Tourism in the Arctic is at risk due to intensifying permafrost degradation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Climate change is destabilizing Arctic landscapes by accelerating permafrost degradation, leading to more frequent slope failures, especially during summers. Summer is also the high touristic season for nature-based tourism in the Arctic, attracting visitors unfamiliar with permafrost-related risks. In this context, the Yukon, West Greenland, and Svalbard face both intensifying permafrost degradation and growing summer tourism, making them relevant cases for examining the intersections between permafrost and tourism. While studies and adaptation strategies prioritize local communities, they tend to overlook tourists, a growing demographic in permafrost regions. This tourism growth puts additional economic and safety burdens on local communities. It is argued that tourism should be more fully integrated into adaptation strategies to permafrost degradation and to that end, we propose three recommendations: stronger dialogue with tourism actors; target audiences for improved risk communication; integrate risk communication on permafrost degradation in tourism development goals. Overall, we claim that the inclusion of tourism in adaptation strategies will further contribute to Arctic communities’ resilience.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".