Inclusive Conservation in the Denali Region of Alaska: Scenario planning with local communities

• Evan L. Salcido, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
• Carena J. van Riper, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
• William P. Stewart, Department of Recreation, Sport, and Tourism, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
• Dana N. Johnson, Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
• Rose Keller, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Lillehammer, Norway

Balancing visitor and resident interests while sustaining ecosystems is increasingly complicated. This article highlights a model for conservation that involves the public throughout the decision-making process.

Public land management requires reflexive engagement, negotiation, and compromise among people who differ in how and why they value nature. The process of balancing visitor and resident interests while sustaining ecosystems is increasingly complicated by global environmental change and the range of relationships that people have with nature (Brownlee and Leong 2011, Mace 2014). A model for inclusive conservation that involves the public throughout the decision-making process is needed to establish more equitable policy solutions that remain in line with land management objectives (Raymond et al. 2022, Tallis and Lubchenco 2014). Inclusive conservation is especially relevant for protected areas in North America that are idealized by the public, owing to their layered historical meanings, exceptional ecological values, and roles as economic engines for local communities (Manning et al. 2016). In other words, the deep-seated appreciation that people have for protected areas can create tensions that need to be reframed, softened, and better understood through social science research. Moreover, given that resource management agencies have historically prioritized tourism in parks and protected areas (Runte 1997), there remains a disproportionate focus on enhancing visitor experiences rather than engaging gateway communities in discussions about the future (Johnson et al. 2022). Deep and meaningful partnerships with local residents around protected area management decisions are therefore needed to enhance connections between people and protected areas (Perry et al. 2018), as well as support adaptive planning in the face of change (Knapp et al. 2014).

Scenario Planning as a Tool for Protected Area Managers

Inclusive conservation requires not only fair representation and a broad base of respect among different interest groups, but also knowledge of the tradeoffs people make when considering alternative futures. Different visions for protected areas cannot be optimized simultaneously and the degree of uncertainty associated with preferred outcomes must be weighed in the process of making evidence-based decisions (van Riper et al. 2011). Scenario planning is a promising pathway for evaluating tradeoffs, because it involves envisioning plausible future conditions, assessing their potential effects on key resources, and identifying how people will respond to change (Lo et al. 2022). Stated choice experiments can operationalize a scenario planning process by revealing respondents’ beliefs about what should happen in the future and elicit information about the tradeoffs people are willing to make to attain their preferred futures (Louviere et al. 2000). This technique asks respondents to choose between alternative sets of hypothetical future conditions and simultaneously offers insight on what people would be willing to pay for competing conditions (Loomis and Bilmes 2019). Stated choice experiments have generated useful results in the context of outdoor recreation research (Newton et al. 2020, Pröbstl-Haider et al. 2020), including assessments of resource (e.g., soil erosion), social (e.g., crowding), and managerial (e.g., educational signage) conditions in protected areas (Lawson and Manning 2002).

Empirical evidence that reveals why tradeoffs are being made is essential for achieving greater inclusivity. Although previous studies have predominantly relied on attitudinal explanations for guiding resource management decisions (Wallen and Landon 2020), the extant visitor use literature has explored a range of concepts such as indicators and standards of quality to monitor and evaluate crowding, soundscapes, and night skies (Manning et al. 2022), connections that form between people and places to enhance visitor experiences (Halpenny 2010), and human values (van Riper et al. 2019) to improve communication and provide foundational, long-term insights on how to change behavior (Andrade et al. 2023). Descriptive information such as socio-demographics, activity type, and previous experience have also proven useful to explain variation in how people think, feel, and act in relation to changing protected area landscapes (Brownlee and Leong 2011) and improve the outcomes that emerge from experiences in natural resource management contexts (Rice et al. 2020). Indeed, an understanding of the diversity of preferences that people have for the future (what we term, preference heterogeneity) can provide useful decision support for managers.

Research Purpose

We sought to establish a process for inclusive conservation with the communities surrounding Denali National Park and Preserve and Denali State Park over a five-year period (see Figure 1). Multiple phases of research and mixed methods were employed to: (1) build partnerships, including a 10-person executive committee of local residents who represented different vested interests to guide the project; (2) characterize the current and future states of places through focus groups and interviews; (3) embark on a scenario planning process to understand residents’ preferences for the future through a regional survey of residents in Interior Alaska; (4) evaluate how deliberation in an online discussion forum shifted the value positions of residents; and (5) support reflection throughout the research process and share findings with our project partners (van Riper et al. 2021).

Figure 1. Five phases of our research to establish a process for inclusive conservation with communities in the Denali Region.

The first two qualitative phases of this project were supported by the National Park Service and involved building in-depth knowledge of community concerns, while the third and fourth phases were supported by the National Science Foundation through a larger international research effort called ENVISION that culminated in reflections with decision makers, as well as established a living online forum for discussion surrounding land management in the Denali region (Andrade et al. 2023).

In the following sections of this article, we focus on the third phase of this project and share results from a stated choice experiment that was conducted to understand residents’ preferences for the future. Specifically, we evaluated how tradeoffs were made among preferences for wildlife, fire management, tourism, and costs for achieving a desired future. We also showcase a decision support tool built from our stated choice results to guide resource management decision making in Alaska.

Data Collection

We administered a regional household survey to residents living in the Denali region across 10 communities from June to August 2020 during the third phase of our project (see Figure 2). A total of 3,000 households were contacted by mail on three different occasions and provided with tailored and personalized surveys. The opportunity to participate in the study was advertised widely through social media, on public flyers, and through word of mouth. Our survey was pilot tested and approved through the University of Illinois Institutional Review Board for ethical treatment of human subjects.

Figure 2. Map of the Denali Region and communities engaged during our research process. Adapted with permission from Johnson et al. (2022).

Scenario planning was implemented through a stated choice experiment. We measured respondents’ preferences for hypothetical management scenarios that portrayed combinations of: (1) moose (Alces alces) population levels, (2) acres of Interior Alaska forest managed for fire, (3) off-season tourism in the Denali region, and (4) willingness-to-pay for desirable scenarios represented as a donation of personal dividends from the Alaska Permanent Fund. All attributes included either 3 or 5 levels reflecting a range of conditions that might be experienced over a 30-year period. After viewing a 1-page instructional sheet, respondents were asked to evaluate 6 (out of 18) hypothetical planning scenarios. In each scenario, respondents chose between two hypothetical landscape management scenarios, or opted out by selecting a “no change” option (see Figure 3). The resulting choice data were analyzed with a random parameters logit (RPL) model using NLogit-6 statistical software.

Figure 3. An example scenario from the stated choice experiment.

Research Results

Socio-demographic Characteristics

A total of 332 residents participated in our study, yielding a 12.28% response rate. On average, respondents were middle-aged (M=54.81 years, SD=15.18), had been living in Alaska for an average of 26.50 years (SD=16.70), and visited Denali National Park and Preserve and other public lands frequently. Respondents consisted of slightly more males (52.50%) than females; 73.50% held at least a bachelor’s degree and 23.90% reported an annual household income of at least $100,000. Racially, most respondents identified as White (80.20%), with 7.26% identifying as American Indian or Alaska Native. Our sample demographics were broadly consistent with census-reported demographics of the Denali Borough, other than a slightly lower median annual household income (U.S. Census Bureau 2022).

Results from Stated Choice Experiment

Results showed that all 4 attributes explained the stated choices of Denali residents. Respondents preferred futures that included increases in moose populations (β=0.02) and acres of forest managed for fire (β=0.02). Conversely, respondents were less likely to choose hypothetical scenarios that conveyed increases in off-season tourism (β=-0.01). We calculated willingness-to-pay for these changes by asking what respondents would be willing to donate from their Alaska Permanent Fund annual payments over the next 30 years. We found that they were willing to donate the most to increase the number of moose, at $2.00 annually per 1% increase in population levels. Respondents would similarly be willing to donate $1.81 annually per 1% increase in the amount of forest acres managed for fire, and $0.89 annually per 1% decrease in the growth rate of off-season tourism. In other words, respondents would hypothetically be willing to donate $30 for a 15% increase in moose populations, $27.15 for a 15% increase in acres managed for fire, and $22.35 for a 25% decrease in off-season tourism growth rates on an annual basis.

A focus group in McKinley Village.

Preference Heterogeneity to Inform Scenario Planning

Public land managers require knowledge of the diversity of tastes and preferences that exist within a population (Pröbstl-Haider et al. 2020), particularly given increasing priorities for creating more inclusive protected area management decisions (Raymond et al. 2022). We therefore explored different options for identifying segments in our sample that would prove useful in the context of the Denali region. First, given the managerial utility of considering socio-demographic characteristics, we examined how age varied within our sample. We found that younger respondents prioritized acres managed for fire and annual cost, relative to older respondents. Second, as previous experience in a setting shows potential for informing more pointed management decisions (e.g., Guo et al. 2015), we considered how the number of years lived in Alaska varied within our sample. We found that more experienced residents more strongly prioritized increasing moose populations while de-prioritizing off-season tourism and fire management relative to comparative newcomers. Finally, we considered how attitudes (i.e., positive or negative evaluations of management interventions) provide a basis for preference heterogeneity given their stability over time (Heberlein 2012). We observed pronounced differences among subgroups defined by their attitudes and elaborate on these findings below (Johnson 2021).

Discussion of Findings

This research sought to establish a process for inclusive conservation in the region surrounding Denali National Park and Preserve and Denali State Park. We generated empirical findings to support Denali’s Resource Stewardship Strategy, Strategy P (Monitor Trends in Adjacent Communities Population, Land Use and Economy) §86, specifically focused on “local community members’ response to current and potential management strategies (including fire management),” (Denali National Park and Preserve 2009). We also used mixed methods through 5 phases of research to engage and partner with different segments in communities surrounding the region’s protected areas. This process created a framework for incorporating diverse perspectives into decision making and turned the looking glass toward residents rather than visitors to advance an ongoing dialogue about how communities are visioning for a rapidly changing future in the Denali region. Here, we report on findings from a stated choice experiment focused on understanding the tradeoffs residents make among competing conditions.

We made several key observations from our stated choice modeling results. First, moose populations were most important to residents in their evaluations of the future. It could be that respondents were considering the important role that moose play in ecosystem management, their utility for subsistence use, and charisma to draw tourists from outside the region (Salcido et al. 2023). Second, acres managed for forest fire were a driving consideration for respondents, which may be linked to concerns about climate change resulting in an increasingly uncertain future (Kasischke et al. 2010). Third, we observed that the pooled sample of survey respondents reported ambivalence toward off-season tourism; however, when segmenting our sample by attitudes toward management, strong preferences for and against off-season tourism emerged. Respondents with strong attitudes preferred a future with increasing levels off-season tourism, whereas those with weak attitudes preferred decreases in off-season tourism. Similar to other rural contexts, the Denali region is characterized by a low resident population, strong affinity for an independent lifestyle, and a strong sense of local community (Johnson et al. 2022, Cerveny 2004). As such, this issue will require careful consideration and navigation by management agencies. Moreover, projections indicate that off-season tourism in the Denali region will increase in the future (Holsinger et al. 2019) so there is an urgent need to provide residents with opportunities to discuss how they would like to balance opportunities for economic gains in relation to preserving the qualities of places in a rural Alaska context that are experiencing developmental pressures.

Application of a Decision Support Tool

Empirical research on the tradeoffs people are willing to make to attain their preferred futures and the variation that exists within the population can be effectively communicated with protected area managers using decision support tools (Newman et al. 2005, Pröbstl-Haider et al. 2020). These tools allow managers to develop and then test different configurations of future scenarios, thus gauging how well their decisions to change different landscape conditions would be received by community members. For example, a manager might wish to understand the likelihood of support for efforts to redirect tourism in response to wildlife or environmental sustainability, as well as understand the economic benefits provided to gateway communities. These are complicated tradeoffs, but such insights may decrease the likelihood of conflict and enhance relationships that residents have with places and management agencies. We developed a decision support tool using our stated choice modeling results to evaluate three different management scenarios.

For illustration purposes, we used our Denali Decision Support Tool to show how subgroups defined by their attitudes toward management evaluated three scenarios: (1) ecological optimization that prioritizes ecological integrity by increasing acres managed for fire by 30%, maintaining current moose population levels, and decreasing off-season tourism by 25%, with $100 in annual costs for residents; (2) economic optimization that prioritizes visitation to the Denali region by increasing off-season tourism by 25%, increasing acres managed for fire by 15%, increasing moose populations by 15%, and adding $50 of annual costs to residents; and (3) status quo management whereby management agencies would maintain current acres managed for fire, allow moose populations to follow their current trajectory with an increase of 30%, and maintain current off-season tourism trends, with no additional annual cost to residents over the next 30 years. We observed that all survey respondents preferred the status quo scenario. However, when accounting for preference heterogeneity, respondents with strong attitudes preferred the ecological optimization scenario, compared to respondents with weak attitudes that preferred the status quo (see Figure 4). Respondents were unlikely to support the economic optimization scenario regardless of their attitudes.

Figure 4. Output from a decision support tool that drew on attitudinal variables and results from a stated choice experiment. Findings show preferences for hypothetical management scenarios of ecological optimization, economic optimization, and status quo management among residents of Denali.

Percentages displayed above the bars indicate the likelihood that residents would prefer the associated scenario over either of the two alternative scenarios.

Concluding Thoughts

This project aims to establish a process for inclusive conservation that works toward greater representation among people with different backgrounds living around protected areas in the Denali region of Alaska. Results from our stated choice experiment illustrate how tradeoffs are being made by residents when they envision the future, while our efforts to identify smaller and more homogenous subgroups reveal a diversity of residents’ tastes and preferences for change that would be overlooked without insights from the environmental social sciences. These findings are presented to further facilitate dialogue among managers, researchers, and residents about how best to respond to a rapidly changing environment in the Denali region of Alaska. We also showcase a decision support tool to advance the process of making evidence-based decisions through deliberation (Andrade et al. 2023) and capacity building with local communities (Perry et al. 2018).

Access the decision support tool

Inclusive Conservation around Denali National Park and Preserve

References

Andrade, R., C. J. van Riper, D. J. Goodson, D. N. Johnson, W. P. Stewart, M. D. López-Rodríguez, M. A. Cebrián-Piqueras, A. I. Horcea-Milcu, V. Lo, and C. M. Raymond. 2023.
Values shift in response to social learning through deliberation about protected areas. Global Environmental Change 78: 102630.

Brownlee, M. and K. Leong. 2011.
Climate change, management decisions, and the visitor experience: The role of social science research. Park Science 28 (2): 21-25.

Cerveny, L. K. 2004.
Preliminary Research Findings from a Study of the Sociocultural Effects of Tourism in Haines, Alaska. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-612. Pacific Northwest Research Station: USDA Forest Service.

Denali National Park and Preserve. 2009.
Denali National Park and Preserve Resource Stewardship Strategy (RSS) 2008-2027 Summary. Denali National Park and Preserve, AK: NPS.

Guo, T., J. W. Smith, Y. F. Leung, E. Seekamp, and R. L. Moore. 2015.
Determinants of responsible hiking behavior: Results from a stated choice experiment. Environmental Management 56: 765-76.

Halpenny, E. A. 2010.
Pro-environmental behaviours and park visitors: The effect of place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (4): 409-21.

Heberlein, T. A. 2012.
Navigating Environmental Attitudes. Oxford University Press.

Holsinger, L., S. A. Parks, M. A. Parisien, C. Miller, E. Batllori, and M. A. Moritz. 2019.
Climate change likely to reshape vegetation in North America’s largest protected areas. Conservation Science and Practice 1 (7): e50.

Johnson, D. N. 2021.
Understanding perceptions of social-ecological systems and preferences for the future in protected area communities. M.S., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Johnson, D. N., C. J. van Riper, W. P. Stewart, M. J. Metzger, E. Oteros-Rozas, and I. Ruiz-Mallén. 2022.
Elucidating social-ecological perceptions of a protected area system in Interior Alaska: A fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Ecology and Society 27 (3): 34.

Kasischke, E. S., D. L. Verbyla, T. S. Rupp, A. D. McGuire, K. A. Murphy, R. Jandt, J. L. Barnes, E. E. Hoy, P. A. Duffy, and M. Calef. 2010.
Alaska’s changing fire regime—Implications for the vulnerability of its boreal forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 40 (7): 1313-24.

Knapp, C., F. Chapin III, G. Kofinas, N. Fresco, C. Carothers, and A. Craver. 2014.
Parks, people, and change: The importance of multistakeholder engagement in adaptation planning for conserved areas. Ecology and Society 19 (4): 16.

Lawson, S. R. and R. E. Manning. 2002.
Tradeoffs among social, resource, and management attributes of the Denali Wilderness Experience: A contextual approach to normative research. Leisure Sciences 24 (3-4): 297-312.

Lo, V., M. D. López‐Rodríguez, M. J. Metzger, E. Oteros‐Rozas, M. A. Cebrián‐Piqueras, I. Ruiz‐Mallén, H. March, and C. M. Raymond. 2022.
How stable are visions for protected area management? Stakeholder perspectives before and during a pandemic. People and Nature 4 (2): 445-61.

Loomis, J. B. and L. J. Bilmes. 2019.
Introducing the multiple values of national parks, programs, and protected areas. In Valuing U.S. National Parks and Programs, pp. 1-14. Routledge.

Louviere, J. J., D. A. Hensher, J. D. Swait, and W. Adamowicz. 2000.
Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press.Mace, G. M. 2014. Whose Conservation? Science 345 (6204): 1558–60.

Manning, R. E., M. Budruk, L. E. Anderson, K. A. Goonan, J. C. Hallo, D. Laven, S. R. Lawson, et al. 2022.
Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research for Satisfaction. Fourth. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.

Manning, R. E., R. Diamant, N. Mitchell, and D. Harmon. 2016.
A National Park System for the 21^st Century. The George Wright Forum 33:346-55.

Newman, P., R. E. Manning, D. Dennis, and W. Mckonly. 2005.
Informing carrying capacity decision making in Yosemite National Park, USA: Using stated choice modeling. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 23: 75-89.

Newton, J. N., P. Newman, B. D. Taff, Y. H. Shr, C. Monz, and A. D’Antonio. 2020.
If I can find a parking spot: A stated choice approach to Grand Teton National Park Visitors’ Transportation Preferences. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 32: 100172.

Perry, E. E., L. A. Kiewra, M. E. Brooks, X. Xiao, and R. E. Manning. 2018.
‘Parknerships’ for sustainable relevance: Perspectives from the San Francisco Bay Area. Sustainability 10 (5): 1577.

Pröbstl-Haider, U., L. M. Hunt, R. Rupf, and P. Haegeli. 2020.
Choice experiments in outdoor recreation. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 32: 100321.

Pröbstl-Haider, U., N. M. Mostegl, and W. Haider. 2020.
Small-scale private forest ownership: understanding female and male forest owners’ climate change adaptation behaviour. Forest Policy and Economics 112: 102111.

Raymond, C. M., M. A. Cebrián-Piqueras, E. Andersson, R. Andrade, A. A. Schnell, B. B. Romanelli, A. Filyushkina, et al. 2022.
Inclusive conservation and the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: Tensions and prospects. One Earth 5 (3): 252-64.

Rice, W. L., B. D. Taff, Z. D. Miller, P. Newman, K. Y. Zipp, B. Pan, J. N. Newton, and A. D’Antonio. 2020.
Connecting motivations to outcomes: A study of park visitors’ outcome attainment. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 29: 100272.

Runte, A. 1997.
National Parks: The American Experience. U of Nebraska Press.

Salcido, E. L., C. J. van Riper, W. P. Stewart, and B. A. Leitschuh. 2023.
Roles for Wildlife in the Development of Place Meanings Ascribed to a Protected Area. Environmental Management 72: 1072-1085.

Tallis, H. and J. Lubchenco. 2014.
A call for inclusive conservation. Nature 515 (7525): 27-28.U.S. Census Bureau. 2022. U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Denali Borough, Alaska. 2022. Available at: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/denaliboroughalaska/PST045222 (accessed February 25, 2025)

van Riper, C. J., W. P. Stewart, R. Andrade, D. N. Johnson, E. L. Salcido, D. J. Goodson, R. Colliani, et al. 2021. ENVISION Fact Sheet: Social Learning about Protected Areas in the Denali Region of Alaska (US). Zenodo.van Riper, C. J., S. Winkler-Schor, L. Foelske, R. Keller, M. Braito, C. M. Raymond, M. Eriksson, E. Golebie, and D. N. Johnson. 2019.
Integrating multi‑level values and pro‑environmental behavior in a U.S. protected area. Sustainability Science 14: 1395-1408.

van Riper, C. J., R. E. Manning, C. A. Monz, and K. A. Goonan. 2011.
Tradeoffs among resource, social, and managerial conditions on mountain summits of the northern forest. Leisure Sciences 33 (3): 228-249.

Wallen, K. E., and A. C. Landon. 2020.
Systematic map of conservation psychology. Conservation Biology 34 (6): 1339-52.

Cite this article as:

Salcido, E. L., C. J. van Riper, W. P. Stewart, D. N. Johnson, and R. Keller. 2025. Inclusive conservation in the Denali region of Alaska: Scenario planning with local communities. Alaska Park Science 23(1), 2025.