Understanding Adaptation Landscapes: Mapping the Complexity of Decision-Making in Reindeer Herding

2.1. Case description

In Sweden, reindeer herding is practiced exclusively among the Indigenous Sámi. Their historical and continuous land use has established property rights, founded on immemorial prescription, in the so-called Reindeer Herding Area (RHA).²⁹ Reindeer herding is moreover recognized as an integral part of the Sámi culture and is protected by the Swedish constitution and in international law, for example in Article 27 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This article has recently been acknowledged in Sápmi, the traditional homeland of the Sámi people, in relation to wind power development on reindeer herding land, where the Norwegian Supreme court has ruled that an established park has violated human rights.³⁰

The RHA covers about 50% of the Swedish land area (fig. 1). It is divided into 51 herding communities (samebyar), a geographic unit and legal entity that represent the interests of its reindeer herding members. Reindeer herding can be practiced in the entire RHA, on both state-owned and privately owned land. The interactions between herding communities and other land users, such as forestry and mining, are not clearly regulated in the sectoral legislation³¹ which has led to infected land use conflicts and rapidly deteriorating conditions for reindeer herding.³²

With ancient roots, reindeer herding is today an extensive form of land use relying on large season-specific natural grazing grounds, reflecting the seasonally fluctuating availability of forage resources.³³ Two different systems of seasonal rotation between summer and winter grazing grounds exist. In mountain communities, reindeer spend the summer in the mountains at the border to Norway. In late autumn, they migrate either on foot or are transported in trucks (e.g. due to disrupted migration routes) to their winter grazing areas in the lowland forests. In spring, reindeer return for calving to the summer areas. Contrastingly, reindeer in forest communities spend all seasons in the boreal forest but select different seasonal grazing grounds within that area.

2.2. Study areas: Raedtievaerie, Ohredahke and Malå herding communities

The need, regularity and quantity to provide reindeer with supplementary feeding differs widely within the Swedish reindeer husbandry area.³⁴ In the past decades, however, herders have experienced difficult winter grazing conditions with increasing frequency.³⁵ To understand how the needs and strategies of supplementary feeding are affected by the availability of, and access to, natural grazing resources in interaction with other important factors, we focus on communities that differ in their herding practices and environmental settings. After consultation with the Swedish Sámi Association (SSR), we identified three communities to approach, two migratory communities in the southern part of the reindeer herding area and a forest community further north.

The herding communities Raedtievaerie and Ohredahke in Jämtland County (fig. 1) represent mountain communities, with close family ties between the communities. Herders from these two communities share common winter grazing areas and therefore participated together in the workshop. We group both communities as one functional unit in the remaining analysis. The reindeer herd size in winter, i.e. after slaughter, is c. 2,500 animals in Raedtievaerie, and c. 3,500 in Ohredahke. Both Raedtievaerie and Ohredahke have experienced the destruction of traditional migration routes between seasonal grazing grounds by hydropower development in the 20^th century, as well as forestry having a major impact on their grazing land and land use patterns.

The third community, Malå, is a forest herding community in Västerbotten County (fig. 1). The winter herd size in Malå is c. 4,500 animals. Malå experiences strong competition and multiple pressures by developing infrastructure, forestry operations, and wind power development.

2.3. Initiating collaboration

In our research we engaged in dialogue with reindeer herders before, during and after empirical data co-production. Upon having identified potential communities, the first author made initial visits to the herding community in the fall of 2017, such as participating in reindeer gatherings. We engaged in further dialogue with the respective herding community, who selected herders or community members willing to participate in focus groups. At all stages of the collaboration, we followed the research policy adopted by the Swedish Sámi Association, including the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) to participate in the project.³⁶

The size of the herding communities differs, so for Raedtievaerie/Ohredahke most of the herders participated (Raedtievaerie/Ohredahke: n = 6). In Malå, several herders had to cancel their participation last minute to tend to their herds due to difficult snow conditions (Malå: n = 4). The focus groups took place separately in January and March 2018 and each lasted for approximately six hours. The age of participants ranged between early twenties and sixties. Only one female herder was present (Raedtievaerie/Ohredahke), which reflects the male dominance in the livelihood, at least in the daily practices of reindeer herding. Participants received renumeration for their participation, in accordance with guidelines from the Swedish Sámi Parliament as well as research ethical considerations.³⁷

2.4. Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping – capturing complexity and understanding the system

Indigenous Knowledge, such as that held by reindeer herders, uses language-based, rather than number-based prescriptions to describe and evaluate human-environmental interactions and conditions, what can be conceived as systems.³⁸ Holders of IK may thus use a diverse set of “simple”, but culturally important indicators to draw holistic representations of their lifeworld.³⁹ Comparisons between different system states are based on perceived qualitative ranks of variables that otherwise might be hard to quantify, such as the cultural dimension. These variables interweave into a “mental landscape” as cognitive representation of their reality.⁴⁰

A method for capturing and structuring these mental landscapes in a graphic representation is Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping (FCM).⁴¹ In the process of FCM, stakeholders identify key concepts that compose their system and describe causal relationships between them. The strengths of causal relationships between concepts are characterized as “weak” to “strong”, based on the qualitative description by the stakeholders usually given in the interval [–1; +1].⁴² Positive strengths signify amplifying relationships, causing linked concepts to change in the same direction. Negative strengths indicate opposing relationships, i.e., a decrease or increase in a given concept leads to the opposite change in a linked concept. The overall significance of a concept in the map, i.e., its centrality, is given by the absolute sum of outgoing relationships (affecting other concepts) and incoming relationships (affected by other concepts). Our approach also enables the description and understanding of how herders perceive feedback within and between ecological and social phenomena, which can coproduce system dynamics that often are non-linear and difficult, or even impossible, to foresee.⁴³ This demonstrates why decision-making in social-ecological settings in general, and adaptation in particular, is so difficult and fraught with uncertainty.

2.5. Constructing the maps in focus groups and post-procession

Focus group pertains to in–depth discussions with a group of purposefully selected participants that focus on a specific question.⁴⁴ In the focus groups we conducted, participants were free to expand on any topic they considered relevant. The focus groups were constructed as workshops where participants constructed conceptual maps using paper, pens and sticky notes, continuously engaging in discussion with each other and with the researchers. Participants identified important factors based on the specificity of their herding community, ranging from particular sites to encompassing the entire area, including the reindeers’ body condition and behavioral changes, daily herding practices, industrial resource development, predator populations and policies, and trends in climate and weather events. Discussions around identifying key concepts often involved very personal experiences and sharing of stories, a common way to communicate knowledge and meaning. The entry points for the discussion and subsequent construction of maps were ‘supplementary feeding’ and ‘natural grazing’, representing two alternative adaptation pathways and regimes regarding reindeer foraging. During the workshop, participants partly challenged and refitted these concepts to better reflect their situation (see Results).

When participants were satisfied with the identification of concepts, they established the causal connections between them. As a last step, participants weighed both amplifying and opposing relationships as “weak”, “moderate” or “strong”. With the participants’ consent, we recorded the discussions and transcribed them verbatim for later reference. A summary of the transcribed interview was sent to the herders for their approval and to give them the opportunity to address possible omissions or misunderstandings.

Due to time constraints in Malå, it was not possible for the participants to finish weighing all the relationships drawn on the maps. Participants identified 26 of the weights, while the first and second author of the paper, both present at the workshops, filled in the remaining 65 with the participants’ consent. Each weight was carefully calibrated against prior discussions using the workshop transcript. The full map was then sent to and discussed with our main contact from Malå, who agreed on the added values. Concepts are presented and defined in tables A1 (R) and A2 (M), based on key phrases from the recorded focus groups.

3.1. What drives needs and decisions regarding supplementary feeding?

Generally, participants understood supplementary feeding as a necessary or unavoidable fact, not a solution or desirable adaptation, to shortages of grazing resources (P3, R). They emphasized many times during the workshops that, “the dream in reindeer herding is to never need to give supplementary feeding” (P4, R). Both groups explained how “natural grazing resources disappear more and more” (P3, M), and that the primary goal was, when needed, “to give some extra feeding” (P4, R) to support the reindeer in their own search for grazing resources, so “that reindeer thrive as much as possible” (P4, R). Supplementary feeding on a larger scale is thus only used to ensure reindeer survival “during crisis” (P2, R) when natural forage resources (terrestrial and arboreal lichens) are inaccessible, and the reindeer are in bad condition. This might be the case if “reindeer can’t get at them because of the snow” (P4, R) or ice-crusts (see below).

The results further highlight the need to view responses to environmental and climate factors in context, in this case confirming how lichen availability is negatively affected by forestry practices and other forms of land use or infrastructure (P1, R; P1, M). Among other things, these include construction of wind power plants, railroads and roads. Herders in both communities emphasized the detrimental consequences of the exotic tree species Pinus contorta on both terrestrial and arboreal lichens – “the grazing resources just die” (P4, R). Furthermore, dense P. contorta plantations offer cover for predators, forcing reindeer to change their behavior around these areas and increasing losses for herders (P4, M). It is noteworthy that herders in Malå, who are strongly exposed to many different parallel forms of land use, framed this process explicitly as “loss of grazing resources” (referring to terrestrial lichens) in their model, while herders in Raedtievaerie/Ohredahke chose to frame it as “[amount of] terrestrial lichens”. While similar processes are considered, they are seen from opposite directions, indicating the relative urgency the communities experience. The map drawn by herders in Malå herding communities contained more concepts than the map drawn by herders from Raedtievaerie/Ohredahke herding communities. This reflects the stronger exposure in Malå to other forms of land use and the use of boreal forests during both summer and winter.

The loss of grazing grounds and increasing infrastructure disrupt the ‘grazing peace’ (guohtun ráfi in Northern Sámi) of the animals, i.e., calmly grazing herds that do not split or do not stray afar in search of forage (P1, P3, R; P3, M). The maps demonstrate how ‘grazing peace’ is directly related to, and increases, the well-being of both reindeer and the herders – not only because calm herds require less herding work, but also because herders feel accomplished by securing their animals’ well-being (P4, M).

Herders pointed out that reindeer can spread over large areas in search of natural forage when snow conditions are difficult – making it very difficult to keep them gathered for supplementary feeding (P1, R) and increasing the risk of traffic accidents (P1, M). This points to practical limits in supplementary feeding as a strategy since, as the herders explain: “supplementary feeding is rarely an alternative when you would need it.” (P3, R). Other alternatives, such as moving to areas with variable topography with diverse grazing conditions and arboreal lichens are clearly the preferred adaptation options (P3, R; P1, M).

In Malå, supplementary feeding has been practiced by necessity almost every year since the late 1990s (P1, M). As two different strategies of supplementary feeding (see below) are established and used regularly in Malå, they received a central place in the FCM, while it was not the topmost concept in Raedtievaerie/Ohredahke (fig. 2, fig. S1).

3.2. The significance of weather and climate

Stochastic winter weather and its influence on snow conditions influence the availability of the principal natural winter forage for reindeer, i.e., both terrestrial and arboreal lichens. The variation of precipitation and temperature determines if snow freezes to form ice-crusts and thus form a barrier to reindeer foraging. In extreme cases (such as in winter 2017/2018), arboreal lichens in the trees may also be covered by ice, making them unavailable for the reindeer (P1, M). Therefore, even areas with high lichen biomass “can still be bad grazing areas during winter” if reindeer cannot access the forage beneath the snow (P4, R). “Weather has become less predictable” (P1, R) in the last 15 years (P4, M). Reindeer herders observe that what they consider as extreme events, such as “alternating rain and snow…. One day it is plus-degrees and the next day it is –15 below zero, resulting in ice cover” (P2, R) are increasing in frequency, attributed to climate change.

In short, snow conditions determine to a large degree if and when supplementary feeding becomes necessary. While the herders recognize climate change as a central driver in the decision-making process, its fundamental impact is somewhat obscured in fig. 2 and fig. 3, as climate is represented only by outgoing relationships.

3.3. Feeding strategies

Participants emphasized that supplementary feeding does not necessarily contradict traditional forms of reindeer husbandry, where reindeer “move between different grazing grounds, that they find their forage resources on their own” (P4, M). In both communities, herders differentiated between “feeding in corrals” and “feeding free-range”. Feeding free-range, i.e. feeding in the landscape without restricting the animals’ options to move freely, requires that reindeer “can graze at least on some natural resources” (P4, R). It is also a strategy to “have control over the herd” (P1, M), as reindeer then tend to keep closer to the feeding sites, instead of spreading over a large area (P4, M).

Participants in Raedtievaerie/Ohredahke pointed out that feeding in corrals is only a short-term option, for instance to protect reindeer from predators (P3, R). They did therefore not include ‘feeding in corrals’ into their model and emphasized that they “to a larger extent use other alternatives than supplementary feeding” (P3, R). Contrastingly, in Malå both types of feeding received similar focus (fig. 2, fig. A1), but participants emphasized that feeding in corrals “is nothing you strive for. Reindeer should be free and graze on natural resources” (P3, M). Therefore, herders tend to wait as long as possible before starting to feed, also because of economic cost (P1, M). Yet, it is very difficult to know how the winter conditions will be (P1, M). Waiting too long before starting to feed may risk losing animals that are in bad condition and thus cannot cope with the adjustment in the forage, requiring herders to make a quick decision (P4, M).

3.4. Herding strategies

A major difference between the two communities was the option of controlled herd dispersal in Raedtievaerie/Ohredahke, i.e. guarding the edges of the herd when reindeer are moving freely and feeding to a large degree on their own. It helps herders to “know in which area your reindeer are” (P4, R), and supplementary feeding is then applied “not to lose the grip on the herd” (P3, R). Control over the dispersed herd was therefore a strong focus in Raedtievaerie/Ohredahke, together with lichen availability (fig. 2, fig. A1). However, “forestry has today limited this option.” (P1, R) by reducing lichen availability. This process is still ongoing (P3, M) and may force herders to use areas they have never used before as they are exposed to other forms of land use (P4, M). In both maps, forestry therefore was ranked among the highest drivers (fig. A1).

Participants in Raedtievaerie/Ohredahke emphasized their rather large winter grazing area as a strength of their herding community (P1, R). In particular, the diverse topography is an advantage, as it offers variable snow conditions for reindeer foraging, as well as steep terrain inaccessible to forestry operations (P3 & P4, R). That variation allows a controlled herd dispersal, and therefore received a strong focus (fig. A1).

Arboreal lichens are considered “central during bad grazing conditions and in the decision of whether you start supplementary feeding” (P1, R). As arboreal lichens can sustain reindeer when deep or hard snow hinders reindeer to dig for terrestrial lichens, herders would “cope much better. Very, very much would need to happen, before you think about feeding” (P1, R). However, forestry practices have strongly reduced arboreal lichens in both herding communities today. In Raedtievaerie/Ohredahke, protected forests close to the mountains offer some arboreal lichens, however, these forests “accumulate deep snow and there are many predators” (P4, R). Releasing the herd into these forests would result in large losses of reindeer to these predators. In both herding communities, herders perceived predator impacts as very detrimental, and therefore ranked them among the highest drivers in both cognitive maps (fig. A1). Dispersal of the herd and guarding it on the edges is currently not an option in Malå. Participants pointed out that it would give them the chance “to recover some energy. That has not been possible during the last 10–15 years” (P1, M), mostly due to difficult winter conditions. Yet, herders in Malå also use supplementary feeding to have “better control” (P1, M) over the animals.

3.5. Consequences of supplementary feeding on reindeer and herders

Supplementary feeding changes the work with the reindeer in several ways, for instance “it is a lot of work to get out the feed. This is very demanding. At the same time, someone must watch over the reindeer that are still dispersed.” (P3, M). Apart from the increased workload, feeding is expensive, particularly feeding in corrals (P4, M). Financial support from the Swedish Sámi Parliament, granted by the Swedish Government, during winters with extremely difficult snow and ice conditions can be rather important (P4, M). It is paid to the herding community, not to the individual reindeer herder, and these decisions can be delayed. For the reindeer, supplementary feeding can improve their condition when natural forage is unavailable. Especially when feeding free-range, reindeer as herd animals can take advantage of each other, where stronger animals can open feeding craters, which may be used by those animals that refuse to eat from the supplementary feed (P3, M). This process may help reindeer in the adjustment from natural forage to supplementary feeding. Contrastingly, “feeding in corrals can only be sustained over a shorter time due to risk of diseases” (P4, M) and some reindeer refuse to eat, and their body condition deteriorates (P1, M). Feeding in corrals may also have the effect that the “natural behavior of reindeer will be disrupted, their instincts” (P4, R). As reindeer become more used to human presence, they become tamer, which may lead to increased conflicts with the surrounding society, such as traffic accidents (P3, M).

3.6. Self-reflecting on herders’ Indigenous knowledge

The maps constructed can be understood as a visual representation of the herders’ shared IK pertaining to those aspects that were discussed, although not all intricacies can be included. They emphasized that “cultural and place-specific knowledge of the landscape is essential to succeed with supplementary feeding” (P4, R) and for reindeer herding practices at large. However, participants expressed frustration that their knowledge “has no value” (P4, R) or “no credibility” (P3, M) as an evidence-base during consultations with other forms of land use, such as forestry. This leads to a “loss of confidence” (P3, M) to participate meaningfully in land use decisions. In sum, there is a feeling that herders “all the time need to adapt according to the norms of majority society” (P1, M).

Other actors often misunderstand the need of access to land and mobility for reindeer well-being. Competing land use or policymakers may frame providing financial compensation for feeding in corrals as a solution to land use conflicts, so that “you do not need any grazing grounds anymore, only two square kilometers for a corral” (P3, R). Herders view such financial compensation in exchange for grazing land, as a “risk that you are doing something that others [i.e. majority society] want you to do” (P3, R) at the expense of reindeer ecological needs and their own practical and cultural preferences. They further point to the potential loss of Indigenous knowledge on the behavior of reindeer (P2, R).

Despite their long experience and knowledge in caring for their animals, herders acknowledge that reindeer behavior can still surprise them. Reindeer may behave in a different way than herders would expect or desire – potentially affecting the decision on supplementary feeding (P4, M; P1, R).

3.7. Reindeer herders’ well-being

Herders emphasized that reindeer herding “is a way of life. It is the reindeer that matter.” (P4, M). Herders’ well-being involves their psychological, emotional, social as well as physical health. In both communities, the well-being of herders, connected to this way of life, received a high focus in the maps (fig. 2, fig, 3, fig. A1), as it is affected by so many other relationships in both Malå and Raedtievaerie/Ohredahke. The feeling that “sadly, this generation may be the last one that practices traditional reindeer herding” (P4, M) increases the psychosocial burden.

4.1. The utility of FCM to illustrate complexities in decision-making

The herders in the two communities work in similar environmental conditions during winter. Their cognitive maps thus show several similarities, reflected in the herders’ narratives regarding the identified concepts and principal relationships. This applies to relationships both within and between biotic, abiotic, and socio-cultural and economic variables, and challenges posed by the surrounding society. The role of weather events and forestry on the availability of grazing resources and presence of predators are particularly influential in the adaptive decision-making on supplementary feeding and other herding strategies, thus strongly affecting reindeer herders’ well-being.

However, important differences became obvious in the two cognitive maps. One striking difference is that herders in Malå consider two forms of supplementary feeding, i.e., free-range as well as in corrals. Herders in Raedtievaerie/Ohredahke do not consider the latter, except in the rare case of particularly damaging predator presence (wolves). Furthermore, we noted the opposing framing of natural grazing resources in the maps. Herders from Raedtievaerie/Ohredahke termed this as availability of “terrestrial lichens” (fig. 2), while herders from Malå oriented the map and its relationships on the “loss of grazing resources” (fig. 3). While this may be considered the same concept seen from different viewpoints, it also reflects the major processes that determine herding practices and herders’ concerns in Malå. Herders in Raedtievaerie/Ohredahke emphasized the large area of their winter grazing grounds (but not necessarily a higher or better availability of grazing resources), compared to the strong pressure on Malå restricting spatial flexibility. Spatial flexibility also feeds back to herding strategies: controlled herd dispersal, considered a particular strength by Raedtievaerie/Ohredahke, is not an option in Malå, at least not to such a degree that herders felt confident to put it on their map.

As such, the maps created by the herders visualize a section of their knowledge and a conceptual model of their decision-making landscapes regarding supplementary feeding tied to the rhythms of nature and reindeer. These are moreover influenced by the impacts caused by the surrounding society and its diverse intentions of land use, such as different forms of resource extraction, as well as norms and expectations placed upon the herders. From around Sápmi, the traditional Sámi area, research highlights how traditional knowledge is ignored⁴⁵ and how the states to a large extent hand over responsibility for negotiating conflicts and solutions to private actors and indigenous communities directly.⁴⁶ Reindeer herders’ needs and values are poorly reflected in land use governance – restricting the meaningful inclusion of IK in land use policies which leads to increased conflicts and a communicative burden placed on herding communities.⁴⁷

By using FCM, it was possible to capture aspects of IK that otherwise can be difficult to measure or describe. A particularly illustrative example is the concept of ‘grazing peace’. Grazing peace, as a compound concept, became a vehicle for expressing the structure and function of desirable reindeer landscapes and how the reindeer can move and behave in such a landscape, seen from the herders’ perspective. The concept encompasses a delicate balance of several variables, where both the reindeer and reindeer herders’ health and well-being are included. “Protecting what is left”⁴⁸ in terms of grazing resources and landscape connectivity to move between grazing areas, but also of cultural resources, knowledge and identity, becomes paramount to maintain the relationship between herders, reindeer and the environment that embodies Sámi reindeer herding. However, in the multiple-use landscape in which different actors’ needs are articulated, the Indigenous concept of ‘grazing peace’ is given little consideration and therefore lacks meaningful impact on decisions in land use planning and development.

The herders’ cultural, moral, and material aspirations of sustainable reindeer herding can thus be expressed and articulated in the networks, as well as the complexities of decision-making in interaction with the surrounding environment. We acknowledge, however, that such methods cannot fully represent the holistic IK of herders without the risk of being taken out of its cultural context.⁴⁹ Instead, we see the strength in FCM as a tool to communicate the herders’ reality by visualizing the network and semi-quantitative relationships that are difficult to grasp by outsiders.⁵⁰ Such communication can be of dire need, where herders have to defend their rights and interests to other forms of land use, in carnivore management or other situations that involve the broad social diversity in Sweden’s northern boreal forest.⁵¹ For example, the maps can illustrate the herders’ need to cope with stochastic weather conditions that mediate variability of natural grazing resources, additionally to the impacts of forest management. Their strategies in decision-making therefore rather reflect managing for change and flexibility, rather than stability. This includes the, at times, unpredictable reindeer behavior, as reindeer clearly have their own agency in the pastoral system.⁵²

Adapting in terms of managing for flexibility becomes even more important as phenomena rarely observed before (e.g., icing of arboreal lichens, and an increase in frequency and severity of extreme events brought about by a changing climate) transform the herders’ bio-physical landscape. As herders point out, supplementary feeding is, or is becoming, one of the major transformations related to these changes that the livelihood is experiencing today. Consequently, new knowledge about if, when and how feeding is necessary is evolving, and forms cumulative hybrid knowledge merged with the intergenerationally transmitted IK, as also observed elsewhere in the Arctic.⁵³ In this study, herders feared a loss of IK where it will no longer be applicable if a new regime with feeding as the dominant form of winter foraging will become necessary. While such a process of lost IK indeed has been observed in indigenous communities⁵⁴, the hybridization of knowledge does not necessarily result in a net loss of the cumulative body of knowledge.⁵⁵

The strength in the FCM as applied in our work is the graphical presentation of the herders’ decision-making landscape, as well as the semi-quantitative indicators that illustrate the relationships. However, caution must be applied when interpreting the FCMs. While some concepts receive a rather low centrality as displayed in fig. 2 and fig. 3, these values do not fully represent their significance in the complex system, nor is the full system captured here. For example, climate change as a driver has no incoming relationships, resulting in a comparatively low centrality. According to their narratives, this centrality does not reflect the impact that climate change has on the herders’ decision-making. Furthermore, temporal variation and extreme events cannot be captured accurately in the maps. The yearly uncertainty that makes it difficult for herders to plan ahead is therefore not fully captured.

4.2. Adaptation or maladaptation?

Herders clearly do not consider supplementary feeding a desirable solution – an adaptation – to the underlying causes that necessitate this practice in the first place. It should rather be seen as a technical compromise, forced by other land use in combination with climate change. It could lead to a decoupling between the seasonal uses of the landscape as seen by the herders. If this sought relationship between people, reindeer and environment experiences a regime shift from, for instance, a dependence on natural grazing to supplementary feeding, new feedback may lock the system in a social-ecological trap, as the response to this mismatch self-reinforces the trap.⁵⁶ As described by the herders in this study, supplementary feeding becomes a maladaptive practice if it triggers a persistent change that fundamentally changes the elemental keystones of traditional reindeer herding, such as mobility between grazing areas and reindeer being able to find and survive on natural forage resources. Systematic, or routinized, feeding thus constitutes a poor and undesirable substitute for natural grazing grounds. Nor is it an adaptation displaying potential to even out inequalities in the relations with competing land use actors, and is thus a poor candidate in developing just approaches to adaptation. On the other hand, herders made efforts to distinguish between different forms and practices of supplementary feeding, indicating that there are better and worse forms of supplementary feeding. This reinforces the idea that different responses fluctuate, depending on conditions, between being perceived as more or less maladaptive.

Working with First Nations in western Canada, Eckert et al.⁵⁷ identified environmental degradation by industrial resource exploitation, as well as the legacies of colonialism and loss of Indigenous governance and property rights, as the principal forces creating social-ecological traps. Muting of traditional ecological knowledge contributed to maintaining Indigenous management of natural resources within the social-ecological trap, furthering a degradation of the local ecosystem.⁵⁸ Reversing such a degradation of grazing grounds in the Swedish reindeer herding area by, for instance, alternative forms of forest management compared to the current practices, could improve the long-term availability of natural grazing resources for reindeer⁵⁹, and prevent falling into or reinforcing the trap of maladaptive feeding practices by restoring a functional grazing landscape.⁶⁰

As the cognitive maps illustrate, preventing maladaptation in the form of systemic supplementary feeding is a complex task that cannot be solved by the agency of reindeer herders alone but demands concerted interventions across governing levels.⁶¹ Even though the impacts of climate change make supplementary feeding a necessary response as crisis relief, other actors and policies within the reindeer herding area influence and transform the herders’ present and future landscape. For example, forest management or predator management are shaped by policies that need to consider the diversity of social values and goals with environmental management placed on northern landscapes. They can therefore create friction not only with the herders’ needs, but also Sámi rights on their traditional lands.⁶²

For adaptation policy to be effective for targeted and vulnerable groups, particularly under conditions where inequalities are institutionalized, consideration of IK and communities’ needs is required.⁶³ As herders demonstrate, adaptation policy also needs to consider the broader institutional context such as land use governance and interactions to ensure that existing inequalities are not further reinforced by adaptation measures. Enabling Indigenous communities to participate meaningfully in environmental governance, where conflicts with other forms of land use often are a reality, requires a political willingness and dedicated intervention by the state to address power imbalances, instead of assuming a priori how coexistence between involved actors is possible or desired.⁶⁴ Such intervention includes the recognition of the validity of herders’ IK as a means for empowerment and self-determination – an inherently political implication, as questions such as “whose knowledge counts?” play a significant role in transforming power relations and the outcomes of environmental governance.⁶⁵ Increasing herders’ meaningful influence can considerably reshape adaptation processes to meet present and future challenges caused by climate change and land use change in reindeer herding. Adaptation processes only become empowering if they originate from, and are developed by, the herders’ own agency, values, and practices, compared to being imposed or prescribed by surrounding society’s needs and preferences. Otherwise, as demonstrated in our case on supplementary feeding, they risk becoming a maladaptive response that enhance structural injustices.

Adaptation measures that lead to violation of human rights, increase vulnerability or reinforce inequitable societal relations, will push marginalized actors even further behind rather than shortening divides. They must be considered maladaptive, not only from single land use and rights-holder perspectives – that of reindeer herders – but also maladaptive from a national adaptation policy perspective.⁶⁶ While supplementary feeding under certain conditions (i.e., free range under surveillance) could be considered a strategy of increasing relevance and need caused by the combined impacts of climate change and declining forage resources, routinized supplementary feeding in corrals is clearly considered maladaptive and herders are taking measures to avoid it. Our detailed examination of supplementary feeding and whether it contributes with positive or negative short- and long-term impacts provides important input to other land users and land use governance decisions, seeing how embedded adaptation decisions are within broader, complex, dynamic landscapes of decision-making.