Abstract
Research in remote locations is more expensive than similar activities at sites with easier access, but these costs have rarely been compared. Using examples from seabird research, we show that conducting research in the Arctic is typically eight times more expensive than pursuing similar studies at a southern location. The differences in costs are related principally to the much higher expenses of travel and shipping (typically 4–10× higher for Arctic work), as well as the good practice of meaningful engagement with northern communities (4%–25% of project costs). Although there is some variation in costs among Arctic countries, we hope that the consistent pattern of relatively higher Arctic costs allows policy-makers and funding agencies to better plan for research support, especially for this region that is experiencing rapid environmental change.
Highlights
Over the past several decades there has been increasing recognition that anthropogenic activities have substantial negative consequences for the environment (e.g., Carson 1962)
In Canada, we modeled costs to work at Prince Leopold Island, Nunavut [Fig. 1 Canada high Arctic (CAN-HA); 74°N, 90°W; high Arctic; Gaston et al 2005], Digges Sound, Nunavut [Canada low Arctic (CAN-LA); 62°33′N, 77°43′W; low Arctic; Gaston et al 2013], Gannet Islands, Newfoundland, and Labrador [Canada low Arctic/south (CAN-LA/S); 53°56′N, 56°32′W; low Arctic; Pratte et al 2017], and Machias Seal Island, New Brunswick [Canada USA south (CAN/USA-S); 44°30′ N, 67°06′W; south; Diamond and Devlin 2003]
The greatest difference was in high Arctic Canada, where costs were 13.6 times greater than conducting the same work in the Bay of Fundy of Nova Scotia, Canada (18.8 times more with a community workshop)
Summary
Over the past several decades there has been increasing recognition that anthropogenic activities have substantial negative consequences for the environment (e.g., Carson 1962). Global environmental issues like acid rain (Likens et al 1996), climate change (Parmesan and Yohe 2003), and international management or depletion of wildlife stocks (e.g., Myers and Worm 2003; Hunter et al 2010) have become commonplace in news stories. Concerns focusing on these issues have fueled the growth of environmental science, as well as national and international legislation aimed at protecting our environment (e.g., Karr 1990; Forsyth 2004). This appears to be the case with conducting research in the Arctic, a remote region that has been a hotbed for various forms of environmental science for the past four decades (Aksnes et al 2016)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
