Inuit uses of weather, water, ice, and climate indicators to assess travel safety in Arctic Canada, Alaska, and Greenland: a scoping review

The authors have been working with communities in Inuit Nunaat throughout our careers. We come from a mix of disciplinary backgrounds, providing our review with a lens that is unique to this authorship team. Of note, the authors involved in screening and coding for our review (BB and EP) are non-Inuit, and thus our collective positionality is important to situate as our review focuses on Inuit Knowledge. To help with this, an explanation of individual backgrounds and motivations is provided:

Breanna Bishop is a non-Indigenous researcher of European settler descent. She has been working with communities in Nunatsiavut, Canada since 2018 to document Inuit Knowledge of the changing ice and ocean. She is motivated to explore ways of understanding and adapting to climate change that can be achieved by bringing together different ways of knowing, ultimately supporting Inuit self-determination and addressing Inuit priorities.

Emmelie Paquette is a non-Indigenous researcher of mixed European and First Nation descent. She has been working with Kitikmiut (people of Kitikmeot) since 2017 on several projects related to wildlife-food management. She is passionate about supporting Inuit leadership in research and the development of robust harvest economies. She is keen to continue working with Inuit, notably women, to enhance their representation in territorial and national wildlife-food management groups.

Natalie Carter is a settler woman of European descent. She is the Community Engagement Lead for StraightUpNorth. She has been conducting collaborative research with communities in Inuit Nunangat since 2016, documenting Inuit Knowledge and perspectives on marine shipping, light geese, and Inuit uses and needs for weather, water, ice, and climate information. She is committed to supporting Inuit self-determination in research and dedicated to the conduct of research that addresses Inuit priorities.

Gita Ljubicic is a non-Indigenous researcher of Euro-Canadian settler heritage. Since 2001, she has been working with Inuit communities across Nunavut, learning from Inuit Knowledge in relation to implications of climate change, northern livelihoods and well-being, and contributions to decision-making. Ljubicic leads the StraightUpNorth research team at McMaster University, a dedicated interdisciplinary group of northern and southern researchers working together to address northern community priorities. She works from community to international scales, trying to ensure Inuit priorities are addressed in tailoring environmental forecasting services to enhance northern travel safety.

Eric C.J. Oliver is an Inuk from Nunatsiavut and is an Associate Professor in the Department of Oceanography at Dalhousie University. He is interested bridging scientific and Inuit Knowledge of the ocean, sea ice and climate and finding ways to elevate the visibility, respect, and power that Inuit Knowledge has in scientific and decision-making spaces. He is currently involved in a number of projects documenting Inuit Knowledge and contemporary observations of the sea ice and coastal ocean in Nunatsiavut as well as efforts to scientifically measure, model, and understand that system.

Claudio Aporta is originally from Argentina and moved to Canada in 1997 to pursue graduate studies in cultural anthropology. He did most of his ethnographic research in Igloolik, while completing his PhD at the University of Alberta. He has worked with Inuit communities and organizations across Canada for 25 years, mostly on mapping and documenting local knowledge. His main motivation is to understand and visualize Inuit mobility and senses of home.

This scoping review contributes to an ArcticNet and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada funded project endorsed as a part of the Year of Polar Prediction and led by co-author GL (see Carter et al. 2023). The project, entitled “Understanding Inuit community uses and needs for weather, water, ice and climate information and services”, aimed to improve the WWIC information that is available, and how it is communicated in northern communities throughout Inuit Nunangat (Inuit homelands in Canada made up of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Nunavut, Nunavik, and Nunatsiavut). The project was comprised of two main parts: (1) a survey across eight Nunavut communities to learn about what kinds of WWIC information Inuit are using to make safe travel decisions (Carter et al. 2023); and (2) two workshops to receive feedback from community members, northern/Inuit organizations, researchers, and service providers living and working across Inuit Nunangat on how environmental services can be better tailored to meet community needs (Ljubicic and Carter 2022, 2023). This scoping review contributes to the broader project by undertaking a comprehensive compilation and analysis of academic and grey literature on Inuit environmental knowledge and indicators used in relation to safe travel and decision making.

This scoping review was conducted using an adaptation of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews which focuses on rigour, reproducibility, and transparency (Peters et al. 2020). This methodology was originally developed for use in synthesising quantitative evidence from healthcare literature (Peters et al. 2015), however the approach provides an effective framework that can be mobilized into other research areas (for examples, see Khalil et al. 2020). The first (BB) and fourth (NC) authors completed a JBI Comprehensive Systematic Review Training course before starting this scoping review. The JBI methodological and reporting guidelines for scoping reviews were followed, including the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) (Peters et al. 2020; Tricco et al. 2018).

During coding, data saturation was reached once no new indicators were being identified while new papers were being coded (instead, existing indicators were being reinforced). Because of this, the reference lists were not scanned to identify additional literature, as is sometimes done in scoping reviews. As such, additional literature may exist that could contribute new indicators to the list identified by our review. We also conducted the review using English search terms only. While this was due to language limitations within the review team, it may have resulted in the exclusion of relevant publications published in other languages. For example, publications written in Danish may have provided a larger volume of research based in Greenland, or publications written in French may have provided a larger volume of research based in Nunavik, Québec, Canada.

Publications often used different or inconsistent terminology to describe WWIC conditions and processes. For example, drift ice, floating ice, pack ice, and moving ice were often used interchangeably within and across publications without a specific definition being provided by the author(s). In some cases, WWIC was not the focus of the study, and therefore the precision and accuracy of terminology might not have been addressed by the researchers and project contributors. In other cases, authors used English translations of the respective Inuit language. Many Inuit language terms do not have a direct English equivalent, particularly those tied to WWIC processes and thus translation can often require interpretation and simplification. This introduced a challenge to the scoping review in how to appropriately code and categorize different WWIC features and conditions being described. Interpretation and translation challenges can be compounded when there is a non-Inuit research team involved in the primary research, which is published and then read and re-interpreted by non-Inuit (for example, in the case of this scoping review). This limitation was addressed through coding each indicator to include the surrounding description to provide as much relevant context as possible to assist with interpretation. These levels of interpretation are inherent to cross-cultural work given the potential for different languages to be involved, and the respective connotations associated with specific terminology.

All sources (n = 123) were published between 1999 and 2021, with ≤ 3 publications per year in 1999–2005, and an increase in annual publications occurring from 2006 onwards (Fig. 2). Research was reported from 85 communities in Canada (n = 91), Alaska (n = 31), and Greenland (n = 9). The majority of publications (n = 66) presented research from Nunavut, Canada, followed by Alaska, USA (n = 31), Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Canada (n = 14), Nunatsiavut, Canada (n = 12), Nunavik, Canada (n = 9), and Greenland (n = 9). These are not mutually exclusive counts as research spanned multiple jurisdictions (countries, regions, and communities). While the majority of communities had relatively few publications representing their knowledge, select communities have had their knowledge represented in substantially more research outputs. Of 85 communities recorded through our review, 43 communities had 1–2 related publications; 20 communities had 3–4 publications; 12 communities had 5–6 publications; 8 communities had 7–9 publications, and 2 communities had 13–15 publications (Fig. 3). This may lead to an overrepresentation of WWIC indicators pertinent to select communities as compared to WWIC indicators utilized in underrepresented or other communities not identified here.

Studies most often focused on the following communities: Igloolik, Nunavut (n = 15); Utqiaġvik (Barrow), Alaska (n = 13); Clyde River (Kangiqtugaapik), Nunavut (n = 9), Pangnirtung, Nunavut (n = 9), Kinngait, Nunavut (n = 8), Arctic Bay (Ikpiarjuk), Nunavut (n = 7), Iqaluit, Nunavut, (n = 7), Pond Inlet (Mittimatalik), Nunavut (n = 7), Nain, Nunatsiavut (n = 7), and Savoonga, Alaska (n = 7) with 6 or fewer publications focused on all other communities. Figure 4 presents the total number of publications per community identified in our review. In some cases, higher volumes of publications associated with certain communities was tied to a breadth of results from specific research programs and does not necessarily indicate an intensity of different research projects. That being said, our review made evident that there is a dearth of research stemming from some Inuit communities and regions. Out of Nunavut's 25 communities, knowledge from 19 (76%) communities was identified through our review, and 10 of those communities had ≥ 5 publications. In contrast, of the 94 communities in the Inuit regions of Alaska, 31 (33%) were represented in the publications reviewed, and 8 had ≥ 5 publications. Nunavik has 14 communities, 6 (43%) of which were represented in the publications reviewed, all of which had 3 or fewer associated publications. Of Greenland's approximately 77 occupied settlements (including some that were abandoned in the last few decades), 6 (8%) were represented by the publications included in the review, all of which had 2 or fewer associated publications. Both the Inuvialuit Settlement Region and Nunatsiavut had all communities represented in the publications reviewed (6 and 5 respectively, both 100%), and each had 6 or fewer associated publications. Thus, the intensity of research by community represented in Fig. 4 should be considered alongside the communities that are not identified in the figure, to get a complete picture of the geographic research trends being presented.

One hundred and sixty-three unique WWIC indicators were described, which are organized and presented based on the overarching themes of (1) weather, (2) water, and (3) ice indicators. The relative frequency of all WWIC indicators that were identified in publications covering each region are presented in Fig. 5. Notably, despite some regions such as Greenland only being represented in nine publications (7% of the total), 24% of all ice indicators, 36% of all water indicators, and 35% of all weather indicators were described within those publications. How each indicator is understood is directly tied to how Inuit perceive and experience their specific environments, and thus represents understandings that are place-based, highly contextualized, and nuanced in their use and application. Certain indicators were described across a higher volume of publications, demonstrating the relative importance of such indicators in a variety of different contexts reporting Inuit Knowledge related to travel safety.

Cross-coding revealed that WWIC indicators were often described in connection to each other: 156 were cross-coded to at least 1 other indicator and 70 were cross-coded to 5 or more other indicators (Fig. 6). Note that cross-coded indicators were described adjacently with or without an explicit relationship identified. However, very high rates of cross-coding can be reasonably interpreted as likely stemming from relationships between those indicators being a part of the underlying Inuit Knowledge system. For example, ice strength and stability (Fig. 6, node 130) was cross-coded to the highest number of other indicators, implying its central importance for Inuit assessments of travel safety and decision making. Additionally, ice strength and stability was also most frequently cross-coded with ice thickness (Fig. 6, node 134), indicating some degree of influence between those two indicators is likely occurring. These relationships of influence were not assumed prior to the literature review but emerged during the analysis and resulted in the generation of the causal, conditional, and predictive indicator themes described below.

The following presents an overview of the WWIC indicators identified through the review, including indicator relationships that are causal, conditional, and predictive. The examples of causal, conditional, and predictive indicators were drawn from cross-coded text (identifying two or more indicators) where a relationship was explicitly described within the coded text. The examples are not necessarily tied to the highest frequency of cross-coding, rather they were selected to demonstrate a breadth of relationality and the nature of some of the relationships that were described amongst various indicators identified by our review.

Fifty-one weather indicators were identified across the publications reviewed (Fig. 7). The top 10 weather indicators described in the highest volume of publications include air temperature (n = 60), seasonality of wind direction (n = 51), wind strength (n = 51), weather predictability (n = 35), snowfall amount (n = 34), storm strength, intensity, and frequency (n = 33), snow depth/accumulation (n = 29), rain amount, timing and intensity (n = 26), snow timing (n = 21), and snow melt (n = 21). Fig. 7 includes the total number of publications that described each weather indicator that arose from the scoping review, with the top 10 bolded for reference.

Twenty-two water indicators were described as influencing travel safety (Fig. 8). The top 10 water indicators described in the highest volume of publications include current strength (n = 29), wave action (general) (n = 24), ocean temperature (n = 17), freshwater levels (n = 16), current direction (n = 16), currents under ice (n = 15), tidal range (low-high) (n = 13), tides (general) (n = 9), tidal strength (n = 8), and bathymetry/depth (n = 7) and sea levels/coastal water levels (n = 7; the latter two indicators were tied for 10_th place). Fig. 8 includes an overview of each water indicator that arose from the scoping review. Water indicators were considered largely in relation to their impacts on ice conditions/travel over ice, ease of travel/navigability of routes (both water and ice), and as they are used to support decision-making while travelling. While water indicators are important on their own to understand, it is their impact on other conditions (particularly ice conditions) that was described most frequently throughout the included publications.

Ninety unique ice indicators were described in relation to travel safety and decision making and/or assessment of environmental change (Fig. 9). The top 10 ice indicators described in the highest volume of publications include landfast ice strength and stability (general) (n = 89), ice thickness (n = 80), ice break-up (n = 69), ice freeze-up (n = 62), ice melt (n = 40), ice amount, timing, duration, and distribution (general) (n = 38), ice texture and consistency (n = 35), open water (n = 33), floe edge location and extent (n = 32), and cracks (n = 31). Fig. 9 presents the total number of publications that described each ice indicator that arose from the scoping review. Ice indicators were grouped according to how various properties of the ice are observed and experienced. While useful to categorize and present the results of our review, this grouping does not equate a hard distinction between ice indicators allocated to each category. For example, there is a high degree of cross over between ice age and landfast ice strength and stability, where the presence of thick multi-year ice floes can help hold the younger landfast ice cover in place, indicating increased ice strength and stability overall (Druckenmiller et al. 2009; Huntington et al. 2017; Huntington et al. 2016a).

Predictive indicators were described throughout the literature, and examples were included in the previous sections detailing WWIC indicators. However, challenges to predicting WWIC were described across many publications, particularly where expected “normal” patterns and conditions were changing. The shifting relationship amongst different indicators is creating increased challenges where traditional modes of prediction are becoming less trustworthy and previously expected relationships are no longer holding true. For example, snow drifts have long been used as a navigational aid, with their shape and orientation marking the prevailing wind direction (Aporta 2002; Clark et al. 2016; Laidler et al. 2010; Nichols et al. 2004). Six publications described knowledge from Pangnirtung, Igloolik, Clyde River, Cambridge Bay, and Kugluktuk, (all in Nunavut) where Inuit have noticed a reduced prevalence of prevailing winds and increased unpredictability in wind direction shifts (Ford et al. 2006b; Gearheard et al. 2010; Laidler et al. 2010; Panikkar et al. 2018; Prno et al. 2011). This can change the shape and orientation of snow drifts (e.g., no longer formed relative to “typical” prevailing winds). The change in snow drift shape/orientation (relative to the seasonal prevailing wind direction) must be recognized in order for snow drifts to continue to be used for navigation (Laidler et al. 2010). Shifting predictability in wind direction and wind strength has further implications for ice conditions at the floe edge, an important hunting destination.

Difficulties in travelling, safety issues, and accidents are associated with increasingly unpredictable WWIC conditions (Buijs 2010; Bunce et al. 2016; Christie et al. 2018). Community members from Nunatsiavut noted that “you really don't know what is safe and what isn't out there [anymore]” and consequently “the ice is not predictable, it is not stable, people don't trust it” (as cited in Harper et al. 2015). Predicting WWIC conditions is essential for safe travel and supporting people's ability to anticipate and respond to dangers, opportunities, and changes while out on the land (Ford et al. 2010). Coding for our review revealed no distinct “climate” indicator category. Yet, indicators associated with changing predictability have the potential to convey where impacts of climate change are being noticed, and weather, water, and ice indicators cross-coded with changes in predictability have been included in Fig. 10. Given the challenges to prediction that are being experienced by Inuit across Canada, Alaska, and Greenland, there is increased importance in being able to access reliable and relevant WWIC information services to support travel safety and decision making (Simonee et al. 2021; Wilson et al. 2021a, 2021b).

Inuit Knowledge, as recorded and presented in the publications reviewed, emerges from research that was based in 85 communities throughout Inuit Nunaat. This involves knowledge of place- and context-specific indicators that hold value at certain spatial and temporal scales of mobility on the land, as conveyed by participants in the related research projects. Our research reveals an uneven distribution of research intensity and related volume of publications reporting Inuit Knowledge of WWIC, with some communities and regions being disproportionately represented in the breadth of indicators presented in our review (Figs. 3–4). For example, 54% of all publications reviewed were associated with Nunavut, while Alaska was associated with 25%, and other Inuit regions were associated with between 7% and 11% of the reviewed publications. Inuit Knowledge from Igloolik, Nunavut and Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska was reported in 15 and 13 publications respectively, all other communities were associated with ≤ 9 publications (and the majority being represented in ≤ 6). There were limited publications stemming from Greenland and Nunavik, and less than 40% of WWIC indicators identified were associated with Greenland, Nunavik, and Nunatsiavut. While some research limitations listed in Section 2.4 may have impacted these numbers, a clear discrepancy remains. The implication of the uneven geographic variation in publications is that what we presented does not represent the full scope and context of WWIC indicators used in different Inuit regions and communities. The reported indicators likely reflect WWIC conditions experienced in regions/communities with a higher volume of associated publications. For example, out of all weather, water, and ice indicators identified in the publications we reviewed, 84% of ice, 86% of water, and 96% of weather indicators were described by Inuit in Nunavut. In contrast, 24% of ice, 36% of water, and 35% of weather indicators were described by Inuit in Greenland. This could imply that the indicators presented here bias towards those that are most relevant for Inuit in Nunavut. However, it is important to note that any communities not identified or regions and communities that were under-represented in our review may still use the extent of WWIC indicators in the results. As such, the WWIC indicators presented here cannot be considered comprehensive, but they can provide a broad baseline around which future research, monitoring, and/or forecasting can be developed. Such initiatives could aim to work with communities not identified through our review, or communities and regions that are under-represented (Petzold et al. 2020). Assessing the relevance of the WWIC indicators amongst Inuit communities and regions would help develop a more inclusive understanding of indicator use across Inuit Nunaat. Ultimately, it is essential to account for community-to-community and region-to-region differences as well as commonalities to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of regional dynamics and indicator relevance.

Weather, water, and ice conditions are time- and place- specific. The ice and water indicators identified through our review (Figs. 8–9) largely reflect the conditions of a platform upon which Inuit travel—one that connects people, animals, land, and sea (Aporta et al. 2018). Weather, in contrast, creates the conditions through which Inuit can or will travel, which in-turn influences the perceived quality of ice and water as a platform for travel (i.e., the conditions that may be encountered). Changes in weather, water, and ice are experienced first-hand and closely observed through day-to-day activities. In contrast, climate change has been framed as a more abstracted scientific concept (Ingold and Kurtilla 2000; Riedlinger and Berkes 2001). This abstraction could be linked to why a distinct “climate” indicator category was not identified. However, descriptions of predictive indicators and those associated with changing (reduced) predictability can convey where climate change impacts are being noticed more frequently. Relationships among weather, water, and ice indicators that once held true (trends over time) are no longer as predictable as they once were (indicative of changes to trends over time). These have the potential to be constructed as climate indicators. However, future research is warranted to explore this conceptualization further in collaboration with Inuit communities.

The importance of the WWIC indicators presented here is grounded in how Inuit perceive and understand their relationships with other conditions, which collectively influence travel safety and decision-making. Inuit Knowledge is the culmination of many generations of experiences within the Arctic climate system (Itchuaqiyaq 2023). While individual “components” of the climate system have direct impacts on travel safety, the ability to make decisions and understand the environment is predicated on understanding and assessing the system as whole. Cross-coding of indicators revealed an inherent relationality in how Inuit Knowledge of WWIC involves an integrated assessment of various conditions that influence specific indicators in causal, conditional, or predictive ways. Notably, these categories are not mutually exclusive, rather the nature of the relationship being described allows for causal, conditional, and/or predictive framing. For example, the season and the air temperature associated with rainfall amount, timing, and intensity can determine whether hazardous conditions will develop (conditional), while increased rainfall in the winter can lead to increased snowmelt, slush formation, and unstable ice conditions (causal, predictive).

For Inuit to understand WWIC conditions (and impacts to travel safety), it is not individual indicators alone but the interconnected relationships between elements of the climate system that must be interpreted (Nichols et al. 2004). This highlights the unique approach of collecting and passing on information as highly meaningful “environmental packages”, where the more relationships Inuit know, the more precise their observations and predictions can be (Oozeva et al. 2004). For example, rather than looking at ice strength and stability alone, Inuit are also assessing how conditions such as current speed and wind direction influence ice thickness, which is then contextualized further by the reason why Inuit are travelling in the first place (e.g., hunting on ice or by boat). These relationships are nuanced, context-based, and reflective of Inuit ways of knowing-being-doing-accounting relationally (McGrath 2018) which are deeply entrenched in processes of perceptually engaging with the environment (Ingold 2011). Such a perspective allows for in depth familiarity with WWIC situated according to—and contextualized by—the temporal and spatial scales of Inuit mobility on the land.

The relationships amongst WWIC indicators have been shifting, making traditional modes of prediction more difficult for Inuit to trust in the same way as in the past. Given this, Inuit are increasingly relying on information services to assess environmental conditions that might be encountered when travelling. This reliance is not replacing Inuit Knowledge, as information services can have limited value in certain contexts. Rather, information services are being evaluated and applied in conjunction with Inuit Knowledge (Hauser et al. 2023; Simonee et al. 2021; Wilson et al. 2021a). This dynamic mirrors efforts of other Indigenous groups globally (Balehegn et al. 2019; Chambers et al. 2019; Green et al. 2010; Masinde and Bagula 2011), where novel approaches to co-producing weather and climate information services are also being advanced with and for Indigenous communities (Barihaihi and Mwanzia 2017; Nyzadi et al. 2022; Plotz et al. 2017.

Monitoring and forecasting programs that provide information services use various environmental variables to create products and services that provide long- or short-range forecasts at local and regional scales. These forecasts rely on various data sources including conventional in-situ stations and satellite observing systems to produce predictive system models. Effective monitoring and forecasting in Inuit Nunaat are challenged by biases in in-situ station coverage, with the Arctic having notably sparse coverage when compared to more temperate latitudes (Cowtan and Way 2014; Johnson et al. 2015; Simonee et al. 2021). As such, the spatial and temporal coverage of many long-term assessment programs and long- and short-range forecasting products and services do not always correspond with WWIC conditions that impact Inuit living in coastal communities throughout Inuit Nunaat (Eicken et al. 2021; Fox et al. 2020; Stewart et al. 2020). Because of this, they may not capture where Inuit travel, phenomena of importance to Inuit, or Inuit approaches to observing the environment (Gearheard et al. 2010; Huntington et al. 2004).

Weather stations, if present, are typically located at community airports, whereas Inuit travel outside of their communities and can encounter conditions that do not correspond with weather station observations (Gearheard et al. 2010; Ljubibic and Carter 2022). Arctic coverage can also be entirely absent from critical information services. For example, the Canadian weather radar network has stations located exclusively in southern Canada, providing radar coverage only surrounding the locations of those stations (Voosen 2023). Some weather services provide hours-old or days-old information, while real-time information is critical for short-term planning and in the case of an emergency (Simonee et al. 2021). Similarly, certain information services are not available during the seasons that are most relevant for Inuit communities. For example, marine forecasts are only available during the marine shipping season, but that information would be very useful for communities year-round (Ljubicic and Carter 2022). Inadequate temporal and spatial coverage can be incredibly dangerous for people travelling on the land, where forecast accuracy can mean the difference between life and death (Way 2023, as cited in Sanders 2023). The focus of environmental monitoring and forecasting programs may not be representative of how Inuit observe and experience their local environments (Gearheard et al. 2010; Huntington et al. 2004). For example, while wind speed and direction may be monitored, the potential for blowing snow, or other indicators that can conditionally emerge might be more important for Inuit when making decisions related to safe travel.

The mandate driving the provision of information services may also misalign with Inuit uses of the environment. For example, while sea ice and the ocean act as a platform (or highway) for Inuit to access subsistence resources, sea ice information services provided by organizations such as the Canadian Ice Service (CIS) have been developed to meet their federal mandate to support safe shipping in Arctic waters by avoiding hazardous ice (Government of Canada 2022). Inuit have identified that sea ice charts are often inaccurate to local conditions, linked to the coarser spatial scale and an inadequate representation of ice thickness (concentration) or surface conditions (Ljubicic and Carter 2022; Segal et al. 2021; Wilson et al. 2021a). The conceptual tensions arising from how information services are designed and delivered can amplify the inaccessibility and inaccuracy of information services used by Inuit throughout Inuit Nunaat. It is essential to understand Inuit perspectives on the relevant indicators, appropriate temporal and spatial scales, and uses for WWIC information to effectively tailor information services to meet the needs of Inuit communities.

Despite the challenges identified above, WWIC information still plays an important role to support northern travel safety and decision making. Federal, open source, and industry provided online environmental services are just some, among many, tools that Inuit use to make decisions about when and where it is safe to travel (Laidler et al. 2011; Simonee et al. 2021; Wilson et al. 2021b). Currently, Inuit access these services through a range of apps and websites to use for their own purposes, while some Inuit experts skillfully translate relevant information into a local context to share over local radio or social media (Carter et al. 2023; Panikkar et al. 2018; Schiøtt et al. 2022; Simonee et al. 2021). Inuit Knowledge is essential to interpret this information, filling critical spatial and temporal gaps related to safety during sea ice travel (Laidler et al. 2011; Oozeva et al. 2004; Simonee et al. 2021; Wilson et al. 2021a). While WWIC information products and services may be increasingly used due to unpredictable weather and more time constraints on land travel, Inuit Knowledge is the “framework” through which information services are interpreted (Oozeva et al. 2004; Pennesi et al. 2012).

Given the holistic Inuit approach to understanding and assessing the environment, some environmental indicators used by Inuit may not be suited to systematic uptake and use in Western applications. This might include certain predictive indicators that involve sensory engagement with the landscape, or conditional indicators that emerge from the confluence of other conditions which could be time and place specific. However, the results of our review outline the breadth of WWIC indicators used by Inuit to assess travel safety in Inuit Nunaat, giving researchers and information service providers the opportunity to learn from these indicators and the relationality amongst them. Table 2 details the top 10 weather, water, and ice indicators identified in the highest volume of publications. These indicators appear to be common across most regions, are critical to safe travel, and are already included (or could readily be included) in established monitoring programs to improve the relevance of information services accessed and used in Inuit communities.

Practitioners can use our review to assess key indicators according to ease of prediction and degree of consistency across regions, which can help target the development of locally relevant research and information services. It will be critical to collaborate with communities to develop these programs. The results presented here come from various research contexts and can provide a starting off point for future collaborations aimed at increasing the accessibility of WWIC information services. This should include assessing the relevance and application of WWIC indicators through engagement with individual communities to better understand the extent of mobility on the land, indicator use/application, and what information is needed to support travel safety. The spatial/temporal application of indicators must also be assessed against currently available coverage, including those that are multi-scalar (e.g., wind) versus those that are location-specific (e.g., recurrent ice features such as polynyas or cracks).

Differing cultural perceptions of indicators must be addressed to effectively co-produce WWIC services. For example, Inuit notions of WWIC are not exclusively external environmental variables such as those favoured in Western environmental monitoring and forecasting. This difference in perception is exemplified by the Inuktitut term sila, which is commonly translated to “weather” in Western research. For Inuit, sila also embodies a permeating cultural and spiritual lifeforce which contextualizes human relations within broader ecological processes, including the weather (Leduc 2007). Reaching this level of understanding requires intentional engagement and conscious contextualization of Inuit Knowledge and experiences (Itchuaqiyaq 2023). Our review made evident the depth and specificity of Inuit terminology used to describe various WWIC conditions and processes. Accordingly, our results highlight the value of researchers and information service providers dedicating adequate time to learning—and translating—local terminology and associated conceptual meanings (whether in an Inuit language, English, or otherwise). This is critical for effective communication, and importantly, to avoid misunderstandings or misinterpretation. Doing so can help communicate the meaning of WWIC indicators that are used within and across various communities in Inuit Nunaat, and better asses their suitability for potential up-take into WWIC research, monitoring, and forecasting initiatives.

Inuit travel to hunt, harvest, visit other communities, access resources and connect with ancestral homelands, all of which is important to situate and contextualize the 163 unique indicators that arose from this scoping review (Aporta 2009; Cunsolo Willox et al. 2013; Davis et al. 2022). WWIC conditions are experienced in conjunction with ecological, social, cultural, political, and economic factors which collectively influence safe travel and access to the land (Moerlein and Carothers 2012). For example, weather, water, and ice conditions can influence the availability and distribution of wildlife and the ability for Inuit to safely access hunting and harvesting areas (Brinkman et al. 2016). However, the decision to travel may also be influenced by other socio-economic factors such as food security, the financial cost of a hunting trip, or the ability to take time off from work. In focusing on WWIC indicators, our review contributes to one aspect of this broader assessment. Thus, future research could consider WWIC indicators and their capacity to influence decision making in relation to other social, cultural, political, and economic considerations which impact access and safety.

While indicators can serve as a jumping off point in developing locally relevant research and information services, there are extensive co-production efforts that researchers and practitioners working in Inuit Nunaat can learn from to generate more accessible and usable information services. Moving beyond isolated WWIC indicators to address relational and socio-ecological underpinnings of observing the environment, Fox et al. (2020)   discuss the value of human-relevant environmental variables (HREVs). HREVs are complex synthesis variables that are used in conjunction with social factors to inform safe travel (Fox et al. 2020). Such an approach may help better translate the critical relationships that Inuit observe amongst various indicators, and the broader social, cultural, and economic determinants influencing travel safety. If co-developed, HREVs could become the focus of monitoring, forecasting, and prediction programs, or they may be used to help translate existing products and services to better communicate them in locally relevant terms. It is important to consider how WWIC indicators might be monitored relationally, where causal, conditional, or predictive indicator relationships are accounted for.

Pennesi et al. (2012) suggest establishing community-based weather hazard impact advisory groups as a format to bring together local and scientific weather knowledge and make information more accessible to communities. Creating such a group can help Western scientists connect directly with community members to understand how the information they produce is used, and how it may be better tailored to account for local experiences of travel hazards. Ultimately, this can support developing information services that combine Indigenous and Western forecasting, for example through a consensus approach or integrated probability forecasting (Nyzadi et al. 2022; Plotz et al. 2017). Co-producing information services in this way can increase local accessibility, relevance, and usefulness for Indigenous communities involved (Nyzadi et al. 2022).