for research presentations related to some of the Research Priority Teams (Topics 1, 2, and 7).

   

Main Organiser: 

Gijs de Boer, Barry Lefer (University of Colorado, NASA, USA)

 

Type of Activity:

• Webinar,

 

Dates and Locations: 

• 23 January 2024; 26 February 2024; 2 April 2024 

 

Open / Closed Activity:

Online, Open

 

 

Back

 

 

Activity Report

This workshop was an effective forum for identifying knowledge gaps and research priorities within ICARP IV topic areas, drawing cross-cutting themes between disciplines, and proposing implementation strategies to solve Arctic research challenges. Workshop participants represented a range of early- and mid-career stages, IASC working groups, ICARP IV research priority teams, and scientific disciplines. However, the shared denominator—experience as an IASC fellow—provided a common foundation for discussions, namely familiarity with IASC’s objectives and activities. As early- and mid-career researchers, much of our careers will contribute to the next decade of Arctic science; thus, we are actively invested in helping to identify and implement research priorities through the ICARP IV process.

This workshop put into action many of the objectives of IASC in general and the fellowship program specifically, including interdisciplinary collaboration, cross-cutting themes between research fields, and networking among early career researchers. By involving current and former fellows, this workshop bridged the gap from early- to mid-career researchers, demonstrating the role that IASC FOX can play in providing a forum for fellows even after their fellowship ends. 2024 marks ten years since the inaugural class of IASC fellows, so the first generations of fellows are now transitioning into mid-career stages. Many are eager to stay engaged with Arctic science planning through IASC and processes like ICARP IV, as well as to “pay it forward” to help younger generations of fellows through research networking, career resources, and a professional support system outside of our individual institutions. This exchange was on display throughout the workshop, with participants sharing research contacts, funding sources, and job search resources. We hope that IASC FOX can continue to host events like this to further develop this network.

The workshop also emphasized the importance of bringing together researchers from different disciplines, contrasting with the format of many meetings. Rather than representing a similar research topic, participants hailed from a wide range of social and natural sciences. This required us to explain our work in a way that a non-expert could understand, forcing us to zoom out from our specific topics, examine our research in the broader context of our fields, and identify how our individual work connects to challenges and contributes to solutions in Arctic science as a whole. This approach introduced participants to new methodologies and “languages” used in different disciplines–a unique opportunity in cross-cutting communication. It also gave participants a chance to discuss their research and offer input on discipline-level topics like research gaps and priorities, which is not always afforded at meetings principally composed of more senior scientists.

Overall, participants agreed that much of our research seeks to solve the same overarching challenges–just through different methods and questions. This highlighted the importance of taking a multidisciplinary approach in future research endeavors, as well as increasing communication channels between fields. We agreed that if we had to co-author a single proposal, we could easily find a research question and roles for each of us—despite hailing from four IASC working groups, five RPTs, eight institutions, and a wide range of sub-disciplines. The takeaway: tackling complex challenges in the Arctic will require an increasingly multidisciplinary and collaborative approach, which is both feasible and beneficial.

Highlights/Deliverables:

• Report submitted as an ICARP IV resource outlining Arctic research knowledge gaps/challenges and proposing solutions/pathways forward, especially useful for RPTs 1, 2, and 6.
• Proposal submitted for a session at ASSW 2025 on “Writing Interdisciplinary Research Proposals,” which draws on the methodology and discussion points from this workshop.
• Participants represented four of the five IASC working groups (including every WG that provided workshop funding) and five of the seven RPTs. This offers a direct avenue for participants to report workshop findings back to their respective WGs and RPTs to include in ICARP IV discussions.

 

Link to Final Report

   

Main Organiser: 

Amanda Burson (British Antarctic Survey, UK), Greta Wells (University of Iceland, Iceland), Alison Perrin (Yukon University, Canada), Helene Angot (Universite Grenoble Alpes, France), Megan Wilcots (University of Minnesota, USA), Henrieka Detlef (Aarhus University, Denmark)

 

Type of Activity:

• Workshop

 

Dates and Locations: 

• 5 - 7 June 2024 in British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK

  

 

Back