1. Anthropogenic Uses and Impact Institute of Social and Economic Research University of Alaska Anchorage Yukon Lowland – Kuskokwim Mountains – Lime Hills Rapid Ecoregional Assessment

2. Grouping of MQs Socio-economic conditions Data reduction Identification of domains Attempts at deriving common metrics Human footprint Compilation of human activities – past and present Traditional Ecological Knowledge Documenting available TEK Deriving a method to use available TEK for REA purposes

3. Socio economic conditions Arctic Social Indicators (ASI) Domains and indicators identified for assessing conditions in the circumpolar North Identification based on what is important, not what is available Data gaps were acknowledged Our approach Indicators and proxies Data reduction A relative comparison for planning and decision-making purposes

4. Arctic Social Indicators – Domains Health Population & demographics Material well-being Education Cultural well-being Closeness to nature Fate control Infant mortality Child mortality Access to health care Suicides Self-reported health Obesity Smoking Total population Births Deaths Net migration Population change Age/sex Ethnicity Per capita household income Net migration Subsistence harvest % students in post-secondary education % post- secondary education % graduates living in community Language retention % pop engaged in subsistence Subsistence harvest Subsistence consumption Households engaged in subsistence % of Natives in govt. % land locally controlled % of public expenses raised locally % speAlaskaing Native language

5. Arctic Social Indicators – Overlap of Domains Health Population & demographics Material well- being Education Cultural well-being Closeness to nature Fate control Access to health care Self-reported health Obesity Smoking Total population Births Population change Age/sex Ethnicity Per capita household income % students in post-secondary education % post- secondary education % graduates living in community % pop engaged in subsistence Subsistence consumption % of Natives in govt. % land locally controlled % of public expenses raised locally Deaths Migration % speaking Native language Subsistence harvest

6. Arctic Social Indicators – Available Data ASI domainISER measureSource HealthInjury death rate (average 2003 to 2008)Vital Statistics Population & DemographyNative share of population 2010US Census 2010 Population & DemographyPopulation change 2008 to 2012Alaska Department of Labor, US Census Material well-beingTotal employment 2011Alaska Department of Labor, ALARI Material well-beingPrivate sector employment 2011Alaska Department of Labor, ALARI Material well-beingNominal diesel fuel price ISER, Alaska Energy Authority, Alaska Department of Community Economic Development Material well-beingEstimated total income ISER calculations using Alaska Dept of Labor ALARI data and PFD. EducationEnrollment K-12 2010-2011 Alaska Department of Early Education and Development EducationHigh school graduation rate (average 2000 to 2011) Alaska Department of Early Education and Development Cultural well-being% of population speaking language other than EnglishAmerican Community Survey 2008-2011 Closeness to nature% of population using subsistence (various years) Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Subsistence Division Closeness to naturePer capital subsistence harvest (various years) Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Subsistence Division Fate controlAlcohol Control statusAlaska Beverage Control

7. Principal components analysis Material well being Places with relatively large populations, high employment, high income, lower fuel prices High cost, high subsistence, language High fuel prices, high subsistence harvests, use of Native language Fate control, autonomy Alaska Native, strict alcohol control Population decline, subsistence, language Declining populations, Native language, high subsistence participation

8. Material Wellbeing Most smaller communities grouped together representing: Low levels of material wellbeing High cost of living High death rate High levels of subsistence use Larger communities, with their direct access to larger markets

9. High cost-death-subsistence High fuel prices, High subsistence harvests, Use of Native language

10. Autonomy Percent of the population Alaska Native, Local option law - alcohol control

11. Demographics and Subsistence Decline in population, Native language, high subsistence participation

12. Anthropogenic Footprint Includes all human activity Major data gaps Subsistence use areas Other parts under works Land status and implications for land management

13. Communities Total population just over 5000 (2012) Four hub communities Aniak McGrath Galena Illiamna Region is landlocked Two major rivers (transportation corridors) Yukon Kuskokwim

14. Non-river transportation Network

15. Energy Infrastructure

16. Mining

17. Land Status Many different categories Ownership Regulation Monitoring Other types of jurisdiction Working on indentifying appropriate definitions

18. Traditional Ecological Knowledge Transformed the MQ (with AMT approval) Goals Literature review Annotated Bibliography MS Access database of documents searchable by CA and CE Methodology to use TEK in REAs.

19. TEK - methodology Several terms used to identify/describe Traditional Ecological Knowledge – many of them were used as search terms local ecological knowledge, indigenous knowledge, traditional knowledge, and local knowledge, etc. More than150 peer-reviewed articles collected for literature review, 57 of which pertain to the YKL region Bibliography in the works

20. TEK – Collection methods used Structured interviews Semi-directed interviews Informal discussions Group discussions Joint site visits (in which both researchers and interviewees/TEK holders participate) Surveys/questionnaires Participant observation

21. TEK – General uses To acquire baseline data to restore degraded habitats To inform research needs, questions, designs, methodologies Used in combination with or comparison to scientific data (monitoring, GIS, etc.) Integrated into community-based natural resource management or voluntary use of common pool resources

22. TEK – General uses in the USA Used in combination with or comparison to scientific data (monitoring, GIS, etc.) to promote and enact ecological restoration To inform research needs, questions, designs, methodologies Can potentially be used in management

23. TEK Bibliography

24. TEK – Data Viewer

25. TEK – Query and Results

26. Next steps Finalize the socio-economic index variables Expand to include all communities in the state Clarify the domain definitions Clarify interpretation of relative comparisons Land use Analyze transportation options Clarify mining data – ex: placer vs. hard rock mining Analyze land status TEK Develop methodology for using TEK for REA purposes