Inuvialuit Social Indicators : Applying Arc c Social Indicators Framework to Study Well-Being in the Inuvialuit Communi es

This study of the Inuvialuit Se lement Region (ISR) socio-economic wellbeing used the established indicators framework, which was developed by the Arc c Social Indicators (ASI) project under the auspices of the Arc c Council. The assessment was conducted for the following six domains: health and popula on, material well-being, cultural vitality, closeness to nature, educa on, and fate control. The analysis revealed considerable internal diff erences within the Inuvialuit Se lement Region in Canada’s western Arc c, especially between Inuvik and other communi es in the Northwest Territories (NWT). With respect to most indicators, the ISR was be er off than other NWT regions—with the excep on of the capital city Yellowknife (unemployment, engagement in tradi onal ac vi es, land claims status, and fate control)—or close to average (incomes, dependency on government transfers, consump on of country food, and educa on). The ISR fared worse than other NWT regions with respect to language reten on and outmigra on rates. In comparison with Inuit communi es in Nunavut, the ISR had a generally higher level of material well-being, but demonstrated low language reten on, lower consump on of tradi onal food, and inferior fate control status. The analysis shows that although the Inuvialuit Se lement Region appears to have variable levels of socio-economic well-being across most of the six domains, with some posi ve trends, it s ll faces considerable social challenges and has to deal with interregional inequali es. The most important problems revealed in this study are a con nuing gap between the ISR and Yellowknife with respect to material well-being; dispari es among the ISR communi es (Inuvik vs. all other); poten al shortage and leakage of human capital in outlying communi es; and low language reten on compared to other Inuit regions. h ps://doi.org/10.22584/nr47.2018.008 The Northern Review 47 (2018): 167–185 Published by Yukon College, Whitehorse, Canada 168 The Northern Review 47 | 2018 Introduction The Inuvialuit Sett lement Region (ISR) covers 90,650 km2 and has a population of 5,718 (2017) living in six communities—Inuvik (the capital and largest sett lement), Aklavik, Paulatuk, Sachs Harbour, Tuktoyaktuk, and Ulukhaktok (Holman). More than half of the region’s residents are Inuvialuit, and they constitute the majority in each community. Inuvik, the ISR capital, is the dominant sett lement with 3,463 inhabitants (2011). The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC), created as a result of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA) with the Government of Canada, was established in 1986 as a recipient and manager of compensation payments stemming from the land claim agreement. The IRC is controlled by the Inuvialuit and is responsible for managing the aff airs of the sett lement region as described in the fi nal agreement. Regional employment is heavily concentrated in public sector and services. In recent decades, the Inuvialuit region has been aff ected by a number of resource boom cycles associated with activities in the Mackenzie Delta and, more recently, in the Beaufort Sea (IRC, 2014). The IRC has been collecting and publishing selected socio-economic data to aid in decision-making processes and to provide public access to IRC members. Given a growing interest in Arctic resources within the Inuvialuit Sett lement Region, a social impacts monitoring team of polar scientists collaborated with IRC to initiate the development of a system of indicators based on past experiences in the ISR and across the Arctic, local relevance, and data availability. The Inuvialuit Baseline Indicators project, that this article is based on, has been a collaborative eff ort between Resources and Sustainable Development in the Arctic (ReSDA), Arctic Social Indicators (ASI), and the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC). The overall goal was to develop a set of measurable, reliable, and accessible indicators to monitor socio-economic conditions in the Inuvialuit Sett lement Region, with an emphasis on tracking impacts of resource development. This eff ort was focused on creating a framework to be used by local actors to collect, manage, and analyze data. This article reports on one of the parts of the Inuvialuit Baseline Indicators project that dealt with implementing the ASI framework for the ISR. The two objectives of the study included (1) using the ASI framework to provide a background baseline analysis of IRC socioeconomic characteristics in comparison with other NWT and Nunavut communities; and (2) analyzing the dynamics of baseline social indicators in the post-IFA period from 1986 to 2009.


Introduction
The Inuvialuit Sett lement Region (ISR) covers 90,650 km 2 and has a population of 5,718 (2017) living in six communities-Inuvik (the capital and largest sett lement), Aklavik, Paulatuk, Sachs Harbour, Tuktoyaktuk, and Ulukhaktok (Holman).More than half of the region's residents are Inuvialuit, and they constitute the majority in each community.Inuvik, the ISR capital, is the dominant sett lement with 3,463 inhabitants (2011).The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC), created as a result of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA) with the Government of Canada, was established in 1986 as a recipient and manager of compensation payments stemming from the land claim agreement.The IRC is controlled by the Inuvialuit and is responsible for managing the aff airs of the sett lement region as described in the fi nal agreement.Regional employment is heavily concentrated in public sector and services.In recent decades, the Inuvialuit region has been aff ected by a number of resource boom cycles associated with activities in the Mackenzie Delta and, more recently, in the Beaufort Sea (IRC, 2014).
The IRC has been collecting and publishing selected socio-economic data to aid in decision-making processes and to provide public access to IRC members.Given a growing interest in Arctic resources within the Inuvialuit Sett lement Region, a social impacts monitoring team of polar scientists collaborated with IRC to initiate the development of a system of indicators based on past experiences in the ISR and across the Arctic, local relevance, and data availability.The Inuvialuit Baseline Indicators project, that this article is based on, has been a collaborative eff ort between Resources and Sustainable Development in the Arctic (ReSDA), Arctic Social Indicators (ASI), and the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC).The overall goal was to develop a set of measurable, reliable, and accessible indicators to monitor socio-economic conditions in the Inuvialuit Sett lement Region, with an emphasis on tracking impacts of resource development.This eff ort was focused on creating a framework to be used by local actors to collect, manage, and analyze data.
This article reports on one of the parts of the Inuvialuit Baseline Indicators project that dealt with implementing the ASI framework for the ISR.The two objectives of the study included (1) using the ASI framework to provide a background baseline analysis of IRC socioeconomic characteristics in comparison with other NWT and Nunavut communities;and (2) analyzing the dynamics of baseline social indicators in the post-IFA period from 1986 to 2009.

Methodology
Well-being is a complicated phenomenon to study using either quantitative or qualitative methods (Michalos, 2014).Although defi nitions of well-being vary, this article focuses on community well-being that is closely connected with quality of life-i.e., the "degree to which a person's life is desirable versus undesirable, often with an emphasis on external components … [It] describes the circumstances of a person's life rather than his or her reaction to those circumstances" (Diener, 2005, pp. 401-402).This appears to be a practical approach adopted in other well-being assessments (e.g., McHardy & O'Sullivan, 2004;Larsen et al., 2010;Michalos et al., 2011).This study modifi ed and applied the set of social indicators recommended by the Arctic Council's Arctic Social Indicators Report (Larsen et al., 2010), which considers both general human development indicators and Arctic-specifi c indicator domains.To investigate socio-economic conditions and their dynamics between 1986 and 2009, the analysis relied on the Canadian Census ( 2006) and NWT Statistical Bureau datasets (2006-2010), and used available Inuvialuit data collected in the IRC database (htt p://inuvialuitindicators.com/).The purpose of applying a set of standardized indicators was to provide a baseline assessment of socio-economic conditions in the ISR.The study made comparisons between ISR communities and relevant sett lements in NWT and Nunavut.
This study followed the general methodology proposed in the fi rst ASI Report (Larsen et al., 2010).This approach has gained considerable att ention and use in the Canadian North (Finnegan & Coates, 2015;Petrov et al., 2015).Although not without limitations (e.g., Ozkan & Schott , 2013), the main advantage of the ASI framework is its inclusiveness of various Arctic-specifi c domains, coupled with the relative simplicity of ASI indicators and their reliance on existing data (Larsen & Petrov, 2015;Vlasova & Volkov, 2016).The framework also provides linkages with the measurements of socio-economic impacts, benefi t sharing, and "sustainability" with respect to resource development projects (Petrov et al., 2018;McGrath-Horn, 2017).However, as in other northern regions (e.g., Larsen et al., 2015), the data on the ISR present challenges to exact implementation of the ASI indicators.Whereas most ASI measures were followed very closely, there was a need to redefi ne or adjust several indicators to ensure compatibility with available data.Most datasets were acquired from the Canadian census.Additional information required for constructing certain indicators was obtained from Statistics Canada's Aboriginal Peoples Survey and from data provided by the NWT Bureau of Statistics (Community Survey and other periodic and occasional surveys).This approach allowed gathering the most replicable, detailed, and comparable data that have been collected in multiple years.For the longitudinal analysis, the years of 1986 and 2009 were used as the baseline.
Below are specifi c social indicators selected for each domain, given the data constraints.

Health and population:
Infant mortality is the main indicator recommended by ASI (Larsen et al., 2010).However, it may not be a reliable indicator in sparsely populated areas since it suff ers severely from the small numbers problem.Other possible surrogates (which can also suff er from this problem) include suicide rate, self-assessed health, obesity, and smoking rates.In addition, the ASI II (Larsen et al., 2015) team recommended utilizing the teenage birth rate as a possible surrogate.In this case study, we use the teenage birth rate, suicide rate, and self-assessed health.The fi rst two indicators are taken as fi ve-year averages to alleviate the data volatility problem stemming from small populations.Net migration is the indicator recommended by the fi rst ASI report (Larsen et al., 2010) to characterize population dynamics.However, it is challenging to measure net migration directly from available statistics.Instead, we use population change as a proxy.

Material well-being:
The fi rst ASI report recommended using per capita household income as a core indicator of economic well-being alongside fi ve other supporting indicators.Unfortunately, per capita household income is not directly available from the census or other surveys.However, it can be approximated by dividing total household income by population.Both datasets are readily available and regularly collected.Net migration rate, selected by the ASI as another core measure of economic vitality, can also be estimated from census and/or community surveys.This case study used per capita household income, net migration, and unemployment rate as indicators of economic well-being (unemployment rate, at least in the context of the Northwest Territories, may not be a very reliable indicator given the nature of the NWT labour market and the manner in which this rate is estimated).Participation rate is a more useful characteristic that demonstrates the degree of the population's engagement in the wage sector.Another option is a transfer income measure (which measures the relative share of the government transfer in residents' incomes).

Education:
The fi rst ASI (Larsen et al., 2010) recommended three main indicators, all of which are based on educational att endance (the proportion of students pursuing post-secondary degrees and completing education) or retention of educated people in a community (within ten years after graduation).Whereas these indicators are important and appropriate, in the case of the NWT the required data are diffi cult to obtain or not collected.At the same time, the Canadian census and NWT Community Survey contain extensive data on educational att ainment, the level of education att ained by residents.These data have been routinely collected (although with some defi nitional changes) and provide a variety of educational characteristics to choose from-in this application, the percent of population over fi fteen years old who have graduated from high school.

Cultural well-being and cultural vitality:
The composite indicator of cultural vitality suggested by the ASI incorporates cultural autonomy (an indicator of institutional arrangements for cultural self-determination), language retention, and belonging (measured in terms of engagement in traditional subsistence activities).The language retention data are available through the Canadian census.However, it only provides information for all persons who claim Aboriginal identity with no diff erentiation by ethnicity.This is a considerable limitation given that the ASI recommends using ethnic-group-specifi c language retention rates.The Aboriginal Peoples Survey (2001) included a question on engagement in subsistence activities (hunting, fi shing, trapping, and gathering of wild plants) and therefore can be used to measure "belonging."The cultural autonomy indicator is very complex and diffi cult to develop, especially at the community scale.We omitt ed this component at this stage of analysis, thus retaining only two indicators of cultural well-being/vitality.

Contact with nature:
The recommended indicator for contact with nature is the consumption and/or harvest of traditional foods.The measure has been computed using data from the 2008 NWT survey of country food consumption (NWT Community Survey, 2009).Unfortunately, the data for other years are not available.

Fate control:
The ASI (Larsen et al., 2010) recommended using a fourcomponent composite indicator of community fate control.This includes political power, economic self-reliance, cultural empowerment, and control over land.Two exact measures suggested in the report, the percent of public expenses paid from locally generated funds (economic control) and the percent of people speaking their mother tongue (knowledge construction/human rights), can be estimated using proxies or direct measures from the census.We suggest using the percent of self-generated income in total household income to measure economic self-reliance.The language retention component is directly available from census data.For the indicator of political power (percent of local/Indigenous peoples in governing institutions and positions), we were able to develop a proxy using the percent of Aboriginal people in managerial and administrative occupations in the NWT.The indicator of land control, however, was diffi cult to determine at the community level.We therefore used provisions of the comprehensive land claims agreements (CLCAs), where applicable, to estimate the percent of land over which Indigenous communities exercise direct control.Albeit not a perfect measure, it gives an indication of the ability of local residents to have access and control over land.A composite index of fate control is calculated as the average of these four components.

Regional Comparisons: Internal Inuvialuit Sett lement Region Diff erences
The fi rst part of the study used baseline indicators to compare communities within the ISR, to compare the ISR with other NWT regions, and to compare the ISR with other NWT and Nunavut communities (see Table 1).First of all, the data clearly illuminate considerable internal diff erences in the ISR.Most notably, there is a gap between Inuvik and other ISR communities, with Inuvik having a much stronger position with respect to many of the human well-being domains (material well-being, education, health, and population).The material well-being disparity (income, unemployment, and self-generated income) between the ISR capital and other communities was very substantial, indicating inequities within the region.For example, the per capita household income in Inuvik was almost three times as high as in Paulatuk, while unemployment was 11.2% in the former compared to 29.2% in the latt er.The diff erences in social well-being also extended to population dynamics, health, and social cohesion, with high rates of teenage pregnancy and population losses in peripheral sett lements.For instance, the fi ve-year average teen birth rate was 8.4 per 1,000 in Paulatuk compared to 2.3 in Inuvik.
However, Inuvik was ranked lower, compared to other ISR sett lements, with respect to the cultural vitality and contact with nature domains.The outlying communities, such as Sachs Harbor and Paulatuk, demonstrated higher cultural well-being (higher language retention, more involvement in land and sea-based activities).Almost three-quarters of Paulatuk households consumed traditional food and participated in traditional activities on the land and sea, compared to just 25% and 40%, respectively, in Inuvik.The region's capital was also in the bott om of the languageretention ranking with merely 12.9% of Indigenous residents using their mother tongue.
All ISR communities demonstrated relatively high fate control (Table 1), i.e., economic, political, cultural, and legal abilities to defi ne their own destiny.However, the components of the fate control index diff ered among sett lements: Inuvik had stronger economic power (self-generated income), whereas Paulatuk, Aklavik, and other outlying communities scored high on Indigenous representation in leadership occupations.

Regional Comparisons: Inuvialuit Sett lement Region vs. Northwest Territories
Comparing the ISR with NWT averages in 2009, the latest baseline year for this study, it can be seen that unemployment in the ISR was higher, wage economy participation rate was lower, home ownership and educational att ainment (high school and above) were lower, while violent crime and percent of lone parents were substantially higher than the territory's average.Income was considerably below the territorial benchmark, while income support payments were much higher.This said, it should be noted that territorial averages were strongly aff ected by Yellowknife, and these comparisons may not correctly indicate the ISR's position against noncapital regions of the NWT.Most indicators associated with closeness to nature and engagement in traditional activities in the ISR were much bett er than the NWT average.At the same time, language retention (a core indicator of cultural vitality) was noticeably lower than across the NWT.
With respect to other NWT regions (see Table 2), the ISR generally fared bett er in terms of unemployment, engagement in traditional activities, and land claims status.It is interesting that a relatively high percentage of Inuvialuit residents participating in the traditional economy (48%) coincided with relatively high incomes, yet a low level of language retention (23%).This presents an interesting conundrum that needs to be further investigated.The high position of ISR among other NWT regions with respect to land claims status is not surprising.However, the overall fate control in the ISR appeared to be weaker than for most of its NWT counterparts due to the depressed levels of language retention, modest Aboriginal share in leadership and managerial occupations, and moderate economic self-suffi ciency.This is despite the ISR holding the longest standing comprehensive land claims agreement in the territory.For the population and heath domain, this study used the teen birth rate as a proxy indicator.Social well-being does not seem to be distinguishably diff erent from the rest of the NWT.The teen birth rates varied from 0.7 in Normal Wells to 8.8 in Yellowknife, and within the ISR from 1.7 in Sachs Harbour to 8.4 in Paulatuk.The range is notable, so are the very high values in Yellowknife and many NWT and ISR sett lements (eleven of them had a rate > 3.0).While in small communities even a fi veyear averaged rate may be problematic to properly interpret, Yellowknife and Inuvik were both most certainly dealing with an issue of elevated teenage pregnancy, which may indicate serious social problems.
The ISR was close to the middle with respect to income, dependency on government transfers, consumption of country food, and education.Overall, material well-being was moderate, but the gap with the Yellowknife area was quite substantial, indicating a problematic spot in NWT economic development.In fact, Yellowknife topped all other regions in all material well-being indicators.It is also indicative that the IRS was worse than other regions with respect to language retention and population dynamics (high out-migration).Taken overall, it does not seem that any of the non-capital regions in NWT emerged as a clear "second."Regions with CLCAs do not perform signifi cantly bett er than areas without land claims in most indicators except for fate control.

Regional Comparisons: Inuvialuit Sett lement Region vs. Nunavut
When compared to Inuit communities in Nunavut, the ISR sett lements were bett er off in material well-being, but worse off in language retention and consumption of traditional food-i.e., closeness to nature (see Table 3).Both capitals, Inuvik and Iqaluit, were best in terms of material well-being (income, unemployment), as well as educational att ainment.The ISR communities were generally more prosperous if compared with Nunavut, although a number of Nunavut sett lements, such as Cambridge Bay and Rankin Inlet, had higher per capita household incomes and lower underemployment than the ISR communities with the exception of Inuvik.Non-capital ISR communities, however, demonstrated lower levels of educational att ainment than similar places in Nunavut.This poses a question about a dwindling human capital, since population dynamics patt erns were also not favourable for the ISR, with Inuvik as the only consistently growing community.The lack of human capital in smaller sett lements is an important impediment for economic development of the ISR in the future.The data on cultural well-being and the traditional economy were more limited for this comparison, but generally the ISR suff ered from low language retention, while Nunavut residents in many sett lements demonstrated a near-absolute fl uency in Indigenous languages (nearly 100% of Indigenous residents used their mother tongue).In the ISR, only Ulukhaktok (Holman) was at 40%, while most places reported language retention below 25%.Even in Iqaluit, the language retention was 87.8%, compared to a mere 12.9% in Inuvik.
Finally, Nunavut communities had stronger fate control as a result of the combination of their legal power (CLCA and territorial status), cultural vitality (language), and prevalence of Indigenous people in leadership and managerial occupations.The only fate control component for which Nunavut sett lements were seemingly worse off than the ISR was the economic self-suffi ciency.Well-Being 1986-2009 This study also analyzed the dynamics of well-being using ASI variables from the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation database.Most data covered the period between 1986 and 2009, which is after the conclusion of the fi nal agreement.Therefore, this analysis allowed assessing, to a certain degree, the dynamic of social and economic well-being in post-IFA years.The general picture is presented in Table 4. Overall, there was a positive mobility in most of the relevant categories.Specifi cally, considerable gains were made in home ownership, education, wage economy, and some land-and sea-based traditional activities (hunting and fi shing).The upward trend in both of these indicators is an important sign of positive economic changes in the ISR.This is notable since both wage-related and traditional sectors experienced positive dynamics (interestingly, though, the consumption of country food declined).Similar tendencies have also been described in other Arctic regions undergoing resource development after land claims sett lement, such as the Alaska North Slope (see Poppel, 2015).This coincidental trend deserves special investigation, as it may be suggestive of new social and economic processes within Arctic Indigenous societies.

Dynamics of Inuvialuit Sett lement Region
The data also showed a decline in the teen birth rate (key health, demographic social parameter) and a reduction of migration.Still, these gains did not close the well-being gap between ISR, NWT (and Canada).The persistent lagging of Indigenous regions and communities with respect to social and economic well-being has been widely discussed (Senecal et al., 2008;Morin et al., 2010).The ISR specifi cally was not comparing well, with the capital region of the NWT, being behind Yellowknife in most domains.
Material prosperity refl ects the dominant role of a cash economy in Inuvik as compared to the outlying ISR communities.The employment in private and public sectors (including the IRC) brings higher wages and lower unemployment.The infl ux of professionals from outside, and improved educational opportunities for Inuvik residents, are likely responsible for the elevated level of education att ainment in the town.Inuvik also has a cluster of professional jobs associated with the IRC.
The ISR has a relatively high level of fate control, partially att ributable to the conclusion of the IFA more than thirty years ago.However, the main challenge for the region is the diminishing use of the Inuvialuktun languages, which is considered to be a key component when we assess an ability of a community to defi ne its future (Larsen et al., 2010).Low language retention is a major well-being problem in the ISR, especially in Inuvik.Despite demonstrating relative economic strength (power), the ability to defi ne one's own destiny in Inuvialuit communities is curtailed by the loss of cultural vitality that comes with their Indigenous language.
Based on the analysis of 1986-2009 data, many ISR social indicators have improved since the conclusion of the IFA.Most importantly, the upward trend in both indicators of wage economy and traditional economy is a sign of positive economic changes in the ISR.Material wellbeing in the Inuvialuit region was higher than in most areas with later or non-existent land claims agreements.Although not directly att ributable to the IFA, this dynamic is an interesting phenomenon that should be explored further (especially given that the ISR did not have substantive resource development with the exception of exploration and construction activities).Yet, a persistent gap with Yellowknife (and Canada) in most indicators of social well-being is a sign of underlining processes that impede regional development in the ISR.
Comparing well-being in the ISR with non-Canadian Arctic jurisdictions is beyond the scope of this article, and such comparison is highly complicated due to data incompatibility and vast institutional diff erences across the Arctic.However, other studies (e.g., Larsen et al., 2015;Poppel, 2015) have demonstrated that Canadian Inuit share many similar well-being issues with other Indigenous peoples in the Arctic.This includes language retention, access to employment and income, health issues and suicide, and vitality of culture and traditional economy.Canada does relatively well with respect to fate control, especially in areas with concluded comprehensive land claims agreements.
Among various policy concerns that pertain to specifi c fi ndings of this study, one seems to be overarching.It is the problem of a persistent well-being gap evident at diff erent scales: between Yellowknife and the Inuvialuit Sett lement Region, between Inuvik and outlying communities of the ISR (and between the Northwest Territories and southern Canada).Despite decades of change, Canada's northern regions remain steadily behind and seem unable to catch up.This is a national policy issue as it requires strategic investment and resources, but it has to be addressed with strong input from communities and regions.With respect to another national policy domain, it seems the results also point out that comprehensive land claims agreements do bring positive outcomes, at least in some areas of well-being.However, more research is needed to ascertain these impacts.Finally, at the local ISR level, it appears that language retention needs to be addressed most urgently and forcefully.

Limitations and Future Directions
Overall, the ASI framework is a useful tool to provide a baseline assessment and comparative analysis of human development in northern communities.It allows selecting standardized, cross-cutt ing, and generally available indicators to provide a basic assessment of socio-economic wellbeing.However, it is not designed to measure specifi c impacts of resource development, nor is it always able to adequately capture all locally important characteristics.The main limitation of the study is its reliance on existing data with considerable gaps in scope and coverage.As a result, most indicators are only proxies of the desired well-being measures.However, they provide a snapshot of socio-economic conditions, and give powerful tools for impact assessment if interpreted carefully.In addition, small populations limit the availability and reliability of socio-economic and demographic data.Future work is necessary to further improve the baseline indicators system to be more sensitive to local conditions and impacts, to include more qualitative indicators, and to integrate community-proposed factors and variables in the Inuvialuit well-being monitoring system.

Table 1 .
Social indicators for the ISR (in bold) and other communi es in the NWT (cont'd on page 175).Table 1, cont'd from page 174.Social indicators for the ISR and other communi es in the NWT.

Table 2 .
Social indicators for Northwest Territories regions (ISR in bold)

Table 3 .
Social indicators for the Innuvialuit Se lement Region (in bold) and Nunavut (cont'd on page 179).
Table 3 cont'd from page 178.Social indicators for the Innuvialuit Se lement Region (in bold) and Nunavut