Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 1 2025 Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report Erin Johnston Karena Schmidt Rachel Tarpey Thi Mai Anh Tran Valoree Gagnon Chelsea Schelly Erika Vye Keweenaw Bay Indian Community – Natural Resources Department 13 September 2025 Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Methods ............................................................................................................................................. 6 2.1. Survey design .................................................................................................................................. 6 2.2. Ethical statement ............................................................................................................................. 6 2.3. Data collection ................................................................................................................................ 6 2.4. Data analysis ................................................................................................................................... 7 3. Results ............................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1. Participants characteristics .............................................................................................................. 8 3.2. Frequency of forest interactions ...................................................................................................... 9 3.3. Importance of forests..................................................................................................................... 11 3.4. Influence of climate-related change .............................................................................................. 13 3.4.1. Landscape observations ..................................................................................................... 14 3.4.2. Influence of climate-related changes on respondents’ livelihoods and cultural aspects ... 19 3.5. Concerns and Hopes for forests .................................................................................................... 21 3.5.1. Concern for forests ............................................................................................................ 21 3.5.2. Hopes for the future of forests ........................................................................................... 24 4. Discussions and Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 26 References .............................................................................................................................................. 27 Appendix A. Questionnaires ................................................................................................................. 30 Appendix B. Cronbach’s alpha results ................................................................................................ 33 Appendix C. Responses’ tables across two groups ............................................................................. 34 Table 3.2. Frequency of visiting forests for different purposes between Tribal and non-Tribal groups ............................................................................................................................................... 34 Table 3.3. Importance of forests to livelihood and cultural aspects of Tribal and non-Tribal groups ......................................................................................................................................................... 36 Table 3.4.1. Changes in landscape reported by surveyed participants. ........................................... 38 Table 3.4.2. Influence of climate-related changes on different livelihood and cultural aspects across Tribal and non-Tribal groups. ............................................................................................... 40 Acknowledgments Miigwech to all Tribal and non-Tribal participants who attended KBIC Pow Wow 2023 and filled out our climate-related change survey. Their information and opinions are extremely valuable to the ongoing and future guidance of policies and projects, which help to ensure our planning and strategies align with community priorities, concerns, and needs. Miigwech to all the consultants who participated in the creation, design, and content of the 2023 Survey, Report, and Public Presentation: Thi Mai Anh Tran, Valoree Gagnon, and Chelsea Schelly for Survey Design and Methods; Erika Vye for Survey Questionnaire. Their professional experience and expertise contributed to the quality of the survey, this report, and resulting public presentations. Miigwech to all the KBIC-NRD and KBIC-Forestry Department Staff who dedicated their time and knowledge: Erin Johnston, Wildlife & Habitat Manager; Karena Schmidt, Ecologist; and Rachel Tarpey, Forester. Miigwech to KBIC Cultural Committee who supported the survey effort and organized our survey booth at KBIC Pow Wow 2023. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 4 1. Introduction Forests are fundamental to the sustenance of human life and livelihoods, serving as sources of food, water, shelter, and environmental services for countless communities worldwide (Trumbore et al., 2015). However, how these communities interact with forests, perceive their significance, and navigate the impacts of climate-related changes on forest ecosystems and associated livelihoods can vary significantly (Lawler and Bullock 2017; Domke et al., 2023). Tribal communities view forests as much more than just natural resources. Forests are intertwined with their cultural identities, spiritual beliefs, and livelihood activities such as hunting, fishing, and gathering medicinal plants and food (Dockry et al., 2022). The relationships between Indigenous communities and forests are deeply rooted and cultivated over generations through the transmission of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (Gagnon et al., 2013). The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC), a Native American community located along Lake Superior in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, exemplifies this profound connection. As the state's largest reservation, KBIC is one of many tribes with centuries-old traditional and spiritual ties to the land, waters, fish, and wildlife. Many Tribal members today practice subsistence and commercial harvesting as it has been lived through the generations. These Tribal practices are also protected by a land cession treaty between the Chippewa and the federal government, the 1842 Treaty of La Pointe. According to the treaty, the bands intentionally reserved their rights to fish, hunt, and gather on ceded territories. For many generations, the Ojibwa of KBIC have actively engaged in longterm planning and stewardship of the forest ecosystem while balancing the people's survivance, livelihood, and resilience. On the other hand, non-Tribal communities may have less direct cultural ties to forests (Dockry et al., 2022). Their interactions with forests are often shaped by socioeconomic factors like household size and income (Shishany et al., 2020; Darboe et al., 2023; Chishaleshale et al., 2024). For instance, socioeconomic necessity often drives direct resource extraction. Chishaleshale et al. (2024) found that larger households collect more forest products to meet greater subsistence needs, while Darboe et al. (2023) noted that communities in Gambia prioritized material goods like timber and fuelwood over nonmaterial benefits. In contrast, wealthier households often derive value from forests indirectly. According to Lang et al. (2023), the financial benefits of conservation, such as increased property values, disproportionately flow to wealthier households, highlighting a different form of forest reliance based on economic advantage rather than daily necessity. Increasing climate-induced extreme weather events such as hurricanes, droughts, and floods pose significant threats to both Tribal and non-Tribal communities such as resulting in loss of life, destruction of infrastructure and property, and disruption of economic activities (Sahu et al., 2022). However, Indigenous groups are disproportionately impacted by these climate instability effects and are among the most vulnerable populations in the world (National Wildlife Federation, 2011; STACCWG, 2021). The heightened susceptibility of Indigenous communities stems from several key factors. First, many Indigenous peoples reside in relatively isolated, rural, and environmentally precarious areas like coastlines, small islands, arctic regions, rainforests, and drylands (Fritze et al., 2008; Whyte et al., 2023). These geographical marginal areas are limited in their access to resources and infrastructure and are often exposed to climate hazards such as sea-level rise, droughts, floods, and wildfires, which exacerbates the vulnerability of Indigenous communities to the impacts of climate change (McMichael et al., 2012; Whyte Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 5 et al., 2023). Secondly, Tribal lands often consist of a fragmented land base with checkerboarded ownership or are confined within limited reservations, which complicates the management and adaptation efforts (National Wildlife Federation, 2011). Finally, Indigenous livelihoods, cultural practices, and ceremonies are often tied to specific species or ecosystems, disruptions to these systems jeopardize Indigenous ways of life, and their knowledge systems, and put the cultural survival of Tribal nations at risk (Whyte et al., 2023). Public engagement is the first crucial step in incorporating people’s interests, concerns, and needs (Khatibi et al., 2021). In order to ensure the relevance of policy legitimacy and build trust with communities, there is an urgent need for inclusive, community-driven research that amplifies the voices and lived experiences of those most affected by climate-induced changes to forest ecosystems. Centering Indigenous voices in research and decision-making is also essential for respecting cultural traditions, leveraging traditional ecological knowledge for sustainable management, upholding self-determination rights, and promoting equitable, culturally relevant policies (Whyte, 2018; Erickson et al., 2022). Aligning with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, this participatory approach fosters cross-cultural dialogue supporting collaborative solutions grounded in diverse knowledge systems and values (Whyte, 2018). This study was part of a broader research project “Bridging Indigenous and Western Sciences for Resilience, Livelihood, and Stewardship Planning: An Ojibwa Forest Ecosystem Characterization,” funded by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture McIntire-Stennis and the National Science Foundation (award #7001323). Conducted in partnership with the KBIC and following KBIC Research Guidance (2023), this study aims to understand the perspectives of Tribal and non-Tribal individuals on their relationships with forest ecosystems and their experiences with climate-related change events. The KBIC Natural Resources Department and Forestry Department jointly collaborated in developing and designing the study. Four research questions were: (1) What are the forest interactions of Tribal and non-Tribal people? (2) How are forests important to the well-being of Tribal and non-Tribal people? (3) How do climate-related changes influence the livelihood and cultural aspects of Tribal and non-Tribal people? (4) What are the concerns and hopes of local communities for the future of forests? By examining these questions through a community-directed research approach, this study aims to deepen the understanding of the multifaceted roles that forests play in sustaining the lives, livelihoods, and cultures of both Tribal and non-Tribal peoples. Further, it also examines the impacts of climate-related changes on the culture and livelihoods across these groups. The findings aim to guide the development of inclusive natural resource policies, climate adaptation strategies, and forest stewardship practices that accommodates diverse needs while respecting the rights, values, and aspirations of all stakeholders confronting the escalating challenges of environmental change. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 6 2. Methods 2.1. Survey design A survey was designed as a convenience sample to assess the knowledge and perception of forest roles, climate-related change, and the effect of climate change on livelihood and cultural aspects of both Tribal and non-Tribal people (Appendix A-Questionnaires). On the header of each questionnaire, an introduction was included to inform the participants with the aim of the study and to obtain consent. The survey was composed of eight questions in total. The demographic characteristics of participants were assessed in the first three questions (Question 1 – 3) and included Tribal affiliation, county/state of residence, and age. All question and answer options were written in English. Behavior assessment. One question (Question 4) composed of 12 items captured the participant’s experience on their interactions with forests in the last year. The answer options were according to a fivepoint Likert scale (weekly, biweekly, monthly, bimonthly, once a year) along with the not applicable option. Perception assessment. First, participants were asked to rate (on a scale of 10) the importance of forests to their cultural aspects and livelihood activities, which are composed of 9 items (Question 5). Next, one question composed of 18 items asking participants to identify the changes in the landscape in their community during the last five years (Question 6). The answers included four options: decrease, stay the same, increase, and not sure. After that, one question (Question 7) composed of 12 items asking for their opinions on how the changes in the landscape influence their ability for cultural and livelihood activities compared with the last five years. The answer options followed a five-point Likert scale (much better, somewhat better, stayed the same, somewhat worse, much worse) along with the not applicable option. Finally, an open-ended question (Question 8) asked participants to list their biggest concerns and/or hopes for the future of the forests. 2.2. Ethical statement The survey and questionnaires were approved by Michigan Technological University Institutional Review Board (IRB) and were designed to ensure confidentiality and anonymity of the participants. Prior to participating in this study, verbal consent was obtained from all participants. Participants were informed of what they were being asked to do; their participation was completely voluntary, there was no risk involved, and could withdraw their consent at any time. 2.3. Data collection The survey was conducted at the KBIC summer powwow for two days. KBIC Tribal leadership coordinated our presence by setting up our booth to recruit participants. The booth included a tent, a table presented with survey questionnaires and KBIC Natural Resources Department’s brochures, a banner with information about research partnership between KBIC and Michigan Technological University, a table with three drawing prizes including books, jams, kimchi, coffee, tea, mugs, sun hat as incentives to participants, and a table with pen, crayons, coloring pictures, and candies for children. Two or more team members were present at the booth throughout the survey to recruit study participants. Team members engaged with anyone passing by the booth with a greeting and a brief introduction about the forest relationship and climate-related change survey and that they would be eligible to enter a drawing to win one of three prizes if they completed the form. The team also reminded participants about Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 7 the questionnaire's length, how long it would take to complete, and addressed any questions or provided additional information as needed. 2.4. Data analysis After gathering all the surveys, the data were imported into an Excel spreadsheet. We excluded surveys submitted by individuals under 18 years of age and surveys where questions 4-7 were not completely answered. The data were then analyzed and visualized using RStudio (version 2024.04.0 Build 735) and Microsoft Excel. Given that this study is exploratory in nature and aimed at gaining initial insights, descriptive statistical analysis was more appropriate than predictive analyses for interpreting the results. Furthermore, to ensure the reliability of the multi-item scales used to assess interaction with forests (Q4), observations of changes in forest landscapes (Q5), perceptions of forest importance (Q6), and the influence of climate-related changes (Q7), internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha (Taber, 2017). Cronbach’s alpha is often used to assess the degree to which a set of items measures a single latent construct, with values ranging from 0 to 1 (George and Mallery, 2003). Generally, a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.70 or higher is considered acceptable, while values between 0.60 and 0.70 suggest questionable reliability. Values below 0.60 may indicate poor internal consistency and suggest the need for scale refinement (George and Mallery, 2003). As this study is exploratory, slightly lower Cronbach’s alpha values are considered acceptable for identifying preliminary trends and informing future research directions (Taber, 2017). The following findings are presented to address research questions of this study. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 8 3. Results The results will be presented in four primary parts as follows: Participants characteristics, Forest interactions (research question 1), Forest values (research question 2), Climate-related change impacts (research question 3), Concerns and hopes to forest (research question 4). 3.1. Participants characteristics A total of 265 responses were collected. We excluded 9 respondents who were under 18 years old and 24 who did not complete Questions 4 to 7. Our data included 232 participants, with 47.5% (n = 110) being Tribal participants and 52.5% (n = 122) from non-Tribal participants. In the Tribal group, the majority at 21.5% (n = 50) were from KBIC, followed by 16% (n = 37) from other Tribal nations outside of Michigan, and 10% (n = 23) were from Tribal nations within Michigan. In the non-Tribal group, Michigan residents represent the largest at 42.2% (n = 98), followed by 10.3% (n = 24) were from other states. Figure 3.1 shows the groups distributions by survey respondents. Figure 3.1. Surveyed participants’ group by Tribal affiliation and location of residence In terms of their residing state, the majority, at 74.6% (n = 173), were from Michigan. This was followed by Wisconsin at 7.8% (n=18), Illinois at 4% (n=10), and Minnesota also at 4 % (n=10). The median and mean age were 43.5 and 39 years old respectively, with all ages ranging from 18 to 85 years. A distribution of residing states and age of participants is listed in Table 3.1. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 9 Table 3.1. Distribution of residing states and age of participants Non-Tribal group (n = 122) Tribal group (n = 110) Overall (n = 232) State Alaska 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.9%) 2 (0.9%) Illinois 6 (4.9%) 4 (3.6%) 10 (4.3%) Michigan 99 (81.1%) 75 (68.2%) 174 (75.0%) Minnesota 4 (3.3%) 6 (5.5%) 10 (4.3%) Ohio 1 (0.8%) 2 (1.8%) 3 (1.3%) Virginia 2 (1.6%) 0 (0%) 2 (0.9%) Wisconsin 6 (4.9%) 12 (10.9%) 18 (7.8%) California 0 (0%) 2 (1.8%) 2 (0.9%) Canada 0 (0%) 6 (5.5%) 6 (2.6%) Massachusetts 0 (0%) 1 (0.9%) 1 (0.4%) New Mexico 0 (0%) 1 (0.9%) 1 (0.4%) Missing 3 (2.5%) 0 (0%) 3 (1.3%) Age Mean (SD) 44.1 (19.3) 42.9 (17.8) 43.5 (18.6) Median [Min, Max] 40.0 [18.0, 85.0] 39.0 [18.0, 81.0] 39.0 [18.0, 85.0] Missing 11 (9.0%) 12 (10.9%) 23 (9.9%) 3.2. Frequency of forest interactions Participants rated their frequencies of 11 forest-related activities on a six-point Likert scale (weekly, biweekly, monthly, bimonthly, once a year, and not applicable). Cronbach’s alpha for the frequency of forest interactions was 0.61 (see Appendix B). Although a Cronbach’s alpha above 0.7 is often desired, 0.61 is acceptable in this context due to diversity of activities included (i.e., recreation, hunting, gathering medicinal plants). Additionally, the reliability score of 0.61 can also be explained by differences in activity patterns between Tribal and non-Tribal participants. Tribal participants engaged more frequently in culturally and traditionally significant activities, such as hunting, making traditional ceremonial items and gathering medicinal plants, thus creating the diverse patterns of forest usage. In general, a majority of participants engaged with the forest for recreation (90%) and spiritual well-being and personal enrichment (81%). Other activities included gathering materials for non-commercial activities (70%), collecting plants for traditional food or drink (66%), sharing knowledge and skills with others (65%), fishing (61%), medicinal plants gathering (44%), hunting (40%), making traditional/ceremonial items for non-commercial use (39%), harvesting materials for commercial activity (10%), and trapping (12%). Two respondents added two activities: ecological restoration and participating in a faith community. Further, there were differences in the frequencies of forest-related activities between Tribal and non-Tribal participants. However, only making traditional or ceremonial items appeared to be significantly different (p < 0.001). The response results are presented in Figure 3.2 and Appendix C-Table 3.2. Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping: Tribal participants reported higher overall engagement in hunting (46% vs. 34% non-Tribal), fishing (65% vs. 57%), and trapping (15% vs. 9%). However, non-Tribal Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 16 Berries: Although the percentages of Tribal and non-Tribal participants reported changes in berry populations might appear similar, their response patterns were significantly different (p = 0.026). A higher percentage of Tribal participants (33%) reported a decrease in berries. While a higher percentage of nonTribal participants (38%) reported no change in trend. In summary, approximately half of participants observed changes in forest vegetation over the past five years. Forest cover changes were the most widely reported, with about one-third noting decreases across both groups. The most notable difference was that Tribal participants observed more declines in berry populations compared to non-Tribal participants, who generally reported berry populations as stable. b) Observations related to wildlife, fish, and insects. The Cronbach’s alpha for observations related to wildlife, fish, and insects was 0.78, indicating a good level of internal consistency (see Appendix B). Overall, 49% of participants reported changes in the wildlife, fish, and insects in their communities in the last five years. The highest percentage of participants (67%) noticed changes in deer population, followed by 62% observed changes in insects, 48% in fish populations in streams, 37% in bear, and 34% in ruffed grouse. Three respondents reported an increase in skunks, rabbits, and birds. There was a significant difference between Tribal and non-Tribal participants noticing changes in fish populations in streams (p = 0.033). Figure 3.4.1b presents the changes in wildlife, fish, and insects reported by participants. Bear: Most participants (21%) reported no change in bear populations. However, more participants (18%) in the Tribal group reported an increase in bear populations, compared to 9.8% of non-Tribal participants. While most of the non-Tribal participants (25%) reported no change in trend. Deer: On average, most participants (31%) reported an increase in deer populations, with 33% of nonTribal participants and 30% of Tribal participants. Followed by 27% of participants reported no change in the population trend, with similar proportions among Tribal (27%) and non-Tribal (26%) participants. Ruffed grouse: Both groups reported similar observations regarding changes in ruffed grouse populations, with the majority of participants (22%) reported no change trend. Fish population in streams: There was a significant difference (p = 0.033) between the two groups in their observations of changes in fish populations in streams. A slightly higher percentage of Tribal participants (33%) reported a decrease in fish populations compared to 30% of non-Tribal participants. While non-Tribal participants had a higher percentage reporting no change (25%), compared to 15% of Tribal participants. Insects: On average, most participants (41%) reported an increase in insect populations, with no difference across the two groups. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 17 Figure 3.4.1b. Changes in landscape reported by participants related to wildlife, fish, and insects and p values (Significant codes: 0***’ 0.001‘**’ 0.01‘*’). In summary, about half of participants observed changes in wildlife and insect populations over the past five years. Deer populations changes were most commonly reported, followed by insects. The most notable difference between two groups was Tribal participants reported more decreases and fewer “no change” responses in fish population than non-Tribal participants. c) Observations related to weather patterns and human activities. The Cronbach’s alpha for observations related to weather patterns and human activities was 0.71, indicating a good level of internal consistency (see Appendix B). Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 18 Overall, 74.5% of participants reported changes in the weather patterns and human activities in their communities in the last five years. The highest percentage of participants (87%) noticed changes in temperature, followed by 86% observed changes in snowfall, 76% in water levels in streams, 75% in flooding, 73% in human activities, and 63% in soil erosion. Figure 3.4.1c presents the participants’ answers for each item. Temperature, flooding, and soil erosion: The majority of participants observed an increase in temperature, flooding, and soil erosion over the last five years, with a percentage of 65%, 50%, and 47% respectively. Around 39%, 26%, and 17% stated that temperatures, flooding, and soil erosion, respectively, stayed the same during this period. There were no differences between the two groups in identifying these changes. Water level in streams: There was a marginally significant difference between the two groups in their observations of changes in water levels in streams. A higher percentage of Tribal participants (38%) reported an increase in water levels compared to non-Tribal participants (25%). Additionally, more nonTribal participants (27%) observed a decrease in water levels compared to Tribal participants (23%). Snowfall: Both groups reported similar observations regarding changes in snowfall, with around 37-38% of participants indicating a decrease in snowfall. However, a higher percentage of Tribal participants (25%) observed an increase in snowfall compared to non-Tribal participants (21%). Human activities: Both groups reported similar observations regarding changes in human activities, with around 52-56% of participants indicating an increase in human activities over the last five years. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 19 Figure 3.4.1c. Changes in landscape reported by participants related to weather patterns and human activities and p values (Significant codes: 0‘***’ 0.001‘**’ 0.01‘*’). In summary, approximately 75% of participants observed environmental changes in their communities over the past five years, with consensus around increasing temperatures and human activities, and decreasing snowfall. While Tribal and non-Tribal groups reported similar patterns in most categories, Tribal participants observed more increases in water levels in streams. 3.4.2. Influence of climate-related changes on respondents’ livelihoods and cultural aspects The Cronbach’s alpha for influence of climate-related changes on livelihoods and cultural aspects was 0.86, indicated high internal consistency (see Appendix B). Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 20 Figure 3.4.2 and the Appendix-Table 3.4.2 present the perceived influence of climate-related changes on 11 livelihood and cultural aspects among Tribal and non-Tribal participants. There was a significant difference between the two groups in participants’ ability for medicinal plants gathering (p = 0.006) and gathering materials for making traditional items (p = 0.018). Figure 3.4.2. Influence of climate-related changes on different livelihood and cultural aspects across Tribal and non-Tribal groups and p values (Significant codes: 0***’ 0.001‘**’ 0.01‘*’). Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping: On average, most participants reported no influence of landscape changes on hunting (23%), fishing (30%), or trapping (14%) abilities. However, there was a marginally significant difference (p = 0.057) in hunting between groups, with 18% of Tribal participants reporting somewhat worse impacts compared to 11% of non-Tribal participants. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 21 Gathering medicinal plants and Collecting plants for traditional food or drink: On average, most participants perceived no change in ability to gather medicinal plants (24%) or traditional food/drink plants (34%). However, Tribal participants were significantly more likely (23%) to report somewhat worse impacts on medicinal plant gathering compared to non-Tribal participants (9.8%) (p = 0.006). Making traditional ceremonial items (non-commercial use): On average, most participants perceived no change in their ability to make traditional ceremonial items (25%). However, Tribal participants were significantly more likely (15%) to report somewhat worse impacts compared to non-Tribal participants (5.7%) (p = 0.018). Gathering materials for non-commercial activities and for commercial activities: On average, most participants reported no change in gathering for non-commercial (36%) or commercial (20%) activities. However, a slightly higher percentage of Tribal participants felt that climate-related changes had a somewhat worse impact on their ability to gather materials for both activities (16% and 11%) compared to non-Tribal participants (11% and 7.4%). Recreation, Spiritual well-being, and personal enrichment, and Sharing knowledge and skills with others: On average, most participants perceived no change in their ability for recreation activities (39%), for spiritual well-being and personal enrichment activities (39%), and for sharing knowledge and skills with others (33%). However, a slightly higher percentage of Tribal participants (11% and 13%) felt that climate-related changes had much better effects on their spiritual well-being and personal enrichment and sharing knowledge and skills with others compared to non-Tribal participants (6.6% and 4.1%). In summary, most participants perceived no major changes in their livelihoods and cultural practices due to climate-related changes. However, Tribal participants significantly reported more negative impacts on gathering medicinal plants and materials for traditional items. Although it was not significant, Tribal participants perceived climate-related changes as enhancing their spiritual well-being and ability to share knowledge and skills than non-Tribal participants. Regarding research question 3, community members widely observed environmental change, but their impacts were uneven. Non-Tribal participants tended to frame changes in environmental or recreational terms, whereas Tribal participants felt stronger disruptions to culturally rooted practices. Statistically significant differences were seen in berries, fish populations, medicinal plants, and traditional materials- -species and resources closely tied to Tribal diets, ceremonies, and medicines. The practical meaning is that climate change is not only an environmental challenge but also a cultural one, where even small ecological shifts can have outsized consequences for those whose traditions and livelihoods are directly tied to the land. 3.5. Concerns and Hopes for forests 3.5.1. Concern for forests Eighty-four respondents expressed concerns about the present and future state of forests, wildlife populations, and the environment. They cited human activities as a significant contributing factor. Most focused on the adverse impacts of climate change on the well-being of various species, long-term biodiversity, and the potential loss of forests for future generations. Figure 3.5.1 provides a word cloud that highlights various concerns for forests by surveyed respondents. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 22 Figure 3.5.1. Concerns for the forests by surveyed respondents • Climate-related concerns Climate change emerged as the predominant concern across both demographic groups, though with varying emphasis and framing. Among non-Tribal respondents, climate-related concerns represented 36% of all expressed concerns (16 of 45 responses), making it the most frequently cited issue. Respondents described concerns ranging from broad impacts—"my biggest concerns are climate change and deforestation"—to specific manifestations such as "drought, increasing temperature killing trees" and "climate change, droughts, wildfire." Tribal respondents expressed climate concerns in 20% of cases (8 of 40 responses), often connecting these changes to cultural and subsistence practices. Notable responses included concerns about reaching "a point of no return with our emissions" and observations about "warming temperature affect on animals and human life." One tribal respondent specifically noted the vulnerability of culturally significant species: "Climate change and sustainability-migration of sensitive species such as maple (sugar), black ash, etc." • Forest management and harvesting practices Deforestation and overcutting concerns were prominent across both groups, representing 27% of nontribal concerns (12 of 45) and 15% of tribal concerns (6 of 40). Non-tribal respondents frequently expressed concerns about commercial practices, with comments such as "so much clear-cutting. Climate change, warm weather effect on forests. So much new housing and commercial development in natural forest" and "deforestation - man's misuse." Tribal perspectives on harvesting reflected deeper concerns about treaty rights and sustainable practices. One respondent noted that "overharvesting influences all species on the landscape including U.S. Our Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 23 treaty rights have already been impacted by deforestation." Another expressed concern about "big companies cut too much trees" and emphasized the need for "proper land management appropriate deforestation obtaining permission from tribal communities or land owners before clear cutting." • Forest health and ecosystem integrity Forest health concerns, including disease, pests, and wildfire, were more prominent among non-tribal respondents (29% of concerns, 13 of 45) compared to tribal respondents (13% of concerns, 5 of 40). Nontribal respondents frequently cited specific threats such as "invasive species," "forest fires, over harvesting," and "disease in trees (maple, oak)." One respondent detailed the complexity of these issues: "monoculture of maple caused emerald ash borer in the maple population." Tribal respondents expressed forest health concerns with emphasis on drought impacts and speciesspecific vulnerabilities. Notable concerns included "we are experiencing a really bad drought," "trees dying," and specific mentions of culturally important species: "concerned about black ash, wild rice, clean water, deer health." • Access rights and cultural preservation Access and cultural rights concerns revealed differences between groups. While representing 11% of nontribal concerns (5 of 45), these issues constituted 10% of tribal concerns (4 of 40) but carried significantly different meanings. Non-tribal concerns focused primarily on recreational access and privatization: "privatization of public land," "land access in Keweenaw county has been reduced due to new ownership," and desires for "more access to forests without payment." Tribal concerns centered on fundamental cultural and subsistence rights. One respondent described losing access to traditional gathering areas: "Much of the Huron is not monitored and is run by lampers (free camping). My familys generational blueberry picking spot was picked through by campers, can't practice gathering rights." Another expressed broader cultural concerns: "biggest concern is losing our young people and cultures." The intersection of access and cultural practice was evident in concerns about "not having access to cultural practices" and "privatization, decreasing access because of trail/road erosion." • Human impact and development pressures Human impact concerns were expressed by 22% of non-tribal respondents (10 of 45) and 18% of tribal respondents (7 of 40). Non-tribal responses often focused on development pressure and mismanagement: "so much new housing and commercial development in natural forest," "development, misuse, mismanagement," and "mechanical overuse-on trail and off trails." Tribal respondents emphasized disrespectful human behavior and systemic issues: "people’s lack of respect for our land and water. It seems to be a 'use and abuse' mentality," "people leaving old campsites and garbage in the forests," and concerns about "brown sites and pollution in soil including garbage and salt which mutate plant babies and dehydrate plants." • Species and wildlife concerns Wildlife and species concerns were equally prominent between groups, with 22% of non-tribal concerns (10 of 45) and 18% of tribal concerns (7 of 40) addressing these issues. Non-tribal respondents focused Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 24 on population dynamics and habitat: "decreasing of deer population," "climate change and human encroachment may cause reduce in wildlife populations," and "invasive species, development, not having access to cultural practices, decrease in overall well-being of species and biodiversity." Tribal perspectives often connected wildlife concerns to broader ecosystem health and traditional practices: "natural wildlife not being available to pass on to my children," and detailed observations about ecosystem changes: "the future of wolf and deer management with emphasis on wolf hunting negatively impacting our natural ecology with fewer wolves and increase of deer with rising temperature. I fear for CWD and EHD spread to the U.P." • Water quality and pollution Water and pollution concerns were more prominent among Tribal respondents (18% of concerns, 7 of 40) compared to non-Tribal respondents (9% of concerns, 4 of 45). Tribal concerns often emphasized the connection between water quality and cultural practices: "to keep our waters clean and accessible to our native communities," and "the spraying of pesticides on farm land and the effect on the environment in the long run." Non-Tribal water concerns focused more on general environmental contamination: "general climate change, deforestation and contamination through chemicals," "pollution and dumping in protected areas," and "rising water temperature." 3.5.2. Hopes for the future of forests There were 106 respondents who expressed their aspirations for the future of forests. The majority emphasized sustainable management practices, forest protection, increased public access, and respect for Indigenous traditions in forest management. The overarching goal is to maintain healthy forests for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations while balancing ecological conservation with human use. Figure 3.5.2 presents a word cloud highlighting the central message of hope for the future of forests. • Preservation and protection Both groups strongly emphasized forest preservation, though with different framings. Non-Tribal hopes frequently focused on conservation outcomes: "forests are preserved and protected," "preservation of forests," and "I hope we are able to protect forests better." The emphasis was often on maintaining current forest conditions: "forests stay the same" appeared multiple times in non-Tribal responses. Tribal hopes for preservation often connected to cultural continuity and intergenerational responsibility: "we have forests for our future generations," "preservation, harvesting for all future generation," and "sustainability of the forests for the future generations." One respondent expressed hope to "sustain and improve health of our relatives (all living beings)," reflecting Indigenous concepts of kinship with natural systems. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 25 Figure 3.5.2. Hopes for the future of forests by surveyed respondents • Sustainable management and restoration Sustainable management hopes were expressed across both groups but with different emphases. NonTribal respondents focused on technical management approaches: "forest sustainable harvest, cutting," "conservation. Replacing trees after harvest," and "biodiversity, wildfire prevention, effective management." Tribal hopes emphasized holistic and culturally appropriate management: "obviously sustainable harvesting is a must!!" "maintaining resources in a sustainable manner so we don't lose it for future generation," and "proper land management appropriate deforestation obtaining permission from Tribal communities or land owners before clear cutting." • Education and cultural connection Educational hopes were expressed by both groups but reflected different priorities. Non-Tribal respondents hoped for increased environmental awareness: "hopes to increase in education on cultural significance of forests/nature," "sustainable harvest and more public education," and "getting more people involved with environmental causes." Tribal educational hopes centered on cultural transmission and respect: "learn 7 grandfather teachings," "I hope all forests stay safe and keep the young people involved in the nature," and "hope that the next generation get outdoors." One respondent specifically hoped for "more people will become aware and take responsibility to land stewardship and protecting water and plant and animal relatives and land back." • Access and equity Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 32 Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 33 Appendix B. Cronbach’s alpha results Construct Number of items Cronbach’s alpha Frequency of forest interactions 11 0.61 Perceptions on the importance of forests 8 0.77 Observations related to forest cover and plants 6 0.91 Observations related to wildlife, fish, and insects 5 0.78 Observations related to weather patterns and human activities 6 0.71 Influences of climate-related changes on respondents’ livelihoods and cultural aspects 10 0.86 Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 34 Appendix C. Responses’ tables across two groups Table 3.2. Frequency of visiting forests for different purposes between Tribal and non-Tribal groups Characteristic Overall, N = 2321 Non-Tribal, N = 1221 Tribal, N = 1101 p-value2 01.Hunting 0.11 Once a year 53 (23%) 22 (18%) 31 (28%) Bimonthly 8 (3.4%) 3 (2.5%) 5 (4.5%) Monthly 12 (5.2%) 6 (4.9%) 6 (5.5%) Biweekly 3 (1.3%) 0 (0%) 3 (2.7%) Weekly 16 (6.9%) 10 (8.2%) 6 (5.5%) Not applicable 140 (60%) 81 (66%) 59 (54%) 02.Fishing 0.12 Once a year 41 (18%) 18 (15%) 23 (21%) Bimonthly 31 (13%) 12 (9.8%) 19 (17%) Monthly 38 (16%) 23 (19%) 15 (14%) Biweekly 8 (3.4%) 2 (1.6%) 6 (5.5%) Weekly 23 (9.9%) 14 (11%) 9 (8.2%) Not applicable 91 (39%) 53 (43%) 38 (35%) 03.Trapping 0.3 Once a year 13 (5.6%) 4 (3.3%) 9 (8.2%) Bimonthly 2 (0.9%) 2 (1.6%) 0 (0%) Monthly 5 (2.2%) 2 (1.6%) 3 (2.7%) Biweekly 1 (0.4%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.9%) Weekly 7 (3.0%) 3 (2.5%) 4 (3.6%) Not applicable 204 (88%) 111 (91%) 93 (85%) 04.Medicinal plants gathering 0.051 Once a year 34 (15%) 12 (9.8%) 22 (20%) Bimonthly 24 (10%) 11 (9.0%) 13 (12%) Monthly 25 (11%) 10 (8.2%) 15 (14%) Biweekly 5 (2.2%) 2 (1.6%) 3 (2.7%) Weekly 14 (6.0%) 7 (5.7%) 7 (6.4%) Not applicable 130 (56%) 80 (66%) 50 (45%) 05.Traditional food or drink 0.11 Once a year 53 (23%) 31 (25%) 22 (20%) Bimonthly 36 (16%) 11 (9.0%) 25 (23%) Monthly 35 (15%) 18 (15%) 17 (15%) Biweekly 10 (4.3%) 6 (4.9%) 4 (3.6%) Weekly 19 (8.2%) 10 (8.2%) 9 (8.2%) Not applicable 79 (34%) 46 (38%) 33 (30%) 06.Making traditional /ceremonial items (noncommercial use) <0.001*** Once a year 31 (13%) 9 (7.4%) 22 (20%) Bimonthly 21 (9.1%) 6 (4.9%) 15 (14%) Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 35 Monthly 26 (11%) 10 (8.2%) 16 (15%) Biweekly 3 (1.3%) 1 (0.8%) 2 (1.8%) Weekly 9 (3.9%) 1 (0.8%) 8 (7.3%) Not applicable 142 (61%) 95 (78%) 47 (43%) 07.Gathering materials for noncommercial activity 0.3 Once a year 57 (25%) 32 (26%) 25 (23%) Bimonthly 37 (16%) 13 (11%) 24 (22%) Monthly 39 (17%) 23 (19%) 16 (15%) Biweekly 12 (5.2%) 6 (4.9%) 6 (5.5%) Weekly 18 (7.8%) 9 (7.4%) 9 (8.2%) Not applicable 69 (30%) 39 (32%) 30 (27%) 08.Harvesting materials for commercial activity 0.3 Once a year 26 (11%) 10 (8.2%) 16 (15%) Bimonthly 18 (7.8%) 9 (7.4%) 9 (8.2%) Monthly 13 (5.6%) 5 (4.1%) 8 (7.3%) Biweekly 3 (1.3%) 1 (0.8%) 2 (1.8%) Weekly 10 (4.3%) 4 (3.3%) 6 (5.5%) Not applicable 162 (70%) 93 (76%) 69 (63%) 09.Recreation 0.13 Once a year 22 (9.5%) 8 (6.6%) 14 (13%) Bimonthly 24 (10%) 12 (9.8%) 12 (11%) Monthly 39 (17%) 22 (18%) 17 (15%) Biweekly 32 (14%) 17 (14%) 15 (14%) Weekly 91 (39%) 55 (45%) 36 (33%) Not applicable 24 (10%) 8 (6.6%) 16 (15%) 10.Spiritual well-being and personal enrichment 0.2 Once a year 19 (8.2%) 7 (5.7%) 12 (11%) Bimonthly 15 (6.5%) 11 (9.0%) 4 (3.6%) Monthly 29 (13%) 13 (11%) 16 (15%) Biweekly 28 (12%) 16 (13%) 12 (11%) Weekly 98 (42%) 49 (40%) 49 (45%) Not applicable 43 (19%) 26 (21%) 17 (15%) 11.Sharing knowledge and skills with others (teaching, education, training…) 0.3 Once a year 29 (13%) 13 (11%) 16 (15%) Bimonthly 22 (9.5%) 10 (8.2%) 12 (11%) Monthly 37 (16%) 23 (19%) 14 (13%) Biweekly 12 (5.2%) 4 (3.3%) 8 (7.3%) Weekly 51 (22%) 24 (20%) 27 (25%) Not applicable 81 (35%) 48 (39%) 33 (30%) 1Median (IQR); n (%) 2Fisher’s exact test; Pearson’s Chi-squared test. Significant codes: 0‘***’ 0.001‘**’ 0.01‘*’ Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 36 Table 3.3. Importance of forests to livelihood and cultural aspects of Tribal and non-Tribal groups Characteristic Overall, N = 2321 Non-Tribal, N = 1221 Tribal, N = 1101 p-value2 01.Identity and cultural heritage 0.004** 1 – Not at all important 10 (4.3%) 8 (6.6%) 2 (1.8%) 2 2 (0.9%) 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.9%) 3 7 (3.0%) 5 (4.1%) 2 (1.8%) 4 3 (1.3%) 2 (1.6%) 1 (0.9%) 5 14 (6.0%) 11 (9.0%) 3 (2.7%) 6 9 (3.9%) 5 (4.1%) 4 (3.6%) 7 15 (6.5%) 8 (6.6%) 7 (6.4%) 8 22 (9.5%) 13 (11%) 9 (8.2%) 9 14 (6.0%) 8 (6.6%) 6 (5.5%) 10 – Extremely important 117 (50%) 45 (37%) 72 (65%) Not applicable 19 (8.2%) 16 (13%) 3 (2.7%) 02.Spiritual well-being and personal enrichment 0.2 1 – Not at all important 5 (2.2%) 4 (3.3%) 1 (0.9%) 2 2 (0.9%) 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.9%) 3 3 (1.3%) 2 (1.6%) 1 (0.9%) 4 2 (0.9%) 2 (1.6%) 0 (0%) 5 8 (3.4%) 3 (2.5%) 5 (4.5%) 6 9 (3.9%) 4 (3.3%) 5 (4.5%) 7 7 (3.0%) 4 (3.3%) 3 (2.7%) 8 26 (11%) 17 (14%) 9 (8.2%) 9 20 (8.6%) 11 (9.0%) 9 (8.2%) 10 – Extremely important 138 (59%) 64 (52%) 74 (67%) Not applicable 12 (5.2%) 10 (8.2%) 2 (1.8%) 03.Ability to share knowledge and skills 0.029* 1 – Not at all important 5 (2.2%) 4 (3.3%) 1 (0.9%) 2 10 (4.3%) 6 (4.9%) 4 (3.6%) 3 13 (5.6%) 6 (4.9%) 7 (6.4%) 4 5 (2.2%) 3 (2.5%) 2 (1.8%) 5 22 (9.5%) 18 (15%) 4 (3.6%) 6 6 (2.6%) 3 (2.5%) 3 (2.7%) 7 18 (7.8%) 8 (6.6%) 10 (9.1%) 8 18 (7.8%) 9 (7.4%) 9 (8.2%) 9 20 (8.6%) 12 (9.8%) 8 (7.3%) 10 – Extremely important 91 (39%) 36 (30%) 55 (50%) Not applicable 24 (10%) 17 (14%) 7 (6.4%) Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 37 04.Accessing for fresh air and clean water 0.5 1 – Not at all important 5 (2.2%) 4 (3.3%) 1 (0.9%) 2 1 (0.4%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0%) 3 2 (0.9%) 0 (0%) 2 (1.8%) 4 1 (0.4%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.9%) 5 1 (0.4%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.9%) 6 4 (1.7%) 2 (1.6%) 2 (1.8%) 7 5 (2.2%) 3 (2.5%) 2 (1.8%) 8 10 (4.3%) 6 (4.9%) 4 (3.6%) 9 15 (6.5%) 10 (8.2%) 5 (4.5%) 10 – Extremely important 177 (76%) 89 (73%) 88 (80%) Not applicable 11 (4.7%) 7 (5.7%) 4 (3.6%) 05.Opportunities for recreation 0.082 1 – Not at all important 4 (1.7%) 4 (3.3%) 0 (0%) 2 1 (0.4%) 1 (0.8%) 0 (0%) 3 2 (0.9%) 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.9%) 4 2 (0.9%) 0 (0%) 2 (1.8%) 5 6 (2.6%) 0 (0%) 6 (5.5%) 6 3 (1.3%) 2 (1.6%) 1 (0.9%) 7 8 (3.4%) 3 (2.5%) 5 (4.5%) 8 23 (9.9%) 12 (9.8%) 11 (10%) 9 22 (9.5%) 12 (9.8%) 10 (9.1%) 10 – Extremely important 155 (67%) 82 (67%) 73 (66%) Not applicable 6 (2.6%) 5 (4.1%) 1 (0.9%) 06.Accessing for subsistence sources 0.14 1 – Not at all important 13 (5.6%) 8 (6.6%) 5 (4.5%) 2 14 (6.0%) 11 (9.0%) 3 (2.7%) 3 7 (3.0%) 5 (4.1%) 2 (1.8%) 4 3 (1.3%) 1 (0.8%) 2 (1.8%) 5 13 (5.6%) 7 (5.7%) 6 (5.5%) 6 8 (3.4%) 6 (4.9%) 2 (1.8%) 7 7 (3.0%) 2 (1.6%) 5 (4.5%) 8 19 (8.2%) 10 (8.2%) 9 (8.2%) 9 15 (6.5%) 8 (6.6%) 7 (6.4%) 10 – Extremely important 108 (47%) 47 (39%) 61 (55%) Not applicable 25 (11%) 17 (14%) 8 (7.3%) 07.Accessing for medicinal source 0.053 1 – Not at all important 23 (9.9%) 16 (13%) 7 (6.4%) Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 38 2 12 (5.2%) 10 (8.2%) 2 (1.8%) 3 13 (5.6%) 8 (6.6%) 5 (4.5%) 4 6 (2.6%) 3 (2.5%) 3 (2.7%) 5 16 (6.9%) 9 (7.4%) 7 (6.4%) 6 10 (4.3%) 6 (4.9%) 4 (3.6%) 7 8 (3.4%) 5 (4.1%) 3 (2.7%) 8 11 (4.7%) 6 (4.9%) 5 (4.5%) 9 10 (4.3%) 5 (4.1%) 5 (4.5%) 10 – Extremely important 97 (42%) 37 (30%) 60 (55%) Not applicable 26 (11%) 17 (14%) 9 (8.2%) 08.Accessing for income source from commercial activity 0.048* 1 – Not at all important 36 (16%) 25 (20%) 11 (10%) 2 11 (4.7%) 6 (4.9%) 5 (4.5%) 3 7 (3.0%) 4 (3.3%) 3 (2.7%) 4 9 (3.9%) 6 (4.9%) 3 (2.7%) 5 13 (5.6%) 4 (3.3%) 9 (8.2%) 6 6 (2.6%) 1 (0.8%) 5 (4.5%) 7 4 (1.7%) 1 (0.8%) 3 (2.7%) 8 12 (5.2%) 4 (3.3%) 8 (7.3%) 9 14 (6.0%) 10 (8.2%) 4 (3.6%) 10 – Extremely important 66 (28%) 29 (24%) 37 (34%) Not applicable 54 (23%) 32 (26%) 22 (20%) 1Median (IQR); n (%) 2Fisher’s exact test; Pearson’s Chi-squared test. Significant codes: 0‘***’ 0.001‘**’ 0.01‘*’ Table 3.4.1. Changes in landscape reported by surveyed participants. Characteristic Overall, N = 2321 Non-Tribal, N = 1221 Tribal, N = 1101 p-value2 01.Forest cover 0.6 Decrease 82 (35%) 44 (36%) 38 (35%) Stayed the same 67 (29%) 39 (32%) 28 (25%) Increase 14 (6.0%) 6 (4.9%) 8 (7.3%) Not sure 69 (30%) 33 (27%) 36 (33%) 02.Cedar 0.8 Decrease 46 (20%) 22 (18%) 24 (22%) Stayed the same 76 (33%) 39 (32%) 37 (34%) Increase 4 (1.7%) 2 (1.6%) 2 (1.8%) Not sure 106 (46%) 59 (48%) 47 (43%) 03.Birch 0.5 Decrease 59 (25%) 27 (22%) 32 (29%) Stayed the same 73 (31%) 37 (30%) 36 (33%) Increase 4 (1.7%) 2 (1.6%) 2 (1.8%) Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 39 Not sure 96 (41%) 56 (46%) 40 (36%) 04.Balsam fir 0.8 Decrease 25 (11%) 12 (9.8%) 13 (12%) Stayed the same 84 (36%) 46 (38%) 38 (35%) Increase 6 (2.6%) 4 (3.3%) 2 (1.8%) Not sure 117 (50%) 60 (49%) 57 (52%) 05.Maple 0.4 Decrease 26 (11%) 10 (8.2%) 16 (15%) Stayed the same 77 (33%) 42 (34%) 35 (32%) Increase 22 (9.5%) 14 (11%) 8 (7.3%) Not sure 107 (46%) 56 (46%) 51 (46%) 06.Berries 0.026* Decrease 57 (25%) 21 (17%) 36 (33%) Stayed the same 77 (33%) 46 (38%) 31 (28%) Increase 14 (6.0%) 10 (8.2%) 4 (3.6%) Not sure 84 (36%) 45 (37%) 39 (35%) 07.Bear 0.2 Decrease 34 (15%) 17 (14%) 17 (15%) Stayed the same 49 (21%) 30 (25%) 19 (17%) Increase 32 (14%) 12 (9.8%) 20 (18%) Not sure 117 (50%) 63 (52%) 54 (49%) 08.Deer >0.9 Decrease 32 (14%) 17 (14%) 15 (14%) Stayed the same 62 (27%) 32 (26%) 30 (27%) Increase 73 (31%) 40 (33%) 33 (30%) Not sure 65 (28%) 33 (27%) 32 (29%) 09.Ruffed grouse 0.4 Decrease 30 (13%) 16 (13%) 14 (13%) Stayed the same 51 (22%) 31 (25%) 20 (18%) Increase 22 (9.5%) 9 (7.4%) 13 (12%) Not sure 129 (56%) 66 (54%) 63 (57%) 10.Fish population in streams 0.033* Decrease 73 (31%) 37 (30%) 36 (33%) Stayed the same 47 (20%) 31 (25%) 16 (15%) Increase 11 (4.7%) 2 (1.6%) 9 (8.2%) Not sure 101 (44%) 52 (43%) 49 (45%) 11.Insects 0.8 Decrease 25 (11%) 15 (12%) 10 (9.1%) Stayed the same 41 (18%) 20 (16%) 21 (19%) Increase 94 (41%) 49 (40%) 45 (41%) Not sure 72 (31%) 38 (31%) 34 (31%) 12.Temperature 0.7 Decrease 17 (7.3%) 7 (5.7%) 10 (9.1%) Stayed the same 39 (17%) 22 (18%) 17 (15%) Increase 150 (65%) 80 (66%) 70 (64%) Not sure 26 (11%) 13 (11%) 13 (12%) Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 40 13.Flooding 0.3 Decrease 10 (4.3%) 3 (2.5%) 7 (6.4%) Stayed the same 61 (26%) 36 (30%) 25 (23%) Increase 116 (50%) 58 (48%) 58 (53%) Not sure 45 (19%) 25 (20%) 20 (18%) 14.Water level in streams 0.12 Decrease 58 (25%) 33 (27%) 25 (23%) Stayed the same 54 (23%) 34 (28%) 20 (18%) Increase 73 (31%) 31 (25%) 42 (38%) Not sure 47 (20%) 24 (20%) 23 (21%) 15.Snowfall 0.5 Decrease 86 (37%) 44 (36%) 42 (38%) Stayed the same 63 (27%) 38 (31%) 25 (23%) Increase 53 (23%) 26 (21%) 27 (25%) Not sure 30 (13%) 14 (11%) 16 (15%) 16.Soil erosion 0.053 Decrease 15 (6.5%) 3 (2.5%) 12 (11%) Stayed the same 39 (17%) 24 (20%) 15 (14%) Increase 108 (47%) 58 (48%) 50 (45%) Not sure 70 (30%) 37 (30%) 33 (30%) 17.Human activities 0.6 Decrease 13 (5.6%) 7 (5.7%) 6 (5.5%) Stayed the same 40 (17%) 25 (20%) 15 (14%) Increase 125 (54%) 63 (52%) 62 (56%) Not sure 54 (23%) 27 (22%) 27 (25%) 1Median (IQR); n (%) 2Fisher’s exact test; Pearson’s Chi-squared test. Significant codes: 0‘***’ 0.001‘**’ 0.01‘*’ Table 3.4.2. Influence of climate-related changes on different livelihood and cultural aspects across Tribal and non-Tribal groups. Characteristic Overall, N = 2321 Non-Tribal, N = 1221 Tribal, N = 1101 p-value2 01.Hunting 0.057 Much worse 8 (3.4%) 3 (2.5%) 5 (4.5%) Somewhat worse 33 (14%) 13 (11%) 20 (18%) Stayed the same 54 (23%) 25 (20%) 29 (26%) Somewhat better 14 (6.0%) 8 (6.6%) 6 (5.5%) Much better 3 (1.3%) 0 (0%) 3 (2.7%) Not applicable 120 (52%) 73 (60%) 47 (43%) 02.Fishing 0.12 Much worse 7 (3.0%) 3 (2.5%) 4 (3.6%) Somewhat worse 37 (16%) 21 (17%) 16 (15%) Stayed the same 69 (30%) 35 (29%) 34 (31%) Somewhat better 12 (5.2%) 3 (2.5%) 9 (8.2%) Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Climate-Related Change Survey Report 41 Much better 6 (2.6%) 1 (0.8%) 5 (4.5%) Not applicable 101 (44%) 59 (48%) 42 (38%) 03.Trapping 0.4 Much worse 6 (2.6%) 2 (1.6%) 4 (3.6%) Somewhat worse 10 (4.3%) 5 (4.1%) 5 (4.5%) Stayed the same 32 (14%) 15 (12%) 17 (15%) Somewhat better 5 (2.2%) 2 (1.6%) 3 (2.7%) Much better 3 (1.3%) 0 (0%) 3 (2.7%) Not applicable 176 (76%) 98 (80%) 78 (71%) 04.Medicinal plants gathering 0.006** Much worse 7 (3.0%) 3 (2.5%) 4 (3.6%) Somewhat worse 37 (16%) 12 (9.8%) 25 (23%) Stayed the same 55 (24%) 25 (20%) 30 (27%) Somewhat better 10 (4.3%) 6 (4.9%) 4 (3.6%) Much better 5 (2.2%) 1 (0.8%) 4 (3.6%) Not applicable 118 (51%) 75 (61%) 43 (39%) 05.Traditional food or drink 0.4 Much worse 9 (3.9%) 4 (3.3%) 5 (4.5%) Somewhat worse 36 (16%) 15 (12%) 21 (19%) Stayed the same 80 (34%) 42 (34%) 38 (35%) Somewhat better 16 (6.9%) 8 (6.6%) 8 (7.3%) Much better 6 (2.6%) 2 (1.6%) 4 (3.6%) Not applicable 85 (37%) 51 (42%) 34 (31%) 06.Making traditional /ceremonial items (noncommercial use) 0.018* Much worse 8 (3.4%) 2 (1.6%) 6 (5.5%) Somewhat worse 23 (9.9%) 7 (5.7%) 16 (15%) Stayed the same 58 (25%) 28 (23%) 30 (27%) Somewhat better 11 (4.7%) 5 (4.1%) 6 (5.5%) Much better 4 (1.7%) 1 (0.8%) 3 (2.7%) Not applicable 128 (55%) 79 (65%) 49 (45%) 07.Gathering materials for noncommercial activity 0.2 Much worse 8 (3.4%) 2 (1.6%) 6 (5.5%) Somewhat worse 32 (14%) 14 (11%) 18 (16%) Stayed the same 83 (36%) 49 (40%) 34 (31%) Somewhat better 10 (4.3%) 6 (4.9%) 4 (3.6%) Much better 6 (2.6%) 1 (0.8%) 5 (4.5%) Not applicable 93 (40%) 50 (41%) 43 (39%) 08.Harvesting materials for commercial activity 0.6 Much worse 7 (3.0%) 2 (1.6%) 5 (4.5%) Somewhat worse 21 (9.1%) 9 (7.4%) 12 (11%) Stayed the same 47 (20%) 27 (22%) 20 (18%) Somewhat better 12 (5.2%) 6 (4.9%) 6 (5.5%)