The Arctic is experiencing some of the fastest warming on the planet, leading to coastal erosion, permafrost thaw, wildfires, and sea-ice loss. Despite adaptation measures, these impacts undermine the well-being of Arctic communities, both economically (e.g. by damaging infrastructure) and non-economically (e.g. by damaging cultural heritage and psychosocial health). In both research and policy debates, these impacts are referred to as economic and non-economic losses and damages, respectively. In most countries, non-economic losses and damages escape policy metrics and are thus neglected in public policy. This neglect is unfortunate due to the profound negative impact of non-economic losses and damages on the well-being of present and future generations.
Better and more climate adaptation should lessen (economic and) non-economic losses and damages. However, there is a point at which the additional improvements in human and ecological capital that more adaptation would bring may not be worth the additional investment. Stated differently, when a certain level of adaptation has been reached – namely when a certain level of non-economic losses and damages avoidance has been secured – a community may decide that funding is better spent on other issues. Both the type of information required to make these decisions and the decision-making processes that can achieve socially just outcomes are unknown. In this project, we aim to bridge these knowledge gaps.
LostToClimate is an effort in knowledge co-production. It involves (i) an interdisciplinary team of scientists and (ii) rural Arctic communities in Finland, Sweden, Norway, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, and the United States of America, including several Indigenous communities. The project relies on a range of ethnographic methods, including art-based approaches to elicit participation, and community-specific dialogues that seek to place scientists and community members on an equal footing.
In the project, we will answer four research questions. First, what types of non-economic losses and damages can be expected in the Arctic? Second, what non-economic losses and damages versus adaptation trade-offs are communities willing to make? Third, how can we deliver the evidence required to articulate just responses to non-economic losses and damages? Fourth, what types of responses to non-economic losses and damages do Arctic communities prefer?
