Access Number: M07AC12469

STUDY TITLE: The Study of Sharing Networks to Assess the Vulnerability of Communities to

Oil and Gas Development in Arctic Alaska

REPORT TITLE: Subsistence Sharing Networks and Cooperation: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and

Venetie, Alaska

CONTRACT NUMBER(S): ‐ M07AC12469

SPONSORING OCS REGION: Alaska

APPLICABLE PLANNING AREA(S): Alaska

FISCAL YEAR(S) OF PROJECT FUNDING: 2007‐2011

COMPLETION DATE OF REPORT: June, 2016

COST(S): (BY FISCAL YEAR); CUMULATIVE PROJECT COST: ~$850,000 (including

additional contributions for the University of Alaska, Alaska Department of Fish and Game‐

Division of Subsistence, and Arizona State University).

PROJECT MANAGER(S): Chris Campbell, BOEM, Alaska Region

AFFILIATION (OF PROJECT MANAGER): BOEM / Alaska.

ADDRESS: US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Alaska

OCS Region, 3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99503‐5820

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Gary Kofinas, University of Alaska Fairbanks

KEY WORDS: Alaska, social‐ecological systems, community resilience, vulnerability,

subsistence, sharing and cooperation, social networks, mixed economies, Kaktovik, AK,

Wainwright, AK, Venetie, AK.

BACKGROUND: Rural communities of northern Alaska are on the frontline of Arctic oil and

gas development, which may affect traditional subsistence ways of life. There is limited

documentation on subsistence‐cash economic systems of these villages and methods for

studying them do not account for social relations that underpin subsistence and Alaska

Natives’ culture. BOEM cooperated with the University of Alaska Fairbanks to document

these systems using mixed (quantitative and qualitative) methods that link pounds of

subsistence harvest with the social system in a more dynamic way than merely accounting for

the weight of harvested resources. The research advanced subsistence methodology with the

application of social network analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The study sought to document and analyze social networks of sharing and

cooperation that are part of Alaska Native subsistence‐cash economies, and explore the

potential vulnerability and resilience of Alaska rural communities to conditions of social and

ecological change. The study engaged two North Slope Alaska coastal communities, Kaktovik

and Wainwright (Iñupiat), and one rural interior Alaska community, Venetie (Gwich’in), in

partnerships to complete the research. Wainwright and Kaktovik were invited to participate
Access Number: M07AC12469

because of BOEM’s mandate to study the potential impacts of offshore energy development.

Venetie was included as a contrasting Interior Alaska community that is not exposed to

offshore development, and thus served as a “control.” A key objective of the study was to

provide agencies and communities with quantitative and qualitative baseline data on patterns

of cooperation and exchange in subsistence‐cash economies, and to assess the vulnerability

of communities to social‐ecological changes relevant to food security and wellbeing. For

participating communities, the study documented behavior that reflected cultural traditions and

social cohesion among Alaska Natives.

DESCRIPTION: This study investigated the structure, flows, and dynamics of sharing and

cooperation in household subsistence‐cash economies of the three study communities. The

research addressed three overarching questions: 1. What are the range of social structures and

economic patterns that currently characterize subsistence‐cash livelihoods in northern

communities? 2. What patterns of social relationships, food flows, and resource flows among

households characterize mixed subsistence‐cash‐economies of the communities, and how do

these relationships relate to broader indicators of well‐being and adaptive capacity? 3. What 

are the potential vulnerabilities, and alternatively, sources of resilience of households and

communities to changes in social, ecological and economic conditions? Using mixed methods

of research, the study used ethnography, household surveys, group interviews and social

network analysis, and developed new methods for studying Alaska’s subsistence‐cash village

economies. The project also facilitated research partnerships with study communities and

contributed to arctic system science. Interview response rates were high: 82% in Kaktovik,

96% in Wainwright, and 94% in Venetie. Data were analyzed to describe household socio‐

economic conditions and provide general and specific characteristics of sharing and

cooperation patterns among local and non‐local households. The study’s analysis of

persistence, vulnerability, and resilience assessed past‐to‐present patterns of the subsistence‐

cash economy and the implications of plausible future social‐ecological changes.

SIGNIFICANT CONCLUSIONS: Key substantive findings from the study include:

1. Social relations involving inter‐household cooperation represent a significant portion of

household inflows of subsistence foods within communities, accounting for between 60–75%

of inflows into households in all three communities.

2. Subsistence activities consist of more than hunting. Significant flows of non‐food

resources such as contributions of labor, equipment, or supplies represent multiple ways

communities engaged in “subsistence.”

3. Research findings show a skewed ratio similar to Wolfe’s “30:70 Rule,” which predicts

that 30% of the harvesters will produce 70% of a community’s subsistence foods.

4. Households are highly connected, based on a range of network metrics, yet some

households are more connected than others. Highly productive households are characterized

in general as having mature or older household heads, more adult hunters, and a source of

cash income.

5. While household income was correlated with household productivity (the sum of all wild

food inflows in pounds from all social relations), household self‐provisioning was not.

6. Narratives (i.e., qualitative findings) about sharing indicate that households share

with relatives while also sharing with other households that are in need.
Access Number: M07AC12469

7. Quantified patterns of outflows confirm this result, indicating that food flows out from

households with high producers to lower‐producing households, supporting the need‐based

directionality of food flowing to those with less. Findings show a correlation between high

household harvest and outflow.

8. A comparative analysis of past data in years 1977, 1988, and data from this study for

the North Slope communities of Kaktovik and Wainwright show that subsistence systems

have persisted in spite of households’ continued engagement in the cash sector of the

economy.

9. Many of the households in all three communities reported high food insecurity (Kaktovik

45%; Wainwright 43%; Venetie 35%). There was no correlation between household

characteristics, including food inflows, and level of food security.

10. High harvest occurred across low, medium, and high‐income households.

11. Gifting of subsistence resources is not confined within communities. Sharing in

subsistence commonly extends beyond the boundaries of a single village to include others

across Alaska and beyond.

12. The patterns of engagement of men and women in hunting and subsistence activities

differ by community, by resource, and by social relationship. Men are responsible for a

majority of harvested food by weight; however, women are a key source of food ties by count.

13. Patterns of sharing and cooperation vary widely by the resource and the community.

Differences are explained by unique harvesting strategies and related local social

organization of harvesting and sharing.

14. Households within and between communities are highly heterogeneous and employ

a variety of livelihood strategies.

15. We project considerable variability in levels of vulnerability to change at the household level

in each of these communities. Results clearly show that certain households are more

vulnerable to projected changes than others (i.e., low‐income, unconnected and low‐harvest

households are more vulnerable than high‐income, connected, and high‐harvest households).

16. Findings suggest strongly that these communities have a high dependence on

subsistence resources, and a significant change in the availability of resources could come

with high costs to social, cultural, and economic well‐being.

Methodological Findings:

1. Survey methods can quantify flows of goods and services among households and

serve as a quantitative social indicator of social structures in communities over time.

Having continuity in membership of the research team and taking time to develop

partnerships with partner communities allows for important trust and opportunities for

community input into research design, making research data collection more precise

and findings more relevant to the community and policy makers.

2. Working with a steering committee of knowledgeable local residents incorporates local

knowledge into the research process and lessens the burden on elected officials for

assistance in the research process.

3. Strong public support of community leaders is critical to achieving broad participation in

survey.
Access Number: M07AC12469

4. Using multiple methods of communication, such public meetings, informal visits with opinion

leaders, and a video about the project that is delivered as a DVD to each household helps to

inform the public about project objectives.

5. Household expenses are difficult to document with retrospective survey research.

6. Documenting cultural traditions, such as subsistence sharing and cooperation, and reporting

research findings back to the community produces a sense of pride among community

residents, and potentially reinforces those practices.

STUDY RESULTS: The study generated an extensive dataset of subsistence‐cash economies

of three Alaska villages in northern Alaska and provided information on food securities and

the vulnerability of communities to possible changes. Information of the study gives decision

makers at all levels (local to international) valuable insight into the nature of subsistence

activities, their persistence, and the extensive sharing networks that are part of Alaska Native

culture.

STUDY PRODUCTS:

Kofinas, G., S BurnSilver, J. Magdanz, R. Stotts, and M. Okada, (2016), Subsistence

Sharing Networks and Cooperation: Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Venetie Alaska. BOEM

Project Report Number 2015‐023DOI. Published by University of Alaska Fairbanks. (pp

500)

BurnSilver, S., Magdanz, J., Stotts, R., Berman, M., and Kofinas, G. (2016). Are Mixed

Economies Persistent or Transitional? Evidence Using Social Networks from Arctic

Alaska. American Anthropologist. 118(1):121‐129.

BurnSilver, S.B., R. Boone, G. Kofinas, and T. Brinkman (Forthcoming Spring 2016).

Tradeoffs in the mixed economies of village Alaska: Hunting, working and sharing in

the context of change. M. Hegmon, ed. in The Give and Take of Sustainability:

Archaeological and Anthropological Perspectives. New Directions in Sustainability and

Society Series. Cambridge University Press.

Berman, M., Kofinas, G., and Burnsilver, S. (Forthcoming in 2016). Measuring

Community Adaptive and Transformative Capacity in the Arctic Context, in Arctic

Sustainabilities, Gail Fondahl and Gary Wilson (eds.), Heidelberg: Springer.

Okada, M. M. (2010). The Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches for

measuring Traditional Food Sharing on Communities of the North Slope of Alaska.

Master’s Thesis, University of Alaska Fairbanks.