4.5 Article

Managing Alaska's National Parks in an era of uncertainty: an evaluation of scenario planning workshops

期刊

REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
卷 17, 期 5, 页码 1541-1552

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10113-017-1126-4

关键词

Adaptation; Climate change; National Park; Natural resource management; Scenario planning; Vulnerability

资金

  1. NPS
  2. NPS Alaska Regional Office

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Scenario planning is a flexible tool used to assess a broad range of plausible, relevant, divergent, and challenging futures, for short-term responses and long-term planning. Scenario planning has gained popularity in natural resource management for addressing uncertainties associated with climate change, but the literature contains few retrospective assessments of scenario planning. In this paper, we use a case study of a climate change scenario planning process conducted by National Park Service in Alaska to evaluate this tool and its outcomes. Five planning workshops, each addressing an Inventory and Monitoring Network in Alaska, were held between 2010 and 2012. In 2015, we conducted 30 interviews with workshop participants to evaluate the outcomes of these workshops. Participants described individual outcomes, including increased knowledge of climate change, increased awareness of uncertainty, and the ability to learn from others across disciplines and backgrounds. Challenges include ensuring adequate feedback and follow-through after the initial process, making products tangible and meaningful to participants, and providing specific mechanisms for applying the process beyond the workshop. The evaluation showed that the workshops were well organized and facilitated, and that they fostered individual learning and helped participants develop adaptive capacity. Suggestions for improvement included institutionalizing the process so that it can have more impact at the organizational level, and recognizing and preparing for the challenges of co-production of knowledge.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据