Climate Change and 

Indigenous Peoples: 

A Synthesis of Current 

Impacts and Experiences

Kathryn Norton-Smith, Kathy Lynn, Karletta Chief, Karen Cozzetto, 

Jamie Donatuto, Margaret Hiza Redsteer, Linda E. Kruger, Julie Maldonado, 

Carson Viles, and Kyle P. Whyte

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-944 DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE

October

2016
Authors

Kathryn Norton-Smith is a doctoral student and graduate research fellow 

(kathryn.g.nortonsmith@gmail.com); Kathy Lynn is a non-tenure-track faculty 

researcher (kathy@uoregon.edu); and Carson Viles is a research assistant (cviles@

uoregon.edu), University of Oregon, 1585 E 13th Ave, Eugene, OR 97403. Karletta 

Chief is an assistant professor (kchief@email.arizona.edu), University of Arizona, 

Tucson, AZ 85721. Karen Cozzetto is a senior program coordinator (karen.

cozzetto@nau.edu), Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals, Climate Change 

Program, PO Box 15004 Flagstaff, AZ 86011. Jamie Donatuto is an environmental 

health analyst (jdonatuto@swinomish.nsn.us), Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, 

11404 Moorage Way, La Conner, WA 98257. Margaret Hiza Redsteer is a research 

scientist (mhiza@usgs.gov), U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 2255 

N. Gemini Dr., Flagstaff, AZ 86001. Linda E. Kruger is a research social scientist 

(lkruger@fs.fed.us), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 11175 Auke Lake Way, Juneau, AK 99801. Julie Maldonado

is Director of Research, Livelihoods Knowledge Exchange Network (jkmaldo@

gmail.com). Kyle P. Whyte is an associate professor and Timnick Chair (kwhyte@

msu.edu), Michigan State University, 220 Trowbridge Rd., East Lansing, MI 48824. 

This publication is the product of a joint venture agreement (2014-JV-11261935-061) 

between the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station and the 

University of Oregon.

Cover photo: Alaska coastal village, by Meghan Sigvanna Topkok.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and 

institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating 

based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender 

expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income 

derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior 

civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases 

apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program 

information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should 

contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, 

program information may be made available in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination 

Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html 

and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the 

information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. 

Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 

D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Abstract

Norton-Smith, Kathryn; Lynn, Kathy; Chief, Karletta; Cozzetto, Karen; 

Donatuto, Jamie; Hiza Redsteer, Margaret; Kruger, Linda E.; Maldonado, 

Julie; Viles, Carson; Whyte, Kyle P. 2016. Climate change and indigenous 

peoples: a synthesis of current impacts and experiences. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-944. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 136 p.

A growing body of literature examines the vulnerability, risk, resilience, and 

adaptation of indigenous peoples to climate change. This synthesis of literature 

brings together research pertaining to the impacts of climate change on sovereignty, 

culture, health, and economies that are currently being experienced by Alaska 

Native and American Indian tribes and other indigenous communities in the United 

States. The knowledge and science of how climate change impacts are affecting 

indigenous peoples contributes to the development of policies, plans, and programs 

for adapting to climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This report 

defines and describes the key frameworks that inform indigenous understandings of 

climate change impacts and pathways for adaptation and mitigation, namely, tribal 

sovereignty and self-determination, culture and cultural identity, and indigenous 

community health indicators. It also provides a comprehensive synthesis of climate 

knowledge, science, and strategies that indigenous communities are exploring, as 

well as an understanding of the gaps in research on these issues. This literature synthesis is intended to make a contribution to future efforts such as the 4th National 

Climate Assessment, while serving as a resource for future research, tribal and 

agency climate initiatives, and policy development. 

Keywords: climate change, indigenous, tribal, adaptation, traditional knowledge.
Contents

1 Introduction

2 Climate Impacts on Indigenous Peoples in the United States

5 Framework for Understanding Climate Impacts on Indigenous Peoples

5 Tribal Sovereignty and Self-Determination

12 Climate Change and Tribal Culture

19 Community Health

23 Current Climate Impacts Affecting Indigenous Communities in the 

 United States

23 Public Health

33 Mental Health

36 Food Security and Traditional Foods

42 Water Resources

48 Terrestrial Ecosystems

52 Tribal Economies

54 Community Infrastructure

57 Climate-Related Disasters

61 Climate-Induced Displacement

69 Fossil-Fuel Extraction, Transport, and Export

76 Tribal Approaches to Climate Change: Adaptation and Mitigation

76 Adaptive Capacity and Adaptation

85 Mitigation

88 Housing

90 Renewable Energy

93 Conclusion

93 Barriers and Limitations to Addressing Current Impacts

94 Solutions and Best Practices

96 Areas for Further Research

97 Acknowledgments

98 Literature Cited

133 Appendix: Key Terminology
1

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Introduction

Climate change is affecting the culture, sovereignty, health, economies, and lifeways 

of indigenous peoples in the United States and affiliated territories (Bennett 

et al. 2014a, Maldonado et al. 2014, Parker et al. 2006). In the United States, there are 

567 federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes, as well 

as state-recognized tribes, Native Hawaiian peoples, unrecognized tribes, and indigenous peoples of U.S.-affiliated territories living in remote, rural, and urban communities within the Nation. In this report, we use the term “tribe” and “indigenous people” 

interchangeably unless referencing a specific group or specific recognition status. 

A growing body of literature examines the vulnerability, risk, resilience, and 

adaptive capacity of indigenous peoples to climate change. For example, the 3rd

National Climate Assessment (NCA) released in 2014 devoted a chapter to the 

impacts of climate change on indigenous peoples, lands, and resources. Alaska 

Native and American Indian tribes and other indigenous communities in the United 

States are already observing and experiencing the impacts of climate change. 

Insights about how these impacts are affecting indigenous peoples can contribute to 

the development of policies, plans, and programs for adapting to climate change and 

reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

This synthesis of literature brings together research pertaining to the impacts of 

climate change on indigenous sovereignty, culture, health, livelihoods, and economies that are currently being experienced by indigenous communities in the United 

States. This synthesis defines and describes the key frameworks informing indigenous understandings of climate-change impacts and strategies for adaptation and 

mitigation, namely tribal sovereignty and self-determination, culture and cultural 

identity, and indigenous community health indicators. The synthesis then focuses 

on the impact of climate change on various facets of indigenous community health. 

The purpose of this report is to contribute to efforts of tribal leaders, scholars, 

and others working to strengthen indigenous self-determination by providing a synthesis of literature related to climate change and indigenous peoples in the United 

States. The synthesis focuses on the breadth of new literature on climate change 

and indigenous peoples (2012–2015), and includes references to earlier literature 

in discussions of tribal sovereignty, traditional knowledges, and tribal culture to 

provide appropriate context. It brings together new scholarship and provides a comprehensive synthesis of climate knowledge, science, and strategies that indigenous 

communities are exploring, as well as an understanding of the gaps in research on 

these issues. This literature synthesis is intended to make a contribution to future 

efforts such as the 4th NCA, while serving as a resource for future research, tribal 

and agency climate initiatives, and policy development. 
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Climate Impacts on Indigenous Peoples in the United States

American Indians and Alaska Natives are already experiencing the impacts of 

climate change (Bennett et al. 2014a, IPCC 2014). Although these impacts differ 

by region, there are commonalities in how climate change is experienced by indigenous communities across the United States. For tribes in coastal areas, erosion 

and sea-level rise threaten vital community infrastructure and are leading to forced 

displacement and relocation (Callaway et al. 1999, CLTC 2012). For tribes in the 

Pacific Northwest and California, changes in streamflow and water temperature 

will increase the severity of existing declines in salmon and other culturally important species (Jenni et al. 2014, Montag et al. 2014). For tribes in the Southwestern 

United States, reductions in rainfall and the continued experiences of prolonged 

drought affect soil quality and ranching and agricultural practices (Cozzetto et al. 

2013a, 2013b; Redsteer et al. in press, 2013a). 

Tribes across the United States are experiencing reductions in access to culturally important habitats and species. In Alaska, permafrost melting is making it 

more difficult for hunters to access traditional hunting grounds and is changing 

the migration patterns of certain species. In the Pacific Northwest, changes in the 

temperature and flow of water are exacerbating existing stresses on salmon and 

shellfish populations, which are vital to the economic, spiritual, and cultural health 

of communities. In the Southwest, the influx of invasive species and prolonged 

drought are disrupting subsistence practices. These impacts threaten traditional 

knowledges, food security, water availability, historical homelands, and territorial 

existence, and may undermine indigenous ways of life that have persisted and 

adapted for thousands of years.

The vulnerability of some indigenous communities to climate change is based 

on cultural, social, and economic dependence on local species, habitats, and ecosystems, as well as legal, social, and political contexts of colonialism, institutionalized 

racism, and forced relocation (Kronk Warner 2015a; Lynn et al. 2013; Maldonado 

et al. 2014; Marino 2012, 2015; Whyte 2013; Williams and Hardison 2013). As 

noted by Marino (2015: 96), vulnerability is not characteristic of a community, but 

the product of systems of inequality. Tribes differ in their vulnerability to climate 

change based on their distinct cultural practices and economies, and the vulnerability of indigenous sociopolitical, economic, and ecocultural systems may differ 

by geography and climate regime. As Gautam et al. (2013) demonstrated, although 

tribes may face similarities in terms of how climate change may affect their socioeconomic status and dependence on natural resources, distinct cultural practices 

influence how climate change vulnerability is experienced. Despite this variability, 

similarities among indigenous communities may exist in terms of the institutional 

Climate impacts 

include reduced 

access to culturally 

important habitats, 

places, and species.
3

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

barriers—including legal, administrative, and congressional policies—that affect 

adaptation and resilience among tribes. Federal policies may have unintended consequences of limiting or removing climate adaptation options and in turn constraining, restricting, and undermining adaptation efforts within indigenous communities 

(Nakashima et al. 2012). For example, resource management or conservation policy 

that does not fulfill legal requirements for formal tribal consultation may inadvertently limit tribal access to culturally important resources important for tribal 

adaptation (Lynn 2011, Lynn et al. 2013). 

Climate-change adaptation refers to preparing for, responding to, and coping 

with the effects of climate change. Although adaptation is not a new experience 

for indigenous peoples, climate change may threaten what Whyte (2013: 518) 

called “collective continuance,” or a “community’s capacity to be adaptive in ways 

sufficient for the livelihoods of its members to flourish into the future.” Indigenous 

peoples experience social and political inequalities that may severely limit adaptive 

capacity. Many indigenous communities in the United States face extreme poverty, 

as well as inadequate housing, infrastructure, health and educational services, and 

other socioeconomic factors that will compound the impacts of climate change. 

Additionally, depending on their legal and political status, indigenous communities 

have different access and authority to implement adaptation strategies at meaningful scales—both locally and nationally. The impacts of climate change occur 

within a web of historical and contemporary oppressions, diverse political and legal 

statuses, and limited economic resources. 

Indigenous vulnerability and resilience to climate change cannot be detached 

from the context of colonialism, which created both the economic conditions for 

anthropogenic climate change and the social conditions that limit indigenous resistance and resilience capacity (Cameron 2012, Marino 2015, Whyte 2016, Wilson 

2014). As was asserted by Cameron (2012: 104): 

Climate change itself...is thoroughly tied to colonial practices, both 

historically and in the present, insofar as greenhouse gas production 

over the last two centuries hinged on the dispossession of indigenous 

lands and resources. 

As a result of colonialism, many of the traditional adaptation practices that 

allowed indigenous communities to endure environmental changes are no longer 

possible. Through the examination of subsistence practices in the Koyukon Athabascan village of Ruby, Alaska, Wilson (2014) demonstrated how social changes 

resulting from European contact and colonization, such as increased sedentarization 

(loss of mobility), contact and compliance with the Western market economy, and 

creation and enforcement of governmental subsistence harvesting regulations, shape 
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

the vulnerability to climate impacts by constraining efforts to respond to ecological change. Therefore, climate-change adaptation is not only about responding to 

observable impacts of climate change, “it is also about understanding and addressing the manner in which the broader political context can make communities more 

or less vulnerable to the impacts of climate change” (Wilson 2014: 97).

Resistance—typically used in an ecological context, but applicable to sociocultural systems—is described as practices that improve or strengthen defenses against 

the direct and indirect effects of climate-change-related impacts (Millar et al. 2007, 

Schlosberg and Carruthers 2010, Whyte 2013). Resistance is another facet of the 

political, social, and cultural capacity to address and confront threats and stressors. 

Indigenous peoples have to confront the inadequacy of existing federal policies 

and influence legislation to change or develop applicable policy. Indigenous social 

systems have to withstand external and internal challenges to maintain strong governance and traditional leadership structures to confront climate-related impacts. 

Although climate change is affecting indigenous cultures and ways of life, 

indigenous communities are extremely resilient (Bennett et al. 2014b, Nakashima et 

al. 2012, Wildcat 2009). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

(2007: 880) defined resilience as “the ability of a social or ecological system to 

absorb disturbances while retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity of self-organization, and the capacity to adapt to stress and 

change.” Although indigenous resilience does not eliminate the consequences of 

colonialism or climate-change impacts, it does demonstrate the ability of indigenous populations to examine impacts and develop strategies for addressing and 

adapting to climate change. This resilience is embedded in traditional knowledges, 

diverse livelihoods, cultural values, and social networks that contribute to indigenous adaptive capacity (Chief et al. 2014, Nakashima et al. 2012).

Recent science, media, and academic literature illustrate the severe and disproportionate impacts of climate change on indigenous peoples (Bennett et al. 2014a, 

IPCC 2014, Maldonado et al. 2014). This labeling of tribes as vulnerable can “imply 

a lack of agency and competence,” recreating racist stereotypes of tribes “needing 

the help of white outsiders” (Marino 2015: 29). And yet, indigenous communities are leading efforts to engage in climate-change adaptation and mitigation at 

regional, national, and international levels (Hansen 2013). Indigenous understandings and actions to address climate change are rooted in indigenous knowledges 

that are as diverse as the communities and ecosystems from which they emerge 

(Cochran et al. 2013). 
5

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Framework for Understanding Climate Impacts on 

Indigenous Peoples

In this report, we first consider three frameworks for understanding how climate 

change affects indigenous peoples. These frameworks represent the historical 

context(s) of indigenous populations that shape their vulnerability and potential 

pathways for addressing climate-change adaptation and mitigation. In this section, we consider specifically tribal sovereignty and self-determination, traditional 

knowledges and culture, and community health. These frameworks are intended 

to allow for an indigenous-centered perspective on the assessment, adaptation, and 

mitigation of climate-change impacts. 

Tribal Sovereignty and Self-Determination 

The U.S. federal government interacts with federally recognized tribes as sovereign 

nations through treaties, policies, and statutes (Galanda 2010). Prior to the formation of the federal government, tribal nations entered into treaties with Great Britain 

and other European nations (Allen 1989). From 1778 to 1871, during the “treaty 

making era,” the federal government continued this treaty-making relationship, 

ratifying nearly 400 treaties and leaving many other negotiated treaties unratified. 

Between 1823 and 1832, three Supreme Court cases, known as the Marshall trilogy, 

established tribes as domestic dependent nations that govern themselves under the 

protection of the federal government (Allen 1989, Goodman 2000). As sovereign 

governments, federally recognized tribes retain inherent sovereign power and exercise authority over members, activities, and lands in many circumstances. Tribal 

sovereignty refers to the right of federally recognized tribes to govern themselves, 

define membership, protect cultural resources, control economic activity, and manage tribal land and resources. Tribal sovereignty also recognizes the existence of a 

government-to-government relationship between federally recognized tribes and 

the federal government (Galanda 2010, Goodman 2000, Redsteer et al. 2013a). 

The federal government’s responsibility to protect tribal nations is now 

understood as the federal trust responsibility (Redsteer et al. 2013a). This general, 

moral trust responsibility includes a fiduciary obligation to protect treaty rights, 

lands, assets, and resources (Allen 1989). This trust responsibility is administered 

by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but other agencies that control federal land and 

other natural resources must protect any applicable tribal rights, including water, 

fish, wildlife, and cultural resources (Gruenig et al. 2015, Redsteer et al. 2013a). 

The legal and political status of the federally recognized tribes requires that U.S. 

government agencies consult directly with tribal governments before taking actions 

that may affect tribal trust resources, cultural practices, or access to traditional 

areas of cultural or religious importance on federally managed lands (CTKW 2014). 

The federal 

government has an 

obligation to protect 

treaty rights, lands, 

and resources.
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Consultation obligations are found in several statues, as well as in Executive Order 

13175 (2000), “Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments,” 

which requires federal agencies to “have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that 

have tribal implications” (EO 13175 2000: 5(a), Galanda 2010, Goodman 2000). In 

2009, Secretarial Order 3289 § 5 (“Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on 

America’s Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources”) established the 

role of the Department of the Interior (USDI) in working with tribes through USDI 

climate-change initiatives (Salazar 2009: 4): 

Climate change may disproportionately affect tribes and their lands because 

they are heavily dependent on their natural resources for economic and 

cultural identity. As the Department has the primary trust responsibility for 

the federal government for American Indians, Alaska Natives, and tribal 

lands and resources, the Department will ensure consistent and in-depth 

government-to-government consultation with tribes and Alaska Natives 

on the Department’s climate change initiatives. Tribal values are critical to 

determining what is to be protected, why, and how to protect the interests 

of their communities. The Department will support the use of the best 

available science, including traditional ecological knowledge, in formulating policy pertaining to climate change. The Department will also support 

substantive participation by tribes in deliberations on climate-related 

mechanisms, agreements, rules and regulations.

Tribal sovereignty and self-determination are important to understanding the 

impacts of climate change on tribes (Abate and Kronk Warner 2013). As sovereign 

governments, federally recognized tribes have the authority to manage tribal lands 

and resources on reservations and within certain territorial jurisdictions (Galanda 

2010, Goodman 2000). Based on varying history, land ownership, and jurisdiction, 

climate-change impacts will influence tribal sovereignty differently. Tribes without a reservation are unable to exercise regulatory jurisdiction in the same ways 

as those who possess a trust land base (Tsosie 2013). Many federally recognized 

tribes depend on treaty-reserved rights on nonindigenous federal lands to maintain 

traditional practices (Galanda 2010). Some federally recognized tribes were created 

by presidential executive order (for California tribes, see Heizer 1972), which limits 

off-reservation use of natural resources within a tribe’s ancestral territory. 

Tribes face many obstacles that may exacerbate climate-change impacts and 

complicate adaptation, including federal land management, limited tribal influence 

over management decisions, and the recognition of the rights of tribes to traditional 

off-reservation areas (Cozzetto et al. 2013a, Houser et al. 2001, Williams and 
7

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Hardison 2013). Federally recognized tribes within Indian country and with more 

control over tribal lands will have more power to implement climate policies and 

decisions regarding land and resource management than will federally recognized 

tribes without reservations or nonfederally recognized tribes. Tribes with fragmented reservation lands may be negatively affected if nontribal landowners contest 

climate policies or adaptation measures, and tribal access to usual and accustomed 

sites may be disrupted by impacts to culturally significant places and species. 

Lacking federal recognition, state-recognized and unrecognized tribes often lack 

the political power and governmental support to address climate-change impacts, 

leaving them as some of the most vulnerable to climate change (Maldonado 2014b, 

Middleton 2013, Tsosie 2013, Whyte 2016).

Tsosie (2013) differentiated between political sovereignty and cultural sovereignty. Although political sovereignty results from federal recognition, all 

indigenous communities, regardless of recognition, possess cultural “self-defined” 

sovereignty. This means that indigenous peoples experience the right to self-determination by maintaining their ways of life, a principle that can be used to protect 

indigenous rights to language, religion, and culture (see also Whyte 2013, Whyte 

in press). 

The political sovereignty of indigenous peoples under U.S. federal Indian 

law is grounded in a more ancient sovereignty, which is an “internal, cultural-and community based model of sovereignty that reflects the identity 

of Native peoples as the “first Nations” of the land. The concept of “cultural 

sovereignty” is a valuable basis for the construction of an indigenous right 

to self-determination because it is constructed from “within” Native societies, rather than from “outside” by the federal courts or Congress, struggling 

to determine the “limits” of inherent sovereignty (Tsosie 2013: 83). 

Impacts to treaties and reserved rights—

Climate-change impacts occur across jurisdictional boundaries and may threaten 

treaty and rights on and off of reservations. Reservation, treaty, and other jurisdictions are based on fixed boundaries (Galanda 2010). As climate change alters landscapes and ecosystems, the habitat for treaty-protected species may shift outside 

boundaries or disappear, negatively affecting tribal treaty rights and subsistence, 

cultural, and economic practices (Voggesser et al. 2013). According to the Tulalip 

Natural Resources Department: 

For the tribes, range shifts in native species will threaten their cultural 

existence. The treaty-protected rights of tribes to hunt, fish, and gather 

traditional resources are based on reservation locations and usual and 
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

accustomed areas on public lands. These locations are chosen to ensure 

access to culturally significant resources, whose locations were thought to 

be fixed. If the traditionally significant plants, animals, and aquatic species 

shift out of these areas, tribes will no longer have the same legal rights to 

them (McNutt 2010: 8).

Food sovereignty is associated with indigenous peoples’ subsistence rights 

and can also be affected by the effects of climate change (Dussias 2010). In the 

Pacific Northwest, where salmon are fundamentally important to tribal cultures, 

economies, and substance practices, treaty fishing rights were ratified to protect 

indigenous ways of life. However, the impacts of climate change on rainfall, river 

temperatures, and streamflow patterns are placing further stress on already declining salmon populations (Dittmer 2013, Montag et al. 2014, Osborn 2012). These 

and other impacts from climate change challenge the understanding of the federal 

government’s legal obligations to the federal trust responsibility (Tsosie 2013, Williams and Hardison 2013, Whyte 2014). Knowledge of treaties and reserved rights 

is important in understanding the impact of climate change on federally recognized 

tribes (Gruenig et al. 2015, Redsteer et al. 2013a). 

Although the federal government has repeatedly failed to uphold many treaties 

that it signed, enforcing treaty rights in a climate-change context may provide a 

legal tool to enforce treaty rights and protect tribal resources threatened by climate 

change (Kronk Warner 2015a). Kronk Warner (2015a) used examples from the 

Swinomish and Nez Perce Tribes to demonstrate how the language of treaties may 

be useful in protecting resources. It is important that treaty provisions be interpreted as they were originally understood and agreed to by the tribes. The significance of natural and cultural resources such as fish and wildlife suggests that tribes 

assumed the permanent existence of these resources. Tribes may argue successfully 

that the federal government is obligated to take additional measures to protect fish 

if the tribe proves that the government’s actions (or inaction) are interfering with 

the availability of treaty-guaranteed fish (Kronk Warner 2015a).

Loss of tribal land and access to resources— 

For many indigenous communities, natural resources have cultural, economic, traditional, and recreational value. However, the very classification of practices in this 

way reflects colonial, not indigenous, culture (see Burger et al. 2008). The effects of 

climate change on terrestrial, marine, and freshwater resources affect tribal traditions, access to culturally important habitats with valued plants and animal species, 

tribal sovereignty, federal policies, and the federal trust responsibility. Landscape 

and climate contribute to a vital sense of place that is important to the culture and 

progeny of indigenous communities (Maynard 2014, Wildcat 2009). 

Subsistence rights and 

access to traditionally 

significant plants, 

animals, and aquatic 

species can be affected.
9

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Climate-change-related impacts are causing loss of tribal land and access 

to culturally important resources such as sacred sites, plant and animal species, 

water, and traditional homelands (Carothers et al. 2014, Cozzetto et al. 2013a, 

Lynn et al. 2013, Voggesser et al. 2013). The rights of tribes as they are acknowledged by the federal government exist within specific boundaries, including 

reservations and usual and accustomed areas. Williams and Hardison (2005: 10) 

asserted that “moving from these lands to adapt to large-scale environmental 

decline would cut them [tribes] off from their origins, the places of their collective memory, and the rights to self-determination the tribes possess as people.” 

This is a central concern for coastal tribes facing relocation (Bennett et al. 

2014a; Maldonado 2014a, 2014b). There is a very high likelihood that coastal 

erosion, sea-level rise, melting permafrost, or extreme weather events will 

force many coastal tribal communities to relocate (Bennett et al. 2014a), with 

potentially detrimental impacts on indigenous communities, culture, health, and 

economic well-being. 

Indigenous communities that are vulnerable to displacement face the difficult 

task of ensuring that their communities will be able to stay in place for as long 

as possible. If the community decides that it is too vulnerable to adapt in place, 

community leaders may make the difficult decision to relocate (Peterson and 

Maldonado 2016). Three coastal Alaska Native Villages—Newtok, Kivalina, and 

Shishmaref—have lost basic necessities and infrastructure to accelerated erosion 

caused by thawing permafrost, decreasing extent of Arctic sea ice, and increasing 

numbers of extreme weather events (Brubaker et al. 2015, Cochran et al. 2013, 

Maldonado et al. 2013). Similarly, some coastal tribal communities in Louisiana are 

facing threats of displacement as a result of the interaction between environmental 

changes, such as sea-level rise, saltwater intrusion, and extreme weather, and 

politically and economically driven environmental degradation, such as oil- and 

dam-related development (Maldonado 2014b, Peterson and Maldonado in press). 

As we later discuss, this contemporary vulnerability is shaped in part by legacies 

of colonialism that limit the implementation of traditional adaptation strategies 

(Marino 2012, 2015; Wilson 2014). 

Communities that decide to relocate are often not equipped with the funding 

and support required for relocation (Marino 2015) and may be excluded from funding for existing infrastructure in their current location (Peterson and Maldonado 

in press). Once they decided to relocate, the Alaska Native villages of Newtok and 

Shishmaref were cut off from state and federal infrastructure funding (Peterson 

and Maldonado in press). How tribal and indigenous communities forced to relocate 

will maintain community and culture is a key question addressed in the literature. 
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Currently, the federal government is ill-equipped to deal with the realities of 

climate-induced relocation and lacks applicable policy with directives for an institutional framework to relocate indigenous communities. In addition, tribal governments do not have the legal authority or the technical, organizational, or financial 

abilities to implement relocation programs (Maldonado 2014a). 

Opportunities for self-governance and self-determination— 

Tribal-sovereignty and self-determination must be supported in climate-change 

initiatives (Gruenig et al. 2015). The right to indigenous self-governance and 

self-determination has been acknowledged by the federal government through its 

2010 endorsement of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 

(UNDRIP 2007), which recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples worldwide to 

self-determination and self-governance (Gruenig et al. 2015).

Article 3: “Indigenous people have the right to self-determination. By 

the virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and 

freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development” 

(UNDRIP 2007: 4).

Article 4: “Indigenous people, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to 

their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing 

their autonomous functions” (UNDRIP 2007: 7).

Article 24: 1. “Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices, including the conservation of 

their vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals. Indigenous individuals 

also have the right to access, without any discrimination, all social and 

health services” (UNDRIP 2007: 9).

Article 25: “Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen 

their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or 

otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and 

other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in 

this regard” (UNDRIP 2007: 10).

Article 29: “Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and 

protection of the environment and the productive capacity of their lands or 

territories and resources. States shall establish and implement assistance 

programmes for indigenous peoples for such conservation and protection, 

without discrimination” (UNDRIP 2007: 11).
11

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Under international law, the U.S. government has the responsibility not to 

undermine the principles of the UNDRIP (Gruenig et al. 2015). 

Self-governance and tribal sovereignty are associated with the management 

of tribal lands. Federally recognized tribes have the right to manage resources on 

reservations and within other jurisdictional boundaries (Goodman 2000, Gruenig 

et al. 2015). Many federally recognized tribes are managing programs related to 

climate change, including environmental monitoring and climate-change mitigation 

and adaptation strategies. Tribes use traditional knowledges and tribal-led scientific 

research to support policies and decisions (Gruenig et al. 2015).

To further focus on tribal sovereignty and self-determination in the context of 

climate change, Whyte (2013: 517) encouraged policymakers, scientists, and professionals working on climate adaptation to rely on a framework that “situates justice 

within the systems of responsibilities that matter to tribes and many others, which 

range from webs of inter-species relationships to government-to-government partnerships.” He argued that “justice is achieved when these systems of responsibilities 

operate in ways that support the continued flourishing of tribal communities.” 

As the benefits of traditional land management practices are recognized and 

implemented, tribes may have the opportunity to regain the management of historical 

homelands previously managed by the federal government (Wood 2014). Central concerns with the implementation of traditional land management are knowledge sovereignty and the protection of traditional knowledges. Some tribes are using tribal laws 

to protect traditional knowledge used in the context of climate change (Brewer and 

Kronk Warner 2015). The Karuk Tribe is working to employ traditional land management strategies by promoting knowledge sovereignty, tribal self-determination, 

and tribal self-governance (Norgaard 2014), exercised by entering into memoranda 

of understanding regarding areas of cultural significance occurring on federal lands 

(e.g., national forests) within Karuk ancestral territory (see Lake and Long 2014).

The protection of traditional knowledges and land-management practices have 

been central to conversations surrounding recent international climate-change mitigation programs like the United Nation’s REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation). REDD+ attempts to reduce greenhouse emissions 

through the conservation of forests in developing nations and the enhancement of 

forest carbon stocks, allowing developed nations to earn credits towards reducing 

emissions by paying to conserve forests in developing nations. Many of the targeted 

forests are home to indigenous peoples, who often lack the legal and political recognition to protect lands from governmental and nongovernmental entities seeking 

profit through the REDD+ program (Crippa and Gordon 2013). According to Crippa 

and Gordon (2013: 2):
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Protecting indigenous peoples’ rights to their lands, territories, environment and natural resources, and strengthening indigenous peoples’ capacity 

to effectively manage their territories, is a critical strategy for preventing 

deforestation and should be a central goal of climate mechanisms, including 

REDD+. Unfortunately, many REDD+ initiatives instead seek to “conserve 

the forest from indigenous peoples” — restricting their access to their own 

land, territories and resources, expropriating their land, commodifying 

their environments, and criminalizing their traditional livelihoods. More 

often than not REDD+ has become synonymous with violations of indigenous peoples’ basic human rights and disruption of their livelihoods. 

Indigenous people around the world have expressed concerns about climatechange impacts and have worked to become part of the global dialogue. However, 

concerns remain about whether indigenous voices in the United States will be 

acknowledged in climate negotiations that will determine how REDD+ is implemented, and whether adaptation options will consider threats to culturally relevant 

species and sacred sites. Critics are concerned that the program will facilitate a 

land grab of indigenous forests (Crippa and Gordon 2013, Holmes and Potvin 2014, 

Larson et al. 2013). REDD+ presents an example of how adaptation measures can 

harm indigenous peoples through the process of maladaptation (discussed further in 

“Tribal Approaches to Climate Change: Adaptation and Mitigation.”)

Climate Change and Tribal Culture 

For indigenous communities, climate change can result in loss of cultural identity 

through loss of place and ways of life. For many indigenous communities, culture 

and cultural identity are emergent from landscape and based on relationships of 

reciprocity with animals, plants, fungi, and ecosystems (Anderson 2005, Whyte 

2013, Wildcat 2009). The loss of place results in the loss of both ways of life and 

right to collective self-determination. Loss of ways of life occurs when environmental changes challenge the viability of cultural practices and thus cultural 

identity (Maynard 2014, Wildcat 2009). The IPCC, NCA, and other studies and 

publications have discussed the potential for climate change to shift species migration patterns; change the geomorphology of rivers, sea ice, and coastal areas; and 

lead to unpredictable precipitation and extreme weather events (Maldonado et al. 

2013). Indigenous communities have struggled to maintain their cultural identity 

and cultural practices through initial and ongoing periods of colonialism, genocide, 

and forced assimilation. This history has provided many indigenous communities 

with valuable adaptation experience to inform climate-change adaptation, resilience, and resistance. As cultures continue to be threatened by climate-induced 
13

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

environmental changes, indigenous peoples ground resilience, resistance, and 

adaptation strategies in traditional knowledges and tribal sovereignty (Chief et al. 

2014, Cochran et al. 2013). 

Traditional knowledges— 

The term “traditional knowledges” refers to both individual pieces of information and the traditional “knowledge systems” embedded in indigenous ways of 

life (CTKW 2014). Traditional knowledges emerge from reciprocal relationships 

between indigenous peoples and place, or what the Guidelines for Considering 

Traditional Knowledges in Climate Change Initiatives (CTKW 2014: 1) refer to as a 

“nature-culture nexus.” Therefore, indigenous communities and knowledge holders 

have unique ways of knowing, experiencing, understanding and practicing traditional knowledges. These dynamic and diverse knowledges and knowledge systems 

share common dimensions represented by the term traditional knowledges (Houde 

2007). As explained by the Guidelines for Considering Traditional Knowledge in 

Climate Change Initiatives (CTKW 2014: 7):

[Traditional knowledges] broadly refer to indigenous communities’ ways of 

knowing that both guide and result from their communities members’ close 

relationships with and responsibilities towards the landscapes, waterscapes, 

plants, and animals that are vital to the flourishing of indigenous cultures. 

Traditional knowledges can encompass culture, experiences, resources, environment, and animal knowledge (Schuler 2013); are accumulated through “experience, relationships, and upheld responsibilities towards other living beings and 

places” (CTKW 2014: 7); and are passed down generationally from elder to youth 

through oral histories, stories, ceremonies, and land management practices (CTKW 

2014, Schuler 2013). These traditional knowledges are considered by many to be 

a gift and come with certain responsibilities, such as determining when and with 

whom they should be shared (CTKW 2014). 

Traditional knowledges and climate change— 

Traditional knowledges are fundamental to indigenous understandings of climate 

change, for resistance activities, and to resilience and adaptation to climate change, 

inspiring what Wildcat (2009) called “indigenuity.” Indigenuity—indigenous 

ingenuity—is “the ability to solve pressing life issues facing humankind now by 

situating our solutions in Earth-based local indigenous deep spatial knowledge” 

(Wildcat 2009: 48). 

Traditional knowledges inform tribal understanding of climate impacts and 

environmental baselines while providing observational evidence, and informing 

culturally appropriate adaptation strategies (Adger et al. 2007, Cochran et al. 

Ways of knowing, 

encompassing 

culture, experiences, 

resources, 

environment, and 

animal knowledge, 

and passed down from 

elder to youth through 

oral histories, stories, 

ceremonies, and land 

management practices, 

are collectively referred 

to as traditional 

knowledges.
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

2013, Williams and Hardison 2013). Redsteer et al. (in press) demonstrated how 

the knowledge of Navajo elders can be used to gain more holistic understanding 

of the impacts of climate variation on semi-arid environments and to identify 

changes to soil moisture and species migration unavailable in most meteorological and streamflow data. Similarly, Wilson et al. (2015) showed how indigenous 

knowledges can contribute to the understanding of hydrologic change by (1) 

providing long-term data when Western scientific data is unavailable, (2) identifying new areas of inquiry by observing changes previously unidentified by 

Western science, and (3) being used in conjunction with Western methods across 

different scales. 

Simultaneously, traditional knowledges are also vulnerable to the impacts of 

climate change (Whyte 2014). Traditional knowledges transform with changes in 

the landscape and may be degraded by rapid environmental change. Traditional 

knowledges may lose their ability to determine culturally appropriate times for 

ceremonies, plantings, and seasonal harvests (Cochran et al. 2013). Tribal cultural 

practices linked with phenological matches are occurring when subsistence practitioners and ceremonial leaders use species from different habitats, or with differential life history stages, to predict or plan activities. For example, in a presentation 

at the 3rd Annual Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples Conference, Paulette 

Blanchard described how the spring bread dance is traditionally held when a certain 

tree has leaves the size of a squirrel’s ear. However, Blanchard elaborates that in 

recent years, the tree leaves have been in full bloom, much larger than squirrel’s 

ears, leading her aunties to state, “If we are going to have bread dance, we are going 

to have squirrels with elephant ears” (Blanchard 2014). 

Traditional knowledge in climate-change initiatives— 

Recognition of traditional knowledges as a resource for climate change assessment and adaptation is growing among nonindigenous scientists, researchers, and 

policymakers (Brewer and Kronk Warner 2015, Cochran et al. 2013, Wildcat 2009). 

An IPCC report, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, 

asserted that: 

Indigenous local, and traditional knowledge systems and practices, including indigenous peoples’ holistic view of community and environment, are 

a major resource for adaptation efforts. Integrating such forms of knowledge with existing practices increases the effectiveness of adaptation 

(IPCC 2014). 

Incorporating indigenous and scientific perspectives on climate can result in 

climate assessments and adaptation strategies that are rooted in multiple ways of 
15

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

knowing. The benefits of knowledge sharing in climate adaptation projects are 

exemplified in the report Weathering Uncertainty, which stated, “Community-based 

and local knowledge may offer valuable insights into environmental change due to 

climate change, and complement broader scale scientific research with local precision and nuance” (Nakashima et al. 2012: 6).

This topic was explored further in 2014 by the United Nations’ Framework 

Convention on Climate Change (FCCC 2014) Subsidiary Body for Scientific and 

Technological Advice (SBSTA 2015). This group examined the use of traditional 

knowledges in adaptation practices, the needs of indigenous communities, and the 

application of gender-sensitive approaches to adaptation. According to the report, 

considering traditional knowledges in adaptation practices results in: 

More accepted and efficient adaptation activities. Adaptation activities 

developed in close collaboration between a variety of stakeholders and 

on the basis of locally pertinent information, needs, and priorities have a 

greater likelihood of success, reducing risks and vulnerability and being 

sustainable. This also builds on the notion that communities should inform 

the consideration and choice of adaptation options; 

The empowerment of communities, including by educating community 

representatives to serve as local researchers and by creating indigenous 

traditional knowledge frameworks” (FCCC 2014).

According to Kronk Warner (2015b), it is detrimental for the federal government to exclude tribes in climate-change initiatives because long histories of 

adaptation in response to colonialism, genocide, forced relocation, and climatic 

events have provided tribes with extensive experience with resistance, resilience, 

and adaptation. As sovereign entities, tribes have the ability to enact their own 

tribal laws and environmental regulations pertaining to land jurisdictions and tribal 

members. Tribes across the country are already using tribal law to transcend federal 

environmental law to enact innovative climate-change adaptation. These innovative tribal “laboratories” for examining environmental regulation provide examples 

and offer valuable approaches for adaptation and environmental regulation (Kronk 

Warner 2015b).

Despite these opportunities, there are challenges in the successful inclusion of 

indigenous perspectives and knowledges in climate-change policy and planning. 

These challenges include the cultural specificity of traditional knowledges; the ability and willingness for non-tribal partners to engage respectfully with traditional 

knowledges and practices; the long time frame necessary to build collaborative 

environments; minimal access to resources to address climate change; changes to 
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

indigenous communities through the adoption of modern lifestyles; and risks to 

indigenous communities such as misappropriation, theft or misuse of their knowledges. In the United States, the National Congress of American Indians recognized 

these challenges for the incorporation of tribal traditional ecological knowledge 

with climate-change policies, research, and management (Resolution PDX-11-06) 

(NCAI 2011). 

Protection of traditional knowledges—

Many academic and legal structures do not capture the complexities of indigenous 

community-based research and lack the mechanisms to hold researchers accountable to indigenous communities (Brewer and Kronk Warner 2015). The differences 

between Western and indigenous world views result in academic and legal research 

protocols, designed based on Western conceptions, unable to capture or protect the 

multifarious complexities of traditional knowledges (Brewer and Kronk Warner 

2015). Most of the existing academic and legal structures for the protection of 

human subjects—institutional review boards (IRBs)—focus on questions of individual ethics and individual protection rather than community protection or protection of shared community knowledges (e.g., individual versus collective community 

knowledges). Even with the best of intentions, researchers must be held responsible 

for how their research, and the traditional knowledges being shared, might be used 

in the future. For example, traditional knowledge uncovered by a well-meaning 

plant biologist may be exploited by a pharmaceutical company in the creation of a 

“new” drug (Whitt 2009). For these reasons, indigenous communities are rightfully 

concerned about the use of indigenous knowledges in the creation of commercial 

products or the misuse of indigenous names, stories, symbols, and images (Paterson 

and Karjala 2003). 

The disturbance of an embedded landscape in which indigenous knowledge 

is so intimately tied to nature that it cannot be removed without either 

detracting from its original environment or rendering the knowledge 

less useful.

Intellectual property law— 

Grounded in a Western perspective, the existing intellectual property system is 

unable to adequately protect traditional knowledges from exploitation (Brewer and 

Kronk Warner 2015, Kronk Warner 2015a, Oguamanam 2004, Whitt 2009). The 

intellectual property system protects property that emerges from intellectual and 

mental labor based on patent law (tangible things), trademark law (name or symbol), 

and copyright law (written and artistic). The intellectual property system is based 

on Western conceptions of individualized ownership, inventiveness, and commodification. Unlike intellectual property, traditional knowledges are generational and 
17

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

not the product of a single inventor, new or novel, or “owned” by a limited number 

of people (Brewer and Kronk Warner 2015). As described by Whitt (2009: 167): 

Intellectual property law is at odds with vital features of many indigenous 

knowledge systems – by imposing individualized concepts of originality, 

inventiveness, rights, and informed consent; by eroding the shared nature 

of much indigenous knowledge; and by converting both knowledge and 

life forms into commodities to be harvest, altered, packaged, and sold for 

personal profit. 

Oguamanam (2004:168–169) shared this sentiment and asserted that the price of 

using Western intellectual property law to protect traditional knowledges is “forced 

epistemological assimilation.” 

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Intergovernmental 

Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge, 

and Folklore is engaged in discussions on the protection of traditional knowledges 

(Schuler 2013). The WIPO committee may at some point provide explicit protection 

to traditional knowledges under international intellectual property law; WIPO has 

not reached a consensus (WIPO 2014). However, because the United States had a 

strong role in the construction of international property rights, there is a further risk 

that any explicit protections provided by WIPO would function to contain traditional knowledges within a Western legal paradigm, causing additional complications and harm to indigenous communities (Brewer and Kronk Warner 2015). 

Tribal law— 

Researchers must be accountable to indigenous communities in how they engage 

with traditional knowledges, the products of research, and how traditional knowledges are shared (or not shared) based on the free, prior, and informed consent of 

traditional knowledge holders and tribal governments (Brewer and Kronk Warner 

2015, CTKW 2014). It is essential that research involving traditional knowledges 

occur with the free, prior, and informed consent of traditional knowledge holders 

and tribal governments, and that these individual knowledge holders and their tribal 

communities have the right to say “no” to participating in research (CTKW 2014). 

As tribes and nontribal partners engage in research partnerships, tribes should 

consider developing tribal Institutional Review Board (IRB) Protocol, such as 

the Institutional Review Board Manual for the Northwest Indian College (NWIC 

2013). Unlike university IRBs that place the emphasis on individual protections, 

tribal IRBs can consider and address the impact of research on tribal communities, 

including “respect for communities, potential harms and benefits to communities, 

and justice in and for communities” (NWIC 2013: 2). 

Research involving 

traditional knowledges 

should incorporate 

the free, prior, and 

informed consent of 

knowledge holders and 

tribal communities.
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Owing to the inability of American and international property law to protect 

traditional knowledges, Brewer and Kronk Warner (2015) suggested that tribes 

pursue their own protections though tribal law, or “laws enacted by virtue on tribes’ 

inherent sovereignty authority.” They offer examples from laws enacted by the 

Colorado River Indian Tribes, Ho-Chunk Nation, and Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of 

the Lake Traverse Reservation that protect traditional knowledges. In each of these 

cases, tribal laws require researchers to obtain permits before conducting research 

and allow tribal control of the dissemination of research. In one example, the 

Colorado River Indian Tribes adopted a Human and Cultural Resource Code that 

created an ethical review board (ERB) a “specific and formal authorization body to 

provide protection of the Colorado River Indian Tribes’ property including physical, 

real, cultural and intellectual property and communal property” (Colorado River 

Indian Tribes 2009: 1). This tribal law acknowledges communal property, provides 

mechanisms that maintain tribal control over traditional knowledges, and includes 

provisions that give jurisdiction over non-Indian researchers if traditional knowledge is exploited (Brewer and Kronk Warner 2015). 

When creating a research agenda, researchers wishing to engage with traditional knowledges must be aware of the protocols of the community and tribal 

government in designing research protocols, and must consider how to ensure that 

research accomplishes the goals of the community (Brewer and Kronk Warner 

2015). As information is gathered, it is important to understand the influence and 

uses that research may have outside of indigenous communities. The Wildlife 

Management Advisory Council North Slope offers a reference guide, Conduct of 

Traditional Knowledge Research, that “provides detailed technical guidance and, 

importantly, supporting rationale for best practices that should be fully considered 

by anyone contemplating, undertaking and applying traditional knowledge research 

on the Yukon North Slope” (Armitage and Kilburn 2015: vii).

Despite challenges associated with knowledge sharing, there have been recent 

successful accounts. For example, Hummel and Lake (2015) developed a blended 

approach that combines traditional knowledges with the scientific method to identify good, marginal, and poor conditions for the harvesting of beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax), a plant used in basket weaving. They assert that their blended approach 

advances the scientific method through the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods and allows traditional knowledge to be incorporated with scientific 

knowledge. They stress that, in the future, the best information on sustaining culturally important plants will come from research that accounts for both scientific and 

traditional knowledges. In another example, a cooperative effort between the Great 
19

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission and Forest Service’s Forest Inventory 

and Analysis program worked with Anishinaabe gatherers to develop an inventory 

field guide for paper birch, a culturally important resource (Emery et al. 2014).

Community Health 

American Indian and Alaska Native communities experience ongoing environmental health issues, including the legacies of pollutants and contamination, 

inadequate access to clean water, and reductions in the quality and quantity of 

culturally important species (Burger 2008, Burger et al. 2008). Changes in access to 

subsistence foods are associated with reliance on modern diets and increasing rates 

of modern diseases such as type 2 diabetes and obesity (Fleischhacker et al. 2012, 

McOliver et al. 2015). Continuing changes in climate and ecosystems will likely 

exacerbate existing environmental health issues (Brubaker et al. 2013, Donatuto 

2011, Doyle et al. 2013, Ford 2014, Luber et al. 2014, McOliver et al. 2015). 

Indigenous definitions of health and well-being reflect the interrelatedness of 

the social, cultural, spiritual, environmental, and psychological (Arquette et al. 

2002, Donatuto et al. 2014) and offer a perspective on how climate change may 

affect community health and livelihoods. Impact assessments that examine health 

only from a Western perspective fail to adequately gauge the impact of climate 

change on American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. Importantly, human health 

risk assessments that rely on individual and psychological health indicators are 

unable to capture the connection between community health and traditional 

foods (Donatuto et al 2011). This leaves indigenous communities with no viable 

framework to help communities adapt to climate-change impacts (Donatuto et al. 

2011). Recent publications have described health frameworks based on indigenous 

perspectives (Brown et al. 2011, Donatuto et al. 2014, McOliver et al. 2015). For 

example, the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium formed a “One Health 

Group” based on a concept that recognizes that the health of humans is connected 

to the health of animals and the environment. Such efforts provide more culturally 

appropriate and accurate understandings of climate-change impacts to indigenous 

health (Donatuto et al. 2014, McOliver et al. 2015). 

Box 1 describes six indigenous community health indicators (IHIs) used as 

a template by resource-based Coast Salish indigenous communities from coastal 

Washington state and British Columbia, Canada. The IHIs are meant to be a 

template of aspects of health that the community then refines and tailors to their 

specific priorities and context to identify adaptation priorities as presented by Donatuto et al. (N.d.). 
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Box 1

Community connection—

• Work (job quality)—community members have a job or role that 

they and other community members respect and they work together 

(mutual appreciation, respect, cooperation).

• Sharing—Sharing networks integral to healthy community, ensuring 

that everyone in the community receives traditional foods and other 

natural resources such as plant medicines, especially Elders. 

• Relations—community members support, trust, and depend on 

each other. 

Natural resource security— 

• Quality—natural resources, including the elements (e.g., water) are 

abundant and healthy. 

• Access—all resource use areas (i.e., Usual and Accustomed areas in 

Washington) are open to harvest or use (not closed or privatized). 

• Safety—the natural resources themselves are healthy, not affected by 

pollution, climate change, etc. 

Cultural use— 

• Sense of place—engaging in traditional resource-based activities; 

continued reminder/connection to ancestors and homeland.

• Respect/stewardship—conferring respect of or to the natural 

resources and connections between humans, environment and spirit 

world; ensuring cultural resources are properly maintained. 

• Practice—community assemblies able to follow appropriate customs 

(e.g., can obtain specific natural resources if needed such as cedar, 

certain foods, etc.); able to honor proper rituals, prayers and thoughtful intentions; able to satisfy spiritual/cultural needs, e.g., consume 

foods and medicines in order to satisfy Spirit’s “hunger.”

• continued on next page
21

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Box 1 (continued)

Education— 

• The teachings—knowledge, values and beliefs important to the 

community are maintained. 

• Elders—the knowledge keepers who pass on the knowledge are 

valued and respected.

• Youth—the future; they receive and respect the knowledge. 

Self-determination— 

• Healing/restoration—availability of and access to healing opportunities (e.g., traditional medicines, language programs) for community 

members as well as ability to define and enact their own, chosen environmental or habitat restoration programs. 

• Development—the ability for a community to determine and enact 

their own, chosen community enrichment activities in their homelands without detriment from externally imposed loss of resources. 

• Trust—the community trusts and supports its government. 

Resilience— 

• Self-Esteem—the beliefs and evaluations people hold about themselves are positive, providing an internal guiding mechanism to 

steer and nurture people through challenges, improving control 

over outcomes. 

• Identity—community members strongly connect with who they are 

in positive ways. 

• Resilience—culture isn’t stagnant, it adapts (e.g., people hunt with 

guns and use motorboats today but that does not discount the significance of harvesting), but preserving the ability to move within homelands and voluntarily adapt to changes, temporal or permanent (the 

“Seven Generations thinking”).
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Potential uses for this framework include the use of IHI to inform climatechange adaptation planning and “decision-making for recovering natural biophysical processes that sustain...natural resources and enhance community resilience” 

(Donatuto et al. 2014: 356).

The historical and sociocultural realities of indigenous communities require 

ethical considerations when addressing community health intervention (Brown et 

al. 2011). Rivkin et al. (2013) highlighted the importance of community participation through their use of community-wide presentations and discussions of research 

findings, as well as the prioritization of community expertise in the interpretation 

of findings and intervention development. This importance of community participation is echoed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science to 

Achieve Results program, which funds tribal community-based research that brings 

together community members and academic researchers to create culturally specific 

and effective interventions to address the health disparities experienced by American Indian and Alaska Native communities (McOliver et al. 2015). Findings from 

five case studies identify and describe four key conditions necessary to achieve this 

goal (McOliver et al. 2015): 

• Cultural relevance: American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) communities define their health priorities themselves, as each community is 

unique and even neighboring communities may have very different health 

concerns. AIAN communities drive the research design, implementation, 

and dissemination of results to ensure relevance to the community, and are 

meaningfully engaged throughout the process if they are partnering with 

academic or other institutions.

• Mutual respect and trust: AIAN communities and their collaborators and 

funders need to establish, develop, and nurture respect and trust.

• Adequate and sustained resources: Long-term, sustaining resources are 

necessary for AIAN communities to evaluate and enact long-term health 

interventions.

• Sustainable partnerships: For AIAN communities that chose to partner, 

sustained committed relationships with academic or other research partners 

must be established and maintained past the completion of one project.

Taken together, these frameworks demonstrate the importance of culturally specific tribal voices in the assessment of, and intervention in, tribal 

community health.

Community-based 

research, community 

participation and 

culturally specific 

interventions are 

necessary to improve 

community health.
23

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Current Climate Impacts Affecting Indigenous 

Communities in the United States

Public Health 

Climate-related phenomena such as decreased air quality, extreme weather events, 

wildfire, infectious disease, and temperature and precipitation extremes can lead 

to public health risks. Vulnerability to these public health risks will be experienced 

differently by individuals and communities depending on factors that include race, 

socioeconomic status, age, and geographic location (see Burger et al. 2008 and 

Ford 2012). As discussed in “Community Health,” American Indians and Alaska 

Native communities experience public health issues that will likely be exacerbated 

by continuing changes in climate and ecosystems (Burger 2008, Burger et al. 2008). 

Climate change is predicted to compound existing physical health issues experienced by indigenous communities.

According to the Indian Health Service (IHS 2015), American Indian and 

Alaska Native communities experience disproportionate rates of chronic liver 

disease and cirrhosis, type 2 diabetes, unintentional injuries, respiratory diseases, 

cancers, liver disease, cardiovascular diseases, and suicides. These health impacts 

result from experiences of colonialism, racism, and trauma that have contributed to 

poor social and economic conditions, inadequate education, poverty, and discrimination in health services, cultural barriers, and isolation (Egeland and Harrison 

2013, IHS 2015, Nelson 2013). As asserted by Egeland and Harrison (2013: 11):

For indigenous peoples, determinants of health take on the additional 

dimensions of assaults on “indigeneity,” including colonization and disassociation from their land, cultural and linguistic heritage and even families—when there has been forced residential schooling. In these situations, 

self-esteem and individual and group identity and self-determination have 

been eroded. The end result of these collective assaults on “indigeneity” are 

profound and far-reaching, and contribute to the wide gaps in indigenous 

health and well-being. 

The legacies of assaults on indigenous peoples, including colonization, cultural 

suppression, and forced assimilation, have intergenerational consequences on physical and mental health and have been recognized as a source of suffering for indigenous communities (Gone 2013). However, public health issues are also associated 

with ongoing structural violence. Kirmayer et al. (2014: 311) argued that the focus 

on historical and cultural trauma may limit how the distress and redress are framed:

By obscuring the ongoing forms of material dispossession and political 

domination, the discourse linking Indigenous culture and historical trauma 
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

may deflect attention from the fundamental structural causes of distress. 

Healing then is framed in terms of therapy for psychic wounds ... rather 

than in terms of how people might find meaningful livelihoods within 

increasingly difficult constraints and imagine a viable future rooted in the 

material realities necessary for reproducing thriving communities at the 

local level. 

To understand the existing health disparities experienced by indigenous communities, as well as the ways that these disparities will be exacerbated by climate 

change, one must consider not only historical trauma, but also structural violence 

rooted in poverty, inequality, and discrimination. In this section, we explore the 

impacts of climate change on six aspects of public health:

• Traditional food and medicine.

• Infectious disease.

• Contamination.

• Heat-related illnesses.

• Extreme weather.

• Air quality.

Traditional food and medicine— 

The importance of traditional foods for indigenous health surpasses nutritional 

value. Traditional food systems are an important aspect of subsistence and medicinal practices and are closely related to community health and cultural traditions 

(Donatuto et al. 2011, 2014; Egeland and Harrison 2013; Lynn et al 2013; Turner 

and Clifton 2009). Relationships between indigenous peoples and traditional 

food systems were disrupted by colonialism and associated experiences of forced 

removal, relocation, and assimilation. During the past several decades, indigenous 

communities have experienced a “nutrition transition,” characterized by the shift 

from traditional food practices and locally grown and hunted food to store-bought 

commodities of inferior nutritional value (Compher 2006). Despite these challenges, 

traditional foods remain an important part of indigenous physical and community 

health. As climate change affects the availability of and access to traditional food 

and the practices of gathering traditional foods (discussed below in “Food Security 

and Traditional Food”), the current health issues associated with the loss of traditional foods will likely be exacerbated (Donatuto et al. 2014).

Loss of traditional practices—

Some tribal people are unable to participate in traditional food practices because 

of the loss of land, language, and tradition. For others, climate-related impacts are 

increasing the costs associated with subsistence activities, requiring more expensive 

equipment and larger amounts of fuel, making traditional practices prohibitively 
25

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

costly. As practices are lost, communities that maintain traditional subsistence 

practices become increasingly reliant on store-bought foods. For example, in rural 

Alaska, Native communities rely on a mix of both traditional and store-bought 

foods (Johnson et al. 2009). Although some studies show that older generations 

consume more traditional foods than younger generations, traditional foods supply 

important nutrients for all ages. Although store-bought foods supply most of the 

calories for the modern Alaska Native diet, traditional foods supply a high proportion of protein, iron, omega-3 fatty acids, and other nutrients (Johnson et al. 2009). 

Nutrition transition and access to health foods—

Nutrition transition is associated with increases in modern diseases like obesity, 

diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure (Arquette et al. 2002, Brown et 

al. 2011, Fleischhacker et al. 2012). For many tribal communities, healthy foods 

are difficult to access. Reservations have been characterized as “food deserts,” 

with little access to fresh fruits and vegetables (Schell and Gallo 2012). The lack 

of healthy store-bought foods means that nutrient-rich traditional foods are often 

replaced with less healthy alternatives (Kolahdooz et al. 2014). The food environment on the Apache reservation in Arizona consists of many gas station stores and 

few supermarkets, a moderate availability of fresh produce, and the reliance on 

off-reservation supermarkets for bulk shopping (Gittelsohn and Sharma 2009). In 

a study of the number and type of food stores on reservations in Washington State, 

O’Connell et al. (2011) found that tribal members living on a reservation had limited 

access to foods represented in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food 

Security Assessment Toolkit. Of the 22 reservations, 15 had only convenience food 

stores and five reservations did not have any type of food store (O’Connell et al. 

2011). The classification of so many tribal reservations as “food deserts” inherently 

implies a reliance on Western food systems and does not recognize the importance 

of traditional foods. 

Climate change is already affecting the availability of traditional foods 

(Lynn et al. 2013). On the Crow Reservation in south-central Montana, climaterelated impacts are affecting the phenology, or seasonal changes, of juneberries, 

chokecherries, elderberries, and buffalo berries, which are stable foods in 

traditional diets (Doyle et al. 2013). Trees and shrubs are not producing fruit 

because they are budding out earlier in the spring (making them vulnerable to 

subsequent cold snaps that kill the blossoms); the timing of plants that do produce 

fruit has changed; and some trees are coming out of dormancy during winter warm 

spells and dying when temperatures fall (Doyle et al. 2013). In Kivalina, Alaska, 

melting sea ice is making hunting seals and whales more difficult and dangerous. 

One community member expressed the impact of these environmental changes on 

traditional subsistence practices:
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

It’s going to be hard to feed our kids. We have to stretch it out...For the 

bearded seal hunt, we used to get 14–16 bearded seals; this year we only got 

four. It was a very short year (Driscoll et al. 2013).

The negative impact of climate change on subsistence practices is contributing 

to an increased reliance on store-bought foods (Harper et al. 2015). However, as 

demonstrated by the following example from Nunatsiavut, Labrador, Canada, the 

increased intensity and duration of storms can disrupt the delivery of food to retail 

shops in remote communities. 

The conditions were horrible. People didn’t get what they normally get for 

caribou and then you rely on store-food junk, because what other option do 

you have when you live in a remote fly-in-only community? And, the foods 

sources that you usually get to, you can’t reach. There is not enough snow, 

there is not enough ice. It’s alarming that we are just seeing the beginning 

of climate change... And if the weather is down [bad] for five weeks, how 

do you get in and out of your community to access services? How do you 

get food in there? I mean the stores had to actually, I mean their stock was 

down to bare bones because there was no way to get food in” (Harper et al. 

2015).

The impact of climate change on traditional subsistence practices and the retail 

food industry demonstrates the vulnerability of the food system.

Traditional medicine— 

Climate change also limits the ability of indigenous communities to use traditional 

medicines to respond to illness (Redsteer et al. in press). Environmental changes 

may result in the necessity to travel greater distances to find plants and herbs for the 

treatment of illnesses (Redsteer et al. in press). In Louisiana, saltwater inundation 

(largely attributed to dredging canals for oil pipelines) has destroyed plants and 

herbs used for traditional medicines (Maldonado 2014b). 

The majority of our trees are dying or dead, our herbs for healing are 

becoming extinct to us and our fruit and vegetable growth is being 

affected... [The plants] used for healing are gone and that everything they 

did back in 1950 is now gone... In the past, we used herbs and traditional 

remedies to maintain our health. But now, the plants are no longer here 

and more people are sick and we are forced to go to outside doctors with 

increasing bills and fees” (CLTC 2012: 13–14).
27

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Many indigenous communities did not distinguish between nutrition and medicine. The plants used for subsistence also contained compounds with medicinal 

properties. Nutrient-dense food may protect against micronutrient deficiencies like 

anemia (Egeland and Harrison 2013). Many traditional foods also contain bioactive phytochemicals with the potential to protect against and mitigate chronic and 

degenerative diseases like obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease (Schauss 

2010). According to Schauss (2010), the current health disparities experienced by 

tribal communities could be reversed if tribes were able to return to their ancestral 

food sources.

Disproportionate rates of chronic disease among tribes in the United States 

result in state and federal health programs targeted to tribes, many of which 

originate from outside tribal communities and are not based on tribal experiences 

or tribal culture. Some have argued that the most successful health promotion 

programs are those grounded in tribal values and culture (Fleischhacker et al. 2012, 

Schell and Gallo 2012). A recent finding by Beil (2015) further reinforces this, 

demonstrating that individuals with higher levels of traditional knowledge display 

lower occurrences of chronic diseases.

For coastal Louisiana tribes, erosion and saltwater intrusion are causing the 

loss of traditional foods and medicines. Tribes are engaged in a number of 

practices that focus on rebuilding their subsistence livelihoods. With support 

from the USDA Plant Material Center, tribal members are pursuing the use 

of raised beds to protect culturally important plants from saltwater intrusion. 

Tribal members are also working with researchers to identify what plants 

remain in the wild and what plants have been lost to help identify preservation 

priorities (Maldonado 2014b).

Infectious disease— 

Environmental change may cause changes in the transmission of infectious disease, 

which is sensitive to small changes in weather, landscape, and the diversity of 

animal hosts (Altizer et al. 2013). These ecosystem changes could result in new 

disease trajectories (Luber et al. 2014). Although some of these outbreaks can be 

anticipated, there are knowledge gaps about how climate change will influence specific infectious diseases in certain regions. These knowledge gaps make it difficult 

to prepare for potential public health impacts (Parkinson et al. 2015). 

Many traditional 

foods have medicinal 

properties.
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

The impacts of climate change on disease distribution differ by region (Luber 

et al. 2014). The geographic zone of malaria is predicted to expand north, affecting 

portions of the Great Plains (Ojima et al. 2013). In the eastern woodlands, warmer 

summertime temperatures could lead to increased incidence of tropical diseases 

throughout the South and the accelerated spread of existing diseases like Lyme 

disease (Maynard 1998). New foodborne, waterborne, and insect-vector-borne 

diseases are already creating public health concerns for Alaska Natives (Nelson 

2013, Virginia and Yalowitz 2011), and in the Pacific Islands, climate variations may 

lead to increased incidents of diseases like dengue fever (Keener et al. 2012). 

Changing climates will change the geographic distribution of plants, animals, 

and insects, likely affecting distributions of infectious disease. Vector-borne 

diseases, or diseases transmitted by insects and ticks, will be affected by warming temperatures and the lengthening of the freeze-free season, or the amount 

of time between spring and autumn frosts (Brown et al. 2013, Luber et al. 2014). 

Vector ranges will change over time, and previously unexposed populations may 

become exposed. For example, in the Pacific Islands, climate variations may expand 

avian malaria to higher elevations (Keener et al. 2012). Although most pathogens 

are species-specific, some zoonotic diseases can be transmitted from animals to 

humans. In Alaska, as warmer temperatures allow infected animal hosts to survive 

the winter and increase their range and population, there is an increasing opportunity for these diseases to be transferred to humans (Hueffer et al. 2013, Parkinson 

et al. 2015). Tribal populations may be particularly vulnerable to zoonotic diseases 

because of traditional subsistence practices that place them in close contact with 

animals and food products. However, there are shortcomings in the knowledge of 

zoonotic diseases, including baseline levels of infection, lack of systematic surveillance, and inconsistent disease awareness, that must be addressed to ensure preparation for potential public health impacts (Hueffer et al. 2013).

Extreme weather events are associated with communicable diseases such as 

pneumonia, skin infections, malaria, dengue fever, and diarrheal disease because 

of the damage and disruption of water and sanitation infrastructure (Brubaker et 

al. 2011b, Downing and Cuerrier 2011, Ford et al. 2010). For example, in 2004, the 

village of Kivalina experienced a storm surge that damaged the sewage drain field 

of the washeteria, the community’s only public toilet, laundry, and shower facility. This damage resulted in limited washeteria operation for the next few years, 

including closure for 5 consecutive months in 2005. According to the Alaska Native 

Tribal Health Consortium, the closure of the washeteria corresponds with increased 

rates of skin infections (Brubaker et al. 2009).
29

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Many Alaska Natives practice subsistence hunting and fishing and rely on 

stable temperatures for traditional food preservation and storage. Traditional 

foods practices include aboveground air-drying, smoking, and fermentation, and 

belowground cold storage. Warming temperatures and melting permafrost may 

disrupt the preservation and preparation of traditional foods, increasing chances of 

botulism and food-borne disease outbreaks (McLaughlin et al. 2004, Parkinson et 

al. 2015). Melting permafrost may also cause food stored belowground in traditional 

food cellars to spoil (Brubaker et al. 2009, 2011b). 

Contamination—

Climate change is associated with the contamination of traditional foods and water 

sources (Burger et al. 2008; see Rose et al. 2001). Exposure to waterborne and 

food-borne pathogens can occur through contaminated drinking water, seafood, or 

fresh produce. Climate affects the survival, growth, transport, and dissemination of 

pathogens through rainfall, runoff, and temperature. Increasing water temperatures 

can lead to shellfish and finfish disease and contamination (Cozzetto et al. 2013a, 

2013b). American Indian and Alaska Native populations whose traditional diets rely 

on seafood, the Swinomish for example, are at greater risk of toxic seafood consumption (SITC 2010). The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne discovered that culturally important fish populations were contaminated with mercury and PCBs from 

past manufacturing (Whyte in press). In Alaska, food contamination is occurring as 

the ice cellars used for food storage thaw (Brubaker et al. 2011b), and contamination 

and pollution associated with flooding and energy development has led many to 

question the safety of water and soil in Louisiana (Maldonado et al. 2014a).

Contaminated water is a vector for disease (Downing and Currier 2011). 

Drinking water can be contaminated by damage to water treatment facilities caused 

by permafrost melting or flooding that causes the overflow of drinking water or 

sewage treatment reservoirs. Contaminated water supplies are associated with communicable diseases such as diarrheal disease (Downing and Cuerrier 2011).

Many tribes express concern about the quality of water resources. For example, 

in the Bering Strait region, increasing water temperatures have resulted in algal 

blooms that lead many to question water quality (Brubaker et al. 2015, Rosen and 

Amand 2015). The frequency and range of algal blooms is likely to increase, threatening shellfish populations and human health (Luber et al. 2014). These concerns 

are well grounded, as other literature confirms contamination of water resources by 

thawing permafrost, parasites and diseases, and bacterial contamination (Cozzetto 

et al. 2013a, Doyle et al. 2013, Luber et al. 2014, NCA 2014, Rose 2001). 

Contamination of traditional foods and medicines can also occur as a result 

of the extractive practices of the fossil fuel industry. In coastal Louisiana, tribes 
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

experience high rates of diabetes, cancer, and high blood pressure as a result of 

“health-threatening social conditions” originating from industrial contamination, 

toxic industries, chemicals from dispersants, and oil spills (Maldonado 2014a; 

Maldonado et al. 2013). Community members at a Louisiana workshop in 2012 

described firsthand experience with such negative health outcomes:

Before, longevity was a part of our heritage, but now we are the sacrificed 

communities and our people are dying younger because of new diseases we 

never had before (CLTC 2012: 15).

In Kiana, Alaska, rising temperatures are increasing the likelihood of 

food-borne pathogens. In response, residents are taking precautions in the 

preparation and storage of traditional foods to prevent food-borne illnesses. 

These precautions include wearing gloves while harvesting game, thoroughly 

cooking meat, thoroughly cleaning surfaces, and monitoring disease levels in 

subsistence resources (Brubaker and Chavan 2011). 

Heat-related illnesses— 

In the United States, heat stress is the leading cause of weather-related mortality 

(Brown et al. 2013). Based on projections made in the National Climate Assessment 

(2014), temperatures may rise 2 to 4 °F over the next few decades in most areas 

of the United States. This may increase the frequency, severity, and duration of 

extreme heat events and the experiences of heat exhaustion and stroke. Those most 

at risk of heat-related illnesses include children, elders, ailing, and the homeless 

(Luber et al. 2014, SITC 2010). 

The Swinomish Tribe’s Climate Adaptation Action Plan (2010) characterizes 

heat-related illness as a “medium-high” risk for tribal members. Tribal elders 

of the Crow reservation in south-central Montana are already raising concern 

about the impact of increasing summer temperatures on tribal populations during 

outdoor ceremonies (Doyle et al. 2013). In the Great Plains, lack of adequate 

housing leaves many without protection from extreme temperatures (Ojima et 

al. 2012). At the Oklahoma Inter-Tribal Meeting (Riley et al. 2011), extreme heat 

was cited as a health danger for tribal members without air-conditioning, and one 

participant described how extreme heat had caused the death of three tribal elders 

(Riley et al. 2012). 
31

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Extreme weather—

Increases in extreme weather events are associated with direct and indirect mortality and morbidity in indigenous populations (see Ebi 2011 for the U.S. public). In the 

Arctic, extreme weather events like storms and floods, and their increasing unpredictability, pose direct and indirect threats to the health of Alaska Natives (Willox 

et al. 2015). 

Although extreme weather events have been a historical feature of many 

biophysical environments, their frequency and severity has been exacerbated by 

climate change (Downing and Cuerrier 2011). Increases in precipitation extremes 

and heavy rainfall have led to increasing incidents of severe flooding (Luber et al. 

2014). Flooding is associated with direct and indirect impacts on human mortality 

and morbidity. In the United States, flooding is the second deadliest weather-related 

hazard (Luber et al. 2014). In a study spanning more than three decades, Dittmann 

(1994) reported an average of 119 flood deaths per year. Following extreme precipitation, waterborne disease outbreaks, and mold contamination from water intrusion 

that causes respiratory problems like asthma, phenomena, and respiratory syncytial 

virus (RSV) are increasing in frequency (Luber et al. 2014).

At the Oklahoma Inter-Tribal Meeting on Climate Variability and Change in 

2011 (Riley et al. 2012), participants discussed the impact of heavy rain on tribes. 

Heavy rain and flooding may cause the contamination of waters, crops, livestock 

and cattle with heavy metals. Drought also presents a risk to human health by 

increasing exposure to wildfires, extreme heat, flash flooding, reduced water quality 

and quantity, and diminished air quality resulting from dust storms (Luber et al. 

2014). 

Extreme weather events and biophysical changes may lead to permanent community displacement, or climigration (Maldonado et al. 2013). For indigenous communities, extreme weather events compound effects from other political, economic, and 

The Swinomish Adaptation Action Plan addresses the increased risk of heatrelated illnesses on tribal communities by increasing community education, 

emergency preparation, and the development of a heat alert warning system. 

Additional strategies include retrofitting housing and structures with passive 

cooling systems that minimize the need for electric air conditioners. These 

designs include features of traditional longhouses and native trees, shrubs, 

and deciduous trees on western and southern exposures of homes (SITC 2010). 

Extreme weather 

events are becoming 

more frequent, 

and more severe, 

and may result in 

permanent community 

displacement.
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

social factors to create a multicausal forced displacement (Maldonado 2014a, 2014b). 

For example, in Newtok, a Yup’ik Eskimo Village in western Alaska, six extreme 

weather events between 1989 and 2006 (five of which were classified by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] as disasters) had devastating consequences 

on community infrastructure like homes, food storage, roads, and utilities. The high 

cost of building and road repairs overwhelmed the community’s limited financial 

resources. These damages are now forcing community relocation (Chief et al. 2014, 

Maldonado et al. 2013, Willox et al. 2015). According to testimony to the U.S. Senate 

Committee on Appropriations by Robert A. Robinson, managing director of the Government Accounting Office’s Natural Resources and Environment Team, flooding 

and erosion caused by warming temperatures threaten 86 percent of Alaska Native 

villages, and 31 Alaska Native villages qualify for permanent relocation (GAO 2004). 

Similarly, hurricanes off the Louisiana coast have caused a dramatic decrease in the 

population of the indigenous community on the Isle de Jean Charles, from about 325 

people and 78 houses in 2002 to a current 70 people and 25 houses, as people have 

been forced to relocate by the loss of their homes to flooding (Maldonado 2014a). 

Air quality—

Air quality can be affected by the concentration of allergens, particulate matter, 

and ground-level ozone. Warmer temperatures and more frost-free days will likely 

lead to a longer growing season and increased pollen production (Brown et al. 

2013, Luber et al. 2014). As plant habitats change, so will the distribution of pollengenerating species and some may disappear and be replaced with new allergens. 

Variations in climate could affect the intercontinental transport of dust, pollen, and 

mold (Brown et al. 2013), and possibly increase the content and potency of allergens 

(Brown et al. 2013, Ferguson et al. 2011). All these changes have the potential to 

worsen allergen sensitization and asthma (Luber et al. 2014).

Increased precipitation and flooding can cause indoor air quality problems 

(e.g., fungus and mold) that may contribute further to allergies and asthma. Many 

indigenous communities currently struggle with air quality problems associated 

with mold. In 2011 and 2013, mold and resulting respiratory concerns led to the 

closing of the Navajo Nation’s administrative offices in Window Rock (Cozzetto 

et al. 2013a). Similarly, in 2011, many residents of the Crow Reservation in southcentral Montana experienced household mold infestations following a flood of the 

Little Big Horn River (Doyle et al. 2013).

Wildfire suppression and drier conditions have led to longer wildfire seasons 

and an increase in wildfire frequency and extent (Brown et al. 2013). Wildfire 

smoke contains particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and other 

ozone precursors that can negatively affect human health (Luber et al. 2014). 
33

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Exposure to landscape smoke can cause respiratory infections, asthma, bronchitis, 

chest pain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, other lung illnesses, and death 

(Luber et al. 2014). In Oklahoma, poor air quality prevents elders from going 

outside (Riley et al. 2012).

Mental Health 

Climate change has been associated with increased rates of mood and anxiety disorders, strong emotional responses, and loss of connections to homeland and social 

networks (Willox et al. 2013). Indigenous communities are particularly vulnerable 

to mental health impacts because of the importance of place to many indigenous 

peoples (Willox et al. 2013). Many tribes experience historical grief associated with 

loss of homelands, and their traditional way of life, which may be worsened by climate 

change (Luber et al. 2014). Based on in-depth interviews with tribal members and 

health professionals in the Inuit community of Rigolet, Nunatsiavut, Labrador, Canada, 

Willox et al. (2015) described five connections between biophysical climate change and 

psychological health. These connections are described in more detail below. 

1. Changes to sense of place and existing practices.

2. Physical health impacts that influence mental health.

3. Damage to the built environment and infrastructure.

4. Indirect impacts from narratives shared through media.

5. The magnification or compounding of existing stressors. 

These connections between biophysical climate change and psychological health 

provide a comprehensive framework to organize the impacts of climate change on 

mental health. We use this framework below to examine how climate change currently affects, and is projected to affect, the mental health of indigenous communities.

Changes to sense of place and existing practices—

The strong connection with place makes indigenous peoples particularly vulnerable 

to distress from climate change. Changes to or loss of culturally important places, 

subsistence practices, and culturally important species can negatively impact 

mental health (Willox et al. 2013, 2015).

[M]any indigenous populations in the Circumpolar North continue landbased lifestyles and experience an interdependent relationship with the 

land, where identity, self-confidence, and socio-cultural and socio-spiritual 

significance emerges, in part, from one’s connection to the land and to 

place. The land, then, is a site for deep healing, renewal, and revival and is 

vital to concepts of well-being, enrichment of the mind, body, and spirit, 

and resilience and not being on the land can cause deep psychological stress 

(Willox et al. 2015).
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

American Indian and Alaska Native populations already are experiencing 

changes to culturally important places and species (Cozzetto et al. 2013a, Lynn 

et al. 2013, Voggesser et al. 2013). Willox et al. (2013a) found that individuals 

unable to continue land-based activities because of climate change or economic 

barriers feel “stuck” or “trapped” and experience frustration, anger, distress, 

anxiety, and depression.

Participants at a 1998 Alaska workshop designed to engage community members in the assessment of climate impacts and priorities for adaptation, described 

how the inability to fulfill traditional subsistence activities affected mental health 

and caused feelings of isolation: 

Many elderly who can no longer participate in more rigorous hunting activities count on being able to pick berries or ice fish. Being stuck in camp and 

failing to accomplish these activities dramatically affects their quality of 

life and their personal sense of contributing to the community. In addition, 

common to all age groups is the spiritual need to feel that one is a productive and contributing individual (Callaway et al. 1999).

Kukarenko (2011) described how a number of studies link the disruption of 

traditional masculine roles with problems in identity and loss of self-esteem, and 

increased occurrences of psychosocial disorders like suicide and alcoholism. The 

impact of environmental change on the mental well-being of young men was 

expressed at workshop proceedings in Alaska. Participants vocalized concern that 

the interruption of subsistence activities, and thus their inability to contribute to the 

community, was negatively affecting the self-esteem of young men and exacerbating existing drug and alcohol use (Callaway et al. 1999).

For indigenous communities, the loss of connection to place and associated 

practices can threaten cultural identity and mental health. Sakakibara (2008) 

demonstrated how the Inupiat in Point Hope, Alaska, use contemporary storytelling as a critical form of cultural adaptation. Inupiat people at Point Hope 

are experiencing climate-induced changes to homeland, sense of place, and 

environmental kinship, that threaten culture and cultural identity. Storytelling 

reveals and fosters adaptation, allowing residents to maintain their connections to dramatically shifting places and cope with an uncertain future.
35

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Physical health impacts that influence mental health—

The impacts of climate change on physical health can contribute to increasing mental 

health problems. Increases in disease, food insecurity, and rates of mortality and morbidity may affect mental health (Willox et al. 2015). For example, changing weather 

makes hunting more dangerous in the Arctic, thereby increasing the risk of death or 

injury. This increased risk can cause fear and anxiety in members of the community 

who may worry about their safety and the safety of others (Willox et al. 2015). 

Damage to built environment and infrastructure— 

Climate change can result in the destruction of community infrastructure, and, in 

some cases, displacement (Bronen 2013, Maldonado 2014a, Maldonado et al. 2013). 

These experiences may contribute to such mental health problems as anxiety and 

depression (Willox et al. 2015). 

The magnification or compounding of existing stressors— 

Using a historical trauma framework, Jacob (2013: 11) explained how legacies of 

colonialism can span across generations and intensify over time.

Within this theoretical framework, the many social problems facing indigenous peoples are evidence of a traumatic response to colonial violence...If 

the traumatic response to colonialism goes unaddressed and unresolved, the 

healing of the soul would not happen. The trauma will worsen across generations. The soul wound is an important concept for decolonizing work because 

it accurately explains that the root cause of many social problems can be 

traced back to historical and ongoing forms of settler-colonial violence. 

Historical traumas and the introduction of alcohol have resulted in high 

rates of substance abuse, suicide, and violence within indigenous communities 

(Weaver 2009). 

Climate-related disasters also affect mental health. Disasters produce widespread physiological distress, physical health problems, social disruptions among 

general populations, and psychological disorders among some individuals. After a 

disaster, some individuals may be more susceptible to stress and maladaptive coping strategies (Jenkins and Phillips 2008).

Some data suggest that violence against women increases after disasters. For 

example, after Hurricane Katrina, gender-based violence in Mississippi increased 

from a daily rate of 4.6 per 100,000 to 16.3 per 100,000 (Enarson 2011). This 

increased vulnerability is associated with lower earnings and the presence of 

children. For indigenous women, climate-change resilience is complicated by 

Climate change affects 

physical health and 

increases levels of 

fear and anxiety, and 

depression.
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

socioeconomic and environmental challenges created by the intersection of race 

and gender. Because American Indian and Alaska Native women already experience high rates of violence, they will likely experience increased vulnerability 

to escalating rates of gender-based violence post-disasters (Vinyeta et al. 2015). 

However, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, non-Native men perpetrate 

67 percent of reported cases of rape or sexual assault against American Indian or 

Alaskan Native women (Bachman et al. 2008). 

Indirect impacts from narratives shared through media—

Individuals also experience climate change though indirect channels such as books, 

social media, regulations, and news sources that portray indigenous populations as 

the most vulnerable to climate change (Willox et al. 2015). Although many indigenous communities do experience disproportionate vulnerability to climate-change 

impacts, vulnerability results from colonial structures that limit traditional adaptation strategies. Vulnerability is often described as an inherent trait of indigenous 

communities rather than the result of complex social and ecological conditions 

(Marino 2015). Many of these narratives depict indigenous culture on the brink of 

extinction and indigenous people as lacking agency and resilience. This stigmatizes 

indigenous communities and can reinforce stereotypes about indigenous communities “needing the help of white outsiders” (Marino 2015: 29). According to Willox 

et al. (2015), these narratives paired with direct experiences of environmental 

change may intensify stress, anxiety, and fear. These indirect impacts shared 

through media can be intensified by the exclusion of indigenous voices from topdown adaptation policies that can further inhibit adaptive capacity. As described by 

Willox et al. (2015: 10): 

The injustice of having global climate concern and associated actions 

foisted disproportionately upon local communities—largely in the absence 

of local channels for political engagement that can effect decisions at a 

broader scale—may further undermine feelings of agency and contribute 

to stress.

Food Security and Traditional Foods

American Indians and Alaska Natives rely on a variety of local plant, animal, and 

fungi species for food, ceremonial, community, and economic activities (Bennett 

et al. 2014a, Lynn et al. 2013, Whyte in press). Some examples of traditional foods 

discussed in the literature include wild rice, shellfish, beans, moose, deer, berries, 

caribou, walrus, corn, squash, fish, and seal (Bennett et al. 2014a). These traditional foods play a vital role in tribal culture and well-being (Lynn et al. 2013, 

Whyte in press). This was demonstrated by Michelle (2012) who explored the 
37

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

multifaceted relationship between berries and indigenous peoples in the Northeast 

to demonstrate the holistic aspects of wellness. For the Wabanaki people, berry 

plants are essential to their physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual 

health (Michelle 2012). Whyte (in press) described the relationship between 

indigenous communities and traditional foods as “collective self-determination.” 

According to Whyte (in press):

Collective self-determination refers to a group’s ability to provide the 

cultural, social, economic and political relations needed for its members to 

pursue good lives. Food contributes to collective self-determination through 

its integral roles in family and ceremonial life, as a source of nourishment 

and income, as a facilitator of trust and goodwill in society, as a carrier of 

a group’s heritage and knowledge, and as a vital good that political leaders 

are entrusted to protect through laws and policies.

As climate change makes the continuation of subsistence practices increasingly 

difficult, climate impacts on traditional foods cannot be understood without examining the social, economic, and political stressors that influence how communities 

interact with their environments (Moerlein and Carothers 2012: 7).

The increasing cost of participating in subsistence activities and dramatic 

changes in the social context of Arctic indigenous communities are causing a seeming decline in local fishing and hunting knowledge and level 

of participation in subsistence practices. Thus, these communities face a 

total environment of change, whereby environmental changes and broader 

socioeconomic challenges are jointly shifting and remaking humanenvironment relationships.

Some tribal communities are combating this “total environment of change” 

with adaptation initiatives that foster cultural identity by strengthening connection 

to place and documenting traditional knowledges and languages. For example, 

many Alaska Native villages hold culture camps, where elders share stories and 

knowledges that communicate traditional practices and cultural connections to 

place (Kofinas et al. 2010). Elders use stories and narratives to communicate values 

of humility, gratitude, self-reliance, attentiveness, responsibility, and responsiveness 

that are essential for subsistence living (Anthony 2013). These cultural initiatives 

aim to sustain cultural values and strengthen resilience within the changing socioecological context (Kofinas et al. 2010).

To maintain a relationship to traditional foods vital to cultural well-being, adaptation strategies must recognize the historical and current cultural importance of 

traditional foods as well as the links between access to traditional foods and current 

treaties, policies, and federal responsibilities (Lynn et al. 2013: 553): 
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Tribes view climate change adaptation in light of their reciprocal relations to care for and respect the natural resources... . As a result of these 

relationships of reciprocity and responsibility between tribe and nature 

and existing policies, Indian tribes’ vulnerability to climate change, and 

the adaptation strategies they adopt are multifaceted and deeply rooted in 

complex historical context. 

Formal and informal institutions, policies, and regulation hinder many adaptation practices that could be mitigated with co-management practices (Kofinas et 

al. 2010). Federally recognized tribes have the authority to implement adaptation 

strategies and influence the climate-change policies of other governments. Tribal 

engagement in local, regional, and national adaptation planning related to traditional foods can help tribal and nontribal resource managers respond to the threats 

of climate change (Lynn et al. 2013). 

Availability and access—

Climate variation destabilizes food security by affecting the availability of, and 

access to, traditional foods, their potential contamination, their storage, and peoples’ 

confidence in their safety (Brubaker et al. 2015). In Alaska, thinning sea ice and a 

shorter ice season make travel to traditional subsistence hunting grounds more dangerous and costly (Brubaker et al. 2015). For example, Ford et al. (2013) used realtime observations, community-based monitoring, and mixed methods to explore 

how Inuit harvesters in Iqaluit, Nunavut, experience climate change. Researchers 

found that sea ice is rapidly changing, affecting trail conditions, safety, and access 

to harvesting areas. Although previous research suggested that Inuit communities 

are highly adaptive to climate change, Ford et al. (2013) argued that sociospatial 

reorganization has reduced the flexibility of harvesting activities, making climate 

change a more serious threat to the harvesting sector than previously assumed. 

As climate change causes wide-scale ecosystem change, the homelands and 

ranges of culturally important species are beginning to shift, with some species 

becoming rare or absent from tribal territories and reserved lands (Lynn et al. 2013, 

Montag et al. 2014). For some tribes, climate change is affecting regional to local 

terrestrial and freshwater habitat quality; in response, tribally valued wildlife and 

fish subsistence and ceremonial use species are becoming more variable in their 

“predictable” timing and habitat occurrence based on former traditional knowledge. Changing demographics and abundance of valued wildlife and fish species 

decrease harvesting success rates, and increase travel and search times for hunters and fishers. For example, as drought affects forest-based food resources (e.g., 

berries, nuts, and seeds) both indigenous people and wildlife experience greater 

competition for, or a reduction in the amount of food resource that can be harvested 
39

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

at a given location or time (Cordalis and Suagee 2008). Similarly, anadromous fish 

in the ocean (e.g., salmon) are entering river systems and migrating up watersheds 

in fewer numbers owing to reduced high-elevation snowpack and subsequent lower 

creek and river flows, coupled with warmer water temperatures (Bernton 2015, 

Houston 2015, Krakoff 2008, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 2015). 

Traditional plants used for food and medicines are becoming increasingly 

difficult to locate and grow (CLTC 2012, Lynn et al. 2013, Maldonado et al. 2013, 

Voggesser et al. 2013). On the Navajo Reservation, the over-allocation of water and 

rising temperatures have caused periods of prolonged drought, making subsistence 

farming difficult (Redsteer et al. in press): 

People have quit farming because there is not enough rain; when corn is 

planted the wind starts blowing and the corn stops growing; people work 

for wages and don’t depend on crops for food; younger generations don’t 

know how to farm; the men who knew the songs for farming are gone; and 

the land is too crowded with people forced to relocate.

Similar drought impacts are affecting other southwest regional Pueblo farmers 

(Norton and Sandor 1997).

A 2008–2011 grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Science to Achieve Results program facilitated a community-based participatory research program to assess the impacts of climate change on the 

traditional medicinal value and availability of indigenous berry resources in 

Alaska. The project brought together university researchers with physicians 

from the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and Alaska Native community members from Akutan, Seldovia, and Point Hope, and integrated 

biological data relevant to wild berry bioactive properties with community 

perceptions of how climate change may affect berry habitat. This communitybased participatory research was based on the priorities and needs of indigenous communities (McOliver et al. 2015). 

Ocean acidification corrodes the calcium-carbonate shells of shellfish, disrupting their shell formation. Shellfish play a pivotal role in the marine food 

chain and their loss threatens the subsistence practices of communities that 

rely on marine protein (Lynn et al. 2013). There are also issues of new shellfish paralytic shellfish poisoning, a potentially fatal neuroparalytic condition, 

that occurs in southeast Alaska and the Aleutian Islands, where warmer water 

is resulting in more extensive outbreaks of toxic algae (Castrodale 2015).
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Contamination— 

Climate change and warmer water temperatures may facilitate the conversion of 

inorganic mercury to methylmercury (Booth and Zeller 2005). Methylmercury 

is a highly toxic substance that bioaccumulates and biomagnifies in organisms. 

This means that it accumulates more quickly than it is eliminated and increases in 

concentration as it travels up the food chain (Erwin and Munn 1997). Tribal members often consume larger amounts of fish and shellfish than the general population, 

increasing their exposure to methylmercury contamination (Cozzetto et al. 2013a, 

2013b). Warmer water temperatures also increase people’s susceptibility to consume 

marine life with diseases, poisons, and parasites (Cozzetto et al. 2013a). 

Climate change may also exacerbate existing environmental pollution. For 

example, tribes in coastal Louisiana experience air, soil, and drinking water contamination resulting from associated industry, chemical dispersants, oil spills, and 

oil seepage. This contamination has forced dietary changes (CLTC 2012, Maldonado et al. 2013). This experience is described in Stories of Change, a Workshop 

Report incorporated in the National Climate Assessment (CLTC 2012: 14):

Tribes in the Pacific Northwest are working to mitigate the impact of 

ocean acidification on culturally important salmon and other aquatic species. 

The Tulalip Tribe is attempting to mitigate negative impacts by restoring 

native marine vegetation such as seaweed, kelp, and eelgrass to coastal 

beaches. This marine vegetation provides shelter and foraging areas to marine 

species and creates microhabitats of lower pH that can give marine species a 

healthy start, preparing them for difficult struggles later in life. Additionally, 

restoring marine vegetation can help reduce shoreline erosion that threatens 

reservation lands. Preston Hardison (quoted in Wall 2013) stated that: 

The tribes are fixed by treaty, by their ancestors, and by their relationships to the land. They can’t move. If species move away from tribal 

territories, they’re lost to the tribe. This is why we have to act quickly 

to restore the health of the ecosystems, to keep as many species at 

home as possible in the face of this major event of climate change. 

We’re also concerned about “tipping points” of thresholds. If the 

ecosystem is stressed beyond normal parameters, it can collapse. 

Climate change, 

warmer water 

temperatures, 

ocean acidification, 

and environmental 

pollution are forcing 

dietary changes away 

from fish and shellfish.
41

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Our seafood is gone. Pigs, hogs, cattle, deer, marsh hens, ducks, rabbits, 

and horses in our backyard are all gone. The gardens that once flourished 

behind our houses are no longer there. The trees where we wandered and 

got lost in are no longer there. The muskrats we trapped for food and 

income and spent hours upon hours skinning together in shared company 

are no longer there. The land is no longer there. Now it is open water.

For the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, algal blooms from the dinoflagellate 

Alexandrium Cantenella are increasing the likelihood of paralytic shellfish 

poisoning. Although Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe’s rights to manage their 

ancestral shellfish beds are not currently recognized by the federal government or Washington state, they have pursued a variety of resilience strategies, including taking a leadership role in initiating public alert systems and 

establishing partnerships. Their tribal adaptation plan discusses strategies to 

reduce the risk of exposure to shellfish biotoxins by enhancing beach alert 

systems, monitoring programs, and coordination with county and state public 

health officers (Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe 2013).

Storage— 

The preservation and storage of traditional foods is climate sensitive and vulnerable 

to climate variation (Brubaker et al. 2009, 2015). In Point Hope, Alaska, sigl uaq—

traditional Inupiaq food storage cellars—are thawing and flooding, causing whale 

meat to spoil and increasing the risks of food-related illness (Brubaker et al. 2009). 

More frequent wet conditions are affecting the preservation of harvests in the Bering Strait region, often leaving only two good weeks of drying weather before rain 

(Brubaker et al. 2015).

Confidence—

Climate change and the fear of contamination are also affecting the confidence 

American Indian and Alaska Native communities have in their traditional foods 

(Cochran et al. 2013: 560). Participants at the Louisiana Workshop (2012) expressed 

frustration that they could no longer be certain what they were putting into their 

bodies. Residents of Stebbins, Alaska, expressed concern about food safety and 

sanitation after a sewage lagoon flooded onto important harvesting areas (Brubaker 

et al. 2015). 
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Impact to on and off reservation resources—

Climate change is altering the distribution of plant, animal, and aquatic species 

(Lynn et al. 2013, Voggesser et al. 2013). Treaty-protected hunting, gathering, and 

fishing rights are tied to reservations or usual and accustomed places. As species 

shift and populations change, their quantity, distribution, and timing may no longer 

be consistent with traditional tribal access. Although the literature discusses the 

potential for species shift and related impacts to treaty rights, it contains few references to cases or examples used to substantiate these impacts. As a central concern 

for tribal sovereignty, there is a need for formal efforts that measure and document 

changes in species distribution. 

Water Resources 

Climate-change impacts on water resources are discussed extensively in the literature. Projected impacts include decreased precipitation and increased drought in 

the South; increased precipitation, decrease in snowpack, and earlier snowmelt in 

the North; increased atmospheric potential for evapotranspiration; increased water 

temperatures in some rivers; decreased water quality owing to lower and more 

persistent low flows during drought and higher flows during floods; and increased 

demand for water (Georgakakos et al. 2014). Although these impacts will be experienced across the country, their impact on tribal communities may be more severe 

(Hanna 2007).

Water resources are important for tribal sustenance, economy, culture, and 

lifeways. For many indigenous communities, water has religious and cultural 

significance and is considered to be sacred (Cozzetto et al. 2013a, Krakoff 2008, 

TWWG 2012). Water is central to tribal economies, supporting agriculture, energy 

production, fisheries, forests, aquaculture, recreation, grazing, ceremony, and communities. Water is also central to tribal culture, providing habitat for native species 

that are important for food, medicines, and rituals (Royster 2012). Cozzetto et al. 

(2013a) identify five aspects of American Indian and Alaska Native water resources 

affected by climate change: 

1. Tribal sovereignty and water rights. 

2. Water supply and management.

3. Culturally important species.

4. Ranching and agriculture.

5. Soil quality. 

We use the framework below to examine how climate change is currently challenging tribal water resources and is projected to continue doing so.
43

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Tribal sovereignty and water rights— 

Water rights are closely related to tribal vulnerability and adaptive capacity (Redsteer et al. 2013a). The legal basis for tribal water rights comes from the federal 

reserved rights doctrine that holds that tribal nations have reserved rights to lands 

and resources in treaties they signed with the federal government. In 1908, the Winters v. U.S. decision by the Supreme Court [207 US 564 (1908)] held that the treaties 

that created reservations implicitly reserved the water rights necessary to fulfill the 

current and future needs of the tribe and to fulfill the purposes of the reservations. 

This quantity includes water for agriculture, domestic livestock, recreation, cultural 

uses, and, in some cases, in-stream flows (Cozzetto et al. 2013a, Redsteer et al. 

2013a) (see also Mondou 1998). The 1963 Supreme Court case Arizona v. California 

determined that water rights for reservations would be determined based on “practicably irrigable acres” (PIA). There are difficulties in how PIAs are quantified, 

including differences in the amount of tillable land from reservation to reservation, 

and quantifying water rights based on amount of tribal land rather than population 

(Goodman 2000, Redsteer et al. 2013a). 

There are some barriers in federal law and policy that limit tribal adaptation 

and self-determination in relation to water resources (Royster 2012). States do 

not have the same legal responsibility to protect tribal water rights. Hanna (2007) 

discussed the McCarran Amendment, which gave state courts the right to determine and divide water rights, causing inconsistencies based on political sentiment, 

strength of legal representation, and state budget allocations. Other federal barriers include variability in (1) the measure used to quantify tribal water rights; 

(2) sources of water subject to water rights; (3) the use of tribal water rights, and 

restrictions to that use; (4) promulgated water codes and uses; and (5) water marketing (Royster 2012). Wilson (2014) explained that distinctions between Western and 

indigenous hydrosocial relations affect different approaches to water governance. 

Although both exist simultaneously within the same political space, the Western 

perspective is privileged, leaving the indigenous perspective unacknowledged and 

unprotected in water law and policy. 

In 2010, only 10 percent of tribes had water rights recognized by the United 

States or were in the process of adjudicating them (TWWG 2012). As climate 

change continues to affect the availability and quality of water resources, tribal 

water rights become increasingly important. According to Cozzetto et al. (2013a: 7): 

Climate change impacts on water quantity, quality, and timing add to legal 

and planning complexities and compound concern that Indian water rights 

may be sacrificed under climate change resulting in unmet present and 

future human and environmental water demands. 
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Tribes are asserting their inherent water rights and sovereignty using strategies 

such as litigation to gain legal recognition of tribal water rights, as well as alternative strategies that do not rely on federal adjudication. Wilson (2014) described 

how grassroots and intertribal organizations, such as the Yukon River Inter-Tribal 

Watershed Council (YRITWC), allow indigenous peoples to assert water governance beyond their own territories. 

The work of the YRITWC and other similar organizations can contribute 

to the assertion of sovereignty by individual Alaska Native tribes and 

First Nations and facilitate the formulation of collective responses at the 

watershed scale to mitigate or adapt to alterations in water quality, quantity 

and rate of flow. Furthermore, the YRITWC’s work with Alaska Native 

Tribes and First Nations in the Yukon River Basin can be understood as an 

example of Indigenous water governance that seeks to assert Indigenous 

sovereignty and inherent water rights through strategies that are not necessarily dependent on legal recognition (Wilson 2014: 8).

Water supply and management— 

According to the Tribal Water Working Group (TWWG 2012), one of the most 

serious threats of climate change is the complication of water resource management. Tribal access to and management of water resources are based on water 

availability, geography, governance, treaty rights, recognition, and resources. 

Some tribes struggle with access to clean water, the power to address water quality 

issues, and the financial resources to regulate water issues, while others struggle 

with limited supply, pollution, and tribal authority (TWWG 2012). As a result of 

competing water uses and over-allocation of water resources in the Yakama River 

Basin, resource managers for the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama 

Nation are unable to meet current or future demand, or to prepare for potential 

climate impacts (Montag et al. 2014). This results in devastating consequences for 

first foods like salmon, directly affecting Yakama culture and tribal well-being 

(Montag et al. 2014). 

The problems associated with the management of water quality occur both on 

and off reservations. As a result of federal Indian policies like the Dawes Act of 

1887, or the General Allotment Act, not all the land within reservation boundaries is owned by tribal members. The resulting mixed ownership creates conflict 

between tribal, state, county, and federal governing entities as they claim authority 

to regulate use and quality standards, or as they “challenge other’s ability to do 

so” (TWWG 2012). Challenges to tribal authority and sovereignty can prevent the 

implementation of water quality standards or attempts at regulation. Although 

tribes are affected by off-reservation pollution and water use, their voices are often 

One of the most 

serious threats of 

climate change is the 

complication of water 

resource management.
45

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

marginalized in water resource management discussions (Cozzetto et al. 2013a). For 

example, in the Southwest, the Navajo Nation has senior water rights to the lower 

basin of the Colorado River, but has difficulty settling claims with surrounding 

neighboring states that rely on these waters for state users (Nania et al. 2014). 

The Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council, an intertribal organization 

consisting of 73 First Nations and Alaska Tribes, is responding to climate 

change threats in the Yukon River Basin through a practice of “traditional 

science” that combines traditional and scientific knowledges in a number of 

environmental programs and projects to respond to climate threats. These 

actions include the development and implementation of a Watershed Plan and 

development of water community-specific water strategies (Wilson 2014). 

Culturally important species—

Culturally important aquatic species are essential for subsistence, cultural, and 

economic well-being of indigenous communities (Cozzetto et al. 2013a). Many 

of these species have already been negatively affected by land and resource 

management practices, habitat destruction, overfishing, hydroelectric dams, 

invasive species encroachment, and habitat degradation (Dittmer 2013). In the 

Pacific Northwest, culturally important salmon populations have been in decline 

for 150 years (Dittmer 2013). Climate impacts on fisheries are already intensifying 

population decline (Cozzetto 2013a, 2013b; Dittmer 2013; Grah and Beaulieu 

2013). For example, the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community documented a 

95-percent reduction of Chinook salmon in the Salish Sea since 1995 (SITC 2010). 

Another example of the cultural importance of salmon is offered by Montag et al. 

(2014), who described how salmon contribute to the five interconnected elements 

of Yakama tribal well-being, including first foods, family/individual well-being, 

tribal community well-being, ceremonies/celebrations/art, traditional-knowledge 

transmission, and the continuation of the Sahaptin language. 

Rising average temperatures are increasing the temperatures of ocean and 

freshwater resources. Although some warmwater species will likely thrive in 

warmer conditions, coldwater fish, like trout and salmon that require cold water 

at various lifecycle stages, may decline (Jenni et al. 2014). The Fond du Lac Band 

of Lake Superior Chippewa (Minnesota) have experienced declines in trout and 

changes in fish populations, with new species taking over. In marine waters, 

changes in ocean temperature and acidity are also affecting culturally important 

fish and shellfish populations (Bennett et al. 2014a, Dalton et al. 2013), and Alaska 

is experiencing a northward shift in fish populations (Cochran et al. 2013). 
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

The increasing frequency and severity of storms is causing flooding, habitat 

scouring, and the washing away of buried salmon eggs (Cozzetto et al. 2013a) and 

intertidal shellfish (Parker et al. 2006). The numbers of invasive species and nongame fish that can increase predation pressure will likely increase as temperature 

rises (Jenni et al. 2014). 

In the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, three stages of the salmonids lifecycle 

occur in freshwater: spawning, incubation, and rearing. These freshwater stages 

depend on appropriate habitat (water depth and flow rate), food availability, and 

water temperature, all of which are or may be affected by climate change (Jenni 

et al. 2014). Declining fish health and populations threaten the requirement to 

conform to treaty rights and court decisions that dictate tribal share of harvestable 

fish populations. For example, the Boldt decision grants Columbia River tribes the 

right to 50 percent of harvestable fish runs (384 F. Supp 312 (1974). Fishing rights 

are threatened as warmer water temperatures, pollution, and development practices 

cause the supply and health of the salmon population to decline (Krakoff 2008, 

Montag et al. 2014).

In Nevada, the Pyramid Lake Paiute rely on two culturally important aquatic 

species, the Lahontan cutthroat and the cui-ui sucker fish (Gautam et al. 2013). 

The over-allocation of water resources to irrigation and energy caused lake 

levels to fall by 80 feet, and these populations to plummet. However, after 

passage of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, the tribe asserted water rights, 

created environmental management plans, and partnered with government 

agencies and university researchers. Since then, the cutthroat has been revived 

and the cui-ui, while still endangered, is recovering (Fisher 2014). 

Ranching and agriculture— 

Drought and changes in water availability are affecting ranching and agricultural 

practices. Climate change is projected to increase the frequency and duration of 

extreme weather events, like floods and drought (IPCC 2014, NCA 2014) with 

significant repercussions for ranching and agriculture (Hatfield et al. 2014). As 

temperatures increase, so will the necessity for agricultural irrigation, increasing 

production costs and the stress on water resources. In the Four Corners Region 

(southwestern Colorado, southeastern Utah, northeastern Arizona, and northwestern New Mexico), drought impacts have been worsened by increasing evapotranspiration rates, reduced soil moisture, and intensified stress on vegetation and local 

water sources (Ferguson et al. 2011, Redsteer et al. in press). 
47

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Many southwestern tribes depend on livestock as a significant part of their 

economy and have limited alternative livelihoods (Redsteer et al. 2013a, 2013b). 

For example, for the Navajo Nation, stock raising is an important aspect of traditional culture, and many families rely on livestock, specifically cattle, as a source 

of economic and food security (Redsteer et al. 2013b). Climate-related impacts to 

rangelands and livestock include drought, flooding, and dust storms. Drought and 

increased evaporation can leave ranchers without the water and crops necessary 

to feed livestock. For example, on the Navajo Reservation, the small stock ponds 

available for livestock often dry up during droughts and summer months (Nania et 

al. 2014), forcing residents to haul water for sheep and cattle (Ferguson et al. 2011). 

In Oklahoma, the 2010–2011 drought left farmers without the hay necessary to feed 

livestock, forcing many farmers to sell their livestock (Riley et al. 2012). For tribes 

in the Four Corners Region, drought has led to a rapid decline in both the carrying 

capacity of rangeland and range conditions, forcing ranchers to reduce the numbers of livestock (Ferguson et al. 2011). In the period 2001–2002, Navajo officials 

reported the death of 30,000 cattle (Redsteer et al. in press). 

Soil quality— 

Climate change is contributing to coastal and riverine erosion and drought-related 

land degradation (Cozzetto et al. 2013a). High tides and storms along Washington’s 

Hoh River washed away some lands of the Hoh Indian Tribe, ultimately leading to 

their relocation (ITEP 2012). In Alaska, thawing permafrost, which contains carbon 

in the form of frozen organic matter, is raising concerns about changing ground 

cover and the release of carbon into the atmosphere (Schaefer et al. 2012). 

In the Southwest, prolonged periods of drought are making sand dunes more 

active, leading to their widescale movement on the Navajo and Hopi Reservations. 

Dunes are susceptible to changes in temperature, precipitation, wind speed, and 

circulation patterns. Although vegetation can protect dunes from wind erosion, 

because of drought conditions there is not enough moisture to support plant life. 

Flooding can also contribute to the creation of new dune fields because of the sand 

provided by temporary drainages that flow during floods. It is likely that projected 

warmer and dryer conditions will mobilize sand dunes that are currently stabilized 

by vegetation. This process is difficult to reverse because vegetation would need to 

establish itself on a moving landform. There are very few plants that can survive 

sand burial or sand abrasion, and sand dunes are contributing to a loss of rare and 

endangered native plants and grazing lands (Redsteer et al. 2011a, 2011b, 2013a).

There is very little available in the literature regarding the indigenous knowledge 

of soil-based resources being affected by climate change. Traditional knowledge 
48

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

about soils or geology, ethnopedology, can begin as a starting point (Barrera-Bassols 

et al. 2006). There are complex relationships among soils, vegetation and fungi, 

and the atmosphere that climate science is addressing, but little research has been 

conducted on tribal knowledge of these effects (Powlson 2005, Rustad et al. 2000).

Terrestrial Ecosystems

Forests are a central cultural and economic resource for many American Indians 

and Alaska Natives. There are 18 million ac of forest on federal trust lands, with 

5.7 million ac designated for commercial forestry (NCAI 2015). Climate change is 

associated with increasing forest disturbances such as insect and pathogen outbreaks, invasive species, wildfire, and extreme events such as droughts, high winds, 

ice storms, hurricanes, and landslides induced by storms. Because of their close 

relationship to, and dependence on, forest ecosystems and landscapes, tribes are 

often the first to witness, understand, and experience the impacts of climate change 

on forests and woodlands (Parrotta and Agnoletti 2012). 

Invasive species— 

Climate change is likely to exacerbate the effects that invasive species have on forest resources (Dukes et al. 2009). Invasive species decrease the quality and quantity 

of forest resources and result in forest mortality. They directly affect subsistence 

and ceremonial practices by displacing native species (Voggesser et al. 2013). There 

is little literature that discusses how climate change will exacerbate invasive species 

and even less that explores how invasive species, coupled with climate change, 

will affect tribal forest resources. Although tribes and researchers are beginning to 

document the impacts of invasive species on forest ecosystems (Ranco et al. 2012, 

SITC 2010, Voggesser et al. 2013), this area requires future research. 

The Navajo Climate Change Adaptation plan includes adaptation strategies 

for range resources and farming (Nania et al. 2014). As a sovereign nation, 

the Navajo Nation has the power to manage tribal rangelands and adopt and 

enforce their own adaptation efforts. Some of these adaptation strategies 

include improvements in range management, range restoration and reseeding, 

adjusting feed patterns for livestock, selecting breeds that adapt to warmer 

climates, improvements in water reliability, disease prevention and monitoring, and providing additional support for ranchers. Potential adaptation strategies for farming include water management and soil-erosion management 

techniques (Nania et al. 2014). 

Climate change 

exacerbates effects 

of invasive species, 

decreaseing the 

quality and quantity 

of forest resources 

and increasing 

forest mortality.
49

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Insects and pests—

In the Midwest and East, emerald ash borer (EAB) infestations are having devastating impacts on ash tree populations and indigenous cultural and economic traditions (Voggesser et al. 2013). The black ash is a “cultural keystone species” for the 

Wabanaki people of Maine and the Maritimes. Voggesser et al. (2013: 6–7) [relying 

on Garibaldi and Turner (2004)], explained:

Something is deemed a cultural keystone species by: the intensity and multiplicity of use, naming and terminology in a language, role in narratives 

or ceremonies, persistence and memory of use, level of unique position 

in culture, and the extent to which it provides opportunities for resource 

acquisition beyond the territory.

The black ash has cultural, social, and economic importance. It is referenced in the 

Wabanaki origin stories and used in traditional basketweaving (Voggesser et al. 2013). 

Longer growing seasons and warmer winters may increase the damage done 

by invasive pests and insects. In some cases, warming may allow pests and insects 

to survive year-round, increasing damage to forest health (Joyce et al. 2014). For 

example, the Swinomish Indian Reservation has experienced increased mountain 

pine beetle (MPB) outbreaks (SITC 2010) as rising temperatures now allow the 

MPB to live year-round and survive at higher elevations (ICTMN 2015). In 2013, 

the MPB was responsible for more than 35 percent of forest mortality nationwide 

(Jenkins 2015).

Pathogens and diseases—

Climate change may also affect forest heath by changing the trajectories of pathogen outbreaks. The pathogen that causes the tree disease “sudden oak death,” 

Phytophthora ramorum, is sensitive to changes in humidity and temperature. In 

coastal California, temperature change and increasing fire frequency have led to 

increases in the tree disease. Many California tribes, including the Yurok, Paiute, 

Miwok, and Western Mono, rely on oaks and acorns as a source of traditional food 

stables, traditional medicines, and dyes (Anderson 2005, Redsteer et al. 2013a). 

In the Pacific Northwest, the distribution of Swiss needle cast (SNC), a foliage 

disease specific to Douglas-fir, may move farther north and inland. Swiss needle 

cast reduces forest growth by 20 to 50 percent and threatens the forest resources of 

the Quinault Indian Nation, which is heavily dependent on forests and timber. The 

208,000 ac of forest on the Quinault Indian Reservation is located within the SNC 

infection zone, with about 5 percent of the forest already infected (NFWPCA 2014). 

Invasive pathogens are expected to continue spreading, and may be worsened by 

climate change, affecting native forested ecosystems from which many tribes rely 

for subsistence and economic livelihoods (Voggesser et al. 2013).
50

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

In Maine, Wabanaki black ash harvesters and basketmakers are working with 

university researchers, federal foresters, and others to prevent, detect and 

respond to the emerald ash borer. These blended-knowledge approaches have 

resulted in seed collection, mapping ash resources, creating policy guidelines, 

and public education and stakeholder engagement (Ranco et al. 2012).

Wildfires—

Drought can compromise the health of forest ecosystems by making trees more 

vulnerable to pests, invasive species, and pathogens (Joyce et al. 2014). Trees that 

are drier because of death or illness are increasingly vulnerable to fire and burn at 

higher temperatures (Joyce et al. 2014). Higher severity and more extensive fires 

increase flood susceptibility and change properties of soil, permanently altering 

the landscape. Longer wildfire seasons and increased wildfire risks threaten tribal 

food and resources (e.g., the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community; the Fond du 

Lac Band of Lake Superior, Chippewa, Minnesota; and coastal Louisiana tribes). 

For example, a fire destroyed 94 percent of the La Jolla reservation, including oak 

forests (Redsteer et al. 2013a).

In addition to climate change, terrestrial ecosystems have been affected by 

interruption and prevention of traditional management practices. For many indigenous communities, fire and ceremony are used in the traditional management of 

fisheries and forests. For example, three-fourths of the Karuk Tribe’s traditional 

food sources and culturally important species are enhanced by fire (Norgaard 

2014). Throughout the 20th century, U.S. policy was aimed at minimizing wildfires 

through wildfire suppression and exclusion. This policy caused radical landscape 

changes, including changes in the availability of culturally important plants and 

animals. Norgaard (2014: 76) explored the social impacts of wildfire exclusion on 

the Karuk:

From a Karuk perspective, the exclusion of fire from the landscape 

creates a situation of denied access to traditional foods and spiritual 

practices, puts cultural identity at risk and infringes upon political sovereignty. On a more individual level, the altered forest conditions create 

social strain for the individuals who hold the responsibilities to tend to 

specific places and to provide food to the community for subsistence as 

well as ceremonial purposes.
51

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

The ecological, economic, social, political, and psychological consequences of 

wildfire exclusion are interconnected and must be understood together. Norgaard 

(2014: 79) demonstrated this with the words of Karuk cultural biologist, dipnet 

fisherman, and spiritual leader Ron Reed:

Without fire, the landscape changes dramatically. And in that process the 

traditional foods that we need for a sustainable lifestyle become unavailable 

after a certain point. So what that does to the tribal community, the reason 

we are going back to that landscape is no longer there. So the spiritual 

connection to the landscape is altered significantly. When there is no food, 

when there is no food for regalia species, that we depend upon for food 

and fiber, when they aren’t around because there is no food for them, then 

there is no reason to go there. When we don’t go back to places that we are 

used to, accustomed to, part of our lifestyle is curtailed dramatically. So 

you have health consequences. Your mental aspect of life is severed from 

the spiritual relationship with the earth, with the Great Creator. So we’re 

not getting the nutrition that we need, we’re not getting the exercise that we 

need, and we’re not replenishing the spiritual balance that creates harmony 

and diversity throughout the landscape. 

Chapin et al. (2008) explored the impacts of fire suppression, fire ignition, and 

climate change on fire regimes in interior Alaska, a region that has experienced a 

dramatic increase in the number, acreage burned and severity of wildfires since the 

1960s. Their findings demonstrate that the greatest wildfire risk is associated with 

areas in which wildfire suppression has occurred. Chapin et al. (2008) argued that 

reintroduction of fire as a land management strategy is the best way to minimize the 

destruction from fires. In Alaska and other U.S. regions, tribal culture and dependency on fire-influenced forest conditions can differ (Huntington et al. 2005). As 

North American fire regimes change in response to climate, some tribes or indigenous communities may be affected or respond in different ways (Natcher et al. 

2007, Norgaard 2014, Rasmussen et al. 2007).

As the benefits of traditional practices become increasingly valued in forest 

and resource management practices, tribes like the Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Tribes are including the use of fire in their climate adaptation plans 

to minimize the risk of wildfires on tribal resources (CSKT 2013). 
52

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Tribal Economies 

Climate change results in additional financial burdens for many tribes that are 

experiencing climate-related events such as severe weather, flooding, and sea-level 

rise (Bennett et al 2014a). According to Huntington et al. (2012), individuals and 

households experience the burden of economic consequence resulting from 

climate change. 

The balance of economic costs will be borne by individuals and households in the form, for example, of higher prices for food and water, higher 

prices for or non-availability of insurance, the purchase of defensive 

technologies like air conditioners, or in extreme cases, household migration decisions, and potentially, the abandonment of towns or regions 

(Huntington et al. 2012: 67).

As noted earlier, 184 of 213 Alaska Native villages face the risk of coastal and 

riverbank erosion and flooding (Huntington et al. 2012). In 2006, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers projected costs of more than $200 million to protect shorelines 

from erosion in the Alaska Native communities of Bethel, Dillingham, Kaktovik, 

Kivalina, Newtok, Shishmaref, and Unalakleet. The estimated cost of relocating 

these communities ranged from $20 to $40 million (for Kaktovik) to $100 to $200 

million (for Shishmaref) and totaled nearly $500 million (USACE 2006). It is 

unlikely that the state or federal governments will pay for these relocations (Huntington et al. 2012). 

For coastal tribes, sea-level rise, tidal surges, and flooding can damage community infrastructure (Brubaker et al. 2010, SITC 2010). According to the Swinomish climate-change impact assessment (SITC 2009), about 160 residential and 18 

nonresidential or community structures on reservation lands, valued at $102 million, are at risk. In Point Hope, Alaska, the estimate for repair and improvement of 

a flood-damaged road is $2 million (Brubaker et al. 2010). Indigenous communities 

in coastal Louisiana face the threat of displacement owing to the combined impacts 

of sea-level rise and environmental changes and contamination associated with the 

oil and gas industry (Maldonado et al. 2013). 

On the Swinomish Indian Reservation, increasing wildfire risk now threatens 

properties valued at more than $518 million (SITC 2009). Many other tribes in the 

Pacific Northwest and other regions of the United States are increasingly vulnerable 

to the threats and stressors of the direct and indirect impacts of wildfire (Lynn 2005).

Climate change is also associated with higher costs of living, including fuel 

costs, and increases the risk associated with engaging in subsistence practices 

(Callaway et al. 1999, Cochran et al. 2013). In Alaska, hunters must travel farther, 

incurring higher fuel and maintenance costs. To lower the risk would require the 
53

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

purchase of larger boats with larger engines. For example, in the Bering Strait 

region, decreasing access to fish and marine mammals, coupled with declining 

income and increasing human population, is making it more difficult for residents 

to make ends meet. Declining employment, associated wages, high consumer 

prices, and a lack of public assistance make it difficult for residents to buy food. The 

rising cost of subsistence activities is also changing the social context of indigenous 

communities and resulting in a decline in traditional hunting and fishing knowledge. This is causing a “total environment of change,” in which “environmental 

changes and broader socioeconomic challenges are jointly shifting and remaking 

human-environment relationships” (Moerlein and Carothers 2012: 7). 

For coastal Louisiana tribal communities, climate change, government regulation, and colonial legacies are resulting in higher economic costs for, and loss of, 

subsistence activities. 

Additionally, we are dealing with the increased cost of diesel for the boats 

combined with the decrease[d] price of the products we catch, such as 

shrimp. Furthermore, with the lack of freshwater, we have to travel further 

to our oyster beds, meaning even more diesel used and higher costs. As 

Maxie Machado of Grand Bayou Village explained, with the lost value of 

shrimping and changes faced, about 80 percent of the people from our community have had to leave to find work elsewhere. Young adults are moving 

away because the income used to sustain their families is no longer there 

(CLTC 2012: 15). 

The harvest of traditional foods is vital for many tribal economies (Callaway et 

al. 1999, Cozzetto et al. 2013a, Himes-Cornell and Kasperki 2015, Lynn et al. 2013, 

Whyte in press), thus the climate-induced disappearance, contamination, or disease 

of culturally important species can have economic impacts. For example, warmer 

waters in the Northeast have contributed to the bacterial “lobster shell disease” 

that leaves grotesque scars on lobster shells, making their sale less lucrative for the 

Pleasant Point Passamaquoddy (Cozzetto et al. 2014b).

For tribes in the Pacific Northwest, salmon fishing is a vital economic activity (Dalton et al. 2013, Dittmer et al. 2013, Grah and Beaulieu 2013, Montag et al. 

2014). Salmon populations are being affected by changes in snowpack, precipitation, runoff, and rising water temperatures, threatening tribal fisheries and economies (Dalton et. al 2013, McNutt 2010). 

Tribal economies are also affected by reductions in tourism, a weatherdependent activity that is vulnerable to poor and unpredictable weather conditions 

(Grossman et al. 2012). Tourism is a crucial economic activity for many tribes. Heat 

and drought are affecting the water quality and quantity of recreational lakes in 

Climate-induced 

impacts to culturally 

important traditional 

foods have economic, 

social, and cultural 

impacts.
54

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Oklahoma (Riley et al. 2012). In Arizona, severe flooding of Havasu Canyon wiped 

out the economic infrastructure on the Havasupai Reservation, forcing the Tribe 

to shut down its tourism business (Redsteer et al. 2013a). Impacts to tourism are 

perhaps most severe for indigenous peoples of Pacific Islands, who gain much of 

their income from tourism (Grossman and Parker 2012). 

Community Infrastructure 

Community infrastructure includes roads, utilities, housing, water lines, and public 

services such as police, fire departments, and medical care, and it supports various 

community sectors such as health, education, housing, and business. Community 

infrastructure is vulnerable to landscape hazards, including permafrost thawing, coastal erosion, and, flooding (Ford et al. 2010, Willox et al. 2015). Climate 

impacts can have compounding consequences, and disruptions in one sector of 

community infrastructure may cascade into others. This means that, when analyzed together, impacts on community infrastructure are greater than when they 

are examined independently. 

Indigenous communities have differing access to community infrastructure. 

On many tribal lands, poor economic conditions lead to infrastructure that is 

inadequate, unmaintained, or altogether absent. Many tribes struggle to provide 

adequate housing, water, and sanitation services, health services, roads, electricity, and access to healthy foods, both on and off-reservation. According to the 

Indian Health Service (2013), 12 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native 

homes are without either a safe and adequate water supply or wastewater disposal. 

On the Navajo Reservation, 30 percent of residents do not have access to running water and must haul drinking water from springs (Nania et al. 2014). Many 

rural Alaska communities lack in-home water service, which has been linked to 

increased rates of respiratory and gastrointestinal tract infections, influenza, and 

pneumonia (Hennessy et al. 2008). Any climate-related disruption or damage to 

community infrastructure occurs within these existing inequalities, increasing 

both the vulnerability of existing infrastructure, and the community resources 

available for recovery.

Water infrastructure and services—

Water infrastructure refers to the physical structures that access, use, and manage 

water resources. Water infrastructure is designed for specific conditions and may 

be unable to accommodate changing climate and hydrologic regimes (Cozzetto et 

al. 2013b). Climate-induced damage or disruption to water infrastructure can have 

serious impacts on public health, including the contamination of drinking water, 

saltwater intrusion, and sewage contamination (Doyle et al. 2013). The lack of 
55

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

in-home water systems is associated with gastrointestinal infections, pneumonia, 

skin infections (Hennessy 2008), and lower respiratory tract infections (Gessner 

2008). Climate change is projected to increase flooding events (Georgakakos et al. 

2014), which can disrupt water services (Cozzetto et al. 2013a, Doyle et al. 2013). 

On the Crow Indian Reservation in Montana, flooding in 2011 caused water from a 

wastewater lagoon to overflow into the Little Bighorn River, inundating homes and 

businesses downstream (Doyle et al. 2013). In the Pacific Islands, flooding, sea-level 

rise, and severe weather can disrupt water services. For example, in 2010, severe 

storms on the island of O’ahu in Hawai’i caused multiple severe overflows and pipe 

breakages (Finucane et al. 2012).

Disruption and damage of water infrastructure and the contamination of water 

resources can lead to increases in the cost of water services, which can deplete 

tribal resources (Brubaker et al. 2012). In Point Hope, Alaska, algal booms in lakes 

and reservoirs have caused increases in the cost and time required to treat water 

(Brubaker et al. 2010, Cozzetto et al. 2013a). 

The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe’s Water Resource Program is actively working to protect, preserve, and enhance water availability and quality for tribal 

members in the context of climate change. These actions include the installation of waterline and water-treatment systems, water-quality monitoring, 

water storage, and swimming advisories in public and family swimming areas 

(Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe Environment Division 2013). 

Transportation— 

According to the EPA, climate change “could increase the risk of delays, disruptions, damage, and failure across our land-based, air, and marine transportation 

systems” (USEPA 2013). On the Navajo Reservation, increasing temperatures could 

lead to shorter pavement life for airports, roads, and parking lots, increased stress 

on bridge joints, and delays and increases in the costs of maintenance and construction (Nania et al. 2014, Niemeier et al. 2013). Wildfires and extreme weather events 

decrease visibility, close roadways, and threaten road, rail, and airport infrastructure (Nania et al. 2014, Niemeier et al. 2013). 

For tribes in Alaska, flooding, erosion, and permafrost melting can disrupt 

transportation and threaten critical infrastructure like runways (Brubaker et 

al. 2011c, 2014a, 2015; Cochran et al. 2013). The majority of Alaska Native 

communities are accessible only by plane or boat. Runways are vital for these 

communities, with aircraft transporting supplies, food, people, and, in the case 
56

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

of emergencies, evacuation. Damaged roadways can limit access to traditional 

hunting grounds or food markets (Finucane et al. 2012). Changing conditions 

can also disrupt ice travel routes for hunting and local travel and make rivers 

un-navigable (Stepien et al. 2014).

For the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, Highway 101 in Washington is an essential access route for tribal goods and services that are threatened by sea-level 

rise. To increase transportation resilience, the Jamestown S’Klallam adaptation plan features several strategies, including clearly identified evacuation 

routes, renaturalizing floodplains, creating roadside bioswales, creating home 

emergency kits for tribal members, and strengthening partnerships with the 

Washington Department of Transportation to identify funding to elevate roads 

and bridges susceptible to flooding (Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe 2013).

Communication infrastructure— 

Few studies have focused on the impact of climate change on communication infrastructure (see Nania et al. 2014). However, in a study of the impacts of disasters on 

urban telecommunication infrastructure, Townsend and Moss (2005) noted three 

categories of impacts: (1) direct damage to physical infrastructure of communication network, (2) damage to infrastructure supporting the communication network, 

and (3) congestion or overloading of the communication network during emergency 

situations (Townsend and Moss 2005). The consequences of communication and 

infrastructure damage may be particularly dire for tribal communities that are often 

located in remote areas or with limited financial resources (Brubaker et al. 2015). 

Shelter— 

Housing and other built infrastructure is often the “first line of defense” against 

climate hazards (Nania et al. 2014). Built infrastructure can either enhance the 

adaptive capacity of a community by providing protection from climate impacts, 

or augment community vulnerability by increasing exposure to climate impacts 

(Nania et al. 2014). For example, quality shelter can insulate community members 

from extreme temperatures, flooding, storms, and disease. Climate change threatens built infrastructure in numerous ways from increasing stress on home temperature regulation (Nania et al. 2014) to complete destruction.

Alaska Natives currently experience some of the most devastating climate 

impacts to shelter and other community infrastructures (Brubaker et al. 2014a; 

2015; Willox et al. 2015). Thawing permafrost and erosion along the coast and rivers 

is causing the destruction of roads, buildings, houses, and harvesting settlements 

(Bennett et al. 2014b, Brubaker et al. 2015). The loss of infrastructure is exacerbated 
57

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

by the breakup of sea ice, sea-level rise, and increasingly frequent severe storms 

(Bennett et al. 2014b). Damage to housing and built infrastructure occurs within 

existing infrastructural inadequacies like homelessness and a lack of safe housing.

Energy—

Increasing air and water temperatures, decreasing water availability, extreme 

weather events, sea-level rise, and wildfires all have the potential to disrupt the 

production and distribution of energy. Flooding, extreme heat, and heavy winds 

may compromise energy infrastructure and lead to increased power outages (Nania 

et al. 2014). For example, in 2010, the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation in South 

Dakota experienced a massive power outage caused by severe winds from a winter 

storm (Ortman 2010).

As temperatures rise and heat waves increase in frequency, duration, and 

extent, more energy will be necessary to maintain household living environments 

and food storage in the summer (Nania et al. 2014, Riley et al. 2012, SITC 2009). 

Regionwide increases in energy use may stress systems, especially during heat 

waves, and could result in brownouts or subsystem failures. Many tribes, such as 

the Swinomish, do not have adequate alternative power sources to supply backup 

power to the entire tribal community, increasing the severity of potential outages 

(SITC 2009).

Climate-Related Disasters 

Changing environmental conditions contribute to the increasing frequency and 

severity of climate-related disasters including drought, flooding, hurricanes, 

tornados, heat waves, and downpours. There is increasing evidence that links 

these increases to human-induced climate change (Walsh et al. 2014). American 

Indian, Alaska Native, and other indigenous communities experience different 

vulnerability to climate-related disasters based on variation in regional location, 

cultural practices, and economic and political context. Coastal tribes in Alaska, 

the Pacific Northwest, and the Southeast are experiencing the loss of subsistence 

activities, critical infrastructure, and, in some cases are facing potential evacuation 

and relocation as a result of flooding, erosion, permafrost thawing (in the case of 

Alaska), and increasing impacts from storms, exacerbated by extensive land loss. 

Particularly in coastal Louisiana, these issues result from a combination of extractive practices and changing waterways, interacting with climate-change impacts 

that lead to some of the highest levels of sea-level rise (Laska et al. 2015, Maldonado 2013, Maldonado et al. 2014a). 

Although populations around the globe will experience climate-related 

disasters, disaster vulnerability can be understood as a window into interactions 

between environmental change and existing political and economic inequalities 
58

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

(Brooks et al. 2005). Wisner et al. (2004) suggested that disasters are a result of 

hazards interacting with vulnerability. According to Marino (2015), this model may 

describe present vulnerabilities, but fails to describe the mechanisms that contribute 

to vulnerability over time. 

The risk of experiencing a climate-induced disaster, and its potential severity, 

interact with socially constructed vulnerability, and social, economic, and political 

factors that affect a community’s ability to respond to a climate disaster (Brooks 

et al. 2005). This means that communities with greater access to resources are 

better able to prepare for, and respond to, climate disasters. Although increased 

vulnerability can stem from a lack of community resources, it can also result from 

institutional racism, or “the intentional or unintentional manipulation or toleration 

of institutional policies that unfairly restrict the opportunities of particular groups 

of people” (Henkel et al. 2006: 101). For example, Hurricane Katrina magnified 

and re-created inequalities in New Orleans. Shortly before the hurricane, the city’s 

mayor decided that it was too costly to provide public transportation for storm 

evacuation, leaving residents without vehicles or funds for travel costs and without 

an evacuation plan (Reed 2008). The local government distributed DVDs to residents explaining that, in the case of a storm, they would be responsible for their 

own evacuation, even though a high number of residents did not have access to their 

own transportation. These policies emphasize individual responsibility without 

acknowledging the social, political, and economic structures inhibiting people’s 

access to needed resources. Similarly, shortly after Katrina, wealthier evacuees had 

access to healthcare, clean water, and emergency generators, while evacuees with 

low incomes were housed in substandard trailer camps (Klein 2007, Reed 2008).

Maldonado (2014: 63) described the conceptualization of climate-related disasters from a political ecological perspective.

So-called “natural” disasters highlight preexisting socioeconomic inequalities and reproduce those inequalities as the disaster unfolds. Disaster 

researchers have encouraged a shift from viewing vulnerability to disasters 

as stemming from abnormal events or geophysical situation of a place to 

being explained through the everyday social order and systems of domination and inequality.

Disaster vulnerability often illustrates the unequal power relations between 

groups. In coastal Louisiana, the vulnerability of indigenous communities to land 

loss, erosion, and toxic pollution has resulted largely from extractive practices of 

the oil and gas industry that have caused erosion and loss of land between coastal 

settlements and the Gulf of Mexico. As a result, communities must decide to either 
59

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

stay in place to protect their remaining ancestral homelands, to relocate as individuals, or, for some communities that have been mostly left out of government-led 

restoration efforts and have decided that in-situ adaptation is no longer possible, 

resettle as a community (Peterson and Maldonado 2016). Marino (2012) demonstrated how vulnerability to climate-related disasters and obstacles to relocation 

are connected with legacies of colonization and ongoing colonial oppression by 

using a case study of Shishmaref, Alaska. First, local residents are not included in 

infrastructure planning, resulting in construction locations that are “marginal” and 

“exposed,” providing little protection from the increasing severity of flooding. Second, with imposed sedentarization (the settling of a nomadic population), communities have lost their traditional adaptation strategy of high mobility. Finally, many 

indigenous communities are subject to external political and economic fluctuations 

that exacerbate the impacts of climate change. Decisions regarding allocation of 

funds for community relocation and adaptation occur within governmental institutions detached from tribal communities and without indigenous voices. In 2008, the 

global economic crisis resulted in limited opportunities for Shishmaref relocation 

by dramatically reducing available federal funds (Marino 2012). According to 

Marino (2012: 378): 

The picture that emerges in Shishmaref is one of a long series of government interactions with local residens around development issues that led to 

vulnerability and are now incapable of creating policy, bureaucratic coordination, and funding to relocate residents away from vulnerable locations.

The political response to climate change in the United States, including 

efforts to dismiss climate science, have led to resistance in enacting adaptation, 

including those measures that would support community relocation (Shearer 

2012). As such, climate-vulnerable communities must seek assistance from 

federal agencies with mandates that do not specify climate impacts, including 

FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Many federal programs such as 

FEMA’s are designed to offer emergency relief after disasters have occurred, but 

are unable, owing to restrictive policies, to provide support for long-term environmental change or preemptive action. Although FEMA does offer funding to 

support relocation, it offers only individual buyouts rather than community-wide 

support, and options for voluntary relocation are available only to individuals. 

Using the example of Kivalina, Shearer (2012) demonstrated how the lack of 

comprehensive displacement and relocation policies can augment vulnerability to 

climate change. Shearer (2012: 180) argued: 
60

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Without clear relocation policies, the agencies involved have relied upon 

established protocols and standardized procedures for disaster management 

and coastal protection, even though these are insufficient to address the full 

scope of the problem. 

FEMA distributes some funds for long-term risk reduction through mitigation 

grants on the basis of cost effectiveness. With small populations and high costs 

for mitigation, many indigenous communities often do not qualify. Furthermore, 

FEMA’s two disaster recovery programs and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 

are available only for federally declared disasters, limiting their ability to respond 

before disasters occur (Shearer 2012). According to the Stafford Act of 1988, FEMA 

must prioritize “recovery through rebuilding” in the same location (Sec. 504 [a]9D), 

increasing exposure of vulnerable populations to future climate-induced disasters 

(Marino 2012). 

In 2013, President Obama signed the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act (SRIA). 

This amendment gives tribal governments the power to request an emergency or 

major-disaster declaration, or to receive assistance, directly from the White House. 

Previously, only state governors could make these requests to the president, requiring tribes to make requests through the state. Now, federally recognized tribes have 

the same status as states when requesting federal disaster assistance, reflecting the 

sovereignty of tribal governments. This amendment removes barriers for federal 

disaster funding, as it considers all affected tribal lands following a disaster, regardless of geographic location within state boundaries. For example, in 2009, before 

SRIA gave tribes the power to request disaster declarations, North Dakota and 

South Dakota each experienced flooding that affected Standing Rock Sioux tribal 

lands. Although North Dakota received a presidential disaster declaration almost 

immediately, South Dakota’s declaration was issued months later, and FEMA was 

able to provide assistance to only part of the Standing Rock Sioux tribal lands 

(Fugate 2013). 

At an international level, UN member states adopted the Sendai Framework 

for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR) in March 2015. The framework 

shifts the emphasis from disaster management to management of disaster risk 

and focuses on preventing new risk, reducing existing risk, and strengthening 

resilience. Among other issues, the framework articulates the need for improved 

understanding of disaster risk and risk exposure, vulnerability, and hazard characteristics, and resilience of health infrastructure, cultural heritage, and workplaces 

(ISDR 2015). However, this framework has been critiqued for being top-down and 
61

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

government-centric, and for minimizing the role of local actors and communityowned approaches (Oxley 2015, Tozier de la Poterie and Baudoin 2015). Tozier de 

la Poterie and Baudoin (2015) argued that SFDRR has an “expert-driven narrative” that privileges technological solutions and Western science over community 

involvement and traditional knowledge (Tozier de la Poterie and Baudoin 2015). 

Climate-change-related cumulative health problems are and will continue to affect 

indigenous communities. Many tribes have the potential to develop or restructure 

their health care programs (Allison et al. 2007), but few tribal governments or 

Indian Health Service programs are strategically preparing for climate change 

impacts to their communities. 

As a response to threats of coastal and riverine erosion, the Alaska Native village of Shaktoolik, assisted by the University of Alaska, developed a community-led adaptation plan. The plan outlines the community’s decision to 

“stay and defend,” meaning that they have opted not to relocate, and instead to 

fortify their community to climate impacts including harsher storms and erosion. Their plan includes nine initiatives that focus on the protection of human 

life, buildings, and infrastructure. Understanding limitations in funding, the 

people of Shaktoolik chose these initiatives because they are cost-effective 

and promote the use of local labor and materials (Johnson and Gray 2014). 

Climate-Induced Displacement

According to the IPCC, climate-induced environmental changes will displace 150 

million people by 2050. Other projections indicate that this number could be far 

greater. In this section, we first describe historical accounts of relocations of indigenous peoples during the colonial period. Next, we examine varying perspectives 

on how indigenous communities are reacting and responding to climate-induced 

displacements. Because there are ongoing debates regarding the terminology that 

should be used for climate-induced displacement, we offer brief definitions and 

discussions of these associated terms. 

Historical relocations of indigenous communities in the United States— 

Throughout the history of the United States, government-mandated relocations 

for geopolitical or infrastructure development had devastating consequences on 

communities (Bronen 2015b). Since first contact with European colonists, tribes 

endured the cession of tribal land and displacement by settlers, resulting in the loss 
62

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

of culture, collective identity, livelihoods, and the dramatic loss of lives (Miller 

2011). One of the largest eras of relocation for indigenous communities occurred 

when Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act of 1830, resulting in the 

removal of indigenous peoples living east of the Mississippi River from their ancestral homelands. This law forced the Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, and 

Seminole Nations to cede their lands to the United States and to be relocated west 

of the Mississippi River. Known as the Trail of Tears, this 1,200-mile governmentmandated relocation took 9 months, during which tens of thousands of indigenous 

peoples died as a result of food shortages, disease, dehydration, and exposure 

(Bartrop 2007, Blackburn 2012, Native Voices 2015). For those indigenous peoples 

who survived, relocation had devastating consequences on their livelihoods, collective identities, and culture (Akers 1999).

In 1933, less than 100 years after the Indian Removal Act, the federal government implemented the Nation’s largest river development program, the Tennessee 

Valley Authority (TVA). The TVA authorized the construction of dams to control 

flooding in the Tennessee and Mississippi River basins (TVA 1961). To construct 

the Norris Dam, the federal government used eminent domain to purchase land 

in five Tennessee counties, resulting in the displacement of 2,700 families. These 

families were forced to relocate to populated areas, resulting in loss of subsistence 

lifestyles and widespread poverty (McDonald and Muldowny 1982). The TVA 

continued the displacement of tribes by destroying their cultural sites and cultural 

heritage. The creation of the Tellico Dam and flooding of the Little Tennessee 

Valley threatened burial sites of the Eastern Cherokees, who fiercely resisted 

the project (Riley 2002, Whitt 2009). In the case Sequoyah v. Tennessee Valley 

Authority (1979), medicine man Ammoneta Sequoyah argued that destruction of 

this burial site would destroy “the knowledge and beliefs of the people who are in 

the ground and destroy what they have taught” and he would lose his knowledge of 

medicine (Riley 2002, Whitt 2009). 

The 1974 Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act, known as the Relocation Act of 

1974, resulted in the relocation of more than 10,000 Diné (Navajo), many of who 

experienced physical, mental, spiritual, and emotional suffering. At a public hearing held by the Navajo National Human Rights Commission, tribal members who 

had been relocated described the impact relocation had on their livelihoods, citing 

the breakdown of families, mental health issues, alcoholism, cultural deterioration, 

unemployment, and poverty. One person recalled her experience as a child:

Relocation of 

indigenous 

communities has 

had devastating 

consequences on 

livelihoods, collective 

identities, and culture.
63

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

I remember getting off the bus at a place that looked familiar but nothing 

was there. They bulldozed over the house, the hogan, the corral and the 

livestock were gone. The land was completely cleared and as I stood there 

the bus driver drove off. Everybody was gone and everything was gone 

(Yazzie et al. 2012: 6). 

The Diné who accepted relocation packages say they were misled and misinformed, “they told us we’d have all kinds of luxuries. They said they would take 

care of us. They lied to us” (Yazzie et al. 2012: 76). Those who stayed experienced 

constant anxiety, fearing that they would be physically removed from the land. 

These examples demonstrate the enduring social and cultural impacts of 

forced displacement on individual and community lifeways. As asserted by 

Marino (2015: 94):

The last one hundred years of displacement and resettlement, particularly of 

indigenous and marginalized groups, have mostly been a failed experiment 

in government-driven social engineering that resulted in further impoverishment and social disarticulation of moving populations.

To avoid these, and other, negative consequences, approaches to relocation must 

be grounded in a human-rights-based framework. 

Relocation— 

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees defines relocation as the 

movements of people that are instigated, supervised, and carried out by state 

authorities (Weerasinghe et al. 2014). Bronen (2015) presented an alternative definition of relocation as the rebuilding of livelihoods, houses, public infrastructure, and 

social networks in another location (Bronen 2015). Relocations can be either temporary (called evacuations), or permanent (called resettlement), and are considered 

a form of displacement (Weerasinghe et al. 2014). Relocations that occur before a 

disaster, called preventive relocations or planned relocations, can be an important 

disaster-risk-reduction tool that saves lives and offers long-term protection (Bronen 

2015). Community relocations occur when places cannot be protected by disaster 

risk strategies and will become uninhabitable (Bronen 2014b). Tribal, state, and 

federal efforts to conduct climate risk and vulnerability assessments can inform 

decisions about relocation. 
64

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Displacement—

Bronen (2014b) presented three categories of climate drivers of displacement: 

extreme weather events, slow-onset environmental changes, and the combination of 

extreme weather events and slow-onset environmental change. These drivers result 

in distinct patterns of human migration that differ based on the period of migration 

and the demographics of the population. However, relocation, displacement and 

climate-induced migration, also called “climigration,” present severe challenges to 

community resilience. A key theme in the literature is how to maintain community 

resistance and resilience in the context of climate-change-induced displacement. 

Climate-induced migration—

Migration refers to the movement of populations. Bronen (2010) differentiates 

between migration that is caused by random catastrophic environmental events and 

climigration, the forced migration caused by climate-induced ecological changes. 

According to Bronen and Chapin (2013: 9320), climigration refers to the specific 

type of population displacement that occurs when relocation is required to protect 

a community from climate-induced environmental changes that “alter ecosystems, 

damage or destroy public infrastructure, and repeatedly endanger human lives.” 

Bronen and Chapin (2013) argued that climigration relocations provide the opportunity for planned retreat. In the context of climigration, community relocations 

include rebuilding public infrastructure, housing, and livelihoods away from risky 

areas (Bronen and Chapin 2013).

Resilience—

Within the climate-change literature, resilience is often contrasted with vulnerability in describing the adaptive capacities of communities experiencing climatechange impacts. Tanner et al. (2015) presented a livelihood-resilience approach, 

grounded in a livelihood framework that focuses on people, and their ability to sustain livelihoods, as central actors within adaptation policy and practice. According 

to Tanner et al. (2015: 4), this perspective does three things (emphasis in original):

First, it prioritizes human agency, and our individual and collective capacity to respond to stressors. Second, by drawing on rights-based frameworks, it helps establish a normative and legal consideration of justice in 

disaster-risk reduction and adaptation. Third, by challenging normative 

assumptions about resilience as stability and the desirability of “bouncing 

back’” it prioritizes individual and collective capacities for fundamental 

transformation (Tanner et al. 2015).

We use this livelihood-resilience approach to conceptualize the meaning of 

resilience in the contexts of displacement, relocation, and climigration. 
65

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Although federal and state agencies have a number of tools to facilitate protection in place and managed retreat, there are limited tools available for community 

relocations. Bronen (2015) discussed the current governance institutions for protection in place, including engineered structures, building codes, post-disaster relief, 

and managed retreat. However, these tools may offer only temporary protection as 

places become uninhabitable or disappear permanently because of erosion, flooding, and sea-level rise. Ongoing efforts to protect people in place may result in 

practices that re-create or increase vulnerabilities and prevent long-term planning 

that enhances resilience and adaptation (Weerasinghe et al. 2014). To enhance community resilience, it is necessary to understand rates of environmental change, 

and, when necessary, plan for preventive relocation before land disappears 

(Bronen 2015). 

Currently, there are no governance frameworks, in the United States or abroad, 

that evaluate climate-change impacts and determine when a community can no 

longer be protected in place (Bronen 2014a; 2014b; 2015; Weerasinghe et al. 2014). 

There are also no institutional mechanisms that determine when a preventive 

relocation should occur, who makes the decision to preventively relocate, or how 

the decision should be made (Bronen 2014b, 2015). It is possible that, in efforts to 

protect communities from climate impacts, governments may mandate preventive relocations without the consent of a community (Weerasinghe et al. 2014). 

Such government-mandated relocations are extremely harmful, weakening social, 

cultural, and political institutions, disrupting subsistence and economic systems, 

damaging kinship ties, and even resulting in deaths in the relocated population 

(Bronen 2015, Mobley 2012). 

Adaptation and human rights—

Given the historical and contemporary forced relocations of indigenous peoples, 

indigenous communities must be empowered to make their own decisions regarding 

relocation (Marino 2012, 2015). It is essential that relocation policy frameworks 

be created based on human rights principles (Bronen 2011, 2014b, 2015; Tanner et 

al. 2015). Relocation should be considered only after all possibilities for staying 

in place [e.g., resistance] are exhausted and should not be used as a way to force 

communities off of their land. According to the UN Declaration on the Rights of 

Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP 2007: Art: 1), “Indigenous peoples possess collective rights indispensable for their existence and well-being, including the right to 

collective self-determination and the collective rights to the lands, territories, and 

natural resources they have traditionally occupied and used.” In the context of 
66

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

climate change, the right to self-determination means that people have the right to 

make decisions regarding adaptation strategies and the right to make fundamental 

decisions about when, how, where, and if relocation occurs (Bronen 2011, 2014b, 

2015). This ensures that the communities affected by the relocation drive decisionmaking. It can also help to avoid the negative consequences associated with forced 

relocation, like poverty and the destruction of social networks, by placing control 

with those who understand a community’s economic, social, and physical contexts 

(Bronen 2015b). The right to self-determination in a climate-change context is 

operationalized when people have the capacity to assess and document environmental changes, sociological effects, and vulnerabilities caused by climate change. 

The ability of this community-based process to foster human rights depends on the 

capacity of governance institutions to respect indigenous and local rights, collaborate, be transparent in decisionmaking, and be inclusive of all sectors of society 

(Bronen 2015). 

Adaptive governance response—

To address the lack of governance frameworks and minimize the negative consequences of government-mandated relocation, Bronen (2015) proposed the creation 

of an adaptive governance framework, grounded in human rights, that allows 

government institutions to respond dynamically to environmental changes (also see 

Bronen 2011; 2014b; Bronen and Chapin 2013; Rising Voices 2014).

An adaptive governance relocation framework would incorporate all of the 

institutional mechanisms to protect people in the places where they live 

and also create new mechanisms to implement a relocation process so that 

national, state, local, and tribal governments can dynamically shift their 

efforts from protection in place to managed retreat and community relocation (Bronen 2015: 35).

Unlike static frameworks developed in response to current conditions, dynamic 

frameworks give communities a variety of adaptation strategies and options. 

Dynamic adaptive governance gives institutions a range of options to respond to 

the needs of communities, including disaster relief, hazard mitigation, protection 

in place, socioecological assessments, and relocations (Bronen 2015, Bronen and 

Chapin 2013). This framework includes the design of community-based socialecological monitoring and assessment tools that creates multilevel and multidisciplinary, community-led knowledge production. The framework facilitates a 

collaborative decisionmaking process between local communities and technical 

experts to determine if, and when, a community should relocate (Bronen 2015). 

Dynamic adaptive 

governance 

frameworks enable 

consideration of a 

range of options 

to respond to 

community needs.
67

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

The tool is based on the experiences of the Alaska Native villages of Shishmaref, 

Kivalina, and Newtok, whose monitoring and assessments were used to gain governmental technical assistance and, based on this assessment, community members 

decided that relocation was their only long-term adaptation strategy. According to 

Bronen (2015: 35) “community-based integrated assessments can foster empowerment, promote human rights protections, and encourage transparent decisionmaking processes.” 

Bronen (2013) argued that the first step to overcoming barriers to relocation 

is for the U.S. Congress to amend disaster-relief legislation so that it enables communities to use existing federal and state funding to construct infrastructure at sites 

outside of disaster areas. Bronen (2014) also suggested that Congress establish a 

governance framework that allows communities to relocate when they are no longer 

protected by traditional erosion- and flood-control devices.

When stay-in-place options are exhausted, approaches to relocation should be 

grounded in a human rights frameworks that protects the right to self-determination, and prevents forced relocation and the movement from one exposed location 

to another (Bronen 2011, Cochran et al. 2013, Maldonado et al. 2013). Bronen (2011) 

offered Guiding Principles of Climigration, a legal and institutional framework 

grounded in a human-rights approach to relocation. This perspective is built on the 

theoretical perspectives of refugee law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 

the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, and the Universal Declaration on 

the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, while addressing the unique economic and political context of climigration (Bronen 2011). Bronen’s Guiding Principles ensure that a 

group’s cultural, social, and economic human rights are protected during displacement and resettlement. Bronen suggested that tribal communities decide if relocation is an appropriate adaptation strategy and be key leaders in relocation decisions. 

Relationships are central to cultural identity, therefore relocation should keep tribes 

and families intact and tribes must determine how to maintain their sociocultural 

institutions. Furthermore, understanding the rights and ability of tribes to continue 

their relationship with a place after being relocated should be explored. 

Subsistence rights and the customary communal rights to resources must also 

be protected (Bronen 2011). Bronen’s Guiding Principles also affirm access to safe 

and sanitary housing, potable water, education, and other basic amenities. Relocation must not diminish quality of life and should include opportunities for sustainable development. With this, relocation should enhance community resilience by 

addressing socioeconomic issues contributing to vulnerability (Bronen 2011).
68

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

In 2013, Displacement Solutions’ Climate Change and Displacement Initiative 

(CCDI) Climate Displacement Law Initiative adopted the Peninsula Principles, 

a major international soft-law standard on climate displacement. The Peninsula 

Principles outline an adaptive governance framework based in human rights.

Department of Housing and Urban Development principles for relocation—

In response to recommendations made by the Task Force on Climate Change 

Preparedness and Resilience, the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD) is developing cross-agency principles for climate-related relocation and 

managed retreat from high-risk areas. According to the White House, these principles are designed to strengthen the consideration of equity and other issues when 

using HUD funds for voluntary relocation of communities. As part of this effort, 

HUD plans to engage in a government-to-government consultation with Arctic 

coastal villages as a model for fostering future collaboration with other regions 

(White House 2015). 

After experiencing several extreme weather events, thawing permafrost, and 

accelerated erosion, the residents of the Alaska Native village of Newtok 

voted to relocate 9 miles to the south. The Newtok Traditional Council negotiated a land-exchange agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

obtained the site, which they named Mertavik. Every aspect of the relocation 

process has been guided by a set of principles based on the Yup’ik way of life 

(Bronen 2014). Bronen’s guiding principles (2014) include:

• Remain a distinct, unique community—our own community.

• Make decisions openly and as a community, and look to elders for 

guidance.

• Build a healthy future for our youth.

• Our voice comes first—we have first and final say in making decisions and defining priorities. 

• Development should reflect our cultural traditions; nurture our spiritual and physical well-being; respect and enhance the environment; 

be designed with local input from start to finish; be affordable for our 

people; hire community members first; use what we have first; and 

use available funds wisely.
69

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Fossil-Fuel Extraction, Transport, and Export

Indigenous populations are experiencing environmental change associated with the 

development, extraction, and transportation of fossil fuels. Many of these practices 

are profit-driven and executed by nontribal private entities that consume resources 

in unsustainable ways, threatening indigenous lands, resources, and livelihoods. 

At the same time, some tribes rely on the revenue and employment associated with 

fossil fuels and see expanding production as necessary to enhance well-being in 

their communities (Miles 2005). In this section, we discuss the negative impacts 

experienced by tribes associated with development in general, and more specifically 

with oil and gas development. We examine the negative impacts of the extraction, 

transportation, and export of fossil fuels, and the actions taken by some tribes to 

mitigate these impacts. We conclude with contrasting perspectives and voices of 

tribes that see fossil fuels as an important resource for their communities. 

Development—

For many tribes, development projects, including dams, transportation infrastructure, and natural-resource extraction, have been associated with the dispossession 

and destruction of tribal resources, lands, and ways of life (Hoover 2013, OliverSmith 2009). Industry development has also contributed to the displacement of 

tribal communities. Development-forced displacement and resettlement, known 

as DFDR, is a form of internal displacement that occurs for a “greater” economic 

good, and the government that is responsible for the relocation is also responsible 

for the well-being of the removed population. In the context of development, the 

interests of the federal government have often clashed with the interest of affected 

indigenous peoples. In these cases, institutionalized racism has often affected 

decisions about land ownership, participation, consultation, and decisionmaking 

(Oliver-Smith 2009).

In addition to displacement, industry development is also associated with the 

contamination of waterways and traditional food sources relied upon for subsistence. As discussed by Hoover (2013), a Superfund site upstream from the Mohawk 

community of Akwesasne was responsible for the contamination of fish, wildlife, 

and breast milk with PCB, dioxin, and mercury. In response, the adjacent St. Regis 

Mohawk Tribe issued advisories urging community members to limit, and in some 

cases cease, their consumption of fish, a central part of culture, economy, and 

subsistence. The contamination and associated restrictions had negative impacts 

on the fishing economy, tribal health, and cultural transmission. Many feared that 

fish-related language and culture would be lost (Hoover 2013).
70

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Oil and gas industry—

Many tribes have experienced negative impacts associated with development 

(Hoover 2013; Maldonado 2014a, 2014b; Murphy 2013; Oliver-Smith 2009). The 

development of the oil and gas industry has had devastating consequences for tribes 

and other local communities. The Louisiana coastal zone has experienced some 

of the worst impacts associated with oil and gas development (CLTC 2012; Houck 

2015; Maldonado 2012; 2014a). Since fossil-fuel extraction began in the 1920s, 12 

billion barrels of oil and 100 trillion cubic feet of natural gas have been extracted 

from the Louisiana coast (Houck 2015). To access and transport these fossil fuels, 

the industry dramatically altered the ecosystem, dredging canals and building pipelines through coastal wetlands. These alterations increased the flow of water from 

the Gulf of Mexico, causing erosion, land loss, and saltwater intrusion. In addition, 

the extraction of natural gas and associated water has resulted in rapid subsidence. 

As asserted by Houck (2015: 215), “oil and gas development had put Louisiana’s 

coastal wetlands in a double bind, torn apart on top and undermined from below.” 

Research estimates that between 36 and 89 percent of the coastline has experienced 

erosion and loss related to oil and gas industry development (Houck 2015). 

Maldonado (2014a) discussed the impact of the oil and gas industry on Louisiana’s coastal landscape and tribal communities (see also CLTC 2012, Peterson 

and Maldonado 2016). Oil extraction and exploration, and the privileges afforded 

to corporations, have resulted in coastal Louisiana becoming an “energy sacrifice 

zone.” In an energy sacrifice zone, potential oil resources are valued more than the 

human lives (see Buckley and Allen 2011). In addition to environmental change and 

coastal land loss caused by oil pipelines and canals, tribal lands have been lost to 

land-grabbing techniques by state-backed oil companies and private land developers, resulting in processes of displacement and forced relocation. As one tribal 

member stated: 

“Oil companies got down there and started building canals everywhere, 

that’s when the land started going away” [Maldonado 2014a: 65]. 

It is likely that oil and gas related development has resulted in the contamination of tribal resources (CLTC 2012, Maldonado 2014a, 2012; Murphy 2013). 

Byproducts of the industry can contaminate soils, food sources, and drinking water 

(Houck 2015, Murphy 2013). Although tribal communities may experience environmental and bodily changes that raise concern about toxic byproducts of oil and 

gas development, contamination can be difficult to prove (CLTC 2012, Maldonado 

2014a). Their marginalized position leads to experiences of what Singer (2010) 

defined as toxic frustration (CLTC 2012, Maldonado 2014a). 

Louisiana coastal-zone 

oil and gas development 

has altered the 

ecosystem, causing 

erosion, land loss, and 

saltwater intrusion.
71

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Individuals who experience toxic frustration feel reasonably certain that 

the environment is unhealthy, point to the huge manufacturing plants 

and agribusinesses around them as the primary causes of their environmental suffering, but also believe there is not much they can do about it 

given their socioeconomic status and the unresponsiveness of the local 

or state government (Singer 2010: 34).

According to Peterson and Maldonado (2016), coastal Louisiana residents 

experience toxic uncertainty resulting from unknown toxins used in fossil-fuel 

extraction and oil spills like the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon disaster. Peterson 

and Maldonado (2016) used the case of coastal Louisiana to demonstrate that it is 

not just a singular disaster event that leads to community devastation, but rather 

the layering of disasters and socially constructed vulnerabilities on top of existing 

economic and political forces. As a sacrifice zone, local and tribal communities 

in coastal Louisiana experience elevated risks from economic and political forces 

associated with the oil and gas industry.

The Aamjiwnaang First Nation, a small Ojibwe group, lives along the St. Clair 

River between Port Huron, Michigan, and Sarnia, Ontario. This area is known as 

“chemical valley” and is home to Shell, Sunoco, and Imperial Oil refineries. In the 

1970s, commercial fishing was banned because of mercury contamination, and 

some members of the Aamjiwnaang, along with residents of several other communities, were diagnosed with a form of mercury poisoning called Ontario Minamata 

Disease. However, the impacts of chemical exposure are not necessarily experienced immediately upon exposure. According to Murphy (2013: 110–111):

Chemical injury is not just displaced spatially with super stacks, toxic trading and selective plant placement, but also that chemical injury is displaced 

temporally, such that accountabilities exceed the scope of individual lives, 

bioaccumulating or persisting over time, across regulatory regimes, beyond 

research grants and into the conjectural future.

The Aamjiwannag experience reproductive disorders, cancers, and other 

negative health impacts that result from latent responses to past exposure, 

or what Murphy (2013: 15) asserted is a “chemical manifestation of ongoing 

colonial violence.”
72

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Coal industry—

Although there has not been substantial research on the impacts of coal extraction 

on tribes, a number of recent reports have discussed coal impacts on environmental 

health (Bonogofskey et al. 2015, LaFontaine et al. 2012). Coal dust containing toxic 

heavy metals like mercury can cause increased rates of asthma (Power Past Coal 

2015). Coal-fired power plants produce coal ash, a solid waste containing mercury, 

lead, and arsenic. Coal mining affects the quality and quantity of water resources. 

Although some coal ash is recycled into concrete, more than half is dumped into 

ponds, mine pits, lagoons, and other surface facilities (Olsen 2013). Leaching ore, 

waste rock, and other byproducts pollute surface and ground waters (Bonogofsky 

et al. 2015). The cutting and draining of aquifers changes surface water, depletes 

springs, and minimizes flows in creeks and streams. Coal mining is also associated 

with destruction of local ecosystems, including the mortality, disturbance, and 

displacement of wildlife populations and the loss of native plants. Wildlife mortalities are caused by development, mining equipment, and increased traffic. Wildlife 

that is displaced must move into areas that are already inhabited by other animals 

and must compete with existing populations for resources (Bonogofsky et al. 2015). 

Coal transportation creates coal dust and diesel exhaust from coal trains, reducing 

the air quality and contaminating waterways with mercury. The increased barge 

activity at export terminals can damage and destroy coastal ecosystems and fisheries (LaFontaine et al. 2012). 

Although the United States has reduced its dependence on coal over the last 

decade, there has been a recent push by coal companies—namely Peabody Energy 

and Arch Coal—to export coal to Asian markets (LaFontaine et al. 2012, Olsen 

2013). These coal development projects have been critiqued by tribes and environmental groups for issues associated with coal extraction, transportation, and export 

(Bonogofsky et al. 2015, LaFontaine et al. 2012, Olsen 2013, Power Past Coal 2015). 

Proposed projects include Arch Coal’s Otter Creek Coal Mine in the Powder River 

Basin in southeastern Montana and northeastern Wyoming. Some Northern Cheyenne tribal members have spoken out on the devastating consequences the proposed 

project would have on tribal health, culture, and economy (Olsen 2013). The Oglala 

Lakota Tribe passed a resolution opposing the Otter Creek coal mine, asserting that 

the mine threatens culturally important sites and burial grounds (Olsen 2013). These 

projects would have vast environmental, community, and cultural health impacts at 

extraction sites, and along transport routes and at export terminals. In Washington, 

export terminals threaten important tribal cultural and economic resources (Olsen 

2013, Yardley 2015). The proposed Cherry Point end terminal would be built on 

a Lummi Nation burial site and state aquatic reserve and the Longview terminal 
73

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

would affect salmon, steelhead, and smelt habitats in the lower Columbia River 

(Olsen 2013). Critics also maintain that exporting coal contributes to climate change 

by encouraging Asia to continue its reliance on the fossil fuel rather than encouraging a shift to alternative options (LaFontaine et al. 2012).

Transport and export of fossil fuel on Native lands—

Tribes have been vocal in their opposition to the transportation of fossil fuels across 

tribal lands and the export of fossil fuels from terminals in the Pacific Northwest to 

markets in Asia. Tribes in the Northwest and the Dakotas have expressed concern 

about the transportation of Bakken crude oil by train across tribal lands. Bakken 

crude oil is unstable and can cause explosions and environmental contamination if 

a train is derailed. On May 6, 2015, a Bakken crude-hauling oil train exploded in 

North Dakota, prompting the evacuation of the neighboring town of Heimdal. In 

response to this disaster, Fawn Sharp, Quinault Indian Nation president, made the 

following statement:

This was just the latest in a series of oil train derailments that have resulted 

in crashes, followed by explosions, mountains of thick, black, toxic smoke 

and inevitable spills of poisonous oil that at some point make their way into 

water systems, streams, rivers or marine waters... Let there be no doubt. 

These trains are dangerous, and we are seeing more and more of them on 

our tracks all the time (ICTMN 2015). 

Sharp continued by outlining the concerns of tribal communities, including 

the protection of communities, treaty rights, and the role of fossil fuels in environmental degradation: 

Tribes are very concerned about them for many reasons. Not only do they 

jeopardize our citizens, because they are explosive and too heavy for the 

tracks they travel on, but also the oil that inevitably spills from them poisons our treaty-protected waters and aquatic resources... Also, fossil fuels 

are the primary cause of climate change. We all need to make some important decisions about the future. Do we accept the major expansion of these 

poisonous fuels and the impacts they have on our environment, or do we 

opt to be good stewards of the land and work to phase them out and replace 

them with clean energy sources and wiser choices? [ICTMN 2015:1]. 

The protection of treaty rights also is a concern for The Columbia River InterTribal Fish Commission (CRITFC), which opposes proposals from the energy 

industry to export coal form Powder River Basin to Asia through ports in the 

Columbia Gorge. CRITFC opposes these projects, claiming they threaten treaty 

rights by intensifying stresses on fishing populations and sites.

Tribes have opposed 

transportation of fossil 

fuels across tribal 

lands and proposals to 

transport coal to Asia.
74

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

All of these projects will affect the Columbia and those who depend on 

it, creating environmental injustice as the burdens of the projects fall on 

those who will reap the least benefits (Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish 

Commission 2015).

Some tribes are evoking tribal sovereignty and treaty rights to limit the transportation and export of fossil fuels in order to mitigate the risks associated with the 

transportation of fossil fuels. On April 7, 2015, the Swinomish tribe filed a lawsuit 

against Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway in an attempt to prohibit the 

transport of Bakken crude oil across reservation lands. Swinomish tribal chairman 

Brian Cladoosby said (Walker 2015): 

We told BNSF to stop, again and again... We also told BNSF: Convince 

us why we should allow these oil trains to cross the reservation. And we 

listened for two years, even while the trains kept rolling. But experiences 

across the country have now shown us all the dangers of Bakken crude. It’s 

unacceptable for BNSF to put our people and our way of life at risk without 

regard to the agreement we established in good faith. 

Tribes have also attempted to restrict the transportation of fossil fuels through 

legal dealings with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). In 2015, the 

Columbia River Treaty tribes and the Northwest Treaty Tribes submitted appeals 

to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) concerning new regulations on the transportation of hazardous materials. The Treaty 

tribes argued that DOT did not meet requirements for formal tribal consultation 

mandated by Executive Order (E.O.) 13175 because of unique and substantial 

effects on the tribes and their interests. The tribes asserted that, “[h]ad PHMSA 

consulted with the Northwest treaty tribes, it would have learned of the tribal 

and federal interests in their collective usual and accustomed fishing areas and 

potential impacts resulting from the proposed Tank Car Rule.” PHMSA denied 

the treaty tribes’ appeals, claiming that regulations did not have “unique” or “substantial effects,” and therefore formal consultation was not mandated. According 

to the ruling:

PHMSA believes that these regulations work to the benefit of all communities and areas affected by the rail transportation of flammable liquids. For 

this reason, PHMSA affirms that the impact of the final rule is not “significant” or “unique” to communities or resources under the jurisdiction of 

tribal governments (20). 
75

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

PHMSA has determined that this rulemaking does not significantly or 

uniquely affect tribes, and does not impose substantial direct effects of 

costs on such governments... The decision to forgo tribal consultation was 

the lack of direct tribal impacts (21).

In another action, the Lummi Nation invoked its treaty rights to block the Gateway project, which proposes the creation of six coal export terminals in Oregon 

and Washington. The 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott gives the Lummi access to “usual 

and accustomed” fishing areas. The Lummi claim that the Gateway project would 

damage fishing grounds and salmon and steelhead populations, resulting in a violation of the treaty. As a result, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is conducting an 

environmental review of the project to assess potential environmental consequences 

(Yardley 2015).

Tribal support for fossil-fuel development—

Not all tribes are united in their opposition to coal development (Caufield 2015). 

The Navajo and Crow Nations have long depended on revenue from coal mining, 

to provide both Nations with over half of their nonfederal funding (Caufield 2015). 

The Crow and Navajo experience unemployment rates of almost 50 percent, and 

existing coal production plays an important role in tribal employment. As such, the 

expansion of coal development provides an opportunity for increased tribal revenue 

and employment for tribal members. The Crow Nation signed an agreement with 

Cloud Peak Energy to allow the mining of 1.4 billion tons of coal on the reservation. The tribe planned to export coal to Asia through the same Gateway terminal 

contested by the Lummi Nation and other Northwest groups. In April 2015, the 

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on the Crow Indian Reservation held a hearing 

entitled, “Empowering Indian Country Though Coal, Jobs and Self-determination” 

to allow individuals to speak about the impact of coal and proposed EPA regulations on their livelihoods. In response to the controversial Gateway Pacific Terminal 

in Washington, Crow Chairman Old Coyote stated, “we believe this is environmentally responsible and until someone comes up with another way to feed my people, 

the Crow Tribe will continue to mine coal,” adding that “a war on coal is a war on 

the Crow people” (Caufield 2015: 1). This example demonstrates the complexities 

associated with coal development, extraction, and transportation, and the differing 

perspectives of tribal communities. According to Lummi tribal council member 

Johnny Felix, “Everyone says it’s the Lummi against Crow... It’s not. It’s not a tribe 

against a tribe. It’s a resource against a resource. That’s our resource — out there 

in the water. And their resource is coal” (Yardley 2015: 1). This demonstrates that 

fossil-fuel development on tribal lands can result in political discord between tribes. 

Regardless of the economic benefits, political discord can also occur within a tribe 
76

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

if some members feel that energy development conflicts with traditional values and 

threatens the intergenerational transmission of tribal culture and identity (Necefer 

2014). It is likely that such inter- and intratribal conflicts will continue as tribes are 

forced to leverage between traditional resources and economic well-being. 

Tribal Approaches to Climate Change: Adaptation 

and Mitigation

The resilience of indigenous communities facing threats of climate change is 

strengthened when indigenous peoples shape climate policies, are included in natural resource management, strengthen tribal economies, and engage in sustainable 

development (Chief et al. 2014). Tribes must have access to the financial, technical, 

and other resources necessary to assess and adapt to climate change. Additionally, 

tribes should be supported in efforts to reduce GHG emissions through investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Recently, there have been efforts 

to increase the inclusion of indigenous voices in climate change and resource 

management decisions. One theme of this literature is the importance of partnerships and collaboration with indigenous communities and nontribal governments 

and organizations in the creation of sustainable adaptation strategies (Cochran et 

al. 2013, Lynn et al. 2013, Maldonado et al. 2013, Whyte 2013, Wildcat 2013). The 

U.S. government has a trust responsibility to federally recognized tribes to ensure 

the protection of, and access to, tribal trust lands, including reservation land and 

off-reservation land held in trust (Salazar 2009). As mandated by Executive Order 

13175 (2000), interactions between tribes and the federal government should be conducted on a government-to-government basis, based on consultation and respectful 

dialogue (Lynn 2011). 

Adaptive Capacity and Adaptation 

In recent years, there has been increasing attention to strategies that aim to cope 

with changing environmental conditions. According to the IPCC, adaptation strategies are defined as: 

A general plan of action for addressing the impacts of climate change, 

including climate variability and extremes. Such strategies include a mix 

of policies and measures that have the overarching objective of reducing 

vulnerability to climate change impacts (Mimura 2014: 873).

Climate-change adaptation plans are being developed by communities in 

the United States (and abroad) to assess vulnerability and identify strategies for 

adaptation. Although there are obstacles to the adaptive capacity of indigenous 

communities, there are also many factors that contribute to their adaptability and 
77

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

resilience, including traditional knowledges, cultural practices, capacity for natural 

resource management, proactive initiatives for the control of invasive species, 

strong external scientific networks, tribal awareness of climate change (Gautam et 

al. 2013), and intertribal collaboration. These factors contributing to their adaptive 

capacity demonstrate why indigenous communities must lead their own processes 

to understand climate impacts and develop adaptation strategies (Chief et al. 2014, 

Cochran et al. 2013, Halofsky et al. 2015: 13–15, Maldonado et al. 2013, Reid et al. 

2014). Local values and traditional knowledges are also critical in the creation of 

culturally appropriate adaptation strategies (Chief et al. 2014, Grossman et al. 2012, 

Maldonado et al. 2013, Reid et al. 2014, Whyte 2015, Wildcat 2009). According to 

Reid et al. (2014):

Incorporating local values into the climate-change planning process in a 

structured way and effectively using local knowledge not only improves 

the identification of priority actions for climate change adaptation, but also 

supports successful implementation.

McNeeley and Lazrus (2014: 517) described how culture and worldview impact 

different approaches to climate change mitigation and adaptation. They argued that 

climate change adaptation requires:

...an understanding of people’s cultural worldviews about social organization and nature, which determines how they see the climate system 

“working;” and participatory, community-based approaches to analysis to 

understand the nuances of the relationship between culture, climate change, 

and adaptation strategies.

Approaches to climate change that are rooted in traditional knowledges and 

values allow for adaptation strategies that are holistic and comprehensive. Reid et 

al. (2014) described four ways in which tribes and indigenous communities respond 

to climate change: research collaborations, information campaigns, restoration 

efforts, and public awareness. However, indigenous approaches to adaptation are 

not universal and there can be different approaches within the same tribe. Adaptation strategies can be pursued through more formalized avenues, like the drafting 

of climate-change impact assessments and adaptation plans, or in less formal, and 

even unconscious, ways (Maldonado 2014b). Maldonado (2014b) discussed how 

adaptation occurs in an everyday way, consciously and unconsciously (see also 

Maldonado 2015). She described how residents adapt in multiple ways, through the 

rebuilding of subsistence livelihoods, cleaning up and returning to homelands after 

disasters occur, and partnering with federal and university researchers (Maldonado 

Local values and 

traditional knowledges 

are critical in the 

creation of culturaly 

appropriate adaptation 

strategies.
78

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

2014b). Whyte et al. (2014) explored the challenges that tribes face in creating 

adaptation plans in contexts of uncertainty and in ways that meet political, cultural, 

scientific, social, jurisdictional, and legal goals.

The role of federal, state, and local policy in supporting or undermining the 

adaptive capacity of indigenous communities is significant, and special attention 

must be paid to policy decisions that affect the ability of communities to adapt to 

climate change (Nakashima et al. 2012). Chief et al. (2014) described the importance of the government-to-government relationship in ensuring that tribes are 

formally consulted on the management of culturally important species and that 

management plans reflect tribal priorities and concerns. There are policies and 

administrative mechanisms that can help achieve a meaningful government-to-government relationship, including Executive Order 13175 (2000) that demands federal 

agency accountability in consulting and coordinating with federally recognized 

tribes, and the Tribal Forest Protection Act (2004), which authorizes the Secretaries 

of Agriculture and Interior, respectively, to consider contracts or projects proposed 

by tribes on Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands that border or are adjacent to Indian Trust Land (PL 108-278, 2004), or department-specific 

orders addressing the impacts of climate change to tribes or tribally valued natural 

and cultural resources (Salazar 2009). 

For tribes, different laws, policies, and regulations can obstruct responses to 

climate change (Lynn et al. 2013, Whyte 2013). Adaptation is often hindered by 

lack of available funding. Tribes often face exclusion from some funding sources 

reserved for states or, when eligible, must compete with state and local entities 

for limited funding. Relationships between tribes and nontribal agencies may not 

be conducive to climate adaptation planning and management (Shearer 2012), or 

agencies may lack the frameworks necessary to address certain issues (Maldonado 

et al. 2013).

Whyte (2013: 4–5) described how institutions can strengthen tribal adaptation, 

including internal and external adaptation planning, inclusive research, adaptation 

funding, networking, and intergovernmental negotiation, and how these things 

can be hindered by federal, state, and local political contexts. Such institutions 

exist within a political context and experience opportunity and constraint based on 

relationships with other institutions, such as laws, regulations, funds, judicial processes, spending decisions, bureaucrats, and constituencies. To maintain legitimacy, 

funding, and federal partnerships, these institutions must successfully navigate this 

confusing political and institutional context (Whyte 2013). 
79

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Throughout the literature are references to solutions and best practices that 

aim to remove barriers to tribal adaptation to climate change. Cochran et al. (2013) 

and Whyte (2013) both set out to establish best practices created through relationships based on justice. Cochran et al. (2013) suggested a multipronged approach to 

facilitate the inclusion of indigenous peoples in the development of climate-change 

solutions. This approach includes creating an environment in which multiple ways 

of knowing are respected, directly assisting communities in achieving their adaptation goals, promoting partnerships that create effective solutions from Western and 

indigenous perspectives, and finally, sharing climate solutions though regional and 

international networks. Whyte (2013) offered a justice framework to guide nontribal 

professionals working with tribes on issues related to adaptation. This “justice 

forward” approach emphasizes the responsibility of nontribal actors working with 

tribes to challenge the political obstructions that limit tribal adaptation. These nontribal actors can influence the institutional contexts where they work by strengthening government-to-government relationships, honoring trust responsibilities, 

integrating tribal and nontribal sciences, and increasing multiparty governance. 

Traditional knowledges and adaptation— 

Traditional knowledges affect how indigenous communities understand climatechange impacts and develop adaptation strategies (Chief et al. 2014). Traditional 

knowledges can make substantial contributions to the assessment of climate-change 

impacts and identification of potential solutions for adaptation (Alexander et al. 

2011, Burkett 2012). Traditional knowledges have enabled indigenous populations 

to adapt to environmental changes for thousands of years and can inform climate 

action by recognizing changes, contributing to adaptation strategies, and implementing sustainable land management practices (Chief et al. 2013, Norgaard 2014, 

Parrotta and Agnoletti 2012). Traditional knowledges are community-based and 

therefore can produce adaptation strategies that are trusted by community members 

(Werkheiser 2015). The ability of indigenous peoples to use traditional knowledges 

to guide adaptation in the context of climate change is documented in the UNESCO 

and UN publication, Weathering Uncertainty: Traditional Knowledge for Climate 

Change Assessment and Adaptation (Nakashima et al. 2012). 

Differences between indigenous and Western worldviews mean that incorporating the two into a single framework can be problematic. In academic and indigenous communities, there are some concerns about attempts to merge indigenous 

and Western worldviews. Some argue that, based on differences, these worldviews 

cannot be merged, but rather one must recognize that each way of knowing can 

inform solutions (Cochran et al. 2013, Huntington and Watson 2012). 
80

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

A Western science emphasis on facts and an indigenous emphasis on 

relationships to spiritual and biophysical components indicate important but 

distinct contributions that each knowledge system can make (Cochran et al. 

2013: 557).

Conversely, many consider traditional knowledges as complementary to 

Western science because the emphasis of traditional knowledges on relationships 

between human and non-humans provides an ethical framework for adaptation 

plans (Cochran et al. 2013, Huntington and Watson 2012). This point is illustrated 

by a 2013 observation by Terry Williams, Treaty Rights Office Commissioner for 

the Tulalip Tribes Natural Resource Department (Wall 2013): 

Why do we have to do this? Well, because it’s in your teachings. We were 

taught that we’re the caretakers of the land. The U.S. took it away, but it’s 

still our land. I tell our people that if nothing else we can set the example, 

a bar that people will recognize. Through our history we’ve maintained 

a high moral standard. We didn’t need contracts; we knew what the rules 

were, and we stood by them. We are the compass. 

Leclerc et al. (2013) showed how cultural knowledge helps farmers perceive 

and remember past climate variations, taking into consideration the specificity of 

the contexts in which extreme climatic events were experienced. The integration of 

indigenous and scientific climate knowledge could contribute to the development 

of drought monitoring that considers both climatic and contextual data (Leclerc 

et al. 2013). In 2008, the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues 

encouraged indigenous groups to form the Indigenous Peoples’ Biocultural Climate 

Change Assessment Initiative with hopes of strengthening the role of traditional 

knowledges in developing solutions to climate change (IPCC 2012). The IPCC has 

also acknowledged the value of traditional knowledges in climate change efforts. 

According to its 2014 Climate Change Synthesis Report:

Indigenous, local and traditional knowledge systems and practices, including indigenous peoples’ holistic view of community and environment, are 

a major resource for adapting to climate change, but these have not been 

used consistently in existing adaptation efforts. Integrating such forms of 

knowledge with existing practices increases the effectiveness of adaptation 

[IPCC 2014: 19]. 

Despite the benefits associated with bridging traditional knowledges within climate initiatives, indigenous peoples face potential risks in the sharing of traditional 

knowledges with non-indigenous entities. Williams and Hardison (2013) described 
81

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

the risks that traditional knowledges may be exploited, or misused, and the 

incompatibility of traditional knowledges and the legal construction of copyrights, 

contracts, and licensure. They assert that “once traditional knowledge is shared 

outside of a community, it enters alien social and legal contexts.” They argued 

for the creation of governance mechanisms and guiding principles for knowledge 

sharing based on justice. Traditional knowledges should be viewed as a sovereign 

property with its own laws determined by knowledge holders and knowledge “sharing should be based on free, prior, and informed consent and mutually agreed terms 

based on equal standing” (Williams and Hardison 2013; see also Brewer and Kronk 

Warner 2015). 

In response to a call by the Department of the Interior Advisory Committee on 

Climate Change and Natural Resource Sciences to increase understanding about 

the role of, and protections for, traditional knowledges in climate-change initiatives, 

a group of indigenous and nonindigenous scholars, leaders, and researchers developed the Guidelines for Considering Traditional Knowledges in Climate Change 

Initiatives. These guidelines explore the significance of traditional knowledges in 

relation to climate change, as well as the potential risks to indigenous peoples in 

sharing traditional knowledges in federal and other nonindigenous climate-change 

initiatives (CTKW 2014). The guidelines can be used by indigenous peoples and 

by organizations such as state, regional, and federal agencies or other entities 

involved in climate-related initiatives, and are designed for (1) indigenous peoples 

and holders of traditional knowledges (TKs) to ensure that TKs are protected in 

future collaborations, (2) agencies and researchers wanting to secure access to and 

use of TKs, and (3) individuals reviewing grant proposals that incorporate TKs. 

These guidelines establish opportunities for indigenous and nonindigenous partners 

to combine traditional knowledges and Western science on culturally appropriate, 

tribally guided initiatives (CTKW 2014).

Tribal adaptation plans— 

Many tribes and indigenous communities are on the forefront of climate-change 

adaptation and are actively identifying and addressing climate impacts (Halofsky 

et al. 2015). A small, but growing, number of tribal governments are developing 

adaptation plans, with some in the early stages of implementation. This synthesis 

identified 27 tribal climate-change adaptation plans for tribes in the United 

States (ITEP 2015, PNW Tribal Climate Change Project 2015). However, this list 

may not be complete and some plans may be in development. Regionally, most 

of these plans are found in Alaska (66 percent) and the Northwest (19 percent), 

with the remaining from the Southeast (7 percent), Northeast (4 percent), and 
82

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Midwest (4 percent). Many of these adaptation plans use collaborative approaches 

that bring together climate data and projections with traditional knowledges 

(Brubaker et al. 2011a, Peterson et al. 2014). For many tribes, adaptation is understood as a process rather than an outcome, and adaptation plans are intended to 

be working documents (CSKT 2013, Maldonado 2014b). Many tribal adaptation 

plans use traditional knowledges to assess local climate impacts, identify vulnerabilities, and prioritize adaptation measures. 

Most adaptation plans begin with an introduction to the tribe. This often 

includes a discussion of tribal lands, history, culture, traditional livelihoods, and 

demographics. This introduction provides the context for understanding climate 

impacts on tribal ways of life. Tribal adaptation planning incorporates the traditional knowledges of community members and plans often highlight the importance 

of traditional knowledges in adaptation strategies.

As is our practice, we look ahead to prepare for coming challenges and 

apply the values taught by our ancestors (CSKT 2013).

...[T]he need to have an ethical response that respects and preserves the 

sensitive nature of traditional knowledge and specifies ongoing work to 

connect elders with youth for intergenerational sharing of spiritual and 

other traditional environmental knowledge (SITC 2010: 24). 

The importance of community input in the identification of climate impacts 

and subsequent adaptation efforts is consistent throughout tribal adaptation plans. 

Traditional knowledges are community-based and therefore can be used to produce 

adaptation strategies that are trusted by community members (Werkheiser 2015). 

Many tribal adaptation plans explore the impacts of climate on and vulnerabilities of areas that are culturally and economically important to tribal life. For 

example, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes’ Climate Change Strategic 

Plan focuses on forestry, land, fish, wildlife, water, air, infrastructure, people, and 

culture. The Nez Perce Tribe’s Clearwater River Subbasin Climate Change Adaptation Plan focuses on forest resources, water resources, and economic impacts (Clark 

and Harris 2011). Adaptation plans also identify actions and goals for moving 

forward and ways of addressing impacts in the short and long term. The Swinomish 

Climate Change Initiative Impact Assessment Technical Report (SITC 2009) and 

Climate Adaptation Action Plan (SITC 2010) provide comprehensive examination 

of the impacts of climate change on the community, lands, and resources, as well 

as options, priorities, and recommendations for adaptation. The Swinomish Indian 
83

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Tribal Climate Change Initiative uses indicators for environmental and community 

health developed by the community to determine which impacts may be most 

severe (SITC 2010). In 2013, the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe used a collaborative 

approach to identify and address the risk the community faces from climate change. 

This approach used structured sector-specific meetings and a two-day workshop to 

allow tribal members to identify vulnerabilities and priorities.

The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium has developed adaptation health 

assessments on impacts and strategies associated with human health (Brubaker and 

Chavan 2011; Brubaker et al. 2010, 2011a, 2011c, 2012, 2013, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 

2014d, 2015). These assessments use local observations and community members’ 

traditional knowledge to identify environmental changes and help develop adaptive 

strategies that foster community resilience. As stated by Brubaker et al. (2014b: 1), 

these reports, “document issues as described by the local people and interpreted 

through the lens of public health.” Other Alaska Native communities have developed assessment and adaptation plans. The village of Shaktoolik partnered with 

the University of Alaska’s Sea Grant Program to develop a community-led adaptation plan that outlined methods, potential funding sources, and a step-by-step 

action plan. 

The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium developed the Local Environmental Observer (LEO) Network, a system for sharing information on environmental 

impacts and community health. The LEO Network is a community-based system 

for surveillance of climate, environmental, and health events. The network documents and encourages communication between communities, academic institutions, 

and resource agencies with the goal of increasing the understanding of climate 

change to help develop appropriate adaptation strategies. It applies traditional 

knowledges, Western science, and modern technology to achieve a robust and effective environmental health surveillance system (Brubaker et al. 2013).

Other plans have a strong emphasis on regional collaborations. Nez Perce tribal 

land has multiple owners and managers, and therefore the Nez Perce Tribe’s Clearwater River Subbasin Climate Change Adaptation Plan includes collaboration as an 

essential component of adaptation efforts. Similarly, the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe 

brings together tribal decisionmakers and community members to identify priority 

resources and the cultural impacts of climate change. The Fond du Lac tribe has 

been working nationally with the USDA Forest Service Climate Change Response 

Framework and regionally with the Minnesota Landscape Committee. 
84

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Maladaptation— 

Maladaptation refers to adaptation actions that increase vulnerability to climatechange impacts. According to Barnett and O’Neill (2010: 211), maladaptation is 

defined as: 

An action taken ostensibly to avoid or reduce vulnerability to climate 

change that impacts adversely on or increases the vulnerability of other 

systems, sectors, or social groups. 

These actions can offer short-term benefits, but contribute to increased 

long-term vulnerability and limit future adaptation actions (Magnan 2014). Maladaptation can occur with adaptation efforts that have high economic, social, environmental costs. Maladaptation can increase GHG emissions, disproportionately 

burden vulnerable populations, reduce incentives to adapt, and create dependency 

(Barnett and O’Neill 2010, 2013). According to Barnett and O’Neill (2013), the risk 

of maladaptation increases with the cost of the action. This occurs because returns 

for the “winners” outweigh the consideration of losses for those populations that 

are marginalized or are distant spatially or temporally. Barnett and O’Neill (2013) 

explained that the greatest risk of maladaptation occurs with strategies that aim to 

reduce climate risk. Moderate risk of maladaptation occurs with strategies that aim 

to decrease sensitivity to climate risk. Finally, strategies least likely to be maladaptive are those that that aim to increase adaptive capacity (Barnett and O’Neill 2013). 

The potential for maladaptation often occurs with top-down approaches (Barnett and O’Neill 2013) that do not include local perspectives (McNeeley 2012) and 

those with short-term temporal scales (Knapp and Trainor 2015). McNeeley (2012: 

383) described instances of social maladaptation that occur when “internal factors 

of the social structure prevent appropriate, adaptive responses in the face of perturbations to the social-ecological system.” This occurs when those decisionmakers 

with power are disconnected from, and lack understanding of, the local cultural and 

environmental context. McNeeley (2012) used a case study of the Koyukon Athabascans’ fall moose hunt to illustrate how state and federal management strategies 

can threaten local subsistence needs. Knowledge gaps about weather and climate, 

uncertainty about the relations between moose breeding dates, climate, and regulations that place biological concerns over climate and cultural concerns, and the lag 

response in the regulatory process inhibit the local needs, and adaptive capacity, 

of Koyukon communities (McNeeley 2012). Although they were not specifically 

looking at instances of maladaptation in an analysis of stakeholder-defined research 

needs in the context of climate change, Knapp and Trainor (2015) described the 

marginal role nonscientific perspectives and local and tribal input have in these 
85

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

perspectives. Additionally, most of these needs focused only on the temporal scale 

of from 1 to 5 years, with very few focusing on 5 to 10 years or beyond.

Ford et al. (2013) argued that, for Alaska Natives, the coping mechanisms 

regularly used to indicate high adaptive capacity or resilience might increase 

long-term vulnerability in three ways. As hunters adapt to changing species 

distribution and focus efforts in more concentrated areas, the stress on species 

populations may be displaced to the future. With fewer opportunities to engage 

in land use activities, the transfer and development of traditional knowledges are 

disrupted, minimizing the resources that can be used in the future. Maladaptation 

could also result from overspecialized adaptation responses that are well adapted 

to current climate variations, but susceptible to new stressors or future rapid 

climate change (Ford et al. 2013). 

Other examples of potential maladaptation include the creation of climate 

refugia, a conservation strategy designed to facilitate the persistence of certain 

species during long-term, large-scale climate change (Keppel et al. 2015). Refugia 

are habitats to which species can retreat during climate and environmental changes, 

allowing them to adapt and persist (Keppel et al. 2015). Several conservation groups 

have proposed the creation of climate corridors—networks of protected lands—to 

provide habitat connectivity and allow for species movement (Noss 2015). The creation of more stringent regulations under new land designations would likely affect 

tribal practices. For example, in the Northwest, several climate corridors and related 

projects to connect the Coast, Klamath, and Cascade Ranges would likely affect 

tribal subsistence uses of refugia habitats for species of ecological and tribal value.

Mitigation

Although the impacts of climate change cannot be reversed, climate-change mitigation offers opportunity for tribes to confront the disproportionate impacts of climate 

change on indigenous communities, slow the rate of climate change, and reduce 

climate-change impacts. According to the IPCC (2007), climate-change mitigation 

refers to: 

Technological change and substitution that reduce resource inputs and 

emissions per unit of output. Although several social, economic and technological policies would produce an emission reduction, with respect to 

climate change, mitigation means implementing policies to reduce GHG 

emissions and enhance sinks. 

Many indigenous declarations on climate change, in the United States and internationally, strongly suggest that adaptation strategies must come hand in hand with 

Climate change 

mitigation offers 

tribes opportunities 

to slow the rate of 

climate change and 

reduce climate-change 

impacts.
86

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

mitigation to generate benefits from multiple pathways. The Indigenous Peoples’ 

Global Summit on Climate Change Anchorage Declaration (2009) states: 

1. In order to achieve the fundamental objective of the United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), we call upon the 

fifteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC to support a binding emissions reduction target for developed countries (Annex 

1) of at least 45 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and at least 95 percent 

by 2050. In recognizing the root causes of climate change, participants call 

upon States to work towards decreasing dependency on fossil fuels. We 

further call for a just transition to decentralized renewable energy economies, sources and systems owned and controlled by our local communities 

to achieve energy security and sovereignty.

Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI) resolution #09-19 states:

ATNI affirms the trust responsibility of the United States Congress, the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Department of the Interior, the Department of 

Energy, and other appropriate federal agencies to support tribal efforts with 

funding and other resources to deal with climate change, mitigate climatechange impacts to tribal communities, tribal lands, and tribal cultural 

traditions.

ATNI urges the United States Congress and the President of the United 

States to move forward on a national, mandatory program to reduce 

climate-change pollution, to develop funding capacity for tribal community 

infrastructure needs, to address present and long-term climate change 

planning and implementation, and promote the development and adoption 

of renewable energy within a timeframe that prevents irreversible harm to 

public health, the economy and the environment.

The above declarations and resolutions frame climate-change mitigation in 

the context of tribal sovereignty. They call for federal climate mitigation policy 

that dramatically reduces greenhouse-gas emissions, and for programs that support tribal efforts to achieve energy self-sufficiency through renewable energy and 

energy efficiency (Maynard 2014). Tribes are using their unique political status 

to encourage the development of mitigation practices that reduce GHG emissions 

and translate into improved economic security for tribal communities. In 1994, 

tribes from the northern Great Plains created the Intertribal Council on Utility 

Policy (Intertribal COUP). Growing to 15 member tribes, this climate initiative 

works to develop mitigation planning and renewable energy development; carbon 
87

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

sequestration and carbon offset portfolio development; and energy-efficient land 

use and building codes. Some tribes, such as the Yurok Tribe in California, the Nez 

Perce Tribe in Idaho, and the Round Valley Indian Tribes in California, are already 

involved in the carbon credit market as a way to preserve natural resources through 

terrestrial sequestration (Barboza 2014). 

There are some federal funding opportunities for tribal mitigation efforts 

through the U.S. Department of the Interior, Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, Department of Energy, and Environmental Protection Agency. 

Although some of these are reserved for tribes and tribal organizations, others are 

available to other federal, state, and local applicants. This means that tribes must 

compete not only among themselves, but also with a larger, nontribal applicant 

pool, for limited federal mitigation support.

Although some tribes have urged the federal government to pursue renewable 

energy as a strategy for climate-change mitigation, not all projects are welcome 

(Maynard 2014). The Mystic Lake Declaration from the Native Peoples Native 

Homelands Climate Change Workshop II asserts: 

We challenge climate mitigation solutions to abandon false solutions to 

climate change that negatively impact Indigenous Peoples’ rights, lands, air, 

oceans, forests, territories and waters (Maynard 2014: 122). 

As the federal government pursues renewable energy projects on public land, 

some projects have the potential to negatively affect culturally important species 

or cultural sites. Recently, some renewable energy projects were planned or constructed on federal public land sacred to tribes (Raftery 2012, 2013). Tribes criticized the government for prioritizing energy-efficiency projects and fast-tracking 

project approval at the expense of federal trust responsibilities (Pico 2012, Raftery 

2012, 2013). In 2010, a proposed solar power plant in the Sonoran Desert threatened 

ancient cultural sites and the habitat of the flat-tailed lizard, a culturally important 

species for the Quechan Indian Tribe. The tribe filed a lawsuit against the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, asserting that the federal government failed to fulfill its 

consultation obligation (Hsu 2010). In 2013, the Quechan Tribe filed another lawsuit 

against the BLM maintaining that, in the construction of the Ocotillo Wind Express 

wind farm, the federal government violated the Native Heritage Preservation Act. 

The project site contained more than 400 archaeological sites and six burial sites 

for multiple tribes, including the Quechan, Kumeyaay, and Cocopah (Raftery 2012, 

2013). In a letter to President Obama, Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians Tribal 

Chairman Anthony Pico stated, “there is no mitigation that could compensate for its 

impacts to this cultural place” (Raftery 2012: 1).
88

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Housing

Some tribes are also engaging in climate-change mitigation through sustainable 

construction and community development. In addition to the environmental benefits, sustainable construction reduces costs, saves energy, and enhances durability. 

Some examples of tribes using sustainable construction for housing include the 

Citizen Potawatomi Nation’s structural insulated panels, the Pueblo of Isleta’s lava 

block, and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe’s geothermal system (Lantz and Appelbaum 

2013). According to the Intertribal COUP, the construction of sustainable housing is a way for tribal communities to build energy independence and strengthen 

economies. Intertribal COUP has been developing a program under which tribal 

college faculty and students build energy-efficient structures from local straw bale 

construction materials (Cordalis and Suagee 2008). The structures are naturally 

insulated, reduce the economic stress on homeowners by reducing energy demands 

for heating and cooling, while building them acts as a training program, teaching 

tribal members skills and techniques of straw bale construction. 

For tribes, there is often a connection between sustainable features and cultural 

features, and sustainability is often deeply connected to indigenous ways of life. 

As such, some tribes are reinvigorating their traditional building styles to be better 

suited to climate-change resilience (Lantz and Appelbaum 2013). 

Tribes also have received support for sustainable construction through grants 

and programs offered by HUD, including the Sustainable Communities Initiative, 

Sustainable Construction in Indian Country Initiative, and HUD’s Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG) Program (HUD 2015a).

HUD Community Challenge Planning Grant— 

Between 2009 and 2011, Congress funded the HUD’s Sustainable Communities Initiative for regional and local planning efforts that “integrate housing and 

transportation decisions, and increase the capacity to improve land use and zoning to support market investments that support sustainable communities” (HUD 

2015a). Of the two grants offered by the initiative, only one, the Community 

Challenge Planning Grant (CCPG), was available exclusively to tribes. The CCPG 

was designed to support efforts that “integrated housing, land use, economic and 

workforce development, transportation, and infrastructure investments” (HUD 

2015a). This grant was extremely competitive; in 2010, HUD received more than 

1,000 letters of interest and 360 proposals, and of the 45 grants awarded, only three 

included tribal elements. 

There is often a 

connection between 

sustainable features 

and cultural features, 

and sustainability 

is often deeply 

connected to 

indigenious ways 

of life.
89

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

The Oglala Lakota Nation in South Dakota was one of the 2010 CCPG awardees. The grant funded the regional sustainability planning project for the Oglala 

Lakota Nation, known as the Oyate Omniciyé plan. This plan is based on six 

livability principles: transportation, housing, economic competitiveness, existing 

communities, federal investment, and local values, and includes climate-change 

adaptation and mitigation planning. It includes a voluntary pledge to mitigate 

climate change and promote sustainability through the reduction of GHG emissions 

on the reservation. In 2011, the Hopi Tribe of Arizona was the only tribe awarded 

a CCPG. The tribe received $150,000, less than 1 percent of the total $95,802,000 

awarded. After 2011, the program lost its congressional funding. 

HUD Sustainable Construction in Indian Country Initiative and HUD Indian 

Community Development Block Grants Program—

Sustainable Construction in Indian Country is an initiative of HUD’s Office of 

Policy Development and Research and Office of the Native American Program, 

which partners with tribal communities to promote and support the construction 

of sustainable technology in Indian Country. The Indian Community Development 

Block Grant Program (ICDBG) provides funding for federally recognized tribes 

and tribal organizations for the development of decent housing, suitable living 

environments, and economic opportunities. ICDBG is an annual program that is 

increasingly committed to sustainable projects and can be used to fund energy 

efficiency and green development for public facilities and housing rehabilitation, 

or to improve the community services with energy conservation (Lantz and Appelbaum 2013). 

HUD National Disaster Resilience Competition—

In 2015, HUD, in collaboration with the Rockefeller Foundation, launched the 

National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC) to support community resilience. The competition awarded nearly $1 billion to “help communities recover 

from prior disasters and improve their ability to withstand and recover more 

quickly from future disasters, hazards, and shocks” (HUD 2015b: 1). The state of 

Louisiana was among the NDRC winners announced in January 2016. These funds 

include $48 million toward the resettlement of Isle de Jean Charles (IdJC) Band 

of Biloxi Chitimacha Choctaw. According to a statement by Chief Albert Naquin 

(Naquin and Peterson 2016: 1), “[t]his award will allow our tribe to design and 

develop a new, culturally appropriate and resilient site for our community, safely 

located further inland.” This resettlement will become an important resource for 

other communities by providing a living model of cultural resilience, environmental 

stewardship, climate-change mitigation, sustainable economic development, and 

green building practices (Naquin and Peterson 2016: 1).
90

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Renewable Energy

Some tribes are exploring the development of renewable resources on tribal lands to 

provide power for their communities and to provide employment opportunities for 

tribal members. Tribal lands are increasingly providing renewable energy, including wind and solar. Between 2002 and 2011, the U.S. Department of the Interior 

funded 159 tribal energy projects with $36 million (about $4 million annually). In 

2013, $738,039 was awarded to nine projects with grants ranging from $30,000 to 

$449,117. The largest grant was awarded to the San Carlos Apache Tribe in Arizona 

for the establishment of an energy authority (USDI IEED 2013). Other recipients 

included the Blue Lake Rancheria, Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians, Hualapai Tribe, Quinault Indian Nation, Rampart Village, Seneca Nation of Indians, 

Spokane Tribe of Indians, and the Zuni Tribe (USDI IEED 2013). 

The Intertribal COUP is leading efforts to reduce GHG emissions through 

tribal wind power development. According to Bob Gough, Intertribal COUP secretary, “tribes have the vast wind resources to build sustainable renewable energy 

economies on reservations to provide jobs and energy for their young and growing 

populations.” Intertribal COUP also has majority ownership of NativeEnergy, 

a corporation that provides carbon offset, renewable energy credits, and carbon 

accounting software.

Federal government financial and advisory support is often necessary for a tribe 

to pursue energy planning and energy resource development. Various U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) programs have provided assistance for tribal renewable 

energy development, including the USDOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy (EERE) Tribal Energy Program (USDOE TEP 2016), the USDOE Office of 

Indian Energy Policy and Programs, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Tribal Energy Program. These federal programs can provide tribes with 

a valuable “jump-start” on energy planning, and, unlike other federal policies, 

support tribal sovereignty by promoting tribal control over energy planning and 

resources (Brookshire and Kaza 2013: 1514). Many of these federal programs also 

provide grant funding and significant technical resources for tribes pursuing renewable energy development. 

With a 2009 grant from the Tribal Energy Program, the Lummi Nation 

completed a Wind Energy Development Feasibility Assessment to quantify the 

feasibility of wind power on its reservation. The Lummi are also developing 

other small-scale renewable energy projects such as geothermal heat pumps and 

solar LED lighting. Many tribes use solar power as a renewable energy source for 

on-reservation structures, like houses and casinos. The Confederated Tribes of 

Umatilla use a wind turbine to power the Tamástslikt Cultural Institute (Flatt 2014). 
91

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Other tribes are in the process of offering solar energy to off-reservation customers. For example, the Pueblo of Jemez has dedicated 30 ac of land for a solar plant 

consisting of 14,580 solar panels and a transmission line. This project is projected 

to produce enough power to supply over 600 homes and offset over 278,876 tons of 

carbon dioxide (Oglala Sioux Tribe 2013).

Tribes are excluded from the federal government’s Renewable Energy Production Incentives and the Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit (PTC) 

programs. PTC, the federal government’s primary renewable energy incentive 

program, offers incentives for programs such as wind, solar, geothermal, closedloop biomass systems, open-loop biomass, landfill gas, waste incineration, and 

small hydropower (Skrelunas 2014). Tribes that are unable to finance renewable 

energy projects often partner with private businesses that finance projects on tribal 

lands. As tax-exempt entities, tribal governments do not benefit from PTC, and 

current law does not allow tribes to transfer unused credits to their private business 

partners. This means that private companies receive only a percentage of the tax 

credit, even if they are supplying all of the financing for a project. This makes it 

more difficult for tribes to attract major capital for utility-scale renewable energy 

projects (Skrelunas 2014).

Tribal governments are leading many of the renewable energy projects on tribal 

land. As tribal lands become increasingly attractive for energy development by 

nontribal entities, it is important that tribes consider the implications of large-scale 

energy development. It is important that tribes have the necessary policies and 

regulations to ensure that practices are consistent with tribal values (Brookshire 

and Kaza 2013). 

Energy efficiency— 

Tribes are also pursuing energy efficiency for its environmental benefit and as a 

way to help support low-income tribal members by reducing their energy costs. For 

some tribes, provisions for energy efficiency are included within climate-change 

adaptation planning. The Swinomish Climate Change Initiative includes the draft of 

an “Energy Efficiency and GHG Emissions Reduction Strategy.” The goals of this 

strategy (SITC 2010: 85) are to: 

• Reduce energy use by and costs to the tribal government.

• Reduce GHG emissions within the reservation to contribute to mitigation of 

global climate change.

• Encourage development of “green jobs.”

• Encourage and develop sustainable practices for community and economic 

development and natural resource management. 
92

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Similarly, through a 2009 grant from the Administration for Native Americans, 

the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians Planning Department created the Siletz 

Tribal Energy Program (STEP) with goals to promote and increase energy efficiency and conservation of natural resources and reduce energy consumption and 

greenhouse gas emissions.

Tribes pursuing energy efficiency can apply for funding from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) 

program. This program funds energy efficiency and weatherization projects, 

including energy audits, developing energy plans, upgrading water heaters, installing solar water heaters, retrofitting windows, installing solar-powered street lights, 

and insulating buildings. The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 

created the EECBG program. Program funding is available to tribes, cities, communities, states, and U.S. territories. According to the USDOE (2013), of the $3.2 

billion awarded, less than 2 percent ($54.8 million) was allocated to tribes. 

Other potential grant opportunities offered by federal agencies such as the 

USDA, EPA, Department of Homeland Security, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and FEMA are available to tribes, but almost all require 

tribes to compete with some combination of state and local (cities, communities, 

townships) governments, public and private universities, nonprofits and for-profit 

organizations, and small businesses. Tribes are also excluded from funding 

resources reserved for states. For example, tribes are excluded from the DOE State 

Energy Program’s (SEP) Competitive Financial Assistance Program. Between 2010 

and 2013, the DOE awarded $51.8 million to states and territories to accelerate 

renewable energy and energy-efficiency programs, policies, and strategies.

Tribes are largely dependent on federal funding to finance mitigation and 

adaptation programs. The federal government’s trust responsibility to federally 

recognized tribes mandates a fiduciary duty toward tribes under certain circumstances. This dependence makes tribes vulnerable to changes in federal spending 

and economic adjustments. According to Gautam et al. (2013: 10): 

Tribal capacity to adapt to climate change may hinge largely on federal 

support and reduce their adaptive capacity. Federal support can buffer the 

impact of climate change on tribes, but any economic downturn under 

climatic or non-climatic stressors might influence the [Department of the 

Interior] budget and reduce federal support to tribes. 

The federal 

government’s trust 

responsibility 

mandates a fiduciary 

duty toward tribes 

under certain 

circumstances, 

making tribes 

vulnerable to lapses 

in federal funding.
93

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Conclusion 

Barriers and Limitations to Addressing Current Impacts

Tribal perspectives are underrepresented in federal climate-change programs and 

initiatives (Gruenig et al. 2015). Tribal involvement is lacking on federal climatechange committees, working groups, and initiatives, leaving tribal perspectives and 

concerns absent from this federal dialogue. This disadvantages federal climatechange efforts, because tribes and indigenous peoples have valuable knowledge 

crucial to the development of effective climate-change solutions (Kronk Warner 

2015b). For example, the President’s State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on 

Climate Preparedness and Resilience included 24 state and local leaders but only 

two tribal representatives (White House 2013). Many reports rely on the publication 

of peer-reviewed literature and do not take into account perspective of indigenous 

traditional knowledges and oral traditions. This means that reports often further 

marginalize indigenous perspectives (Maldonado et al. 2015). Tribal adaptation is 

largely dependent on federal funding that is vulnerable to political and economic 

contexts. Even with existing funding sources, tribes often lack equitable access 

to financial, technical, and other resources needed to adapt and mitigate climate 

impacts and support renewable energy, energy efficiency, and green jobs programs. 

Many federal resource policies and mitigation efforts may not consider potential impacts on treaty and reserved rights, reservation lands, ancestral territories, 

usual and accustomed areas, or sacred sites. Tribes also experience barriers to the 

management of culturally important natural resources that are vital to the health 

of communities, economies, and cultures. Although tribal resource managers use 

traditional knowledges and modern technology to expertly manage resources, more 

than 40 federal natural resource funding programs exclude tribes. Additionally, 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is responsible for many tribal natural resource 

programs, has experienced large budget decreases compared to other Department of 

the Interior agencies (Gruenig 2015). As climate change continues to affect indigenous communities, the historical and continued exclusion of tribal conservation 

efforts from federal funding has become increasingly apparent. For example, tribes 

do not have access to financial resources of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(LWCF) and are forced to compete for existing funding sources, like the Tribal 

Wildlife Grants Program, for which they are eligible. In 2013, the Indian Forest 

Management Assessment (IFMAT) emphasized the importance of federal funding 

to support tribal climate-change assessment and adaptation and called for a “more 

equitable distribution” (IFMAT 2013). 

As erosion, flooding, sea-level rise, increasing storms, and permafrost thawing make coastlines and riverbanks increasingly unstable, several tribes in the 
94

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

contiguous United States and Alaska are being forced to consider relocation, 

proactively working to keep their communities together and maintain cultural 

sovereignty with dignity. However, communities currently have limited options 

for relocation; there is currently no national framework to deal with the relocation of tribal communities, and forced relocation is compounded by the current 

lack of governance mechanisms and funds to support the communities. This 

intensifies community impoverishment, negative economic and health impacts, 

and loss of place, social networks, and culture caused by relocation (Bronen 2011: 

360). According to Maldonado et al. (2013), “federal laws obstruct expanding or 

transferring tribal jurisdiction and few tribes have the economic means to buy new 

land.” Coastal tribes often have limited resources, infrastructure, and ownership of 

land that worsens the impacts of climate change and makes relocation prohibitively 

costly. Tribes must deal with layers of tragedies and disasters; climate-changerelated impacts are another layer being added to existing challenges (Maldonado 

et al. 2013, 2014a). For unrecognized and state-recognized tribes, like those in 

coastal Louisiana, lack of federal recognition causes additional institutional barriers with these tribes largely ineligible for federal support, funding, and grants. 

Solutions and Best Practices

Increasing indigenous participation in climate-change initiatives is one potential 

solution for increasing the resilience of indigenous communities. Indigenous 

perspectives and traditional knowledges must guide climate-change assessment and 

adaptation to develop culturally appropriate strategies. In cases in which indigenous communities decide they are no longer able to stay in place, relocation must 

be community-directed and based on a human-rights framework (Bronen 2013). 

Because climate-change vulnerability is a product of historical and ongoing social 

inequality (Marino 2015), it is important that tribes and indigenous communities 

facing relocation have access to lands of their choosing that allow them to continue 

traditional practices. The perspectives and knowledges of indigenous communities 

serve as an invaluable source of knowledge for climate-change adaptation and mitigation strategies nationwide because of tribes’ demonstrated capacity for adaptation 

(Kronk Warner 2015b). One avenue for increased indigenous participation is the 

National Climate Assessment (NCA) process and Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change.

The Third National Climate Assessment (NCA3) included a chapter on the 

impacts of climate change on indigenous populations. However, with the limited 

number and diversity of indigenous communities covered and the limitation in 

chapter length, the report captured only a snapshot of the breadth of climate-change 

impacts and solutions. Publications like the NCA are often used to formulate policy 
95

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

proposals related to climate change, but the lack of knowledge about climate-change 

impacts on indigenous peoples leaves indigenous communities in a disadvantaged 

position. Although NCA3 began to address these knowledge gaps, future assessments need additional data to comprehensively and sensitively describe indigenous 

issues (Maldonado et al. 2015). According to Maldonado et al. (2015: 2), the NCA 

process can be made more inclusive and findings more comprehensive through the: 

1. Inclusion and integration of Indigenous perspectives within other sectors of 

climate assessment reports. 

2. Creation of focused chapters on indigenous issues in all regional 

climate assessments. 

3. Publication of special reports on indigenous issues.

These changes would provide opportunities for the inclusion of more indigenous perspectives and voices. 

According to Maldonado et al. (2015), tribal climate-change workshops and 

working groups may be a valuable way to facilitate indigenous participation the 

NCA. Prior to NCA3, several tribal climate-change workshops were used to gather 

input and gain in-depth understandings of indigenous concerns with climate 

change. Workshops resulted in reports from coastal Louisiana tribes (CLTC 2012), 

Great Lakes tribes (College of Menominee Nations 2011), Alaska Native communities, Great Plains tribes (Riley et al. 2012), and the Pacific Islands (Souza and 

Tanimoto 2012). 

The workshops helped participants and the technical input team realize the 

need to consider and address not only the impacts of climate change on 

resources that many Indigenous communities depend upon and are deeply 

connected to, but to also acknowledge and highlight the grave risk climate 

change poses to entire cultures and ways of life. Indigenous communities 

themselves often hold the knowledge that can help us navigate towards a 

more sustainable path [Maldonado et al. 2015: 4]. 

There are additional tribal climate-change working groups, such as Rising 

Voices, First Stewards, Indigenous People’s Climate Change Working Group, 

Native Peoples—Native Homelands, and others, that bring together communities 

of indigenous and nonindigenous leaders, scientists, academics, students, activists, 

and resource managers from across the United States. Working groups encourage 

knowledge sharing and discussion of climate-change impacts, needs, and strategies 

for adaptation and mitigation. Maldonado et al. (2015) suggested that these networks be included in future technical inputs to ensure that indigenous issues are not 

separated from governance structures and assessments, research agendas, and plans 
96

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

to address climate change. It is important that these networks are empowered in the 

process and receive the same consideration as climate scientists, and that participation fosters effective partnerships that support adaptation actions. 

An additional avenue to increase indigenous resilience to climate change is to 

increase federal support for tribal communities as they prepare for climate change. 

According to the 2014 President’s State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force, resilience can be strengthened by tribal participation in all federal climate-change programs and by ensuring tribal access to data, funding, education, long-term natural 

resource planning, water safety and security, housing infrastructure, and food and 

energy security. Gruenig et al. (2015) offered a set of policy principles addressing 

these recommendations. The principles focus on ensuring that federally recognized 

tribes and other indigenous peoples and communities are full participants in assessing and addressing the problems of climate change through federal committees, a 

high-level task force, and federal and international climate-change initiatives; that 

indigenous peoples have direct, open access to resources and climate-change programs; that tribes are made eligible for existing and future federal natural resource 

funding programs for which states are eligible but from which tribes are currently, 

or might be, excluded. The principles also focus on the need for indigenous traditional knowledges, with the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples, 

to be acknowledged, respected, and promoted in federal policies and programs 

related to climate change (Gruenig et al. 2015: 3). These principles are included in 

2015 resolutions by the National Congress of American Indians and the Affiliated 

Tribes of Northwest Indians. 

Areas for Further Research

Literature discussing the impacts of climate change on American Indians and 

Alaska Natives has increased in the past few years. However, there are unexplored 

areas for future research. Although Maldonado (2013, 2014a, 2014b) has written on 

the subject, there remains little research exploring the impacts of climate change on 

state-recognized and unrecognized tribes. And although tribal vulnerability assessments and adaptation plans provide great examples of current impacts experienced 

by tribes, many of these impacts are absent within the peer-reviewed literature.

One of the most commonly cited climate-change impacts experienced by tribes 

that is mentioned in the literature is the movement of culturally important species 

off of reservations or trust lands. Although many cite this as a violation of treaties 

Tribal climate-change 

working groups bring 

indigenous and non 

indigenous leaders, 

scientists, academics, 

students, activists, and 

resource managers 

together to share 

knowledge and to 

discuss impacts, 

needs, and strategies 

for adaptation and 

mitigation.
97

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

that protect hunting and fishing rights, few documented examples exist to support 

these claims. Future tribally led research could document cases of species migration. Such research would be an important legal tool for tribes in the modernization 

of treaty rights. Future tribally led research should also explore phenology and the 

decoupling of species migration and seasonal shifts, and use traditional knowledge 

to explore soil-related climate impacts. The Guidelines for Considering Traditional 

Knowledge in Climate Change Initiatives (CTKW 2014) should be used to ensure 

that future research is tribally led or conduced with direct tribal engagement and 

the free, prior, and informed consent of tribes. For tribes to maintain control over 

traditional knowledges, it is important that data collected through tribal research 

partnerships that use federal funding are not accessible to the public through the 

federal Freedom of Information Act. Future research is also needed to examine the 

extent of tribal involvement with climate science centers as well as the extent to 

which federally funded climate-change research initiatives understand, and enact, 

their legal responsibility to tribes. The majority of literature on climate change and 

indigenous peoples focuses on tribes and indigenous communities in the Northwest 

and Southwest United States. Future research must work to include the perspectives 

of indigenous communities in other parts of the United States.

Acknowledgments

We thank the members of the author team for their diverse perspectives and sustained and in-depth contributions to this synthesis over the course of its development. We thank our three reviewers for their invaluable critiques and contributions: 

Marla Emery, USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station; Frank Lake, USDA 

Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station, and Elizabeth Kronk Warner, 

Kansas State University. We also thank Sophia Pavlos from Michigan State University her assistance in editing the document. Finally, we thank our technical advisors 

and additional reviewers of portions of this synthesis for ensuring that the synthesis 

would address the depth of issues facing tribes across the United States in their 

efforts to address climate change: Bull Bennett, Kiksapa Consulting, Ann Marie 

Chischilly, Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals, Patricia Cochran, 

Alaska Native Science Commission, Stephanie LeMenager, University of Oregon, 

Roy Sampsel, Institute for Tribal Government, Portland State University, Garrit 

Voggesser, National Wildlife Federation, Sue Wotkyns, Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals. 
98

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Literature Cited

Abate, R.S.; Kronk Warner, E.A. 2013. Commonality among unique indigenous 

communities: an introduction to climate change and its impacts on indigenous 

peoples. In: Abate, R.S.; Kronk Warner, E.A., eds. Climate change and 

indigenous peoples: the search for legal remedies. Northampton, MA: Edward 

Elgar Publishing: 3–18.

Adger, W.N.; Agrawala, S.; Mirza, M.M.Q.; Conde, C.; O’Brien, K.; Pulhin, 

J.; Pulwarty, R.; Smit, B.; Takahashi, K. 2007. Assessment of adaptation 

practices, options, constraints and capacity. In: Parry, M.L.; Canziani, O.F.; 

Palutikof, J.P.; van der Linden, P.J.; Hanson, C.E., eds. Contribution of Working 

Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 717–743. 

Chapter 17.

Akers, D.L. 1999. Removing the heart of the Choctaw people: Indian “removal” 

from a native perspective. American Indian Culture and Research Journal. 

23: 63–76.

Alessa, L. (Na’ia); Kliskey, A. (Anaru); Busey, R.; Hinzman, L.; White, 

D. 2008. Freshwater vulnerabilities and resilience on the Seward Peninsula: 

integrating multiple dimensions of landscape change. Global Environmental 

Change. 18(2): 256–270. 

Alexander, C.; Bynum, N.; Johnson, E.; King, U.; Mustonen, T.; Neofotis, 

P.; Oettlé, N.; Rosenzweig, C.; Sakakibara, C.; Shadrin, V.; Vicarelli, M.; 

Waterhouse, J.; Weeks, B. 2011. Linking indigenous and scientific knowledge 

of climate change. BioScience. 61(6): 477–484.

Allen, M. 1989. Native American control of tribal natural resource development 

in the context of the federal trust and tribal self-determination. Boston College 

Environmental Affairs Law Review. 16: 857–895. 

Allison, M.T.; Rivers, P.A.; Fottler, M.D. 2007. Future public health delivery 

models for Native American tribes. Public Health. 121(4): 296–307.

Anderson, K. 2005. Tending the wild: Native American knowledge and the 

management of California’s natural resources. Berkeley, CA: University of 

California Press. 558 p. 

Anthony, R. 2013. Animistic pragmatism and native ways of knowing: adaptive 

strategies for overcoming the struggle for food in the sub-Arctic. International 

Journal of Circumpolar Health. 72: 811–817. 
99

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963).

Armitage, P.; Kilburn, S. 2015. Conduct of traditional knowledge 

research—a reference guide. Whitehorse, YT: Wildlife Management 

Advisory Council (North Slope). 97 p. http://www.wmacns.ca/pdfs/401_

ConductOfTraditionalKnowledge_Sept14_fnl_WEB.pdf. (3 May 2016).

Arquette, M.; Cole, M.; Cook, K.; LaFrance, B.; Peters, M.; Ranson, J.; 

Sargent, E.; Smoke, V.; Stairs, A. 2002. Holistic risk-based environmental 

decision making: a Native perspective. Environmental Health Perspectives. 

11: 259–264.

Altizer, S.; Ostfeld, R.S.; Johnson, P.T.; Kutz, S.; Harvell, C.D. 2013. Climate 

change and infectious diseases: from evidence to a predictive framework. 

Science. 341: 514–519.

Bachman, R.; Zaykowski, H.; Kallmyer, R.; Poteyeva, M.; Lanier, C. 2008.

Violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women and the criminal 

justice response: what is known. Unpublished report. On file with: U.S. 

Department of Justice. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/223691.pdf. 

(19 January 2016).

Barboza, T. 2014. Yurok tribe hopes California’s cap-and-trade can save a way of 

life. Los Angeles Times. May 20. http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-carbonforest-20141216-story.html. (19 January 2016). 

Barnett, J.; O’Neill, S.J. 2013. Minimising the risk of maladaptation. In: Palutikof, 

J.; Boulter, S.L.; Ash, A.J.; Smith, M.S.; Parry, M.; Waschka, M.; Guitart, D., eds. 

Climate Adaptation Futures. Oxford, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons: 87–93.

Barrera-Bassols, N.; Zinck, J.A.; Van Ranst, E. 2006. Symbolism, knowledge 

and management of soil and land resources in indigenous communities: 

ethnopedology at global, regional and local scales. Catena. 65(2): 118–137.

Bartrop, P.R. 2007. Episodes from the genocide of the Native Americans: a review 

essay. Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal 2(2): 183–190.

Beil, Mark S. 2015. Local ecological knowledge and chronic disease in the Fort 

McDermitt Paiute-Shoshone Tribe. Boise, ID: Boise State University. M.A. 

thesis. 50 p. http://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/td/947. (19 January 2016). 
100

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Bennett, T.M.B.; Maynard, N.G.; Cochran, P.; Gough, R.; Lynn, K.; 

Maldonado, J.; Vogesser, G.; Wotkyns, S.; Cozzetto, K. 2014a. Indigenous 

peoples, lands, and resources. In: Melillo, J.M.; Richmond, T.C.; Yohe, G.W., 

eds. Climate change impacts in the United States. The Third National Climate 

Assessment. [Place of Publication Unknown]: U.S. Global Change Research 

Program: 297–317. Chapter 12.

Bennett, N.J.; Kadfak, A.; Dearden, P. 2014b. The future we want: taking action in 

Ban Talae Nok for the community, the environment and climate change. Victoria, 

BC: University of Victoria, Marine Protected Areas Research Group. 22 p.

Bernton, H. 2015. Snowpack drought has salmon dying in overheated rivers. 

Seattle Times [Online] July 25. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/

environment/snowpack-drought-has-salmon-dying-in-overheated-rivers/. 

(24 January 2016). 

Blackburn, M. 2012. Return to the Trail of Tears. Archaeology. 65(2): 53–64.

Blanchard, P. 2014. Our squirrels will have elephant ears: indigenous perspectives 

on climate change in the south central United States. Third annual climate 

change and indigenous peoples conference. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. 

Bonogofsky, A.; Jahshan, A.; Yu, H.; Cohn, D.; MacDonald, M. 2015.

Undermined promise II. National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resource 

Defense Council, and Western Organization of Resource Councils. http://www.

underminedpromise.org/UnderminedPromiseII.pdf. (19 January 2016).

Booth, S.; Zeller, D. 2005. Mercury, food webs, and marine mammals: 

implications of diet and climate change for human health. Environmental 

Health Perspectives. 113(5): 521–526.

Brewer, J. II; Kronk Warner, E.A. 2015. Guarding against exploitation: 

protecting indigenous knowledge in the age of climate change. Social Science 

Research Network. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2567995. (19 January 2016). 

Bronen, R. 2011. Climate-induced community relocations: creating an adaptive 

governance framework based in human rights doctrine. New York University 

Review of Law & Social Change. 35: 357–408.

Bronen, R. 2013. Climate-induced displacement of Alaska Native communities. 

Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. 25 p. http://www.brookings.edu/~/

media/Research/Files/Papers/2013/1/30-arctic-alaska-bronen/30-climate-alaskabronen-paper.pdf?la=en. (11 May 2016). 
101

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Bronen, R.; Chapin, F.S. 2013. Adaptive governance and institutional strategies for 

climate-induced community relocations in Alaska. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 110(23): 9320–9325.

Bronen, R. 2014a. Community relocations: the Arctic and South Pacific. In Martin, 

S.; Weerasinghe, S.; Taylor, A., eds. Humanitarian crises and migration. New 

York: Routledge: 221–242. Chapter 11.

Bronen, R. 2014b. Choice and necessity: relocations in the Arctic and South 

Pacific. Forced Migration Review. 45: 17–21. 

Bronen, R. 2015a. Climate-induced community relocations: using integrated 

social-ecological assessments to foster adaptation and resilience. Ecology and 

Society. 20(3): 36. 

Bronen, R. 2015b. Climate displacement: preparation and planning. In: Leckie, 

S.; Huggins, C., eds. Repairing domestic climate displacement: the peninsula 

principles. New York: Taylor and Francis: 89–110. 

Bronen, R. 2015c. The Arctic is speaking truths about climate change. Is anyone 

listening? The Huffington Post. June 24. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robinbronen/the-arctic-is-speaking-truths-about-climate-change_b_7655414.html. 

(19 January 2016)

Brooks, N.; Adger, W.N.; Kelly, P.M. 2005. The determinants of vulnerability and 

adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Global 

Environmental Change. 15: 151–163.

Brookshire, D.; Kaza, N. 2013. Planning for seven generations: energy planning of 

American Indian tribes. Energy Policy. 62: 1506–1514.

Brown, H.E.; Comrie A.C.; Drechsler, D.M.; Barker, C.; Basu, R.; Brown, T.; 

Gershunov, A.; Kilpatrick, A.M.; Reisen, W.; Ruddell, D.M. 2013. Human 

health. In: Garfin, G.; Jardine, A.; Merideth, R.; Black, M.; LeRoy, S., eds. 

Assessment of climate change in the Southwest United States: a report prepared 

for the National Climate Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press: 312–339.

Brown, P.; Lyson, M.; Jenkins, T. 2011. From diagnosis to social diagnosis. Social 

Science & Medicine. 73(6): 939–943.
102

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Brubaker, M.; Zweifel, K.; Demir, J.; Shannon, A. 2015. Climate change in 

the Bering Strait region: observations and lessons from seven communities. 

Anchorage, AK: Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Center for Climate 

and Health. 59 p. https://westernalaskalcc.org/projects/Lists/Project%20Products/

Attachments/118/Climate-Change-and-Health-Effects-in-Bering-StraitsRegion3-2015.pdf. (16 May 2016).

Brubaker, M.; Andrew, G.; Andrew, S.; Flensburg, S.; Skarada, J.; Drake, 

R. 2014a. Climate change in Levelock, Alaska: strategies for community 

health. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Center for 

Climate and Health. 36 p. http://anthc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CCH_

AR_042014_Climate-Change-in-Levelock.pdf. (16 May 2016).

Brubaker, M.; Bell, J.; Dingma, H.; Ahkivgak, M.; Whiteman, D.; Drake, R. 

2014b. Climate change in Atqasuk, Alaska: strategies for community health. 

Anchorage, AK: Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Center for Climate 

and Health. http://anthc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CCH_AR_072014_

Climate-Change-in-Atqasuk.pdf. 38 p. (11 May 2016).

Brubaker, M.; Bell, J.; Dingman, H.; Evans, S.; Kasak, K.; Itta, M.; Drake, 

R. 2014c. Climate change in Nuiqsut, Alaska: strategies for community health. 

Anchorage, AK: Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Center for Climate 

and Health. http://anthc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CCH_AR_072014_

Climate-Change-in-Nuiqsut.pdf. 42 p. (11 May 2016).

Brubaker, M.; Bell, D.; Dingman, H.; Morales, R.; Tagarook, C.; Drake, R.; 

Ramstad, K. 2014d. Climate change in Wainwright, Alaska: strategies for 

community health. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, 

Center for Climate and Health. http://anthc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/

CCH_AR_062014_Climate-Change-in-Wainwright.pdf. 39 p. (11 May 2016).

Brubaker, M.; Flensburg, S.; Shanigan, N.; Skarada, J. 2013. Climate change 

in Pilot Point, Alaska: strategies for community health. Anchorage, AK: Alaska 

Native Tribal Health Consortium, Center for Climate and Health. http://anthc.org/

wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CCH_AR_092013_Climate-Change-in-PilotPoint.

pdf. 36 p. (11 May 2016).

Brubaker, M.; Chavan, P.; Berner, J.; Black, M.; Warren, J. 2012. Climate 

change in Selawik, Alaska: strategies for community health. Anchorage, AK: 

Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Center for Climate and Health. http://

arcticlcc.org/assets/products/ARCT2011-07/publications/Climate-Change-inSelawik-Alaska.pdf. 39 p. (11 May 2016).
103

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Brubaker, M.; Chavan, R. 2011. Climate change in Kiana, Alaska: strategies for 

community health. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, 

Center for Climate and Health. http://anthc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/

CCH_AR_102011_Climate-Change-in-Kiana.pdf. 36 p. (11 May 2016).

Brubaker, M.; Bell, J.; Berner, J.; Black, M.; Chavan, R.; Smith, J.; Warren, 

J. 2011a. Climate change in Noatak, Alaska: strategies for community health. 

Anchorage, AK: Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Center for Climate 

and Health. http://anthc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CCH_AR_062011_

Climate-Change-in-Noatak.pdf. 54 p. (11 May 2016).

Brubaker, M.; Berner, J.; Chavan, R.; Warren, J. 2011b. Climate change 

and health effects in northwest Alaska. Global Health Action. 4. http://www.

globalhealthaction.net/index.php/gha/article/view/8445. (11 May 2016).

Brubaker, M.; Berner, J.; Bell, J.; Warren, J. 2011c. Climate change in Kivalina, 

Alaska: strategies for community health. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Native Tribal 

Health Consortium, Center for Climate and Health. 66 p. http://www.cidrap.umn.

edu/sites/default/files/public/php/26952/Climate%20Change%20HIA%20Report_

Kivalina.pdf. (11 May 2016).

Brubaker, M.; Bell, J.; Rolin, A. 2009. Climate change effects on traditional 

Inupiaq food cellars in Barrow, Alaska. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Native Tribal 

Health Consortium, Center for Climate and Health. 9 p. http://anthc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/CCH-Bulletin-No-4-Climate-Change-Ice-CellarsBarrow-Alaska.pdf. 9 p. (11 May 2016).

Brubaker, M.; Berner, J.; Bell, J.; Warren, J.; Rolin, A. 2010. Climate change 

in Point Hope, Alaska: strategies for community health. Anchorage, AK: 

Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Center for Climate and Health. 39 p. 

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/sites/default/files/public/php/26952/Climate%20

Change%20HIA%20Report_Point%20Hope_0.pdf. (11 May 2016).

Brugnach, M.; Craps, M.; Dewulf, A. 2014. Including indigenous peoples in 

climate change mitigation: addressing issues of scale, knowledge and power. 

Climatic Change. 1–14. doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1280-3.

Buckley, G.L.; Allen, L. 2011. Stories about mountaintop removal in the 

Appalachian coalfields. In: Morrone, M.; Buckley, G.L., eds. Mountains of 

injustice: social and environmental justice in Appalachia. Athens, OH: Ohio 

University Press: 161–180. Chapter 8.
104

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Burger, J. 2008. Environmental management: integrating ecological evaluation, 

remediation, restoration, natural resource damage assessment and long-term 

stewardship on contaminated lands. Science of the Total Environment. 400: 6–19.

Burger, J.; Gochfeld, M.; Pletnikoff, K.; Snigaroff, R.; Snigaroff, D.; Stamm, 

T. 2008. Ecocultural attributes: evaluating ecological degradation in terms 

of ecological goods and services versus subsistence and tribal values. Risk 

Analysis. 28: 1261–1272.

Callaway, D.; Eamer, J.; Edwardsen, E.; Jack, C.; Marcy, S.; Olrun, A.; 

Patkotak, M.; Rexford, D.; Whiting, A. 1999. Effects of climate change 

on subsistence communities in Alaska. In: Weller, G.; Anderson, P.A., eds. 

Assessing the consequences of climate change for Alaska and the Bering Sea 

Region. Fairbanks, AK: University of Alaska Fairbanks, Center for Global 

Change and Arctic System Research: 59–73.

Cameron, E. S. 2012. Securing indigenous politics: a critique of the vulnerability 

and adaptation approach to the human dimensions of climate change in the 

Canadian Arctic. Global Environmental Change. 22(1): 103–114. 

Carothers, C.; Brown, C.; Moerlein, K.J.; López, A.; Andersen, D.; 

Retherford, B. 2014. Measuring perceptions of climate change in northern 

Alaska: pairing ethnography with cultural consensus analysis. Ecology and 

Society. 19(4): Art. 27.

Castrodale, L. 2015. Paralytic shellfish poisoning—Alaska, 1993–2014. State of 

Alaska Epidemiology Bulletin. No. 1. Anchorage, AK: Department of Health 

and Social Services, Division of Public Health. http://www.epi.hss.state.ak.us/

bulletins/docs/b2015_01.pdf. (16 May 2016). 

Caufield, C. 2015. Senate field hearing focuses on tribes and coal. Native Sun 

News. http://www.indianz.com/News/2015/017127.asp. (16 May 2016).

Chapin, F.S.; Trainor, S.F.; Huntington, O.; Lovecraft, A.; Zavaleta, E.; 

Natcher, D.C.; McGuire, A.D.; Nelson, J.L; Ray, L.; Calef, M.; Fresco, N.; 

Huntington, H.; Rupp, T.S.; DeWilde, L.; Naylor, R.L. 2008. Increasing 

wildfire in Alaska’s boreal forest: pathways to potential solutions of a wicked 

problem. BioScience. 58(6): 531–540.
105

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Chief, K.; Daigle, J.J; Lynn, K.; Whyte. K.P. 2014. Indigenous experiences in the 

U.S. with climate change and environmental stewardship in the Anthropocene. 

In: Sample, V.A.; Bixler, R.P., eds. 2014. Forest conservation and management 

in the Anthropocene: adaptation of science, policy, and practices. Proceedings. 

RMRS-P-71. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station: 161–176.

Clark, K.; Harris, J. 2011. Clearwater River subbasin (ID) climate action 

adaptation plan. Nez Perce Tribe Water Resources Division. Sagel, ID: 

Model Forestry Policy Program. 58 p. http://www.mfpp.org/wp-content/

uploads/2012/03/ClearwaterRiver-Subbasin_ID_Forest-and-Water-ClimateAdaptation-Plan_2011.pdf. (16 May 2016).

Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup [CTKW]. 2014. Guidelines 

for considering traditional knowledges in climate change initiatives. http://

climatetkw.wordpress.com/. (29 April 2016).

Coastal Louisiana Tribal Communities [CLTC]. 2012. Stories of change: coastal 

Louisiana tribal communities’ experiences of a transforming environment. 

Workshop report input into the National Climate Assessment. 25 p. http://data.

globalchange.gov/file/075e3549-2ae2-463a-833b-c4293cee36de. (4 May 2016).

Cochran, P.; Huntington, O.H.; Pungowiyi, C.; Tom. S; Chapin, F.S.; 

Huntington, H.; Maynard, N.; Trainor, S. 2013. Indigenous frameworks for 

observing and responding to climate change in Alaska. Climatic Change. 

120(3): 557–567.

College of Menominee Nation. 2011. Shifting seasons: Great Lakes tribal climate 

change summit report. Keshina, WI: Sustainable Development Institute. 

http://sustainabledevelopmentinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/

CCSummitDraft2.pdf. (9 June 2016).

Colorado River Indian Tribes. 2009. Human and cultural resource code. http://

www.crit-nsn.gov/crit_contents/ordinances/Human-and-Cultural-Research-Code.

pdf. (3 May 2016).

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. [N.d.]. Columbia Gorge coal 

transport. http://www.critfc.org/advocacy/columbia-gorge-coal-transport/. 

(19 January 2016).

Compher, C. 2006. The nutrition transition in American Indians. Journal of 

Transcultural Nursing. 17(3): 217–223. 
106

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes: climate change strategic plan 

[CSKT]. 2013. Pablo, MT: Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the 

Flathead Reservation. 

Cordalis, D.; Suaǵee, D.B. 2008. The effects of climate change on American Indian 

and Alaska Native tribes. Natural Resources & Environment. 22(3): 45–49.

Cozzetto, K.; Chief, K.; Dittmer, K.; Brubaker, M.; Gough R.; Souza, K.; 

Ettawageshik, F.; Wotkyns, S.; Opitz-Stapleton, S.; Duren, S.; Chaven, P. 

2013a. Climate change impacts on the water resources of American Indians and 

Alaska Natives in the U.S. Climatic Change. 3: 569–584.

Cozzetto, K.; Chief, K.; Dittmer, K.; Brubaker, M.; Gough R.; Souza, K.; 

Ettawageshik, F.; Wotkyns, S.; Opitz-Stapleton, S.; Duren, S.; Chaven, P. 

2013b. Supplemental material: climate change impacts on the water resources of 

American Indians and Alaska Natives in the U.S. Climatic Change. 120(3): 569–584. 

Crippa, L.; Gordon, G. 2013. International law principles for REDD+: the rights 

of indigenous peoples and the obligations of REDD+ actors. Working paper. 

Helena, MT: Indian Law Resource Center. 28 p. http://staging.ilrc.vm-host.net/

sites/default/files/2013-09%20REDD%20Principles%20ENG%20FINAL%20Ref.

pdf. (16 May 2016).

Dalton, M.M.; Mote, P.W.; Snover, A.K. 2013. Climate change in the Northwest: 

implications for our landscapes, waters, and communities. Washington, DC: 

Island Press. 270 p.

Dittmann, R.H. 1994. Annual flood death statistics per state per capita for the 

United States and Puerto Rico during the period 1959–1991. Tech. Memorandum 

NWS SR-153. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, Scientific 

Services Division, Southern Region. http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/noaa_documents/

NWS/NWS_SR/TM_NWS_SR_153.pdf. (9 June 2016).

Dittmer, K. 2013. Changing streamflow on Columbia basin tribal lands—climate 

change and salmon. Climatic Change. 120: 627–641. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0745-0.

Donatuto, J.; Satterfield, T.A.; Gregory R. 2011. Poisoning the body to nourish 

the soul: prioritizing health risks and impacts in a Native American community. 

Health, Risk, and Society 13: 103–127.
107

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Donatuto, J.; Grossman, E.; Konovsky, J.; Grossman, S.; Campbell, L. 2014.

Indigenous community health and climate change: integrating biophysical and 

social science indicators. Coastal Management. 42(4): 355–373. doi:10.1080/0892

0753.2014.923140.

Donatuto, J.; Campbell, L.; Gregory, R. [N.d]. Developing responsive indicators 

of indigenous community health. Manuscript in preparation. On file with: 

Jamie Donatuto, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, 11404 Moorage Way, La 

Conner, WA 98257.

Downing, A.; Cuerrier, A. 2011. A synthesis of the impacts of climate change on 

the First Nations and Inuit of Canada. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge. 

10(1): 57–70.

Doyle, J.; Redsteer, M.H.; Eggers, M.J. 2013. Exploring effects of climate change 

on Northern Plains American Indian health. Climatic Change. 120(3): 643–655.

Driscoll, D.L.; Sunbury, T.; Johnston, J.; Renes, S. 2013. Initial findings from 

the implementation of a community-based sentinel surveillance system to 

assess the health effects of climate change in Alaska. International Journal of 

Circumpolar Health. 72. doi:10.3402/ijch.v72i0.21405.

Dukes, J.S.; Pontius, J.; Orwig, D; Garnas, J.; Rodgers, V.; Brazee, N.; Cooke, 

B.; Theoharides, K.; Stange, E.; Harrington, R.; Ehrenfeld, J.; Gurevitch, 

J.; Lerdau, M.; Stinson, K.; Wick, R.; Ayres, M. 2009. Responses of insect 

pests, pathogens, and invasive plant species to climate change in the forests of 

northeastern North America: What can we predict? Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 39: 231–248.

Dussias, A.M. 2010. Spirit food and sovereignty: pathways for protecting 

indigenous peoples’ subsistence rights. Cleveland State Law Review. 58(2): 273.

Earle, L. 2011. Traditional aboriginal diets and health. Prince George, BC: National 

Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health. 

Ebi, K.L. 2011. Resilience to the health risks of extreme weather events in a 

changing climate in the United States. International Journal of Environmental 

Research and Public Health. 8(12): 4582–4595. 
108

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Egeland, G.; Harrison, G. 2013. Health disparities: promoting indigenous peoples’ 

health through traditional food systems and self-determination. In: Kuhnlein, 

H.; Erasmus, B.; Spigelski, D.; Burlingame, B., eds. Indigenous peoples’ food 

systems & well-being interventions and policies for healthy communities. 

Rome: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization; Canada: Centre for 

Indigenous Peoples’ Nutrition and Environment.

Emery, M.R.; Wrobel, A.; Hansen, M.H.; Dockry, M.; Moser, K.W.; Stark, 

K.J.; Gilbert, J.H. 2014. Using traditional ecological knowledge as a basis for 

targeted forest inventories: paper birch (Betula papyrifera) in the US Great Lakes 

region. Journal of Forestry. 112(2): 207–214.

Enarson, E. 2011. Does violence against women increase in disasters? http://

usgdra.org/wp-content/uploads/file/Does%20VAW%20Increase-july2012%20-ee.

pdf. (4 May 2016).

Erwin, M.L.; Munn, M.D. 1997. Are walleye from Lake Roosevelt contaminated 

with mercury? Fact Sheet FS-102-97. Tacoma, WA: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Geological Survey. http://wa.water.usgs.gov/pubs/fs/fs.102-97/. (4 May 2016).

Evans-Campbell, T. 2008. Historical trauma in American Indian/Native Alaska 

communities: a multilevel framework for exploring impacts on individuals, 

families, and communities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 23(3): 316–338.

Executive Order 13175, 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000. Consultation and 

coordination with Indian tribal governments. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2000-11-09/pdf/00-29003.pdf. (16 May 2016).

Ferguson, D.B.C.; Alvord, M.; Crimmins, H.M.; Redsteer M.H.; Hayes, M.; 

McNutt, C.; Pulwarty, R.; Svoboda, M. 2011. Drought preparedness for tribes in 

the Four Corners region. Tucson, AZ: Climate Assessment for the Southwest. 42 p.

Ferris, E. 2012. Protection and planned relocations in the context of climate 

change. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations High Commission of Refugees, 

Division of International Protection.

First Stewards. 2012. First stewards symposium: coastal peoples address climate 

change. Washington, DC: National Museum of the American Indian. http://

www7.nau.edu/itep/main/tcc/docs/tribes/tribes_FirstStewards.pdf. (4 May 2016).

Fisher, M. 2014. Native American tribe prepares for climate change with the help 

of a soil scientist. Soil Horizons. 55(4). doi:10.2136/sh2014-55-4-f.
109

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Flatt, C. 2014. Renewable energy takes root in northwest Indian country. Portland, 

OR: Oregon Public Broadcasting. http://www.opb.org/news/article/northwesttribes-begin-energy-projects/. (June 9, 2016).

Fleischhacker, S.; Byrd, R.R.; Ramachandran, G.; Vu, M.; Ries, A.; Bell, R.; 

Evenson, K. 2012. Tools for healthy tribes: improving access to healthy foods in 

Indian country. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 43: S123–S129.

Ford, J.D. 2012. Indigenous health and climate change. American Journal of Public 

Health. 102: 1260–1266.

Ford, J.D.; Bell, T.; St-Hilaire-Gravel, D. 2010. Vulnerability of community 

infrastructure to climate change in Nunavut: a case study from Arctic Bay. In: 

Hovelsrud, G.T.; Smit, B., eds. Community adaptation and vulnerability in Arctic 

regions. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer: 107–130.

Ford, J.D.; Berrang-Ford, L.; King, M.; Furgal, C. 2010. Vulnerability of 

aboriginal health systems in Canada to climate change. Global Environmental 

Change. 20: 668–680.

Ford, J.D.; Furgal, C. 2009. Climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability 

in the Arctic. Polar Research. 28: 1–9. doi:10.1111/j.1751-8369.2009.00103.x.

Ford, J.D.; McDowell, G.; Shirley, J.; Pitre, M.; Siewierski, R.; Gough, W.; 

Duerden, F.; Pearce, T.; Adams, P.; Statham, S. 2013. The dynamic multiscale 

nature of climate change vulnerability: an Inuit harvesting example. Annals of 

the Association of American Geographers. 103(5): 1193–12.11.

Ford, J.D.; Willox, A.C.; Chatwood, S.; Furgal, C.; Harper, S.; Mauro, I.; 

Pearce, T. 2014. Adapting to the effects of climate change on Inuit health. 

American Journal of Public Health. 104: e9–e17.

Frumhoff, P.C.; McCarthy, J.J.; Melillo, J.M.; Moser, S.; Wuebbles, D. 

2007. Confronting climate change in the U.S. Northeast: science, impacts, 

and solutions. Synthesis report of the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment. 

Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists. 146 p.

Fugate, C. 2013. Changing laws for the better—recognizing tribal sovereignty. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. https://www.fema.gov/blog/2013-01-31/changing-lawsbetter-recognizing-tribal-sovereignty. (19 January 2016).

Garibaldi, A.; Turner, N. 2004. Cultural keystone species: implications for 

ecological conservation and restoration. Ecology and Society. 9: 1–18.
110

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Galanda, G. 2010. The federal Indian consultation right: a frontline defense against 

tribal sovereignty incursion. Government Affairs Practice Newsletter. 2: 1–14.

Garfin, G.; Jardine, A.; Meredith, R.; Black, M.; LeRoy, S., eds. 2013.

Assessment of climate change in the Southwest United States: a report prepared 

for the National Climate Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press. 528 p.

Gautam, M.; Chief, K.; Smith, W. 2013. Climate change in arid lands and Native 

American socioeconomic vulnerability: the case of the Pyramid Lake Paiute 

Tribe. Climatic Change. 3: 585–599.

Gearheard, S.; Pocernich, M.; Stewart, R.; Sanguya, S.; Huntington, H. 2010.

Linking Inuit knowledge and meteorological station observations to understand 

changing wind patterns at Clyde River, Nunavut. Climatic Change. 100: 267–294.

Georgakakos, A.; Fleming, P.; Dettinger, M.; Peters-Lidard, C.; Richmond, 

T.C.; Reckhow, K.; White, K.; Yates, D. 2014. Water resources. In: Melillo, 

J.M.; Richmond, T.C.; Yohe, G.W., eds. Climate change impacts in the United 

States: the third national climate assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Global 

Change Research Program: 69–112. Chapter 3.

Gessner, B.D. 2008. Lack of piped water and sewage services is associated with 

pediatric lower respiratory tract infection in Alaska. The Journal of Pediatrics. 

152: 666–670.

Gittelsohn, J.; Sharma, S. 2009. Physical, consumer, and social aspects of 

measuring the food environment among diverse low-income populations. 

American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 36: S161–S165.

Gone, J.P. 2013. Redressing First Nations historical trauma: theorizing mechanisms 

for indigenous culture as mental health treatment. Transcultural Psychiatry. 

50(5): 683–706.

Goodman, E.C. 2000. Protecting habitat for off-reservation tribal hunting and 

fishing rights: tribal comanagement as a reserved right. Environmental Law. 

30: 279.

Grah, O.; Beaulieu, J. 2013. The effect of climate change on glacier ablation 

and baseflow support in the Nooksack River basin and implications on Pacific 

salmonid species protection and recovery. Climatic Change. 120: 657–670.

Grossman, Z.; Parker, A.; Frank, B. 2012. Asserting native resilience: Pacific 

Rim indigenous nations face the climate crisis. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University Press. 240 p.
111

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Gruenig, B.; Lynn, K.; Voggesser, G.; Whyte, K.P. 2015. Tribal climate change 

principles: responding to federal policies and actions to address climate change. 

Unpublished report. On file with: Tribal Climate Change Project, University of 

Oregon. (kathy@uoregon.edu). 

Halofsky, J.E.; Peterson, D.L.; Marcinkowski, K.W. 2015. Climate change 

adaptation in United States federal natural resource science and management 

agencies: a synthesis. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research 

Program. 80 p. http://www.globalchange.gov/sites/globalchange/files/ASIWG_

Synthesis_4.28.15_final.pdf. (4 May 2016).

Hanna, J.M. 2007. Native communities and climate change: protecting tribal 

resources as part of national climate policy. Boulder, CO: University of 

Colorado–Boulder, Natural Resources Law Center. 67 p.

Hansen, T. 2013. Eight tribes that are way ahead of climate-adaptation curve. 

Indian Country Today Media Network. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.

com/2013/10/15/8-tribes-are-way-ahead-climate-adaptation-curve-151763. (19 

January 2016).

Harper, S.L.; Edge, V.L.; Ford, J.; Willox, A.C.; Wood, M.; IHACC Research 

Team; RICG; McEwen, S.A. 2015. Climate-sensitive health priorities in 

Nunatsiavut, Canada. BMC Public Health. 15: 605.

Harris, C. 2004. How did colonialism dispossess? Comments from an edge of 

empire. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 94: 165–182.

Hatfield, J.G.; Takle, R.; Grotjahn, P.; Holden, P.; Izaurralde, R.C.; Mader, 

T.; Marshall, E.; Liverman, D. 2014. Ch. 6: Agriculture. In: Melillo, J.M.; 

Richmond, T.C.; Yohe, G.W., eds. Climate change impacts in the United States: 

the third national climate assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change 

Research Program: 150–174. 

Hennessy, T.; Ritter, T.; Holman, R.; Bruden, D.; Yorita, K.; Bulkow, L.; 

Cheek, J.; Singleton, R.; Smith, J. 2008. The relationship between in-home 

water service and the risk of respiratory tract, skin, and gastrointestinal tract 

infections among rural Alaska Natives. American Journal of Public Health. 

98: 2072–2078.

Heizer, R.F. 1972. The eighteen unratified treaties of 1851–1852 between the 

California Indians and the United States government. Berkeley, CA: University 

of California Archaeological Research Facility: 1–101.
112

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Henkel, K.E.; Dovidio, J.F.; Gaertner, S.L. 2006. Institutional discrimination, 

individual racism, and Hurricane Katrina. Analyses of social issues and public 

policy. 6: 99–124.

Himes-Cornell, A.; Kasperski, S. 2015. Assessing climate change vulnerability in 

Alaska’s fishing communities. Fisheries Research. 162: 1–11.

Holmes, I.; Potvin, C. 2014. Avoiding re-inventing the wheel in a people-centered 

approach to REDD+. Conservation Biology. 28(5). 1380–1393.

Hong, E.; Perkins, R.; Trainor, S. 2014. Thaw settlement hazard of permafrost 

related to climate warming in Alaska. Arctic. 67: 93–103.

Hoover, E. 2013. Cultural and health implications of fish advisories in a Native 

American community. Ecological processes. 2: 1–12.

Houck, O.A. 2015. The reckoning: oil and gas development in the Louisiana 

coastal zone. Tulane Environmental Law Journal. 28: 185–455.

Houde, N. 2007. The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: challenges and 

opportunities for Canadian co-management arrangements. Ecology and Society. 

12: 34.

Houser, S.; Teller, V.; MacCracken, M.; Gough, R.; Spears, P. 2001. Potential 

consequences of climate variability and change for native peoples and homelands 

in climate change impacts on the United States: the potential consequences 

of climate variability and change. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge 

University Press: 351–377.

Houston, W. 2015. Eel River salmon go blind waiting rain. Eureka TimesStandard. Oct. 27. http://www.times-standard.com/article/NJ/20151027/

NEWS/151029830. (20 May 2016).

Hueffer, K.; Parkinson, A.J.; Gerlach, R.; Berner, J. 2013. Zoonotic infections 

in Alaska: disease prevalence, potential impact of climate change and 

recommended actions for earlier disease detection, research, prevention and 

control. International Journal of Circumpolar Health. 72. 

Hummel, S.; Lake, F.K. 2015. Forest site classification for cultural plant harvest by 

tribal weavers can inform management. Journal of Forestry. 113: 30–39.

Huntington, H.P.; Fox, S.; Berkes, F.; Krupnik, I. 2005. The changing Arctic: 

indigenous perspectives. In: Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge, 

United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press: 61–98.
113

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Huntington, H.P.; Goodstein, E.; Euskirchen, E. 2012. Towards a tipping 

point in responding to change: rising costs, fewer options for Arctic and global 

societies. Ambio. 41: 66–74.

Huntington, O.H.; Watson, A. 2012. Interdisciplinarity, native resilience, and how 

the riddles can teach wildlife law in an era of rapid climate change. Wicazo Sa 

Review. 27(2): 49–73.

Hus, T. 2010. Native Americans sue U.S. over solar power plant in desert. Los 

Angeles Times. November 4. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/04/business/

la-fi-solar-tribe-20101105. (19 January 2016).

Indian Country Today Media Network [ICTMN)]. 2015. Bakken-crudehauling oil train explodes in North Dakota, town evacuated. http://

indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/05/07/bakken-crude-hauling-oiltrain-explodes-north-dakota-town-evacuated-160282. (19 January 2016).

Indian Forest Management Assessment Team [IFMAT]. 2013. An assessment 

of Indian forests and forest management in the United States—final report, vol.1. 

Portland, OR: Intertribal Timber Council. http://www.itcnet.org/issues_projects/

issues_2/forest_management/assessment.html. (9 June 2016).

Indian Health Service [IHS]. 2015. Disparities. http://www.ihs.gov/newsroom/

factsheets/disparities/. (20 January 2016).

Ingram, K.; Dow, K.; Carter, L. 2012. Southeast region technical report to the 

National Climate Assessment. New Orleans, LA: Gulf of Mexico Climate 

Outreach Community of Practice: 16–18.

Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals [ITEP]. 2012. Tribal climate 

change profiles. http://www7.nau.edu/itep/main/tcc/Tribes/. (20 January 2016).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. 2007. Climate change 

2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to 

the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

New York: Cambridge University Press. 976 p.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. 2014. Climate change 

2014: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth 

assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core 

writing team: Pachauri, R.K.; Meyer, L.A., eds. Geneva, Switzerland. 151 p. 
114

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

International Strategy for Disaster Reduction [ISDR]. 2009. Global assessment 

report on disaster risk reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations, Office 

for Disaster Risk Reduction. http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/

report/index.php?id=9413&pid:34&pif:3. (16 May 2016).

Jacob, M.M. 2013. Yakama rising: indigenous cultural revitalization, activism, and 

healing. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. 152 p.

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe. 2013. Climate vulnerability assessment and 

adaptation plan. Sequim, WA: Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe and Adaptation 

International. 59 p.

Jenkins, M.L. 2015. Major forest insect and disease conditions in the United 

States: 2013. FS-1054. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. 44 p.

Jenkins, P.; Phillips, B. 2008. Domestic violence and hurricane Katrina. In: 

Willinger, B., ed. Katrina and the women of New Orleans. New Orleans, LA: 

Tulane University, Newcomb College Institute. 20(3): 65–69. Chapter 8.

Jenni, K.; Graves D.; Hardiman J.; Hatten, J.; Mastin, M.; Mesa, M.; Montag, 

J.; Nieman, T.; Voss, F.; Maule, A. 2014. Identifying stakeholder-relevant 

climate change impacts: a case study in the Yakima River Basin, Washington, 

USA. Climatic Change. 124: 371–384.

Johnson, J.S.; Nobmann, E.D.; Asay, E.; Lanier; A.P. 2009. Dietary intake of 

Alaska Native people in two regions and implications for health: the Alaska 

Native Dietary and Subsistence Food Assessment Project. International Journal 

of Circumpolar Health. 68.

Johnson, T.; Gray, G. 2014. Shaktoolik, Alaska: climate change adaptation for 

an at-risk community: adaptation plan. Fairbanks, AK: University of Alaska 

Fairbanks, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, Alaska Sea Grant. 33 

p. https://seagrant.uaf.edu/map/climate/docs/Shaktoolik-Adaptation-PlanFinal-2-27-14.pdf. (9 June 2016.)

Joyce, L.A.; Running, S.W.; Breshears, D.D.; Dale, V.H.; Malmsheimer, R.W.; 

Sampson, R.N.; Sohngen, B.; Woodall, C.W. 2014. Forests. In: Melillo, J.M.; 

Richmond, T.C.; Yohe, G.W., eds. Climate change impacts in the United States: 

the Third National Climate Assessment, U.S. Global Change Research Program: 

175–194. Chapter 7. doi:10.7930/J0Z60KZC.
115

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Keener, V.W.; Marra, J.J.; Finucane, M.L.; Spooner, D.; Smith, M.H., eds. 

2012. Climate change and Pacific Islands: indicators and impacts. Report for the 

2012 Pacific Islands Regional Climate Assessment (PIRCA). Washington, DC: 

Island Press. 170 p.

Keppel, G.; Mokany, K.; Wardell-Johnson, G.W.; Phillips, B.; Welbergen, J.; 

Reside, A. 2015. The capacity of refugia for conservation planning under climate 

change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 13: 106–112. 

Kirmayer, L.J.; Gone, J.P.; Moses, J. 2014. Rethinking historical trauma. 

Transcultural Psychiatry. 51: 299–319.

Klein, N. 2007. The shock doctrine: the rise of disaster capitalism. New York: 

Metropolitan Books. 558 p.

Knapp, C.N.; Trainor, S.F. 2015. Alaskan stakeholder-defined research needs in 

the context of climate change. Polar Geography. 38: 42–69.

Kofinas, G.P.; Chapin, F.S.; BurnSilver, S.; Schmidt, J.I.; Fresco, N.L.; 

Kielland, K.; Martin, S.; Springsteen, A.; Rupp, T.S. 2010. Resilience of 

Athabascan subsistence systems to interior Alaska’s changing climate. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research. 40(7): 1347–1359.

Kolahdooz F.; Simeon D.; Ferguson G.; Sharma S. 2014. Development of a 

quantitative food frequency questionnaire for use among the Yup’ik people of 

western Alaska. PLoS ONE. 11(2): e0150317. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150317.

Krakoff, S. 2008. American Indians, climate change, and ethics for a warming 

world. Denver University Law Review. 85: 8–19.

Kronk Warner, E.A. 2015a. Everything old is new again: enforcing tribal treaty 

provisions to protect climate change threatened resources. University of Kansas 

School of Law [Working Paper]. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_

id=2652954.9. (20 January 2016).

Kronk Warner, E.A. 2015b. Tribes as innovative environmental 

‘laboratories’. University of Colorado Law Review. 86: 789–1095. 

Kukarenko, N. 2011. Climate change effects on human health in a gender 

perspective: some trends in Arctic research. Global Health Action. 4. 

doi:10.3402/gha.v4i0.7913.
116

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

LaFontaine, P.; Callero, N.; Tillmann, P. 2012. The true cost of coal: the coal 

industry’s threat to fish and communities in the Pacific Northwest. [Report]. 

Merrrifield, VA: National Wildlife Federation. https://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/

Global-Warming/Reports/NWF_PacificCoal_FINAL.ashx. (22 January 2016). 

Lake, F.K.; Long, J.W. 2014. Fire and tribal cultural resources. In: Long, 

J.W.; Quinn-Davidson, L.N.; Skinner, C.N. Science synthesis to support 

socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 173–186. Chapter 4.2. http://

www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr247/. (20 January 2016).

Lantz, L.; Appelbaum, L. 2013. Final report: sustainable construction in Indian 

country initiative. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. 370 p.

Larson, A.M.; Brockhaus, M.; Sunderlin, W.D.; Duchelle, A.D.; Babbon, 

A.; Dokken, T.; Pham, T.T.; Resosudarmo, I.A.P.; Selaya, G.; Awono, A.; 

Huynh, T.B. 2013. Land tenure and REDD+: the good, the bad and the ugly. 

Global Environmental Change. 23: 678–689.

Laska, S.; Peterson, K.; Rodrigue, C.L.; Cosse’, T.; Philippe; R.; Burchett, 

O.; Krajeski, R. 2015. Layering of natural and human-caused disasters in 

the context of sea level rise coastal Louisiana communities at the edge. In: 

Companion, M., ed. Disaster’s impact on livelihood and cultural survival. Boca 

Raton, FL: CRC Press: 225–238. Chapter 16.

Leclerc, C.; Mwongera, C.; Camberlin, P.; Boyard-Micheau, J. 2013. 

Indigenous past climate knowledge as cultural built-in object and its accuracy. 

Ecology and Society. 18(4): 22. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ ES-05896-180422.

Luber, G.K.; Knowlton, J.; Balbus, H.; Frumkin, H.; Hayden, M.; Hess, J.; 

McGeehin, M.; Sheats, N. 2014. Human Health. In: Melillo, J.M.; Richmond, 

T.C.; Yohe, G.W., eds. Climate change impacts in the United States: the third 

national climate assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research 

Program: 220–256. Chapter 9.

Lynn, K. 2005. Wildfire protection and tribal needs assessment: a study of 

the resources and needs related to wildland and structural fire protection for 

Pacific Northwest Tribes. Working paper. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, 

Institute for a Sustainable Environment. https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/

bitstream/handle/1794/2282/Tribal_fire_assessment_2-10-05.pdf?sequence=1. 

(20 May 2016).
117

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Lynn, K.; Daigle J.; Hoffman J.; Lake, F.; Michelle, N.; Ranco, D.; Viles, C.; 

Voggesser, G.; Williams, P. 2013. The impacts of climate change on tribal 

traditional foods. Climatic Change. 3: 545–556.

Lynn, K.; MacKendrick, K.; Donoghue; E.M. 2011. Social vulnerability 

and climate change: synthesis of literature. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-838. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 67 p. 

Maldonado, J.K. 2014a. A multiple knowledge approach for adaptation to 

environmental change: lessons learned from coastal Louisiana’s tribal 

communities. Journal of Political Ecology. 21: 62–81.

Maldonado, J.K. 2014b. Facing the rising tide: co-occurring disasters, 

displacement and adaptation in coastal Louisiana’s tribal communities. 

Washington, DC: American University. 295 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Maldonado, J.K. 2015. Everyday practices and symbolic forms of resistance: 

adapting to environmental change in coastal Louisiana. In: Collins, A., 

ed. Hazards, risks, and disasters in society: a cross-disciplinary overview, 

Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier: 201–216. Chapter 12.

Maldonado, J.K.; Bennett, T.M.B.; Chief, K.; Cochran, P.; Cozzetto, K.; 

Gough, B.; Redsteer, M.H.; Lynn, K.; Maynard, N.; Voggesser, G. 2015. 

Engagement with indigenous peoples and honoring traditional knowledge 

systems. Climatic Change. 135(1): 111–126.

Maldonado, J.K.; Pandya, R.; Colombi, B., eds. 2014. Climate change and 

indigenous peoples in the United States: impacts, experiences and actions. 

Cham, Switzerland: Springer Publishing International. 174 p.

Maldonado, J.K.; Shearer, C.; Bronen, R.; Peterson, K.; Lazrus, H. 2013.

The impact of climate change on tribal communities in the US: Displacement, 

relocation, and human rights. Climatic Change. 3: 601–614.

Marino, E. 2012. The long history of environmental migration: assessing 

vulnerability construction and obstacles to successful relocation in Shishmaref, 

Alaska. Global Environmental Change. 22: 374–381.

Marino, E. 2015. Fierce climate, sacred ground. Fairbanks, AK: University of 

Alaska Press. 122 p. 
118

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Maynard, N.G., ed. 1998. “Native peoples–native homelands climate change 

workshop: final report: circles of wisdom. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change 

Research Program. 95 p. https://downloads.globalchange.gov/nca/nca1/native.pdf. 

(20 May 2016).

Maynard, N.G., ed. 2014. Native peoples–native homelands climate change 

workshop II,final report: an indigenous response to climate change. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program. 124 p. http://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/

uploads/images_db/NPNH-Report-No-Blanks.pdf. (20 May 2016).

McDonald, M.J.; Muldowny, J. 1982. TVA and the dispossessed. Knoxville, TN: 

The University of Tennessee Press. 352 p.

McLaughlin, J.B.; Sobel, J.; Lynn, T.; Funk, E.; Middaugh, J. 2004. Botulism 

Type E outbreak associated with eating a beached whale, Alaska. Emerging 

Infectious Diseases 10. 1685–1687.

McNeeley, S.M. 2012. Examining barriers and opportunities for sustainable 

adaptation to climate change in Interior Alaska. Climatic Change. 111: 835–857.

McNeeley S.M.; Lazrus, H. 2014. The cultural theory of risk for climate change 

adaptation. Weather, Climate, and Society. 6: 506–519. 

McNutt, D. 2010. Northwest tribes: meeting the challenge of climate change. 

Olympia, WA: The Evergreen State College, Northwest Indian Applied Research 

Institute. 15 p. http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/climatechangebooklet.

pdf. (20 May 2016).

McOliver, C.A.; Camper, A.K.; Doyle, J.T.; Eggers, M.; Ford, T.; Lila, M.A.; 

Berner, J.; Campbell, L.; Donatuto, J. 2015. Community-based research as a 

mechanism to reduce environmental health disparities in American Indian and 

Alaska Native communities. International Journal of Environmental Research 

and Public Health. 12(4): 4076–4100. doi:10.3390/ijerph120404076.

Michelle, N. 2012. Uses of plant food-medicines in the Wabanaki bioregions of 

the Northeast; a cultural assessment of berry harvesting practices and customs. 

Orono, ME: University of Maine. 21.

Middleton, B.R. 2013. “Just another hoop to jump through?” Using environmental 

laws and processes to protect indigenous rights. Environmental Management. 

52: 1057–1070.

Miles, A.S. 2005. Tribal energy resource agreements: tools for achieving energy 

development and tribal self-sufficiency or an abdication of federal environmental 

and trust responsibilities? American Indian Law Review. 30: 461–476.
119

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Millar, C.I.; Stephenson, N.L.; Stephens, S.L. 2007. Climate change and forests 

of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications. 

17: 2145–2151.

Miller, D.W. 2011. The taking of American Indian lands in the Southeast: a 

history of territorial cessions and forced relocations, 1607–1840. Jefferson, NC: 

McFarland and Company. 230 p.

Mimura, N.; Pulwarty, R.S.; Duc, D.M.; Elshinnawy, I.; Redsteer, M.H.; 

Huang, H.Q.; Nkem, J.N.; Rodriguez, R.A.S. 2014. Adaptation planning 

and implementation. In: Field, C.B.; Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J.; Mach, K.J.; 

Mastrandrea, M.D.; Bilir, T.E.; Chatterjee, M.; Ebi, K.L.; Estrada, Y.O.; Genova, 

R.C.; Girma, B.; Kissel, E.S.; Levy, A.N.; MacCracken, S.; Mastrandera, P.R.; 

White, L.L., eds. Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. 

Part A: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the 

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press: 869–898. 

Mobley, C.M. 2012. World War II Aleut relocation camps in southeast Alaska. 

Anchorage, AK: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Alaska 

Region. 215 p. https://www.nps.gov/aleu/learn/historyculture/upload/mobleyaleut-book-lo_res.pdf. (9 June 2016).

Moerlein, K.J.; Carothers, C. 2012. Total environment of change: impacts of 

climate change and social transitions on subsistence fisheries in northwest 

Alaska. Ecology and Society. 17: 10.

Mondou, D.J. 1998. The American Indian Agricultural Resources Management 

Act: Does the Winters water bucket have a hole in it? Drake Journal of 

Agricultural Law. 3: 381.

Montag, J.M.; Swan, K.; Jenni, K.; Nieman, T.; Hatten, J.; Mesa, M.; Graves, 

D.; Voss, F.; Mastin, M.; Hardimann, J.; Maule, A. 2014. Climate change and 

Yakama Nation tribal well-being. Climatic Change. 124: 385–398.

Murphy, M. 2013. Chemical infrastructures of the St. Clair River. In: Boudia, S.; 

Jas, N., eds. Toxicants, health and regulation since 1945. London: Pickering and 

Chatto: 103–115.
120

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Nakashima, D.J.; Galloway McLean, K.; Thulstrup, H.D.; Ramos Castillo, 

A.; Rubis, J.T. 2012. Weathering uncertainty: traditional knowledge for climate 

change assessment and adaptation. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific, 

and Cultural Organization, and Darwin, Northern Territories, Australia: United 

Nations University. 120 p.

Nania, J.; Cozzetto, K.; Gillet, N.; Duren, S.; Tapp, A.M.; Eitner, M.; Baldwin, 

B. 2014. Considerations for climate change and variability adaptation on the Navajo 

Nation. Research paper. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado–Boulder. 204 p.

Naquin, A.W.B.; Peterson, K. 2016. Isle De Jean Charles Band of Biloxi 

Chitimacha Choctaw receive national disaster resilience competition award for 

resettlement. Press release. Isle de Jean Charles, LA: Isle de Jean Charles (IdJC) 

Band of Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw.

Natcher, D.C.; Calef, M.; Huntington, O.; Trainor, S.; Huntington, H.P.; 

DeWilde, L.; Rupp, S.; Chapin, F.S. 2007. Factors contributing to the cultural 

and spatial variability of landscape burning by native peoples of Interior Alaska. 

Ecology and Society. 12: 7.

National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee [NCA]. 

2014. Global climate change impacts in the United States. New York: Cambridge 

University Press. 188 p.

National Congress of American Indians [NCAI]. 2011. 

Resolution #PDX-11-036: Traditional ecological knowledge and 

climate change. http://www.ncai.org/attachments/Resolution_

MZlrscMWUDNfPdJGEJQVODCZZtiNPdZRrWVaNmDdEYTmqgYqTat_PDX11-036_final.pdf. (20 May 2016).

National Congress of American Indians [NCAI]. 2015. Native resources.

http://www.ncai.org/policy-issues/land-natural-resources/native-resources. 

(20 May 2016).

National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Joint Implementation 

Working Group [NFWPCA]. 2014. National fish, wildlife & plants climate 

adaptation strategy: taking action. Washington, DC: Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies; Council on Environmental Quality; Great Lakes Indian Fish 

and Wildlife Commission; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. http://wildlifeadaptationstrategy.gov. 

(22 January 2016)
121

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Native Voices. 2015. 1838: Cherokee die on Trail of Tears. https://www.nlm.nih.

gov/nativevoices/timeline/296.html. (22 January 2016).

Necefer, L.; Wong-Parodi, G.; Jaramillo, P.; Small, M.J. 2015. Energy 

development and Native Americans: values and beliefs about energy from the 

Navajo Nation. Energy Research & Social Science. 7: 1–11.

Nelson, C. 2013. The polar bear in the room: diseases of poverty in the Arctic. 

International Journal of Circumpolar Health. 72: 417–429.

Norgaard, K. 2004. The effects of altered diet on the health of the Karuk people. 

Unpublished report. On file with: Karuk Tribe of California, Department of 

Natural Resources Water Quality Program, 64236 2nd Ave, Happy Camp, CA 

96039. http://pages.uoregon.edu/norgaard/pdf/Effects-Altered-Diet-KarukNorgaard-2005.pdf. (22 January 2016).

Norgaard, K. 2014. The politics of fire and the social impacts of fire exclusion on 

the Klamath. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations. 36: 77–101. 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 2015. Drought prevents salmon from 

returning to hatchery. http://nwtreatytribes.org/drought-prevents-salmon-fromreturning-to-hatchery/. (22 January 2016).

Northwest Indian College [NWIC]. 2013. Institutional review board manual: 

purpose and policies. Bellingham, WA: Northwest Indian College. http://www.

nwic.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/IRB-Manual-Dec-2-2013-PurposePolicies-approved-by-Board-of-Trustees.pdf. (20 January 2016). 

Norton, J.B.; Sandor, J.A. 1997. Combating desertification with indigenous 

agricultural technology at Zuni Pueblo, New Mexico. Arid Lands Newsletter: 41.

Noss, R. 2015. Climate change and wildlife. Conservation Northwest. 

http://www.conservationnw.org/what-we-do/wildlife-habitat/climate-change. 

(20 January 2016).

O’Connell, M.; Buchwald, D.S.; Duncan, G.E. 2011. Food access and cost in 

American Indian communities in Washington State. Journal of the American 

Dietetic Association. 111(9): 1375–1379.

Oglala Sioux Tribe. 2012. Oyate Omniciyé Oglala Lakota Plan. http://www.

oglalalakotaplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Oyate-Omniciye-Final-.pdf. 

(24 January 2016).
122

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Oguamanam, C. 2004. Localizing intellectual property in the globalization 

epoch: the integration of indigenous knowledge. Indiana Journal of Global 

Legal Studies. 11(2): 135–169.

Ojima, D.; Steiner, J.; McNeeley, S.; Cozzetto, K.; Childress, A., eds. 2013.

Great Plains regional technical input report. Washington, DC: Island Press. 301 p. 

Oliver-Smith, A., ed. 2009. Development and dispossession: the crisis of forced 

displacement and resettlement. Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research 

Press. 330 p. 

Olsen, K. 2013. Digging into a dirty coal deal: a plan to ship low-quality Montana 

coal to China is putting vast prairie habitat critical to wildlife and Indian cultural 

traditions at risk. National Wildlife Federation. https://www.nwf.org/News-andMagazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2014/Coal-And-Wildlife.aspx. 

(16 May 2016)

Ortman, W. 2010. Sioux reservation struggling after winter storms. Boston Globe. 

October 1. http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/02/01/sioux_

reservation_struggling_after_winter_storms/. (9 June 2016.)

Osborn, R.P. 2012. Climate change and the Columbia River Treaty. Washington 

Journal of Environmental Law & Policy. 2: 75–123.

Oxley, M. 2015. Review of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 

2015–2030. [Place of Publication Unknown]: Global Network for Civil Society 

Organizations for Disaster Reduction.

Parker, A.; Grossman, Z.; Whitesell, E.; Stephenson, B.; Williams, T.; 

Hardison, P.; Ballew, L.; Burnham, B.; Bushnell, J.; Klosterman, R. 2006.

Climate change and Pacific Rim indigenous nations project. Olympia, WA: The 

Evergreen State College, Northwest Indian Applied Research Institute. http://

academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/climate.html. (4 May 2016).

Parkinson, A.; Koch, A.; Evengård, B. 2015. Infectious disease in the Arctic: a 

panorama in transition. In: Evengård, B. Joan Nymand Larsen, J.N.; Paasche, Ø. 

The new arctic. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing: 239–257. 

Chapter 18.

Parrotta, J.A.; Agnoletti, M. 2012. Traditional forest-related knowledge and 

climate change. In: Parrotta, J.; Trosper, R., eds. Traditional forest-related 

knowledge. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer: 491–533.
123

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Paterson, R.K.; Karjala, D.S. 2003. Looking beyond intellectual property in 

resolving protection of the intangible cultural heritage of indigenous peoples. 

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law. 11: 633.

Peterson, K.; Maldonado, J. K. 2016. When adaptation is not enough: “between 

now and then” of community-led resettlement. In: Nuttall, M.; Crate, S., 

eds. Anthropology and climate change: from encounters to actions. 2nd ed. New 

York: Taylor & Francis. [Page range unknown].

Power Past Coal. 2015. New polling: strong majority of Washington voters oppose 

coal export proposals. http://www.powerpastcoal.org. (24 January 2016).

Powlson, D. 2005. Climatology: will soil amplify climate change? Nature. 

433: 204–205.

Raftery M. 2012. Wind storm: tribes implore President Obama to stop Ocotillo 

Express wind project, save cultural resource sites. East County Magazine 

[Online]. http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/wind-storm-tribes-implorepresident-obama-stop-ocotillo-express-wind-project-save-cultural-resource. 

(24 January 2016).

Raftery M. 2013. Federal judge hears Quechan Tribe’s case on Ocotillo wind 

project harm to sacred sites. East County Magazine [Online]. http://www.

eastcountymagazine.org/federal-judge-hears-quechan-tribe’s-case-ocotillo-windproject-harm-sacred-sites. (24 January 2016).

Ranco, R.; Arnett, A.; Latty, E.; Remsburg, A.; Dunckel, K.; Quigley, E.; 

Lilieholm, R.; Daigle, J.; Livingston, B.; Neptune, J.; Secord, T. 2012. Two 

Maine forest pests: a comparison of approaches to understanding threats to 

hemlock and ash trees in Maine. Maine Policy Review. 21(1): 76–89.

Rasmussen, K.; Hibbard, M.; Lynn, K. 2007. Wildland fire management as 

conservation-based development: an opportunity for reservation communities? 

Society and Natural Resources. 20: 497–510.

Redsteer, M.H.; Bemis, K.; Chief, K.D.; Gautam, M.; Middleton, B.R.; Tsosie, 

R. 2013a. Unique challenges facing Southwestern tribes: impacts, adaptation and 

mitigation. In: Garfin, G.; Jardine, A.; Overpeck, J., eds. Assessment of climate 

change in the southwest United States: a technical report prepared for the U.S. 

National Climate Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press: 385–404.
124

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Redsteer, M.H.; Bogle, R.C.; Vogel, J.M. 2011a. Monitoring and analysis of sand 

dune movement and growth on the Navajo Nation, southwestern United States. 

USGS Fact Sheet 2011–3085. Flagstaff, AZ: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Geological Survey. 2 p.

Redsteer, M.H.; Kelley, K.B.; Francis, H.; Block, D. [In press]. Increasing 

vulnerability of the Navajo people to drought and climate change in the 

southwestern United States: accounts from tribal elders. In: Nakashima, D.; 

Rubis, J.; Krupnik, I., eds. Indigenous knowledge for climate change assessment 

and adaptation, part III: facing extreme events. Cambridge, United Kingdom: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Redsteer, M.H.; Kelley, K.B.; Francis, H.; Block, D. 2011b. Disaster risk 

assessment case study: recent drought on the Navajo Nation, southwestern 

United States. In: Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2011. 

New York: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. 19 p.

Redsteer, M.H.; Kelley, K.B.; Francis, H.; Block, D. 2013b. Increasing 

vulnerability of the Navajo people to drought and climate change in the 

southwestern United States: accounts from tribal elders. Special report. 

Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. http://www.

preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2011/en/bgdocs/Redsteer_Kelley_

Francis_&_Block_2010.pdf. (24 January 2016).

Reed, A. 2008. Class inequality, liberal bad faith, and neoliberalism: the true 

disaster of Katrina. In: Gunewardena, N.; Schuller, M., eds. Capitalizing on 

catastrophe: neoliberal strategies in disaster reconstruction. Lanham, MD: 

Altamira Press: 147–154.

Reid, M.G.; Hamilton, C.; Reid, S.K.; Trousdale, W.; Hill, C.; Turner, N.; 

Picard, C.; Lamontagne, C.; Matthews, H.D. 2014. Indigenous climate change 

adaptation planning using a values-focused approach: a case study with the 

Gitga’at Nation. Journal of Ethnobiology. 34: 401–424.

Riley, A. 2002. Indian remains, human rights: reconsidering entitlement under 

the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (2002). Columbia 

Human Rights Law Review. 34. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2449056. 

(24 January 2016).

Riley, R.; Blanchard, P.; Peppler, R.; Bennett, T.M.B.; Wildcat, D. 2012. 

Oklahoma inter-tribal meeting on climate variability and change. Meeting 

summary report. Norman, OK. http://www.southernclimate.org/publications/

Oklahoma_Intertribal_Climate_Change_Meeting.pdf. (24 January 2016). 
125

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Rising Voices. 2014. Adaptation to climate change and variability: bringing 

together science and indigenous ways of knowing to create positive solutions. 

Workshop report. Boulder, CO: National Center for Atmospheric Research. 

https://www.mmm.ucar.edu/rising-voices-home. (24 January 2016). 

Rivkin, I.; Trimble, J.; Lopez, E.; Johnson, S.; Orr, E.; Allen, A. 2013.

Disseminating research in rural Yup’ik communities: challenges and ethical 

considerations in moving from discovery to intervention development. 

International Journal of Circumpolar Health. 72: 409–416.

Rose, J.B.; Epstein, P.R.; Lipp, E.K.; Sherman, B.H.; Bernard, S.M.; Patz, 

J.A. 2001. Climate variability and change in the United States: potential impacts 

on water-and foodborne diseases caused by microbiologic agents. Environmental 

Health Perspectives. 109: 211–221. 

Rosen, B.H.; St. Amand, A. 2015. Field and laboratory guide to freshwater 

cyanobacteria harmful algal blooms for Native American and Alaska Native 

communities. Open-File Report 2015–1164. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Geological Survey. 44 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151164. (15 

August 2016).

Royster, J.V. 2012. Climate change and tribal water rights: removing barriers to 

adaptation strategies. Tulane Environmental Law Journal. 26: 197.

Rustad, L.E.; Huntington, T.G.; Boone, R.D. 2000. Controls on soil respiration: 

implications for climate change. Biogeochemistry 48: 1–6.

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe Environment Division. 2013. Climate change 

adaptation plan for Akwesasne. Akwesasne, NY: Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe.

Sakakibara, C. 2008. “Our home is drowning”: Iñupiat storytelling and climate 

change in Point Hope, Alaska. Geographical Review. 98: 456–475.

Salazar, K. 2009. Secretarial Order 3289: addressing the impacts of climate change 

on America’s water, land, and other natural and cultural resources. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. http://www.doi.gov//whatwedo/climate/

strategy/index.cfm. (24 January 2016). 

Schaefer, K.; Lantuit, H.; Romanovsky, V.E.; Schuur, E.A.G. 2012. Policy 

implications of warming permafrost. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations 

Environment Program. 30 p.
126

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Schauss, A.G. 2010. Emerging knowledge of the bioactivity of foods in the diets 

of indigenous North Americans. In: Watson, R.R.; Preedy, V.R., eds. Bioactive 

foods in promoting health—fruits and vegetables. New York: Academic 

Press: 71–84.

Schell, L.M.; Gallo, M.V. 2012. Overweight and obesity among North American 

Indian infants, children, and youth. American Journal of Human Biology. 24(3): 

302–313.

Schlosberg, D.; Carruthers, D. 2010. Indigenous struggles, environmental justice, 

and community capabilities. Global Environmental Politics. 10: 12–35.

Schuler, L. 2013. Modern age protection: protecting indigenous knowledge through 

intellectual property law. Michigan State University Journal of International 

Law. 21: 751, 753. 

Sequoyah v. Tennessee Valley Authority. 1979. 480 F. Supp. 608 

(E.D. Tenn. 1979).

Shearer, C. 2012. The political ecology of climate adaptation assistance: Alaska 

Natives, displacement, and relocation. Journal of Political Ecology. 19: 174–183.

Skrelunas, T. 2014. A big step towards tribal renewable energy self-sufficiency. 

Grand Canyon Trust. http://www.grandcanyontrust.org/sites/default/files/na_

articleTS.pdf. (24 January 2016). 

Smit, B; Wandel, J. 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability. Global 

Environmental Change. 16: 282–292.

Smith, L.M.; Wade, C.M.; Case, J.L.; Harwell, L.C.; Straub, K.R.; Summers, 

J.K. 2014. Evaluating the transferability of a US human well-being index 

(HWBI) framework to Native American Populations. Social Indicators Research. 

124: 157–182.

Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice [SBSTA]. 2015. Good 

practices and lessons learned in adaptation planning processes addressing 

ecosystems, human settlements, water resources and health, and in processes and 

structures for linking national and local adaptation planning: a synthesis of case 

studies. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 

Change. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/sbsta/eng/04.pdf. (16 May 2016).
127

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Swinomish Indian Tribe Community [SITC]. 2009. Swinomish climate 

change initiative: impact assessment technical report. La Conner, WA: 

Swinomish Indian Tribe Community, Office of Planning and Community 

Development. http://www. swinomish-nsn.gov/climate_change/Docs/SITC_CC_

ImpactAssessmentTechnicalReport_complete.pdf. (24 January 2016).

Swinomish Indian Tribe Community [SITC]. 2010. Swinomish climate change 

initiative: climate adaptation action plan. La Conner, WA: Swinomish Indian 

Tribal Community, Office of Planning and Community Development. http://

www.swinomish.org/climate_change/Docs/SITC_CC_AdaptationActionPlan_

complete.pdf. (24 January 2016). 

Tanner, T.; Lewis, D.; Wrathall, D.; Bronen, R.; Cradock-Henry, N.; Huq, S.; 

Lawless, C.; Nawrotzki, R.; Prasad, V.; Rahman, A.; Alaniz, R.; King, K.; 

McNamara, K.; Nadiruzzaman, M.; Henly-Shepard, S.; Thomalla, F. 2015.

Livelihood resilience in the face of climate change. Nature Climate Change. 

5: 23–26. 

Tennessee Valley Authority [TVA]. 1961. Floods and flood control. Technical 

Report No. 26. Knoxville, TN. 302 p.

Tozier de la Poterie, A.; Baudoin, M. 2015. From Yokohama to Sendai: 

approaches to participation in international disaster risk reduction frameworks. 

International Journal of Disaster Risk Science. 6(2): 128–139.

Tribal Water Working Group [TWWG]. 2012. Water in Indian country: 

challenges and opportunities. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico]. 

http://uttoncenter.unm.edu/pdfs/2012White_Paper.pdf. (24 January 2016). 

Tsosie, R. 2013. Climate change and indigenous peoples: comparative models of 

sovereignty. In: Abate R.S.; Kronk E.A., eds. Climate change and indigenous 

peoples: the search for legal remedies. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward 

Elgar: 79–95.

Turner, N.J.; Clifton, H. 2009. “It’s so different today”: climate change and 

indigenous lifeways in British Columbia, Canada. Global Environmental 

Change. 19(2): 180–190.

Turner, N.J.; Gregory, R.; Brooks, C.; Failing, L.; Satterfield, T. 2008. From 

invisibility to transparency: identifying the implications. Ecology and Society. 

13(2): Art. 7.
128

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

United Nations [UN]; Martínez Cobo, J.R. 1987. Study of the problem of 

discrimination against indigenous populations. New York: United Nations 

Economic and Social Council. 203 p. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/

documents/MCS_xvii_en.pdf. (5 May 2016).

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples[UNDRIP]. 

2007. Resolution A/RES/61/295. New York: United Nations General Assembly. 

http://www.un-documents.net/a61r295.htm. (23 May 2016).

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [FCCC]. 2014.

Report on the meeting on available tools for the use of indigenous and traditional 

knowledge and practices for adaptation, needs of local and indigenous 

communities and the application of gender-sensitive approaches and tools 

for adaptation. Report FCCC/SBSTA/2014/INF.11. http://unfccc.int/resource/

docs/2014/sbsta/eng/inf11.pdf. (24 January 2016). 

U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]. 2006.

Alaska village erosion technical assistance program: an examination of erosion 

issues in the communities of Bethel, Dillingham, Kaktovik, Kivalina, Newtok, 

Shishmaref, and Unalakleet. [Special Report]. Kenai, AK: Alaska District. http://

www.housemajority.org/coms/cli/AVETA_Report.pdf. (6 May 2016).

U.S. Department of Energy [USDOE]. 2013. Audit report: costs incurred by 

selected tribal energy efficiency and conservation block grant recipients. OASFA-13-28. Washington, DC: Office of Inspector General, Office of Audits and 

Inspections. http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/07/f2/OAS-RA-13-28.pdf. 

(9 June 2016).

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD]. 1996. Assessment 

of American Indian housing needs and programs: final report. Washington, DC: 

Office of Policy Development and Research.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD]. 2015a. http://

www.hud.gov. (January 2016). 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD]. 2015b. National 

disaster resilience competition: phase 2 fact sheet. Washington, DC. http://portal.

hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=NDRCFactSheetFINAL.pdf. 

(19 May 2016).

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI]. 2015. http://www.doi.gov. 
129

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Indian Energy and Economic 

Development [USDI IEED]. 2013. Tribal energy development capacity grant 

program. http://www.indianaffairs.gov/cs/groups/public/documents/text/idc1-

026611.pdf. (24 January 2016).

U.S. General Accounting Office. 2004. Villages affected by flooding and erosion 

have difficulty qualifying for federal assistance. GAO-04-895T. [Statement of 

Robert A. Robinson, Managing Director Natural Resources and Environment. 

Testimony Before the Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate]. http://www.

gao.gov/assets/120/111083.pdf. (24 January 2016).

Vinyeta, K.; Lynn, K. 2013. Exploring the role of traditional ecological knowledge 

in climate change initiatives. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-879. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 37 p.

Vinyeta, K.; Powys Whyte, K.; Lynn, K. 2015. Climate change through 

an intersectional lens: gendered vulnerability and resilience in indigenous 

communities in the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-923. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 72 p.

Voggesser, G.; Lynn, K.; Daigle, J.; Lake, F.K.; Ranco, D. 2013. Cultural 

impacts to tribes from climate change influences on forests. Climatic Change. 

120: 615–626.

Walker, R. 2015. Swinomish tribe files lawsuit to stop Bakken crude oil 

trains. Indian Country Today Media Network [Online]. April 9. http://

indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/04/09/swinomish-tribe-files-lawsuitstop-bakken-crude-oil-trains-159938. (24 January 2016). 

Wall, D. 2013. Tribal climate change profile: Tulalip Tribes. Flagstaff, 

AZ: Northern Arizona University, Institute for Tribal Environmental 

Professionals. 5 p. http://www7.nau.edu/itep/main/tcc/docs/tribes/tribes_

Tulalip.pdf. (19 May 2016).

Walsh, J.; Wuebbles, D.; Hayhoe, K.; Kossin, J.; Kunkel, K.; Stephens, G.; 

Thorne, P.; Vose, R.; Wehner, M.; Willis, J.; Anderson, D.; Doney, S.; Feely, 

R.; Hennon, P.; Kharin, V.; Knutson, T.; Landerer, F.; Lenton, T.; Kennedy, 

J.; Somerville, R. 2014. Our changing climate. In: Melillo, J.M.; Richmond, 

T.C.; Yohe, G.W., eds. Climate change impacts in the United States: the third 

national climate assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research 

Program: 19–67. Chapter 2. doi:10.7930/J0KW5CXT.
130

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Weaver, H. 2009. The colonial context of violence: reflections on violence in 

the lives of Native American women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 

24: 1552–1563.

Weerasinghe, S.; Martin, S.; Türk, V.; Riera, J.; Franck, M.; McAdam, J.; 

Ferris, E. 2014. Planned relocation, disasters and climate change: consolidating 

good practices and preparing for the future. Sanremo, Italy: United Nations High 

Commissioner for Refugees. 30 p. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/

files/papers/2014/03/14-planned-relocations-climate-change/planned-relocationsdisasters-and-climate-change-report-march-2014.pdf. (18 May 2016).

Werkheiser, I. 2015. Community epistemic capacity. Social Epistemology. 

[Volume and Issue Number Unknown]: 1–20. http://www.academia.edu/7745499/

Community_Epistemic_Capacities. http://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2014.971911. 

(24 January 2016).

White House. 2013. President’s state, local, and tribal leaders task force on climate 

preparedness and resilience. https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/

initiatives/resilience/taskforce. (24 January 2016).

White House. 2015. Fact sheet: President Obama announces new investments 

to combat climate change and assist remote Alaskan communities. https://

www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/02/fact-sheet-president-obamaannounces-new-investments-combat-climate. (24 January 2016).

Whitt, L. 2009. Science, colonialism, and indigenous peoples: the cultural politics 

of law and knowledge. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University 

Press. 284 p.

Whyte, K.P. [In press]. Food justice and collective food relations. The ethics of 

food: an introductory textbook. Barnhill, A.; Budolfson, M.; Doggett, T., eds. 

Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Whyte, K.P. [2016]. Indigenous peoples, climate change loss and damage, and 

the responsibility of settler states. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. 

20p. https://www.academia.edu/7485990/Indigenous_Peoples_Climate_Change_

Loss_and_Damage_and_the_Responsibility_of_Settler_States. (30 July 2016).

Whyte, K.P. 2013. Justice forward: tribes, climate adaptation and responsibility. 

Climatic Change. 3: 517–530.

Whyte, K.P. 2014. A concern about shifting interactions between indigenous and 

nonindigenous parties in U.S. climate adaptation contexts. Interdisciplinary 

Environmental Review. 15: 114–133.
131

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Whyte, K.P; Dockry, M.; Baule, W.; Fellman, D. 2014. Supporting tribal climate 

change adaptation planning through community participatory strategic foresight 

scenario development. In: Brown, D.; Baule, W.; Briley, L.; Gibbons, E., eds. 

Project reports. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Great Lakes Integrated 

Sciences and Assessments Center. 10 p. http://glisa.umich.edu/media/files/

projectreports/GLISA_ProjRep_Strategic-Foresight.pdf. (24 January 2016).

Wildcat, D.R. 2009. Red alert! Saving the planet with indigenous knowledge. 

Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing. 128 p.

Williams, T.; Hardison, P. 2005. Global climate change: environmental change 

and water law. Paper presented at the law seminars international conference 

What is Next for Washington Water Law?

Williams, T.; Hardison, P. 2013. Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of 

traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation. Climatic Change. 

120: 531–544.

Willox, A.C.; Harper, S.L.; Edge, V.L.; Landman, K.; Houle, K.; Ford, J.D. 

2013. The land enriches the soul: on climatic and environmental change, affect, 

and emotional health and well-being in Rigolet, Nunatsiavut, Canada. Emotion, 

Space and Society. 6: 14–24.

Willox, A.C.; Stephenson, E.; Allen, J.; Bourque, F.; Drossos, A.; Elgarøy, S.; 

Kral, M.J; Mauro, I.; Moses, J.; Pearce, T.; MacDonald, J.P.; Wexler, L. 

2015. Examining relationships between climate change and mental health in the 

Circumpolar North. Regional Environmental Change. 15: 169–182.

Wilson, N.J. 2014. The politics of adaptation: subsistence livelihoods and 

vulnerability to climate change in the Koyukon Athabascan village of Ruby, 

Alaska. Human Ecology. 42: 87–101.

Wilson, N.J.; Walter, M.T.; Waterhouse, J. 2015. Indigenous knowledge of 

hydrologic change in the Yukon River Basin: a case study of Ruby, Alaska. 

ARCTIC. 68: 93–106.

Winters v. United States, [207 US 564 (1908)]. 

Wisner, B. 2004. Assessment of capability and vulnerability. In: Bankoff, G.; 

Frerks, G.; Hilhorst, D. Mapping vulnerability: disasters, development and 

people. London: Earthscan: 183–193.

Wood M. 2014. Tribal environmental leaders summit keynote address: tribal 

trustees in climate change. American Indian Law Journal. 2: 518–546.
132

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

World Intellectual Property Organization [WIPO]. 2014. Intergovernmental 

Committee (IGC). http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/igc/. (24 January 2016).

Yardley, W. 2015. In dispute over coalmine project, two ways of life hang in the 

balance. Los Angeles Times. July 21. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sejcrow-coal-20150721-story.html. (23 May 2016).

Yazzie, D.H.; Chee, C.; Darden, S.A.; Gleason, I.; Denetdale, J.N. 2012. 

The impact of the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 P.L. 93-531 

et al. Public hearing report. Window Rock, Navajo Nation (AZ): Navajo 

Nation Human Rights Commission. 74 p. http://www.nnhrc.navajo-nsn.gov/

docs/NewsRptResolution/070612_The_Impact_of_the_Navajo-Hopi_Land_

Settlement_Act_of_1974.pdf. (20 May 2016).
133

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Appendix: Key Terminology

Adaptation—Defined by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as 

“adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic 

stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities.” 

(IPCC 2007: 869). McNeeley and Lazrus (2014) contributed to a more nuanced 

understanding of adaptation by noting that for adaptation actions to occur, planners 

and decisionmakers must have knowledge of the societal systems and cultures for 

whom they are working (e.g., indigenous peoples). 

Adaptive capacity—The IPCC defines adaptive capacity as “the ability of a system 

to adjust to climate change (including climate variability and extremes) to moderate 

potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences” (IPCC 2007: 869). 

Climigration—The term climigration has become common in describing forced 

migrations in response to long-term, climate-induced environmental changes. In 

this synthesis, we use the definition of climigration put forth by Bronen (2008): “climigration occurs when a community is no longer sustainable exclusively because 

of climate-related events and permanent relocation is required to protect people.” 

Bronen also notes that climigration cannot effectively be addressed using a naturaldisaster response framework, as the impacts to people are long term and chronic. 

Displacement (see “Relocation”)—As discussed in this synthesis, displacement 

refers to a broad range of circumstances in which a population is compelled to leave 

their homes, whether through violence, state action (e.g. relocation), environmental 

change, disaster, or other traumatic events. Indigenous peoples in the United States 

have experienced displacement through settler-colonialism, war, removal to reservations, termination and other assimilation programs, environmental degradation, 

and climate change. 

Indigenous—Definitions of “indigenous” and what constitutes an indigenous community differ. For the purpose of this document, we use the definition put forth by 

Jose R. Martínez Cobo for the United Nations. It defines indigenous communities 

as “those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial 

societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other 

sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They 

form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, 

develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with 
134

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system” (UN and Martínez 

Cobo 1987). When we refer to indigenous communities in the United States, we 

refer to peoples forming part of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native 

Hawaiian populations, be they federally recognized, state-recognized, or unrecognized (see also Vinyeta and Lynn 2013).

Maladaptation—Adaptation actions that increase vulnerability to climate-change 

impacts. According to Barnett and O’Neill (2010: 211), maladaptation is defined as 

“an action taken ostensibly to avoid or reduce vulnerability to climate change that 

impacts adversely on, or increases the vulnerability of other systems, sectors or 

social groups.”

Mitigation—The IPCC describes mitigation as “an anthropogenic intervention to 

reduce the anthropogenic forcing of the climate system; it includes strategies to reduce greenhouse gas sources and emissions and enhancing greenhouse gas sinks.” 

Mitigation strategies reduce actions that drive climate change (i.e., the production of 

greenhouse gases) (IPCC 2007: 878).

Relocation—The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHRC) 

defines relocation as the movements of people that are instigated, supervised, and 

carried out by state authorities (Weerasinghe et al. 2014). Bronen (2015a) presented 

an alternative definition of relocation as the rebuilding of livelihoods, houses, public 

infrastructure, and social networks in another location (Bronen 2015a). Relocations 

can be either temporary, called evacuations, or permanent, called resettlement, and 

are considered a form of displacement (Weerasinghe et al. 2014). 

Resilience—In the context of climate change, resilience refers to the ability of people and communities to cope with and recover from climate-change impacts. The 

physical, economic, sociopolitical, and cultural conditions of a person or community often intersect to define that person or community’s resilience in the face of climate change. However, resilience is not static and can be strengthened or weakened 

as physical, economic, sociopolitical, and cultural changes unfold. Some characteristics may be a source of both vulnerability (See “Vulnerability”) and resilience. For 

example, indigenous communities are more vulnerable to climate-change impacts 

because of their dependence on and deep reciprocal relationship with specific plant 

and animal species whose range and distribution may change with the changing 

climate. Simultaneously, this deep reciprocal relationship with the land results in 

the development of indigenous knowledge and experiences that can inform climatechange adaptation strategies and thus enhance the resilience of indigenous communities (ISDR 2009, Wildcat 2009; see also Vinyeta and Lynn 2013).
135

Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: A Synthesis of Current Impacts and Experiences

Self-determination—The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous 

Peoples (UNDRIP 2007) describes self-determination, stating that UNDRIP 

“affirm[s] the fundamental importance of the right to self-determination of all 

peoples, by virtue of which they freely determine their political status and freely 

pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Indigenous communities, 

as affirmed by UNDRIP, have a right to self-determination. 

Tribal sovereignty—The right of federally recognized tribes to govern themselves, 

define membership, protect cultural resources, control economic activity, and manage tribal land and resources. Tribal sovereignty also recognizes the existence of a 

government-to-government relationship between federally recognized tribes and 

the federal government (Galanda 2010, Goodman 2000, Redsteer et al. 2013a). 

Tsosie (2013) differentiated between political sovereignty and cultural sovereignty. 

Although political sovereignty results from federal recognition, all indigenous communities, regardless of recognition, possess cultural “self-defined” sovereignty. 

This means that indigenous peoples experience the right to self-determination by 

maintaining their ways of life and can be used to protect indigenous rights to language, religion, and culture (see also Whyte 2013, Whyte in press). 

Traditional knowledges—Multiple labels have been created to describe the knowledge systems of indigenous peoples, including traditional knowledge (TK), traditional ecological knowledges, indigenous knowledge, and indigenous science. For 

the purposes of this synthesis, we rely on the terminology and explanation provided 

by the Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup, who describe TKs as 

“[TKs are more than] individual pieces of information; this term also refers to traditional ‘knowledge systems’ that are deeply embedded in indigenous ways of life. 

[we] use the phrase “traditional knowledges” deliberately in plural form because 

knowledges are emergent from the symbiotic relationship of indigenous peoples and 

places—a nature-culture nexus. Tribes and indigenous peoples use ‘knowledges’ 

to emphasize that there are diverse forms of traditional knowledge and knowledge 

systems that must be recognized as unique to each tribe and knowledge holder” 

(CTKW 2014).
136

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-944

Vulnerability—In the context of climate change, vulnerability refers to a person 

or community’s likelihood of exposure, as well as sensitivity to climate-change 

impacts. Smit and Wandel (2006: 286) stated, “...the vulnerability of any system (at 

any scale) is reflective of (or a function of) the exposure and sensitivity of that system to hazardous conditions and the ability or capacity or resilience of the system 

to cope, adapt or recover from the effects of those conditions.” A person or community’s vulnerability to climate-change impacts depends on a number of factors, 

including that person or community’s physical, sociopolitical, and cultural resilience (See “Resilience”). Although a number of people in a given location may be 

exposed to the same climatic changes, physical, sociopolitical, and cultural conditions such as poverty, intersectional oppression, health limitations, lack of decisionmaking power, etc., may make some people more vulnerable to these changes 

and their associated impacts (ISDR 2009, Lynn et al. 2011; see also Marino 2015, 

Vinyeta and Lynn 2013).
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Website http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/

Telephone (503) 808–2592

Publication requests (503) 808–2138

FAX (503) 808–2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

1220 SW 3rd Ave.

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300