ReSDA Workshop No 1 Resources and Sustainable Development in the Arctic Yellowknife NWT, September 18 19 2011 Analyzing indicators for small northern places Larry Hamilton Department of Sociology University of New Hampshire Larry.Hamilton@UNH.edu
Indicators for what? Detection. Did something change? By how much, and in what direction? When did this happen? Who did it affect? Attribution. Why did the change occur? Is there evidence to rule out some alternative explanations, or test hypotheses about a particular cause?
Analytically rich data Time series of key indicators collected by governments, health or education agencies, preferably at the level of individual communities. E.g., village population and net migration. Surveys for example of opinion, behavior, quality of life topics, conducted with representative samples at several times.
Infant mortality rates vs. teenage birth rates, averaged over 1990 2006 for 27 Alaska boroughs (r =.7) Infant mortality/1000 live births 0 5 10 15 Yukon-K Wales-Ketchikan Lake & Pen Nome Wade Hampton NW Arctic Bethel North Slope Dillingham 20 40 60 80 100 120 Births/1000 females 15-19
Infant mortality for NW Alaska compared with all Alaska. Statistical uncertainty is high for smaller populations. Infant mortality rate 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 NW Arctic all Alaska 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year
Population dynamics in Arctic Alaska: Graphical views of community change
Population dynamics in Arctic Alaska: Graphical views of community change Population 280 300 320 340 Ambler, Northwest Arctic Borough, Alaska Vertical lines show estimated net migration effects 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year -10 0 10 Births and deaths
Population changes in four NW Arctic villages show wide variations among neighboring places. Selawik, Northwest Arctic Borough, Alaska Ambler, Northwest Arctic Borough, Alaska Population 600 650 700 750 800 850 Vertical lines show estimated net migration effects -20 0 20 40 Births and deaths Population 280 300 320 340 Vertical lines show estimated net migration effects -10 0 10 Births and deaths 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year Deering, Northwest Arctic Borough, Alaska Buckland, Northwest Arctic Borough, Alaska Population 130 140 150 160 Vertical lines show estimated net migration effects -5 0 5 Births and deaths Population 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 Vertical lines show estimated net migration effects -10 0 20 Births and deaths 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year
Observed (squares) and model predicted electricity use in 9 Alaska towns and villages Barrow Kotzebue Nome kwh predicted (dashed curves) 1990 2000 2010 Bethel 1990 2000 2010 Shishmaref 1990 2000 2010 Atqasuk 1990 2000 2010 Togiak 1990 2000 2010 Kivalina 1990 2000 2010 Dillingham kwh sold (squares) 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 Year
Community and Environment in Rural America (CERA) surveys by Carsey Institute, UNH Random-sample telephone surveys in rural areas of the US. About 100 questions concerning local community, environment, and individual characteristics. Core CERA questions + specific local issues More than 10,000 interviews conducted in selected rural areas 2007 2009. In 2010 2011, a new round of CERA surveys included 1,500 in Southeast Alaska.
Use or conserve resources? For the future of your community, do you think it is more important to use natural resources to create jobs, or to conserve natural resources for future generations or don t you have an opinion on this? 1 Use natural resources to create jobs 2 Conserve natural resources for the future 3 Creating jobs and conserving resources are both equally important 98 Don't know 99 No answer / Refused
Conserve resources for the future? Haines Borough, AK Hoonah-Angoon CA, AK 24 26 Juneau Borough, AK 42 Ketchikan Gateway, AK Petersburg CA, AK Prince of Wales, AK 20 22 23 Sitka Borough, AK 37 Skagway Borough, AK 46 Wrangell Borough, AK 15 Yakutat Borough, AK 57 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Weighted percent graph: L Hamilton 6/12/2011 data: CERA SE Alaska regions 2011 (n = 11 to 500)
Believe climate changing due to humans? Appalachia KY 43 Columbia OR/WA 49 Downeast ME Gulf Coast FL 36 Gulf Coast LA 40 North VT/NH/ME 56 Olympic WA 49 SE Alaska 1 41 SE Alaska 2 54 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Weighted percent graph: L Hamilton 6/12/2011 data: CERA regional surveys 2009-2011 (n = 500 to 1,800 each)
Believe climate changing due to humans? Haines Borough, AK Hoonah-Angoon CA, AK 51 52 Juneau Borough, AK 58 Ketchikan Gateway, AK 37 Petersburg CA, AK 48 Prince of Wales, AK 55 Sitka Borough, AK 51 Skagway Borough, AK 47 Wrangell Borough, AK 37 Yakutat Borough, AK 65 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Weighted percent graph: L Hamilton 6/12/2011 data: CERA SE Alaska regions 2011 (n = 11 to 500)
Believe climate changing due to humans? Haines Borough Hoonah-Angoon CA Juneau Borough Ketchikan Gateway Petersburg CA Prince of Wales Sitka Borough Skagway Borough Wrangell Borough Yakutat Borough 20 13 26 22 16 30 30 19 20 44 48 62 62 65 75 77 74 73 92 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Weighted percent Democrat Republican graph: L Hamilton 6/21/2011
Survey analysis at different scales Believe climate changing due to humans? Variation across geographical regions Variation across places within the same region Appalachia KY Columbia OR/WA Downeast ME Gulf Coast FL Gulf Coast LA North VT/NH/ME Olympic WA SE Alaska 1 SE Alaska 2 Haines Borough, AK Hoonah-Angoon CA, AK Juneau Borough, AK Ketchikan Gateway, AK Petersburg CA, AK Prince of Wales, AK Sitka Borough, AK Skagway Borough, AK Wrangell Borough, AK Yakutat Borough, AK 36 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Weighted percent graph: L Hamilton 6/12/2011 data: CERA regional surveys 2009-2011 (n = 500 to 1,800 each) 41 43 Believe climate changing due to humans? 37 37 49 49 48 47 54 51 56 51 52 55 58 65 Variation across individuals within the same places Haines Borough Hoonah-Angoon CA Juneau Borough Ketchikan Gateway Petersburg CA Prince of Wales Sitka Borough Skagway Borough Wrangell Borough Yakutat Borough 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Weighted percent graph: L Hamilton 6/12/2011 data: CERA SE Alaska regions 2011 (n = 11 to 500) Believe climate changing due to humans? 13 16 20 19 20 22 26 30 30 44 48 62 62 65 74 73 75 77 92 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Weighted percent Democrat Republican graph: L Hamilton 6/21/2011
Questions?
Population 280 300 320 340 Ambler, Northwest Arctic Borough, Alaska Vertical lines show estimated net migration effects 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year -10 0 10 Births and deaths