Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 157
C Summary of Questionnaire Responses The committee carefully considered multiple forms of community input (see also Appendix B). One of these was an informal online questionnaire41, distributed to a wide audience via newsletters and listservs. The questionnaire was distributed to various NRC boards and committees (including the Polar Research Board, Ocean Studies Board, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Space Studies Board, Board on Environmental Change and Society, and Marine Board); email distribution lists such as ArcticInfo, Arctic Monitor, IASSA, CLIMLIST, CRYOLIST, Paleoclimate List, APECS, and USARC Arctic Update; the US IASC Delegation; and other groups, blogs, and online networks. The input collected was not used in a statistical or quantitative analysis. Rather, the comments provided insights into whether the committee had overlooked some aspects of emerging research. Multiple sources of information were considered in the drafting of this report. Each respondent was asked to answer a few background questions about career stage, scientific discipline, and sector. Respondents were then asked to address the following questions about the future of Arctic research: Within your own discipline, please list up to 3 emerging scientific questions that will enhance our understanding of the Arctic over the next 20 years. Please list up to 3 ideas or needed improvements for technology, infrastructure, or innovative logistics that you believe will play a major role in Arctic Research over the next 20 years. Please share any additional comments or information you wish the committee to consider. A total of 330 complete responses were received from a wide range of disciplines, expertise, and geographical locations (Figures C.1 through C.4). The following figures show that there was a range of response types, but this should not be viewed as a systematic survey of the community. 41 The committee used SurveyGizmo (http://www.surveygizmo.com/). PREPUBLICATION COPY 157
OCR for page 157
158 Appendix C Atmosphere/climate Biology/ecology 10% Cryosphere 22% 18% 3% Oceans 12% 6% People/social science 12% 17% Terrestrial/geo Paleo Other/interdisciplinary FIGURE C.1 Respondents were asked to briefly describe their discipline. They were sorted into eight categories: atmosphere/climate, biology/ecology, cryosphere, oceans, people/social science, terrestrial/geo, paleo, and other/interdisciplinary. A variety of disciplines and expertise were represented. 9% 35% Graduate student 24% Early career Mid‐career Late career 32% FIGURE C.2 Most respondents considered themselves to be late career (25+ years post terminal degree), but a large number of responses were received from graduate students as well as early and mid-career scientists. PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 157
Appendix C 159 Academia/research 6% 5% Local/federal 5% government Industry 21% 63% NGO Other FIGURE C.3 When asked to describe their primary sector, a large number of questionnaire respondents indicated that they are in academia and research. Smaller percentages of respondents represented local and federal government, industry, NGOs, and others. 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% United States 2% Canada 2% 4% 3% Norway 3% UK Russia Sweden 11% Germany Australia 70% Denmark Greenland France Others FIGURE C.4 By far, most questionnaire respondents were from the United States, although a number of other countries are also represented. Canada has the second largest representation in this questionnaire. The questionnaire asked respondents to identify, within their own discipline, up to three emerging research questions that will enhance understanding of the Arctic over the next 20 years. Responses to this question were grouped into the following categories: PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 157
160 Appendix C Biological systems Physical systems Human-environmental systems Arctic system/feedbacks/cascading effects Rapid change/thresholds Management/governance Other (including technology ideas) Respondents were then asked to list up to three ideas or needed improvements for technology, infrastructure, or innovative logistics that they believe will play a major role in Arctic Research over the next 20 years. They were also asked to select the category or categories that best describe their response: Existing but not yet deployed New technology with a high potential for deployment in the next 20 years Emerging technology that requires further development but is critical even if its likelihood of deployment in 20 years is uncertain Finally, respondents were asked to share any additional comments. These could include, for example, emerging questions in cross cutting realms such as integrated systems science, sustainability science, and applying knowledge for decision support. Some themes emerged from this open-ended question: Interconnections (e.g., international, interagency, intergovernmental, and interdisciplinary connections) Human and ecosystem connections and community involvement (including indigenous knowledge and citizen science) Infrastructure needs Arctic system and linkages with the Earth system (including climate change and Arctic impacts as well as feedbacks) Data coordination and management (particularly open access) Communication (with the public, media, local communities, and other scientists, for example) Sustainability The committee found that it was useful to have some insight into the research questions, science ideas, and general concerns of the Arctic community (across a broad range of disciplines and expertise), but this was not a systematic survey. The committee did not consider the responses to be a complete or official statement for the scientific community, and generalizing based on the responses received should be avoided. The individual responses are available in the Public Access File for this study. The committee considered them in their deliberations and used their expert judgment, as well as other community input, into the development of the questions presented in Chapter 3. PREPUBLICATION COPY