Exploring the usefulness of scenario archetypes in science-policy processes: experience across IPBES assessments
. 2019. Sitas, N., Z. V. Harmáčková, J. A. Anticamara, A. Arneth, R. Badola, R. Biggs, R. Blanchard, L. Brotons, M. Cantele, K. Coetzer, R. DasGupta, E. Den Belder, S. Ghosh, A. Guisan, H. Gundimeda, M. Hamann, P. A. Harrison, S. Hashimoto, J. Hauck, B. J. Klatt, K. Kok, R. M. Krug, A. Niamir, P. J. O'Farrell, S. Okayasu, I. Palomo, L. M. Pereira, P. Riordan, F. Santos-Martín, O. Selomane, Y.-J. Shin and M. Valle
We welcome comments from readers that summarize data or experiences, or that review other papers or books that amplify the original article. Comments will be accepted only if factual, thoughtful, and substantive. If opinions are included, they must move the discussion forward. The Editor-in-Chief who oversaw the peer-review of this article will act as the moderator of all responses. If a response is accepted for publication, it will be linked to the original article under the heading "Responses to this Article".
A response may be of any length, and may include additional materials such as figures or tables. Short responses (under 250 words) will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief of the original article. Longer responses and those that include additional material will be subject to more rigorous screening. All responses that are accepted for publication will appear as separate articles, but will be cross-linked to the original article.
If you wish to submit a response and you are already registered with the journal, follow this link
. If you have never registered with the journal, please follow this link