Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
ClimateKG
Search
Search
English
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
IPCC:AR6/SROCC/Chapter-3
(section)
IPCC
Discussion
English
Read
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Page information
In other projects
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===== 3.5.4.1.1 Community-based monitoring ===== Community-based monitoring (CBM) in the Arctic has emerged as a practice of great interest because of its potential to link western ways of knowing with local knowledge and indigenous knowledge (Retter et al., 2004; Johnson et al., 2015a; Johnson et al., 2015b; Kouril et al., 2016; AMAP, 2017a; Williams et al., 2018). In several CBM programs, innovative approaches using the internet, mobile phones, hand-held information devices, and camera-equipped GPS units are capturing, documenting and communicating local observations of change (Brubaker et al., 2011; Brubaker et al., 2013). The integration of community observations with instrument-based observations and its use in research has proven challenging, with technical and cultural issues (Griffith et al., 2018). Execution of CBM programs in the Arctic has also proven to be labour intensive and difficult to sustain, requiring long-term financial support, agreements specifying data ownership, sufficient human capital, and in some cases, the involvement of boundary organisations that provide technical support (Pulsifer et al., 2012; Eicken et al., 2014) and link CBM with governance (CAFF, 2015b; Robards et al., 2018). As is the case in all knowledge production, power relationships (i.e., who decides what is a legitimate observation, who has access to resources for involvement and who benefits) have been challenging where the legitimacy of local knowledge and indigenous knowledge is questioned (e.g., Pristupa et al., 2018). There is ''high agreement'' and ''limited evidence'' that CBM facilitates knowledge co-production and resilience building. More analyses of Arctic communities and their institutional capabilities related to CBM are needed to evaluate the potential of these observation systems, and experimentation and innovation may help determine how CBM can more effectively inform decision making beyond the community (Johnson et al., 2015a; Johnson et al., 2015b) ( ''medium confidence'' ). <div id="section-3-5-4-1knowledge-co-production-and-integration-block-3"></div> <span id="understanding-regime-shifts"></span>
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to ClimateKG may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
ClimateKG:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Search
Search
Editing
IPCC:AR6/SROCC/Chapter-3
(section)
Add languages
Add topic