Content available from Population and Environment
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
ORIGINAL PAPER Open Access
Population living on permafrost in the Arctic
Accepted: 25 November 2020/
#The Author(s) 2021
Permafrost thaw is a challenge in many Arctic regions, one that modifies ecosystems
and affects infrastructure and livelihoods. To date, there have been no demographic
studies of the population on permafrost. We present the first estimates of the number of
inhabitants on permafrost in the Arctic Circumpolar Permafrost Region (ACPR) and
project changes as a result of permafrost thaw. We combine current and projected
populations at settlement level with permafrost extent. Key findings indicate that there
are 1162 permafrost settlements in the ACPR, accommodating 5 million inhabitants, of
whom 1 million live along a coast. Climate-driven permafrost projections suggest that
by 2050, 42% of the permafrost settlements will become permafrost-free due to
thawing. Among the settlements remaining on permafrost, 42% are in high hazard
zones, where the consequences of permafrost thaw will be most severe. In total, 3.3
million people in the ACPR live currently in settlements where permafrost will degrade
and ultimately disappear by 2050.
Keywords Arctic circumpolar permafrost region .Arctic settlements .Arctic population .
Permafrost thaw .Arctic infrastructure .Risk
The unprecedented rise in air surface temperature observed in the Arctic causes
dramatic changes on the components of the cryosphere, including permafrost.
Nordregio, Stockholm, Sweden
Institute for Natural Resources and Geosciences, Copenhagen University, Copenhagen, Denmark
Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Potsdam, Germany
Department for Earth Sciences, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany
Published online: 6 January 2021
Population and Environment (2021) 43:22–38
Permafrost is ground (soil, sediment, or rock) that remains at or below 0 °C for at least
two consecutive years (Van Everdingen 2005). The permafrost region covers about
24% of the Earth’s land surface in the Northern Hemisphere, including large areas of
the Arctic (Gruber 2012). Over the last two decades, Arctic surface air temperature has
increased by more than double the global average. Near-surface permafrost in the
Arctic has warmed by more than 0.5 °C between 2009 and 2017 (Biskaborn et al.
2019), triggering permafrost thaw. This thaw causes changes in the ecosystems on
which Arctic inhabitants are directly dependent. The impacts of permafrost thaw in the
Arctic are becoming more visible, leading to increased scientific, economic, and
political attention. The impacts on communities (Allard et al. 2012;FordandPearce
2010) include, e.g., destabilization of infrastructure (O’Garra 2017; Streletskiy et al.
2019), reduction in country food accessibility (Berkes and Jolly 2000;Wescheand
Chan 2010), and declining health conditions (Sharma 2010). While people in the Arctic
are adaptable to climatic variability, financial, institutional, and knowledge constraints
are limiting their adaptive capacity (Ford et al. 2010).
As permafrost thaw accelerates in the Arctic, the need for studies looking at the
impact of permafrost thaw on permafrost societies and economies increases. Seventy
percent of the pan-Arctic residential, transportation, and industrial infrastructure is in
areas with high potential for near-surface permafrost thaw by 2060 (Hjort et al. 2018).
The changing environmental conditions not only affect people by damaging infrastruc-
ture but also impact the livelihoods and cultural activities of the populations living on
permafrost (Ford and Pearce 2010). Arctic communities have a strong relationship with
the land and the sea, and traditional activities such as hunting and fishing continue to be
important for much of the population (Duhaime et al. 2004).
To understand the magnitude of the forthcoming challenges related to permafrost
thaw in the Arctic, it is crucial to estimate the number of people who will be impacted.
While most literature suggests that approximately 4 million people live in the com-
monly defined administrative Arctic region (NSIDC 2019; Nymand Larsen 2014),
there is yet no estimate of the number of people living on permafrost in the Arctic.
To address this, we define the Arctic Circumpolar Permafrost Region (ACPR) and
contribute data on the number of people residing on permafrost in the Arctic. We
combine administrative boundaries with current permafrost extent to define permafrost
settlements and calculate the population living on permafrost. To fully grasp the risk of
the anticipated change in permafrost in the ACPR, we combine a model projecting
permafrost extent to 2060 with population projections from regional and national
statistical institutes. The outcome forecasts the possible impact of permafrost loss on
the population in the ACPR by 2050.
Our study area comprises the ACPR (Fig. 1). In defining this region, we developed a
strategy for converging demographic and northern circumpolar permafrost extent
datasets. We used the definition of the Arctic from the Arctic Human Development
Report (AHDR, Einarsson et al. 2004) and adapted it to the scope of this study, to (1)
reflect current Arctic geopolitical divisions; and (2) focus on the northern circumpolar
permafrost region. As a result, a few regions comprising large areas underlain by
23Population and Environment (2021) 43:22–38
permafrost were added to the definition of the Arctic from the AHDR in order to
conform to this paper’s focus on permafrost—the entire regions of Kamchatka, Maga-
dan, Khanty-Mansi, the Sakha Republic, and Krasnoyarsk (Russian Federation).
The regions and countries included in the definition of the ACPR are Alaska (USA);
Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northern
Fig. 1 Study area: permafrost settlements in the Arctic circumpolar permafrost region
24 Population and Environment (2021) 43:22–38
Quebec (Canada); Nordland, Troms, Finnmark, Svalbard (Norway); Norrbotten
(Sweden); Lapland (Finland); Komi, Arkhangelsk, Khanty-Mansi, Yamalo-Nenets,
Krasnoyarsk, Sakha Republic, Kamchatka, Magadan, Chukotka (Russian Federation);
as well as Greenland and Iceland. We further refer to regions from the Russian
Federation as the Russian Arctic, and regions from Sweden, Norway, and Finland as
the Fennoscandian Arctic.
Materials and methods
Settlements and permafrost extent
Settlements in this study are defined according to the Arctic countries’National Statistical
Institutes (NSI). We defined permafrost settlements as settlements located within the
permafrost extent, as modeled by Obu et al. (2019). The permafrost extent is based on the
modeled temperature at the top of the permafrost (TTOP model) for the period 2000–2016.
The permafrost extent is available at the circum-Arctic scale, with a resolution of 1 km2.The
permafrost zones are as follows: continuous (90–100% area coverage), discontinuous (50–
90% area coverage), and sporadic (0–50% area coverage). In the definition of permafrost
settlements, we used a socio-ecological system approach, which takes into account the fact
that inhabitants strongly rely on services provided by ecosystems and are culturally deeply
rooted in their local environment. Therefore, settlements within the sporadic permafrost zone
are considered as permafrost settlements even if they are not directly built on permafrost.
To estimate the future of permafrost settlements, we used projected permafrost
extents modeled by Hjort et al. (2018) using Representative Concentration Pathways
(RCPs) 2.6, 4.5, and 8.5 for the period 2041–2060 (hereafter 2050). The model is
binary and uses 30 arc-second grid cells (1 km2) to determine if permafrost is present or
absent. We used the consensus index (Ic), which classifies future permafrost extent into
hazard zones (1, low; 2, medium; and 3, high hazard zones). When defining hazard
zones, the consensus index considers the relative increase of the active layer thickness,
ground ice content, ground temperature, permafrost thaw potential, surface properties
(sediment/bedrock), fine-grained sediment content, frost susceptibility of ground ma-
terial, and slope gradient.
We further classified permafrost settlements as coastal or inland. There is no strict
definition of the Arctic coastal zone. We defined coastal zones as regions where
interactions of sea and land processes occur, from both physical and human geography
perspectives. To define permafrost coastal settlements, we used a raster of the Arctic
coastal zone defined in the Arctic Circumpolar Vegetation Map (Raynolds et al. 2019),
which we overlapped with the permafrost extent.
Current and projected population
The two main sources of demographic data in this study are population censuses and
administrative and register data, at settlement level. The study uses the latest available
population data from 2016 or 2017 (Table 1).
The number of people and settlements impacted by permafrost thaw by mid-century
in the ACPR is a function of two factors: projected permafrost extent and demography.
25Population and Environment (2021) 43:22–38
The methodologies for projecting population and permafrost are quite separate, and do
not take trends in the other into account. We used the population projections provided
by the national and regional statistical offices and synthesized by Heleniak (2019), and
extrapolated the annual rate of change to the year 2050. The standard practice used by
the national and regional statistical offices for projecting population change is the
cohort-component method. The components of population change—fertility, mortality,
and migration—are applied to the cohorts, or the age-sex structure of the population.
Population projections at the settlement level are scarce, thus we applied the projected
regional rates of change to the settlement level, assuming that all permafrost settlements
within a region will change at the same rate over the projection period.
Limitations of the study
We used two models of permafrost extent to estimate the number of permafrost
settlements. While the model resolutions are the same (1 km2), the models include
different parameters to measure the probabilities of permafrost to occur in one place.
This might impact our results when comparing ground conditions for current and
projected permafrost settlements.
Additionally, projecting future demographic trends in the Arctic is difficult
because of their small population sizes and their economies based on natural
resources, which are subject to boom-and-bust cycles. To overcome this, we used
regional population projections when available. On the one hand, it provides more
Table 1 List of demographic data sources used in this study
Alaska 2017 2015–2045 Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (http://www.
U.S. Census Bureau (https://www.census.gov/en.html)
Canada 2016 2016-2035 Yukon Bureau of Statistics (http://www.eco.gov.yk.ca/stats/ybs.html)
NWT Bureau of Statistics (http://www.statsnwt.ca/)
Nunavut Bureau of Statistics (https://www.gov.nu.
Newfoundland & Labrador Statistics Agency (https://www.stats.gov.nl.
Statistics Canada (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/start)
Greenland 2017 2017–2040 Statistics Greenland (http://www.stat.gl/)
Iceland 2017 2016–2066 Statistics Iceland (http://www.statice.is/)
Faroe Islands 2017 2016–2040 Statistics Faroe Islands (http://www.hagstova.fo/en)
Norway 2017 2017–2040 Statistics Norway (http://www.ssb.no/en/)
Sweden 2016 2017–2040 Statistics Sweden (http://www.scb.se/en/)
Finland 2016 2017–2040 Statistics Finland (http://www.stat.fi/index_en.html)
2017 2019–2036 Federal States Statistics Service (http://www.gks.ru/)
26 Population and Environment (2021) 43:22–38
detail and nuance than the national projections. However, it also increases errors
by combining different projection models. Models mainly differ in the amount of
detail involved in the projected population and the length of the projection period
(Heleniak 2019). Moreover, the demographic variability observed at the regional
level in Arctic societies (Hamilton et al. 2018) confirms that the use of regional
rates to project population at the settlement level might lead to over- or underes-
timation of the future population. However, with exception of Canada, there are
no population projections available at the settlement level.
Population on permafrost
In 2017, there were 4,942,685 inhabitants in the ACPR, residing in 1162 perma-
frost settlements (Table 2). Most of the population in the ACPR was concentrated
in a few large permafrost settlements. A majority of the permafrost inhabitants
lived in 511 settlements located in zones of sporadic permafrost (Table 2). How-
ever, most of the permafrost settlements were in zones of continuous permafrost,
where 18.6% of the permafrost inhabitants lived. A few settlements were in zones
of discontinuous permafrost. There were large regional differences in the distri-
bution of permafrost settlements. The majority of the settlements in the Russian
Arctic were located on continuous permafrost, while most of the permafrost
settlements in the Fennoscandian Arctic were located in zones of sporadic perma-
frost (Appendix Table 5).
Of all permafrost settlements, 32.6% were coastal, where 1,099,186 inhabitants
resided (Table 2). The majority of the coastal inhabitants were living in zones of
sporadic permafrost, whereas 10% were living in zones of continuous permafrost.
In Greenland, all settlements were coastal. In Canada and Alaska, almost half of
the permafrost settlements were along the coastline, all located on continuous
permafrost. In the Russian Arctic, permafrost settlements were mostly situated
inland on continuous permafrost, except for the Nenets region, where all perma-
frost settlements were coastal, in zones of sporadic permafrost.
Table 2 Number of permafrost settlements and inhabitants by permafrost type in the Arctic Circumpolar
Permafrost Region in 2017. Coastal settlements and population are included in the numbers of permafrost
settlements and population
Sporadic 511 3,286,723 205 876,896
Discontinuous 162 733,485 79 108,896
Continuous 489 922,477 95 113,394
Total 1162 4,942,685 379 1,099,186
27Population and Environment (2021) 43:22–38
Population impacted by the loss of permafrost
The number of people living on permafrost in the ACPR is expected to decrease, from
4.9 million in 2017 to 1.7 million in 2050. This means that 3.3 million people in the
ACPR live in settlements where permafrost will degrade and ultimately disappear by
2050 (Table 3). The area with the largest population on permafrost by 2050 will remain
the Russian Arctic (Khanty-Mansi, Sakha Republic, Murmansk, and Yamalo-Nenets).
In 2050, 1.7 million people will live in 628 permafrost settlements (Table 3).
Although there were only few settlements located in areas with permafrost in Sweden,
Finland, and Iceland, by 2050 there will no longer be any permafrost settlements in
these countries (Fig. 2, Appendix Table 6).
Damage caused by permafrost thaw in permafrost settlements will differ depending
on the permafrost’s vulnerability to thawing, as summarized by the hazard zones.
Among the settlements remaining on permafrost in 2050, 41.7% (RCP 4.5) will be in
high hazard zones, where the consequences of permafrost thaw will be most severe
(Table 3). This will mainly affect settlements in the Russian Arctic and in Alaska
(Fig. 2,AppendixTable7). By contrast, 20.9% (RCP 4.5) of the settlements remaining
on permafrost in 2050 will be least impacted by permafrost thaw, mainly in Greenland
and Canada. While 43.0% (RCP 4.5) of the permafrost inhabitants will live in low
hazard zones, 32.0% will be in high hazard zones, where permafrost is likely to be
extremely degraded. In comparison to inland settlements, a larger proportion of coastal
settlements will become permafrost-free by 2050, although fewer of these coastal
settlements will be in high hazard zones (Table 3). By 2050, 323,362 people will live
in a coastal permafrost settlement, 42.7% of them in a high hazard zone (Table 3).
Almost all the population currently living in areas of sporadic permafrost in the
ACPR will be living in permafrost-free areas (Table 4). More than half of the
population currently living in areas of discontinuous or continuous permafrost will be
living in medium and high hazard zones (Table 4).
Largest settlements impacted by the loss of permafrost
Most of the permafrost settlements in the ACPR were small, with a median size of 622
inhabitants. However, there were 123 permafrost settlements with more than 5000
inhabitants in 2017. These large settlements had a median population of 12,696 (min =
5024, max = 360,590), and a total of 4 million inhabitants. Eighty-five percent of the
large permafrost settlements were in the Russian Arctic. The population in the large
settlements is projected to increase by 3.5% by 2050. In total, 65.8% of these large
settlements were in zones of sporadic permafrost, while 34.1% were in zones of
discontinuous and continuous permafrost.
Surgut, Yakutsk, Murmansk, Nizhnevartovsk, and Norilsk are the five largest
settlements in the Russian Arctic that will have to adapt to the loss of permafrost. In
2017, 1.4 million people lived in these five settlements, where the population is
projected to increase by 3.9%. Surgut, Murmansk, and Nizhnevartovsk are in the
sporadic and discontinuous permafrost zones. While it is not possible to determine
from the permafrost maps utilized in this study to what extent the settled areas are
currently underlain by permafrost, the regions around the settlements will become
permafrost-free by 2050. Yakutsk and Norilsk are located on continuous permafrost
28 Population and Environment (2021) 43:22–38
Table 3 Projected number of permafrost settlements and population by 2050 using three Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs 2.6; 4.5; and 8.5) and hazard zone scenarios.
Coastal settlements and population are included in the numbers of permafrost settlements and population
Permafrost settlements Population on permafrost Coastal permafrost settlements Coastal population on permafrost
RCP 2.6 RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 RCP 2.6 RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 RCP 2.6 RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 RCP 2.6 RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5
Low hazard zone 144 131 106 730,048 711,333 481,123 59 56 44 119,438 108,835 70,101
Medium Hazard zone 245 235 239 408,550 414,219 617,118 56 56 59 67,638 76,498 100,483
High Hazard zone 239 262 283 516,692 529,738 557,049 39 42 51 136,286 138,029 152,778
Total 628 1,655,290 154 323,362
29Population and Environment (2021) 43:22–38
and will be more affected by permafrost thaw, although they will be in low hazard
zones. Yellowknife in Canada is the largest settlement on permafrost in the Canadian
Arctic. Its population of 19,596 in 2017 is expected to grow by 20.5% by 2050.
Yellowknife is located on discontinuous permafrost, and will be in a high hazard zone
Due to permafrost thaw, 65.0% of the large settlements of the ACPR will become
permafrost-free by 2050 (RCP 4.5), and their 3 million inhabitants will have to contend
with changes related to the loss of permafrost. Among the 43 large settlements that will
remain on permafrost by 2050, 20 are in high hazard zones, where the consequences of
Fig. 2 Settlements at risk due to permafrost thaw by 2060
30 Population and Environment (2021) 43:22–38
permafrost thaw will be the most profound. Of these 20 settlements, 19 are in the
Russian Arctic and one is in Canada.
Variability in the impacts depending on the climate trajectory
The results we describe consider a mitigation emission scenario (RCP 4.5), suggesting
a stabilization of atmospheric concentrations near 2060 to 4.5 W/m2(or 650 ppm CO2
equivalent). Following a “business as usual”scenario (RCP 8.5), the consequences of
permafrost thaw on permafrost settlements and population will be worse. In such a
scenario, the number of permafrost settlements that will be in high hazard zones by
2050 will be 8% higher and the permafrost population 5% higher (Table 3). The
consequences for coastal settlements will be more severe, with a 21% increase in the
number of permafrost settlements in high hazard zones and an 11% increase in
permafrost population in these zones. The consequences of permafrost thaw on per-
mafrost settlements and population will be reduced if greenhouse gases emissions are
low and atmospheric concentrations stabilize earlier (RCP 2.6). The number of perma-
frost settlements located in high hazard zones will be 10% lower, and the permafrost
population will fall by 3% (Table 3).
Adaptation to permafrost-free environment
We show that close to 3.3 million people living in the ACPR will be affected by the
thawing—and eventual loss—of permafrost. Three percent of the settlements that are
currently located on continuous permafrost will become permafrost-free, meaning that
the settlements will have to face the costs of rebuilding and renovating public and
private infrastructure damaged by permafrost thaw. The majority of permafrost inhab-
itants (3.1 million) live in zones of sporadic permafrost. While almost all of the people
living in zones of sporadic permafrost will live in a permafrost-free area in 2050, the
costs related to permafrost thaw in these settlements might not be as high if they are not
directly located on permafrost. However, people living on sporadic permafrost will be
impacted by the changes affecting the permafrost ecosystems surrounding their settle-
ments, which will trigger transitions in socio-ecological systems (Schuur and Mack
Table 4 Proportion of the population within type of permafrost area that will be affected by permafrost thaw
by 2050 (RCP 4.5)
Proportion of the population affected by permafrost thaw by 2050 (%)
Sporadic 3,286,723 95,6 0,7 0,3 3,5
Discontinuous 733,485 12,8 38,9 24,8 23,5
Continuous 922,477 3,3 43,9 25,2 27,7
31Population and Environment (2021) 43:22–38
2018). By contrast, settlements in discontinuous or continuous permafrost zones that
will be in high hazard zones in 2050 will face significant costs associated with adapting
to permafrost thaw. Damage to infrastructure due to permafrost thaw is caused by both
ground subsidence and a decrease in the ground’s bearing capacity, leading to cracks,
deformations, and the collapse of built structures (Streletskiy et al. 2012,2019). This
impacts the useful life of infrastructure, reducing it by 0.2% in sporadic permafrost and
by 0.9% in continuous permafrost per °C increase (Larsen et al. 2008). In the Russian
Arctic, the most significant reduction in bearing capacity is expected in the discontin-
uous and southern fringes of continuous permafrost zones (Shiklomanov et al. 2017a),
in which we calculate that 472 settlements and 1.5 million people are located.
Adaptation in settlements remaining on permafrost
For the settlements remaining on permafrost, the consequences of permafrost thaw will vary
depending on the hazard zone on which they are located. In 2050, half a million inhabitants
on permafrost will live in high hazard zones, where the consequences of permafrost thaw
will be most severe, mainly in the Russian Arctic and in Alaska. These areas are in thaw-
unstable zones characterized by relatively high ground-ice content and thick deposits of
frost-susceptible sediments (Hjort et al. 2018). By contrast, permafrost thaw will be a minor
concern for slightly more than 700,000 permafrost inhabitants who will live in low hazard
zones, mostly in Greenland and in Canada, where a large number of people currently live in
settlements built on bedrock.
Adaptation in coastal permafrost settlements
We show that coastal settlements are proportionally more exposed to permafrost thaw than
inland settlements. Flooding and coastal erosion are major risks for many of these settle-
ments, threatening the viability of some settlements, damaging important cultural heritage
sites, and compromising municipal infrastructure and water supply (Nelson et al. 2001;
Shiklomanov et al. 2017b;Warrenetal.2005). Coastal settlements will suffer from both
ground subsidence and coastal erosion. While ground subsidence is a parameter included in
the permafrost projection model (Hjort et al. 2018), coastal erosion is not. Along the Arctic
coast, coastal erosion rates average 0.5 m a−1, with high geographic variability (Lantuit et al.
2012). Coastal erosion is a real threat for the 379 coastal settlements on permafrost and their
1 million inhabitants. Several communities have already been forced to relocate, while
others have just left vulnerable settlements (Bronen 2010; Hamilton et al. 2016). However,
the settlements most threatened by erosion in Alaska do not yet show any evidence of
increased outmigration (Hamilton et al. 2018).
Settlements in the ACPR differ considerably in terms of both population size and physical
ground conditions. Despite their differences in terms of population size, infrastructure, and
economy (Hamilton et al. 2018), Arctic settlements face similar challenges related to the loss
of permafrost. The impacts mainly relate to damage to infrastructure and changes in the
livelihoods of people living on permafrost. These impacts might have significant conse-
quences on the future economic and social development of the Arctic (Streletskiy et al.
32 Population and Environment (2021) 43:22–38
2012). Adaptation capacity to permafrost-free environments will vary depending on the type
of permafrost and potential hazard zone on which the settlements are currently located, as
well as the settlements’size and economic situation. Larger settlements located in high
hazard zones related to permafrost thaw are mostly located in the Russian Arctic, and in
some ACPR regions with the strongest economies (as measured by the Growth Regional
Product (GRP)). The economic situation in these regions may help to offset some mitigation
costs (Suter et al. 2019). However, some regions with large settlements and weaker
economies located in high hazard zones will incur high annual costs to address damages
related to permafrost thaw. This is the case for the Northwest Territories in Canada, where
the annual costs might be as high as 1.5% of GRP (Suter et al. 2019).
This is the first demographic study assessing the population living on permafrost and
the impact of permafrost thaw on the population living in the Arctic Circumpolar
Permafrost Region. In 2017, close to five million inhabitants lived in 1162 permafrost
settlements in the ACPR. As a result of permafrost thaw, many of these inhabitants will
live in permafrost-free areas by 2050. The total number of inhabitants on permafrost is
projected to decrease by 61.2%—from 4.9 million to 1.7 million by 2050. Permafrost
will degrade and ultimately disappear in 534 permafrost settlements, impacting the life
of 3.3 million inhabitants. Settlements remaining on permafrost by 2050 will also have
to adapt to permafrost thaw, as 42% of them will be located in high hazard zones. The
impacts will vary depending on the future climate trajectory, the permafrost type and
hazard zones in which settlements are located, and the extent to which settlements can
adapt in the remaining time before the permafrost thaws.
The data used is listed in the references, tables, supporting information, and the
ZENODO repository https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4266017 (Wang and Ramage
Table 5 Number of settlements within each permafrost extent zone per country in 2017
Alaska Canada Finland Greenland Iceland Norway Russia Sweden
Sporadic 123 45 21 34 4 20 241 23
Discontinuous 50 19 0 22 0 0 71 0
Continuous 19 44 0 23 0 2 401 0
33Population and Environment (2021) 43:22–38
Table 6 Number of settlements and people in the permafrost zone of the ACPR per region in 2017 and by
Country Region Settlements
Alaska All ACPR regions 192 169,481 77 29,173
Bethel 32 17,985 0 0
Bristol Bay 1 309 0 0
Denali 4 1574 2 182
Dillingham 9 3982 0 0
Fairbanks North Star 17 96,665 2 3182
Haines 1 265 0 0
Kusilvak CA (Wade
13 8180 0 0
Lake and Peninsula 2 146 0 0
Matanuska-Susitna 3 307 2 525
Nome 20 10,798 10 8743
North Slope 8 8745 6 2534
Northwest Arctic 11 7374 11 9118
Southeast Fairbanks 19 6520 14 2495
Valdez-Cordova 15 1557 7 258
Yukon-Koyukuk 37 5074 23 2136
Canada All ACPR regions 108 155,714 59 102,725
Newfoundland and Labrador 9 21,432 0 0
Northwest Territories 33 41,425 19 34,051
Nunavut 24 34,944 17 44,746
Quebec 22 26,607 13 18,693
Yukon 20 31,306 10 5235
Finland All ACPR regions 21 76,536 0 0
Lappi 21 76,536 0 0
Greenland All ACPR regions 79 54,257 17 12,554
Aasiaat 1 3112 0 0
Ammasalik 6 2930 1 184
Illoqqortoormiut 2 380 1 5
Ilulissat 5 4908 2 4179
Ivittuut 1 1 0 0
Kangaatsiaq 5 1182 1 242
Maniitsoq 4 3143 0 0
Nanortalik 6 283 0 0
Narsaq 6 1674 0 0
Nuuk 4 17,851 1 3
Paamiut 2 1530 0 0
Qaanaaq 4 755 2 621
34 Population and Environment (2021) 43:22–38
Table 6 (continued)
Country Region Settlements
Qaqortoq 4 3273 0 0
Qasigiannguit 2 1183 0 0
Qeqertarsuaq 2 876 0 0
Sisimiut 4 6096 2 5356
Uden for Kommunal Inddel 2 96 1 82
Upernavik 11 2748 2 393
Uummannaq 8 2236 4 1489
Iceland All ACPR regions 4 1570 0 0
Iceland 4 1570 0 0
Norway All ACPR regions 23 43,973 5 7138
Finnmark 15 38,637 1 2013
Svalbard (incl. Barentsburg) 3 3044 3 4818
Troms 5 2292 1 307
All ACPR regions 712 4,390,905 470 1,503,700
Arhangelskaja oblast 1 2405 1 1985
Autonomous Nenets 20 43,937 5 3088
Chukotsk 28 47,038 20 55,631
Hanty-Mancijskij (Jugra) 96 1,638,880 0 0
Kamchatskij Kraj 5 13,203 0 0
Komi 6 79,593 6 61,825
Koryak Okrug 22 13,447 8 3076
Krasnoyarsk 29 207,945 16 176,162
Magadan Oblast 22 139,308 20 33,783
Murmansk 33 701,683 0 0
Saha (Jakutija) 398 937,160 364 846,800
Sakha (Yakutia) 1 1089 1 1078
Taymur 4 30,717 3 27,631
Yamalo-Nenets 47 534,500 26 292,641
Sweden All ACPR regions 23 50,249 0 0
Norrbotten 23 50,249 0 0
35Population and Environment (2021) 43:22–38
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and
indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the
article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Allard, M., Lemay, M., Barrette, C., L’Hérault, E., Sarrazin, D., Bell, T., & Doré, G. (2012). Permafrost and
climate change in Nunavik and Nunatsiavut: Importance for municipal and transportation infrastructures
(Nunavik and Nunatsiavut: From science to policy. An integrated regional impact study (IRIS) of climate
change and modernization, p. 27).
Berkes, F., & Jolly, D. (2000). Adapting to climate change: Social-ecological resilience in a Canadian Western
Arctic community. Ecology and Society.https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00342-050218.
Biskaborn, B. K., Smith, S. L., Noetzli, J., Matthes, H., Vieira, G., Streletskiy, D. A., Schoeneich, P.,
Romanovsky, V. E., Lewkowicz, A. G., Abramov, A., Allard, M., Boike, J., Cable, W. L.,
Christiansen, H. H., Delaloye, R., Diekmann, B., Drozdov, D., Etzelmüller, B., Grosse, G., et al.
(2019). Permafrost is warming at a global scale. Nature Communications, 10(1), 264. https://doi.org/
Bronen, R. (2010). Forced migration of Alaskan indigenous communities due to climate change. In
Environment, forced migration and social vulnerability (pp. 87–98). Berlin: Springe r.
Duhaime, G., Chabot, M., Fréchette, P., Robichaud, V., & Proulx, S. (2004). The impact of dietary changes
among the inuit of Nunavik (Canada): A socioeconomic assessment of possible public health recom-
mendations dealing with food contamination. Risk Analysis, 24(4), 1007–1018. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
Einarsson, N., Nymand Larsen, J., Nilsson, A. and Young, O.R., 2004. Arctic human development report.
Stefansson Arctic Institute.
Ford, J. D., & Pearce, T. (2010). What we know, do not know, and need to know about climate change
vulnerability in the western Canadian Arctic: A systematic literature review. Environmental Research
Letters, 5(1), 14008.
Ford, J. D., Pearce, T., Duerden, F., Furgal, C., & Smit, B. (2010). Climate change policy responses for
Canada's Inuit population: The importance of and opportunities for adaptation. Global Environmental
Change, 20(1), 177–191.
Gruber, S. (2012). The cryosphere derivation and analysis of a high-resolution estimate of global permafrost
zonation. Cryosphere, 6,221–233. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-6-221-2012.
Hamilton, L. C., Saito, K., Loring, P. A., Lammers, R. B., & Huntington, H. P. (2016). Climigration?
Population and climate change in Arctic Alaska. Population and Environment, 38(2), 115–133.
Table 7 Projected number of settlements within each permafrost hazard zones per country by 2050. The
projections follow the RCP 4.5 scenario
Alaska Canada Finland Greenland Iceland Norway Russia Sweden
Low hazard 20 32 0 15 0 0 64 0
Medium hazard 28 16 0 2 0 3 186 0
High hazard 29 11 0 0 0 1 221 0
36 Population and Environment (2021) 43:22–38
Hamilton, L. C., Wirsing, J., & Saito, K. (2018). Demographic variation and change in the Inuit Arctic.
Environmental Research Letters, 13(11) IOP Publishing, 115007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/
Heleniak, T. (2019). The future of the Arctic populations. Polar Geography.https://doi.org/10.1080/
Hjort, J., Karjalainen, O., Aalto, J., Westermann, S., Romanovsky, V. E., Nelson, F. E., Etzelmüller, B., &
Luoto, M. (2018). Degrading permafrost puts Arctic infrastructure at risk by mid-century. Nature
Communications, 9(1), 5147. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07557-4.
Lantuit, H., Overduin, P. P., Couture, N., Wetterich, S., Aré, F., Atkinson, D., Brown, J., Cherkashov, G.,
Drozdov, D., Forbes, D. L., & Graves-Gaylord, A. (2012). The Arctic coastal dynamics database: A new
classification scheme and statistics on Arctic permafrost coastlines. Estuaries and Coasts, 35(2), 383–400.
Larsen, P. H., Goldsmith, S., Smith, O., Wilson, M., Strzepek, K., Chinowsky, P., & Saylor, B. (2008).
Estimating future costs for Alaska public infrastructure at risk from climate change. Global
Environmental Change, 18(3), 442–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.03.005.
Nelson, F. E., Anisimov, O. A., & Shiklomanov, N. I. (2001). Subsidence risk from thawing permafrost.
Nature, 410(6831), 889. https://doi.org/10.1038/35073746.
NSIDC (2019). Arctic people | National Snow and ice data center. The National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Nymand Larsen, J. (Ed.). (2014). Arctic human development report: Regional processes and global linkages.
Nordic Council of Ministers.
O’Garra, T. (2017). Economic value of ecosystem services, minerals and oil in a melting Arctic: A preliminary
assessment. Ecosystem Services, 24,180–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.024.
Obu, J., Westermann, S., Bartsch, A., Berdnikov, N., Christiansen, H. H., Dashtseren, A., Delaloye, R.,
Elberling, B., Etzelmüller, B., Kholodov, A., Khomutov, A., Kääb, A., Leibman, M. O., Lewkowicz, A.
G., Panda, S. K., Romanovsky, V., Way, R. G., Westergaard-Nielsen, A., Wu, T., et al. (2019). Northern
hemisphere permafrost map based on TTOP modelling for 2000–2016 at 1 km2 scale. Earth-Science
Reviews, 193, 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.04.023.
Raynolds, M. K., Walker, D. A., Balser, A., Bay, C., Campbell, M., Cherosov, M. M., Daniëls, F. J., Eidesen,
P. B., Ermokhina, K. A., Frost, G. V., & Jedrzejek, B. (2019). A raster version of the circumpolar Arctic
vegetation map (CAVM). Remote Sensing of Environment, 232,111297.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.
Schuur, E. A. G., & Mack, M. C. (2018). Ecological response to permafrost thaw and consequences for local
and global ecosystem services. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 49(1), 279–301.
Sharma, S. (2010). Assessing diet and lifestyle in the Canadian Arctic Inuit and Inuvialuit to inform a nutrition
and physical activity intervention programme: Nutrition transition in Arctic Canada. Journal of Human
Nutrition and Dietetics, 23,5–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-277X.2010.01093.x.
Shiklomanov, N. I., Streletskiy, D. A., Swales, T. B., & Kokorev, V. A. (2017a). Climate change and stability
of urban infrastructure in Russian permafrost regions: Prognostic assessment based on GCM climate
projections. Geographical Review, 107(1), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/gere.12214.
Shiklomanov, N. I., Streletskiy, D. A., Grebenets, V. I., & Suter, L. (2017b). Conquering the permafrost:
Urban infrastructure development in Norilsk, Russia. Polar Geography, 40(4), 273–290.https://doi.org/
Streletskiy, D. A., Shiklomanov, N. I., & Nelson, F. E. (2012). Permafrost, infrastructure, and climate change:
A GIS-based landscape approach to geotechnical modeling. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research,
44(3), 368–380. https://doi.org/10.1657/1938-4246-44.3.368.
Streletskiy, D. A., Suter, L. J., Shiklomanov, N. I., Porfiriev, B. N., & Eliseev, D. O. (2019). Assessment of
climate change impacts on buildings, structures and infrastructure in the Russian regions on permafrost.
Environmental Research Letters, 14(2), 025003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf5e6.
Suter, L. J., Streletskiy, D. A., & Shiklomanov, N. I. (2019). Assessment of the cost of climate change impacts
on critical infrastructure in the circumpolar Arctic. Polar Geography.https://doi.org/10.1080/1088937X.
Van Everdingen, R. O. (2005). Multi-language glossary of permafrost and related ground-ice. International
Permafrost Association, Terminology Working Group.
Wang, S., & Ramage, J. (2020). Population in the Arctic circumpolar permafrost region at settlement level.
Warren, J. A., Berner, J. E., & Curtis, T. (2005). Climate change and human health: Infrastructure impacts to
small remote communities in the north. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 64(5), 487–497.
37Population and Environment (2021) 43:22–38
Wesche, S.D.,& Chan, H. M. (2010). Adapting to the impacts of climate change onfood security among Inuit
in the Western Canadian Arctic. EcoHealth, 7(3), 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-010-0344-8.
Publisher’snote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
38 Population and Environment (2021) 43:22–38
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer