Infrastructure Designed for Life: What We Heard About Building Alaska's Outdoor Future

The second session of Alaska's Regenerative Outdoor Visioning Project explored a deceptively simple question: What would outdoor infrastructure look like if it were designed not just to move people through landscapes, but to strengthen communities, ecosystems, and relationships over time?

Guest weavers Chris Mertl, landscape architect with Corvus Design, and Haley Johnston, Executive Director of Alaska Trails, helped frame a conversation that quickly moved beyond trails, campgrounds, and parking lots. Participants found themselves discussing stewardship, governance, maintenance, inclusion, and the long-term future of Alaska itself.

Working With Nature, Not Against It

One of the strongest themes to emerge was the idea that infrastructure should adapt to the realities of place rather than attempting to overpower them.

Chris shared examples of trail systems being redesigned in response to climate change, flooding, and shifting landscapes. Participants repeatedly returned to a simple but powerful principle: Work with nature rather than fight it.

Whether discussing beaver activity, erosion, changing winter conditions, or coastal impacts, the group emphasized that regenerative infrastructure acknowledges natural processes and designs around them. Trails, roads, campgrounds, and recreation facilities should be resilient enough to evolve alongside changing landscapes rather than requiring constant intervention to maintain outdated assumptions.

Several participants also noted that infrastructure projects can become opportunities for education, helping users understand the ecological systems they are moving through and encouraging stewardship rather than passive consumption.

Think Bigger Than the Project

Haley challenged participants to think beyond individual facilities and toward entire systems.

The conversation highlighted how infrastructure improvements often create unintended consequences when viewed in isolation. A new trail may increase parking demand. Improved access may increase maintenance needs. Recreation growth may affect neighboring communities, wildlife, or user groups.

Participants repeatedly emphasized the need for holistic planning that considers the full lifecycle of projects and their broader impacts.

The lesson was clear: successful infrastructure is rarely just about the infrastructure itself.

Bring More People to the Table—Earlier

If there was one recommendation that surfaced more often than any other, it was this:

Engage people earlier.

Participants argued that many conflicts emerge because key voices are invited into conversations too late, often after major decisions have already been made.

Tribes, Alaska Native corporations, local governments, user groups, subsistence users, tourism interests, land managers, people with disabilities, seniors, youth, maintenance organizations, and local communities were all identified as stakeholders who should be involved from the earliest stages of project development.

Several participants suggested that project teams should conduct "pre-planning" conversations before formal permitting even begins, simply to identify who needs to be at the table.

The goal is not to try to squash disagreement. It is to build relationships and address concerns before they become barriers.

Plan for Maintenance From Day One

Another recurring theme was the tendency to fund construction while underestimating long-term operations and maintenance.

Participants stressed that maintenance agreements, staffing plans, and funding sources should be considered part of infrastructure design—not afterthoughts.

The conversation also highlighted broader concerns about declining recreation staffing and funding across Alaska, particularly within state recreation programs. Many felt recreation infrastructure is often among the first areas cut during budget challenges despite its importance to quality of life, public health, economic development, and community well-being.

Infrastructure as a Long-Term Investment

As the session concluded, participants pushed the conversation beyond five-year plans and annual budgets.

One participant challenged Alaska to think in terms of a 100-year vision for communities and landscapes.

What infrastructure investments will still serve future generations? What relationships need to be strengthened today? How do we build systems that remain useful as conditions change?

Those questions point toward a broader understanding of regenerative infrastructure—one that views trails, harbors, campgrounds, access points, signage, transportation connections, and public lands not as isolated assets, but as part of a living system.

Emerging Principles for a Regenerative Infrastructure Framework

Participants identified several ideas that may help shape the project's future framework:

• Work with natural systems rather than against them.

• Design for stewardship, learning, and community connection.

• Plan infrastructure as part of larger social and ecological systems.

• Engage stakeholders early and often.

• Include diverse user groups and ways of knowing.

• Build maintenance and funding plans into project design.

• Consider long-term impacts across generations.

• Support recreation staffing and stewardship capacity.

• Use infrastructure to strengthen communities as well as access.

  
  

Ultimately, the conversation suggested that regenerative infrastructure is not simply about building better trails or facilities. It is about creating places and systems that help landscapes, communities, and future generations thrive together.