Potential Improvements to National Park Service Visitor Surveys and Money Generation Modeling in Alaska

This study presents options for improving the use of the Money Generation Model in National Park Service (NPS) land units in Alaska. The Money Generation Model (MGM) is used nationwide to model economic impacts of visitation to public lands, including National Park Units. This analysis identifies potential improvements to the application of the MGM model and visitor survey processes for use in Alaska. Improvements include changes to visitor intercept methods to improve statistical reliability of the sampling process and a more representative sample, changes in the survey instrument to more accurately reflect Alaska visitor travel and expenditure patterns, and better identification of the economic sphere of influence of Alaska national park units.National Park Service, Alaska Director's Office. National Park Conservation Association, Alaska Office.Abstract / Introduction / Purpose of Analysis / Potential Improvements to Visitor Survey and Economic Impact Model / National MGM Economic Impact Estimates / Summary / References / Appendix A. Katmai National Park and Preserve 2006 VSP Survey Instrument / Appendix B. Survey Questions Suggested Re-Write / Appendix C. Maps Showing Access to Alaska National Parks / Appendix D. Alaska Visitor Statistics Survey Instrumen

The Regional Economy of Southeast Alaska

Southeast Alaska consists of all boroughs and census areas including and east of the Yakutat Borough. (An Alaska borough or census area is the geographic equivalent of a county in the lower 48 states.) The eight boroughs and census areas are listed in Table 1. The “Southeast Region” is one of six longstanding labor market regions defined by the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Following numerous other authors, we will refer to the Juneau City and Borough as “Juneau” and to the remaining seven census areas as “rural Southeast” or “rural Southeast Alaska.” This report provides a broad overview of the regional economy of Southeast Alaska, including trends over time for individual communities and boroughs. It also addresses several specific topics identified by the study team and the project sponsors. The main purpose is to add to the information and knowledge base available to help people make informed decisions. This knowledge base now includes several excellent and recent reports. These will be mentioned, cited, and briefly summarized, but not recapitulated at any length. Readers of this report are strongly encouraged to consult these other reports.Alaska Conservation Foundatio

Resilience to capitalism, resilience through capitalism: indigenous communities, industrialization, and radical resilience in Arctic Alaska

Thesis (Ph.D.) University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2016A large and expanding body of scientific evidence shows that the Arctic is experiencing rapid social-ecological changes. Arctic stewardship is a framework for governance that is based on the principles of resilience thinking and is gaining prominence in both academic and political settings. However, critical scholars have indicted resilience thinking for failing to adequately comprehend the social dimensions of social-ecological systems. Resilience, therefore, remains a problematic theoretical foundation on which to base governance. The aim of this dissertation is to improve resilience thinking so that it can overcome its demonstrated shortcomings and thereby contribute to improved Arctic governance. I propose a novel theoretical framework called radical resilience, which integrates conventional resilience thinking with key insights from the political economic theories of certain Marxists and post-Marxists – namely that the capitalist mode of production and consumption is a key driver of ecological degradation and social inequity. Focusing on populations who maintain high degrees of non-capitalist modes of economic activity, I use radical resilience to answer the research question: How is the global capitalist system affecting the social-ecological resilience of Indigenous communities in northern Alaska as the Arctic continues to industrialize? Empirical case studies revolving around the three sectors of industrial activity increasing the fastest in the Arctic – tourism, natural resource extraction, and shipping – show that the relationship between capitalism and the resilience of Indigenous communities is complex and conflicted. While engaging in capitalism challenges traditional values, it is also a key strategy for maintaining adaptive capacity. Rather than calling for local places to ‘weather the storm’ of change – as resilience has been critiqued for doing –governance should enable local influence over global processes through enhanced bottom-up democracy, or what the resilience literature calls revolt.Chapter 1: Introduction -- 1.1 Introduction -- 1.2 Dissertation Methodology -- 1.3 Arctic Change -- 1.3.1 Defining the Arctic -- 1.3.2 Environmental Changes -- 1.3.3 Social Changes -- 1.3.4 Changes in Coupled Social-Ecological Systems -- 1.4 Arctic Stewardship and Resilience -- 1.4.1 Ecosystem Stewardship Applied to the Arctic -- 1.4.2 Resilience Theory and its Application -- 1.5 Critiques of Resilience Thinking -- 1.5.1 Overview -- 1.5.2 Radical Political Economy Critiques -- 1.5.2.1 Background -- 1.5.2.2 The Critique -- 1.5.3 Capitalism with a Lower Case ‘c’ -- 1.5.4 Resilience and Capitalism: Reconsidering the Relationship -- 1.6 Radical Resilience: A New Framework for Steering Arctic Change -- 1.7 References -- Chapter 2: Integrating indigenous values with capitalism through tourism: Alaskan experiences and outstanding issues -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.1.1 Overview of Barrow, Alaska -- 2.2 Theoretical Framework -- 2.2.1 Sustainable Tourism -- 2.2.2 Indigenous Tourism -- 2.2.3 Radical Political Economy of Tourism -- 2.2.4 A Framework for Critical Indigenous Sustainable Tourism -- 2.3 Barrow Case Study -- 2.3.1 Methods -- 2.3.2 Findings and Discussion -- 2.3.2.1 Iñupiaq Values -- 2.3.2.2 Tourism in Barrow -- 2.3.2.3 Spaces of Confluence and Divergence -- 2.3.2.4 Future Considerations -- 2.4 Conclusion -- 2.5 References -- Chapter 3: Mapping industrial infrastructure in the US Arctic to support community wellbeing -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.1.1 The Social-Ecological Context of Industrial Infrastructure -- 3.1.2 Linkages between Industrial Infrastructure and Community Wellbeing -- 3.2 Methods -- 3.2.1 Definition of Key Terms -- 3.3 Industrial Infrastructure in the US Arctic’s Sub-Regions -- 3.3.1 Central North Slope and State Waters -- 3.3.2 National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska -- 3.3.3. Chukchi Sea Outer Continental Shelf -- 3.3.4 Beaufort Sea Outer Continental Shelf -- 3.3.5 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- 3.3.6 Northwest Coastal and Interior Alaska -- 3.3.7 Regional Overview and Data Synthesis -- 3.3.8 Summary of Findings -- 3.4 Discussion and Conclusion -- 3.5 References -- Chapter 4: Relevance of a particularly sensitive sea area to the Bering Strait region: a policy analysis using resilience-based governance principles -- 4.1 Introduction -- 4.1.2 Background -- 4.3 A Bering Strait Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) -- 4.3.1 Key Bering Strait Ecological and Cultural Resources -- 4.3.2 Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs) -- 4.3.3 Risk Factors in the Bering Strait Resulting from Maritime Traffic -- 4.3.4 Implementing a PSSA in the Bering Strait -- 4.4 Resilience-Based Governance Principles -- 4.4.1 Principle 1: Institutions must be Ecosystem-Based -- 4.4.2 Principle 2: Institutions must be Cross-Scale -- 4.4.3 Principle 3: Institutions must be Adaptive -- 4.4.4 Principle 4: Institutions must be Legitimate -- 4.4.5 Principle 5: Institutions must be Implementable -- 4.5 Analysis and Discussion -- 4.5.1 Political Issues -- 4.5.1.1 Does a PSSA Function Effectively Across Scales? -- 4.5.1.2 Is a PSSA Implementable? -- 4.5.2 Likely Results -- 4.5.2.1 Is the Institution Ecosystem-Based? -- 4.5.2.2 Are the Institutions Adaptive? -- 4.5.2.3 Are the Institutions Perceived as Legitimate? -- 4.6 Conclusion -- 4.7 References -- Chapter 5: Conclusion -- 5.1 Introduction -- 5.2 Case 1: Tourism -- 5.2.1 What are the Key Social-Ecological Dynamics of the Given System? -- 5.2.2 Who Benefits from the Arrangement, at What Scale, and How Much? -- 5.2.3 Who Suffers from the Arrangement, at What Scale, and How Much? -- 5.2.4 Is Power Equitably Distributed in this Arrangement? -- 5.2.5 In this Context, what should be made Resilient to What and for Whom? -- 5.3 Case 2: Natural Resource Extraction -- 5.3.1 What are the Key Social-Ecological Dynamics of the Given System? -- 5.3.2 Who Benefits from the Arrangement, at What Scale, and How Much? -- 5.3.3 Who Suffers from the Arrangement, at What Scale, and How Much? -- 5.3.4 Is Power Equitably Distributed in this Arrangement? -- 5.3.5 In this Context, what should be made Resilient to What and for Whom? -- 5.4 Case 3: Shipping -- 5.4.1 What are the Key Social-Ecological Dynamics of the Given System? -- 5.4.2 Who Benefits from the Arrangement, at What Scale, and How Much? -- 5.4.3 Who Suffers from the Arrangement, at What Scale, and How Much? -- 5.4.4 Is Power Equitably Distributed in this Arrangement? -- 5.4.5 In this Context, what should be made Resilient to What and for Whom? -- 5.5 Global Capitalism’s Effects on Indigenous Communities: Northern Alaska and Beyond -- 5.5.1 Overview -- 5.5.2 Northern Alaska and the wider Arctic -- 5.6 Recommendation for Arctic Governance -- 5.6.1 Territorial Sovereignty -- 5.6.2 Effective Representation at the Regional Scale -- 5.6.3 Effective Representation at the Global Scale -- 5.7 Conclusion -- 5.8 References -- Appendix