Download Appendix A: Eight Steps of Scenario Building SCENARIO BUILDING

 Appendix A: Eight Steps of Scenario Building SCENARIO BUILDING 1. Identify focal issue or decision In studying alternative ‘futures’ we are using Scenario Building‐‐an approach originally proposed as a business strategy in 1970s (Royal Dutch/Shell) and recently applied in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment—to systematically and creatively think about plausible futures. Scenarios are plausible alternative futures ‐‐ what might happen under particular assumptions. 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. Scenario building generally involves eight key steps. 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Identify focal issue or decision Identify driving forces Rank importance & uncertainty Select scenario logics Flesh‐out the scenarios Select indicators for monitoring Assess impacts for different scenarios Evaluate alternative strategies In the example below, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is used to describe the eight key steps to the scenario building process. The focal issue represents the question about the future that an organization is confronting. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) focused on the implications of four different approaches for managing ecosystem services in the face of growing human demand for them. 2. Identify driving forces Driving forces represent key variables and their trends in the macro‐
environment that influence the focal issue. The MEA selected nine key driving forces to include within the scenarios: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Demographic Drivers Economic Drivers: Consumption, Production, and Globalization Sociopolitical Drivers Cultural and Religious Drivers Science and Technology Drivers Climate Variability and Change Plant Nutrient Use Land Conversion Biological Invasions and Diseases Appendix A: Eight Steps of Scenario Building 3. Rank importance & uncertainty 4. Select scenario logics Identified driving forces are ranked in terms of their uncertainty and importance in relation to the focal issue. This step directs the outcome of the final scenarios as the two most important and uncertain drivers define the most divergent and relevant future conditions to be included in the final set
The logics are defined by exploring the interactions of the most uncertain and important drivers such that alternative frames are created, each representing a divergent yet plausible scenario. From the nine driving forces above, the two most uncertain and important driving forces were selected; economic and sociopolitical drivers. For each driving force two attributes are selected representing two polar directions in which the drivers can go in the future. For the economic driver, the MEA looked at one end being globalization and the other regionalization. Within globalization economic equity and public goods were delivered, while regionalization reflected security and economic growth. For the socio‐political driver MEA focused on either a reactive or proactive ecosystem management. Appendix A: Eight Steps of Scenario Building 5. Flesh‐out the scenarios 6. Select indicators for monitoring Each scenario is developed by exploring the implications of alternative trajectories on the focal issue under the set parameters defined by the interactions between the key driving forces. The MEA describes four scenarios based on the logics described in the previous steps as well as modeled values for the other seven driving forces. A set of indicator are selected to assess the implications of alternative futures on the focal issue. Metrics refer to a measure used to determine a certain condition. The four scenarios described are: •
•
•
•
The Global Orchestration: a socially conscious globalization, one in which we emphasize equity, economic growth, and public goods, reacting to ecosystem problems when they reach critical stages. Order from Strength: representing a regionalized approach, in which our emphasis is on security and economic growth, again reacting to ecosystem problems only as they arise. Adapting Mosaic: a regionalized approach, emphasizing proactive management of ecosystems, local adaptation, and flexible governance. TechnoGarden: a globalized approach with an emphasis on green technology and a proactive approach to managing ecosystems. The MEA looked at three major components for assessing change under each scenario: ecosystem services, biodiversity and human well‐being. Under each component multiple indicators were monitored. For example, under biodiversity, within the subcategory of terrestrial biodiversity, habitat loss was selected as one indicator. Appendix A: Eight Steps of Scenario Building 7. Assess impacts for different scenarios 8. Evaluate alternative strategies Using the selected indicators, scenario planners assess how the focal issue is impacted under each scenario. The main objective of scenarios is to inform strategic decision‐making. Once alternative scenarios are described, managers can evaluate the efficacy of alternative strategies across the suite of scenarios. For each of the indicators selected above the MEA proceeded to model the change under each scenario. For example, habitat loss is assessed for each of the four scenarios. Other impacts include land cover, potential species loss, income distribution, GDP, rate of improvement of technological efficiency, renewable energy, greenhouse gas emissions, sea level rise, number of malnutritioned children, bio‐fuel production, etc.. The MEA starts this process by looking at international agencies accountable for creating strategies, and then evaluates how the impacts under different scenarios affect the goals and objectives of these agencies. The six agencies include the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention, the Desertification Convention, National Governments, Communities and NGOs, and the Private Sector. For example, for the Convention on Biological Diversity the alternative scenarios reflect threats to biodiversity from climate change, pollution, invasive species, Overexploitation and inappropriate management, and Habitat transformation. After associating specific threats with strategies, alternative policies are assessed under each scenario. What might work very well under ‘Order from Strength’ may be ineffective for ‘Techno Garden’. For example, for the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands the MEA looked at which policies would work well for each scenario. APPENDIX B: EXPERTISE INVOLVED Appendix B1: Initial Interviews In order to identify a broad set of drivers of change for the future of the Puget Sound nearshore, the Urban Ecology Research Lab [UERL] sought to include a diverse representation of experts. Some areas of expertise were directly linked to understanding nearshore ecosystems. These areas included oceanographers, nearshore ecologists, marine habitat specialists, climatologists, and geomorphologies. The UERL targeted additional areas of expertise that focused on regional changes including demographers, economists, statisticians, developers, planners and industry leaders. The UERL also aimed to include groups that are similarly involved in assessing the health of this region and that may be directly impacted by changes in nearshore ecosystem functions. Expertise corresponding to these roles included non‐profit organizations, non‐governmental organizations, environmental trend watchers, tribal organizations, and advocacy groups. Lastly, in order to identify additional experts, the UERL conducted a snowball technique asking each participant in the initial interviews if there were additional expertise we should seek. Based on this additional input the UERL added historians, politicians, and design agencies to our list of targeted expertise. Table 1 Interview expertise The UERL divided the breadth of expertise into eight general groups who share a similar working knowledge. The intent of this separation was to ensure that participants could easily exchange ideas and maintain a focused discussion. The panel groups were split into biological scientists, physical scientists, social and behavior scientists, planners, the private sector, non‐profit organizations, public agencies, and advocacy groups for subsistence living. The UERL initially contacted sixty‐one experts for interviews and were able to schedule with thirty four of them. The UERL conducted a total of eight individual interviews and ten panel interviews. The area of expertise and contributing agency1 is outlined for each interview and panel in the table below. In addition to a core set of question asked of all participants, additional questions targeted three specific types of participants: scientists, users, and impacted parties. Table 2 describes the three participant types. Appendix C includes the three sets of discussion questions. Table 2 Participant types 1 To maintain the anonymity of the participants names are not given. Appendix B2: Workshop Thirty eight people attended the workshop, including representatives from public, private agencies and non‐
governmental organizations (see Table 3 for a list of agencies). Several academic disciplines were represented including geomorphology, geography, climatology, oceanography, ecology, biology, business and economic development. Table 3 Agencies involved at the workshop Appendix B3: Panel Discussions B3a: After the workshop the UERL focused on panel discussions as a means of refining the scenario logics and finalizing the scenario narratives. The objective of the panel discussion was to fill in the details of each frame with relevant and internally consistent data. Instead of looking for breadth, the UERL targeted specific experts who filled critical roles in the scenario development process. Overall the UERL and the Future Without Workgroup identified over 200 experts, contacted over 100 different agencies and personally interviewed 53 experts. Fourteen teams separated participants with similar areas of expertise into discussion forums that were responsible for developing critical elements of the scenarios. Utilizing the ten driving forces identified by the interviews the UERL developed ten teams of experts, each representing one driving force. Based on the two most important and uncertain driving forces identified at the workshop we developed a ‘core team’ of climate change and human perception experts to lead the scenario hypotheses development. The UERL also held panel discussions for each of the supporting eight key driving forces separately. The core team met twice, initially to define scenario hypotheses and second to refine the scenarios after receiving feedback synthesized from to supporting teams. In addition to these 10 teams the UERL held one meeting with communication experts and one with public agency heads to help delineate critical elements to include within the final scenarios to ensure their usability. In the next phase of this project the UERL in conjunction with the FWW will share the final scenarios with a team of metrics and ecosystem health experts, as well as a modeling team in order to develop the assessment component of this project. Figure 1 illustrates the order for meetings of the discussion forums and the integral feedback between forums. The following pages describe the agencies and expertise targeted and included within the panel discussions. Many participants had multiple areas of expertise and represented multiple agencies, and therefore the total numbers represent a higher value than the number of individual experts. Identified Over 243 experts were identified by the UERL, the FWW and nominated by participating experts. The list of experts was systematically reviewed in order to ensure that the most relevant and divergent expertise are incorporated into the final scenarios. Contacted The UERL contacted 112 experts from various disciplines. Experts were provided a factsheet summarizing the project’s objectives, their role and the panel’s discussion questions (included in Appendix C2). Panel discussions generally required about 2‐3 hours of preparation, 3 hours of attending the actual discussion and additional hours for feedback and correspondence. Participation was voluntary without compensation. Interested Out of the experts contacted 90 individuals responded that they were interested in being involved in the process in some manner. Numerous efforts were put forth to include these participants if not directly in a panel discussion than through correspondence and feedback on the final report. Met with Fifty six experts participated in the scenario development process. While the majority were present for panel discussions involving other experts representing a specific driving force, many experts were accommodated through individual interviews, either in person, or over the phone, or by email communication. Table 4 Participants sorted by Driving Forces 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
Identified Contacted Interested Met with
14
13
7
10
7
6
4
4
22
12
5
9
20
20
22
26
16
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
9
4
4
24
15
248
6
6
128
5
3
90
0
0
56 Table 5 Expertise met with 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
Table 6 Agency representation Part 1 of 3 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
Identified Contacted Interested Met with
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
3
2
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
3
3
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
11
5
4
4
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0 Table 6 Agencies representation Part 2 of 3 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
Identified Contacted Interested Met with
2
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
4
3
1
1
7
7
7
7
2
2
2
2
9
4
2
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
4
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
3
1
0
0
2
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
2
1
0
0
5
4
2
2
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1 Table 6 Agency representation Part 3 of 3 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
Identified Contacted Interested Met with
1
1
1
0
3
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
4
2
0
0
3
3
2
2
7
2
2
2
4
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
8
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
6
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
9
5
5
4
6
2
2
1
2
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0 Puget Sound Nearshore Restoration Program
The Puget Sound Nearshore Restoration Program (PSNERP)
focuses on nearshore restoration projects in conjunction with
the U.S. Army Cops of Engineers (USACE), EPA and other
federal, state, and local partners. As a precursor to restoration,
USACE requires PSNERP to perform an analysis of the past,
present and future conditions in the Puget Sound nearshore to
illustrate the anticipated benefits of the restoration effort and to
justify the financial investment. The goal of the Future Without
Project is to assess the benefits of alternative restoration
measures in an uncertain future.
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 Sound’s 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 nearshore’s 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.
What is the Nearshore Ecosystem?
The nearshore zone lies between the top of shoreline bluffs,
across the beach, and into the water where the low tide line
falls. Further, it extends upstream into estuaries to the extant
of tidal influence. The nearshore ecosystem is composed of
the entire network of connections influencing the nearshore
zone and is therefore much broader than the nearshore zone
alone. The nearshore ecosystem includes runoff from uphill
developments, salmon who travels upstream, atmospheric
conditions, and the biogeochemical regulations of the marine
waters. The nearshore ecosystem provides a common resource
to the people of the Puget Sound, from scenic views, an
abundance of fish, recreational amenities and wildlife habitat.
In order to effectively restore or mitigate the nearshore we are
investigating the entire suite of driving forces that influence its
future.
Topics for the Panel Discussion:
Discussion panels are formed to explore various perspectives
on the Puget Sounds’ future. The following topics will be
discussed within each panel:
1] What significant changes will occur in the Puget
Sound in the next 50-years?
2] What are the key drivers of these changes?
Driving forces are factors or phenomena which alter the future
trajectory in significant ways. For example, demographics or
climate change are driving forces.
3] What evidence confirms influence of these
driving forces?
4] How will these drivers affect the nearshore?
5] What evidence supports connections between
these drivers and the nearshore conditions?
6] Which driving forces are the most important? (in
terms of their extent and degree of impact)
7] What evidence shows the impact of this driver in
this region? (Extent, resolution, indicators…)
8] What models have been developed to predict the
impact of this driver?
9] Which driving forces are the most uncertain?
An uncertain driving force has low predictability and a
wind range of possible outcomes.
10] What is the uncertainty associated with these
drivers?
11] What are good measures to predict change?
What are some warning signals of a trend? For example,
change in snowpack is a sign of climate change.
Nearshore ecosystem
Nearshore zone
Sand
dune
Offshore zone
Ridge
High Water Mark
Low Water Mark
Bar
Inter
tidal
zone
Tidal
range
For additional information please contact Michal Russo at mr7@
u.washington.edu or 206.579.8303
SUMMER
Example: In the example below, two driving forces
are chosen: climate change and the rate of technological
innovation. For each driving force two plausible future values
are selected. When we cross the two axes we are left with four
squares, each representing a future scenario. Taking the top left
square, imagine the future of the Puget Sound if the impact of
climate change was very severe and simultaneously we saw
very rapid development of technologies at the forefront. Would
we adapt? What would our nearshore look like? What would
our economy and transportation look like? These conversations
are intended to help us generate ideas about how uncertainty
might unfold, and what strategies would be most effective at
protecting our shared values.
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
Technology: Low rate
of innovation
The Future Without Team
http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org/
Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership
Bernard Hargrave, US Army Corps of Engineers
Fred Goetz, US Army Corps of Engineers
Charles Simenstad, School of Aquatic + Fishery Sciences, UW
Curtis Tanner, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Doug Myers, Puget Sound Action Team
Jacques White, The Nature Conservancy
Michael Rylko, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Thomas Leschine, School of Marine Affairs, UW
Guy Gelfenbaum, USGS Coastal and Marine Geology
Urban Ecology Research Laboratory
Marina Alberti, UW
Jeff Hepinstall, UW
Michal Russo, UW
FALL
March
WINTER
Panel Discussions
FactSheets
Scenario Building involves eight steps:
1. Identify focal issue or decision
2. Identify driving forces
3. Rank their importance and uncertainty
4. Select scenario logics
5. Flesh-out the scenarios
6. Select indicators for monitoring
7. Assess impacts under different scenarios
8. Evaluate alternative strategies
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 Assessment—to 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
The purpose of the panel discussions is to integrate the
perspectives from a diversity of disciplines in order to
challenge our assumptions about what the major impacts to
the Nearshore Ecosystem are likely to be in the next 50 years.
Questions are specifically geared to identify important and
uncertain driving forces and to gather information on those
driving forces.
Factsheets of Driving Forces
Based on the list of driving forces heard at the discussions,
we will compile a set of summary sheets for facilitation in the
workshop. Each factsheet will integrate a single driving force
with plausible trends and research findings from published
scientific literature.
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
Example: In the example below, two driving forces
are chosen: climate change and the rate of technological
innovation. For each driving force two plausible future values
are selected. When we cross the two axes we are left with four
squares, each representing a future scenario. Taking the top left
square, imagine the future of the Puget Sound if the impact of
climate change was very severe and simultaneously we saw
very rapid development of technologies at the forefront. Would
we adapt? What would our nearshore look like? What would
our economy and transportation look like? These conversations
are intended to help us generate ideas about how uncertainty
might unfold, and what strategies would be most effective at
protecting our shared values.
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
Technology: Low rate
of innovation
The Future Without Team
http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org/
Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership
Bernard Hargrave, US Army Corps of Engineers
Fred Goetz, US Army Corps of Engineers
Charles Simenstad, School of Aquatic + Fishery Sciences, UW
Curtis Tanner, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Doug Myers, Puget Sound Action Team
Jacques White, The Nature Conservancy
Michael Rylko, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Thomas Leschine, School of Marine Affairs, UW
Guy Gelfenbaum, USGS Coastal and Marine Geology
Urban Ecology Research Laboratory
Marina Alberti, UW
Jeff Hepinstall, UW
Michal Russo, UW
FALL
March
WINTER
Panel Discussions
FactSheets
Scenario Building involves eight steps:
1. Identify focal issue or decision
2. Identify driving forces
3. Rank their importance and uncertainty
4. Select scenario logics
5. Flesh-out the scenarios
6. Select indicators for monitoring
7. Assess impacts under different scenarios
8. Evaluate alternative strategies
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 Assessment—to 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
The purpose of the panel discussions is to integrate the
perspectives from a diversity of disciplines in order to
challenge our assumptions about what the major impacts to
the Nearshore Ecosystem are likely to be in the next 50 years.
Questions are specifically geared to identify important and
uncertain driving forces and to gather information on those
driving forces.
Factsheets of Driving Forces
Based on the list of driving forces heard at the discussions,
we will compile a set of summary sheets for facilitation in the
workshop. Each factsheet will integrate a single driving force
with plausible trends and research findings from published
scientific literature.
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
Example: In the example below, two driving forces
are chosen: climate change and the rate of technological
innovation. For each driving force two plausible future values
are selected. When we cross the two axes we are left with four
squares, each representing a future scenario. Taking the top left
square, imagine the future of the Puget Sound if the impact of
climate change was very severe and simultaneously we saw
very rapid development of technologies at the forefront. Would
we adapt? What would our nearshore look like? What would
our economy and transportation look like? These conversations
are intended to help us generate ideas about how uncertainty
might unfold, and what strategies would be most effective at
protecting our shared values.
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
Technology: Low rate
of innovation
The Future Without Team
http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org/
Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership
Bernard Hargrave, US Army Corps of Engineers
Fred Goetz, US Army Corps of Engineers
Charles Simenstad, School of Aquatic + Fishery Sciences, UW
Curtis Tanner, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Doug Myers, Puget Sound Action Team
Jacques White, The Nature Conservancy
Michael Rylko, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Thomas Leschine, School of Marine Affairs, UW
Guy Gelfenbaum, USGS Coastal and Marine Geology
Urban Ecology Research Laboratory
Marina Alberti, UW
Jeff Hepinstall, UW
Michal Russo, UW
FALL
March
WINTER
Panel Discussions
FactSheets
Scenario Building involves eight steps:
1. Identify focal issue or decision
2. Identify driving forces
3. Rank their importance and uncertainty
4. Select scenario logics
5. Flesh-out the scenarios
6. Select indicators for monitoring
7. Assess impacts under different scenarios
8. Evaluate alternative strategies
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 Assessment—to 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
The purpose of the panel discussions is to integrate the
perspectives from a diversity of disciplines in order to
challenge our assumptions about what the major impacts to
the Nearshore Ecosystem are likely to be in the next 50 years.
Questions are specifically geared to identify important and
uncertain driving forces and to gather information on those
driving forces.
Factsheets of Driving Forces
Based on the list of driving forces heard at the discussions,
we will compile a set of summary sheets for facilitation in the
workshop. Each factsheet will integrate a single driving force
with plausible trends and research findings from published
scientific literature.
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
Puget Sound Future Scenarios
Puget Sound Future Scenarios
Scenario Planning is a tool for conducting future assessments by focusing
on key drivers, complex interactions, and irreducible uncertainties. Scenario
planning was originally proposed as a business strategy in 1970s (Royal
Dutch/Shell) and recently applied in the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment—to systematically and creatively think about alternative
plausible futures. Scenarios describe what might happen under particular
assumptions in order to help decision makers implement better informed
strategies.
The Puget Sound Future Scenarios are developed for the Puget Sound
Nearshore Partnership in order to describe alternative plausible futures for
the region over the next fifty years. The scenarios serve to define future
baseline conditions for the Puget Sound Region’s nearshore ecosystems and
evaluate alternative strategies to restore ecosystem function.
Project Leaders and Participating Experts
The Puget Sound Future Scenarios is a collaborative project between the
Future Without Team, a working group of the Puget Sound Nearshore
Partnership (PSNP), and the Urban Ecology Research Laboratory (UERL) of
the University of Washington.
The Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership is a cooperative effort among U.S.
Corps of Engineers and the WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, working in
conjunction with the US Environmental Protection Agency, National
Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, People for Puget Sound, US Geological Survey, WA Dept. of Ecology, the Salmon Recovery Fund, King County, WA
Dept. Natural Resources, Northwest Straits Commission, US Dept. of Energy,
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, National Wildlife Federation, Pacific
Northwest National Laboratories, Pierce County, Navy Region NW, the
Nature Conservancy, Taylor Shellfish Company, the University of Washington,
and the Puget Sound Action Team.
Objectives of the Scenarios:
Explore different plausible trajectories for the Puget Sound region
Help define future baseline conditions
Anticipate the implications of alternative restoration strategies
Illuminate previously unanticipated risks and opportunities for planning
in this region
How will the scenarios be used?
The final scenarios will describe region-wide, long term, baseline conditions,
and can be utilized to evaluate alternative implementation strategies. While
primarily used by the PSNP to evaluate restoration portfolios, the scenarios
will allow a broad spectrum of public agencies to test their long range plans
against the inherent uncertainty of the future. While the future is unlikely to
turn out exactly like any single scenario, the suite of scenarios allow decision
makers to explore a wider range of plausible circumstances than are
traditionally integrated into long range planning.
For example, consider the following three long term decisions:
Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership – Which bulkhead should be removed to
reconnect nutrient, sediment and water flow without major damage to nearby
residences or sensitive nearshore aquatic communities?
Trust for Public Lands – Where should land be purchased to have the greatest
benefit on ecological function?
WA Department of Ecology - Where should we concentrate our clean up
efforts, to elevate water quality without risk of recontamination?
Scenario 1
Develop scenario narratives
Select metrics for assessing impacts
Develop an integrated model framework to assess impacts of alternative
scenarios
Phase III
For more information, please visit our website at:
online.caup.washington.edu/projects/futurewithout
Identify focal issue
Identify key driving forces
Select most important and uncertain driving forces
Develop scenario logics
Phase II
Scenarios are a tool for ordering one’s perceptions about alternative
future environments in which one’s decisions might be played out.
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
Each decision benefits from exploring the range
of plausible trajectories of key driving forces
described under each scenario.
How will the hydrological regime been influenced
by climate change?
Which areas are at greatest threat from flooding
and shoreline movement?
Where will the greatest development pressures be?
How will public infrastructure for wastewater and
runoff be transformed by innovative technology
and doubling population numbers?
Which forested patches will be critical to maintain
for habitat connectivity?
What value will society place on ecosystem
functions such as clean water, shellfish health and
shared public land?
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 region’s 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.
Develop spatially explicit model to assess scenario impact on nearshore
ecosystem function
Assess nearshore impacts of alternative scenarios
Evaluate alternative restoration strategies under each scenario
Puget Sound Future Scenarios
Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior
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.
The Ten Key Driving Forces
Ten key driving forces are identified for the
development of the Puget Sound Future Scenarios.
1. Climate Change
2. Demographics
3. Development Patterns
4. Economics
5. Human Perceptions and Behavior
6. Knowledge and Information
7. Natural Hazards
8. Public Health
9. Regulations, Government and Leadership
10. Technology and Infrastructure
Climate Change - Magnitude
Major: The magnitude of climate change is large, as is
described in Scenario A1 of the IPCC scenarios (IPCC, 2000). For
example we have high sea level rise, glacial melting, temperature
increase, summer droughts, and winter flooding
minor
major
Minor: Climate impacts is dampened due to altered global
behavior, as is illustrated in the IPCC scenario B1 (IPCC, 2000). We
see minimal change from climate impacts in this region over the
next 50 years. Regional affects are further offset by the resilience
of the Puget Sound ecosystem.
Climate Change - Rate
slow
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.
Human Perceptions & Behavior - Social Values
private
Private: Society’s values are represented by a market-based
approach, where private goods are highly valued by consumers.
public
Public: This approach values public goods and services. We are
more likely to see government funding for social programs or a
desire for economic equity.
Human Perceptions & Behavior - Future Valuation
Long Term: We place a high value on the future, and therefore
value long-term decision making. We maintain a low discount
rate which allows us to maintain a high value for decisions that
emerge over a long time period.
long
short
Short Term: We place a high value on the present time, and
therefore value short-term decisions. We discount the future at a
high rate, which keeps us from seeing value in decisions that
don’t emerge for a long time period.
1
3
2a
2b
4a
4b
The Puget Sound Future Scenarios
Scenario 1
Climate change has a minor impact
The rate of climate change is slow
Social values focus on private goods
Society’s valuation of the future is short term
Scenario 2A
Climate change has a major impact
The rate of climate change is slow
Social values focus on private goods
Society’s valuation of the future is long term
Scenario 2B
Climate change has a major impact
The rate of climate change is fast
Social values focus on private goods
Society’s valuation of the future is short term
Scenario 3
Climate change has a minor impact
The rate of climate change is slow
Social values focus on public goods
Society’s valuation of the future is long term
Scenario 4A
Climate change has a major impact
The rate of climate change is fast
Social values focus on public goods
Society’s valuation of the future is long term
Scenario 4B
Climate change has a major impact
The rate of climate change is slow
Social values focus on public goods
Society’s valuation of the future is short term
For more information, please visit our website at:
online.caup.washington.edu/projects/futurewithout
Puget Sound Future Scenarios
Men will not believe what does not fit with their plans or suit their prearrangements.
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 region’s future.
“I don’t 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.”
For more information, please visit our website at:
online.caup.washington.edu/projects/futurewithout
Puget Sound Future Scenarios
Driving Force Trajectory Building – Each team
1) Develop a working definition for your driving force
Example: Climate Change refers to the variation in the Earth's global
or regional climate over time. It describes changes in the variability or
average state of the atmosphere over time scales ranging from
decades to millions of years.
2) Develop a working definition of each of the two aspects (i.e.
magnitude + rate, social value, future valuation)
Example: Future valuation refers to the discount rate we place on our
decisions and investments or how much value having something now
as opposed to in the future.
3) Define each of the aspect’s alternative endpoints (i.e. major and
minor) – be clear and specific.
Example: Long Term Future valuation refers to placing a high value
on the future and valuing long term decision making.
4) Select up to three variables that help describe the influence of
each aspect. These variables should be selected based on the
following criteria:
a. Information, whether qualitative or quantitative, about this
variable is available.
Example: projections of sea level rise for this region exist and can
help describe the variation in the magnitude of climate impacts.
b. This variable is comfortably understood by a wide audience.
Example: Consumer behavior may help describe changes in social
values in a manner that is easily understood.
c. This variable is important, in its relationship to the other 9 key
driving forces
Example: Monthly precipitation statistics may help the infrastructure and technology team understand the impact of the magnitude
of climate change.
d. This variable is meaningful in thinking about the nearshore?
Example: Use of leisure time could be a good variable to describe
changes in human behavior as they relate to impacts on the
region’s ecosystems including the nearshore.
Scenarios are not predictions, but rather vehicles for helping
people learn. They present alternative images rather than
simply extrapolating the trends of the present.
Scenario Hypotheses - Both Teams
1) Share your definitions and variable selections. with the other
team.
2) Collaborate with the other team to assign a value for each
variable, and to each scenario while keeping in mind the interaction between climate and human perceptions and behavior.
3) Develop a hypothesis for each scenario –
a. Sketch out a narrative and trajectory for each aspect under each
scenario
b. How does the impact of each aspect unfold over the fifty year
time horizon?
c. What does the region look like under this scenario?
4) What do you see happening with the other key driving forces?
What are hypothesized relationships between climate change and
human perceptions and each of the other key driving forces?
Example: How does massive regional flooding and effect economic
growth? How does a society valuing public long term investments
effect regional regulations and leadership? how does sea level rise
impact development patterns?
5) Come up with three adjectives to describe each scenario
6) Develop a set of questions to ask each of the supporting expert
teams
a. What do we need to know in order to refine each scenario?
b. What pieces of information are critical in developing the other
trajectories? What are the limiting factors under each scenario?
Scenarios are a set of stories built around carefully constructed “plots” that
make the significant elements of the world scene stand out boldly.
5) Identify key publications and reports with regional trajectories
for each aspect and its variables.
6) Delineate gradients and critical values for each aspect. Describe
at least 2, and at most 6, values for each gradient.
Example: Aspect-Future Valuation; support of public infrastructure
no support
investment in road expansion
neutral or undecided
Scenarios highlight possibilities
strong support
investment in a regional mass transit system
For more information, please visit our website at:
online.caup.washington.edu/projects/futurewithout
Scenario planning quotes by Schwartz 1991
Puget Sound Future Scenarios
Men will not believe what does not fit with their plans or suit their prearrangements.
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 don’t 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.”
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 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 region’s future.
Puget Sound Future Scenarios
Men will not believe what does not fit with their plans or suit their prearrangements.
Development Patterns 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.
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 region’s 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 region’s 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 (what’s
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 region’s future.
“I don’t 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.”
For more information, please visit our website at:
online.caup.washington.edu/projects/futurewithout
Puget Sound Future Scenarios
Men will not believe what does not fit with their plans or suit their prearrangements.
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 region’s future.
“I don’t 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.”
Puget Sound Future Scenarios
Men will not believe what does not fit with their plans or suit their prearrangements.
Infrastructure and Technology 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.
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 don’t 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.”
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 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 region’s 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 region’s future.
Puget Sound Future Scenarios
Men will not believe what does not fit with their plans or suit their prearrangements.
Public Health 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.
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 region’s future.
“I don’t 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.”
For more information, please visit our website at:
online.caup.washington.edu/projects/futurewithout
Puget Sound Future Scenarios
Men will not believe what does not fit with their plans or suit their prearrangements.
Regulations, Government and LeadershipTeam
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.
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 don’t 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.”
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 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 region’s future.
APPENDIX D: SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS Overview The input from participating experts through the scenario development process led to a series of assumptions about future trajectories of key driving forces. These assumptions can be simplified into a series of correlations between multiple trajectories of specific driving forces’ dimensions. For example, a fast economic growth can be correlated to a fast population growth. In this appendix the assumptions are laid out in terms of 1) changes in climatically influenced variables (i.e. sea level rise, streamflow, snowpack) under the six scenarios 2) the assumptions about the trajectories of the 35 indicators under the 6 scenarios and 3) the linkages between specific dimensions of multiple drivers. APPENDIX D: SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS Appendix D1: climate change assumptions and associated impact 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
higher fluctuations, higher
peak flows
more impervious, less infiltration, higher
peak winter flows
Summer
streamflow
higher temperatures reduced
summer snowpack melt, lower
summer flows
less summer precipitation, lower
summer flows
higher fluctuations, lower
peak flows
increased out-stream usage (human
water consumption, i.e. drinking,
irrigation, cooling) decreased summer
flows
Water quality
higher temperatures, more nutrient
growth, lower dissolved oxygen,
decreased water quality
higher winter precipitation may lead to
increase runoff, sedimentation and
scouring; lower precipitation may
reduce water volumes leading to
decreased quality
higher fluctuations, more
frequent extremes, lower
water quality
increased impervious surface and
natural land cover fragmentation,
increased transportation and industry
pollutants lead to decreased water
quality
Forests
higher temperatures, increased
growing season, increase pest
species.
summer droughts may increase plant
mortality and fire vulnerability
higher fluctuations,
increased vulnerability
increased development pressure (due to
economic and population growth) and
decreased valuation of timber leads to
clear cutting
Hydropower
higher temperatures may increase
energy demand (air conditioning)
higher winter precipitation, higher
uncertain
generation, lower summer precipitation,
lower power generation
Agriculture and
Fisheries
higher temperatures may increase
growing season
summer droughts may increase plant
mortality, winter precipitation may
increase flooding and lower w.q.
higher fluctuations increased increased population growth, increase
vulnerability
demand on resources, decease export to
import ratio, increase reliance on local
resources, technological innovation more
productive yields
Water supply
systems
less water in snowpack, less
summer water storage
lower summer precipitation, higher
water consumption competition
higher fluctuations, higher
need for reservoirs
Flood and Storm uncertain
management
higher winter precipitation, more floods, higher fluctuations, more
more pressure
extreme events, higher
pressure
alternative fuels may lead to decreased
reliance on hydropower
increased population, increased
demand, increased technological
efficiency, reduced demand
more impervious surface, older
infrastructure higher pressure
APPENDIX D: SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS 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
0
1950
No significant change
σ
10
2000
2050
2000
2050
Variance consistent
w/historical pattern
10
0
1950
Increase (8%)
σ
1950
Annual rainfall (in)
25
2000
σ
1950
2000
2050
Significant increase in
variance
1950
2000
2050
Significant increase in
variance
0
2050
1950
Major increase (4oF)
25
1950
10
0
2000
2000
2050
Major increase (4oF)
2050
25
10
0
1950
Slight increase (1.7oF)
σ
2000
Temp (F)
Temp (F)
1950
2050
Increase (8%)
5
0
2050
Major increase (4.4oF)
10
5
10
Annual rainfall (in)
1950
2050
Major increase (4.4oF)
σ
2000
2000
ADAPTATION
10
0
Slight increase (1.7oF)
No significant change
1950
1950
5
Slight increase (1.7oF)
2050
σ
Temp (F)
2050
COLLAPSE
10
0
Annual rainfall (in)
0
2000
5
0
Annual rainfall (in)
10
1950
10
10
5
BARRIERS
Annual rainfall (in)
2050
25
INNOVATION
0
Annual rainfall (in)
2000
Annual rainfall (in)
Precipitation
5
0
1950
Climate Change
5
10
Temp (F)
Temp (F)
Temperature
10
ORDER
Temp (F)
FORWARD
Temp (F)
TODAY
2000
2050
Decrease (1%)
σ
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
Human Perceptions and Behavior
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
1
2
3
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
4
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
5
5
age
aging
year
10
Increase at current rate
%
50
2010
population
Declining pop
numbers
10
year
10
5
age
year
2050
2010
population
population
10
5
50
ADAPTATION
year
%
100
% migration
50
2050
2010
2050
2010
population
age
age
10
10
year
% migration
% migration
% migration
year
50
Young and middle age
100
100
100
Slower growth
%
aging
COLLAPSE
year
Double today’s pop.
%
Young and middle age
BARRIERS
year
Increase at current rate
%
50
2050
year
age
5
10
5
age
Age Structure
%
INNOVATION
population
year
5
year
2010
2010
2050
ORDER
population
population
2010
2050
FORWARD
Double today’s pop.
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
(In) high increase
(Out) high increase
Increase
Decrease
Same
Decrease
Uncertain
Increase
Slightly higher
Lower
Slightly lower
Lower
Much lower
Slightly higher
‘90 ‘00 ‘10 ‘20 ‘30 ‘40 ‘50
1m
2
2m
1m
2m
2
1m
2
2m
1m
3m
2
2m
1m
Housing Permits
2m
3m
Housing Permits
1m
2
3m
Housing Permits
2m
3m
Housing Permits
2
3m
Housing Permits
3m
Housing Permits
Forest Aggregation
5
Housing Permits
Building Permits
Development Patterns
TODAY
3m
2m
2
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
Growth but slower
Growth but slower
Fast growth
Slower, then decline
Fast then collapse
Very slow growth
Share of lower income
100%
Diversification
%
$70m
Less equity than today
%
2000
ist
rib
ut
io
n
(4
5
de
gr
ee
Share of income earned
)L
in
e
100%
Reduced rate over time
Share of lower income
100%
Less equity than today
%
2050
tD
Share of income earned
)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%
Share of income earned
)L
in
e
gr
ee
de
5
(4
n
io
ut
rib
ist
tD
fe
c
Share of lower income
2000
Pe
r
1950
Faster rate of increase
100%
Same as today
2050
$
100%
2000
ADAPTATION
$
Share of income earned
1950
100%
)L
in
e
gr
ee
de
5
(4
n
Share of lower income
100%
%
Sectors
Exports
2050
Reduced rate over time
Higher equity
%
2000
100%
Share of income earned
Pe
r
fe
c
tD
ist
rib
ut
io
n
(4
5
de
gr
ee
)L
in
e
100%
Share of income earned
)L
in
e
gr
ee
de
5
(4
n
io
ut
rib
ist
tD
fe
c
Pe
r
Distribution
2
Share of lower income
Trade Dependence
Economics
Increasing, current rate
1950
COLLAPSE
$
Pe
r
2050
io
2000
ut
1950
rib
2050
ist
2000
BARRIERS
$
tD
1950
$
Share of income earned
$
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
E
I
Balanced, but
significant #s
E
I
Uncertain
E
I
Highly dependent on
trade
E
I
Dependent on imports
E
I
Reduced overall,
dependent on imports
E
I
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
6
# 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+
Higher education with
in-migration
$ 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
Knowledge and Information
100
‘90
ORDER
% of 25+ Pop
FORWARD
% of 25+ Pop
TODAY
90 00
50
90 00
50
Increasing
Increased for new
schools
Slight increase; private
Decrease with time
Falls with decreasing
funds
Increasing
Increasing
Same
Slight increase
Decrease
Uncertain
Increase
5
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 today’s
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
Less vulnerable than
today
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
High fluctuation with
major events
1950
2000
2050
Increasing magnitude
over time
1950
Cost (in Billions)
Cost (in Billions)
Cost (in Billions)
Cost (in Billions)
Cost (in Billions)
Cost (in Billions)
Cost (in Billions)
Vulnerability
1950
Magnitude
Natural Hazards
Frequency
TODAY
2000
2050
Increasing magnitude
over time
1950
2000
2050
Decreased magnitude
of events
2050
1980 2000
2050
More shellfish, same
Ag.
1980 2000
Slow decline in both
1980 2000
Decline followed by
new techniques
2050
2000
2050
2000
Less insured than
today by 2020’s
1980 2000
2050
Declining, Reliance on
global goods
2050
Healthier population
% uninsured
Unhealthy population
2000
2050
Less insured than
today by 2040’s
1980 2000
2050
Collapse of both
2000
2050
All insured by 2020’s
1980 2000
Agriculture
2050
2050
2000
% uninsured
Increasing ailment
% poor health
% poor health
% poor health
2050
% uninsured
2000
All insured by 2030’s
2050
2000
Shellfish
2050
Same as today
Shellfish
Agriculture
Shellfish
Agriculture
Shellfish
Resource Abundance
1980 2000
Outbreak followed by
treatment
ADAPTATION
Agriculture
2000
All insured by 2020’s
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
More shellfish and Ag.
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
3
$ millions
Investments
Type of Infrastructure
Infrastructure and Technology
TODAY
Higher $ in shared
resources
Increased $ for
extension of services
Increased $ in new
technologies
Increased $ in energy
and protection
Less $ except for water
Increased $ esp. sewer
and water
Renewable resources,
adaptive, shared
Extensions, rigid,
inefficient
Cutting edge, efficient
Reactive, rigid,
independent
Reactive, ineffective
Renewable, adaptive,
small-scaled
4
APPENDIX D: SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS Appendix D3: Linkages between multiple driving forces’ dimensions Demographics and Economics (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 out‐migration increases as well. The Boeing Bust of the late 1960s and early 1970s resulted in probably the greatest exodus of population from Washington. Migration slowed appreciably in the last recession, but has rebounded since 2003 as the labor market strengthened. The poor economic climate in California resulted in out‐
migration of about 400,000 people per year in the early 1990s. Even though Washingtonʹs economic growth was slow during that period, it still outpaced Californiaʹs, thus being a migratory magnet to many from the Golden State (Washington Trends, OFM 2007). Demographics and Development Patterns: Metropolitan areas are expected to grow faster than outlying rural areas. King County for example, is expected to grow by 30% between 2000 and 2030. On the other hand due to high living expenses, King County is considered a stepping stone from some migrants. They move to King for the jobs and then move out to settle in adjacent counties where the housing is cheaper. Demographics (age structure) and Knowledge and Information (spending): Studies have shown that an aging population has a negative effect on education spending (Harris et al, 2000). As a larger percentage of the population becomes 65 and over, how will our already poorly funded schools be affected? Climate Change and Development Patters: Increasing fuel prices might change the old real estate motto ‘location, location, location’ into ‘proximity, proximity, proximity’. Although perhaps similarly influential will be increasing lowland floods leading to a third motto ‘elevation, elevation, elevation’. Economy, Development Patterns and Governance (regulatory strength): Our ability to enforce strict regulations on new developments is largely supported by a very strong growth in construction activity. If the Region’s economy fails the rate of new housing development will fall. As the Region becomes more reliant on new development to finance government, they will likely relax regulations to make it more attractive to build in this region. Economy and Infrastructure and Technology (investments): Some studies have shown a relationship between increase investments in transportation infrastructure and increased economic growth (Fisher, 1997). In return when the economy does well, it brings people in, more people bring in more revenue, which builds more infrastructure, which attracts more businesses (OFM, 2007). Economy and Knowledge (educational attainment): The Region has many skilled workers who have been on a large part imported into this region. This has caused a large concern in State Government, with a large push to produce more education locally. If the Region cannot produce a skilled labor force here, many high school graduates will have to leave the region in order to find jobs. Economy (inequality) and Development Patterns: As income inequality grows, the rich produce more money and build second homes, especially along natural areas such as the Puget Sound shore. Economy and Demographics (growth rate): In the past, low unemployment and high real estate values have reduced fertility rates. Japan and Italy, for example, are actually losing people over time due to low fertility rates as they have fallen below replacement levels. APPENDIX D: SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS Climate Change and Natural Hazards (frequency) One easy translation to see the impact of climate change on natural hazards is a foot of seal level rise will change the frequency of an event one level, that is a 100year event becomes a 10year, a ten year becomes a one year. Natural hazards generally reflect events that are rare and have a high impact (see Figure 1, lower left quadrant). Events that have an impact but occur frequently society has adapted to, like changes in seasons, and diurnal changes. Events that have little impact we also don’t care about, even the rare ones do little other than annoy or intrigue us. A possible question for this region’s future may be: will the interactions between future trajectories of key driving forces such as climate impacts, population growth, infrastructure investments and development patterns cause a shift in the frequency of natural events and force us to adapt to conditions we currently view as hazardous? Climate Change and Natural Hazards (seismic activity) Glacier changes influenced by increases in temperature may create pressure changes influencing the frequency of seismic activity. Further, climatic changes may alter our regional vulnerability when volcanoes do erupt; as snow cover disappears, the vegetation underneath is removed and lahar impact is greater; with no water content, no vegetation there is little holding the material in place. Development Patterns and Natural Hazards (vulnerability): There is a paradox of centralization, the denser the population the greater the vulnerability if that area is hit. However, decentralization increases change in natural land cover and increased miles of infrastructure increasing our vulnerability as a region. Economy and Natural Hazards: If Rainer erupts Boeing will likely leave the region, it is simply a visibility issue, they won’t be able to fly. Knowledge and Human Perceptions and Behavior (future valuation) Higher education can cause people to have a longer term future valuation (Strenze, 2007). Climate Change and Public Health (resource abundance) Climate change could increase the viability of some organisms responsible for harmful algal blooms in Puget Sound. In addition, sea level rise will likely increase loss of shellfish growing areas. Agriculture may increase due to longer growing seasons, but may decrease due to limited water and increased vulnerability to pest outbreaks. Smaller farms may be more resilient to climate change as they may have greater crop diversity or be more adaptive, able to rapidly switch to another crop (CIG, 2007). Development Patterns (intensity) and Infrastructure: Transportation is intricately tied to land use. If mixed‐use high density developments dominate over rural residential developments regional reliance on service extension and single occupancy vehicles will likely decrease. Public Health and Economy (inequity) Recent research has shown a strong relationship between obesity and poverty. One argument for this trend is an inverse relationship between energy density (kcal / 100g) and energy cost ($/1000cal) (Drewnoski). Energy dense grains, sugars and fats provide the most energy (Kcal) and least nutrients per unit cost. The differential in energy cost between lard and lettuce is several thousand percent. Further, healthier perishable foods such as fresh vegetables and fruit, fish and lean meats are less affordable than dry and processed foods with a longer stable shelf life. The sustainability of our regional resources including agricultural fields, APPENDIX D: SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS orchards, aquaculture and fishing is important in supplying an affordable healthy diet to Northwest residents. If ecosystem functions degrade such that local fish and produce are less abundant, more expensive and more contaminated, what will happen to obesity rates in this region? Will rising fuel costs function to increase the cost of long‐distance imported foods in relation to short‐distance fresh foods? Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding
Comparing Approaches to Futures Studies
The following summary is intended to reveal what tools are out there for long term
planning, and the positive and negative aspects each tool or approach provides. We
have evaluated 10 diverse case studies mostly focusing on ecological research on water
quality and quantity, open space, disaster mitigation and relief, and air quality. Projects
range from local to global scale, from qualitative visions, to highly quantified
extrapolative computer models, to scenarios. Since each project has a different goal in
mind, we found it invaluable to have a method of comparing the case studies based on
our own goals for a successful futures study for the Future Without project. For each of
these studies a brief description is included alongside comments on the focus, chosen
method, and intended audience. This is followed by a comparison of six challenges and
opportunities. The ten case studies will be followed by a summary of how they compare
to one another, and one we feel that scenario building is the most appropriate choice for
the Future Without Project.
Challenges and Opportunities:
Challenges for dealing with a long term plan:
1. Challenge our assumptions about the future
2. Take in to account uncertainty and surprise
3. Synthesize and communicate complex information
4. Understand and resolve differences among stakeholders
5. Integrate probable futures with desirable ones
6. Assess tradeoffs among alternative strategies
Opportunities to consider about what to include:
1. Provide insight into drivers of change
2. Reveal the implications of potential future trajectories
3. Anticipate problems and potential risks
4. Illuminate opportunities and options for action
5. Identify desirable future and how to get there
6. Develop and Assess strategies and plans
Case Studies evaluated:
1. Open Space 2100
2. Waterfront Charette, Downtown Seattle
3. Listening to the City: Manhattan, NY
4. Limits to Growth
5. NASA SLEUTH, Baltimore, MD
6. USGS Southwest Florida Study
7. Willamette River Basin Alternatives
8. California Water Update 2005
9. Wisconsin, Northern Highlands Lake District Project
10. IPCC Emissions Scenarios
-1-
Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding
OPEN SPACE 2100
“The Green Futures Charette was a community-based design and planning exercise
focused on building momentum toward an integrated vision of open space in Seattle.”1
Post-charette, participants were offered the opportunity to continue to develop and refine
their visions with advanced landscape architecture and planning students in design
studios at the University of Washington. The results of both the charette and studio were
on display at various gallery displays throughout the city.
Focus: To create a 100-year open space plan for the City of Seattle.
Method: Citizens from civic, environmental, business, neighborhood and community
groups joined with the University of Washington for a 2-day charette.
Audience: The final audience will be city council who will have the option of approving
the plan. While ideas from the charettes will be included within the plan, it is yet not clear
how. The plan is intended to be useful both for the next century and to have immediate
application by influencing agency planning, neighborhood implementation efforts, and a
potential parks levy in 2008.
Image from one of the teams looking at the downtown
CHALLENGES
OPPORTUNITIES
1 Challenge Assumptions: While a list of 1 Identify Drivers: No drivers were
identified.
assumptions were included as ground
rules for the charette, the emphasis was on
creating a vision for open space based on
what people would like to see, rather than
what they think might happen.
2 Uncertainty & Surprise: Neither was
2 Implications of Trajectories: While
incorporated into the vision, except
some simplified trajectories were
perhaps as superficial constraints.
computed, their implications were only
superficially examined.
3 Communicate Complex Info: Complex
3 Anticipate Risks: No risks were
interactions were generally simplified or
identified.
ignored.
4 Illuminate Options: Options came from
4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: While 300
the diversity within teams.
people participated in the charettes, the
majority came from design and
environmental firms within Seattle.
5 Integrate Probable & Desirable: The
5 Desirable Future: Perhaps the strongest
desirable was selected over the probable.
facet of this project is the opportunity to
create a shared vision for a desirable
future.
6 Assess Strategies: While many
6 Assess Tradeoffs: The purpose of the
strategies were brainstormed, their cost
charette was to create a shared vision
without constraints, and therefore tradeoffs and benefit were not assessed within the
charette process.
could not have been explored.
-2-
Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding
LISTENING TO THE CITY
“This forum was organized by the Civic Alliance to
Rebuild Downtown New York. Its goal was to provide
people who live and work in the region and others
whose lives have been irrevocably altered by the
terrorist attacks with the opportunity to profoundly
influence the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan and the
creation of a fitting memorial. Participants shared with
one another how the events of September 11 impacted
their lives, developed a common vision for downtown,
and defined what a memorial should represent.” 2
Focus: With over 600 participants this forum highlighted the diversity of voices that need
to be heard and the need for collaboration. The focus was on creating a vision and
principles to eventually evaluate proposals initiated from developers.
Method: America Speaks facilitated the forum, with high tech ‘deliberative planning’
tools that aided a ‘real time’ discussion between 600 participants; dubbed a ‘modern
town hall meeting’2.
Audience: The vision will be a part of a final report, which will be presented to decisionmakers to guide their work. It is not clear how directly the output will be used, only that
decision makers “will ultimately decide the future of Lower Manhattan”2.
CHALLENGES
1 Challenge Assumptions: The mere
diversity of opinions in one room must
have challenged some assumptions, but
no systematic process was established for
doing so.
2 Uncertainty & Surprise: Uncertainty
was treated reactively without a systematic
process for proactively incorporating future
uncertainty.
3 Communicate Complex Info: This was
a process for listening and not for
accurately evaluating strategies.
4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: Within the
forum differences were solved through
voting, however since decision makers had
final autonomy over the decisions, a true
deliberative process was not created.
5 Integrate Probable & Desirable: The
desirable was selected over the probable.
6 Assess Tradeoffs: Tradeoffs were
superficially examined in conversation, but
were not assisted by scientific evidence.
OPPORTUNITIES
1 Identify Drivers: No drivers were
identified.
2 Implications of Trajectories: No
trajectories were incorporated.
3 Anticipate Risks: Risks were not
incorporated.
4 Illuminate Options: Options came from
different teams in the room, but they were
limited to the discussion direction of the
forum.
5 Desirable Future: America Speaks
facilitated ‘real-time’ consensus within the
table teams, and the entire room. By the
end of the 6-hour session a unified vision
and set of principles were voted on.
6 Assess Strategies: In “Listening to the
City II” specific strategies initiated from
developers and the city will be evaluated
based on the vision and principles set forth
in the first forum.
-3-
Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding
SEATTLE’S DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT CHARETTE
A charette was held to generate creative ideas about what to do with the Seattle
Waterfront if the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall were to be rebuilt. The goals were
to:
• Identify visionary ideas about how Seattle’s
waterfront could develop
Environmental Scorecard
• Expand the list of what uses should be considered
• Provide creative input that informs the process for
creating the Central Waterfront Concept Plan
• Educate people about the tangle of issues along the
waterfront
• Help gauge public opinion 3
Focus: A creative opportunity for the design community to
generate ideas about what the future of the Seattle
Waterfront should be.3
Method: A charette including over 300 participants that
divided into 22 teams. Each team created its own vision for
the downtown. An environmental scorecard was used to
more systematically compare each vision.
Audience: The final audience included planners and
decision makers who will create the ‘plan’. However, the
opportunity to reach out to the public was an important step along the way as indicated
by one of the preliminary goals.
CHALLENGES
1 Challenge Assumptions: Innovative
design ideas challenge our assumptions
about how to plan or develop the
downtown, but not about what they future
might bring to us.
2 Uncertainty & Surprise: Neither was
incorporated into the vision.
OPPORTUNITIES
1 Identify Drivers: No drivers were
identified.
3 Communicate Complex Info: Expert
opinions about the overall system were not
synthesized until after the charette.
4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: While 300
people participated in the charette, the
majority came from design and
environmental firms within Seattle. Experts
were consulted in a separate process.
5 Integrate Probable & Desirable: The
desirable was selected over the probable.
6 Assess Tradeoffs: The purpose of the
charette was to generate unconstrained
ideas. The environmental scorecards
helped compare their benefits.
2 Implications of Trajectories: Specific
numbers were not modeled until after the
charette, in the DEIS
3 Anticipate Risks: While some risks
were acknowledged (like the viaduct
collapsing) unplanned risks were not
integrated.
4 Illuminate Options: While several
design options were created, their diversity
was limited to the narrowly defined
assumptions about the future.
5 Desirable Future: Because each team
created its own vision, no unified desirable
future was selected.
6 Assess Strategies: Many strategies
were brainstormed, however, their cost
and benefit were not assessed within the
charette process.
-4-
Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding
LIMITS TO GROWTH
One of the earliest (1970) dynamic interaction models
of how the global future might turn out utilizing
feedback controlled computer generated outputs of
GDP and birth and death rates. Alternative futures
were included based on changes to population flow
rates, consumption levels, technology and social
changes.
Graph from book about
relationship between population,
resources, food per capita and
industrial output per capita.
Focus: To create a computer model that would
generate plausible futures based on past trajectories
and known supply quantities. The overall intent is to
reflect on the limitations of the earth as a closed
system, and how in order to reach sustainable levels,
we must balance inputs and outputs.
Method: For its time, a very robust and complex
computer model that simulated feedback loops,
consumptions rates and available product. The model
was created based on expert knowledge from a global
scientific community.
Audience: Considered a ‘warning’ to the greater public, but primarily focusing on
scientists and decision makers. Mostly academics ended up reading the report.
CHALLENGES
1 Challenge Assumptions: While the
intent was to challenge our assumptions
about ‘the limits to growth’, this study was
criticized for not expanding the scope of
assumptions further.
2 Uncertainty & Surprise: Highly
criticized for specifically not addressing
uncertainty, and merely extrapolating from
past trends.
3 Communicate Complex Info: For its
time the computer model was highly
dynamic and integrative, but it wouldn’t be
considered so today.
4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: The study
incorporated a diverse set of expert
scientific knowledge from across the globe,
but generally with similar Western values.
5 Integrate Probable & Desirable:
Overall, only the probably was examined,
however, a desirable situation was
examined where a balanced system
depended on the way we lead our lives.
6 Assess Tradeoffs: Tradeoffs were
simplified into the closed system model,
i.e. we could decrease our birth rate and
maintain our consumption levels.
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-
Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding
NASA SLEUTH – BALTIMORE MD
SLUETH is a computer generated model which predicts land cover change based on a
series of calibrations using past trends for slope, land use, excluded, urban,
transportation and hillshade layers. Three models were run, changing the percentage of
‘exclusion’ (areas that cannot be developed) based on three policy options, allowing for
all unprotected lands at developable, protecting only forest and allowing for 30% growth,
or allowing for only 20% growth.
Focus: Urban growth model based on alternative planning controls
Method: Computer model run by planners and technicians.
Audience: Academics, decision makers and planners
Current
Managed Growth
Ecological
Current: development policies remained the same. development increased by 80%
Managed growth scenario: assumed added protection of forests and agriculture areas
and placed moderate growth boundaries around already built areas. 30%
Ecological scenario: strong protection of most forests and agricultural 5
CHALLENGES
1 Challenge Assumptions: No
2 Uncertainty & Surprise: Purely
extrapolative, looking at past trends and
then changing policy to reflect which lands
could be developed.
3 Communicate Complex Info: Complex
interactions are modeled by the computer,
rather than being communicated.
4 Dif. Among Stakeholders:
Stakeholders were not involved in this
process.
5 Integrate Probable & Desirable: Only
one probable future is created based on
extrapolation of past trends while policy
choices creates alternative outcomes
evaluated for their desirability.
6 Assess Tradeoffs: Tradeoffs are limited
to planning decisions which are based on
amount of allowable land for development.
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-
Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding
USGS SOUTHWEST FLORIDA STUDY
The purpose was to create a plan for water resources.
The process was split into three phases including
scientists, decision makers and the public. The study
addresses the health of ecosystems based on water
flow, water quality, water supply, maintenance of
existing flood protection, wildlife, biological diversity
and natural habitat. This project was recommended
because “(1) water-supply and ecological issues with
water releases from Lake Okeechobee to the
Caloosahatchee River, and because (2) inland
hydrologic alterations have substantial existing and
potential effects on rich natural resources and
biodiversity within the study area.”6
Focus: This study incorporates three models (land
cover, hydrological, and habitat) with feedback from
Framework for integrating
decision makers and the general public.
scientists with policy makers and
Method: The emphasis of the study lies in the complex
the public.
series of models run.
Audience: Decision Makers (the policy level) were supposed to prioritize and negotiate
among potential strategies, as they were shown to impact the evaluation of alternative
scenarios. The public was included in an education level.
CHALLENGES
OPPORTUNITIES
1 Challenge Assumptions: Assumptions
1 Identify Drivers: Anticipated drivers are
are not challenged.
the ‘usual suspects’
2 Uncertainty & Surprise: Uncertainty is
2 Implications of Trajectories: An
not taken into account.
integrated model of land use and
hydrology was helpful to creating realistic
implications of different parameters.
3 Communicate Complex Info: Complex
3 Anticipate Risks: Risks are based on
information is compiled into the models
model specifications, and therefore no new
and the results are communicated to
risks are identified.
decision makers and the general public.
4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: The diversity 4 Illuminate Options: No new options are
illuminated.
in stakeholders is handled by letting the
experts come up with the models and
parameters and than allowing the decision
makers and public to comment on the
results and suggest changes.
5 Desirable Future: Not discussed.
5 Integrate Probable & Desirable: Only
one probable future is created based on
extrapolation of past trends while policy
choices creates alternative outcomes
evaluated for their desirability.
6 Assess Tradeoffs: Tradeoffs are
6 Assess Strategies: Not discussed.
integrated into the modeling process.
-7-
Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding
WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN ALTERNATIVES
This alternative futures analysis provided 3 alternatives for the year 2050, testing the
implications of three land and water strategies; business as usual, high conservation
measures, and high development rates. Similar to the SLEUTH model, the study
focused on one future onto which policies are imposed to create different implications.
The study focused on modeling the sensitivity of valued endpoints such as water
availability, stream condition, and terrestrial wildlife, as they are influenced by the
different planning strategies. The output of these models was then communicated with
many stakeholder groups in order to develop a vision for a restoration strategy.
Focus: Looking at alternate policy impacts on water availability, stream condition and
terrestrial life.
Method: Use current and historical trends to calibrate model, create alternative futures
based on degrees of land protection.
Audience: Large focus on interacting with stakeholders. The process was said to ‘help
community members articulate and understand their different viewpoints and priorities’7.
However, in the end it was ‘principally a research project, conducted by landscape
planners and scientists in academia and government.”8
CHALLENGES
1 Challenge Assumptions: Assumptions
are not challenged.
2 Uncertainty & Surprise: Neither was
incorporated.
3 Communicate Complex Info: The
integration of the models helped
stakeholders and decision makers
understand the complex relationship
between policy changes and specific
impacts to the ecology of the river basin.
4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: Focus on a
consensus building process, including
many members of the public, as well as
officials and planners. However, being a
more academic exercise, there were no
implications about how policy might
change from this.
5 Integrate Probable & Desirable:
General focus on probable extrapolations
of past trends, however the interaction with
the stakeholders helped identify more
desirable outcomes.
6 Assess Tradeoffs: The general tradeoff
examined was freedom from strict
development regulation versus negative
ecological impact to the river basin.
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.
4 Illuminate Options: Policy options were
predetermined before running the models.
No additional restoration options were
illuminated by running the models.
5 Desirable Future: The future options
were artificially simplistic, and not intended
to be chosen.
6 Assess Strategies: A second step to
this process may become assessing
strategies.
-8-
Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding
Willamette River basin process chart
CALIFORNIA WATER UPDATE
“To acknowledge that we don’t know with certainty what will happen in the future, this
water plan update has three plausible yet very different baseline scenarios for 2030.”9
The scenarios are created by varying assumptions about important factors that affect
water use and supplied , but that the water community has little control over; population
growth, development patterns, crop markets, industrial productivity, and environmental
regulations. As with the Willamette River Basin project, this set of alternative futures has
three scenarios corresponding with a ‘high, medium and low’ level of regulations,
however these options are more multi-faceted than the Willamette River Basin futures,
incorporating potential futures from a diversity of sources. In response to each scenario,
a mix of implementing strategies are described.
Conceptual Framework for California’s Water Plan
-9-
Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding
Focus: Focus on alternative response strategies to deal with water shortages in
California based on three plausible scenarios for 2030.
Method: 3 scenarios are created by varying assumptions about important factors that
affect water use and supplies, but the water community has little control regarding.
Audience: Foremost to decision makers, and secondly to planners and the public for
education.
CHALLENGES
OPPORTUNITIES
1 Challenge Assumptions: Yes, breaking 1 Identify Drivers: Drivers are identified
through interviews and workshops with a
out of the typical supply and demand
diversity of stakeholders.
forecasting done for water plans, this plan
integrates a wealth of knowledge into the
scenarios.
2 Implications of Trajectories: The report
2 Uncertainty & Surprise: Uncertainty is
does not include the quantified water
directly integrated, looking at floods,
balances for futures and a shortage
earthquakes, chemical spills, global
analysis but the quantification under each
climate change, water demand, aquatic
scenario will eventually occur.
life, changing plumbing codes, emerging
contaminants, etc.
3 Communicate Complex Info: A
3 Anticipate Risks: Each scenario
conceptual framework (see previous page) examines new risks that could have been
was used to communicate the complex
overlooked with the previous method.
interaction of variable with stakeholders
and decision makers.
4 Illuminate Options: By incorporating a
4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: DWR
diversity of stakeholders and measuring
conducted workshops with decision
actual tradeoffs the hope is that real
makers, water managers, and planners to
options are illuminated to the water
see what would be the most important
elements to assess and to see what kind of community that were not available in
earlier plans.
information is needed. However, no
consensus was intended to be reached
between stakeholders.
5 Integrate Probable & Desirable: Initially 5 Desirable Future: While the scenarios
reflect plausible future whose outcomes
probable alternative scenarios were
are uncontrollable by the water community,
created, then a set of strategies are
the set of strategies are created to achieve
examined to reach a desirable future.
a shared vision of what the future should
be. That vision was put together with a
variety of stakeholders during the
workshops.
6 Assess Tradeoffs: Rather than simply
6 Assess Strategies: Multiple ‘response
using water budgets, this new technique
packages’ are used to see how each
allowed insight into future use and supplied implementation will perform in each future.
economics, water quality, environmental
“Some may be appropriate regardless of
and social considerations.
the scenario, whereas others may only be
suitable if specific conditions occur.”9
- 10 -
Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding
WISCONSIN NORTHERN HIGHLANDS LAKE DISTRICT PROJECT
Three scenarios form 2002 to 2027 are created in order to deal with uncertainty of
impacts from outside the Lake District region on both residents and ecological services.
“While none of the scenario is likely to come true, the future will probably bring some
elements of each scenario. It will be interesting to consider the likely consequences of
alternative policies for the NHLD in the context of each scenario. 9
Focus: Looking at impacts on water quality and fish populations as impacted by four
scenarios on ecological vulnerability.
Method: Scenario planning using the key drivers of ecological change and economic
growth.
Audience: Primarily academic, creating a test bed to see how well the MEA process
works on local conservation problems. While there is mention of helping people see the
impact of their potential actions, this was not a highlight.
Graphic of scenarios narrated and their
associated drivers (arrows)
Model for integrating drivers, actors, linkages and
specific ecological parameters together.
- 11 -
Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding
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.
4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: Teamed up
with people from the community including:
officials, members of lake association,
tribes, realtors, business owners, and full
and part time residents as well as a small
team of scientists and water managers.
5 Integrate Probable & Desirable: Initially
probable alternative scenarios were
created, than a set of strategies will be
examined to reach a desirable future.
6 Assess Tradeoffs: The scenarios are
grounded in scientific research including
simulation models of NHLD economics,
population growth and ecology. Ecological
changes draw on more than two decades
of data collected from the lakes on water
chemistry, lake habitat, and fish
composition.
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 -
Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding
IPCC EMISSIONS SCENARIOS
These scenarios were initiated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change in
order to evaluate alternative mitigation and adaptation strategies for minimizing
emissions under alternatives plausible futures. “The results of this work show that
different social, economic, and technological development have a strong impact on
emissions trends.”10 Four narrative scenarios were formulated, with no single ‘official’
model selected. Computer modeling was run on the four scenarios with slight alterations
of parameters leading to 40 quantifiable outcomes.
Focus: Future emission levels were simulated based on alternative futures.
Method: Families of scenarios were created by looking at key driving forces. Computer
models were run to understand variations in the impact.
Audience: The scenarios were made available to climate modelers, who could then use
them as a basis for the assessment of climatic changes. In addition, it was the intent for
the scenarios to be used as the basis for analysis by the wider research and policy
community of climate change and other environmental problems.
Families of scenarios run by the IPCC, showing the number of model
runs processed with different parameters.
- 13 -
Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding
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 didn’t
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.
2 Implications of Trajectories: Specific
quantified trajectories are calculated – see
tradeoffs for the list of implications.
3 Anticipate Risks: While the output is not
evaluated as risk by this panel, it is
assumed that different countries have
levels of acceptability and be able to gage
the risk of each scenario.
4 Illuminate Options: While this report
does not focus on policy options it is
intended to aid decision makers in
selecting policies in reaction to alternative
futures.
5 Desirable Future: Intentionally no
desirable future is selected in this report
because it is considered subjective and left
open to decision makers and stakeholders
for value implications.
6 Assess Strategies: Strategies are not
addressed as the focus of this report is to
predict plausible emissions level and not
how to achieve a desirable future.
- 14 -
Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding
Summary
Through these case studies our interest in proceeding with scenario planning was
reconfirmed. In terms of challenging assumptions we found that the best studies
integrated a diversity of experts while looking outside of the predetermined discipline for
important changes. Uncertainty and surprise was repeatedly ignored in all but the
scenario studies. However, it was the interest and focus on uncertainty that allowed the
planners and ecologist to critically look at available options. We found the technique of
visioning was least likely to synthesize complex information for discussion purposes for
the sake of simplification with a diverse audience. However, extrapolative technologies
generally separated conversations with experts from a more educational orientation
towards stakeholders and the public. In general studies did not ask multiple stakeholders
or experts to assess tradeoffs and reach a common vision for a desirable future. While
we felt that a futures study must integrate probable futures with strategies for
accomplishing a shared desirable future outcome, most studies did not integrate the two.
While visioning focused only on the desirable, most extrapolative studies focus on a
single plausible future and imposed superficial policy levels to assess which future is
more desirable. Tradeoffs between strategies were limited to the amount of grounding
that had been achieved and the potential for discussion about those impacts. We found
the scenarios to be the most capable of assessing the tradeoffs based on alternative
futures.
Challenges
Project
Type
Challenge Uncertainty &
Assumptions
Surprise
Synthesize
Information
Dif. Bw
Stakeholders
Integrate
Assess
Probable
Tradeoffs
& Possible
Open Space 2100
Vision
some
no
no
no
no
no
Manhattan’s Listening to the City
Vision
some
no
no
some
no
some
Seattle’s Central Waterfront
Vision
some
no
no
no
no
some
Limits to Growth
Extrapolative some
no
some
no
yes
some
NASA Sleuth Baltimore, MD.
Extrapolative no
no
some
no
some
some
USGS Southwest Florida Study
Extrapolative no
no
some
some
some
some
Willamette River Basin Alt.
Extrapolative no
no
yes
some
some
some
California Water Update 2005
Scenarios
yes
yes
yes
some
yes
yes
Wisconsin NHLD Project
Scenarios
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
IPCC emissions Scenarios
Scenarios
yes
some
yes
some
no
yes
Opportunities
Project
Type
Identify
Drivers
Implications of
Trajectories
Anticipate
Risks
Illuminate
Options
Desirable Assess
Futures Strategies
Open Space 2100
Vision
no
some
no
some
yes
no
Manhattan’s Listening to the City
Vision
no
no
no
some
yes
no
Seattle’s Central Waterfront
Limits to Growth
Vision
no
no
no
some
some
no
Extrapolative
some
yes
some
no
yes
some
NASA Sleuth Baltimore, MD.
Extrapolative
some
some
no
no
no
no
USGS Southwest Florida Study
Extrapolative
some
yes
no
no
no
no
Willamette River Basin Alt.
Extrapolative
some
yes
yes
no
no
no
Scenarios
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
California Water Update 2005
Wisconsin NHLD Project
Scenarios
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
IPCC emissions Scenarios
Scenarios
yes
yes
yes
some
no
no
- 15 -
Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding
As with the challenges, we found that scenario building also rated the highest in terms of
captured opportunities. While drivers were identified in many of the extrapolative studies,
they were generally relegated to the ‘usual suspects’ and did not attempt to push out into
other disciplines or larger regional impacts. The implications of trajectories was generally
fairly accomplished in the extrapolative studies, however the implications were made on
a small subset of pre-selected values. As far as risks were concerned we felt that
scenarios pushed the envelope in terms of being able to anticipate risks that were not
obvious at the onset of the study; that is the process itself was helpful in generating
information about risks. Similarly, with options, scenario building was able to expand the
potential options beyond those ones available at the onset of the study. A major
difference between scenario building and the other two methods is the connection
between selecting a desirable future and assessing strategies. In visioning desirability is
discussed, however the plausibility of that future is unexamined. In extrapolative studies,
a singular plausible future is examined while the desirability is delegated into a set of
overly simplified policy options, i.e. business as usual, more conservation or more
development. In scenario building a set of plausible futures is created, and strategies are
used to test effective methods for changing those plausible futures in a direction we are
comfortable with. Lastly, strategies become more dynamic, as stakeholders begin to see
that some strategies may work in some instances and not in others.
List of resources
1. Open Space Charette: http://depts.washington.edu/open2100/
2. Listening to the City: Manhattan, NY:
http://www.civic-alliance.org/pdf/0207LTCreport.pdf
Other sources:
http://www.listeningtothecity.org/
http://www.listeningtothecity.org/background/final_report_9_20.pdf
3. Seattle’s Waterfront
Slide show, introduction, Visioning Charette
http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/DPD/Planning/Central_Waterfront/CharretteExhibit/de
fault.asp
4. Limits to Growth
Meadows, S.H. 1972. The Limits to growth; a report for the Club of Rome's
project on the predicament of mankind. New York. Universe Books
Book review at: http://www.globalfuture.com/book-limitstogrowth.htm
5. NASA SLEUTH – Baltimore, MD
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0322sleuth.html
6. USGS Southwest Florida Study: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3113/#pdf
7. Willamette River Basin
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/pnw-erc/
http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/projects/alternativefutures/twopager.pdf
7
. http://www.esajournals.org/esaonline/?request=get-document&issn=10510761&volume=014&issue=02&page=0313
8. California Water Plan
The main website: http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/
volume 1 of the plan: http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/cwpu2005/index.cfm#vol1
Wisconsin's Northern Highlands Lake District
9. http://limnology.wisc.edu/nhld/sept2002kemp/ShortReport_20Dec02.pdf (p3)
http://www.wisconline.com/feature/NHLD.html
http://limnology.wisc.edu/courses/zoo725/2005Lectures/050419_NHLD.pdf
Published paper: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol7/iss3/art1/print.pdf
- 16 -
Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding
Paper citation: Peterson GD, Beard TD, Beisner BE, Bennet EM, Carpenter SR,
Cumming GS, Dent CL, Havlicek TD. Assessing future ecosystem services a
case study of the Northern Highlands Lake District, Wisconsin CONSERVATION
ECOLOGY 7 (3): Art. No. 1 DEC 2003
Article: Researchers envision the future of Northern Wisconsin Lakes:
http://www.news.wisc.edu/story.php?get=8718
10. IPCC Emissions Scenarios
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/spmpdf/sres-e.pdf
http://www.climatescience.gov/workshop2005/presentations/breakout_2A_delaC
hesnaye.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/meet/othercorres/ESWmeetingreport.pdf
- 17 -
PUGET SOUND FUTURE SCENARIOS
Appendices F – I
Appendix F: Initial Interview Summaries- email Marina for pdf
Appendix G: Driving Forces Factsheets- email Marina for pdf
Appendix H: Workshop Summary- email Marina for pdf
Appendix I: Workshop Agenda and Task- email Marina for pdf