Under-Resourced Learning Programs Imperil Active Stewardship of Alaska’s Marine Systems for Food Security

Abstract

The future of marine sustainability depends on public understanding and trust in the policy recommendations that emerge from scientific research. For common pool marine resource decisions made by the people who depend on these resources for their food, employment, and economic future, understanding the current status of these marine systems and change is essential to ensure these resources will persist into the future. As such, the informal learning infrastructure is essential to increasing marine science literacy in a changing world. This mixed-methods research study analyzed the distribution and accessibility of marine science education and research across Alaska’s five geographic regions. Using the PRISMA framework, we synthesized data from 198 institutions and analyzed peer-reviewed literature on marine ecosystems to identify geographic and thematic gaps in access to informal science learning and research focus. In parallel, we undertook geospatial analysis and resource availability to describe the distribution of resources, types of informal learning infrastructure present across the state, regional presence, and resources to support informal marine science learning opportunities. Findings from this multifactor research revealed a concentration of resources in urban hubs and a lack of consistent access to learning resources for rural and Indigenous communities. The configurative literature review of 9549 publications identified topical underrepresentation of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, as well as a lack of research on seabirds across all regions. Considered together, these results recommend targeted investments in rural engagement with marine science programming, culturally grounded partnerships, and research diversification. This review concludes that disparities in learning resource support and government-funded priorities in marine wildlife research have created conditions that undermine the local people’s participation in the sustainability of sensitive resources and are likely exacerbating declines driven by rapid change in Arctic and sub-Arctic waters.

1. Introduction

The adult population of rural Alaska include the core fisheries and those who rely on the ocean for food, subsistence, and industrial income. Their knowledge about the changing ocean is a critical factor that will impact the future sustainability of these fisheries. Without focusing on the learning experience of those people whose participation in the blue economy, for subsistence and employment, the outcomes of current research into the decline of marine resources will continue. An educated working population able to grapple with the coming changes to our marine resources is essential to their sustainability. It is these industrial practices that are directly responsible for overfishing, by-catch that reduces diversity, and other core factors identified as threats to biodiversity.

Alaska’s 10,600 km coast is a critical example of a marine stewardship challenge that requires careful management in the face of a rapidly changing climate. Alaska’s unique conditions have resulted in coastal areas warming nearly four times faster than other parts of the world [1]. While the landmass of Alaska is substantial, the vast majority of people live along the coast and, like the marine life of the region, rely heavily on healthy oceans. These oceans are already experiencing the impacts of sea level rise, ice loss, ecosystem shifts, ocean acidification, novel disease manifestations, and unusual weather events [2] along with radical changes to the wildlife that threaten the food systems on which the economy depends [3].

Alaska’s coastal rural populations have persisted for more than 7500 years, with most continuing to rely on subsistence practices integrated with their historic marine ecosystems. These communities draw on traditional ecological knowledge while adopting new commercial technologies and data systems that have emerged in an era defined by internet connectivity and an information economy. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game [4] has estimated the annual wildlife harvest at 36.9 million pounds of wild foods, with fish comprising the largest component and marine mammals representing approximately 14% of subsistence harvests.

For Indigenous communities, whaling and marine mammal hunting persist as fundamental components of cultural identity [5]. These remote communities operate dual economies where subsistence practices intersect with commercial fishing within regulatory frameworks where conflicts between federal and state regulations require constant negotiation [6]. For example, longitudinal anthropological studies have documented how climate change is reshaping traditional hunting and whaling practices including how changes in sea ice conditions, species distribution, and migratory timing have made marine mammal hunting increasingly dangerous or inaccessible for Alaska Native communities, particularly in regions where thinning ice impedes travel and safety [7]. Political analysis has demonstrated that federal regulatory regimes and exclusion from participation in policy, combined with a lack of participation in scientific priority setting, has further disrupted Indigenous food sovereignty while weakening tribal access to traditional food sources [8]. While these practices represent one of North America’s last functioning subsistence economies, the rapid pace of environmental change is disrupting the knowledge systems on which these communities depend. Therefore, the adult education of rural Alaskan’s is a socio-economic topic that is particularly relevant to advancing sustainable practices to protect these resources.

This marine socio-ecological system is essential to the future of coastal peoples, their role in Alaska’s cultural and economic landscape, and their contribution to global food webs. Given the mounting pressures of climate change on economies already struggling with complex regulatory regimes, the intersection of traditional ecological knowledge and Western scientific research practices become increasingly critical in the face of a changing climate [6]. These critical issues suggest that rural village residents cannot rely solely on traditional formal education to adapt to rapid contemporary changes. Instead, they must increasingly depend on informal learning systems that integrate both indigenous knowledge and formal scientific research traditions—both essential for ensuring community persistence and adaptation during this era of unprecedented environmental and economic transformation.

Building on this foundation, the present study had three primary objectives: (1) to describe Alaska’s informal marine science learning ecosystems, (2) to analyze the marine science and ecological research outputs in the literature to describe the valence of research as indicators of political priorities in relation to Alaska’s marine economy, and (3) to synthesize these findings within the context of Alaska’s socio-political climate to evaluate gaps and inform priority setting for informal marine science learning that can meet the needs of communities most reliant on these marine resources.

We employed systematic data collection, GIS mapping to visualize the data using open-source data [9], and a comparative analysis of the investments and distribution of marine science and the informal marine science learning ecosystem. Our methods involved cataloging institutions, programs, and peer-reviewed publications, followed by a geospatial analysis to reveal regional disparities in access and thematic coverage. The regional heat maps and comparative charts produced for our analysis illustrated structural imbalances in resource distribution, infrastructure gaps, and research concentration patterns.

The first portion of the study evaluates the types of institutions engaged in public science and public science learning, the topical focus of research efforts, and the availability of educational opportunities through colleges, libraries, informal science learning centers, tribal organizations, and distance learning support programs. These visualizations reveal where scientific engagement opportunities align with local ecological priorities—and where gaps exist between research efforts and the community-based venues needed to make that research meaningful, especially in rural areas.

This study excludes the K–12 public education curriculum because state science standards, while establishing baseline marine science knowledge, offer only a preparatory foundation for meaningful stewardship, and as noted above, is often distant from the working needs of adults reliant on the fisheries for subsistence and livelihoods. These standards prioritize generalized scientific concepts over place-based ecological wisdom, leading to curricula that often lack cultural relevance and emotional resonance. For instance, Spellman and colleagues [10] found that youth-focused citizen science programs in Alaska were most effective when they integrated local ecological knowledge and cultural context, underscoring the limitations of standardized curricula in fostering environmental engagement. Similarly, standardized instruction that prioritizes testable content neglects experiential learning that builds emotional connection and practical conservation skills [11]. While citizen science promises to bridge science literacy and public action—particularly when rooted in local contexts [12], Levinson [13] clarifies that passive data collection as a path to knowledge is limited unless it is linked to political agency in decision-making about the resources at the center of the study. It is against this background that our study focused on the core informal learning systems that can support citizen agency and decision-making about resource use and resource take. It uses these data sources to consider how to advance marine stewardship and be more likely to be attributed to the informal and non-formal learning sectors of our society [14].

To illustrate Alaska’s marine science learning landscape, we present both maps and data synthesis to clarify where investments have historically been made and where critical gaps remain. By identifying structural imbalances in how Alaskans engage with marine science, this report provides a foundation for building a more equitable, place-based scientific capacity, particularly in rural and Alaska Native communities that are often overlooked in resource planning. It highlights concerns and identifies opportunities for Alaska’s leading informal learning organizations to contribute to advancing marine ecosystem stewardship by integrating research and public learning activities using existing, redirected, or new resources.

This work contributes to a broader vision of the state’s scientific capacity that values research output, public understanding, cultural connection, and collaborative approaches to marine conservation and stewardship. It is based on the premise that co-creating with communities can increase the agency of those most impacted by a changing climate, and how the informal learning sector can represent statewide concerns about our marine ecology’s future and the centrality of Alaska Native culture and Traditional Ecological Knowledge to these systems.

2. Methods

2.1. Marine Science Education and Outreach Review

2.1.1. Resource Search Strategy

To develop a comprehensive inventory of marine science education and outreach programs across Alaska, we employed a purposive and snowball sampling strategy, supplemented by targeted regional internet searches. The initial foundation was provided by the North Pacific Research Board’s list of funded and affiliated programs. This list guided the identification of key institutions actively contributing to public marine science engagement.

We then reviewed all organizations that presented at the 2024 Alaska Marine Science Symposium, emphasizing programs that delivered community-facing education or outreach. From these primary nodes, we followed website links, cross-referenced partners, and expanded our search to include any listed affiliates or collaborators. The presentations themselves served as guidance to original resources and descriptions of program impacts or outcomes that could be incorporated in our coding scheme described below.

To ensure regional breadth, targeted Google searches were conducted for each of Alaska’s six geographic regions—North Slope, Interior, Southeast, Southcentral, Southwest, and the Western Aleutian Islands—using combinations of terms such as “marine education”, “outreach”, “citizen science”, “community science”, “youth camps”, and “marine programs”. Each identified program was investigated via its official website, news coverage, or affiliated university pages.

In addition, we reviewed the websites of the University of Alaska Anchorage, University of Alaska Fairbanks, University of Alaska Southeast, and Alaska Pacific University for mentions of community education programs, student outreach initiatives, and extension efforts.

2.1.2. Selection of Resources

Following identification, each potential entry underwent an eligibility screening based on four criteria: (1) the program must include a specific marine science component; (2) the initiative must have been active within the past five years (2019–2024); (3) the programming must be or have been accessible to public audiences, including K–12 students, families, tribal citizens, or adult learners; and (4) the program must represent a recurring, ongoing, or institutionalized activity rather than a one-time event or temporary exhibit.

We intentionally adopted an expansive definition of marine science education to include programs grounded in Indigenous ecological knowledge, subsistence fisheries, and mariculture, if they included deliberate educational or interpretive elements. Examples of accepted formats included citizen science training, marine mammal rescue education, salmon ecology day camps, seabird monitoring, boat-based outreach, digital field trips, and shellfish hatchery tours.

Programs that occurred only once, lacked documentation of educational outcomes, or centered exclusively on policy or advocacy without an educational component were excluded. When program documentation was unclear, follow-up searches were conducted to verify recurrence and educational content.

This selection process resulted in the final inclusion of 198 distinct organizations across Alaska that met all inclusion criteria. Their characteristics, engagement levels, and geospatial data formed the basis for the subsequent mapping and analysis stages to capture a wide range of potential resources.

2.1.3. Data Extraction and Coding

A total of 198 organizations met the inclusion criteria. Each entry was recorded in a structured spreadsheet capturing the organization’s name, location (latitude and longitude), institution type, a description of the program or service, and a qualitative engagement score. Institutions were categorized into five types: Libraries; National Parks and Preserves; Universities/Colleges; Permanent Science Education Sites (e.g., aquariums, museums); and Mobile/Outreach-Only Organizations (e.g., traveling exhibits or seasonal initiatives). Coordinates were assigned based on their physical location or area of service, which enabled geospatial mapping using QGIS and cross-regional comparison.

To ensure comparability across a wide range of institutional models, we introduced a two-tiered engagement scoring system. Engagement was rated as high (2) or low (1), depending on three main factors: (a) the frequency of programming, (b) the geographic and demographic reach, and (c) the integration of marine science content into educational materials or public programs. For example, the Sitka Sound Science Center, which runs youth clubs, field trips, community lectures, and the Sitka WhaleFest, received a high engagement score. In contrast, institutions hosting occasional marine-themed exhibits or hosting single-day events were scored as low. We note that our effort was to be as inclusive as possible, not judging any criteria as more important, but rather, using the scoring scheme of high or low impact to describe the likely scale of community impact, irrespective of whether that high impact was frequency, distribution, or degree of integration in other programs. Given Alaska’s very small rural populations, reach was qualitatively estimated by the total number of community members reported as participating in combination with the number of communities. For example, if a one-time program was conducted in a remote village by an organization from out-of-state, it was ranked as low impact due to all three factors being an instantaneous event with little cultural representation, whereas a program that occurred over multiple years with the same participants was rated as high engagement due to returning participants and the likelihood of higher impacts within that community.

To improve reliability, a subset of coded entries (n = 50) was independently reviewed by two members of the research team, with agreement exceeding 90%. Disagreements were resolved through consensus discussions. This process helped refine inclusion parameters and ensured that overlapping or dual-purpose institutions were not double-counted or mischaracterized.

2.2. Configurative Literature Review: Rationale and Scope

2.2.1. Configurative Literature Review: Design

The literature component of this study was guided by a configurative review methodology rather than an exhaustive systematic review. Configurative reviews aim to build conceptual understanding by interpreting and organizing findings across a diverse and sometimes methodologically inconsistent body of literature [15,16]. This approach was chosen because our research questions were exploratory and theory-building in nature: we sought to understand how Alaska’s marine science research outputs reflected regional access, species representation, and relevance to subsistence communities and the rural fisheries economies.

Rather than attempting to compile every relevant publication that met the strict methodological inclusion criteria, our goal was to illuminate patterns of emphasis, omission, and valence across the marine science landscape of Alaska. This allowed us to interpret research gaps in relation to stewardship priorities, equity of knowledge access, and the sociopolitical context of scientific production.

The configurative review was designed to answer conceptual questions such as: Which regions and species dominate Alaska’s peer-reviewed marine science record? Which areas and taxa are underrepresented? To what extent does published research reflect the ecological realities and cultural priorities of the rural and Indigenous communities?

2.2.2. Configurative Literature Review: Search and Analysis Procedures

Searches were conducted in Web of Science and Google Scholar between January and February 2024, covering publications from 1989 onward. We selected 1989 as our cut-off for literature to coincide with the 24 March 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill that disrupted the wildlife habitats of Southcentral Alaska. That catastrophic event revealed an enormous deficit in understanding the wildlife in the Gulf of Alaska and its recovery potential, resulting in a proliferation of research to describe the conditions and the recovery [17].

We employed 15 targeted queries using terms related to species and ecosystems relevant to subsistence, grouped across three trophic levels: marine mammals, seabirds, and fish/fish habitat. Each search string included both scientific and common names (e.g., “Oncorhynchus gorbuscha” and “pink salmon”).

Papers were included if they met the following criteria:

• Peer-reviewed journal article format;
• Focused on Alaska’s marine or coastal ecosystems;
• Pertained to species included in the pre-defined subsistence species list;
• Addressed ecological, biological, or environmental science topics (e.g., population dynamics, habitat modeling, or food web interactions).

Screening was conducted at the title and abstract level by two researchers working independently. Disagreements were resolved through discussion and a review of the full-text content. Duplicate entries across searches were removed from the overarching dataset but retained within relevant thematic subfolders.

In total, 9549 articles were retained for qualitative analysis. Each was assigned to a primary region (Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, or Arctic Ocean) and primary trophic level. Axial coding was used to identify publication density by species and region, revealing conceptual patterns in the research landscape. These patterns were visualized using bar graphs and normalized publication averages to address the sampling bias introduced by variable species richness across regions.

This literature review approach allowed us to surface conceptual imbalances in marine science attention—particularly the overrepresentation of marine mammals and the chronic underrepresentation of seabirds, which are ecologically and culturally significant for subsistence communities. These findings are further contextualized in Section 3.5.

2.3. Verification and Validity Assessment

2.3.1. Education and Outreach

To enhance the validity, verifiability, and replicability of our findings in the first part of our report, a secondary review of all marine science education and outreach entries and coded data was conducted in March and April 2025 using two separate large language model (LLM) platforms: ChatGPT [18] and Claude 3.7 Sonnet [19]. Both models were provided with the structured dataset and accompanying documentation without coding or separation by categories. Each was tasked by entering the full research method description for the coding strategy as a command structure. Effectively, each LLM was given the same command language to analyze the data uploaded, to code according to the research proposal, and to report the summary findings and codes as a downloadable spreadsheet. This included categorizing each entry and assigning engagement scores based on the definitions. The results were then compared by hand for a direct match with the original hand-coded data. Following the first categorization strategy, each LLM was then tasked with performing the same task for each data subset. As a verification study, we set a goal of 100% replication of the original dataset without the presumption of whether the hand-coding or the coding by the LLMs would be more accurate.

Each model independently reviewed subsets of the dataset and highlighted entries with potentially inconsistent classification logic, missing metadata, or ambiguous geographic attributions. Particular attention was paid to programs that spanned multiple categories (e.g., science centers affiliated with universities) or those institutions with general mission statements lacking specific marine science terminology. Machine-flagged entries that did not match the hand-coding were manually reassessed by a third member of the research team, although these few cases tended toward the AI analysis being less accurate, erring toward inclusion that did not match the coding criteria. As a result, none of the AI recommendations for expanding the original data were retained.

Discrepancies between the two LLM results, and between the LLM results and the hand-coding were documented, and decisions were recorded in a data validation memo to ensure transparency. This AI-assisted verification process served as a form of external audit, allowing us to identify risks or patterns of overgeneralization or misclassification by human coders. This verification strategy significantly improved our confidence in the replicability of our study by ensuring that engagement scores, geographic assignments, and institutional classifications were applied consistently.

2.3.2. Configurative Literature Review

In addition to validating the educational program dataset, both LLMs were used to independently reanalyze the full body of peer-reviewed articles gathered for the configurative literature review. The structured dataset of 9549 articles—including species, region, and trophic categorization—was fed into both models, which then replicated the coding scheme used in the original human-led analysis.

Machine learning techniques allowed the models to confirm publication frequency distributions and identify discrepancies in thematic coding, and specific commands were used to flag possible errors in species–region alignment. Both models returned outputs that matched the original findings with over 95% agreement, thereby confirming the internal consistency of the review and reinforcing confidence in the original manual coding. This second-stage verification ensured that the reported incidence and thematic distributions presented in Section 3.5 were not the result of a sampling bias or human error but accurately reflected the structure of Alaska’s published marine science literature.

This verification strategy significantly improved our confidence in the replicability of our type of study, and that coding schemes, when well developed, can be applied consistently by machine learning tools. Overall, we feel the use of AI enhances the transparency of our methods and demonstrates how emerging AI technologies will soon be capable of augmenting the rigor of exploratory, human-coded research in informal science learning contexts.

3. Results

3.1. Distribution of Resources

A total of 198 organizations offering marine science education were identified and categorized by type—libraries, national parks, universities, permanent science centers, and outreach-focused nonprofits. The analysis revealed substantial disparities in access, marked by a pronounced rural–urban divide. Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau hosted a concentration of resources, while smaller and more remote communities remained underserved, even in the regions where those urban centers were found. We mapped 198 organizations using a heatmap tool in QGIS 3.34 Prizren (Figure 1) [9].

Alaska’s informal marine science learning ecosystem spans a geographic area equivalent to 18.3% of the contiguous United States. Our assessment of 36 non-library informal marine science learning institutions reveals that most organizations operate independently, with limited staff and infrastructure, while navigating complex tensions between Eurocentric science frameworks and Indigenous knowledge systems [16,17].

Urban hubs such as Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau host the densest concentration of institutions, including the University of Alaska’s Fairbanks and Anchorage colleges. These organizations support STEM programming and marine research, but online resources reveal few sustained informal marine science learning efforts beyond Sea Grant’s Marine Advisory Program (MAP), based at UAF. That program deploys a small number of Marine Advisory agents across vast territories to support technical assistance and education [20]. Similarly, museum-based offerings like those at the Anchorage Museum’s Imaginarium Science Discovery Center include marine-themed content but are designed primarily to support science engagement in Anchorage, with limited mechanisms for rural outreach [21].

In contrast to the mapping of resource distribution in Figure 1, we illustrate below in Figure 2 that resources per capita across the state are robust in the North Slope, but the infrequency of these engagement models across a vast area made up of very small rural villages tells a different story.

Geographic remoteness and population sparsity is a distinct state-wide challenge typified by programming in Western and Southwest Alaska. Tribal governments and community-based programs—such as the Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska and the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island—play central roles in marine education and environmental monitoring. Initiatives like “Dockside Discovery” and “Ocean Day” provide hands-on learning in local contexts but are heavily reliant on intermittent grants and individual staff supported by the UAF SeaGrant team [20,21]. Likewise, Salmon Camp, coordinated by the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, has long engaged youth across Kodiak Island, but as of spring 2025, its website had removed all past reports and event listings, raising concerns about loss of these resources [22].

Southcentral Alaska has seen a small number of organizations—such as the Alaska SeaLife Center, the Prince William Sound Science Center, the Center for Alaskan Coastal Studies, the Chugach Regional Resource Commission, the Alutiiq Museum and Archeological Repository, and SeaGrant—begin to coordinate efforts across the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Impacted Zone [23]. This collaborative framework, developed in partnership with two Alaska Native–led organizations and the Alaska Sea Grant, is the region’s first attempt at strategic alignment. Yet these institutions continue to report limitations tied to staff capacity, seasonality, and large geographic coverage areas.

In Southeast Alaska, organizations like the Sitka Sound Science Center and University of Alaska Southeast operate placed-based learning centers, school programs, and science festivals such as the Sitka WhaleFest. These programs have strong local identities but are largely confined to their urban audiences in Sitka and Juneau [24].

The Interior region lacks direct marine access and the North Slope’s limited populations both rely almost exclusively on traveling programs or virtual outreach with a few noted exceptions. Iḷisaġvik College in Utqiaġvik has developed community science workshops incorporating marine subsistence knowledge and Iñupiaq culture. However, its reach remains localized, with scalability limited by community size and infrastructure [25].

Alaska’s informal marine science landscape is composed of a small number of mission-driven institutions operating largely in silos. Though committed to place-based engagement, many face overlapping challenges: insufficient staffing, limited opportunities to collaborate on state-wide priority issues, fragmented delivery models, vulnerability to funding cycles, and a persistent difficulty in integrating Indigenous and Western epistemologies.

3.2. Internet Access and Educational Equity

Alaska’s digital divide exacerbates inequitable access to science learning, particularly for residents in rural and remote regions. According to BroadbandNow [26], 21% of residents statewide do not have access to a wired or fixed wireless broadband offering of at least 25 Mbps download speed. Moreover, 60% of residents are unable to access broadband for $60/month or less, making cost a prohibitive factor even in areas where connectivity exists.

This limited connectivity constrains participation in virtual marine science programs, online citizen science platforms, and access to digital environmental data. For instance, educators in places like Bethel or Dillingham may be unable to stream video content or join statewide professional development webinars offered by institutions like the Alaska SeaLife Center or the Prince William Sound Science Center. Youth in broadband-deficient areas also lack equitable opportunities to engage in virtual internships, remote field camps, or web-based citizen science like seabird monitoring or coastal debris tracking.

Even basic access to state-supported databases like the Statewide Library Electronic Doorway (SLED) is uneven, despite its potential to bridge knowledge gaps. Libraries and schools serving subsistence communities often rely on shared satellite connections with limited bandwidth, restricting their ability to download scientific documents, access real-time ocean data, or participate in webinars and video conferencing.

The compounded impact of geography, infrastructure, and cost underscores the critical role of offline and analog resources (e.g., printed materials and in-person visits) in advancing marine science literacy in Alaska’s most isolated regions. Besides barriers to accessing digital science resources in rural Alaska, it is critical to embed digital equity solutions into any statewide marine education strategy.

3.3. Library Infrastructure and per Capita Access

Libraries were analyzed for urban/rural distribution and per capita access, revealing a distinct pattern of structural reliance on small, decentralized facilities in rural Alaska. While rural Alaskans benefit from significantly higher library density per capita—0.32 libraries per 1000 people compared to 0.08 per 1000 in urban areas—this apparent advantage masks underlying disparities in service capacity, staffing, and programming. For example, while Figure 3 suggests that library presence is substantial for rural communities, what constitutes a library in that matrix may be as simple as a reading room with a computer, shared materials stored in a community building, and a local volunteer supporting resource access.

Urban libraries, such as those in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau, are typically funded through municipal tax bases, supplemented by dedicated library district resources, state and federal funds, allowing for robust staffing models and access to professional development. These libraries routinely support STEM programs, author talks, curated exhibits, and seasonal events with marine and environmental science themes. In contrast, most rural libraries in Alaska operate on annual budgets ranging from $20,000 to $45,000 (

Table 1. Estimated average annual library budgets by region prior to 2025 federal cuts.

Southeast:	$45,000
Southcentral:	$35,000
Interior:	$20,000
Southwest:	$30,000
North Slope:	$30,000

) with much of this funding dependent on fluctuating state-level or state pass-through federal grants. Contemporaneously with writing this article, Alaska libraries had already experienced a nearly 75% state funding cut in 2024, followed by the loss of approximately $900,000 of the $1.2 million in federal funding for Alaska’s libraries [27].

• For example, the Tok Community Library in the Interior region operates on an annual budget of roughly $20,000, with the Alaska Public Library Assistance (PLA) grant comprising a major portion [28]. In Southcentral Alaska, the Ninilchik Community Library operates with a modest $30,000–$40,000 annual budget [29]. These limited budgets often cover all operations—including staffing, materials acquisition, internet access, and building maintenance—making it difficult to support specialized science content or staff training. Both of those libraries may need to substantially curtail their work.

Staffing challenges in rural Alaska libraries are intensified by the absence of in-state graduate library science programs, forcing these institutions to depend on part-time staff or volunteers who lack formal training in collection management, information literacy, or science communication. Professional development remains largely inaccessible due to prohibitive costs and geographic isolation—many libraries must close entirely when staff travel for training, temporarily cutting off community access to essential services.

While Alaska’s library infrastructure appears robust on paper, rural libraries operate with insufficient staff, funding, and marine science programming that maps to community need. Despite these constraints, rural libraries and their volunteer supporters can serve as essential community hubs for information access and lifelong learning, particularly in areas lacking schools, museums, or reliable broadband infrastructure. In many communities, the library functions as the only public institution maintaining regular hours where residents can access books, search databases, and use online resources. This positions rural libraries as critical infrastructure for informal marine science education, especially when supported through external partnerships and centralized content delivery from established learning institutions. Strengthening rural library participation in marine literacy initiatives will require targeted investment in staff training, adaptable science education resources, digital infrastructure support, and regional networks connecting library personnel with scientists, educators, and resource organizations.

3.4. Educational Attainment and Income

Rural regions report lower educational attainment and income, with just 17% of adults holding bachelor’s degrees in the Interior, Southwest, and Far North regions. These areas also reported median incomes of around $30,532, in contrast to higher attainment and income in Southcentral and Southeast, where the median household income approaches $50,000 and college attainment is closer to 25–30% [30].

However, average income alone is a limited and potentially misleading proxy for access to knowledge and engagement in science in rural Alaska. Many rural and Alaska Native communities operate within subsistence-based economies, where hunting, fishing, and foraging replace income-based consumption. The high reliance on Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and intergenerational learning practices often occurs outside of formal education systems or monetary economies.

Scientific resources—particularly those derived from Eurocentric paradigms and disseminated in technical formats—may be culturally unfamiliar, linguistically inaccessible, or thematically misaligned with locally held values and understandings. TEK frameworks, grounded in long-term observation, reciprocity, and community practice, do not map cleanly onto linear, data-driven formats of environmental science, which may emphasize reductionist models over holistic interdependence.

As a result, even when scientific resources are technically available—through databases, PDFs, or online portals—they may not be readily interpretable or perceived as relevant to local concerns. This creates a compounded disparity for communities that are not only geographically remote and digitally underserved but also epistemologically excluded from dominant science communication norms.

The combination of lower educational attainment, subsistence economies, and TEK-based systems suggests the need for culturally anchored, translational approaches. Rural libraries, tribal offices, and local educators must be equipped not only with scientific content but with interpretive frameworks, metaphors, and delivery formats that resonate with lived experience. Marine science education in these regions must prioritize relationships, place-based stories, and dialogic approaches to connect scientific insights with the priorities of communities who are on the frontlines of a regenerative ecology. Without such translation, the benefits of emerging marine science research will continue to bypass the very communities whose stewardship is critical to Alaska’s marine future.

3.5. Marine Science Research Trends

In parallel to the study of the informal learning infrastructure, the second aspect of this study undertook a configurative review of 9549 peer-reviewed articles to assess the thematic and regional focus of marine science in Alaska. Publications were drawn from Web of Science and Google Scholar, spanning 1989 to early 2024. Articles were screened by two researchers and organized into three primary marine regions—the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, and Arctic Ocean—and three trophic categories: marine mammals, seabirds, and “fishes” including fish habitats, shellfish, and tidepool animals.

The distribution of publications illustrated in Figure 4 revealed a strong emphasis toward marine mammal research. Marine mammals were the most frequently studied group in all three regions, accounting for over 45% of publications analyzed. “Fish” followed at 38%, while seabirds represented only 17% of the total research output.

As Figure 5 illustrates, the Gulf of Alaska region, which was most impacted by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, had the highest number of publications per species, driven in part by access to research infrastructure, long-standing institutional presence (e.g., UAF, NOAA Auke Bay), and the presence of well-monitored fisheries. The Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands—despite their ecological richness and importance to subsistence economies—had the lowest publication-to-species ratio. For example, Arctic char and Dolly Varden, which are central to rural and Indigenous subsistence practices, were notably underrepresented in the literature compared to more commercially prominent species such as salmonids. Specific shellfish and other tidepool animals represented under 20 papers across the “fishes” category.

The most underrepresented category across all regions was seabirds. Iconic or culturally significant species like the Kittiwakes, Murres, and Auklets—integral to subsistence harvests in Western Alaska and the Arctic—received comparatively little research attention. In the Arctic Ocean region, for instance, some seabird species had fewer than 10 peer-reviewed articles over a 35-year period. This absence is particularly concerning given the role these species play in both ecological monitoring and Indigenous diets, where they serve as early indicators of ecosystem change and contribute to seasonal food security.

This disparity reflects not only the logistical challenges of conducting research in remote regions but also the systemic biases in funding and scientific prioritization. Marine mammals often attract greater public and institutional interest due to their charismatic appeal and alignment with conservation branding. However, such focus can eclipse species that are of greater direct relevance to Indigenous communities and subsistence users.

The underrepresentation of subsistence-critical species, particularly seabirds and tidepool animals, signals a misalignment between Western science priorities and community-based needs in Alaska. When combined with the barriers outlined in Section 3.4—including limited broadband, lower formal education levels, and culturally divergent knowledge systems—this research imbalance perpetuates a system in which communities most dependent on marine systems are the least informed by or engaged with the science shaping resource decisions.

This finding highlights an opportunity for informal learning institutions to reorient research priorities toward trophic and regional gaps that matter most to Alaska’s rural and Indigenous communities. In doing so, this new focus can expand focus on seabird ecology in ways that integrate TEK perspectives, knowledges, and community-driven research agendas to ensure that science becomes a shared resource in the pursuit of regenerative marine stewardship.

This disparity in attention reflects both logistical barriers and systemic research priorities that may undervalue trophic levels or species groups with less commercial or charismatic appeal. It also indicates opportunities for informal STEM and cultural learning groups to strategically invest in seabird-focused research, Bering Sea basin ecological monitoring, and expanded engagement with Indigenous co-researchers to contextualize findings within lived experience.

4. Discussion Bridging the Research–Practice Divide in Marine Stewardship

The findings from this study highlight a persistent and troubling gap between the production of knowledge through marine science research and its accessibility or relevance to coastal communities through the informal learning infrastructure. This gap is especially pronounced in the most rural areas where Alaska Native populations’ industrial and subsistence practices are closely tied to the sustainability of the marine ecosystems. For researchers and educators, the implications are profound: despite significant investments in ecological monitoring and academic research, the lack of regionally equitable, community-informed dissemination limits the practical utility of scientific findings in promoting stewardship behaviors in high-risk areas.

This disconnect reflects a structural issue in how marine science knowledge is produced and shared. The urban concentration of institutions in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau contributes to research silos that are disconnected from local knowledge systems and exclude community participation beyond those hubs. As a result, communities most dependent on healthy marine ecosystems often remain peripheral to research agendas and excluded from the benefits of that knowledge.

Historical patterns of underinvestment in science and learning infrastructure have long disadvantaged rural and Indigenous communities. As our results show, this is particularly true along the sparsely populated coasts of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. While this study does not assess the cultural relevance of specific solutions, it offers a descriptive account of how systemic exclusions have shaped a marine learning ecosystem that privileges centralized institutions, Western pedagogies, and urban priorities over cultural and subsistence knowledge systems that have coexisted with marine environments for millennia. Rectifying these disparities will require a shift from extractive engagement models to co-creation strategies where communities define their priorities and serve as equal partners in study design and in crafting learning experiences that support stewardship and sustainable management.

Our findings reveal that fragmentation among informal science institutions and competition for limited resources hinder statewide collaboration. While we avoided political conjecture and species-specific prioritization, the absence of culturally and ecologically significant species such as bidarki, a tidepool species threatened by toxic algae that is being actively studied by our colleagues at Alutiiq Pride, demonstrates how scientific visibility is unevenly distributed [31] with spare coverage of such taxa in the literature, despite their cultural and dietary significance given the now life-threatening risk of eating these once safe and delicious animals. The lack of prioritization is just one example of a broader political economy in which research funding prioritizes extractive commercial interests over long-term community relevance.

Nonprofit research organizations, regional or tribal governments, and other boundary entities are uniquely positioned to reclaim priority setting if they collaborate to overcome the historical exclusions and under-funding of infrastructure surfaced through this study. Unlike national agencies or academic institutions constrained by rigid funding mandates, disciplinary silos, or the whims of national electoral politics, state-level coordination among nonprofits and the cultural leaders across the state can promote the importance of translational agents, becoming coordinated boundary entities that support the culturally relevant integration of scientific knowledge into usable, community-centered cultural knowledge that can advance sustainability.

The near-total absence of seabird research across all regions is also emblematic of broader neglect of species central to Indigenous subsistence and ecological health. A stewardship-centered approach demands research that is both purposeful and aligned with community priorities—responsive to climate vulnerability and accessible beyond academic circles.

In practical terms, our data suggest that researchers and organizations engaged in the marine science enterprise must advocate for funding models and integrated knowledge sharing practices that reward engagement and accessibility, contribute to long-term partnerships with rural communities, and commit to open-access, plain-language communication. Marine science should be positioned not as a superior form of knowledge but as one that can complement Traditional Ecological Knowledge and the tacit knowledge held by those in Alaska’s blue economy. Doing so would enhance the relevance of marine research and empower the communities most affected by environmental change.

By drawing these inferences, we step beyond a strictly descriptive account of the interactions between Alaska’s informal science infrastructure and the research priorities evident in the published marine science literature. These reflections signal a shift in our own organizational commitments, migrating from external experts to collaborators working in partnership with other informal learning institutions, all accountable to the communities we serve. We recognize that others may draw different inferences or propose alternative strategies for achieving the sustainable management of marine systems. Nonetheless, we offer this analysis as a foundation for building more inclusive and impactful science and science learning that can lead to better a stewardship of Alaska’s marine resources.

5. Conclusions

Alaska’s informal science infrastructure and marine research landscape exhibit systemic inequities. The concentration of resources in urban centers and the disproportionate focus on marine mammals limits the broader understanding of marine ecosystems. This report demonstrates how the state’s informal learning institutions can address gaps in research, education, and public engagement through culturally grounded partnerships and place-based learning.

In doing so, we believe these data have given us an opportunity to draw a clear connection between the empirical gaps identified in the marine science literature and the institutional and political mechanisms that reproduce them as social knowledge. Our aim was not to assign blame, but rather, to illuminate opportunities for more equitable and impactful research partnerships in Alaska’s coastal and marine future.

By investing in community capacity building and embracing participatory approaches, informal learning institutions can become state-wide assets advancing marine stewardship. The integration of Western science and Indigenous knowledge, paired with equitable access to learning environments, is critical for the future resilience of Alaska’s coasts and communities.

6. AI Use Statement

Portions of this manuscript’s editing process were also supported by OpenAI’s [17] ChatGPT 4o and/or Anthropic’s [18] Claude 3.7 Sonnet to improve clarity, structure, and grammar. The authors reviewed and edited all AI-assisted content to ensure accuracy, originality, and alignment with the article’s scholarly intent.