Innovation, New Technologies, and the Future of the Circumpolar North

  • Heather M. HallEmail author


Regions throughout the Circumpolar North are experiencing unprecedented changes, including the impacts of climate change and the increasing recognition of Indigenous rights. These changes are occurring alongside traditional challenges facing the North including the climate, low population densities, and remoteness. Innovation has the potential to counteract these pressing challenges facing the Circumpolar North; however, it could also deepen and present new challenges if it is not created with the North, for the North. This chapter explores innovation in the context of the Circumpolar North, including challenges and opportunities, while highlighting the importance of the innovation ecosystem. It also provides examples of new and adapted technologies that are being used in the Arctic to enhance traditional industries, promote social innovation, and encourage economic diversification. It concludes with a discussion of how to ensure that the development of new or improved innovative products, processes, and/or services occurs with the North, for the North.


  1. Aiello, R. 2017. Can PM Trudeau Keep Drinkable Water Promise to First Nations? CTV News, December 28.
  2. Amin, A., and N. Thrift. 1994. Living in the Global. In Globalization, Institutions, and Regional Development in Europe, 1–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 1995. Institutional Issues for the European Regions: From Markets and Plans to Socioeconomics and Powers of Association. Economy and Society 24 (1): 41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Apostle, R.A., G. Barrett, P. Holm, S. Jentoft, L. Mazany, B. McCay, and K. Mikalsen. 1998. Bugøynes: A Case Study of Community Resistance. In Community, State, and Market on the North Atlantic Rim: Challenges to Modernity in the Fisheries, 297–306. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bathelt, H., A. Malmberg, and P. Maskell. 2004. Clusters and Knowledge: Local Buzz, Global Pipelines and the Process of Knowledge Creation. Progress in Human Geography 28 (1): 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becattini, G. 1990. The Marshallian Industrial District as a Socio-Economic Notion. In Industrial Districts and Inter-Firm Co-Operation in Italy, ed. P. Pyke, G. Becattini, and W. Sengenberger, 37–51. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies (ILO).Google Scholar
  7. Bickford, S.H., J.E. Krans, and N. Bickford. 2016. Social and Environmental Impacts of Development on Rural Traditional Arctic Communities: Focus on Northern Sweden and the Sami. Journal of EU Research in Business 2016: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency. 2017. Getting Smart about Sea Ice. News Release, June 29.Google Scholar
  9. CBC. 2018. Study Shows Cost of Food Varies Greatly Across Yukon. CBC News, March 29.
  10. CCHRC. 2018. Cold Climate Housing Research Centre – Programs.
  11. Coates, K., and D. Landrie-Parker. 2016. Northern Indigenous Peoples & the Prospects for Nuclear Energy. Saskatoon: International Centre for Northern Governance and Development.Google Scholar
  12. Coates, K., and G. Poelzer. 2014. Arctic Innovation. In Shared Voices. Finland: UArctic International Secretariat.Google Scholar
  13. Cooke, P., and K. Morgan. 1998. The Associational Economy: Firms, Regions, and Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cosbey, A., H. Mann, N. Maennling, P. Toledano, J. Geipel, and M. Dietrich Brauch. 2016. Mining a Mirage? Reassessing the Shared-Value Paradigm in Light of the Technological Advances in the Mining Sector. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
  15. Deloitte. 2015. Age of Disruption: Are Canadian Firms Prepared. Toronto: Deloitte.
  16. Dillow, C. 2018. Russia and China Vie to Beat the US in the Trillion-Dollar Race to Control the Arctic. CNBC, February 6.
  17. Exner-Pirot, H., L. Heininen, and J. Plouffe. 2017. Introduction – Change and Innovation in the Arctic. In Arctic Yearbook 2017, ed. L. Heininen, H. Exner-Pirot, and J. Plouffe, 11–18. Akureyri: Northern Research Forum. Scholar
  18. Expert Panel on Federal Support to Research and Development. 2012. Innovation Canada: A Call to Action. Review of Federal Support to Research and Development – Expert Panel Report. Ottawa: Government of Canada.Google Scholar
  19. Franks, D.M., and T. Cohen. 2012. Social Licence in Design: Constructive Technology Assessment Within a Mineral Research and Development Institution. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 79 (7): 1229–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Government of Canada. 2018. The Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS) Campus.
  21. Green, J. 2016. Nobel of the North. The Gazette, December 9. Memorial University of Newfoundland.Google Scholar
  22. Gregory, M. 2013. Inside Facebook’s Green and Clean Arctic Data Centre. BBC News, June 14.
  23. Hall, H.M. 2018. Remote Controlled: Technology in the Mining Sector & the Future of Development in Peripheral Regions. SSHRC Insight Grant.Google Scholar
  24. Hall, H.M., and B. Donald. 2009. Innovation and Creativity on the Periphery: Challenges and Opportunities in Northern Ontario. Working Paper Series: Ontario in the Creative Age. REF. 2009-WPONT-002.Google Scholar
  25. Hall, H.M., and K. Vodden. In Press. Learning, Knowledge Flows and Innovation in Canadian Regions. In Regional Development: A Critical Review of Theory, Practice, and Potentials in the Canadian Context, ed. K. Vodden, D. Douglas, S. Markey, and B. Reimer. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Hall, H.M., and J. Walsh. 2013. Knowledge Synthesis. Advancing Innovation in Newfoundland and Labrador Project. St. John’s: Harris Centre.Google Scholar
  27. Harding, L. 2015. The Node Pole: Inside Facebook’s Swedish Hub Near the A Circle. The Guardian, September 25.
  28. Harrison, J. 2006. Re-Reading the New Regionalism: A Sympathetic Critique. Space and Polity 10 (1): 21–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Healy, A. 2017. Innovation in Circumpolar Regions: New Challenges for Smart Specialization. Northern Review 45: 11–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hintsala, H., S. Niemelä, and P. Tervonen. 2017. Arctic Innovation Hubs: Opportunities for Regional Co-Operation and Collaboration in Oulu, Luleå, and Tromsø. Northern Review 45: 77–92.Google Scholar
  31. Hodge, G., H.M. Hall, and I.M. Robinson. 2016. Planning Canadian Regions. 2nd ed. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  32. Isaksen, A., and J. Karlsen. 2010. Different Modes of Innovation and the Challenge of Connecting Universities and Industry: Case Studies of Two Regional Industries in Norway. European Planning Studies 18 (12): 1993–2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnstone, H. & Haddow, R. (2003). Industrial Decline and High Technology Renewal in Cape Breton: Exploring the Limits of the Possible. In D.A. Wolfe (ed.), Clusters Old and New: The Transition to a Knowledge Economic in Canada’s Regions, 187-212. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Jordans, F. 2017. Battle for Arctic Resources Heats Up as Ice Recedes. Global News, August 23.
  35. Josefsen, E. 2010. The Saami and the National Parliaments. Resource Centre for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Geneva, New York: Inter-Parliamentary Union and United Nations Development Programme.Google Scholar
  36. Kielland, N. 2015. Supporting Aboriginal Participation in Resource Development: The Role of Impact and Benefit Agreements. Papers in the Library of Parliament’s. In Brief series. Publication No. 2015-29-E. Ottawa: Library of Parliament.Google Scholar
  37. Lamb, D.M. 2017. ‘It Scares Me’: Permafrost Thaw in Canadian Arctic Sign of Global Trend. CBC News, April 17.
  38. Leydesdorff, L. 2012. The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, …, and an N-Tuple of Helices: Explanatory Models for Analyzing the Knowledge-Based Economy? Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3 (1): 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Martin, R. 2010. Roepke Lecture in Economic Geography—Rethinking Regional Path Dependence: Beyond Lock-in to Evolution. Economic Geography 86 (1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McNab, K.L., and M. Garcia-Vasquez. 2011. Autonomous and Remote Operation Technologies in Australian Mining. Prepared for CSIRO Minerals Down Under Flagship, Minerals Futures Cluster Collaboration, by the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane.Google Scholar
  41. Morgan, K. (1997). The Learning Region: Institutions, Innovation and Regional Renewal. Regional Studies, 31(5), 491-503.Google Scholar
  42. Neary, D. 2018. Agnico Eagle Prepares for Automated Kivalliq Mine Sites. Nunavut News, April 2.
  43. Newman, D.G. 2014. Revisiting the Duty to Consult Aboriginal Peoples. Saskatoon: Purich Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  44. Niemelä, S, and H. Hintsala. 2016. Arctic Business Potential from Oulu Region’s Perspective – Opportunities and Obstacles. ePOOKI, March 3.
  45. Northern Review. 2017. Special Issue – Innovation in the Circumpolar North 45.Google Scholar
  46. Norway King Crab. 2018a. Norway King Crab.
  47. ———. 2018b. Tracking.
  48. OECD. 2005. Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. Pigford, A., G.M. Hickey, and L. Klerkx. 2017. Towards Innovation (Eco)Systems: Enhancing the Public Value of Scientific Research in the Canadian Arctic. In Arctic Yearbook 2017, ed. L. Heininen, H. Exner-Pirot, and J. Plouffe, 24–49. Akureyri: Northern Research Forum. Scholar
  50. Pitt, R.D., and J.E.M. Pitt. 2015. Nain. Historica Canada.
  51. Porter, M.E. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Proulx. (1992). Innovative milieus and regional development.Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 15(2), 149–154.Google Scholar
  53. Skura, E. 2016. Food in Nunavut Still Costs Up to 3 Times National Average. CBC News, June 24.
  54. SmartICE. 2018. Technology.
  55. Statistics Canada. 2017. Nain, T [Census subdivision], Newfoundland and Labrador and Newfoundland and Labrador [Province] (table). Census Profile. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-X2016001. Ottawa.Google Scholar
  56. Ticoll, D. 2015. Driving Changes: Automated Vehicles in Toronto. Discussion Paper. Toronto: Innovation Policy Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs.Google Scholar
  57. Tödtling, F., and F. Tripple. 2005. One Size Fits All? Towards a Differentiated Regional Innovation Policy Approach. Research Policy 34: 1203–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vindorai, T., and H.M. Hall. 2018. Innovation-Led Growth and Economic Development Beyond the Metropolis: A Review of Best Practices. Prepared for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev Ontario).Google Scholar
  59. Wolfe, D.A. (2009). 21st Century Cities in Canada: The Geography of Innovation. The 2009 CIBC Scholar-in-Residence Lecture. Ottawa: Conference Board of Canada.Google Scholar
  60. Wright, S. 2017. Statoil Activates Valemon Automated Rig Control Room. InnovOil, Issue 59.
  61. Young, T.K., and Susan Chatwood. 2017. Delivering More Equitable Primary Health Care in Northern Canada. Canadian Medicinal Association Journal 189 (45): E1377–E1378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yukon College. 2017a. Cold Climate Innovation.
  63. ———. 2017b. Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in Cold Climate Greenhouse.
  64. Zilio, M. 2018. Vancouver Couple Donate $60-Million to Esteemed Arctic Inspiration Prize. The Globe and Mail, January 31.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations