Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management

Arctic sea ice maximum has fallen to another record low. Arctic air temperatures have reached more record highs. And Northwater polynya has seen a decrease in habitat for threatened narwhal, beluga, Arctic cod, and other species. We have evidence of these phenomena because of Big Data—because of multiple repeated sensor readings, sophisticated satellite imaging, in situ observations, and citizen science. We use such data to visualize and understand Anthropogenic forcing, Arctic amplification, and natural atmospheric circulation. Big Data assist us at every stage of the policy process, particularly in conducting sensitivity analyses and projecting policy outcomes. Our descriptions are thicker, our predictions more accurate, our policy outcomes improved. But is bigger always better?

Big data present many challenges, including security, lack of structure, scale, provenance, and privacy, along with the need for complex computing infrastructures and advanced training for professionals. Big Data come with the risks of error and bias, conflating correlation and causation, and the “streetlight effect” by which end users focus on the data on hand, not the data that are needed. While novel insights may be revealed, the context and nuance of the data may be missed and causal mechanisms mistaken. As intelligent as computers are, their algorithms still have trouble with cognition and finding patterns in the data. Moreover, Big Data are not whole data and may overshadow the human element of a policy problem.

In this paper, I examine the promise and peril of Big Data in Arctic sustainability and climate policy. I explore the ways in which advanced data collection techniques and analyses afford policy makers an ability to improve the policy process at every stage. I describe how data collection involves Arctic peoples, from monitoring sensors to documenting climate effects with smart phones and on social media. At the same time, I expose the peril of Big Data for the Arctic and its four million residents, particularly its native inhabitants. I question the reliability of data that often ignore Inuit, Inupiat, and Saami knowledge and culture, missing important ontological and epistemological foundations that inform the context of sustainability and climate change in the Arctic. I raise issues of ethics and justice that come with Big Data’s sometimes intrusive methods. And I recommend procedures for creating more open, ethical, and just data collection and analysis techniques to improve policy analytic and implementation outcomes, engage and empower Arctic peoples, and make Big Data even better.