Responding to Climate and Environmental Change Impacts on Human Health via Integrated Surveillance in the Circumpolar North: A Systematic Realist Review

Sawatzky, Alexandra; Cunsolo, Ashlee; Jones-Bitton, Andria; Middleton, Jacqueline; Harper, Sherilee L.

doi:10.3390/ijerph15122706

Open AccessReview

Responding to Climate and Environmental Change Impacts on Human Health via Integrated Surveillance in the Circumpolar North: A Systematic Realist Review

¹

Department of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada

²

Labrador Institute of Memorial University, 219 Hamilton River Road, P.O. Box 490, Stn. B, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, NL A0P 1E0, Canada

³

School of Public Health, University of Alberta, 116 St. and 85 Ave., Edmonton, AB T6G 2R3, Canada

^*

Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15(12), 2706; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122706

Submission received: 30 September 2018 / Revised: 14 November 2018 / Accepted: 22 November 2018 / Published: 30 November 2018

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Climate Change and Health: An Interdisciplinary Perspective)

Download

Browse Figures

Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Environments are shifting rapidly in the Circumpolar Arctic and Subarctic regions as a result of climate change and other external stressors, and this has a substantial impact on the health of northern populations. Thus, there is a need for integrated surveillance systems designed to monitor the impacts of climate change on human health outcomes as part of broader adaptation strategies in these regions. This review aimed to identify, describe, and synthesize literature on integrated surveillance systems in Circumpolar Arctic and Subarctic regions, that are used for research or practice. Following a systematic realist review approach, relevant articles were identified using search strings developed for MEDLINE^® and Web of Science™ databases, and screened by two independent reviewers. Articles that met the inclusion criteria were retained for descriptive quantitative analysis, as well as thematic qualitative analysis, using a realist lens. Of the 3431 articles retrieved in the database searches, 85 met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Thematic analysis identified components of integrated surveillance systems that were categorized into three main groups: structural, processual, and relational components. These components were linked to surveillance attributes and activities that supported the operations and management of integrated surveillance. This review advances understandings of the distinct contributions of integrated surveillance systems and data to discerning the nature of changes in climate and environmental conditions that affect population health outcomes and determinants in the Circumpolar North. Findings from this review can be used to inform the planning, design, and evaluation of integrated surveillance systems that support evidence-based public health research and practice in the context of increasing climate change and the need for adaptation.

Keywords:

circumpolar North; climate change; adaptation; environmental health; public health; surveillance

1. Introduction

Arctic and Subarctic regions across the Circumpolar North are experiencing some of the most dramatic and rapid environmental changes in the world, largely due to unprecedented climate change and variation. Climate change is associated with rising atmospheric temperatures, increases in extreme weather events and storms, and warming permafrost [1,2,3,4,5,6], and is compounded by other large-scale drivers of socio-ecological change, such as natural resource development [7,8]. Furthermore, the impacts of climate change in the Circumpolar North are highly complex, varying in rate and magnitude by region and by season [3,9].

Increasing climate change and variation is also creating new challenges for the health of northern populations [6,9,10,11,12]. For example, rising temperatures have disrupted ice formation and breakup patterns, leading to unsafe and unpredictable travel conditions and, in turn, have increased rates of injuries and death [13,14,15,16,17]. Fluctuations in ice safety and weather patterns can disrupt the ability to hunt, leading to decreased food security and nutritional deficits [18,19,20,21,22]. Extreme weather events and changes in precipitation patterns can increase run-off and contaminate local water supplies, increasing the risk of waterborne disease and acute gastrointestinal illness [19,23]. Also, the ongoing stress and uncertainty related to changing climatic and environmental conditions can lead to negative impacts on mental wellness [24,25,26].

In recent years, public health surveillance systems have been identified as important tools for characterizing the burden and distribution of human health outcomes associated with climate change and related environmental shifts [7,27,28,29,30]. Some existing public health surveillance systems in the Circumpolar North have documented associations between various environmental hazards and human health outcomes [27,31,32]. These systems, however, are often not designed for, nor are adequately equipped to detect and respond to multiple sources of variability and change in the environment, and nor are they structured to understand the cumulative nature of climate-sensitive health outcomes [33]. Consequently, there is a lack of appropriate methods for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting surveillance data for public health decision-making and responses to health issues that are of particular concern in the Arctic and Subarctic regions [12,19,34,35]. In effect, this leads to gaps in understandings of how increasing climate change might affect population health in the North in the future [12,35]. Addressing these gaps will require improved coordination over the development and implementation of surveillance systems in northern regions, and globally, that integrate considerations for human health in the context of rapid climate change [8,32].

Integrated surveillance systems are designed to monitor and enable responses to one or more aspect(s) of the natural environment, and associated impacts on one or more human health outcome(s) to monitor trends and identify opportunities for public health responses [36,37,38]. Such systems can serve as important tools for integrating different types and sources of data that help further explain and contextualize the range, nature, and extent of potential interactions between environmental hazards, human exposure, and health outcomes [39,40]. For populations in the Arctic and Subarctic regions, interactions between climate change and other environmental, cultural, social, economic, and political factors can lead to public health challenges that differ substantially from those of their southern counterparts [27]. In these northern regions, integrated surveillance systems can generate data to inform more comprehensive, targeted responses to particular public health challenges in the context of climate change that may be outside the scope or capability of other types of surveillance systems [8].

The current status of environment or health surveillance in the North has been explored in several national and international reports [8,27,34,41], and some studies have reviewed the contributions of other forms of surveillance systems to addressing environmental or public health issues in the North [42,43]. However, few studies have systematically reviewed and synthesized information from the academic literature about existing integrated environment and health surveillance systems designed for Arctic and Subarctic regions. In addition, although the attributes and components of many types of public health surveillance systems have been characterized and extensively reviewed elsewhere [44,45,46], limited research has examined the attributes and components of integrated surveillance systems designed specifically for the dynamic, interconnected environmental and human health issues in Northern regions, and none in the context of climate change. This presents an opportunity to further understandings on how components that comprise a surveillance system can enable and enhance certain surveillance attributes and activities (i.e., the collection, analysis, interpretation, and communication of environment and health data), to direct and target appropriate public health action and responses to climate change in the North. A synthesis and critical analysis of this literature can help guide the identification of opportunities for designing, implementing, and evaluating integrated surveillance systems. Taking advantage of these opportunities will be important for addressing distinct local, regional, national, and international public health priorities at the intersection of environmental and human health in the North, and in the context of climate change and other large-scale socio-ecological drivers of change. Therefore, this research aimed to identify, describe, and synthesize academic literature on integrated environment and health surveillance systems in Circumpolar Arctic and Subarctic regions, that are used for research or practice. Within this goal were two main objectives: (i) to provide an overview of the range, distribution, and attributes of integrated environment and health surveillance systems used for research or practice in the Arctic and Subarctic that are discussed in the literature; (ii) to compare, contrast, and characterize the enabling components for integrated system surveillance development, implementation, and use in these regions.

2. Materials and Methods

This research followed a systematic realist review approach, applying a systematic process for searching and identifying relevant literature by using transparent, replicable methods [47]. Subsequently, elements of a realist review were used to ask additional, targeted questions of the literature relating to how, why, and in what contexts certain study outcomes occurred within specific groups and environments [48,49].

2.1. Searching the Literature

Initial search terms were generated and refined through consultations with a research librarian to capture literature on integrated surveillance research and practice within Circumpolar Arctic and Subarctic regions. For the purposes of this systematic realist review, a combination of political, administrative, as well as geographic and climatic criteria were used to define “Arctic and Subarctic regions”. These regions were defined as the northernmost parts of eight Circumpolar countries (Canada, the Faroe Islands, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Russia, and the United States) that were classified as Arctic or Subarctic climate regions under the Köppen classification system (Appendix A, Figure A1). The finalized search string (Table 1), was used to search MEDLINE^® and Web of Science™ databases in July 2015. Another search of these databases was conducted in June 2017 to capture literature published between August 2015 and December 2016. All searches were restricted by language (English), article type (articles, reviews, editorial materials, corrections), region (Arctic and Subarctic regions of Circumpolar countries), and date of publication (2005–2016). Searches were restricted to articles published after 2005 to capture articles published within the time period when human health began to take a more dominant role in Arctic environmental research [50]. A hand search of three key journals (International Journal of Circumpolar Health; Arctic; and Environmental Health Perspectives) was performed in June 2017 to assess the sensitivity of the initial database searches and identify any potentially relevant articles that were not captured in the database searches.

2.2. Selecting Studies

Article citations obtained through the database search were uploaded onto the Mendeley™ reference management tool (Mendeley Ltd., London, UK, v1.19.2), and subsequently exported to DistillerSR© software (Evidence Partners, Ottawa, ON, Canada, v2.12.0), to remove duplicates and facilitate screening. Two independent reviewers then conducted a two-stage screening process to select relevant articles. First, titles and abstracts of each article were screened based on a set of pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 2). All potentially relevant articles proceeded to the second stage of screening, where the full texts of these articles were reviewed using the same set of criteria. The level of agreement between the two independent reviewers was measured using Cohen’s Kappa (κ) for both stages of screening, with kappa values ≥ 0.80 indicating excellent agreement [51]. Conflicts between reviewers were discussed and reconciled regularly throughout the review process.

2.3. Extracting, Analyzing, and Synthesizing Data from Relevant Articles

Extraction, analysis, and synthesis of data from relevant articles followed an iterative process [48]. Data extraction forms were created in DistillerSR© to gather descriptive information on general study characteristics, as well as information pertaining to the goal and objectives of this review (Appendix B, Table A1). Included articles were then uploaded onto NVivo© (QSR International, Burlington, MA, USA, v11), a qualitative data-management software, to facilitate a comprehensive thematic analysis of the inherent attributes and components of integrated environment and health surveillance systems in Circumpolar Arctic and Subarctic regions. An analytical framework for the identification of integrated surveillance attributes as described or recommended in the included articles was then developed (Appendix C, Table A2). This framework was informed by guidelines for public health surveillance attributes set by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) [52], the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) [44], as well as literature on evaluating other forms of public health surveillance tools [45,46,53,54]. Enabling components of integrated surveillance systems were then identified through a process of inductive and deductive coding and thematic analysis, using a constant-comparative approach [55,56,57].

3. Results

Database searches retrieved a total of 3431 unique citations, and 73 articles met all of the inclusion criteria. Hand-searching key journals identified 12 additional articles included for review that were not identified in the database searches. In total, 85 articles were included for data extraction, analysis, and synthesis (Figure 1; Appendix D, Table A3).

3.1. Descriptive Characteristics of Integrated Surveillance Systems

The 85 included articles were categorized into one of two groups. The first group of articles (n = 55) informed, reviewed, and/or recommended integrated surveillance systems, wherein 58% were primary studies (n = 32) and 42% were secondary studies (n = 23). The second group of articles was comprised entirely of primary studies that focused on the development and/or implementation of integrated surveillance systems (n = 30). The majority of articles described integrated surveillance solely for research purposes, while very few described integrated surveillance for public health practice (n = 17; 20%). While most of the included articles described or recommended integrated surveillance within particular Arctic and Subarctic regions of Canada (n = 35; 41%), the United States (n = 29; 34%), Russia (n = 5; 6%), Iceland (n = 3; 4%), and Sweden (n = 1; 1%), 17 articles described or recommended integrated surveillance systems within multiple Arctic and Subarctic regions (20%) (Figure 2; Appendix E, Table A4).

Articles discussed integrated surveillance systems that were designed or recommended to monitor and enable responses to a wide range and diversity of environmental hazards, exposures, and/or conditions associated with population health outcomes and determinants. Several articles also discussed the need for and contributions of integrated surveillance to address impacts of climate change on these population health outcomes and determinants (Figure 3). The greatest numbers of distinct health population health outcomes and determinants were discussed in the literature on integrated surveillance in 2012 (n = 18), 2013 (n = 22), and 2016 (n = 18). In these same years, the greatest numbers of articles discussed impacts and influences of climate change on population health relative to the total numbers of articles published in those years.

Integrated surveillance systems were described from multiple disciplinary perspectives, with the greatest number of distinct disciplines contributing to literature on monitoring: environmental contaminants (e.g., [58,59,60]); meteorological change and variability (e.g., [61,62,63]); resource development (e.g., [64,65,66]); extreme weather events (e.g., [67,68,69]); and ice dynamics (e.g., [70,71,72]) (Figure 4). Most disciplinary areas described integrated surveillance for a wide range of environmental hazards, exposures, and/or conditions.

Additionally, 44 (52%) of the integrated surveillance systems discussed in the included articles operated at a regional level, or within a specific province, state, or territory of a Circumpolar country. Of the remaining surveillance systems, 17 (20%) operated at a local level, eight (10%) at a national level, and 16 (19%) at an international level. Integrated surveillance systems were described across all levels of operation (i.e., local, regional, national, and international) for population health outcomes and determinants associated with air and water quality (e.g., [73,74,75,76]), wildlife trends and health (e.g., [76,77,78,79]), and meteorological change and variability (e.g., [62,80,81,82]) (Figure 5). Local and regional integrated surveillance systems were described or recommended for population health outcomes and determinants associated with every category of environmental hazards, exposures, and/or conditions identified in this body of literature.

Integrated surveillance systems identified in this review were described or recommended to serve a number of intended uses. One of the most commonly mentioned uses was to measure and assess the magnitude, scope, and/or distribution of the impacts of climatic and other environmental changes and variability on human health outcomes of importance (e.g., [83,84,85,86]). Integrated surveillance systems and data were also used to provide early warnings of changes in the environment that could pose potential risks to human health (e.g., [68,80,87]), and to guide public health resource allocation (e.g., [88,89]).

3.2. Attributes of Integrated Surveillance Systems

Using guidelines for public health surveillance attributes set by the ECDC, the CDC, and other relevant literature, ten attributes of integrated surveillance systems in the Arctic and Subarctic regions were identified within the included articles: acceptability (48%; e.g., [66,90,91]), data quality (48%; e.g., [86,92,93]), stability (47%; e.g., [94,95,96]), reliability (39%; e.g., [75,81,88]), relevance (38%; e.g., [89,97,98]), representativeness (36%; e.g., [74,99,100]), timeliness (34%; e.g., [89,91,101]), scalability (28%; e.g., [76,102,103]), flexibility (21%; e.g., [104,105,106]), and simplicity (12%; e.g., [58,73,90]) (Appendix C, Table A2). Surveillance attributes described and/or recommended in the literature were related to the purpose and intended uses of integrated surveillance systems and data, as well as to each system’s operational context. For instance, in articles that described integrated surveillance systems used for the identification of changes in human risk of exposure to environmental contaminants over time, considerations for attributes such as system stability and relevance were often reported (e.g., [103,107]). Stability was a particularly important attribute when a consistent, context-specific supply of surveillance information was needed to help address or explain environmental shifts that had slower, gradual effects on human health (e.g., [100,108]).

The nature of how certain surveillance attributes were described and interpreted within each article was also influenced by the needs of particular stakeholders that were involved in the development or implementation of integrated surveillance systems, and/or that used surveillance data. For example, some articles discussed considerations for flexibility in surveillance with regard to the need to seek input from stakeholders to guide the continuous improvement of a system (e.g., [58,84,96,106,109]). Other articles discussed considerations for flexibility when expanding a system to address similar surveillance needs in other contexts (e.g., [63]). Flexibility was also reported to be important when adjusting the types of communication strategies used to engage key stakeholders in prioritizing the goals for an integrated surveillance system (e.g., [60]).

Notably, interpretations of certain surveillance attributes also varied, based on the particular phase of integrated surveillance system development or implementation described in each article. For example, considerations for acceptability in articles that focused on earlier phases of integrated surveillance system development were sometimes described in relation to the identification and use of indicators and/or sentinel species for monitoring that would be most acceptable by stakeholders’ standards (e.g., [73,110,111]). In articles that described surveillance systems in later phases of implementation, considerations for acceptability were more often related to ensuring that communication, decisions, and actions based on surveillance information were acceptable within the population of interest (e.g., [70,84,85]).

The level and location of integrated surveillance system operation also influenced interpretations of certain surveillance attributes described in the included articles. Scalability, for instance, was in some cases discussed in relation to the horizontal application of surveillance systems, data, and/or tools across local or regional contexts (e.g., [66,84,90,99,101,112,113]). In other cases, scalability was related to a system’s potential for connectivity with national or international surveillance. These connections could facilitate the application and expansion of collective understandings of environmental changes and impacts on human health in a broader Circumpolar context (e.g., [70]).

3.3. Enabling Components of Integrated Surveillance Systems

Articles described several components of integrated surveillance systems that contributed to enabling and/or enhancing the surveillance attributes and activities. In effect, these components helped a system achieve its intended goals and objectives for addressing environmental and human health concerns within particular socio-ecological contexts (Appendix F, Table A5). Integrated surveillance systems described in this body of literature were comprised of various numbers, types, and combinations of components in relation to the systems’ intended uses. These components were further categorized based on their contributions to structural, processual, or relational aspects of the development and implementation of integrated surveillance systems (Table 3; Figure 6).

3.3.1. Structural

Components that enabled the logistic, organizational, and operational aspects of integrated surveillance system development and implementation were categorized as “structural”. For example, clearly defined decision-making and accountability structures were mentioned in some articles as components that could help to ensure integrated surveillance activities were responsive to population-specific needs and priorities (e.g., [108,135]). As noted by Germain [87], who used surveillance data to guide the development of early-warning systems for avalanches, establishing clear roles and responsibilities for public health and government officials helped hold those individuals accountable for their actions and contributions to enacting rapid responses to keep populations safe.

Funding structures were described as a component of integrated surveillance systems that were part of enabling regulatory and policy environments that could contribute to enhancing system stability. Stability, in this sense, was especially important when systems were designed to monitor and respond to longer-term climatic and environmental changes (e.g., [58,65,68,108,109,130]). Some articles also reported that securing long-term funding for integrated surveillance activities could help subsidize relatively high travel and equipment expenses in northern regions (e.g., [76,109]), and also enabled and enhanced more timely data collection processes (e.g., [63]).

Some articles described how existing environment and/or health surveillance systems or data were relatively inexpensive components that helped to efficiently establish the baseline health status of a population (e.g., [69,93,123,124,131,132]). From these baselines, public health priorities could be identified that were representative of that population (e.g., [90,113,121]). In this regard, several articles mentioned use of surveillance data from the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme to examine trends in the health effects of environmental changes, and subsequently identify knowledge gaps for additional integrated surveillance efforts to fill (e.g., [60,63,90,91,102,103]). Additionally, Nilsson et al. [76] noted that many indicators for food and water security were already regularly monitored or surveyed in many Arctic countries. As such, the authors argued that the development of additional integrated surveillance systems for monitoring food and water security should involve efforts to obtain this existing information so as to avoid unnecessary exhaustion of time and resources.

The literature described many integrated surveillance systems that used technologies such as remote-sensing, satellite imagery, and Global Positioning Systems that offered additional or enhanced surveillance capabilities, including communication of health risks (e.g., [68]), and weather forecasting (e.g., [78]). Laidler et al. [70], however, identified some challenges when using certain technologies in northern regions, due to extreme climatic and weather conditions. The authors further described how these technologies alone often did not provide sufficient context for using surveillance data to interpret and make predications at a local level.

3.3.2. Processual

“Processual” components described in the included articles contributed to enabling and enhancing approaches for collecting, analyzing, managing, and interpreting surveillance data. For example, the capacity to adapt data collection and analysis activities was reported to help tailor integrated surveillance systems to serve local needs and regions of interest (e.g., [70]). Adaptive approaches to surveillance also helped address stakeholder concerns as they arose (e.g., [58]). Further, Nilsson et al. [76] noted that the capacity to adapt step-wise, iterative approaches for indicator identification and prioritization helped to generate a set of acceptable indicators that people would be willing to monitor.

With respect to surveillance data collection and interpretation, several studies described multiple methods of data collection and analysis to capture a wider range and depth of information on environmental and human health trends (e.g., [89,91,104]). Tremblay and colleagues used a combination of methods [89], who linked quantitative data from local weather stations and qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with Inuit community members about local-scale sea ice dynamics. In turn, these data produced more relevant information to support health-related climate change adaptation in Nunavik. Also, Driscoll and colleagues [84,85] used multiple modes of data collection (e.g., phone surveys, paper surveys, online tools) within one surveillance system in an effort to increase response rates and contribute to a more complete dataset.

Several distinct groups of stakeholders were reported to have varying degrees of involvement in the activities of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting surveillance data. These stakeholder groups included: government representatives from various departments and jurisdictional levels (e.g., [66,72,75,87,116]); health authorities (e.g., [67,92,113,121]); industry managers (e.g., [96,100,112,129]); researchers across distinct disciplines (e.g., [63,84,85]); and community members (e.g., [70,86,109,134]). Articles described how involving multiple stakeholder groups within integrated surveillance systems could help establish rigorous, transparent methods of addressing environmental and human health concerns that stakeholders were willing and able to support (e.g., [114,117]). Articles also described how engaging with and drawing upon knowledge systems of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers, governments, and communities could help strengthen surveillance capacity to gain a more representative, holistic picture of the interconnected impacts of climate and environmental changes on human wellbeing (e.g., [70,106,122,141]). For instance, Brook et al. [109] described how Indigenous knowledge of local environmental conditions in the Sahtu Settlement Area (Northwest Territories, Yellowknife, NT, Canada) was an essential component of a surveillance system designed for detecting and tracking wildlife health trends that were relevant to the local population.

While many articles discussed how the complementary nature of Western and Indigenous knowledge systems contributed to understandings of complex environment-health phenomena (e.g., [105,108,109]), others recognized differences inherent in distinct knowledge systems that, in turn, led to new understandings. As explained by Pennesi et al. [62], Inuit knowledge of weather conditions in Iqaluit, Nunavut sometimes conflicted with forecasting data from weather stations. However, the authors found that these distinct sources of weather information were used for different surveillance purposes, depending on whether the information was being used for decision-making in the short- or long-term.

3.3.3. Relational

“Relational” components, or the interpersonal components of integrated surveillance development and implementation, contributed to building and maintaining connections between stakeholders and often enabled surveillance systems to be more responsive to stakeholder needs and priorities. Indeed, several articles noted that strategies for bringing together key stakeholders, such as government agencies, industries, academic researchers, co-management bodies, and Indigenous rights-holders, could help to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes for all those involved (e.g., [58,70,76,84,85,89,106,109,134]). Articles that described surveillance systems involving multiple stakeholders also often emphasized the importance of having the capacity to facilitate collaboration between those stakeholders to support surveillance design, data collection, and its use. Collaboration strategies were further described as a means of generating trust between stakeholders (e.g., [106]), identifying objectives, and guiding regular evaluation (e.g., [84,134]), which was also reported to help democratize surveillance activities by distributing tasks, duties, and resources amongst many stakeholders (e.g., [109]). Moreover, as noted by Burger et al. [96], the capacity to facilitate meaningful, consistent dialogue within and between multiple stakeholders helped to identify potential gaps in surveillance data collection that were not always possible to see from a single perspective. Through the identification of these gaps, stakeholders were better able to ensure and enhance surveillance data completeness.

Consultations were described as another relational component that helped facilitate connections with key stakeholders, which, in turn, could enable opportunities for equitable decision-making processes and knowledge exchange (e.g., [70,96]). Driscoll et al. [84,85] explained how consultations with local experts in Alaskan communities led to more deliberate development processes for surveillance indicators and tools that were particularly useful in regions of Alaska with few secondary data-sources. In other articles, consultations with international experts helped identify comparable surveillance indicators to monitor environmental changes and associated health impacts in systems implemented across multiple northern regions (e.g., [76]).

The literature also described surveillance systems that included the capacity to engage specific stakeholders, as well as beneficiaries of surveillance data, throughout the development and implementation of a system. Effective stakeholder engagement strategies could enhance the overall acceptability of a surveillance system (e.g., [84,89,109,126,134]), and also ensure usefulness of surveillance data (e.g., [70,84,89]). In particular, engaging community stakeholders was emphasized in many articles that used community-based approaches to identify locally relevant environment and health priorities and associated actions prior to the development of a surveillance system, which could also contribute to local acceptance of a system (e.g., [70,84,85,90]). Further, efforts to initiate and sustain community engagement could contribute to the following priorities of particular surveillance systems: enabling more timely collection and application of surveillance data (e.g., [89]); generating activism and advocacy surrounding environmental issues (e.g., [86]); offering opportunities to foster youth leadership and cross-generational learning (e.g., [134]); and supporting continuity of surveillance beyond the end of a project or funding cycle (e.g., [109]).

Several studies described how training and educational opportunities could serve as components that helped build capacity among academic researchers, funders, and governments to develop the necessary skills and knowledge required for developing and implementing integrated surveillance in northern contexts (e.g., [68,121,123]). Training opportunities were reported to help create opportunities for early-career researchers (e.g., [86]), and establish frameworks from which to pursue larger public health strategies (e.g., [109]). These types of opportunities could also enable the generation of higher-quality data. For example, Brook et al. [109] trained local Wildlife Health Monitors to collect and record data, which served to ensure local validity of data and also contributed to enhancing local acceptability of decisions made based on those data.

4. Discussion

Findings from this review demonstrated that literature on integrated environment and health surveillance in the North for both research and practice spanned multiple Circumpolar countries [34,41]. Examining the nature of integrated surveillance as described in the literature provided insights into the ways in which various types of surveillance systems and data contributed to improving public health capacity for addressing direct and indirect impacts of increasing climate change on population health outcomes and determinants in northern regions [122,143]. Outside of this literature, several advantages of integrating meteorological, ecological, and epidemiological surveillance datasets have been described as useful for identifying trends and geographical exposure areas, for issues such as climate-sensitive infectious diseases [144], heatwaves [145], and extreme weather events [33]. Analyses and interpretations based on these integrated surveillance datasets can provide information that is useful for climate change adaptation. This information can help to direct resources toward communities determined to be most at risk, providing evidence-based support for developing and funding public health services, as well as informing the distribution of relevant public health information [5]. Taking advantage of the opportunities brought about by integrated surveillance is particularly important for northern populations that are experiencing some of the most rapid climate change and associated environmental shifts globally [3,9].

The large number of articles retrieved from North American regions, however, illustrated a relatively strong geographic concentration of integrated environment and health surveillance research that may not adequately represent surveillance priorities of other Circumpolar regions. This finding could be influenced by the English and French language restriction, as well as the increasing calls for integrated surveillance from North American governments and funding bodies over the past several years [8,146]. Circumpolar countries are highly diverse geographically, ecologically, and socioeconomically, and so the types and levels of risks from climate change experienced across these countries vary between populations, depending on vulnerability and exposure to hazards, adaptive capacity, and risk perceptions [5]. Priorities for climate change adaptation between and within these countries will necessarily be context-specific [11]. Developing integrated surveillance systems that are aligned with population- and region-specific priorities will thus require careful consideration for the needs of potential users and beneficiaries of surveillance data [147]. In this light, it is also important to consider the contextual, temporal, and spatial aspects of pathways through which global climate change impacts population health outcomes and determinants [148].

Indeed, pathways through which climate change impacts population health tend to be complex, indirect, diffuse, and/or delayed, and often interact with many other socio-ecological factors that influence human health [144,149]. The complexity of climate change-related impacts on human health will also determine adaptation options and barriers in particular regions [150]. Integrated surveillance systems can serve as tools for improving basic understandings of relationships between climatic and environmental conditions and human health in the context of the socio-ecological processes within which these relationships are generated [143]. In effect, understandings afforded by the analysis and interpretation of integrated surveillance data can help to identify potential gaps in climate change adaptation research and practice, that are due in part to the complexity of socio-ecological processes [144]. Collecting these data consistently over time can provide a means of tracking progress in minimizing these gaps [151].

A variety of disciplinary lenses were used to guide research on integrated surveillance development and implementation across multiple levels of operation, and helped contribute to both individual and collective goals for enhancing and sustaining population health within drastically changing northern environments [152,153]. As climate change continues to exacerbate existing population health issues and places additional stress on public health resources [143], there is a pressing need for adaptive actions that involve coordinated, multi-level approaches. These approaches will rely upon input from stakeholders across disciplinary and jurisdictional boundaries to help make decisions regarding resource allocation for the monitoring and surveillance of climate-sensitive health outcomes [143,144,154]. In this light, findings from this review reinforced the important contributions of communities, academic researchers, governments, and other stakeholders—spanning multiple disciplines and sectors—in designing integrated surveillance systems that served particular uses within specific contexts and at various levels. Considered alongside the collective call for integrated surveillance in the North [7,27,28], these findings demonstrated how integrated surveillance systems were designed to serve a wide range and diversity of uses, where each provided important types of data and information for guiding timely, targeted, evidence-based public health responses in specific locations in support of broader goals for adapting to change [122,151].

As evidenced by the surveillance systems described in the included articles, addressing large, complex challenges at the intersection of environmental and human health in the Circumpolar Arctic and Subarctic regions required surveillance systems that were comprised of various structural, processual, and relational components. Considering the connections and interactions between these components could serve to enable and enhance key surveillance attributes and activities. While some of the components identified here have also been discussed in relation to other forms of public health surveillance [42,53,122], findings from this review can be used to inform decisions surrounding if and when certain surveillance components, and/or combinations of components, should be emphasized or introduced to guide more appropriate and effective climate change adaptation strategies. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommended improved communication, education, and training as some of the key focal areas of adaptation strategies for dealing with climate-related risks in northern regions, particularly for risks related to human health and wellbeing [5]. Building and enhancing existing integrated surveillance systems that prioritize relational components, such as communication and outreach, could thus offer mutual benefits for climate change adaptation in the North.

This review aimed to provide a holistic picture of how certain components were linked to surveillance attributes and activities. In turn, findings offered insights into the operations and management of surveillance systems that served particular uses for addressing environmental and human health concerns. Identification of surveillance attributes and enabling components was limited by the level of detail articles used to describe or recommend integrated surveillance systems. Further challenges arose when attempting to apply broad definitions of public health surveillance attributes across a wide range and diversity of systems, all serving distinct purposes and stakeholder priorities. As noted by Auer et al. [54] in their review of injury surveillance system evaluations, there is a high degree of variability in selecting surveillance attributes that would be most important for an individual surveillance system, as well as differences in how those attributes are defined and interpreted between surveillance systems. Understanding how structural, processual, and relational components can work together to enhance and enable key integrated surveillance attributes and activities in the context of climate change can help researchers and practitioners plan and evaluate integrated surveillance systems that are more responsive to public health concerns within rapidly shifting northern environments [155,156]. For instance, the acceptability of an integrated surveillance system could be evaluated based on the extent to which community and cultural values are included in the collection and communication of surveillance information to inform climate change adaptation strategies [157,158]. However, there is a need for further study into methods for selecting the most relevant attributes to assess, monitor, and evaluate in order to provide relevant recommendations for improving the ways in which integrated surveillance systems can contribute to climate change adaptation within variable socio-ecological contexts. Evaluation criteria for improving the performance and efficiency of these systems must be flexible enough to allow for these variations [46]. Further, when developing and using these criteria, evaluators must also anticipate the potential for increasing climate change to create additional challenges for population health and place additional demands on integrated surveillance capacity.

This review focused solely on integrated surveillance as represented in the academic literature, and articles mainly focused on surveillance for research purposes. Without considering government reports and other grey literature, this review likely did not capture literature on other forms of surveillance that would be useful for developing deeper understandings of the ways in which certain surveillance components enable and enhance integrated surveillance attributes and activities for public health practice, or for identifying additional components that were not discussed in these articles. For example, many Indigenous communities in the North also often practice local, informal monitoring that is not always well-represented in the academic literature [159,160]. These forms of monitoring could offer different types of tools and insights for enhancing integrated surveillance in the context of climate change [43]. Ultimately, including these perspectives in developing, implementing, and evaluating integrated surveillance systems is essential for optimizing the utility and relevance of surveillance information and data for decision-making and resource allocation within public health policy and programming that is linked with community-specific goals for climate change adaptation [122]. Moreover, many Indigenous communities in the North and globally have, historically, lacked control and access to their own health data [161,162]. In this light, future studies focusing on integrated surveillance research and practice within Indigenous homelands in northern regions should prioritize engagement with Indigenous communities and representational organizations as rights-holders in setting surveillance priorities and determining how data and information about people and the environment is collected, stored, used, and shared for meaningful climate change adaptation [163]. Indeed, community engagement is critical for understanding how climate change will disproportionately and differentially impact northern communities. Thus, adaptations must be rooted in local customs, values, and decision-making process if they are to be successful, building on community-specific ways of knowing, monitoring, and adapting to local environmental conditions [164].

Finally, these findings revealed a relative lack of discussion in the academic literature regarding how to effectively monitor and respond to the impacts of climate change and associated environmental shifts on the some of the more intangible dimensions of population health and wellbeing [165,166,167]. Emotional wellbeing [24,25], attachment to place [14], as well as cultural and spiritual aspects of health, are among the many intangible dimensions of health and wellbeing that are increasingly recognized as priorities for Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, in the North and globally [168,169]. As surveillance systems and data can only be fully understood in the context of specific health outcomes [35], there is a need for research that connects these intangible dimensions of wellbeing with priorities and corresponding approaches for using integrated surveillance data and information to guide more comprehensive climate change adaptation strategies. Effective adaptation to the impacts of climate change on human health must take into consideration the cultural values that are important for community and individual wellbeing, as well as the many, interconnected impacts climate change can have on population health outcomes that are not as easily measured or quantified [5]. For example, increasing climate change is associated with elevated risks to mental health and wellbeing through factors that interact to produce loss of personal resources, lead to widespread destruction and upheaval, and that place additional pressure on public health-related resources [170]. Without a comprehensive understanding of how climate change interacts with other socio-ecological factors to impact all dimensions of wellbeing, adaptations to the impacts of climate change on the health of populations will be inadequate and/or incomplete. Further developing this understanding is particularly important for populations whose health and wellbeing is intimately connected to the environment and who are simultaneously experiencing drastic and rapid climate change impacts, both in the Circumpolar North and globally.

5. Conclusions

By examining and synthesizing literature on integrated surveillance research and practice in northern regions, this review provided information to improve understandings of how environment and health data can be integrated and interpreted to inform evidence-based public health strategies, guidelines, primary healthcare services, and policy development in support of climate change adaptation. This review established an initial conceptual framework for understanding the range, diversity, and enabling components of integrated surveillance systems. Within this initial framework exist important opportunities for future research that can contribute to characterizing the types and contributions of integrated surveillance systems to public health practice in the North. Further, there exist many potential uses for integrated surveillance data in identifying public health priorities and enhancing public health capacity to adapt to rapid, unprecedented climate change and associated environmental shifts.

Beyond the characterization of structural, processual, and relational integrated surveillance components, these findings demonstrated the importance of asking additional questions pertaining to how combinations of components within a surveillance system could enable and enhance key surveillance attributes and activities. A more thorough understanding of the components that comprise integrated surveillance attributes can inform how, and in what contexts, certain attributes should be selected and evaluated, and can also help improve surveillance activities and capabilities in relation to intended goals and objectives for addressing environmental and human health concerns within a given population. These questions become especially important as climate change continues to create new, complex challenges in terms of public health preparedness for, and responses to, the potential impacts on population health. Understanding of how integrated surveillance systems are designed to operate and serve specific, yet not mutually exclusive end-uses for improving population health in the context of climate change can help communities, researchers, governments, and other stakeholders in decision-making, resource allocation, and continuous improvement of integrated surveillance research and practice. This, in turn, can guide the development, operation, and evaluation of appropriate surveillance systems that link public health priorities with climate change adaptation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.S., A.C., and S.L.H.; Methodology, A.S., A.C., and S.L.H; Validation, A.S., A.C., J.M., and S.L.H.; Formal Analysis, A.S.; Investigation, A.S.; Resources, A.C. and S.L.H.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, A.S.; Writing-Review & Editing, A.C., A.J.-B., J.M., and S.L.H.; Visualization, A.S.; Supervision, A.C., A.J.-B., and S.L.H.; Project Administration, A.S.; Funding Acquisition, A.C. and S.L.H.

Funding

This work was supported by Polar Knowledge Canada; Health Canada’s First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Sahar Fanian for her contributions to developing the research question as well as her role in early discussions and searches. A sincere thank you to Isaac Bell for his role as a second reviewer in the updated database search. Finally, we would like to acknowledge Jennifer McWhirter and Andy Papadopoulous, whose feedback and guidance contributed to the development of this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders were not involved in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A

Figure A1. Map denoting the boundary area of Arctic and Subarctic regions of the Circumpolar North drawn from the geographic coverage defined by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme [170]. This boundary area includes terrestrial and marine areas of northernmost parts of eight Circumpolar countries (Canada, the Faroe Islands, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Russia, and the United States) that were classified as Arctic or Subarctic climate regions under the Köppen classification system. This area extends as far south as 51.1°N to include areas north of the Aleutian chain, Hudson Bay, and parts of the North Atlantic Ocean, including the Labrador Sea.

Appendix B

Table A1. Coding form for qualitative analysis and synthesis of the 85 included articles that described integrated environment and health surveillance in Circumpolar Arctic and Subarctic regions.

Data Extraction Categories	Questions
Article information	Title
	First author
	Year
	Journal
Geographic and methodological information	Study site, scope, and physical context—community, state/territory/province, country
	Population/community characteristics and socio-cultural context
	Methodology/study design
	Other methods-related notes
	Main purpose
Environmental considerations	What are the considerations/implications for the natural environment?
Human health considerations	What are the considerations/implications for human health?
Attributes and components of integrated surveillance systems	What type of surveillance is being informed/developed/used—active, passive, sentinel?
	Is the article informing, developing, or using integrated surveillance?
	Is “surveillance” explicitly described in the article?
	Describe any attributes related to integrated surveillanceDescribe any enabling components related to integrated surveillance
	How do the components described relate to surveillance attributes and enable surveillance activities?
Recommendations and implications	What are the recommendations?
	How do recommendations inform integrated surveillance?
	Lessons that can be applied to future integrated environment and health surveillance work?
	Describe any useful introductory or background material provided
Other	Weaknesses/limitations—what was not included or discussed in this article that would be useful to know?
	How will this article be used in the review?
	How does this article relate to other articles in the review?

Appendix C

Table A2. Inherent attributes of integrated surveillance systems in Circumpolar Arctic and Subarctic regions described or recommended by the literature.

Attribute	Definition	Example
Acceptability	Willingness of interested stakeholders and/or end-users to participate and use the system	In the case of a community-based surveillance system described by Driscoll et al. [84], environmental exposures selected for surveillance had to be of sufficient priority to community members so that they were willing to contribute to the collection of primary data on those exposures.
Data quality	Completeness and validity of data, and processes of data acquisition	Dudarev et al. [136] sought to gather data on infectious and parasitic diseases in Arctic regions of Russia and Siberia and emphasized that data needed to be complete to enable accurate comparisons between locations and levels (i.e., regional and national levels).
Flexibility	Ability of system to adapt to changing needs or operating conditions with little additional time, personnel, or funding	In response to logistical and communication challenges identified by hunters, graduate students, and biologists in a community-based wildlife health monitoring program, Brook et al. [109] adapted their sample collection protocol and training of hunters.
Relevance	Ability of system to meet its intended purpose, as well as its practicality and affordability to operate	Pacyna et al. [103] used results from monitoring human exposure to persistent organic pollutants to inform strategies and policies on emission reduction in Arctic regions.
Reliability	Confidence in the reliability of surveillance data and information; encompasses sensitivity and positive predictive value	Nilsson et al. [76] used measures of seroprevalence of food-borne diseases in humans to identify populations at risk, as this was described as an indicator of high predictive value.
Representativeness	Ability of system to accurately describe the occurrence of an environment- or human health-related event over time, and describe its temporal and spatial distribution	In regular toxicological monitoring of wildlife subsistence hunts, Bond et al. [83] obtained samples from consumptive harvests to ensure results were representative of what communities were actually eating.
Scalability	Ability of surveillance systems and data to connect within and between levels and contexts of operation in Northern populations and environments	Laidler et al. [70] explained how the potential for connectivity between local surveillance systems and national or international datasets could help decision-makers identify and understand patterns and trends in environment and human health issues.
Simplicity	Considerations for ease of system design and operation	Collection of syndromic health data from trained stakeholders representing communities of interest, or sentinel communities, was reported by Driscoll et al. [84] to help bypass the need for clinical diagnoses, thereby making community-based surveillance systems simpler to operate.
Stability or Sustainability	Ability of system to continuously and consistently serve its intended purpose over time, and/or collect environment and health data to produce sufficient information for explaining and comparing dynamic, complex environment-health interactions	Dunlap et al. [110] used long term monitoring of lipid profiles of sled dogs, a sentinel species, to observe the synergies among threats to the subsistence lifestyles of Northern communities over time.
Timeliness	Ability of system to generate up-to-date information as needed, considered in terms of availability of information to inform public health responses	As recommended by Bronson and Noble [122], surveillance of environmental impacts of resource development should focus on monitoring determinants of human health to provide early warnings of the actual outcomes time lags in identifying climate-sensitive health outcomes.

Note: Definitions are based on guidelines for public health surveillance attributes set by the European Centre for Disease Control, the Centers for Disease Control, as well as other relevant literature on evaluating other forms of public health surveillance systems [44,45,46,52,53,54]. Corresponding examples of each attribute are provided, as identified in the 85 articles included for review.

Appendix D

Table A3. Breakdown of the 402 articles that did not meet full-text screening criteria for articles that described integrated surveillance in Circumpolar Arctic and Subarctic regions, and associated reasons for exclusion.

Reason(s) for Exclusion	Number of Articles Excluded
Not an empirical research study published in English between 2005–2016	4
Main site or focus is not an Arctic or Subarctic region of the Circumpolar North	203
No considerations or implications for the natural environment	6
No considerations or implications for human health	15
No considerations or implications for surveillance	17
Not an empirical research study published in English between 2000–2016, and main site/focus is not an Arctic or Subarctic region	4
Not an empirical research study published in English between 2000–2016, and main site/focus is not an Arctic or Subarctic region, and no considerations or implications for surveillance	2
Not an empirical research study published in English between 2000–2016, and main site/focus is not an Arctic or Subarctic region, and no considerations or implications for human health	1
Main site or focus is not an Arctic or Subarctic region, and no considerations or implications for the natural environment	20
Main site or focus is not an Arctic or Subarctic region, and no considerations or implications for the natural environment or surveillance	14
Main site or focus is not an Arctic or Subarctic region, and no considerations or implications for the natural environment or human health	1
Main site or focus is not an Arctic or Subarctic region, and no considerations or implications for human health	20
Main site or focus is not an Arctic or Subarctic region, and no considerations or implications for surveillance	75
Main site or focus is not an Arctic or Subarctic region, and no considerations or implications for human health or surveillance	18
No considerations or implications for human health or surveillance	2
Total number of articles excluded	402

Appendix E

Table A4. Citations and corresponding Arctic or Subarctic region(s) of focus for each of the 85 included articles, comprised of articles that informed, reviewed, and/or recommended integrated surveillance, and articles that focused on the development, implementation, and/or application of integrated surveillance systems.

Citation	Main Arctic or Subarctic Region of Focus
Articles Informing, Reviewing, and/or Evaluating Integrated Surveillance	Main Arctic or Subarctic Region of Focus
Abass et al. [94]	Circumpolar-wide
Amstislavski et al. [99]	Kanin Peninsula (Russia)
Andrachuk and Smit [130]	Tuktoyaktuk, NWT, Canada
Austin et al. [68]	Northern Canada
Banfield and Jardine [66]	Yellowknife, Northwest Territories (Canada)
Berner et al. [90]	Circumpolar-wide
Bhatia and Wernham [104]	North Slope, Alaska (USA)
Bond et al. [83]	Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
Bronson and Noble [122]	Northern Canada
Brubaker et al. [113]	Alaska (USA)
Brubaker et al. [121]	Northwest Alaska (USA)
Burger [58]	Amchitka Island, Aleutian Chain, Alaska (USA)
Byrne et al. [93]	St. Lawrence Island, Alaska (USA)
Ding et al. [131]	Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden
Donaldson et al. [60]	Northern Canada
Donaldson et al. [95]	Circumpolar-wide
Dubé et al. [81]	Yukon River Basin (Canada and USA)
Ford et al. [123]	Northern Canada
Ford et al. [71]	Pan-Circumpolar
Ford et al. [79]	Nunavut, Nunavik, and Nunatsiavut (Canada)
Ford et al. [126]	Northern Canada
Furgal and Seguin [72]	Northern Canada
Gadamus [78]	Bering Strait Region, Alaska (USA)
Gibson et al. [102]	Pan-Arctic
Gunnarsdóttir et al. [116]	Iceland
Harley et al. [127]	Prudhoe Bay and Fairbanks, Alaska (USA)
Hori et al. [69]	James Bay Region, Northern Ontario (Canada)
Hueffer et al. [61]	Alaska (USA)
Kirk et al. [111]	Beaufort Sea, Alaska (USA)
Konkel [132]	Alaska (USA)
Kraemer et al. [59]	Circumpolar-wide
Krzyzanowski [74]	Northeastern British Columbia (Canada)
Kwiatkowski [114]	Northern Canada
Lepak et al. [98]	Northwestern British Columbia (Canada)
Lynn et al. [128]	Alaska (USA)
Martin et al. [115]	Nunavik, Northern Quebec (Canada)
McClymont Peace and Myers [105]	Northern Canada
Metcalf and Robards [117]	Bering and Chukchi seas, Alaska (USA)
Moiseenko et al. [124]	Lake Imandra watershed, Murmansk Oblast (Russia)
Natalia [118]	Circumpolar-wide
Noble and Bronson [129]	Northern Saskatchewan; Northwest Territories; and Voisey’s Bay, Northern Labrador (Canada)
Noble and Bronson [112]	Northern Canada
Parkinson [63]	Circumpolar-wide
Parkinson and Butler [82]	Circumpolar-wide
Pearce et al. [119]	Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Northwest Territories (Canada)
Pearce et al. [125]	Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories (Canada)
Pennesi et al. [62]	Iqaluit, Nunavut (Canada)
Provencher et al. [97]	Northern Canada
Rosa et al. [133]	Barrow, Wainwright and Kaktovik, Alaska (USA)
Smith et al. [120]	Northern Canada
Tomaselli et al. [77]	Victoria Island, Nunavut (Canada)
Tsuji et al. [64]	James Bay Region, Northern Quebec (Canada)
Van Oostdam et al. [101]	Northern Canada
Wernham [65]	North Slope Borough, Alaska (USA)
Young et al. [91]	Circumpolar-wide
Articles that Focused on Developing, Implementing, and/or Applying Integrated Surveillance
Berkes et al. [106]	Several regions across Northern Canada, including: the Beaufort Sea, Inuvialuit Settlement Region; Hudson Bay and James Bay regions of Northern Ontario and Quebec
Brook et al. [109]	Sahtu Settlement Area, Northwest Territories (Canada)
Bruden et al. [88]	Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta region, Alaska (USA)
Burger [58]	Amchitka Island, Aleutian Chain, Alaska (USA)
Burger and Gochfeld [107]	Adak Island, Aleutian Chain, Alaska (USA)
Burger et al. [141]	Aleutian Chain, Alaska (USA)
Dagsson-Waldhauserova et al. [137]	Iceland
Do et al. [67]	Northwest Territories and Nunavut (Canada)
Driscoll et al. [85]	Ketchikan, Angoon, Healy, Anderson, Cantwell, Point Hope, Kivalina, and Noatak, Nenana, Klawock, and Craig, Alaska (USA)
Driscoll et al. [84]	Ketchikan, Angoon, Healy, Anderson, Cantwell, Point Hope, Kivalina, and Noatak, Alaska (USA)
Dudarev et al. [136]	Select regions of the Russian Arctic, Siberia, and Far East
Dunlap et al. [110]	Yukon River, Alaska (USA)
Fall [135]	Alaska (USA)
Ford et al. [108]	Iqaluit, Nunavut (Canada)
Germain [87]	Blanc-Sablon, Lower North Shore of the St. Lawrence River and Kangiqsualujjuaq, Nunavik, Northern Quebec (Canada)
Gunnarsdóttir et al. [75]	Iceland
Huntington et al. [139]	Bering Strait Region (Russia and USA)
Khalil et al. [80]	Northern Sweden
Laidler et al. [70]	Cape Dorset, Igloolik, and Pangnirtung, Nunavut (Canada)
Larrat et al. [92]	Nunavik, Northern Quebec (Canada)
Ludwicki et al. [142]	Greenland
Miller et al. [86]	St. Lawrence Island, Alaska (USA)
Montrose et al. [73]	Fairbanks, Alaska (USA)
Nilsson et al. [76]	Circumpolar-wide
Pacyna et al. [103]	Circumpolar-wide
Pardhan-Ali et al. [138]	Northwest Territories (Canada)
Skandfer et al. [140]	Murmansk Oblast (Russia)
Tremblay et al. [89]	Nunavik, Northern Quebec (Canada)
Vlasova and Volkov [100]	Murmansk, Arkhagelsk Oblast, and Republic of Komi (Russia)
Wesche et al. [134]	Old Crow, Yukon (Canada)

Appendix F

Table A5. Enabling components for integrated surveillance systems in Circumpolar Arctic and Subarctic regions as described or recommended by the literature.

	Component	Definition	Example of Linkages to Surveillance Attributes and/or Activities
Structural	Decision-making and accountability structures	Procedures for guiding decision-making related to surveillance information, and structures for holding decision-makers accountable for their actions	In the case of surveillance information that Germain [87] used to inform early-warnings of avalanche risks in Quebec, bottom-up approaches, in this context, were largely ineffective. Instead, top-down approaches from the municipal and provincial government were recommended.
	Enabling regulatory, policy, and funding environments	Resources, personnel, and other forms of support that provide or enhance enabling environments for surveillance activities	The International Circumpolar Surveillance system, as described by Parkinson [63] allowed for the collection and sharing of uniform laboratory and epidemiologic data between Arctic countries, and assisted in the development of coordinated prevention and control strategies.
	Existing surveillance systems and/or data	Use of existing surveillance systems and data that focus on environment and/or health issues of interest	Pacyna et al. [103] described how assessment tools developed for the EU ArcRisk project were enhanced through use of existing databases, models, and monitoring systems from the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program.
	Technologies and tools	Technological tools for capturing surveillance data, such as remote-sensing, Geographic Information Systems, and satellite imagery	Satellite imagery was one of many useful tools described by Laidler et al. [70] that Inuit in Iqaluit, Nunavut draw upon and used alongside experiential knowledge in monitoring sea ice dynamics.
Processual	Capacity to adapt or adjust surveillance activities	Capacity to adapt the processes and approaches to certain surveillance activities to allow for a system to be more responsive to changing environmental conditions as well as the needs of stakeholders and/or end-users	The iterative development of metrics, a survey instrument, and a protocol for collecting sentinel surveillance data on the health effects of climate change in Alaska by Driscoll et al. [84,85] led to targeted climate change adaptation strategies that were both locally-determined and data-driven.
	Involving distinct knowledge systems and disciplines	Capacity to involve multiple distinct knowledge systems and sources—such as local and Indigenous knowledge, and/or multiple disciplinary perspectives—in various stages of developing, implementing, and/or using surveillance systems	Tremblay et al. [89] explained how bringing together Indigenous and Western knowledge systems surrounding sea ice dynamics and climate change in Nunavik informed adaptation strategies for accessing land and resources that were grounded in more holistic understandings of environmental changes that respected Indigenous perspectives and worldviews.
	Involving multiple sources and types of surveillance data	Use of multiple approaches to surveillance data collection and analysis (e.g., qualitative and quantitative) appropriate for the specific purpose(s) and use(s) of a surveillance system	In a Northern environmental impact assessment described by Bronson and Noble [122], quantitative data from mail-out surveys were supplemented with qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with stakeholders to provide additional data and understandings for identifying and monitoring human health determinants.
Relational	Capacity to recognize and meet stakeholder needs	Ability to involve stakeholders in decision-making processes related to the development and implementation of integrated surveillance systems	The main goals of the Nunavik Trichinellosis Prevention Program described by Larrat et al. [92] were to prevent human trichinellosis and indirectly participate in the public health mission of ensuring health by increasing food diversity and positively impacting economic, social, and cultural role of the walrus hunt.
	Communication strategies	Clear, consistent communication procedures and channels that allow for stakeholders to voice potential ideas or concerns in a timely manner	Communication about resource development projects was recommended by Banfield and Jardine [66] to be kept at the forefront in all consultations, decision-making processes, and long-term monitoring efforts to facilitate relevant public health promotion through ongoing information-sharing, reporting of on-site monitoring activities, and educational initiatives.
	Strategies for managing collaborations involving multiple stakeholders	Efforts to encourage and sustain respectful and mutually-supportive collaboration among stakeholders involved in various stages of surveillance system development and implementation.	Collaboration among stakeholders helped to develop the community-based monitoring program described by Brook et al. [109] that provided more locally-relevant and useful information, ensured higher levels of support from all those involved, as well as functioned as a form of peer-review throughout the development process.
	Strategies for engaging specific, key stakeholders	Efforts to identify and reach out to key individuals and groups to identify and address common goals as well as potential challenges related to integrated surveillance	Driscoll et al. [84] discussed how consultations with village and tribal administrators, community members, as well as with an international team of climate change researchers helped the research team identify categories of exposure to the environmental effects of climate change, measurable health outcomes, as well terminology to use in a survey tool as part of a community-based sentinel surveillance system in Alaska.
	Training and educational opportunities	Provision of training or educational opportunities to key individuals and groups that strengthen or enhance approaches for collection, analyses, and interpretation of environment and health data	Hueffer et al. [61] recommended that additional resources and training were needed to ensure adequate numbers of trained staff were available to address the emerging public and wildlife health impacts posed by climate change in Alaska, and enhance the capacity to monitor those potentially climate-sensitive infections that are most likely to have a large public health impact.

Note: Corresponding examples of each component with linkages to surveillance attributes and activities are provided, as identified in the 85 articles included for review.

References

Watt-Cloutier, S. The Right to Be Cold; Penguin Group: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Environment and Climate Change Canada. Climate Data and Scenarios: Synthesis of Recent Observation and Modelling Results. Available online: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/publications/data-scenarios-synthesis-recent-observation/chapter-2.html (accessed on 7 February 2018).
Ford, J.D.; Couture, N.; Bell, T.; Clark, D.G. Climate change and Canada’s north coast: Research trends, progress, and future directions. Environ. Rev. 2017, 11, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
IPCC. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., Midgley, P.M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
IPCC. Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5 °C; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
Parkinson, A.J.; Evengård, B.; Semenza, J.C.; Ogden, N.; Børresen, M.L.; Berner, J.; Brubaker, M.Y.; Sjöstedt, A.; Evander, M.; Hondula, D.M.; et al. Climate change and infectious diseases in the Arctic: Establishment of a circumpolar working group. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2014, 73, 25163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Polar Knowledge Canada. State of Environmental Monitoring in Northern Canada. Available online: https://www.canada.ca/en/polar-knowledge/publications/cpc-stateofenv.html#p10 (accessed on 12 November 2018).
IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Pachauri, R.K., Meyer, L.A., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
Watts, N.; Adger, W.N.; Agnolucci, P.; Blackstock, J.; Byass, P.; Cai, W.; Chaytor, S.; Colbourn, T.; Collins, M.; Cooper, A.; et al. Health and climate change: Policy responses to protect public health. Lancet 2015, 386, 1861–1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parkinson, A.J.; Evengård, B. Climate change, its impact on human health in the Arctic and the public health response to threats of emerging infectious diseases. Glob. Health Action 2009, 2, 88–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ford, J.D.; King, D. A framework for examining adaptation readiness. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2015, 20, 505–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Krupnik, I.; Aporta, C.; Gearheard, S.; Laidler, G.J.; Kielsen Holm, L. SIKU: Knowing Our Ice: Documenting Inuit Sea-Ice Knowledge and Use; Krupnik, I., Aporta, C., Gearheard, S., Laidler, G.J., Kielsen Holm, L., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; ISBN 978-90-481-8587-0. [Google Scholar]
Durkalec, A.; Furgal, C.; Skinner, M.W.; Sheldon, T. Climate change influences on environment as a determinant of Indigenous health: Relationships to place, sea ice, and health in an Inuit community. Soc. Sci. Med. 2015, 136–137, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Clark, D.G.; Ford, J.D.; Berrang-Ford, L.; Pearce, T.; Kowal, S.; Gough, W.A. The role of environmental factors in search and rescue incidents in Nunavut, Canada. Public Health 2016, 137, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Clark, D.G.; Ford, J.D.; Pearce, T.; Berrang-Ford, L. Vulnerability to unintentional injuries associated with land-use activities and search and rescue in Nunavut, Canada. Soc. Sci. Med. 2016, 169, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Durkalec, A.; Furgal, C.; Skinner, M.W.; Sheldon, T. Investigating environmental determinants of injury and trauma in the Canadian North. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 1536–1548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wesche, S.D.; Chan, H.M. Adapting to the impacts of climate change on food security among Inuit in the Western Canadian Arctic. Ecohealth 2010, 7, 361–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Harper, S.L.; Edge, V.L.; Ford, J.D.; Cunsolo Willox, A.; Wood, M.; The IHACC Research Team; The Rigolet Inuit Community Government; McEwen, S.A. Climate-sensitive health priorities in Nunatsiavut, Canada. BMC Public Health 2015, 15, 605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Statham, S.; Ford, J.D.; Berrang-Ford, L.; Lardeau, M.-P.; Gough, W.; Siewierski, R. Anomalous climatic conditions during winter 2010–2011 and vulnerability of the traditional Inuit food system in Iqaluit, Nunavut. Polar Rec. (Gr. Brit). 2015, 51, 301–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Huntington, H.P.; Quakenbush, L.T.; Nelson, M. Evaluating the effects of climate change on Indigenous marine mammal hunting in Northern and Western Alaska using traditional knowledge. Front. Mar. Sci. 2017, 4, 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Laidre, K.L.; Northey, A.D.; Ugarte, F. Traditional knowledge about polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in East Greenland: Changes in the catch and climate over two decades. Front. Mar. Sci. 2018, 5, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Harper, S.L.; Edge, V.L.; Schuster-Wallace, C.J.; Berke, O.; McEwen, S.A. Weather, water quality and infectious gastrointestinal illness in two inuit communities in Nunatsiavut, Canada: Potential implications for climate change. Ecohealth 2011, 8, 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cunsolo Willox, A.; Harper, S.L.; Ford, J.D.; Edge, V.L.; Landman, K.; Houle, K.; Blake, S.; Wolfrey, C. Climate change and mental health: An exploratory case study from Rigolet, Nunatsiavut, Canada. Clim. Chang. 2013, 121, 255–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Petrasek MacDonald, J.; Cunsolo Willox, A.; Ford, J.D.; Shiwak, I.; Wood, M.; The IMHACC Team. The Rigolet Inuit Community Government Protective factors for mental health and well-being in a changing climate: Perspectives from Inuit youth in Nunatsiavut, Labrador. Soc. Sci. Med. 2015, 141, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cunsolo Willox, A.; Stephenson, E.; Allen, J.; Bourque, F.; Drossos, A.; Elgaroy, S.; Kral, M.J.; Mauro, I.; Moses, J.; Pearce, T.; et al. Examining relationships between climate change and mental health in the Circumpolar North. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2015, 15, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parkinson, A.J.; Bruce, M.G.; Zulz, T.; International Circumpolar Surveillance Steering Committee. International Circumpolar Surveillance, an Arctic Network for Surveillance of Infectious Diseases. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2008, 14, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Moran, E.F.; Lopez, M.C. Future directions in human-environment research. Environ. Res. 2016, 144, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami Submission to the Naylor Panel for Canada’s Fundamental Science Review; Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami: Ottawa, ON, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
Kipp, A.; Cunsolo, A.; Gillis, D.; Sawatzky, A.; Harper, S.L. The need for community-led, integrated, and innovative monitoring programs when responding to the health impacts of climate change. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parkinson, A.J. Improving human health in the Arctic: The expanding role of the Arctic Council’s Sustainable Development Working Group. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2010, 69, 304–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bruce, M.; Zulz, T.; Koch, A. Surveillance of infectious diseases in the Arctic. Public Health 2016, 137, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ebi, K.L.; Schmier, J.K. A stitch in time: Improving public health early warning systems for extreme weather events. Epidemiol. Rev. 2005, 27, 115–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Øyvind Odland, J.; Donaldson, S.G.; Dudarev, A.A.; Carlsen, A. AMAP assessment 2015: Human health in the Arctic. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2016, 75, 33949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Thacker, S.B. Historical Development. In Principles and Practice of Public Health Surveillance; Lee, L.M., Teutsch, S.M., Thacker, S.B., St. Louis, M.E., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
Liu, H.-Y.; Bartonova, A.; Pascal, M.; Smolders, R.; Skjetne, E.; Dusinska, M. Approaches to integrated monitoring for environmental health impact assessment. Environ. Heal. 2012, 11, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Charron, D.F. Ecohealth: Origins and Approach. In Ecohealth Research in Practice: Innovative Applications of an Ecosystem Approach to Health; Charron, D.F., Ed.; International Development Research Centre and Springer: Ottawa, ON, USA, 2012; pp. 1–30. ISBN 978-1-4614-0516-0. [Google Scholar]
Wesche, S.D.; Armitage, D.R. Using qualitative scenarios to understand regional environmental change in the Canadian North. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2014, 14, 1095–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Eisenberg, J.N.S.; Desai, M.A.; Levy, K.; Bates, S.J.; Liang, S.; Naumoff, K.; Scott, J.C. Environmental determinants of infectious disease: A framework for tracking causal links and guiding public health research. Environ. Health Perspect. 2007, 115, 1216–1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Knap, A.; Dewailly, É.; Furgal, C.; Galvin, J.; Baden, D.; Bowen, R.E.; Depledge, M.; Duguay, L.; Fleming, L.E.; Ford, T.; et al. Indicators of Ocean Health and Human Health: Developing a Research and Monitoring Framework. Environ. Health Perspect. 2002, 110, 839–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hansen, J.C.; Reiersen, L.; Wilson, S. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP): Strategy and results with focus on the human health assessment under the second phase of AMAP, 1998–2003. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2002, 61, 300–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kouril, D.; Furgal, C.; Whillans, T. Trends and key elements in community-based monitoring: A systematic review of the literature with an emphasis on Arctic and Subarctic regions. Environ. Rev. 2015, 13, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Williams, P.; Alessa, L.; Abatzoglou, J.T.; Kliskey, A.; Witmer, F.; Lee, O.; Trammell, J.; Beaujean, G.; Venema, R. Community-based observing networks and systems in the Arctic: Human perceptions of environmental change and instrument-derived data. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2018, 18, 547–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated Guidelines for Evaluating Public Health Surveillance Systems. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. (Recomm. Rep.) 2001, 50, 1–35. [Google Scholar]
Drewe, J.A.; Hoinville, L.J.; Cook, A.J.C.; Floyd, T.; Stark, K.D.C. Evaluation of animal and public health surveillance systems: A systematic review. Epidemiol. Infect. 2012, 140, 575–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Calba, C.; Goutard, F.L.; Hoinville, L.; Hendrikx, P.; Lindberg, A.; Saegerman, C.; Peyre, M. Surveillance systems evaluation: A systematic review of the existing approaches. BMC Public Health 2015, 15, 448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Moher, D.; Liberati, A. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 151, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Pawson, R.; Greenhalgh, T.; Harvey, G.; Walshe, K. Realist Synthesis: An Introduction; ESRC Working Paper Series; University of Manchester: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
Pawson, R.; Greenhalgh, T.; Harvey, G.; Walshe, K. Realist review—A new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 2005, 10, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
International Council for Science. IPY Observing Systems, Their Legacy and Data Management. In ICSU and the International Polar Year 2007–2008; Sarukhanian, E., Summerhayes, C., Eds.; World Meteorological Organization (WMO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2008; pp. 357–476. [Google Scholar]
McHugh, M.L. Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochem. Medica 2012, 22, 276–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Data Quality Monitoring and Surveillance System Evaluation: A Handbook of Methods and Applications; ECDC: Stockholm, Sweden, 2014. [Google Scholar]
Groseclose, S.L.; Buckeridge, D.L. Public health surveillance systems: Recent advances in their use and evaluation. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2017, 38, 57–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Auer, A.M.; Dobmeier, T.M.; Haglund, B.J.; Tillgren, P. The relevance of WHO injury surveillance guidelines for evaluation: Learning from the Aboriginal Community-Centered Injury Surveillance System (ACCISS) and two institution-based systems. BMC Public Health 2011, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fereday, J.; Muir-Cochrane, E. Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2006, 5, 80–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Thomas, J.; Harden, A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2008, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Burger, J. A model for selecting bioindicators to monitor radionuclide concentrations using Amchitka Island in the Aleutians as a case study. Environ. Res. 2007, 105, 316–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kraemer, L.D.; Berner, J.E.; Furgal, C.M. The potential impact of climate on human exposure to contaminants in the Arctic. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2005, 64, 498–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Donaldson, S.G.; Van Oostdam, J.; Tikhonov, C.; Feeley, M.; Armstrong, B.; Ayotte, P.; Boucher, O.; Bowers, W.; Chan, L.H.M.; Dallaire, F.; et al. Environmental contaminants and human health in the Canadian Arctic. Sci. Total Environ. 2010, 408, 5165–5234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hueffer, K.; Parkinson, A.J.; Gerlach, R.; Berner, J. Zoonotic infections in Alaska: Disease prevalence, potential impact of climate change and recommended actions for earlier disease detection, research, prevention and control. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2013, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pennesi, K.; Arokium, J.; McBean, G. Integrating local and scientific weather knowledge as a strategy for adaptation to climate change in the Arctic. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2012, 17, 897–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parkinson, A.J. The Arctic Human Health Initiative: A legacy of the International Polar Year 2007–2009. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2013, 72, 21655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tsuji, L.J.S.; Manson, H.; Wainman, B.C.; Vanspronsen, E.P.; Shecapio-Blacksmith, J.; Rabbitskin, T. Identifying potential receptors and routes of contaminant exposure in the traditional territory of the Ouje-Bougoumou Cree: Land use and a geographical information system. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2007, 127, 293–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wernham, A. Inupiat health and proposed Alaskan oil development: Results of the first integrated health impact assessment/environmental impact statement for proposed oil development on Alaska’s North Slope. Ecohealth 2007, 4, 500–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Banfield, L.; Jardine, C.C.G. Consultation and remediation in the north: Meeting international commitments to safeguard health and well-being. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2013, 72, 21231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Do, M.T.; Fréchette, M.; McFaull, S.; Denning, B.; Ruta, M.; Thompson, W. Injuries in the North–Analysis of 20 years of surveillance data collected by the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2013, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Austin, S.E.; Ford, J.D.; Berrang-Ford, L.; Araos, M.; Parker, S.; Fleury, M.D. Public health adaptation to climate change in canadian jurisdictions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 623–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hori, Y.; Tam, B.; Gough, W.A.; Ho-Foong, E.; Karagatzides, J.D.; Liberda, E.N.; Tsuji, L.J.S. Use of traditional environmental knowledge to assess the impact of climate change on subsistence fishing in the James Bay Region of Northern Ontario, Canada. Rural Remote Health 2012, 12, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
Laidler, G.J.; Hirose, T.; Kapfer, M.; Ikummaq, T.; Joamie, E.; Elee, P. Evaluating the Floe Edge Service: How well can SAR imagery address Inuit community concerns around sea ice change and travel safety? Can. Geogr. 2011, 55, 91–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ford, J.D.; McDowell, G.; Jones, J. The state of climate change adaptation in the Arctic. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 104005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Furgal, C.; Seguin, J. Climate change, health, and vulnerability in Canadian northern Aboriginal communities. Environ. Health Perspect. 2006, 114, 1964–1970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Montrose, L.; Noonan, C.W.; Cho, Y.H.; Lee, J.; Harley, J.; O’Hara, T.; Cahill, C.; Ward, T.J. Evaluating the effect of ambient particulate pollution on DNA methylation in Alaskan sled dogs: Potential applications for a sentinel model of human health. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 512–513, 489–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Krzyzanowski, J. Environmental pathways of potential impacts to human health from oil and gas development in northeast British Columbia, Canada. Environ. Rev. 2012, 20, 122–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gunnarsdóttir, M.J.; Gardarsson, S.M.; Bartram, J. Developing a national framework for safe drinking water—Case study from Iceland. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2015, 218, 196–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nilsson, L.M.; Berner, J.; Dudarev, A.A.; Mulvad, G.; Odland, J.Ø.; Parkinson, A.; Rautio, A.; Tikhonov, C.; Evengård, B. Indicators of food and water security in an Arctic Health context–results from an international workshop discussion. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2013, 72, 21530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tomaselli, M.; Dalton, C.; Duignan, P.J.; Kutz, S.; van der Meer, F.; Kafle, P.; Surujballi, O.; Turcotte, C.; Checkley, S. Contagious ecthyma, rangiferine brucellosis, and lungworm infection in a muskox (Ovibos moschatus) from the Canadian Arctic, 2014. J. Wildl. Dis. 2016, 52, 719–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gadamus, L. Linkages between human health and ocean health: A participatory climate change vulnerability assessment for marine mammal harvesters. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2013, 72, 20715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ford, J.D.; Bolton, K.C.; Shirley, J.; Pearce, T.; Tremblay, M.; Westlake, M. Research on the human dimensions of climate change in Nunavut, Nunavik, and Nunatsiavut: A literature review and gap analysis. Arctic 2012, 65, 289–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Khalil, H.; Olsson, G.; Ecke, F.; Ever, M.; Hjertqvist, M.; Magnusson, M.; Löfvenius, M.O.; Hörnfeldt, B. The importance of bank vole density and rainy winters in predicting nephropathia epidemica incidence in Northern Sweden. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e111663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dubé, M.G.; Muldoon, B.; Wilson, J.; Maracle, K.B. Accumulated state of the Yukon River watershed: Part I critical review of literature. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2013, 9, 426–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parkinson, A.J.; Butler, J.C. Potential impacts of climate change on infectious diseases in the Arctic. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2005, 64, 478–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bond, A.L.; Robertson, G.J.; Lavers, J.L.; Hobson, K.A.; Ryan, P.C. Trace element concentrations in harvested auks from Newfoundland: Toxicological risk of a traditional hunt. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2015, 115, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Driscoll, D.L.; Sunbury, T.; Johnston, J.; Renes, S. Initial findings from the implementation of a community-based sentinel surveillance system to assess the health effects of climate change in Alaska. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2013, 72, 21405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Driscoll, D.L.; Mitchell, E.; Barker, R.; Johnston, J.M.; Renes, S. Assessing the health effects of climate change in Alaska with community-based surveillance. Clim. Chang. 2016, 137, 455–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Miller, P.K.; Waghiyi, V.; Welfinger-Smith, G.; Carter Byrne, S.; Kava, J.; Gologergen, J.; Eckstein, L.; Scrudato, R.; Chiarenzelli, J.; Carpenter, D.O.; et al. Community-based participatory research projects and policy engagement to protect environmental health on St Lawrence Island, Alaska. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2013, 72, 21656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Germain, D. Snow avalanche hazard assessment and risk management in northern Quebec, eastern Canada. Nat. Hazards 2016, 80, 1303–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bruden, D.J.T.; Singleton, R.; Hawk, C.S.; Bulkow, L.R.; Bentley, S.; Anderson, L.J.; Herrmann, L.; Chikoyak, L.; Hennessy, T.W. Eighteen years of respiratory syncytial virus surveillance. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 2015, 34, 945–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tremblay, M.; Furgal, C.; Larrivee, C.; Annanack, T.; Tookalook, P.; Qiisik, M.; Angiyou, E.; Swappie, N.; Savard, J.-P.; Barrett, M. Climate change in northern Quebec: Adaptation strategies from community-based research. Arctic 2008, 61, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Berner, J.; Brubaker, M.Y.; Revitch, B.; Kreummel, E.; Tcheripanoff, M.; Bell, J. Adaptation in Arctic Circumpolar communities: Food and water security in a changing climate. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2016, 75, 33820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Young, K.; Chatwood, S.; Bjerregaard, P. Observing the changing health of circumpolar peoples. Arctic 2015, 68, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Larrat, S.; Simard, M.; Lair, S.; Bélanger, D.; Proulx, J.F. From science to action and from action to science: The Nunavik Trichinellosis Prevention Program. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2012, 71, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Byrne, S.; Miller, P.; Waghiyi, V.; Buck, C.L.; von Hippel, F.A.; Carpenter, D.O. Persistent organochlorine pesticide exposure related to a formerly used defense site on St. Lawrence Island, Alaska: Data from sentinel fish and human sera. J. Toxicol. Environ. Heal. Part A 2015, 78, 976–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Abass, K.; Carlsen, A.; Rautio, A. New approaches in human health risk assessment. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2016, 75, 33845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Donaldson, S.G.; Adlard, B.; Øyvind Odland, J. Overview of human health in the Arctic: Conclusions and recommendations. Int. J. Circumpolar Heal. ISSNOnline) J. Int. J. Circumpolar Heal. 2016, 75, 2242–39821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Burger, J.; Gochfeld, M.; Powers, C.W.; Kosson, D.S.; Halverson, J.; Siekaniec, G.; Morkill, A.; Patrick, R.; Duffy, L.K.; Barnes, D. Scientific research, stakeholders, and policy: Continuing dialogue during research on radionuclides on Amchitka Island, Alaska. J. Environ. Manag. 2007, 85, 232–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Provencher, J.F.; Mallory, M.L.; Braune, B.M.; Forbes, M.R.; Gilchrist, H.G. Mercury and marine birds in Arctic Canada: Effects, current trends, and why we should be paying closer attention. Environ. Rev. 2014, 22, 244–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lepak, J.M.; Hooten, M.B.; Eagles-Smith, C.A.; Tate, M.T.; Lutz, M.A.; Ackerman, J.T.; Willacker, J.J.; Jackson, A.K.; Evers, D.C.; Wiener, J.G.; et al. Assessing potential health risks to fish and humans using mercury concentrations in inland fish from across western Canada and the United States. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 571, 342–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Amstislavski, P.; Zubov, L.; Chen, H.; Ceccato, P.; Pekel, J.F.; Weedon, J. Effects of increase in temperature and open water on transmigration and access to health care by the Nenets reindeer herders in northern Russia. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2013, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Vlasova, T.; Volkov, S. Methodology of socially-oriented observations and the possibilities of their implementation in the Arctic resilience assessment. Polar Rec. 2013, 49, 248–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Van Oostdam, J.; Donaldson, S.G.; Feeley, M.; Arnold, D.; Ayotte, P.; Bondy, G.; Chan, L.H.M.; Dewailly, É.; Furgal, C.M.; Kuhnlein, H.; et al. Human health implications of environmental contaminants in Arctic Canada: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2005, 351–352, 165–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gibson, J.; Adlard, B.; Olafsdottir, K.; Sandanger, T.M.; Øyvind Odland, J. Levels and trends of contaminants in humans of the Arctic. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2016, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pacyna, J.M.; Cousins, I.T.; Halsall, C.; Rautio, A.; Pawlak, J.; Pacyna, E.G.; Sundseth, K.; Wilson, S.; Munthe, J. Impacts on human health in the Arctic owing to climate-induced changes in contaminant cycling—The EU ArcRisk project policy outcome. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 50, 200–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bhatia, R.; Wernham, A. Integrating human health into environmental impact assessment: An unrealized opportunity for environmental health and justice. Environ. Health Perspect. 2008, 116, 991–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
McClymont Peace, D.; Myers, E. Community-based participatory process—Climate climate change and health adaptation program for Northern First Nations and Inuit in Canada. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2012, 71, 18412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Berkes, F.; Berkes, M.K.; Fast, H. Collaborative integrated management in Canada’s North: The role of local and traditional knowledge and community-based monitoring. Coast. Manag. 2007, 35, 143–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Burger, J.; Gochfeld, M. Locational differences in heavy metals and metalloids in Pacific Blue Mussels Mytilus [edulis] trossulus from Adak Island in the Aleutian Chain, Alaska. Sci. Total Environ. 2006, 368, 937–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ford, J.D.; McDowell, G.; Shirley, J.; Pitre, M.; Siewierski, R.; Gough, W.; Duerden, F.; Pearce, T.; Adams, P.; Statham, S. The dynamic multiscale nature of climate change vulnerability: An Inuit harvesting example. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2013, 103, 1193–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Brook, R.K.; Kutz, S.J.; Veitch, A.M.; Popko, R.A.; Elkin, B.T.; Guthrie, G. Fostering community-based wildlife health monitoring and research in the Canadian North. Ecohealth 2009, 6, 266–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dunlap, K.L.; Reynolds, A.J.; Duffy, L.K.; Gerlach, S.C.; Loring, P.A.; Cleroux, M.; Godin, J.P. Selected plasma fatty acid levels in subsistence fed sled dogs along the Yukon River: A pilot study for biomonitoring. Polar Rec. 2012, 48, 177–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kirk, C.M.; Amstrup, S.; Swor, R.; Holcomb, D.; O’Hara, T.M. Hematology of southern Beaufort Sea polar bears (2005-2007): Biomarker for an Arctic ecosystem health sentinel. Ecohealth 2010, 7, 307–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Noble, B.F.; Bronson, J.E. Integrating human health into environmental impact assessment: Case studies of Canada’s northern mining resource sector. Arctic 2005, 58, 395–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Brubaker, M.Y.; Bell, J.N.; Berner, J.E.; Warren, J.A. Climate change health assessment: A novel approach for Alaska Native communities. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2011, 70, 266–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kwiatkowski, R.E. Indigenous community based participatory research and health impact assessment: A Canadian example. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2011, 31, 445–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Martin, D.; Bélanger, D.; Gosselin, P.; Brazeau, J.; Furgal, C.; Déry, S. Drinking water and potential threats to human health in Nunavik: Adaptation strategies under climate change conditions. Arctic 2007, 60, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gunnarsdóttir, M.J.; Gardarsson, S.M.; Bartram, J. Icelandic experience with water safety plans. Water Sci. Technol. 2012, 65, 277–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Metcalf, V.; Robards, M. Sustaining a healthy human-walrus relationship in a dynamic environment: Challenges for comanagement. Ecol. Appl. 2008, 18, S148–S156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Natalia, K. Climate change effects on human health in a gender perspective: Some trends in Arctic research. Glob. Health Action 2011, 4, 7913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Pearce, T.; Ford, J.D.; Duerden, F.; Smit, B.; Andrachuk, M.; Berrang-Ford, L.; Smith, T. Advancing adaptation planning for climate change in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR): A review and critique. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2011, 11, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Smith, A.L.; Hewitt, N.; Klenk, N.; Bazely, D.R.; Yan, N.; Wood, S.; Henriques, I.; MacLellan, J.I.; Lipsig-Mumme, C. Effects of climate change on the distribution of invasive alien species in Canada: A knowledge synthesis of range change projections in a warming world. Environ. Rev. 2012, 20, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Brubaker, M.Y.; Berner, J.E.; Chavan, R.; Warren, J.A. Climate change and health effects in Northwest Alaska. Glob. Health Action 2011, 4, 8445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bronson, J.E.; Noble, B.F. Health determinants in Canadian northern environmental impact assessment. Polar Rec. (Gr. Brit). 2006, 42, 315–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ford, J.D.; Cunsolo Willox, A.; Chatwood, S.; Furgal, C.M.; Harper, S.L.; Mauro, I.; Pearce, T. Adapting to the effects of climate change on Inuit health. Am. J. Public Health 2014, 104, e9–e17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Moiseenko, T.I.; Voinov, A.A.; Megorsky, V.V.; Gashkina, N.A.; Kudriavtseva, L.P.; Vandish, O.I.; Sharov, A.N.; Sharova, Y.; Koroleva, I.N. Ecosystem and human health assessment to define environmental management strategies: The case of long-term human impacts on an Arctic lake. Sci. Total Environ. 2006, 369, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pearce, T.; Smit, B.; Duerden, F.; Ford, J.D.; Goose, A.; Kataoyak, F. Inuit vulnerability and adaptive capacity to climate change in Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories, Canada. Polar Rec. (Gr. Brit). 2010, 46, 157–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ford, J.D.; Berrang-Ford, L.; King, M.; Furgal, C. Vulnerability of Aboriginal health systems in Canada to climate change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010, 20, 668–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Harley, J.R.; Bammler, T.K.; Farin, F.M.; Beyer, R.P.; Kavanagh, T.J.; Dunlap, K.L.; Knott, K.K.; Ylitalo, G.M.; O’Hara, T.M. Using domestic and free-ranging Arctic canid models for environmental molecular toxicology research. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 1990–1999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lynn, K.; Daigle, J.; Hoffman, J.; Lake, F.; Michelle, N.; Ranco, D.; Viles, C.; Voggesser, G.; Williams, P. The impacts of climate change on tribal traditional foods. Clim. Change 2013, 120, 545–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Noble, B.F.; Bronson, J.E. Practitioner survey of the state of health integration in environmental assessment: The case of northern Canada. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2006, 26, 410–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Andrachuk, M.; Smit, B. Community-based vulnerability assessment of Tuktoyaktuk, NWT, Canada to environmental and socio-economic changes. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2012, 12, 867–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ding, H.; Chiabai, A.; Silvestri, S.; Nunes, P.A.L.D. Valuing climate change impacts on European forest ecosystems. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 18, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Konkel, R.S. Renewable energy and sustainable communities: Alaska’s wind generator experience. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2013, 72, 21520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rosa, C.; Blake, J.E.; Bratton, G.R.; Dehn, L.A.; Gray, M.J.; O’Hara, T.M. Heavy metal and mineral concentrations and their relationship to histopathological findings in the bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus). Sci. Total Environ. 2008, 399, 165–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wesche, S.D.; Schuster, R.C.; Tobin, P.; Dickson, C.; Matthiessen, D.; Graupe, S.; Williams, M.; Chan, H.M. Community-based health research led by the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2011, 70, 396–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fall, J.A. Regional patterns of fish and wildlife harvests in contemporary Alaska. Arctic 2016, 69, 47–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dudarev, A.A.; Dorofeyev, V.M.; Dushkina, E.V.; Alloyarov, P.R.; Chupakhin, V.S.; Sladkova, Y.N.; Kolesnikova, T.A.; Fridman, K.B.; Nilsson, L.M.; Evengård, B. Food and water security issues in Russia III: Food- and waterborne diseases in the Russian Arctic, Siberia, and the Far East, 2000–2011. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2013, 72, 21856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dagsson-Waldhauserova, P.; Ösp Magnusdottir, A.; Olafsson, H.; Arnalds, O. The spatial variation of dust particulate matter concentrations during two Icelandic dust storms in 2015. Atmosphere (Basel). 2016, 7, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pardhan-Ali, A.; Wilson, J.; Edge, V.L.; Furgal, C.; Reid-Smith, R.; Santos, M.; McEwen, S.A. A descriptive analysis of notifiable gastrointestinal illness in the Northwest Territories, Canada, 1991-2008. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2012, 11, e000732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Huntington, H.P.; Daniel, R.; Hartsig, A.; Harun, K.; Heiman, M.; Meehan, R.; Noongwook, G.; Pearson, L.; Prior-Parks, M.; Robards, M.; Stetson, G. Vessels, risks, and rules: Planning for safe shipping in Bering Strait. Mar. Policy 2015, 51, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Skandfer, M.; Siurin, S.; Talykova, L.; Øvrum, A.; Brenn, T.; Vaktskjold, A. How occupational health is assessed in mine workers in Murmansk Oblast. Int. J. Circumpolar Health 2012, 71, 18437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Burger, J.; Jewett, S.; Gochfeld, M.; Hoberg, M.; Harper, S.; Chenelot, H.; Jeitner, C.; Burke, S. The use of biota sampling for environmental contaminant analysis for characterization of benthic communities in the Aleutians. Sci. Total Environ. 2006, 369, 393–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ludwicki, J.K.; Góralczyk, K.; Struciński, P.; Wojtyniak, B.; Rabczenko, D.; Toft, G.; Lindh, C.H.; Jönsson, B.A.G.; Lenters, V.; Heederik, D.; et al. Hazard quotient profiles used as a risk assessment tool for PFOS and PFOA serum levels in three distinctive European populations. Environ. Int. 2015, 74, 112–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Teutsch, S.M. Considerations in Planning a Surveillance System. In Principles and Practice of Public Health Surveillance; Lee, L.M., Teutsch, S.M., Thacker, S.B., St. Louis, M.E., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 18–31. [Google Scholar]
McMichael, A.J.; Lindgren, E. Climate change: Present and future risks to health, and necessary responses. J. Intern. Med. 2011, 270, 401–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Semenza, J.C.; Menne, B. Climate change and infectious diseases in Europe. Lancet 2009, 9, 365–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kovats, R.S.; Ebi, K.L. Heatwaves and public health in Europe. Eur. J. Public Health 2006, 16, 592–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Ebi, K.L.; Burton, I. Identifying practical adaptation options: An approach to address climate change-related health risks. Environ. Sci. Policy 2008, 11, 359–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Breslow, S.J.; Allen, M.; Holstein, D.; Sojka, B.; Barnea, R.; Basurto, X.; Carothers, C.; Charnley, S.; Coulthard, S.; Dolšak, N.; et al. Evaluating indicators of human well-being for ecosystem-based management. Ecosyst. Heal. Sustain. 2017, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Moulton, A.D.; Schramm, P.J. Climate Change and Public Health Surveillance: Toward a Comprehensive Strategy. J. Public Heal. Manag. Pract. 2017, 23, 618–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ford, J.D.; Furgal, C. Foreword to the special issue: Climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability in the Arctic. Polar Res. 2009, 28, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ford, J.D.; McDowell, G.; Pearce, T. The adaptation challenge in the Arctic. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2015, 5, 1046–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Semenza, J.C. Prototype early warning systems for vector-borne diseases in Europe. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 6333–6351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mills, A.; Rasheed, F.; Tollman, S.M. Public Health Surveillance: A Tool for Targeting and Monitoring Interventions. In Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries; Jamison, D.T., Breman, J.G., Measham, A.R., Alleyne, G., Claeson, M., Evans, D.B., Jha, P., Mills, A., Musgrove, P., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK; The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank: New York, NY, USA; Washington, DC, USA, 2006; pp. 87–102. [Google Scholar]
Pulsifer, P.; Gearheard, S.; Huntington, H.P.; Parsons, M.A.; McNeave, C.; McCann, H.S. The role of data management in engaging communities in Arctic research: Overview of the Exchange for Local Observations and Knowledge of the Arctic (ELOKA). Polar Geogr. 2012, 35, 271–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ebi, K.L.; Semenza, J.C. Community-Based Adaptation to the Health Impacts of Climate Change. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2008, 35, 501–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Loboda, T.V. Adaptation strategies to climate change in the Arctic: A global patchwork of reactive community-scale initiatives. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Evengård, B.; Larsen, J.N.; Paasche, Ø. The new arctic. New Arct. 2015, 1–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ford, J.D.; Labbé, J.; Flynn, M.; Araos, M.; IHACC Research Team. Readiness for climate change adaptation in the Arctic: A case study from Nunavut, Canada. Clim. Chang. 2017, 145, 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Calba, C.; Goutard, F.L.; Vanholme, L.; Antoine-Moussiaux, N.; Hendrikx, P.; Saegerman, C. The Added-Value of Using Participatory Approaches to Assess the Acceptability of Surveillance Systems: The Case of Bovine Tuberculosis in Belgium. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0159041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Johnson, N.; Behe, C.; Danielsen, F.; Krummel, E.-M.; Nickels, S.; Pulsifer, P.L. Community-Based Monitoring and Indigenous Knowledge in a Changing Arctic: A Review for the Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks. In Community-Based Monitoring and Indigenous Knowledge in a Changing Arctic: A Review for the Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks; Johnson, N., Behe, C., Danielsen, F., Krummel, E.-M., Nickels, S., Pulsifer, P.L., Eds.; SAON: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2016. [Google Scholar]
Johnson, N.; Alessa, L.; Behe, C.; Danielsen, F.; Gearheard, S.; Gofman-Wallingford, V.; Kliskey, A.; Krümmel, E.-M.; Lynch, A.; Mustonen, T.; et al. The contributions of community-based monitoring and traditional knowledge to Arctic observing networks: Reflections on the state of the field. Arctic 2015, 68, 28–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Anderson, M.; Smylie, J.; Anderson, I.; Sinclair, R.; Crengle, S. First Nations, Metis, and Inuit Health Indicators in Canada: A Background Paper for the Project “Action Oriented Indicators of Health and Health Systems Development for Indigenous Peoples in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.”. 2016. Available online: http://www.onemda.unimelb.edu.au/docs/dP18.pdf (accessed on 13 November 2018).
Simonds, V.W.; Christopher, S. Adapting western research methods to indigenous ways of knowing. Am. J. Public Health 2013, 103, 2185–2192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. National Inuit Strategy on Research; Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2018. [Google Scholar]
Ford, J.D.; Stephenson, E.; Cunsolo Willox, A.; Edge, V.; Farahbakhsh, K.; Furgal, C.; Harper, S.; Chatwood, S.; Mauro, I.; Pearce, T.; et al. Community-based adaptation research in the Canadian Arctic. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2016, 7, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. Social Determinants of Inuit Health in Canada; Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2014; ISBN 9781107671812. [Google Scholar]
Tschakert, P.; Barnett, J.; Ellis, N.R.; Lawrence, C.; Tuana, N.; New, M.; Elrick-Barr, C.; Pandit, R.; Pannell, D. Climate change and loss, as if people mattered: Values, places, and experiences. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2017, 8, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Surminski, S.; Lopez, A. Concept of loss and damage of climate change—A new challenge for climate decision-making? A climate science perspective. Clim. Dev. 2015, 7, 267–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Berry, H.L.; Waite, T.D.; Dear, K.B.G.; Capon, A.G.; Murray, V. The case for systems thinking about climate change and mental health. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 282–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme. Geographic Coverage. Available online: https://www.amap.no/about/geographical-coverage (accessed on 12 November 2018).

Figure 1. Diagram depicting the flow of identification, screening, and eligibility assessment of articles included in this review (n = 85). Rationale for exclusion of full-text articles is provided in Appendix D.

Figure 2. A map showing the Circumpolar countries where the literature described and/or recommended the development and/or implementation of integrated surveillance systems in Arctic and Subarctic regions (2005–2016), as distinct from the number of published articles per country. The darker the shade, the higher the relative proportions of mentions of integrated surveillance in that particular Circumpolar country.

Figure 3. Timeline showing the year of article publication for literature on integrated surveillance for Circumpolar Arctic and Subarctic regions, stratified by (A) specific population health outcome or determinant, and (B) the number of articles discussing the impacts and influences of climate change on population health. Categories are not mutually exclusive.

Figure 4. The main environmental hazards, exposures, and/or conditions included in integrated surveillance systems designed or recommended for Circumpolar Arctic and Subarctic regions, stratified by discipline (i.e., the first author’s primary discipline), as reported in the literature. The first author’s primary discipline was identified via the department they were affiliated with when the article was published. Affiliations were typically listed on the first page of each article, and any affiliations that were not listed were obtained via internet searches. Categories are not mutually exclusive.

Figure 5. The main environmental hazards, exposures, and/or conditions included in integrated surveillance systems designed or recommended for Circumpolar Arctic and Subarctic regions, stratified by level of surveillance operation, as reported in the literature. Categories are not mutually exclusive.

Figure 6. A visual display of the relationship between structural, relational, and processual components that enhanced and enabled attributes and activities of integrated environment and health surveillance systems in Circumpolar Arctic and Subarctic regions, as represented in the literature.

Table 1. Finalized search strings for Web of Science™ and MEDLINE^® aggregator databases to identify articles related to integrated surveillance strategies in Arctic and Subarctic regions of the Circumpolar North that involved considerations for the natural environment, human health, and surveillance (2005–2016).

	Web of Science™	MEDLINE^®
Natural environment terms ¹	((climat * NEAR/2 (change or variabl * or extreme)) or global warm * or ice or disaster* or fire * or cyclone * or storm * or flood * or drought * or rain or snow or (tidal NEAR/2 wave ) or tornado or (food NEAR/2 (suppl * or safe * or security or quality)) or (water NEAR/2 (suppl * or fresh or drink * or security or quality or pollut )) or weather or (extreme NEAR/2 (cold or heat)) or (air NEAR/2 (quality or pollut )) or humidity or temperature * or wind * or “ultraviolet rays” or (environment * NEAR/2 (monitor * or medicine or health or pollut * or exposure *)))	((climat * adj2 (change or variabl * or extreme)) or global warm * or ice or disaster * or fire * or cyclone * or storm * or flood * or drought * or rain or snow or (tidal adj2 wave ) or tornado or (food adj2 (suppl * or safe * or security or quality)) or (water adj2 (suppl * or fresh or drink * or security or quality or pollut )) or weather or (extreme adj2 (cold or heat)) or (air adj2 (quality or pollut )) or humidity or temperature * or wind * or ultraviolet rays or (environment * adj2 (monitor * or medicine or health or pollut * or exposure*))).tw.
Surveillance terms	((ecological * NEAR/3 monitor ) or (disease NEAR/2 notification) or ((surveillance or monitor or track * or assess ) NEAR/3 (population or health or environment )) or ((prevent or warn * or prepar * or surveillance or monitor * or track * or assess * or detect ) NEAR/3 (sentinel or health )) or ((prevent * or warn * or prepar * or surveillance or monitor * or track * or assess * or detect * or adapt ) NEAR/3 system ) or (strategy * NEAR/3 (climat * or environment * or adapt *)))	((ecological * adj3 monitor ) or (disease adj2 notification) or ((surveillance or monitor or track * or assess ) adj3 (population or health or environment )) or ((prevent or warn * or prepar * or surveillance or monitor * or track * or assess * or detect ) adj3 (sentinel or health )) or ((prevent * or warn * or prepar * or surveillance or monitor * or track * or assess * or detect * or adapt ) adj3 system ) or (strategy * adj3 (climat * or environment * or adapt *))).tw.
Human health terms	(health or wellbeing OR safe * or injur * or illness * or disease * or infect * or “frost bite ” or burn or wound *)	(health or wellbeing OR safe * or injur * or illness * or disease * or infect * or frost bite * or burn * or wound *).tw.
Geographic focus	(Circumpolar or polar or “Arctic Canada” or Canada or Alberta or “British Columbia” or “New Brunswick” or Manitoba or “Newfoundland and Labrador” or “Northwest Territories” or “Nova Scotia” or Nunavut or “Prince Edward Island” or Ontario or Quebec or Saskatchewan or Yukon or Nunavik or Nunatsiavut or Inuvialuit or Norway or Svalbard or Greenland or Denmark or Alaska or “United States” or Russia or Sweden or Finland or Iceland or Scandinavia or “Nordic countr ” or Arctic or North )	(Circumpolar or polar or Arctic Canada or Canada or Alberta or British Columbia or Manitoba or Newfoundland and Labrador or Northwest Territories or Nunavut or Ontario or Quebec or Saskatchewan or Yukon or Nunavik or Nunatsiavut or Inuvialuit or Norway or Svalbard or Greenland or Alaska or Russia or Sweden or Finland or Iceland or Scandinavia or Nordic countr * or Arctic or North *).tw.

¹ Truncation symbols (*) were used at the end of a search term, or part of a search term, to broaden the searches by retrieving unlimited suffix variations. The proximity operators “NEAR/x” and “ADJx” were used within Web of Science™ and MEDLINE^® database searches, respectively, to retrieve records where the terms joined by the operator were within a specified number (x) of words of each other. The “.tw.” operator used in MEDLINE^® database searches indicates a free text search specifically within the title and abstract fields to search for keywords.

Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria that were used in first-stage title and abstract screening and the second-stage full-text review to identify articles about integrated environment and health surveillance systems in Arctic and Subarctic regions of the Circumpolar North between 2005 and 2016.

	Inclusion Criteria	Exclusion Criteria
Publication information	Article was published in English or French	Not published in English or French
	Article was published between 2005 and 2016	Article was published before 2005 or after 2016
	Primary or secondary study was published in a journal article	Theses, conference proceedings, reports, commentaries, etc.
Article context	Main site/focus and implications of the article were within “Arctic and/or Subarctic regions,” referring to High Arctic, Low Arctic, and Subarctic geographic areas in Circumpolar countries (Canada, the Faroe Islands, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States) with an Arctic or Subarctic Köppen climate classification	Main site/focus and implications of the article were outside Arctic or Subarctic regions of Circumpolar countries
Article focus	Article involved a biophysical environment-related change(s)/exposure(s)/issue(s)	Article involved an environmental change/exposure/issue that related to the built environment or “cultural landscape” created by humans
	Article included one or more outcome(s), condition(s), illness(es), disease(s), status(es), indicator(s), or determinant(s) related to the health and/or wellness of humans	Article did not involve any human health outcome(s), condition(s), illness(es), disease(s), status(es), indicator(s), or determinant(s)
	Article focused on surveillance, defined as the continuous, systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of environment and health-related data needed for the planning, implementation, and evaluation of public health research and/or practice, integrated with the dissemination of these data to end-users [35]	Article did not focus on the development, implementation, use, or evaluation of surveillance strategies, systems, or research

Table 3. Attributes and enabling components of integrated surveillance systems in Circumpolar Arctic and Subarctic regions as described in the literature, comprised of articles that informed, reviewed, and/or recommended integrated surveillance, and articles that described the development, implementation, and/or application of integrated surveillance. Articles are sorted in descending order, based on the number of components described.

Articles informing, reviewing, and/or recommending integrated surveillance systems
	Acceptability	Data quality	Flexibility	Relevance	Reliability	Representativeness	Scalability	Simplicity	Stability or sustainability	Timeliness	Number of attributes described	Decision-making and accountability structures	Existing surveillance systems and/or data	Policy, regulatory, and funding	Technologies and tools	Capacity to adapt surveillance activities	Involving distinct knowledge systems	Multiple sources/types of data collection	Capacity to meet stakeholder needs	Communication strategies	Strategies for managing collaborations	Strategies for engaging individual stakeholders	Training and educational opportunities	Number of components described
Young et al. [91]											7													9
Berner et al. [90]											8													8
Donaldson et al. [60]											6													7
Ford et al. [79]											2													6
Parkinson [63]											4													6
Banfield and Jardine [66]											3													5
Amstislavski et al. [99]											6													5
Austin et al. [68]											0													5
Kwiatkowski [114]											2													5
Tsuji et al. [64]											3													5
Martin et al. [115]											4													5
Burger et al. [96]											4													4
Donaldson et al. [95]											6													4
Furgal and Seguin [72]											5													4
Gunnarsdóttir et al. [116]											3													4
Hueffer et al. [61]											4													4
McClymont Peace and Myers [105]											4													4
Metcalf and Robards [117]											2													4
Natalia [118]											1													4
Pearce et al. [119]											2													4
Smith et al. [120]											3													4
Wernham [65]											3													4
Brubaker et al. [121]											0													3
Noble and Bronson [112]											2													3
Parkinson and Butler [82]											3													3
Van Oostdam et al. [101]											4													3
Bronson and Noble [122]											4													2
Abass et al. [94]											2													2
Bhatia and Wernham [104]											3													2
Brubaker et al. [113]											1													2
Byrne et al. [93]											3													2
Dubé et al. [81]											3													2
Ford et al. [123]											1													2
Ford et al. [71]											3													2
Gadamus [78]											2													2
Krzyzanowski [74]											3													2
Lepak et al. [98]											2													2
Moiseenko et al. [124]											1													2
Pearce et al. [125]											2													2
Pennesi et al. [62]											2													2
Tomaselli et al. [77]											3													2
Bond et al. [83]											2													1
Ford et al. [126]											4													1
Gibson et al. [102]											3													1
Harley et al. [127]											1													1
Hori et al. [69]											2													1
Lynn et al. [128]											1													1
Noble and Bronson [129]											1													1
Provencher et al. [97]											5													1
Andrachuk and Smit [130]											1													0
Ding et al. [131]											2													0
Kirk et al. [111]											2													0
Konkel [132]											0													0
Kraemer et al. [59]											3													0
Rosa et al. [133]											3													0
Articles describing the development and/or implementation of integrated surveillance systems
	Acceptability	Data quality	Flexibility	Relevance	Reliability	Representativeness	Scalability	Simplicity	Stability or sustainability	Timeliness	Number of attributes described	Decision-making and accountability structures	Existing surveillance systems and/or data	Policy, regulatory, and funding	Technologies and tools	Capacity to adapt surveillance activities	Involving distinct knowledge systems	Multiple sources/types of data collection	Capacity to meet stakeholder needs	Communication strategies	Strategies for managing collaborations	Strategies for engaging individual stakeholders	Training and educational opportunities	Number of components described
Laidler et al. [70]											9													10
Tremblay et al. [89]											5													10
Brook et al. [109]											4													9
Wesche et al. [134]											5													8
Ford et al. [108]											3													8
Germain [87]											6													7
Vlasova and Volkov [100]											7													7
Driscoll et al. [84]											7													6
Fall [135]											4													6
Berkes et al. [106]											6													6
Gunnarsdóttir et al. [75]											4													6
Burger [58]											4													5
Larrat et al. [92]											8													5
Miller et al. [86]											4													5
Driscoll et al. [85]											8													4
Dudarev et al. [136]											4													4
Nilsson et al. [76]											6													3
Pacyna et al. [103]											6													3
Burger and Gochfeld [107]											5													3
Dagsson-Waldhauserova et al. [137]											4													3
Pardhan-Ali et al. [138]											3													2
Huntington et al. [139]											1													2
Khalil et al. [80]											3													2
Skandfer et al. [140]											3													2
Dunlap et al. [110]											5													1
Bruden et al. [88]											4													1
Burger et al. [141]											5													1
Ludwicki et al. [142]											4													1
Montrose et al. [73]											2													1
Do et al. [67]											4													0

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sawatzky, A.; Cunsolo, A.; Jones-Bitton, A.; Middleton, J.; Harper, S.L. Responding to Climate and Environmental Change Impacts on Human Health via Integrated Surveillance in the Circumpolar North: A Systematic Realist Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2706. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122706

AMA Style

Sawatzky A, Cunsolo A, Jones-Bitton A, Middleton J, Harper SL. Responding to Climate and Environmental Change Impacts on Human Health via Integrated Surveillance in the Circumpolar North: A Systematic Realist Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018; 15(12):2706. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122706

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sawatzky, Alexandra, Ashlee Cunsolo, Andria Jones-Bitton, Jacqueline Middleton, and Sherilee L. Harper. 2018. "Responding to Climate and Environmental Change Impacts on Human Health via Integrated Surveillance in the Circumpolar North: A Systematic Realist Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, no. 12: 2706. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122706

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Menu

Responding to Climate and Environmental Change Impacts on Human Health via Integrated Surveillance in the Circumpolar North: A Systematic Realist Review

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Searching the Literature

2.2. Selecting Studies

2.3. Extracting, Analyzing, and Synthesizing Data from Relevant Articles

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Characteristics of Integrated Surveillance Systems

3.2. Attributes of Integrated Surveillance Systems

3.3. Enabling Components of Integrated Surveillance Systems

3.3.1. Structural

3.3.2. Processual

3.3.3. Relational

4. Discussion

5. Conclusions

Author Contributions

Funding

Acknowledgments

Conflicts of Interest

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

References

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI