Amber N. Runyon's research while affiliated with National Park Service and other places

What is this page?


This page lists the scientific contributions of an author, who either does not have a ResearchGate profile, or has not yet added these contributions to their profile.

It was automatically created by ResearchGate to create a record of this author's body of work. We create such pages to advance our goal of creating and maintaining the most comprehensive scientific repository possible. In doing so, we process publicly available (personal) data relating to the author as a member of the scientific community.

If you're a ResearchGate member, you can follow this page to keep up with this author's work.

If you are this author, and you don't want us to display this page anymore, please let us know.

Publications (4)


Accurately Characterizing Climate Change Scenario Planning in the U.S. National Park Service: Comment on Murphy et al. 2023
  • Article

March 2024

·

13 Reads

·

·

·

[...]

·

Amber N. Runyon
Share

Generalized SP process
(a) Four NPS units in the US Northern Great Plains where five participatory CC SP engagements were held (WICA had two engagements a decade apart). (b) Timeline of main CC SP activities, highlighting five participatory workshops (circles)
(a) Salient features of climate‐resource scenarios used in the first (2009) CC SP engagement with WICA. Arrows indicate aspects of climate for which uncertainty about future patterns is high and that have a high impact on the ecosystem. Shaded boxes at ends of arrows describe alternative states of each climate driver, and scenarios (open boxes) are the result of combining the two adjacent climate driver states. From Symstad et al., 2017. (b) Scatterplots used to select specific downscaled climate model projections used in the 2016 CC SP engagement with BADL. Plots depict the change in two climate metrics from the 1950–1999 mean to the 2020–2050 mean for each of 36 projections (18 global climate models driven by RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5). Circled numbers are the projections used to develop CFs. Dashed lines indicate the median value for each axis. Modified from Fisichelli et al., 2016b
Conservation under uncertainty: Innovations in participatory climate change scenario planning from U.S. national parks
  • Article
  • Full-text available

February 2022

·

93 Reads

·

10 Citations

Conservation Science and Practice

Conservation Science and Practice

The impacts of climate change (CC) on natural and cultural resources are far‐reaching and complex. A major challenge facing resource managers is not knowing the exact timing and nature of those impacts. To confront this problem, scientists, adaptation specialists, and resource managers have begun to use scenario planning (SP). This structured process identifies a small set of scenarios—descriptions of potential future conditions that encompass the range of critical uncertainties—and uses them to inform planning. We reflect on a series of five recent participatory CC SP projects at four US National Park Service units and derive guidelines for using CC SP to support natural and cultural resource conservation. Specifically, we describe how these engagements affected management, present a generalized CC SP approach grounded in management priorities, and share key insights and innovations that (1) fostered participant confidence and deep engagement in the participatory CC SP process, (2) shared technical information in a way that encouraged informed, effective participation, (3) contextualized CC SP in the broader picture of relevant longstanding or emerging nonclimate stressors, (4) incorporated quantitative approaches to expand analytical capacity and assess qualitative findings, and (5) translated scenarios and all their complexity into strategic action.

Download

a Role of CFs in supporting scenario-based climate adaptation. The scenario planning process (only a portion of which is shown here) includes the development of CFs, addition of resource implications (i.e., vulnerabilities) to create climate-resource scenarios, and, ultimately, application in decision making. b Example CFs from the Big Bend National Park water development decision process for the Chisos Basin illustrates the steps in the process. Figure modified from Runyon et al. (2020)
Change in average annual mean temperature and average annual total precipitation ca. 2040 (2025–2055) relative to the 1950–1999 historical period for the Chisos Basin, Big Bend National Park for a each GCM-RCP projection, with corresponding model names in Table S1, b RCP ensemble-based CFs based on RCP 4.5 (blue) and RCP 8.5 (yellow) projections (asterisks represent the ensemble [i.e., the average of projections] for RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 CFs), c quadrant-based CFs (blue and red points represent “Warm Wet” and “Hot Dry” projections, respectively; asterisks represent “Warm Wet” and “Hot Dry” CF ensemble means, determined by averaging blue and red projections within the sub-quadrant), and d Individual-projection-based CFs (CNRM-CM5 RCP 4.5 and IPSL-CM5A-MR RCP 8.5). For c, dashed lines indicate the mean value of all projections for each axis and the box indicates the central tendency encompassing the 25th and 75th percentiles for each axis. Projections can be characterized as “Warm Wet,” “Hot Wet,” “Hot Dry,” and “Warm Dry” CFs according to sub-quadrant (upper left, upper right, bottom right, and bottom left sub-quadrants, respectively); in c, we highlight one example CF contrast (“Warm Wet” versus “Hot Dry”), but other CF contrasts could be used. Gray points in c and d represent unused projections in the development of those climate futures
Change in average annual mean temperature and average annual total precipitation ca. a 2040 (2025–2055), b 2060 (2045–2075), and c 2080 (2065–2095), relative to the 1950–1999 historical period for each GCM-RCP projection in the Chisos Basin, Big Bend National Park. Models driven by RCP 4.5 and 8.5 are represented by blue and yellow points, respectively. Dashed lines indicate the mean value of all projections for each axis and the box indicates the central tendency encompassing the 25th and 75th percentiles for each axis. The circled models include CNRM-CM5 RCP 4.5 (blue, 2040), GFDL-ESM2M RCP 4.5 (blue, 2060), INM-CM4 RCP 4.5 (blue, 2080), IPSL-CM5A-MR RCP 8.5 (yellow, all periods)
Projected annual mean temperature from 2020 to 2100 for a RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 ensembles and b GCM-RCP projections INM-CM4 RCP 4.5 and IPSL-CM5A-MR RCP 8.5. Projected annual total precipitation from 2020 to 2100 for c RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 ensembles and d GCM-RCP projections INM-CM4 RCP 4.5 and IPSL-CM5A-MR RCP 8.5
Divergent, plausible, and relevant climate futures for near- and long-term resource planning

August 2021

·

207 Reads

·

25 Citations

Climatic Change

Scenario planning has emerged as a widely used planning process for resource management in situations of consequential, irreducible uncertainty. Because it explicitly incorporates uncertainty, scenario planning is regularly employed in climate change adaptation. An early and essential step in developing scenarios is identifying “climate futures”—descriptions of the physical attributes of plausible future climates that could occur at a specific place and time. Divergent climate futures that describe the broadest possible range of plausible conditions support information needs of decision makers, including understanding the spectrum of potential resource responses to climate change, developing strategies robust to that range, avoiding highly consequential surprises, and averting maladaptation. Here, we discuss three approaches for generating climate futures: a Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP)-ensemble, a quadrant-average, and an individual-projection approach. All are designed to capture relevant uncertainty, but they differ in utility for different applications, complexity, and effort required to implement. Using an application from Big Bend National Park as an example of numerous similar efforts to develop climate futures for National Park Service applications over the past decade, we compare these approaches, focusing on their ability to capture among-projection divergence during early-, mid-, and late-twenty-first century periods to align with near-, mid-, and long-term planning efforts. The quadrant-average approach and especially the individual-projection approach captured a broader range of plausible future conditions than the RCP-ensemble approach, particularly in the near term. Therefore, the individual-projection approach supports decision makers seeking to understand the broadest potential characterization of future conditions. We discuss tradeoffs associated with different climate future approaches and highlight suitable applications.


Repeatable approaches to work with scientific uncertainty and advance climate change adaptation in US national parks

January 2020

·

95 Reads

·

19 Citations

Parks Stewardship Forum

The US National Park Service has embraced participatory scenario planning as core process for conducting climate change adaptation. Here, we describe how NPS uses scenario planning, use of climate futures, and a range of approaches from "scenario lite" through an intensive, deep-dive scenario driven adaptation process.

Citations (3)


... While useful, the broad spatial scale of traditional CCVA approaches can weaken their utility for planning management of wildlife habitats in the face of climate change. Most approaches focus on geographic-scale range shifts or identifying which species are most vulnerable to climate change (LEDee et al., 2021;Miller et al., 2022), but most management actions occur at the "site-scale" (<1 km) where changes in habitats and biotic interactions are expected to be the dominant climate effects (Pacifici et al., 2015;Rowland et al., 2011). Recommendations based on geographic-scale CCVA approaches may omit important spatial variation in effects at this scale (Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2014;Reece et al., 2018). ...

Reference:

A habitat‐centered framework for wildlife climate change vulnerability assessments: Application to Gunnison sage‐grouse
Conservation under uncertainty: Innovations in participatory climate change scenario planning from U.S. national parks
Conservation Science and Practice

Conservation Science and Practice

... Traditionally, these simulations have been combined by treating each climate model as equally plausible (e.g. Lawrence et al., 2021), a practice known as "model democracy." This approach assumes all 55 models are equally capable of simulating past and future climates Knutti, 2010). ...

Divergent, plausible, and relevant climate futures for near- and long-term resource planning

Climatic Change

... -112.140143) in the South Rim District. We worked with climate uncertainty by considering a range of plausible climate futures [33,34] represented by 28 projections. These 28 projections consisted of two simulations each of 14 downscaled CMIP5 global climate models, in which one simulation used a moderate greenhouse gas emissions pathway that assumes lower future emissions rates due to technological advancements and policy change (Representative Concentration Pathway [RCP] 4.5) and the other used a high emissions pathway (RCP 8.5) [35]. ...

Repeatable approaches to work with scientific uncertainty and advance climate change adaptation in US national parks

Parks Stewardship Forum