Four Paradoxes of the User–Provider Interface: A Responsible Innovation Framework for Sea Ice Services

Abstract

In the Arctic region, sea ice retreat as a decadal-scale crisis is creating a challenging environment for navigating long-term sustainability. Innovations in sea ice services can help marine users to anticipate sea ice concentration, thickness and motion, plan ahead, as well as increase the safety and sustainability of marine operations. Increasingly however, policy makers and information service providers confront paradoxical decision-making contexts in which contradictory solutions are needed to manage uncertainties across different spatial and temporal scales. This article proposes a forward-looking sea ice services framework that acknowledges four paradoxes pressuring sea ice service provision: the paradoxes of performing, contradictory functions embedded in sea ice services, contradicting desired futures and the paradox of responsible innovation. We draw on the results from a multi-year co-production process of (sub)seasonal sea ice services structured around scoping interviews, workshops and a participatory scenario process with representatives of marine sectors, fishers, hunters, metservice providers, and policy experts. Our proposed framework identifies institutionalized coproduction processes, enhanced decision support, paradoxical thinking and dimensions of responsible innovation as tactics necessary to address existing tensions in sea ice services. We highlight the role of socio-economic scenarios in implementing these tactics in support of responsible innovation in sea ice social–ecological systems. The article concludes with a discussion of questions around equity and responsibility raised by the ultimate confirmation that enhanced information, data infrastructures, and service provisions will not benefit all actors equally.

Marine meteorological forecasts for coastal ocean users – perceptions, usability and uptake

“…The same at 60 % agreement is 17 people. For data analysis, the present study used the match coefficient method, of the formal consensus model, in the UCINET software package (Borgatti et al, 2002).…”

“…Code availability. The software is freely available here: https: //sites.google.com/site/ucinetsoftware/home (last acccess: 20 December 2020, Borgatti et al, 2002).…”

Towards an Arctic Sustainability Monitoring Framework

“…The authors highlight the need for initiatives that can support bottom-up processes for identifying locally relevant sustainable development indicators that could serve as a way to engage Arctic residents and other regional and local actors in shaping the future of Arctic communities, within a global sustainability context. The value and the role of participatory sustainability monitoring are also emphasized by other authors of this issue [1,2].…”

“…Blair et al [1] point out that the same changes, their impacts, and solutions, benefit some, while disadvantage others creating decision-making paradoxes. The authors bring our attention to the fact that in the Arctic, the tensions that are emerging from risks, opportunities, and adaptations for diverse groups of stakeholders increasingly pose irresolvable dilemmas without easy policy solutions.…”

Marine Meteorological forecasts for Coastal Ocean Users – Perceptions, Usability and Uptake

“…The type of relationship users cultivate with the ocean, and the resulting information need that is generated, is not only driven by geographical contexts but also by sectoral differences that determine sociomaterial (linked human-technological) settings (Blair et al, 2020;Lamers et al, 2018). Forecast services are used in distinct ways in different sociomaterial settings, and these differences impact the temporal and spatial scale at which information is needed for planning and for tactical decisions.…”