Planning for the next decade in Arctic infrastructure research: A contribution to ICARP IV

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)