Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
SCENARIOBUILDING
1.Identifyfocalissueordecision
InstudyingalternativefuturesweareusingScenarioBuildingan
approachoriginallyproposedasabusinessstrategyin1970s(Royal
Dutch/Shell)andrecentlyappliedintheMillenniumEcosystem
Assessmenttosystematicallyandcreativelythinkaboutplausible
futures.Scenariosareplausiblealternativefutureswhatmighthappen
underparticularassumptions.Byfocusingonkeydrivers,complex
interactions,andirreducibleuncertainties,scenariobuildinggeneratesthe
futureswithinwhichwecanassessalternativemitigationstrategies
includingthefuturewithoutrestoration.
Scenariobuildinggenerallyinvolveseightkeysteps.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Identifyfocalissueordecision
Identifydrivingforces
Rankimportance&uncertainty
Selectscenariologics
Fleshoutthescenarios
Selectindicatorsformonitoring
Assessimpactsfordifferentscenarios
Evaluatealternativestrategies
Intheexamplebelow,theMillenniumEcosystemAssessmentisusedto
describetheeightkeystepstothescenariobuildingprocess.
Thefocalissuerepresentsthequestionaboutthefuturethatan
organizationisconfronting.
TheMillenniumEcosystemAssessment(MEA)focusedontheimplicationsof
fourdifferentapproachesformanagingecosystemservicesinthefaceofgrowing
humandemandforthem.
2.Identifydrivingforces
Drivingforcesrepresentkeyvariablesandtheirtrendsinthemacro
environmentthatinfluencethefocalissue.
TheMEAselectedninekeydrivingforcestoincludewithinthescenarios:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
DemographicDrivers
EconomicDrivers:Consumption,Production,andGlobalization
SociopoliticalDrivers
CulturalandReligiousDrivers
ScienceandTechnologyDrivers
ClimateVariabilityandChange
PlantNutrientUse
LandConversion
BiologicalInvasionsandDiseases
AppendixA:EightStepsofScenarioBuilding
3.Rankimportance&uncertainty
4.Selectscenariologics
Identifieddrivingforcesarerankedintermsoftheiruncertaintyand
importanceinrelationtothefocalissue.Thisstepdirectstheoutcomeof
thefinalscenariosasthetwomostimportantanduncertaindriversdefine
themostdivergentandrelevantfutureconditionstobeincludedinthe
finalset
Thelogicsaredefinedbyexploringtheinteractionsofthemostuncertain
andimportantdriverssuchthatalternativeframesarecreated,each
representingadivergentyetplausiblescenario.
Fromtheninedrivingforcesabove,thetwomostuncertainandimportant
drivingforceswereselected;economicandsociopoliticaldrivers.
Foreachdrivingforcetwoattributesareselectedrepresentingtwopolar
directionsinwhichthedriverscangointhefuture.Fortheeconomicdriver,the
MEAlookedatoneendbeingglobalizationandtheotherregionalization.Within
globalizationeconomicequityandpublicgoodsweredelivered,while
regionalizationreflectedsecurityandeconomicgrowth.Forthesociopolitical
driverMEAfocusedoneitherareactiveorproactiveecosystemmanagement.
AppendixA:EightStepsofScenarioBuilding
5.Fleshoutthescenarios
6.Selectindicatorsformonitoring
Eachscenarioisdevelopedbyexploringtheimplicationsofalternative
trajectoriesonthefocalissueunderthesetparametersdefinedbythe
interactionsbetweenthekeydrivingforces.
TheMEAdescribesfourscenariosbasedonthelogicsdescribedintheprevious
stepsaswellasmodeledvaluesfortheothersevendrivingforces.
Asetofindicatorareselectedtoassesstheimplicationsofalternative
futuresonthefocalissue.Metricsrefertoameasureusedtodeterminea
certaincondition.
Thefourscenariosdescribedare:
TheGlobalOrchestration:asociallyconsciousglobalization,onein
whichweemphasizeequity,economicgrowth,andpublicgoods,
reactingtoecosystemproblemswhentheyreachcriticalstages.
OrderfromStrength:representingaregionalizedapproach,inwhich
ouremphasisisonsecurityandeconomicgrowth,againreactingto
ecosystemproblemsonlyastheyarise.
AdaptingMosaic:aregionalizedapproach,emphasizingproactive
managementofecosystems,localadaptation,andflexiblegovernance.
TechnoGarden:aglobalizedapproachwithanemphasisongreen
technologyandaproactiveapproachtomanagingecosystems.
TheMEAlookedatthreemajorcomponentsforassessingchangeundereach
scenario:ecosystemservices,biodiversityandhumanwellbeing.Undereach
componentmultipleindicatorsweremonitored.Forexample,underbiodiversity,
withinthesubcategoryofterrestrialbiodiversity,habitatlosswasselectedasone
indicator.
AppendixA:EightStepsofScenarioBuilding
7.Assessimpactsfordifferentscenarios
8.Evaluatealternativestrategies
Usingtheselectedindicators,scenarioplannersassesshowthefocalissue
isimpactedundereachscenario.
Themainobjectiveofscenariosistoinformstrategicdecisionmaking.
Oncealternativescenariosaredescribed,managerscanevaluatethe
efficacyofalternativestrategiesacrossthesuiteofscenarios.
ForeachoftheindicatorsselectedabovetheMEAproceededtomodelthechange
undereachscenario.Forexample,habitatlossisassessedforeachofthefour
scenarios.Otherimpactsincludelandcover,potentialspeciesloss,income
distribution,GDP,rateofimprovementoftechnologicalefficiency,renewable
energy,greenhousegasemissions,sealevelrise,numberofmalnutritioned
children,biofuelproduction,etc..
TheMEAstartsthisprocessbylookingatinternationalagenciesaccountablefor
creatingstrategies,andthenevaluateshowtheimpactsunderdifferentscenarios
affectthegoalsandobjectivesoftheseagencies.Thesixagenciesincludethe
ConventiononBiologicalDiversity,theRamsarConvention,theDesertification
Convention,NationalGovernments,CommunitiesandNGOs,andthePrivate
Sector.For
example,forthe
Conventionon
Biological
Diversitythe
alternative
scenariosreflect
threatsto
biodiversityfrom
climatechange,
pollution,invasive
species,
Overexploitation
andinappropriate
management,and
Habitat
transformation.
Afterassociatingspecificthreatswithstrategies,alternativepoliciesareassessed
undereachscenario.WhatmightworkverywellunderOrderfromStrength
maybeineffectiveforTechnoGarden.Forexample,fortheRamsarConvention
onWetlandstheMEAlookedatwhichpolicieswouldworkwellforeachscenario.
APPENDIXB:EXPERTISEINVOLVED
AppendixB1:InitialInterviews
InordertoidentifyabroadsetofdriversofchangeforthefutureofthePugetSoundnearshore,theUrban
EcologyResearchLab[UERL]soughttoincludeadiverserepresentationofexperts.Someareasofexpertise
weredirectlylinkedtounderstandingnearshoreecosystems.Theseareasincludedoceanographers,
nearshoreecologists,marinehabitatspecialists,climatologists,andgeomorphologies.TheUERLtargeted
additionalareasofexpertisethatfocusedonregionalchangesincludingdemographers,economists,
statisticians,developers,plannersandindustryleaders.TheUERLalsoaimedtoincludegroupsthatare
similarlyinvolvedinassessingthehealthofthisregionandthatmaybedirectlyimpactedbychangesin
nearshoreecosystemfunctions.Expertisecorrespondingtotheserolesincludednonprofitorganizations,
nongovernmentalorganizations,environmentaltrendwatchers,tribalorganizations,andadvocacygroups.
Lastly,inordertoidentifyadditionalexperts,theUERLconductedasnowballtechniqueaskingeach
participantintheinitialinterviewsiftherewereadditionalexpertiseweshouldseek.Basedonthisadditional
inputtheUERLaddedhistorians,politicians,anddesignagenciestoourlistoftargetedexpertise.
Table1Interviewexpertise
TheUERLdividedthebreadthof
expertiseintoeightgeneralgroupswhoshareasimilarworkingknowledge.Theintentofthisseparationwas
toensurethatparticipantscouldeasilyexchangeideasandmaintainafocuseddiscussion.Thepanelgroups
weresplitintobiologicalscientists,physicalscientists,socialandbehaviorscientists,planners,theprivate
sector,nonprofitorganizations,publicagencies,andadvocacygroupsforsubsistenceliving.
TheUERLinitiallycontactedsixtyoneexpertsforinterviewsandwereabletoschedulewiththirtyfourof
them.TheUERLconductedatotalofeightindividualinterviewsandtenpanelinterviews.Theareaof
expertiseandcontributingagency1isoutlinedforeachinterviewandpanelinthetablebelow.
Inadditiontoacoresetofquestionaskedofallparticipants,additionalquestionstargetedthreespecifictypes
ofparticipants:scientists,users,andimpactedparties.Table2describesthethreeparticipanttypes.Appendix
Cincludesthethreesetsofdiscussionquestions.
Table2Participanttypes
1Tomaintaintheanonymityoftheparticipantsnamesarenotgiven.
AppendixB2:Workshop
Thirtyeightpeopleattendedtheworkshop,includingrepresentativesfrompublic,privateagenciesandnon
governmentalorganizations(seeTable3foralistofagencies).Severalacademicdisciplineswererepresented
includinggeomorphology,geography,climatology,oceanography,ecology,biology,businessandeconomic
development.
Table3Agenciesinvolvedattheworkshop
AppendixB3:PanelDiscussions
B3a:AftertheworkshoptheUERLfocusedonpaneldiscussionsasameansofrefiningthescenariologics
andfinalizingthescenarionarratives.Theobjectiveofthepaneldiscussionwastofillinthedetailsofeach
framewithrelevantandinternallyconsistentdata.Insteadoflookingforbreadth,theUERLtargetedspecific
expertswhofilledcriticalrolesinthescenariodevelopmentprocess.OveralltheUERLandtheFuture
WithoutWorkgroupidentifiedover200experts,contactedover100differentagenciesandpersonally
interviewed53experts.
Fourteenteamsseparatedparticipantswithsimilarareasofexpertiseintodiscussionforumsthatwere
responsiblefordevelopingcriticalelementsofthescenarios.Utilizingthetendrivingforcesidentifiedbythe
interviewstheUERLdevelopedtenteamsofexperts,eachrepresentingonedrivingforce.Basedonthetwo
mostimportantanduncertaindrivingforcesidentifiedattheworkshopwedevelopedacoreteamof
climatechangeandhumanperceptionexpertstoleadthescenariohypothesesdevelopment.TheUERLalso
heldpaneldiscussionsforeachofthesupportingeightkeydrivingforcesseparately.Thecoreteammet
twice,initiallytodefinescenariohypothesesandsecondtorefinethescenariosafterreceivingfeedback
synthesizedfromtosupportingteams.
Inadditiontothese10teamstheUERLheldonemeetingwithcommunicationexpertsandonewithpublic
agencyheadstohelpdelineatecriticalelementstoincludewithinthefinalscenariostoensuretheirusability.
InthenextphaseofthisprojecttheUERLinconjunctionwiththeFWWwillsharethefinalscenarioswitha
teamofmetricsandecosystemhealthexperts,aswellasamodelingteaminordertodeveloptheassessment
componentofthisproject.Figure1illustratestheorderformeetingsofthediscussionforumsandtheintegral
feedbackbetweenforums.
Thefollowingpagesdescribetheagenciesandexpertisetargetedandincludedwithinthepaneldiscussions.
Manyparticipantshadmultipleareasofexpertiseandrepresentedmultipleagencies,andthereforethetotal
numbersrepresentahighervaluethanthenumberofindividualexperts.
Identified
Over243expertswereidentifiedbytheUERL,theFWWandnominatedbyparticipatingexperts.Thelistof
expertswassystematicallyreviewedinordertoensurethatthemostrelevantanddivergentexpertiseare
incorporatedintothefinalscenarios.
Contacted
TheUERLcontacted112expertsfromvariousdisciplines.Expertswereprovidedafactsheetsummarizing
theprojectsobjectives,theirroleandthepanelsdiscussionquestions(includedinAppendixC2).Panel
discussionsgenerallyrequiredabout23hoursofpreparation,3hoursofattendingtheactualdiscussionand
additionalhoursforfeedbackandcorrespondence.Participationwasvoluntarywithoutcompensation.
Interested
Outoftheexpertscontacted90individualsrespondedthattheywereinterestedinbeinginvolvedinthe
processinsomemanner.Numerouseffortswereputforthtoincludetheseparticipantsifnotdirectlyina
paneldiscussionthanthroughcorrespondenceandfeedbackonthefinalreport.
Metwith
Fiftysixexpertsparticipatedinthescenariodevelopmentprocess.Whilethemajoritywerepresentforpanel
discussionsinvolvingotherexpertsrepresentingaspecificdrivingforce,manyexpertswereaccommodated
throughindividualinterviews,eitherinperson,oroverthephone,orbyemailcommunication.
Table4ParticipantssortedbyDrivingForces
Driving Force
Agency
Communication
Climate Change
Human Perceptions and
Behavior
Demography
Development Patterns
Economy
Governance
Knowledge and
Information
Natural Hazards
Public Health
Infrastructure and
Technology
Metrics and Ecosystem
Function
Modeling
TOTALS
10
10
12
14
8
6
6
11
9
5
6
4
6
3
5
13
9
23
2
7
13
0
7
11
0
5
7
17
24
15
248
6
6
128
5
3
90
0
0
56
Table5Expertisemetwith
Expertise
Agency representation
Air quality monitoring and modeling
Aquatic ecosystems and climate dynamics
Architecture and city politics
City planning
Classification of shorelines and modeling
Communication and education
Communication scientific data
Community development and water resources
Comparative and historical social science, social movements and collective action theory,
politics, and religion.
Conservation plans and the Cascade Agenda
Demography and social structure
Duwamish cleanup, PCBs and superfund
Effects of environmental stress on forest ecosystems, with emphasis on fire ecology and
climatic change
Environmental outreach and ecosystem health
Federal agency representation
Film-making
Film-making
Forest tree physiology; Stress and carbon physiology; Subalpine ecosystems and SRIC
Geology and geohydrology
Geomorphology
Glaciology
GMA Growth Hearings Board, and city planning
Governance and legislation
Hood Canal, dissolved oxygen
Labor economics, inequality, economics of the family
Labor economics; social demography; social welfare policy
Large-scale utilities infrastructure
Long-range planning
Master plans and natural area plans
Modeling of fate and transport of pathogens in the environment
Natural hazard mitigation
New home construction
Political science and collaboration
Public health, obesity
Public health, risk analysis and communication
Public transportation
Quantitative methods applied to resource management and environmental impact
assessment
Real estate development and market forces.
Seismology
Shore lands and environmental assistance
Social evaluation systems and environmental economics
Social feasibility of ecosystem based management and marine protected areas
Sociology focusing on social identity and group formation
State demographics modeling
State health and communication
Statistical models for the analysis of social networks and labor economics
Thermohaline, abyssal, and equatorial ocean circulation
Total energy system planning
Urban planning and design for sustainable building and master plans
Waste-water treatment facilities, CSO, water reuse and bio-solids
Watershed coordination
Watershed management and pollution abatement
Table6AgencyrepresentationPart1of3
Association
Association of Washington Business
Battelle
Brookings Institute
Cascade Land Conservency
Census Bureau (regional office)
Central Washington University
City of Seattle - Green Building
City of Seattle Council
City of Seattle Neighborhood Division
City of Seattle Planning Department
City of Shoreline
Climate Dynamics Group
Commerce Trade Economic Development (CTED)
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition
Earth Economics
Economic Revenue Council
Environment Canada
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
EPA Region 10
Forest Resources and USDA Forest Service
Future Without Workgroup
Gardner Johnson
Geological Survey of America.
Gigantic Planet
Global Forest Partnership
Green Building Services
Green Diamond Resource Company
HDR, Inc.
HistoryLink
Independent Economist
Innovation and Research in Graduate Education
Jones and Jones
King County
King County, Emergency Mngt
King County, Farmland Preservation Program
King County, GIS Center
King County, Homeland Securty Planning
King County, Wastewater division
Kitsap County
Madrona
Master Builders Assocation
Metrovation
Mithun
Municipal Research and Services Center (MSRC)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Wildlife Federation
Navy Region Northwest
Nearshore Science Team
Nisqually Reach Nature Center
NOAA Coastal Ocean Program
Table6AgenciesrepresentationPart2of3
Association
NOAA Fisheries Northwest Fisheries Science Center
Northern Economics
Office of Financial Management (OFM)
OFM Demographic Projection
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
Pacific Shellfish Institute
People for Puget Sound
Pierce County
Pierce County Library
Puget Sound Action Team
Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program
Puget Sound Energy
Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership
Puget Sound Partnership
Puget Sound Regional Council
Puget Sound Regional Council, Prosperity Partnership
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Revitalization Institute
Seattle Chamber of Commerce
Seattle previous mayor
Seattle Public Utilities
Seattle Times
Shared Strategy for Puget Sound
Sightline (prev. NW Environmental Watch)
Sound Transit
Taylor Shellfish Co
The Nature Conservency
Toxic Free Legacy Coalition
Tulalip Tribes
UBC, Geography Dept.
UBC, Inst. For Research, Env, and sustainability
University of Oregon, Landscape Architecture
University of Victoria, Dept of Phsychology
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Geological Survey
US Senate
UW, Air Quality
UW, Anthropology
UW, Applied Physics Laboratory
UW, Aquatics and Fisheries Mngt
UW, Atmospheric Sciences
UW, Business School
UW, Center for Demographic Research
UW, Center for Social Research
UW, Center for Statistics and the Social Sciences (CSSS)
UW, Civil and Environmental Engineering
UW, Climate Impacts Group
UW, College of Education
UW, Computer Science
UW, Department of Biology
UW, Department of Statistics
Table6AgencyrepresentationPart3of3
Association
UW, Dept of Atmospheric Sciences
UW, Earth and Space Sciences
UW, Earth Initiative
UW, Economics
UW, Environmental and Occupational Health
UW, Evans School Public Affairs
UW, Forest Resources
UW, Friday Harbor Laboratories
UW, Geography
UW, Global Trade Transportation and Logistics Studies
UW, Institute for Hazards
UW, Institute for the Study of Educational Policy
UW, Intel Research
UW, International Studies
UW, Landscape Architecture
UW, Marine Affairs
UW, Mechanical Engineering
UW, Office of Research
UW, Philosophy
UW, Public Health
UW, Real Estate
UW, School of Social Work
UW, Seismology
UW, Sociology
UW, The Alpheus Group
UW, Urban Design and Planning
UW, Urban Ecology Research Laboratory
UW, Urban Form Lab
UW; School of Oceanography
WA Department of Ecology
WA Department of Health
WA Department of Transportation
WA Departnemt of Natural Resources (DNR)
WA DNR Aquatic Resources Division
WA State Fish and Wildlife
WA Workforce explorer
WASH Tech
Washington Learns program
Washington Ports
Washington State University
Western WA University
Whatcom County
World Changing
Future Without
The Future Without Project evaluates the impact to
the nearshore assuming that a comprehensive, large
scale nearshore ecosystem restoration project does
not occur within the timeframe of fifty years. The UW
Urban Ecology Research Laboratory has teamed up
with PSNERP to develop multiple plausible futures for
the Puget Sounds nearshore ecosystem. To this end,
we have identified a diverse set of experts to gather
their perceptions of the major driving forces that will
ultimately decide the nearshores future. These insights
will be synthesized into a set of scenarios that narrate
or describe potential trajectories. The scenarios will be
evaluated through an integrated framework of spatially
explicit models. The outcomes of these analyses will
assess the impact of restoration (or the absence of it) on a
set of values attributed to the nearshore ecosystem.
Nearshore ecosystem
Nearshore zone
Sand
dune
Offshore zone
Ridge
High Water Mark
Low Water Mark
Bar
Inter
tidal
zone
Tidal
range
SUMMER
Climate Change:
Major impact
Technology: High
rate of innovation
Climate Change:
Major impact
Climate Change:
Minor impact
Climate Change:
Minor impact
Technology: Low rate
of innovation
Technology: High
rate of innovation
FALL
March
WINTER
Panel Discussions
FactSheets
December
September
Timeline of Process
In studying alternative futures we will use Scenario Building-an approach originally proposed as a business strategy
in 1970s (Royal Dutch/Shell) and recently applied in the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessmentto systematically and
creatively think about plausible futures. Scenarios are plausible
alternative futures. By focusing on key drivers, complex
interactions, and irreducible uncertainties, scenario building
generates the futures within which we can assess alternative
mitigation strategies including the future without restoration.
June
Scenario Building
Modeling
Workshop 1
Workshop 2
Synthesis
Outline of Process
Panel Discussion
Workshop 1
The first workshop will develop scenarios. The steps include:
Selecting driving forces in an interdisciplinary team
Ranking their importance and uncertainty
Hypothesizing the interactions with other driving forces
Developing scenario logics
Exploring impacts on human and ecosystem services
Modeling
Models will be used to quantify specific impacts on the
nearshore ecosystem under different scenarios. Models will
integrate multiple factors and dynamic relationships into the
computational process. The modeling team will identify and
reveal model uncertainties. Models will be utilized to evaluate
the impact of each scenario on multi-dimensional values from
ecosystem to health, social and economic functions.
Workshop 2
We will conduct a second workshop to assess the scenarios.
The steps include:
Testing hypotheses of impacts under alternative scenarios
Assessing model outputs and uncertainties
Evaluating impacts of scenarios on selected indicators
Evaluating the effects of alternative policies and strategies
SUMMER
Climate Change:
Major impact
Technology: High
rate of innovation
Climate Change:
Major impact
Climate Change:
Minor impact
Climate Change:
Minor impact
Technology: Low rate
of innovation
Technology: High
rate of innovation
FALL
March
WINTER
Panel Discussions
FactSheets
December
September
Timeline of Process
In studying alternative futures we will use Scenario Building-an approach originally proposed as a business strategy
in 1970s (Royal Dutch/Shell) and recently applied in the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessmentto systematically and
creatively think about plausible futures. Scenarios are plausible
alternative futures. By focusing on key drivers, complex
interactions, and irreducible uncertainties, scenario building
generates the futures within which we can assess alternative
mitigation strategies including the future without restoration.
June
Scenario Building
Modeling
Workshop 1
Workshop 2
Synthesis
Outline of Process
Panel Discussion
Workshop 1
The first workshop will develop scenarios. The steps include:
Selecting driving forces in an interdisciplinary team
Ranking their importance and uncertainty
Hypothesizing the interactions with other driving forces
Developing scenario logics
Exploring impacts on human and ecosystem services
Modeling
Models will be used to quantify specific impacts on the
nearshore ecosystem under different scenarios. Models will
integrate multiple factors and dynamic relationships into the
computational process. The modeling team will identify and
reveal model uncertainties. Models will be utilized to evaluate
the impact of each scenario on multi-dimensional values from
ecosystem to health, social and economic functions.
Workshop 2
We will conduct a second workshop to assess the scenarios.
The steps include:
Testing hypotheses of impacts under alternative scenarios
Assessing model outputs and uncertainties
Evaluating impacts of scenarios on selected indicators
Evaluating the effects of alternative policies and strategies
SUMMER
Climate Change:
Major impact
Technology: High
rate of innovation
Climate Change:
Major impact
Climate Change:
Minor impact
Climate Change:
Minor impact
Technology: Low rate
of innovation
Technology: High
rate of innovation
FALL
March
WINTER
Panel Discussions
FactSheets
December
September
Timeline of Process
In studying alternative futures we will use Scenario Building-an approach originally proposed as a business strategy
in 1970s (Royal Dutch/Shell) and recently applied in the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessmentto systematically and
creatively think about plausible futures. Scenarios are plausible
alternative futures. By focusing on key drivers, complex
interactions, and irreducible uncertainties, scenario building
generates the futures within which we can assess alternative
mitigation strategies including the future without restoration.
June
Scenario Building
Modeling
Workshop 1
Workshop 2
Synthesis
Outline of Process
Panel Discussion
Workshop 1
The first workshop will develop scenarios. The steps include:
Selecting driving forces in an interdisciplinary team
Ranking their importance and uncertainty
Hypothesizing the interactions with other driving forces
Developing scenario logics
Exploring impacts on human and ecosystem services
Modeling
Models will be used to quantify specific impacts on the
nearshore ecosystem under different scenarios. Models will
integrate multiple factors and dynamic relationships into the
computational process. The modeling team will identify and
reveal model uncertainties. Models will be utilized to evaluate
the impact of each scenario on multi-dimensional values from
ecosystem to health, social and economic functions.
Workshop 2
We will conduct a second workshop to assess the scenarios.
The steps include:
Testing hypotheses of impacts under alternative scenarios
Assessing model outputs and uncertainties
Evaluating impacts of scenarios on selected indicators
Evaluating the effects of alternative policies and strategies
Scenario 1
Phase III
Phase II
Process
The Puget Sound Future Scenarios project was initiated in July 2005. Phase I
of the project involved laying out the scenario parameters including the
focal issue, time scale, key driving forces and scenario logics. We are currently
at the beginning of Phase II; developing the scenario narratives. This process
involves talking to experts representing disciplines from each of the ten key
driving forces and integrating their knowledge to develop six compelling
and internally consistent scenarios for the future of this region. In Phase III
we hope to develop an integrated model to assess the impact of each
scenario on nearshore ecosystem functions. The scenarios will serve as the
input, or set of assumptions, for each model run. The assessment for each
scenario will serve as baseline future conditions onto which alternative
restoration and implementation portfolios can be overlaid and evaluated.
Phase I
Scenario 3
The Puget Sound Future Scenarios project has involved planners, scientists,
and professionals from across the Puget Sound basin. Currently over 150
experts have been integral in the development of the Puget Sound Future
Scenarios. Disciplines represented have spanned the continuum of
climatologists to economists and filmmakers. Scenario development
requires the active involvement of experts with knowledge of key driving
forces that are powerfully influencing this regions future. Participating
expert must be simultaneously comfortable with accurate scientific data
and a high level of uncertainty associated with a long term outlook.
Furthermore, the scenario development must involve experts who are able
to communicate across disciplinary boundaries in order to capture the
interaction between key driving forces over a dynamic array of spatial and
temporal scales.
The Puget Sound Future Scenarios describe a suite of future conditions for this
region. Each scenario explores a different plausible narrative for the Puget Sound
region illuminating previously unanticipated risks and opportunities for planning in
this region.
Future conditions depend on the interaction of inherently uncertain driving forces.
The scenario development process provides an approach for understanding the
spectrum of trajectories created by the interactions between critical driving forces.
Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior were selected as the most
uncertain and important key driving forces. The six scenarios were identified by
looking at the interaction between uncertain aspects of these two drivers.
major
fast
Fast: Impacts from climate change occur rapidly. Over the next
fifty years, climate change happens quickly, surpassing thresholds
and occurring in large waves causing a state of crisis.
Slow: Change occurs slowly or incrementally. Sometimes
change occurs so slow, local residents hardly notice the impacts .
The extra time may give us the opportunity to plan ahead, on the
other hand we may ignore many indicators of oncoming change.
public
short
1
3
2a
2b
4a
4b
Agenda
Overview of the meeting
Description of role and opportunity for feedback
Brief review of scenarios
Team trajectory definition
Scenario hypotheses discussion
Role
The scenarios will be developed by describing the trajectories of
each of the ten key driving forces under each scenario. Ten separate
expert teams will represent each of the ten key driving forces
previously identified in Phase I. The Climate Change and Human
Perceptions and Behavior have a leading role since these two driving
forces have been identified as the most uncertain and important by
a preceding workshop. These two expert teams will focus on the
potential projections of future climate impacts as well as societal
behavior and perceptions. The teams will meet together to narrate
the initial scenario storylines by drawing up hypotheses for the
direction of each scenario.
After the hypotheses development the supporting eight expert
teams will contribute substantive details about each scenario. Each
team will be responsible for delineating alternative future trajectories of their driving force under each scenario.
After all ten teams meet; their synthesis will come back to the
Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior Teams. The
synthesis will be reviewed for consistency, completeness and
comprehensibility. Directed questions for missing or inconsistent
information will be asked of individuals from the supporting teams
based on their areas of expertise.
Climate Change Team
A focus on potential projections of future climate impacts, especially
as they pertain to changes in the hydrological regime of this region.
Human Behavior and Perceptions Team
A focus on how societal behavior and perceptions may change in
this region, and the consequent influence on lifestyle, consumption,
attitudes and ethics.
Feedback
The climate change and human perceptions and behavior teams will
meet together once to develop the trajectories for each driving
force, and to develop the scenario hypotheses. After all ten expert
teams meet, the two teams will meet again to refine the scenarios
and identify keep data gaps and inconsistencies.
There is an almost irresistible temptation to choose
one scenario over the other: to say, in effect, this is
the future which we believe will take place. The other
futures are interesting. But they are irrelevant. We are
going to follow this scenario. - Unfortunately reality
does not follow even the best thought out scenario.
Discussion Questions
Human Perceptions and Behavior
1. The scenarios are divided by private and public social values. How
would you characterize the two alternatives and their impact on this
region?
a. What specific parameters help describe the relative impacts?
2. The scenarios are subdivided by a long and short term future
valuation. How would these valuation alternatives impact this
region?
a. What specific parameters help describe the relative impacts?
Climate Change
1. The scenarios are divided by the magnitude of impact this region
will experience from climate change. How would you characterize a
major and minor impact for this region?
a. What specific parameters help describe the relative impacts?
2. The scenarios are subdivided by the rate or pace of climate change
we may experience in this region. What would a fast versus slow
pace of climate impacts look like?
a. What specific parameters help describe the relative impacts?
Both Teams
1. A fundamental element in scenario development is looking at the
interaction between driving forces. The six scenarios integrate
climate change with human perceptions and behavior.
a. How might these two driving forces interact?
b. How might the interaction create alternative trajectories?
2. As a leading team, your role is developing the primer scenarios
that the supporting teams will utilize to forecast the trajectories of
their driving force. Describe the hypothesis behind each scenario.
3. What elements should each scenario contain?
4. What questions should we be asking of the experts for the
supporting eight key driving forces?
5. In furthering the understanding of human perceptions and
behavior under the alternative scenarios:
a. What publications should we refer to (review of current literature?)
b. What models are available?
c. Who should we be talking to?
scenarios deal with two worlds. The world
of facts and the world of perceptions.
Ground rules
The scope is 50 years out
The extent is the entire Puget Sound basin.
The final six scenarios should represent widely different futures Maximize the difference in trajectories between scenarios, expand
the possibilities.
Remember to keep the storylines consistent and credible what is
plausible
While no individual scenario is supposed to represent the actual
future of this region, the suite of scenarios together should represent the plausible bounds of reality for this regions future.
I dont mean to suggest that you spend all of your waking hours considering arcane
possibilities, the trick is finding those possibilities to consider which are significant.
Scenarios are a set of stories built around carefully constructed plots that
make the significant elements of the world scene stand out boldly.
neutral or undecided
strong support
Demographics Team
Agenda
Overview of the meeting
Description of role and opportunity for feedback
Brief review of scenarios
Discussion
scenarios deal with two worlds. The world
of facts and the world of perceptions.
Role
The scenarios will be developed by describing the trajectories of
each of the ten key driving forces under each scenario. Ten separate
expert teams will represent each of the ten key driving forces
previously identified in Phase I. The Climate Change and Human
Perceptions and Behavior have a leading role since these two driving
forces have been identified as the most uncertain and important by
a preceding workshop. These two expert teams will meet together
to narrate the initial scenario storylines by drawing up hypotheses
for the direction of each scenario. In addition, these teams will focus
on the potential projections of future climate impacts as well as
societal behavior and perceptions.
The supporting eight expert teams will contribute substantive
details about each scenario. Each team will be responsible for
delineating alternative future trajectories of their driving force under
each scenario. While panels will consist of experts with similar areas
of expertise, teams will have access to information compiled by
other teams and the opportunity to work collaboratively.
After all ten teams meet their synthesis will come back to the
Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior Teams. The
synthesis will be reviewed for consistency, completeness and
comprehensibility. Directed questions for missing or inconsistent
information will be asked of individuals from the supporting teams
based on their areas of expertise.
Demographics Team
The demographics team will focus on the future demographic
distribution for this region including population size and growth
rates, age and race distribution, household size and migration
patterns. While climatic and human parameters for each scenario
should contribute to the decision about the direction of population
growth it is conversely important to evaluate the impact of
demographics on altering the direction, magnitude and rate of
change for selected aspects of climate change and human perceptions and behavior.
Feedback
The demographics team will meet together once to develop the
trajectories for the Puget Sound Scenarios. Team members are
encouraged to provide further feedback to the team as a follow up
to the meeting discussion. After the scenarios are synthesized,
including trajectory input from all ten expert teams, team members
will have an opportunity to comment on the final product.
I dont mean to suggest that you spend all of your waking hours considering arcane
possibilities, the trick is finding those possibilities to consider which are significant.
Discussion Questions
On the following page are step by step instructions for developing
trajectories. Please keep these these questions in mind.
1) What are the potential trajectories for demographic variables
within the Puget Sound basin over the next fifty years?
For population growth; density; age structure; gender; diversity;
household size; income; birth rates; mortality; and migration rates.
Are there important phenomena to consider the baby boom (and
echo)? Immigration impacts from economic transitions?
2) How will the six scenarios impact demographic trajectories?
3) How might demographic patterns interact with climate impacts?
How will the six scenarios impact population growth or decline? Is
there a possibility of decline in population from a major crisis? Could
climate impacts affect cultural diversity? the population age
structure? fertility or mortality rates? immigration rates?
How might population growth interact with climate change?
How might population growth impact development patterns?
economic growth? infrastructure and technology? regulations?
5) How might demographic patterns be impacted by changes in
human perceptions and behavior?
How might collectivist versus individualistic social values influence
household size? age structure? fertility and mortality? migration?
How might perceptions influence population patterns (location and
density of population growth)?
How might a short term versus long term future valuation impact
demographic patterns?
6) How might demographic patterns impact human perceptions
and behaviors?
Would a rapid population growth push people towards individualistic values? Would an aging population push social valuation towards
long term thinking?
7) What questions should we ask of the supporting experts?
8) In furthering the understanding of demographics under the
alternative scenarios:
What are good resources (i.e. publications, agencies, reports, model)
to collect additional information on this topic?
Who else should we talk to?
There is an almost irresistible temptation to choose
one scenario over the other: to say, in effect, this is the
future which we believe will take place. The other
futures are interesting. But they are irrelevant. We are
going to follow this scenario. - Unfortunately reality
does not follow even the best thought out scenario.
Ground rules
The scope is 50 years out
The extent is the entire Puget Sound basin.
The final six scenarios should represent widely different futures Maximize the difference in trajectories between scenarios, expand
the possibilities.
Remember to keep the storylines consistent and credible what is
plausible
While no individual scenario is supposed to represent the actual
future of this region, the suite of scenarios together should represent the plausible bounds of reality for this regions future.
Role
The scenarios will be developed by describing the trajectories of
each of the ten key driving forces under each scenario. Ten separate
expert teams will represent each of the ten key driving forces
previously identified in Phase I. The Climate Change and Human
Perceptions and Behavior have a leading role since these two driving
forces have been identified as the most uncertain and important by
a preceding workshop. These two expert teams will meet together
to narrate the initial scenario storylines by drawing up hypotheses
for the direction of each scenario. In addition, these teams will focus
on the potential projections of future climate impacts as well as
societal behavior and perceptions.
The supporting eight expert teams will contribute substantive
details about each scenario. Each team will be responsible for
delineating alternative future trajectories of their driving force under
each scenario. While panels will consist of experts with similar areas
of expertise, teams will have access to information compiled by
other teams and the opportunity to work collaboratively.
After all ten teams meet their synthesis will come back to the
Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior Teams. The
synthesis will be reviewed for consistency, completeness and
comprehensibility. Directed questions for missing or inconsistent
information will be asked of individuals from the supporting teams
based on their areas of expertise.
Development Patterns Team
The development patterns team will focus on future development in
terms of both configuration and composition. The team will identify
spatial and temporal patterns of change to the regions landscape.
Further the team will clarify specific attributes of new development
such as form and density. While climatic and human parameters for
each scenario should contribute to the decision about the direction
of new development it is conversely important to evaluate the
impact of development on altering the direction, magnitude and
rate of change for selected aspects of climate change and human
perceptions and behavior.
Feedback
The development patterns team will meet together once to develop
the trajectories for the Puget Sound Scenarios. Team members are
encouraged to provide further feedback to the team as a follow up
to the meeting discussion. After the scenarios are synthesized,
including trajectory input from all ten expert teams, team members
will have an opportunity to comment on the final product.
Discussion Questions
On the following page are step by step instructions for developing
trajectories. Please keep these these questions in mind.
1) What are the potential trajectories for development within the
Puget Sound basin over the next fifty years?
2) What might this regions development look like in terms of the
amount of new development, location, density, form and style?
3) How will the six scenarios impact development patterns overall?
What are the threats from Climate Change?
How might development patterns impacts interact with climate
impacts?
How might development patterns be impacted by changes in human
perceptions and behavior?
How will the six scenarios impact the number of people per impervious surface? landcover change (forest loss, agricultural transition,
wetland loss/restoration), the GMA and growth boundaries, new
structures and their footprint, and fragmentation / connectivity?
Where might new development take place (by the shore, uplands or
sprawled, by city center or by edge)?
What will be the form of new development?
What might the future of property ownership look like (whats
protected, what is most vulnerable to development, etc.)
What will future development practices look like? how will they
influence our lifestyle?
5) What questions should we ask of the supporting experts?
6) In furthering the understanding of public health under the
alternative scenarios:
What are good resources (i.e. publications, agencies, reports, model)
to collect additional information on this topic?
Who else should we talk to?
There is an almost irresistible temptation to choose
one scenario over the other: to say, in effect, this is
the future which we believe will take place. The other
futures are interesting. But they are irrelevant. We are
going to follow this scenario. - Unfortunately reality
does not follow even the best thought out scenario.
Ground rules
The scope is 50 years out
The extent is the entire Puget Sound basin.
The final six scenarios should represent widely different futures Maximize the difference in trajectories between scenarios, expand
the possibilities.
Remember to keep the storylines consistent and credible what is
plausible
While no individual scenario is supposed to represent the actual
future of this region, the suite of scenarios together should represent the plausible bounds of reality for this regions future.
I dont mean to suggest that you spend all of your waking hours considering arcane
possibilities, the trick is finding those possibilities to consider which are significant.
Economics Team
Agenda
Overview of the meeting
Description of role and opportunity for feedback
Brief review of scenarios
Discussion
scenarios deal with two worlds. The world
of facts and the world of perceptions.
Role
The scenarios will be developed by describing the trajectories of
each of the ten key driving forces under each scenario. Ten separate
expert teams will represent each of the ten key driving forces
previously identified in Phase I. The Climate Change and Human
Perceptions and Behavior have a leading role since these two driving
forces have been identified as the most uncertain and important by
a preceding workshop. These two expert teams will meet together
to narrate the initial scenario storylines by drawing up hypotheses
for the direction of each scenario. In addition, these teams will focus
on the potential projections of future climate impacts as well as
societal behavior and perceptions.
The supporting eight expert teams will contribute substantive
details about each scenario. Each team will be responsible for
delineating alternative future trajectories of their driving force under
each scenario. While panels will consist of experts with similar areas
of expertise, teams will have access to information compiled by
other teams and the opportunity to work collaboratively.
After all ten teams meet their synthesis will come back to the
Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior Teams. The
synthesis will be reviewed for consistency, completeness and
comprehensibility. Directed questions for missing or inconsistent
information will be asked of individuals from the supporting teams
based on their areas of expertise.
Economics Team
The economics team will focus on the region's economy under
alternative scenarios. Critical components include the strength of
the economy, the interaction between the global, national and
regional economy, the diversity and direction of employment
opportunities. While climatic and human parameters for each
scenario should contribute to the decision about the direction of
economic growth it is conversely important to evaluate the impact
of the economy on altering the direction, magnitude and rate of
change for selected aspects of climate change and human perceptions and behavior.
Feedback
The economics team will meet together once to develop the
trajectories for the Puget Sound Scenarios. Team members are
encouraged to provide further feedback to the team as a follow up
to the meeting discussion. After the scenarios are synthesized,
including trajectory input from all ten expert teams, team members
will have an opportunity to comment on the final product.
For more information, please visit our website at:
online.caup.washington.edu/projects/futurewithout
Discussion Questions
On the following page are step by step instructions for developing
trajectories. Please keep these these questions in mind.
1) What are future projections for the economic growth in this
region including the Washington GDP? the labor force (skilled,
education, sector (technology, industry, etc.), the diversity of our
economy, will we encounter a boom or bust? How will the national
economy impact this region?
2) What are the probability distributions of economic events and
projections within the Puget Sound basin over the next fifty years?
3) How will the six scenarios impact the regional economy?
What are the threats from Climate Change?
How might economic change interact with climate impacts?
How might the economy be impacted by changes in human perceptions and behavior?
4) How will the six scenarios interact with economic change to
influence:
How will the local economy change under each scenario?
Will this region lose its competitive niche?
How does will economic change interact with transportation?
How will economic change interact with migration patterns?
5) What questions should we ask of the supporting experts?
6) In furthering the understanding of economics under the alternative scenarios:
what are good resources (i.e. publications, agencies, reports, model)
to collect additional information on this topic?
Who else should we talk to?
There is an almost irresistible temptation to choose
one scenario over the other: to say, in effect, this is
the future which we believe will take place. The other
futures are interesting. But they are irrelevant. We are
going to follow this scenario. - Unfortunately reality
does not follow even the best thought out scenario.
Ground rules
The scope is 50 years out
The extent is the entire Puget Sound basin.
The final six scenarios should represent widely different futures Maximize the difference in trajectories between scenarios, expand
the possibilities.
Remember to keep the storylines consistent and credible what is
plausible
While no individual scenario is supposed to represent the actual
future of this region, the suite of scenarios together should represent the plausible bounds of reality for this regions future.
I dont mean to suggest that you spend all of your waking hours considering arcane
possibilities, the trick is finding those possibilities to consider which are significant.
Role
The scenarios will be developed by describing the trajectories of
each of the ten key driving forces under each scenario. Ten separate
expert teams will represent each of the ten key driving forces
previously identified in Phase I. The Climate Change and Human
Perceptions and Behavior have a leading role since these two driving
forces have been identified as the most uncertain and important by
a preceding workshop. These two expert teams will meet together
to narrate the initial scenario storylines by drawing up hypotheses
for the direction of each scenario. In addition, these teams will focus
on the potential projections of future climate impacts as well as
societal behavior and perceptions.
The supporting eight expert teams will contribute substantive
details about each scenario. Each team will be responsible for
delineating alternative future trajectories of their driving force under
each scenario. While panels will consist of experts with similar areas
of expertise, teams will have access to information compiled by
other teams and the opportunity to work collaboratively.
After all ten teams meet their synthesis will come back to the
Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior Teams. The
synthesis will be reviewed for consistency, completeness and
comprehensibility. Directed questions for missing or inconsistent
information will be asked of individuals from the supporting teams
based on their areas of expertise.
Infrastructure and Technology Team
The infrastructure and technology team will focus on technological
advances and their potential implementation through infrastructure
improvements in the arenas of energy provision, water supply,
transportation and sewer and waste removal. While climatic and
human parameters contribute to the decision about the direction of
technological growth it is conversely important to evaluate the
impact of technology and infrastructure on altering the direction,
magnitude and rate of change for selected aspects of climate
change and human perceptions and behavior.
Feedback
The infrastructure and technology team will meet together once to
develop the trajectories for the Puget Sound Scenarios. Team
members are encouraged to provide further feedback to the team
as a follow up to the meeting discussion. After the scenarios are
synthesized, including trajectory input from all ten expert teams,
team members will have an opportunity to comment on the final
product.
I dont mean to suggest that you spend all of your waking hours considering arcane
possibilities, the trick is finding those possibilities to consider which are significant.
Discussion Questions
On the following page are step by step instructions for developing
trajectories. Please keep these these questions in mind.
1) What are the potential trajectories for technological and
infrastructure variables within the Puget Sound basin over the next
fifty years?
2) How will the six scenarios impact infrastructure and technology
trajectories?
3) How might infrastructure and technology patterns interact with
climate impacts?
How will the six scenarios impact rate of innovation? Services and
facilities? Economic activity? Transportation modes? Energy provision? Water provision? Waste disposal?
How will activities such as natural extraction such as mining,
forest/timber, water, oil, etc change?
4) How might social conditions change to impact innovation?
How might collectivist versus individualistic social values influence
innovation?
How might a short term versus long term future valuation impact
innovation trends?
5) How might technology and infrastructure impact human perceptions and behaviors?
6) What are some potential technological changes that we could
see? What might be their implications for the nearshore and impacts
on other drivers?
7) How will this regions technological innovations compare to
national and global advances?
8) What are possibilities in the arena of genetic or health changes?
9) In furthering the understanding of demographics under the
alternative scenarios:
What questions should we ask of the supporting experts?
What are good resources (i.e. publications, agencies, reports, model)
to collect additional information on this topic?
Who else should we talk to?
There is an almost irresistible temptation to choose
one scenario over the other: to say, in effect, this is the
future which we believe will take place. The other
futures are interesting. But they are irrelevant. We are
going to follow this scenario. - Unfortunately reality
does not follow even the best thought out scenario.
Ground rules
The scope is 50 years out
The extent is the entire Puget Sound basin.
The final six scenarios should represent widely different futures Maximize the difference in trajectories between scenarios, expand
the possibilities.
Remember to keep the storylines consistent and credible what is
plausible
While no individual scenario is supposed to represent the actual
future of this region, the suite of scenarios together should represent the plausible bounds of reality for this regions future.
Role
The scenarios will be developed by describing the trajectories of
each of the ten key driving forces under each scenario. Ten separate
expert teams will represent each of the ten key driving forces
previously identified in Phase I. The Climate Change and Human
Perceptions and Behavior have a leading role since these two driving
forces have been identified as the most uncertain and important by
a preceding workshop. These two expert teams will meet together
to narrate the initial scenario storylines by drawing up hypotheses
for the direction of each scenario. In addition, these teams will focus
on the potential projections of future climate impacts as well as
societal behavior and perceptions.
The supporting eight expert teams will contribute substantive
details about each scenario. Each team will be responsible for
delineating alternative future trajectories of their driving force under
each scenario. While panels will consist of experts with similar areas
of expertise, teams will have access to information compiled by
other teams and the opportunity to work collaboratively.
After all ten teams meet their synthesis will come back to the
Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior Teams. The
synthesis will be reviewed for consistency, completeness and
comprehensibility. Directed questions for missing or inconsistent
information will be asked of individuals from the supporting teams
based on their areas of expertise.
Public Health Team
The public health team will focus on the interaction between the
landscape and human health. This team will look at how environmental changes including urbanization, pollutants and declining
accessibility to natural resources may influence public health. While
climatic and human parameters for each scenario should contribute
to the decision about the impact of public health it is conversely
important to evaluate the impacts public health may have in
altering the direction, magnitude and rate of change for selected
aspects of climate change and human perceptions and behavior.
Feedback
The public health team will meet together once to develop the
trajectories for the Puget Sound Scenarios. Team members are
encouraged to provide further feedback to the team as a follow up
to the meeting discussion. After the scenarios are synthesized,
including trajectory input from all ten expert teams, team members
will have an opportunity to comment on the final product.
Discussion Questions
On the following page are step by step instructions for developing
trajectories. Please keep these these questions in mind.
1) What are future projections for public health in this region
including health habits such as diet and exercise, air and water
quality, health impacts from changes in agriculture and aquaculture?
2) What are the probability distributions of public health impacts
within the Puget Sound basin over the next fifty years?
3) What are reported challenges with future incidences of specific
diseases, contamination of food, cancer rates and other long term
illnesses, mental health and perceptions of the environment?
4) How will the six scenarios impact Public Health overall?
What are the threats from Climate Change?
How might public health impacts interact with climate impacts?
How might public health be impacted by changes in human perceptions and behavior?
How does the impact of pollution alter under each scenario?
What is the impact on our food sources?
How might changes in the state of agriculture and aquaculture in the
future impact public health?
How will health care provision interact with these factors?
5) What questions should we ask of the supporting experts?
6) In furthering the understanding of public health under the
alternative scenarios:
What are good resources (i.e. publications, agencies, reports, model)
to collect additional information on this topic?
Who else should we talk to?
There is an almost irresistible temptation to choose
one scenario over the other: to say, in effect, this is
the future which we believe will take place. The other
futures are interesting. But they are irrelevant. We are
going to follow this scenario. - Unfortunately reality
does not follow even the best thought out scenario.
Ground rules
The scope is 50 years out
The extent is the entire Puget Sound basin.
The final six scenarios should represent widely different futures Maximize the difference in trajectories between scenarios, expand
the possibilities.
Remember to keep the storylines consistent and credible what is
plausible
While no individual scenario is supposed to represent the actual
future of this region, the suite of scenarios together should represent the plausible bounds of reality for this regions future.
I dont mean to suggest that you spend all of your waking hours considering arcane
possibilities, the trick is finding those possibilities to consider which are significant.
Role
The scenarios will be developed by describing the trajectories of
each of the ten key driving forces under each scenario. Ten separate
expert teams will represent each of the ten key driving forces
previously identified in Phase I. The Climate Change and Human
Perceptions and Behavior have a leading role since these two driving
forces have been identified as the most uncertain and important by
a preceding workshop. These two expert teams will meet together
to narrate the initial scenario storylines by drawing up hypotheses
for the direction of each scenario. In addition, these teams will focus
on the potential projections of future climate impacts as well as
societal behavior and perceptions.
The supporting eight expert teams will contribute substantive
details about each scenario. Each team will be responsible for
delineating alternative future trajectories of their driving force under
each scenario. While panels will consist of experts with similar areas
of expertise, teams will have access to information compiled by
other teams and the opportunity to work collaboratively.
After all ten teams meet their synthesis will come back to the
Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior Teams. The
synthesis will be reviewed for consistency, completeness and
comprehensibility. Directed questions for missing or inconsistent
information will be asked of individuals from the supporting teams
based on their areas of expertise.
Regulations, Government and Leadership Team
The government regulations and leadership team will be addressing
alternative forms of governance for this region including political
leadership, strength of public will, the direction of new regulation,
and the centralization of control. While climatic and human parameters for each scenario should contribute to the decision about the
direction of government, regulations and leadership it is
conversely important to evaluate the impact of regulations on
altering the direction, magnitude and rate of change for selected
aspects of climate change and human perceptions and behavior.
Feedback
The government regulations and leadership team will meet together
once to develop the trajectories for the Puget Sound Scenarios.
Team members are encouraged to provide further feedback to the
team as a follow up to the meeting discussion. After the scenarios
are synthesized, including trajectory input from all ten expert teams,
team members will have an opportunity to comment on the final
product.
I dont mean to suggest that you spend all of your waking hours considering arcane
possibilities, the trick is finding those possibilities to consider which are significant.
Discussion Questions
On the following page are step by step instructions for developing
trajectories. Please keep these these questions in mind.
1) What are the potential trajectories for regulations, government
and leadership (RGL) within the Puget Sound basin over the next
fifty years?
How might the influence of different partisan views impact this
region? How might federal changes in RGL impact this region? How
might local decisions change regional ones? What about the tribes?
What will be their role? What might be the influence of political will?
Which regulations might be coming in over the next fifty years?
2) How will the six scenarios impact RGL trajectories?
3) How might climate change alter the role of government? Alter the
direction of regulations? Influence our political leadership?
How might a major impact from climate change impact these
trajectories?
How might major fluctuations, or a crisis, impact these trajectories?
4) How might climate change be affected by changes in our RGL?
5) How might public perceptions and behavior impact RGL?
How might individualistic or collectivist social values influence the
strength of government, the direction of regulations? The influence of
our leadership?
How might short term versus long term future valuation impact the
direction and form of of regulations?
6) How might RGL conversely alter human perceptions and behavior?
7) What are opportunities for new bills under each scenario?
What is the interaction with other key drivers including changes in
economic development, in infrastructure, in direction of growth?
How might the six scenarios impact the centralization of government?
8) What questions should we ask of the supporting experts?
9) In furthering the understanding of RGL under the alternative
scenarios:
What are good resources (i.e. publications, agencies, reports, model)
to collect additional information on this topic?
Who else should we talk to?
There is an almost irresistible temptation to choose
one scenario over the other: to say, in effect, this is the
future which we believe will take place. The other
futures are interesting. But they are irrelevant. We are
going to follow this scenario. - Unfortunately reality
does not follow even the best thought out scenario.
Ground rules
The scope is 50 years out
The extent is the entire Puget Sound basin.
The final six scenarios should represent widely different futures Maximize the difference in trajectories between scenarios, expand
the possibilities.
Remember to keep the storylines consistent and credible what is
plausible
While no individual scenario is supposed to represent the actual
future of this region, the suite of scenarios together should represent the plausible bounds of reality for this regions future.
APPENDIXD:SCENARIOASSUMPTIONS
Overview
Theinputfromparticipatingexpertsthroughthescenariodevelopment
processledtoaseriesofassumptionsaboutfuturetrajectoriesofkey
drivingforces.Theseassumptionscanbesimplifiedintoaseriesof
correlationsbetweenmultipletrajectoriesofspecificdrivingforces
dimensions.Forexample,afasteconomicgrowthcanbecorrelatedtoa
fastpopulationgrowth.Inthisappendixtheassumptionsarelaidoutin
termsof1)changesinclimaticallyinfluencedvariables(i.e.sealevelrise,
streamflow,snowpack)underthesixscenarios2)theassumptionsabout
thetrajectoriesofthe35indicatorsunderthe6scenariosand3)the
linkagesbetweenspecificdimensionsofmultipledrivers.
APPENDIXD:SCENARIOASSUMPTIONS
AppendixD1:climatechangeassumptionsandassociatedimpact
trajectories
Assumptions
Temperature
Precipitation
Sea level rise
higher temperatures lead to higher higher precipitation leads to higher SLR
sea level rise
Snow pack
higher temperatures lead to reduced uncertain
snowpack
Winter
higher temperatures lead reduced
higher winter precipitation, higher flows
streamflow
storage in snowpack, more flow
Variance
Other drivers
uncertain
none
uncertain
none
Summer
streamflow
Water quality
Forests
higher fluctuations,
increased vulnerability
Hydropower
Agriculture and
Fisheries
Water supply
systems
APPENDIXD:SCENARIOASSUMPTIONS
1950
2000
2050
Fluctuation
2000
2050
1950
2000
25
25
25
1950
0
2000
2050
1950
10
0
2000
2050
1950
2000
2050
Variance consistent
w/historical pattern
1950
No significant change
10
2000
2050
2000
2050
Variance consistent
w/historical pattern
10
1950
Increase (8%)
1950
25
2000
1950
2000
2050
Significant increase in
variance
1950
2000
2050
Significant increase in
variance
2050
1950
25
1950
10
0
2000
2000
2050
2050
25
10
1950
2000
Temp (F)
Temp (F)
1950
2050
Increase (8%)
2050
10
10
1950
2050
2000
2000
ADAPTATION
10
No significant change
1950
1950
2050
Temp (F)
2050
COLLAPSE
10
2000
10
1950
10
10
BARRIERS
2050
25
INNOVATION
2000
Precipitation
0
1950
Climate Change
10
Temp (F)
Temp (F)
Temperature
10
ORDER
Temp (F)
FORWARD
Temp (F)
TODAY
2000
2050
Decrease (1%)
1950
2000
2050
Variance consistent
w/historical pattern
1950
2000
2050
Variance consistent
w/historical pattern
Scale of Sharing
Goal Interdependence
Discount Rate
Public Investments
TODAY
FORWARD
ORDER
INNOVATION
BARRIERS
COLLAPSE
ADAPTATION
High regionally
High locally
Low
High household
High locally
High locally
Very high
Low
High
Low
Low
Very high
now
later
now
later
now
later
now
later
now
later
now
later
Very low
Low
Low
High
Very high
Very low
Very high
Same as today
Very high
Very low
Very low
Very high
Increasing proportion
of in-migration
year
Migration fluctuates in
cycles
Increasing proportion
of in-migration
100
uncertain
100
50
year
Out-migration
% migration
100
% migration
% migration
2050
age
aging
Decreasing rates of
in-migration
age
aging
year
10
50
2010
population
Declining pop
numbers
10
year
10
age
year
2050
2010
population
population
10
50
ADAPTATION
year
100
% migration
50
2050
2010
2050
2010
population
age
age
10
10
year
% migration
% migration
% migration
year
50
100
100
100
Slower growth
aging
COLLAPSE
year
BARRIERS
year
50
2050
year
age
10
age
Age Structure
INNOVATION
population
year
year
2010
2010
2050
ORDER
population
population
2010
2050
FORWARD
Immigration
Demographics
Population Growth
TODAY
50
year
Similar to today
50
90 00
90 00
50
50
90 00
90 00
50
ADAPTATION
people/imp area
COLLAPSE
people/imp area
BARRIERS
people/imp area
people/imp area
outUGB
INNOVATION
people/imp area
ORDER
people/imp area
people/imp area
People / Impervious
Walkability
FORWARD
inUGB
90 00
90 00
50
90 00
50
50
(In) increase
(Out) same
(In)increase
(Out) decrease
(In) increase
(Out) same
.
(In)same
(Out) decrease
(In)decrease
(Out) decrease
Increase
Decrease
Same
Decrease
Uncertain
Increase
Slightly higher
Lower
Slightly lower
Lower
Much lower
Slightly higher
90 00 10 20 30 40 50
1m
2m
1m
2m
1m
2m
1m
3m
2
2m
1m
Housing Permits
2m
3m
Housing Permits
1m
3m
Housing Permits
2m
3m
Housing Permits
3m
Housing Permits
3m
Housing Permits
Forest Aggregation
Housing Permits
Building Permits
Development Patterns
TODAY
3m
2m
1m
90 00 10 20 30 40 50
90 00 10 20 30 40 50
90 00 10 20 30 40 50
90 00 10 20 30 40 50
90 00 10 20 30 40 50
90 00 10 20 30 40 50
Fast growth
100%
Diversification
$70m
2000
ist
rib
ut
io
(4
de
gr
ee
)L
in
e
100%
100%
2050
tD
)L
in
e
gr
ee
de
5
(4
n
io
ut
rib
ist
tD
Share of lower income
1950
100%
Economic depression
100%
High inequity
2050
fe
c
2000
Pe
r
1950
fe
c
)L
in
e
gr
ee
de
5
(4
n
io
ut
rib
ist
tD
fe
c
Share of lower income
100%
2050
Unstable economy
100%
)L
in
e
gr
ee
de
5
(4
n
io
ut
rib
ist
tD
fe
c
Share of lower income
2000
Pe
r
1950
100%
Same as today
2050
100%
2000
ADAPTATION
1950
100%
)L
in
e
gr
ee
de
5
(4
n
Share of lower income
100%
Sectors
Exports
2050
Higher equity
2000
100%
Pe
r
fe
c
tD
ist
rib
ut
io
(4
de
gr
ee
)L
in
e
100%
)L
in
e
gr
ee
de
(4
n
io
ut
rib
ist
tD
fe
c
Pe
r
Distribution
Trade Dependence
Economics
1950
COLLAPSE
Pe
r
2050
io
2000
ut
1950
rib
2050
ist
2000
BARRIERS
tD
1950
INNOVATION
fe
c
ORDER
Pe
r
FORWARD
Pe
r
GDP
TODAY
100%
Higher equity
Sectors
Sectors
Sectors
Sectors
Sectors
Sectors
Highly diverse
Dominated by few
sectors
Dominated by
high-tech
Highly dominated by
few sectors
Highly dominated by
few sectors
Highly diverse
Imports
$45m
Balanced, but
significant #s
I
Uncertain
Highly dependent on
trade
Dependent on imports
Reduced overall,
dependent on imports
Balanced, minor
reliance on trade
public agencies
private firms
# of partnerships
Partnerships
8
Many initiatives
passed, ineffective
Few passed; highly
effective
Few passed; few
effective
Many passed;
ineffective
Many passed; effective
Fragmented, networked
Fragmented, autocratic
Uncertain
Fragmented, autocratic
Unified, autocratic
Fragmented, networked
# of partnerships
7
Many initiatives
passed; effective
High; non-profit,
academia
Low; public
High; private
Low; private
High; non-profit /
private
High, all
academia
passed
non-profits
public agencies
effective
private firms
50
# of bills
COLLAPSE
# of partnerships
academia
passed
non-profits
effective
public agencies
# of bills
BARRIERS
private firms
# of partnerships
academia
passed
non-profits
effective
public agencies
# of bills
INNOVATION
private firms
# of partnerships
academia
passed
non-profits
public agencies
effective
private firms
# of bills
ORDER
# of partnerships
academia
passed
non-profits
effective
public agencies
# of bills
# of bills
FORWARD
private firms
academia
passed
non-profits
public agencies
effective
private firms
# of bills
Leadership
# of partnerships
passed
academia
non-profits
Locus of Power
Governance
TODAY
ADAPTATION
100
effective
HS+
higher
90 00
50
HS+
Similar to today
90 00
50
90 00
50
HS+
BA+
90 00
50
50
HS+
Increased division,
more BA, less HS
90 00
BA+
50
HS+
Out-migration of
Higher education
50
100
% of 25+ Pop
% of 25+ Pop
100
50
BA+
$ per capita
K-12
$ per capita
$ per capita
Investment
Increase attainment
BA+
50
100
ADAPTATION
BA+
Increased attainment
$ per capita
BA+
100
COLLAPSE
$ per capita
HS+
50
BARRIERS
$ per capita
BA+
100
$ per capita
Mason
50
INNOVATION
% of 25+ Pop
90
100
% of 25+ Pop
% of 25+ Pop
Attainment
50
King
HS+
Accessibility
100
90
ORDER
% of 25+ Pop
FORWARD
% of 25+ Pop
TODAY
90 00
50
90 00
50
Increasing
Increasing
Increasing
Same
Slight increase
Decrease
Uncertain
Increase
FORWARD
ORDER
INNOVATION
BARRIERS
COLLAPSE
ADAPTATION
2000
2050
1950
2000
2050
1950
2000
2050
1950
2000
2050
1950
2000
2050
1950
2000
2050
1950
2000
2050
Stable at todays
frequency
Increasing at current
rate
Increasing at current
rate
Increasing at double
the current rate
Increasing at double
the current rate
Increasing at current
rate
Vulnerable at coast
and mountains
Vulnerable at coast
and mountains
Highly vulnerable at
coast
Increasing
vulnerability
Vulnerable at coast
and mountains
1950
2000
2050
1950
2000
2050
Decreased magnitude
of events
1950
2000
Uncertain
2050
1950
2000
2050
1950
2000
2050
Increasing magnitude
over time
1950
Vulnerability
1950
Magnitude
Natural Hazards
Frequency
TODAY
2000
2050
Increasing magnitude
over time
1950
2000
2050
Decreased magnitude
of events
2050
1980 2000
2050
1980 2000
1980 2000
Decline followed by
new techniques
2050
2000
2050
2000
1980 2000
2050
Declining, Reliance on
global goods
2050
Healthier population
% uninsured
Unhealthy population
2000
2050
1980 2000
2050
Collapse of both
2000
2050
1980 2000
Agriculture
2050
2050
2000
% uninsured
Increasing ailment
% poor health
% poor health
% poor health
2050
% uninsured
2000
2050
2000
Shellfish
2050
Same as today
Shellfish
Agriculture
Shellfish
Agriculture
Shellfish
Resource Abundance
1980 2000
Outbreak followed by
treatment
ADAPTATION
Agriculture
2000
2050
Shellfish
2050
COLLAPSE
Agriculture
2000
2000
% uninsured
Increase disease
BARRIERS
Shellfish
2050
2050
% uninsured
% uninsured
% uninsured
Resource Distribution
Healthier population
2000
% poor health
2000
Agriculture
2050
Shellfish
2000
Agriculture
2050
INNOVATION
% poor health
ORDER
% poor health
2000
Public Health
FORWARD
% poor health
Health Status
TODAY
2050
Connectivity
FORWARD
ORDER
INNOVATION
BARRIERS
COLLAPSE
ADAPTATION
Highly connected
Fragmented
Highly connected
Fragmented
Limited
Community scale
sewer
waste
water
electric
transit
$ millions
sewer
waste
water
highways
electric
$ millions
sewer
waste
water
highways
electric
$ millions
water
sewer
waste
highways transit
electric
$ millions
water
waste sewer
renewable
transit
highways
electric
$ millions
waste
water
renewable
sewer
highways transit
electric
$ millions
sewer
waste
water
highways transit
electric
$ millions
Investments
Type of Infrastructure
TODAY
Higher $ in shared
resources
Increased $ for
extension of services
Increased $ in new
technologies
Increased $ in energy
and protection
Renewable resources,
adaptive, shared
Extensions, rigid,
inefficient
Reactive, rigid,
independent
Reactive, ineffective
Renewable, adaptive,
small-scaled
APPENDIXD:SCENARIOASSUMPTIONS
AppendixD3:Linkagesbetweenmultipledrivingforcesdimensions
DemographicsandEconomics(growth):
If the economy continues to grow, this will cause an increase in
population growth, these two trends match each other very closely, if
unemployment increases outmigration increases as well. The Boeing
Bustofthelate1960sandearly1970sresultedinprobablythegreatest
exodusofpopulationfromWashington.Migrationslowedappreciably
inthelastrecession,buthasreboundedsince2003asthelabormarket
strengthened.ThepooreconomicclimateinCaliforniaresultedinout
migration of about 400,000 people per year in the early 1990s. Even
thoughWashingtonseconomicgrowthwasslowduringthatperiod,it
stilloutpacedCalifornias,thusbeingamigratorymagnettomanyfrom
theGoldenState(WashingtonTrends,OFM2007).
DemographicsandDevelopmentPatterns:
Metropolitanareasareexpectedtogrowfasterthanoutlyingruralareas.
KingCountyforexample,isexpectedtogrowby30%between2000and
2030.Ontheotherhandduetohighlivingexpenses,KingCountyis
consideredasteppingstonefromsomemigrants.TheymovetoKingfor
thejobsandthenmoveouttosettleinadjacentcountieswherethe
housingischeaper.
Demographics(agestructure)andKnowledgeandInformation
(spending):Studieshaveshownthatanagingpopulationhasanegative
effectoneducationspending(Harrisetal,2000).Asalargerpercentageof
thepopulationbecomes65andover,howwillouralreadypoorlyfunded
schoolsbeaffected?
ClimateChangeandDevelopmentPatters:
Increasingfuelpricesmightchangetheoldrealestatemottolocation,
location,locationintoproximity,proximity,proximity.Although
perhapssimilarlyinfluentialwillbeincreasinglowlandfloodsleadingto
athirdmottoelevation,elevation,elevation.
Economy,DevelopmentPatternsandGovernance(regulatorystrength):
Ourabilitytoenforcestrictregulationsonnewdevelopmentsislargely
supportedbyaverystronggrowthinconstructionactivity.IftheRegions
economyfailstherateofnewhousingdevelopmentwillfall.Asthe
Regionbecomesmorereliantonnewdevelopmenttofinance
government,theywilllikelyrelaxregulationstomakeitmoreattractive
tobuildinthisregion.
EconomyandInfrastructureandTechnology(investments):Some
studieshaveshownarelationshipbetweenincreaseinvestmentsin
transportationinfrastructureandincreasedeconomicgrowth(Fisher,
1997).Inreturnwhentheeconomydoeswell,itbringspeoplein,more
peoplebringinmorerevenue,whichbuildsmoreinfrastructure,which
attractsmorebusinesses(OFM,2007).
EconomyandKnowledge(educationalattainment):TheRegionhas
manyskilledworkerswhohavebeenonalargepartimportedintothis
region.ThishascausedalargeconcerninStateGovernment,withalarge
pushtoproducemoreeducationlocally.IftheRegioncannotproducea
skilledlaborforcehere,manyhighschoolgraduateswillhavetoleavethe
regioninordertofindjobs.
Economy(inequality)andDevelopmentPatterns:Asincomeinequality
grows,therichproducemoremoneyandbuildsecondhomes,especially
alongnaturalareassuchasthePugetSoundshore.
EconomyandDemographics(growthrate):Inthepast,low
unemploymentandhighrealestatevalueshavereducedfertilityrates.
JapanandItaly,forexample,areactuallylosingpeopleovertimedueto
lowfertilityratesastheyhavefallenbelowreplacementlevels.
APPENDIXD:SCENARIOASSUMPTIONS
ClimateChangeandNaturalHazards(frequency)
Oneeasytranslationtoseetheimpactofclimatechangeonnatural
hazardsisafootofseallevelrisewillchangethefrequencyofanevent
onelevel,thatisa100yeareventbecomesa10year,atenyearbecomesa
oneyear.Naturalhazardsgenerallyreflecteventsthatarerareandhavea
highimpact(seeFigure1,lowerleftquadrant).Eventsthathavean
impactbutoccurfrequentlysocietyhasadaptedto,likechangesin
seasons,anddiurnalchanges.Eventsthathavelittleimpactwealsodont
careabout,eventherareonesdo
littleotherthanannoyorintrigue
us.Apossiblequestionforthis
regionsfuturemaybe:willthe
interactionsbetweenfuture
trajectoriesofkeydrivingforces
suchasclimateimpacts,
populationgrowth,infrastructure
investmentsanddevelopment
patternscauseashiftinthe
frequencyofnaturaleventsand
forceustoadapttoconditionswe
currentlyviewashazardous?
ClimateChangeandNaturalHazards(seismicactivity)
Glacierchangesinfluencedbyincreasesintemperaturemaycreate
pressurechangesinfluencingthefrequencyofseismicactivity.Further,
climaticchangesmayalterourregionalvulnerabilitywhenvolcanoesdo
erupt;assnowcoverdisappears,thevegetationunderneathisremoved
andlaharimpactisgreater;withnowatercontent,novegetationthereis
littleholdingthematerialinplace.
DevelopmentPatternsandNaturalHazards(vulnerability):
Thereisaparadoxofcentralization,thedenserthepopulationthegreater
thevulnerabilityifthatareaishit.However,decentralizationincreases
changeinnaturallandcoverandincreasedmilesofinfrastructure
increasingourvulnerabilityasaregion.
EconomyandNaturalHazards:
IfRainereruptsBoeingwilllikelyleavetheregion,itissimplyavisibility
issue,theywontbeabletofly.
KnowledgeandHumanPerceptionsandBehavior(futurevaluation)
Highereducationcancausepeopletohavealongertermfuturevaluation
(Strenze,2007).
ClimateChangeandPublicHealth(resourceabundance)
Climatechangecouldincreasetheviabilityofsomeorganisms
responsibleforharmfulalgalbloomsinPugetSound.Inaddition,sea
levelrisewilllikelyincreaselossofshellfishgrowingareas.Agriculture
mayincreaseduetolongergrowingseasons,butmaydecreasedueto
limitedwaterandincreasedvulnerabilitytopestoutbreaks.Smallerfarms
maybemoreresilienttoclimatechangeastheymayhavegreatercrop
diversityorbemoreadaptive,abletorapidlyswitchtoanothercrop
(CIG,2007).
DevelopmentPatterns(intensity)andInfrastructure:
Transportationisintricatelytiedtolanduse.Ifmixedusehighdensity
developmentsdominateoverruralresidentialdevelopmentsregional
relianceonserviceextensionandsingleoccupancyvehicleswilllikely
decrease.
PublicHealthandEconomy(inequity)
Recentresearchhasshownastrongrelationshipbetweenobesityand
poverty.Oneargumentforthistrendisaninverserelationshipbetween
energydensity(kcal/100g)andenergycost($/1000cal)(Drewnoski).
Energydensegrains,sugarsandfatsprovidethemostenergy(Kcal)and
leastnutrientsperunitcost.Thedifferentialinenergycostbetweenlard
andlettuceisseveralthousandpercent.Further,healthierperishable
foodssuchasfreshvegetablesandfruit,fishandleanmeatsareless
affordablethandryandprocessedfoodswithalongerstableshelflife.
Thesustainabilityofourregionalresourcesincludingagriculturalfields,
APPENDIXD:SCENARIOASSUMPTIONS
orchards,aquacultureandfishingisimportantinsupplyinganaffordable
healthydiettoNorthwestresidents.Ifecosystemfunctionsdegradesuch
thatlocalfishandproducearelessabundant,moreexpensiveandmore
contaminated,whatwillhappentoobesityratesinthisregion?Willrising
fuelcostsfunctiontoincreasethecostoflongdistanceimportedfoodsin
relationtoshortdistancefreshfoods?
-1-
OPPORTUNITIES
1 Identify Drivers: No drivers were
identified.
2 Implications of Trajectories: No
trajectories were incorporated.
-3-
OPPORTUNITIES
1 Identify Drivers: No drivers were
identified.
-4-
OPPORTUNITIES
1 Identify Drivers: While many drivers
were identified, they were based on past
understanding of the system and were not
necessarily forward thinking.
2 Implications of Trajectories: The
largest emphasis in the project was on the
implications of different trajectories and
their feedback to one another.
3 Anticipate Risks: While risks were
assessed they were limited by our previous
understanding of the system. No new risks
were identified.
4 Illuminate Options: Options generally
represented our understanding previous to
the model, no new opportunities were
illuminated.
5 Desirable Future: A balanced future
was described as desirable and its merits
were explained as well as steps towards
that future.
6 Assess Strategies: Strategies were
limited to balancing the system out. All
other options merely delayed a doomed
outcome.
-5-
Current
Managed Growth
Ecological
CHALLENGES
1 Challenge Assumptions: No
OPPORTUNITIES
1 Identify Drivers: SLEUTH Drivers are
the same for each situation independently
of the project; looking at land use, slope,
hillshade, transportation, and urban land.
2 Implications of Trajectories: Model
outcomes are as expected, the more area
excluded from development, the more
compact future development becomes.
3 Anticipate Risks: No risks are
integrated into this framework.
4 Illuminate Options: The three policy
options are predetermined before running
the model.
5 Desirable Future: The alternative
futures are created superficially, and are
not plausible, and therefore are not
selected.
6 Assess Strategies: No strategies are
assessed.
-6-
-7-
OPPORTUNITIES
1 Identify Drivers: Anticipated drivers are
the usual suspects
2 Implications of Trajectories:
Implications of policy changes on stream
ecology were directly addressed.
3 Anticipate Risks: This research study
helped identify the specific stream ecology
risks posed by alternative policy decisions.
-8-
-9-
- 10 -
- 11 -
CHALLENGES
1 Challenge Assumptions: Looking at
factors such as untapped potential for
creative solutions in the tribes and lake
associations is just one example of how
this scenario building process allowed
ecologists to think outside the box.
2 Uncertainty & Surprise: Looked at a
long history of knowledge about the area,
but complemented it with potential
uncertainties, and how they might turn out.
The seeds of all these scenarios are there
today, but each scenario shows us what
could happen if one of the emerging trends
dominates.9 (Peterson, 2003)
3 Communicate Complex Info: This
study integrated national impacts like
terrorist attacks and commercial recreation
with impacts on local ecological resilience.
OPPORTUNITIES
1 Identify Drivers: Directly addressed in
the workshops, includes tourism. Local
control, ecological health, population
growth and economic diversity.
2 Implications of Trajectories:
Trajectories include population,
demography, economics, landscape form,
aesthetics, water quality, habitat, forests,
wildlife, and ecosystem management are
estimated and compared for each
scenario.
3 Anticipate Risks: Not only are the
typical risks such as over-fishing or
increased development addressed, new
risks such as economic collapse or a
fearful society retreating to second homes
are acknowledged as risks.
4 Illuminate Options: While this project
has not yet assessed strategies, options
are illuminated by the mere fact that
potential futures that would normally have
been overlooked are now visible and
acknowledged.
5 Desirable Future: Strategies are
targeted at creating a desirable future,
however the scenarios are not intended as
visions.
6 Assess Strategies: While the potential
to evaluate strategies based on the
information given in the scenarios is there,
this is still considered a next step.
- 12 -
- 13 -
CHALLENGES
1 Challenge Assumptions: Assumptions
were directly challenged by an open
review process of the resultant emissions
scenarios by a wide range of scientific
perspectives. The IPCC advertised in
relevant scientific journals, created a web
site documenting the SRES process and
intermediate results to facilitate outside
input.
2 Uncertainty & Surprise: While the
intention was to directly deal with a highly
uncertain future drivers such as
technology and population growth didnt
step outside of a comfortable range.
3 Communicate Complex Info: Having a
purely scientific audience, the entire
process was available on the website for
commenting.
4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: This process
was limited to the scientific community
which was able to provide feedback to the
writers and modelers, bit not necessarily to
engage in conversation with one another.
5 Integrate Probable & Desirable: Only
the probable was examined, no judgment
is offered in the report as to the preference
for any of the scenario as any scenario
includes subjective elements and is open
to interpretations.10 Policy choices were
not integrated into this report. However,
policy and decision makers will hopefully
be aided by the report.
6 Assess Tradeoffs: Tradeoffs are given
as objective quantitative outcomes of the
model including: GDP, per capita ratio
between developed countries and
economies in transition, energy, share of
coal, and emission amounts of different
gases.
OPPORTUNITIES
1 Identify Drivers: Several drivers are
included while some such as technological
innovation and population growth are
typical, others such as social and cultural
interactions are less conventional.
- 14 -
Type
Synthesize
Information
Dif. Bw
Stakeholders
Integrate
Assess
Probable
Tradeoffs
& Possible
Vision
some
no
no
no
no
no
Vision
some
no
no
some
no
some
Vision
some
no
no
no
no
some
Limits to Growth
Extrapolative some
no
some
no
yes
some
Extrapolative no
no
some
no
some
some
Extrapolative no
no
some
some
some
some
Extrapolative no
no
yes
some
some
some
Scenarios
yes
yes
yes
some
yes
yes
Scenarios
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Scenarios
yes
some
yes
some
no
yes
Opportunities
Project
Type
Identify
Drivers
Implications of
Trajectories
Anticipate
Risks
Illuminate
Options
Desirable Assess
Futures Strategies
Vision
no
some
no
some
yes
no
Vision
no
no
no
some
yes
no
Vision
no
no
no
some
some
no
Extrapolative
some
yes
some
no
yes
some
Extrapolative
some
some
no
no
no
no
Extrapolative
some
yes
no
no
no
no
Extrapolative
some
yes
yes
no
no
no
Scenarios
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Scenarios
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Scenarios
yes
yes
yes
some
no
no
- 15 -
- 16 -
- 17 -