Abstract
The Arctic is an assessed region. Scientific assessments are becoming larger in number. Evaluations of the state of the art in the Arctic are made based on monitoring and data gathering. As reports are followed up by new ones, comparison is possible and change can be analyzed. Finally recommendations for action are made and put to the members of the Arctic Council. Hence, the task is really to give directions for the future. This chapter argues that this growing business of assessments, which have their correspondence in other areas, are in many ways good since they enlarge our knowledge. At the same time attention should be paid to how the produced knowledge might function in different areas of policy. If they are to function as recommendations on how to change societies and people’s behavior for the future, the basis cannot be only natural science but need to be broader. However, moving value-laden recommendations on human societies and economic development into the realm of science might work as a way of de-politicizing policy for the Arctic.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
ACIA. (2004). Impacts of a warming arctic: Arctic climate impact assessment. ACIA overview report (140 pp). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
AMAP. (1997). Arctic pollution issues: A state of the arctic environment report (xii+188 pp). Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP).
AMAP. (1998). AMAP assessment report: Arctic pollution issues (xii+859 pp). Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP).
AMAP. (2002). Arctic pollution 2002: Persistent organic pollutants, heavy metals, radioactivity, human health, changing pathways (Xii+112 pp). Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP).
AMAP. (2012). Arctic climate issues 2011: Changes in arctic snow, water, ice and permafrost. SWIPA 2011 overview report (xi+97pp). Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP).
Brysse, K., Oreskes, N., O’Reilly, J., & Oppenheimer, M. (2013). Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama. Global Environmental Change, 23, 327–337.
Christensen, M., Nilsson, A. E., & Wormbs, N. (Eds.). (2013). The politics of arctic climate change: When the ice breaks. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Doel, R. E., Friedman, R. M., Lajus, J., Sörlin, S., & Wråkberg, U. (2014). Strategic Arctic science: National interests in building natural knowledge – interwar era through the Cold War. Journal of Historical Geography, 44, 60–80.
Downie, D., & Fenge, T. (Eds.). (2003). Northern lights against POPs. Montreal/Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781–795.
Kankaanpää, P., & Young, O. (2012). The effectiveness of the Arctic Council. Polar Research, 13, 17176.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Macfarlane, B., & Cheng, M. (2008). Communism, universalism and disinterestedness: Re-examining contemporary support among academics for Merton’s scientific norms. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(1), 67–78.
Mathiassen E. (2001). Vitenskap og politikk: om produksjon og formidling av vitenskapelig kunnskap i Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme – Arktisk Råd. Trondheim: Rapport. NTNU.
Mitchell, R., Clark, W. C., Cash, D. W., & Dickson, N. M. (Eds.). (2006). Global environmental assessments: Information and influence. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Nilsson, A. E. (2007). A changing Arctic climate: Science and policy in the Arctic climate impact assessment. Linköping: Linköping University, Department of Water and Environmental Studies.
Nilsson A. E. (2012). Knowing the Arctic: The Arctic Council as a cognitive forerunner. In T. S. Axworthy, T. Koivurova, & W. Hasanat (Eds.), The Arctic Council: Its place in the future of Arctic governance (pp. 190–224). Toronto: Munk-Gordon Arctic Security Program.
Oreskes, N. (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306, 1686.
Oreskes, N. (2013). The scientist as sentinel. Limn, 3, 67–69.
Pielke, R. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Russell, B. A. (1996). The Arctic environmental protection strategy and the new Arctic Council. Arctic Research of the United States. 10:2–8. http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/NatResources/Policy/uspolicy1.html. Accessed 15 Sept 2014.
Sörlin, S., Döscher, R., Nilsson, A. E., Wormbs, N. The bellwether and other tropes: Explaining the late rise of the Arctic in climate modeling. In M. Heymann, et al. (Eds.), Cultures of prediction (in review).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wormbs, N. (2015). The Assessed Arctic: How Monitoring Can Be Silently Normative. In: Evengård, B., Nymand Larsen, J., Paasche, Ø. (eds) The New Arctic. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17602-4_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17602-4_21
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17601-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17602-4
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)