He teaches forest economics, economics of renewable resources, and international forest business, and conducts research in applied forest economics with emphasis on timber markets, investments and finance, and forest management. We are always looking for ways to improve customer experience on Elsevier. We would like to ask you for a moment of your time to fill in a short questionnaire, at the end of your visit.
If you decide to participate, a new browser tab will open so you can complete the survey after you have completed your visit to this website. Thanks in advance for your time. Skip to content. Search for books, journals or webpages All Pages Books Journals.
View on ScienceDirect. Hardcover ISBN: Imprint: Academic Press. Published Date: 7th February Page Count: For regional delivery times, please check When will I receive my book? Sorry, this product is currently out of stock. Flexible - Read on multiple operating systems and devices. Easily read eBooks on smart phones, computers, or any eBook readers, including Kindle. When you read an eBook on VitalSource Bookshelf, enjoy such features as: Access online or offline, on mobile or desktop devices Bookmarks, highlights and notes sync across all your devices Smart study tools such as note sharing and subscription, review mode, and Microsoft OneNote integration Search and navigate content across your entire Bookshelf library Interactive notebook and read-aloud functionality Look up additional information online by highlighting a word or phrase.
Institutional Subscription. Instructor Ancillary Support Materials. Free Shipping Free global shipping No minimum order. Dedication Preface Chapter 1. Forest Regions of the World 2.go
University of Florida
Forest Landowner Goals, Objectives, and Constraints 3. Forest Products 4. Wildlife Habitat Relationships 5. Ecosystem Services 6. Forest Recreation 7. Forest Measurements and Forestry-Related Data 8. Tree Anatomy and Physiology 9. Forest Dynamics Common Forestry Practices Our method contained 4 stages Fig. The first stage of the method explored how drivers of change could affect the system. Each team preselected drivers for presentation to the community by reviewing the drivers identified by a regional scenario-planning exercise for Latin America The Millennium Project and selected 5 drivers to fit with the so-called STEEP typology, i.
The teams then specified 2 possible states for each driver, e. This step was based on the literature because relying only on local perceptions to identify drivers may risk missing important drivers of change e. However, the drivers and their contrasting states were presented to the communities to modify or reselect. This is the systematic description of a set of cause-and-effect relationships, structured and represented by a matrix. It requires the social-ecological system to be described in terms of variables: for us, this was already available as each community had identified a list of variables representing key aspects of the local social-ecological system Delgado Serrano et al.
The 5 drivers formed the top row of the matrix, and the system variables formed the side of the matrix. For each cell of the matrix, participants were asked what might happen to the system variable if the external driver takes a particular state, e. In the second stage, the contents of this matrix were used to inform the creation of alternative scenarios. Teams considered the six archetypes of Hunt et al. A plausible combination of cells from the matrix was used as the basis for creating narrative scenarios.
These narratives were written descriptions of the future that encompass the future states and connections between drivers and social-ecological system variables. The narratives were extensively discussed and amended by community participants.
The third stage used these scenarios to provoke consideration of what actions, or response options, might be relevant to achieve community goals in light of possible future changes. These possible response options could include actions already within existing plans and programs or could be entirely new. A robust response option was one that was deemed as both implementable and useful in more than one scenario.
Options that were not robust were not further discussed.
- Privacy: 21 Ways to Protect Your Privacy, and Reduce Your Exposure to Identity Theft and Government Surveillance!
- The Secret to Getting a Job after College: Marketing Tactics to Turn Degrees into Dollars.
- Start Up Guide to Becoming A Virtual Assistant!
- The Old Catholic Church and Other Writings;
- Post navigation.
- 1st Edition.
In the fourth stage, the operational implications of the robust response options were discussed in more detail. Many examples of scenario planning in the literature provide more detail on scenario creation than on scenario utilization, so there was less guidance available as to how to structure these latter two stages. Each community differed in how it interpreted and carried out this final step, possibly reflecting the different pathways to implementation each was following by this stage.
However, all groups discussed specifically what needed to be done, by when, and by whom, identifying specific actions for individuals, the community, and external actors to implement. The method was implemented between March and July in the Argentinian, Colombian, and Mexican cases. Each case was experiencing challenges related to natural resource systems that are likely to be affected by climate change and other external drivers.
Beyond this, the cases differed markedly in terms of their natural settings, socio-cultural context, and focal issues or goals Table 1. Table 1 shows the actors engaged by the scenario-planning process: generally local residents and, less often, commercial or policy actors with power and influence over the system. In Mexico and Colombia, the participants were identified and recruited via preexisting community councils, whereas in Argentina participants were identified and recruited separately via stakeholder analysis.
In Mexico and Colombia, separate meetings with some external actors such as officials from regional government provided these groups with information about the planning outputs and ideas, but liaison with these groups was not the main focus of the process. Each team held at least three workshops to allow the community members to generate, amend, or validate previously generated data throughout the scenario-planning process; for logistical reasons, two cases chose to combine two stages into one workshop.
Information on the workshops can be found in Table 2. We evaluated the implementation of scenario planning across the three cases in relation to benefits that may strengthen CBNRM. We converted these into criteria in our data collection and analysis. For the first factor, i.
Natural Resource Planning
For the second factor, i. For the third factor, i. However, during data collection and analysis, we aimed to avoid prejudging if and how the process had achieved influence. So, for example, we used open questions to solicit feedback about experiences of implementation. If scenario planning is to benefit participation and systems thinking, as well as consideration of future change, the value of any method chosen is likely to depend as much on process, i.
We therefore collected data on how the method was experienced through separate interviews with the teams facilitating the process in each case Table 2. Therefore, the data reflect the views of the teams and not directly the views of the communities, although partly to address this, the lead authors observed one community workshop per case during the final stage of work in July These interviews were convened by videoconference subsequent to each workshop.
A topic guide was used to probe experiences of implementing each stage Appendix 2.
As far as possible, the interviewers avoided prompting or prejudging opinions. These interviews were recorded and transcribed and were often supplemented by teams e-mailing written responses to further queries that arose from data analysis. The notes of this discussion were also captured and transcribed. Our analysis combined all these data, i. The software package Nvivo10 was used to store, manage, search, and deductively code these data using the criteria described previously.
The themes we detected in the data are derived from all the previously mentioned sources but are illustrated using quotes from the interviews only. Therefore, in Findings , we do not describe the resulting outputs stage by stage for each case; this is already available in Escalante Semerena et al. Instead, we structure our findings according to the research objectives. All the cases were able to implement all four stages of the method. Furthermore, each team judged that doing so was worthwhile: the method could sometimes be demanding and required care to facilitate, but this effort was felt to be justified by the benefits delivered Fig.
When we explored why the method was felt to be useful, each team reported a range of benefits, many of which appeared interconnected. A summary of the reported benefits in relation to our analytic criteria is presented in Table 3. Subsequently, we discuss in detail if and how the method contributed to 1 considering future change, 2 fostering participation, and 3 supporting systems thinking.
The most obvious expectation for scenario planning is that it will encourage consideration of the future. This indeed occurred in all cases, although careful facilitation was needed to assist people to look beyond immediate concerns. This was often achieved by discussing past changes and the drivers that had caused these. Climate change was the most easily introduced concept, whereas other drivers, i. However, once people were engaged in thinking beyond the status quo, many ideas about the future were produced, and the need to plan now for future change was recognized. The detail and complexity of future visions and responses was evidenced throughout the copious outputs and discussion notes produced from the workshops in each country.
For example, robust response options generated by Argentina, Mexico, and Colombia ranged from tackling corruption to developing ethnic education curricula and changing forest management techniques. By the end of the process, a range of drivers, not only climate change, were seen as important in shaping possible scenarios and therefore community responses.