In section 5, item 1 of this article it is stated that: A recent shift in decision-making authority from the politically appointed Board of Game to the Subsistence Division of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game should make these decisions about hunting regulations more responsive to local observations and needs. We now recognize that this shift in regulatory authority to ADF&G never occurred. We hereby correct this error so that wildlife users in Alaska do not come to ADF&G with expectations that this agency has authority to adjust hunting regulations to accommodate climate change.
Abstract Boundary organizations facilitate two-way, sustained interaction and communication between research and practitioner spheres, deliver existing science, and develop new, actionable scientific information to address emerging social–ecological questions applicable to decision-making. There is an increasing emphasis on the role of boundary organizations in facilitating knowledge coproduction, which is collaborative research with end users to develop actionable scientific information for decision-making. However, a deeper understanding of how boundary organizations and knowledge coproduction work in practice is needed. This paper examines the Alaska Fire Science Consortium (AFSC), a boundary organization focused on fire science and management in Alaska that is working to address climate impacts on wildfire. A case study approach was used to assess AFSC activities over time. AFSC's boundary spanning involves a continuum of outputs and activities, but their overall trajectory has involved a deliberate transition from an emphasis on science delivery to knowledge coproduction. Key factors that facilitated this transition included a receptive and engaged audience, built-in evaluation and learning, subject matter expertise and complementarity, and embeddedness in the target audience communities. Recommendations for boundary organizations wishing to develop knowledge coproduction capacity include knowing your audience, employing trusted experts in boundary spanning, and engaging in frequent self-evaluation to inform change over time.
This paper explores whether fundamental differences exist between urban and rural vulnerability to climate-induced changes in the fire regime of interior Alaska. We further examine how communities and fire managers have responded to these changes and what additional adaptations could be put in place. We engage a variety of social science methods, including demographic analysis, semi-structured interviews, surveys, workshops and observations of public meetings. This work is part of an interdisciplinary study of feedback and interactions between climate, vegetation, fire and human components of the Boreal forest social–ecological system of interior Alaska. We have learned that although urban and rural communities in interior Alaska face similar increased exposure to wildfire as a result of climate change, important differences exist in their sensitivity to these biophysical, climate-induced changes. In particular, reliance on wild foods, delayed suppression response, financial resources and institutional connections vary between urban and rural communities. These differences depend largely on social, economic and institutional factors, and are not necessarily related to biophysical climate impacts per se. Fire management and suppression action motivated by political, economic or other pressures can serve as unintentional or indirect adaptation to climate change. However, this indirect response alone may not sufficiently reduce vulnerability to a changing fire regime. More deliberate and strategic responses may be required, given the magnitude of the expected climate change and the likelihood of an intensification of the fire regime in interior Alaska.
