Appendix A: Eight Steps of Scenario Building SCENARIO ...pugetsoundnearshore.org/program_documents/ps_future_appenda-i.pdf · Appendix A: Eight Steps of Scenario Building SCENARIO

Appendix A: Eight Steps of Scenario Building

SCENARIO BUILDING

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. Identify focal issue or decision 2. Identify driving forces 3. Rank importance & uncertainty 4. Select scenario logics 5. Flesh‐out the scenarios 6. Select indicators for monitoring 7. Assess impacts for different scenarios 8. Evaluate alternative strategies

In the example below, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is used to describe the eight key steps to the scenario building process.

1. Identify focal issue or decision

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. Demographic Drivers 2. Economic Drivers: Consumption, Production, and Globalization 3. Sociopolitical Drivers 4. Cultural and Religious Drivers 5. Science and Technology Drivers 6. Climate Variability and Change 7. Plant Nutrient Use 8. Land Conversion 9. Biological Invasions and Diseases


3. Rank importance & uncertainty

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

From the nine driving forces above, the two most uncertain and important driving forces were selected; economic and sociopolitical drivers.

4. Select scenario logics

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.

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.


5. Flesh‐out the scenarios

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.

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.

6. Select indicators for monitoring

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 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.


7. Assess impacts for different scenarios

Using the selected indicators, scenario planners assess how the focal issue is impacted under each scenario.

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..

8. Evaluate alternative strategies

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.

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 Identified Contacted Interested Met withAgency 14 13 10 7Communication 7 6 4 4Climate Change 22 12 9 5Human Perceptions and Behavior 20 10 6 6Demography 20 10 6 4Development Patterns 22 12 11 6Economy 26 14 9 3Governance 16 8 5 5Knowledge and Information 13 2 0 0Natural Hazards 9 7 7 5Public Health 23 13 11 7Infrastructure and Technology 17 9 4 4Metrics and Ecosystem Function 24 6 5 0Modeling 15 6 3 0TOTALS 248 128 90 56

Table 5 Expertise met with

ExpertiseAgency representationAir quality monitoring and modelingAquatic ecosystems and climate dynamicsArchitecture and city politicsCity planningClassification of shorelines and modelingCommunication and education Communication scientific dataCommunity development and water resourcesComparative and historical social science, social movements and collective action theory, politics, and religion.Conservation plans and the Cascade AgendaDemography and social structureDuwamish cleanup, PCBs and superfundEffects of environmental stress on forest ecosystems, with emphasis on fire ecology and climatic changeEnvironmental outreach and ecosystem healthFederal agency representationFilm-makingFilm-making

Forest tree physiology; Stress and carbon physiology; Subalpine ecosystems and SRICGeology and geohydrologyGeomorphologyGlaciologyGMA Growth Hearings Board, and city planningGovernance and legislationHood Canal, dissolved oxygenLabor economics, inequality, economics of the familyLabor economics; social demography; social welfare policyLarge-scale utilities infrastructureLong-range planningMaster plans and natural area plansModeling of fate and transport of pathogens in the environmentNatural hazard mitigationNew home constructionPolitical science and collaborationPublic health, obesity Public health, risk analysis and communicationPublic transportationQuantitative methods applied to resource management and environmental impact assessmentReal estate development and market forces.SeismologyShore lands and environmental assistanceSocial evaluation systems and environmental economicsSocial feasibility of ecosystem based management and marine protected areasSociology focusing on social identity and group formationState demographics modelingState health and communicationStatistical models for the analysis of social networks and labor economicsThermohaline, abyssal, and equatorial ocean circulationTotal energy system planningUrban planning and design for sustainable building and master plansWaste-water treatment facilities, CSO, water reuse and bio-solidsWatershed coordinationWatershed management and pollution abatement

Table 6 Agency representation Part 1 of 3

Association Identified Contacted Interested Met withAssociation of Washington Business 1 1 1 0Battelle 1 0 0 0Brookings Institute 1 0 0 0Cascade Land Conservency 4 3 2 2Census Bureau (regional office) 1 0 0 0Central Washington University 1 0 0 0City of Seattle - Green Building 1 0 0 0City of Seattle Council 2 2 2 1City of Seattle Neighborhood Division 1 0 0 0City of Seattle Planning Department 1 1 1 1City of Shoreline 1 1 1 1Climate Dynamics Group 1 1 1 1Commerce Trade Economic Development (CTED) 3 2 0 0Department of Fish and Wildlife 1 1 1 1Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition 1 1 1 1Earth Economics 4 2 2 1Economic Revenue Council 1 0 0 0Environment Canada 1 1 1 1Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 3 3 2 1EPA Region 10 1 1 1 1Forest Resources and USDA Forest Service 1 1 1 1Future Without Workgroup 4 3 3 3Gardner Johnson 1 0 0 0Geological Survey of America. 1 1 1 1Gigantic Planet 2 2 2 2Global Forest Partnership 1 0 0 0Green Building Services 1 0 0 0Green Diamond Resource Company 1 0 0 0HDR, Inc. 1 0 0 0HistoryLink 1 1 0 0Independent Economist 1 1 1 1Innovation and Research in Graduate Education 1 0 0 0Jones and Jones 1 0 0 0King County 11 5 4 4King County, Emergency Mngt 1 1 0 0King County, Farmland Preservation Program 1 0 0 0King County, GIS Center 1 0 0 0King County, Homeland Securty Planning 1 0 0 0King County, Wastewater division 3 1 1 1Kitsap County 2 2 2 2Madrona 1 1 1 0Master Builders Assocation 1 1 1 1Metrovation 1 0 0 0Mithun 2 2 2 1Municipal Research and Services Center (MSRC) 1 1 1 0National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1 0 0 0National Wildlife Federation 1 1 0 0Navy Region Northwest 1 0 0 0Nearshore Science Team 1 1 1 1Nisqually Reach Nature Center 1 0 0 0NOAA Coastal Ocean Program 1 0 0 0

Table 6 Agencies representation Part 2 of 3

Association Identified Contacted Interested Met withNOAA Fisheries Northwest Fisheries Science Center 2 2 2 1Northern Economics 1 0 0 0Office of Financial Management (OFM) 3 1 1 1OFM Demographic Projection 1 1 1 1Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) 2 1 0 0Pacific Shellfish Institute 1 1 1 0People for Puget Sound 3 1 1 1Pierce County 1 0 0 0Pierce County Library 1 0 0 0Puget Sound Action Team 4 2 2 2Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program 1 1 1 1Puget Sound Energy 4 3 1 1Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership 7 7 7 7Puget Sound Partnership 2 2 2 2Puget Sound Regional Council 9 4 2 0Puget Sound Regional Council, Prosperity Partnership 1 1 1 0Puget Sound Water Quality Authority 1 1 1 1Revitalization Institute 1 0 0 0Seattle Chamber of Commerce 1 0 0 0Seattle previous mayor 1 1 1 0Seattle Public Utilities 1 1 1 1Seattle Times 1 1 0 0Shared Strategy for Puget Sound 1 0 0 0Sightline (prev. NW Environmental Watch) 1 1 1 0Sound Transit 2 2 1 1Taylor Shellfish Co 1 0 0 0The Nature Conservency 4 1 1 0Toxic Free Legacy Coalition 1 0 0 0Tulalip Tribes 1 0 0 0UBC, Geography Dept. 1 0 0 0UBC, Inst. For Research, Env, and sustainability 1 0 0 0University of Oregon, Landscape Architecture 1 0 0 0University of Victoria, Dept of Phsychology 1 0 0 0US Army Corps of Engineers 2 1 1 1US Geological Survey 2 0 0 0US Senate 1 0 0 0UW, Air Quality 1 1 0 0UW, Anthropology 3 1 0 0UW, Applied Physics Laboratory 2 1 1 1UW, Aquatics and Fisheries Mngt 2 0 0 0UW, Atmospheric Sciences 2 1 1 1UW, Business School 1 0 0 0UW, Center for Demographic Research 1 1 1 1UW, Center for Social Research 1 0 0 0UW, Center for Statistics and the Social Sciences (CSSS) 2 2 2 1UW, Civil and Environmental Engineering 2 1 0 0UW, Climate Impacts Group 5 4 2 2UW, College of Education 1 0 0 0UW, Computer Science 1 1 0 0UW, Department of Biology 1 0 0 0UW, Department of Statistics 1 1 1 1

Table 6 Agency representation Part 3 of 3

Association Identified Contacted Interested Met withUW, Dept of Atmospheric Sciences 1 1 1 0UW, Earth and Space Sciences 3 2 2 2UW, Earth Initiative 1 0 0 0UW, Economics 4 2 0 0UW, Environmental and Occupational Health 3 3 2 2UW, Evans School Public Affairs 7 2 2 2UW, Forest Resources 4 1 1 1UW, Friday Harbor Laboratories 1 0 0 0UW, Geography 2 0 0 0UW, Global Trade Transportation and Logistics Studies 1 0 0 0UW, Institute for Hazards 1 1 1 1UW, Institute for the Study of Educational Policy 1 0 0 0UW, Intel Research 1 0 0 0UW, International Studies 2 1 1 1UW, Landscape Architecture 1 0 0 0UW, Marine Affairs 8 3 2 2UW, Mechanical Engineering 1 1 0 0UW, Office of Research 1 0 0 0UW, Philosophy 1 0 0 0UW, Public Health 3 2 1 1UW, Real Estate 1 1 1 1UW, School of Social Work 1 1 1 1UW, Seismology 1 1 1 1UW, Sociology 7 2 1 1UW, The Alpheus Group 1 0 0 0UW, Urban Design and Planning 6 3 3 2UW, Urban Ecology Research Laboratory 1 1 1 1UW, Urban Form Lab 1 1 1 0UW; School of Oceanography 2 1 1 1WA Department of Ecology 9 5 5 4WA Department of Health 6 2 2 1WA Department of Transportation 2 0 0 0WA Departnemt of Natural Resources (DNR) 2 1 1 1WA DNR Aquatic Resources Division 1 0 0 0WA State Fish and Wildlife 1 0 0 0WA Workforce explorer 1 1 1 0WASH Tech 1 0 0 0Washington Learns program 1 0 0 0Washington Ports 1 0 0 0Washington State University 2 0 0 0Western WA University 2 0 0 0Whatcom County 1 0 0 0World Changing 1 1 0 0

Puget Sound Nearshore Restoration ProgramThe 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 WithoutThe 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.

For additional information please contact Michal Russo at [email protected] or 206.579.8303

Nearshore zone Offshore zone

Tidalrange

BarIntertidalzone

Ridge

Sand dune

High Water Mark

Low Water Mark

Nearshore ecosystem

The Future Without Teamhttp://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org/

Puget Sound Nearshore PartnershipBernard Hargrave, US Army Corps of Engineers

Fred Goetz, US Army Corps of Engineers Charles Simenstad, School of Aquatic + Fishery Sciences, UWCurtis Tanner, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Doug Myers, Puget Sound Action TeamJacques 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 LaboratoryMarina Alberti, UW Jeff Hepinstall, UWMichal Russo, UW

Scenario BuildingIn 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.

Scenario Building involves eight steps:1. Identify focal issue or decision2. Identify driving forces3. Rank their importance and uncertainty4. Select scenario logics5. Flesh-out the scenarios6. Select indicators for monitoring7. Assess impacts under different scenarios8. Evaluate alternative strategies

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.

Timeline of Process

Outline of ProcessPanel DiscussionThe 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 ForcesBased 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 1The 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

ModelingModels 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 2We 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 FALL WINTER

June

Sep

tem

ber

Dec

embe

r

Mar

ch

Panel Discussions

FactSheets

Modeling

Workshop 1

Synthesis

Workshop 2

Technology: High rate of innovation

Climate Change: Major impact

Climate Change: Major impactTechnology: Low rate of innovation


Climate Change: Minor impact

Climate Change: Minor impactTechnology: Low rate of innovation











Timeline of Process






SUMMER FALL WINTER

June

Sep

tem

ber

Dec

embe

r

Mar

ch

Panel Discussions

FactSheets

Modeling

Workshop 1

Synthesis

Workshop 2

















Timeline of Process






SUMMER FALL WINTER

June

Sep

tem

ber

Dec

embe

r

Mar

ch

Panel Discussions

FactSheets

Modeling

Workshop 1

Synthesis

Workshop 2







For more information, please visit our website at: online.caup.washington.edu/projects/futurewithout

Puget Sound Future Scenarios

Identify focal issueIdentify key driving forcesSelect most important and uncertain driving forcesDevelop scenario logics

Develop scenario narrativesSelect metrics for assessing impactsDevelop an integrated model framework to assess impacts of alternative scenarios

Develop spatially explicit model to assess scenario impact on nearshore ecosystem functionAssess nearshore impacts of alternative scenariosEvaluate alternative restoration strategies under each scenario

Phase II

Phase I

Phase III

Project Leaders and Participating ExpertsThe 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 Geologi-cal 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.

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.

ProcessThe 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.

Puget Sound Future ScenariosScenario 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.

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?

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?

Scenario 1

Scenario 3

Scenarios are a tool for ordering one’s perceptions about alternative future environments in which one’s decisions might be played out.


The Puget Sound Future Scenarios

1

34b

4a2b

2a

Scenario 1Climate change has a minor impactThe rate of climate change is slowSocial values focus on private goodsSociety’s valuation of the future is short term

Scenario 2AClimate change has a major impactThe rate of climate change is slowSocial values focus on private goodsSociety’s valuation of the future is long term

Scenario 2BClimate change has a major impactThe rate of climate change is fastSocial values focus on private goodsSociety’s valuation of the future is short term

Scenario 3Climate change has a minor impactThe rate of climate change is slowSocial values focus on public goodsSociety’s valuation of the future is long term

Scenario 4AClimate change has a major impactThe rate of climate change is fastSocial values focus on public goodsSociety’s valuation of the future is long term

Scenario 4BClimate change has a major impactThe rate of climate change is slowSocial values focus on public goodsSociety’s valuation of the future is short term

The Ten Key Driving Forces

1. Climate Change2. Demographics3. Development Patterns4. Economics5. Human Perceptions and Behavior6. Knowledge and Information7. Natural Hazards8. Public Health9. Regulations, Government and Leadership10. Technology and Infrastructure

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.

Human Perceptions & Behavior - Social Valuesprivate

public

Private: Society’s values are represented by a market-based approach, where private goods are highly valued by consumers.

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.

Climate Change - Rateslow

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 - Future Valuation

long short

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.

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.

Climate Change - Magnitude

majorminor

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: 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.

fast

Ten key driving forces are identified for the development of the Puget Sound Future Scenarios.




Agenda• Overview of the meeting• Description of role and opportunity for feedback• Brief review of scenarios• Team trajectory definition• Scenario hypotheses discussion

RoleThe 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 trajecto-ries 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 TeamA 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 TeamA focus on how societal behavior and perceptions may change in this region, and the consequent influence on lifestyle, consumption, attitudes and ethics.

FeedbackThe 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.

Discussion QuestionsHuman Perceptions and Behavior1. 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 Change1. 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 Teams1. 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 litera-ture?) b. What models are available? c. Who should we be talking to?

Ground rulesThe scope is 50 years outThe 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 plausibleWhile no individual scenario is supposed to represent the actual future of this region, the suite of scenarios together should repre-sent 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.”

Men will not believe what does not fit with their plans or suit their prearrangements.

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.

“scenarios deal with two worlds. The world of facts and the world of perceptions.”


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 infrastruc-

ture 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.

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

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 interac-

tion 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 highlight possibilities

Scenarios are not predictions, but rather vehicles for helping people learn. They present alternative images rather than simply extrapolating the trends of the present.

Scenarios are a set of stories built around carefully constructed “plots” that make the significant elements of the world scene stand out boldly.

Scenario planning quotes by Schwartz 1991

strong supportno support neutral or undecided

investment in road expansion investment in a regional mass transit system



Demographics Team

Agenda• Overview of the meeting• Description of role and opportunity for feedback• Brief review of scenarios• Discussion

RoleThe 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 TeamThe 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 percep-tions and behavior.

FeedbackThe 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.

Discussion QuestionsOn 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 individualis-tic 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?








Development Patterns Team





Development Patterns TeamThe 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.

FeedbackThe 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.


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 impervi-

ous 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?


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?








Economics Team





Economics TeamThe 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 percep-tions and behavior.

FeedbackThe 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.


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?


How might economic change interact with climate impacts?

How might the economy be impacted by changes in human percep-

tions 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?


6) In furthering the understanding of economics under the alterna-

tive scenarios:

what are good resources (i.e. publications, agencies, reports, model)










Infrastructure and Technology Team





Infrastructure and Technology TeamThe 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.

FeedbackThe 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.


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 provi-sion? 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 percep-

tions 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


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?








Public Health Team





Public Health TeamThe public health team will focus on the interaction between the landscape and human health. This team will look at how environ-mental 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.

FeedbackThe 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.


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?


How might public health impacts interact with climate impacts?

How might public health be impacted by changes in human percep-

tions 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?


6) In furthering the understanding of public health under the


What are good resources (i.e. publications, agencies, reports, model)










Regulations, Government and LeadershipTeam





Regulations, Government and Leadership TeamThe 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 param-eters 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.

FeedbackThe 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.


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 behav-

ior?

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 govern-ment?


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?






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 D1: climate change assumptions and associated impact trajectories

Assumptions Temperature Precipitation Variance Other driversSea level rise higher temperatures lead to higher

sea level risehigher precipitation leads to higher SLR uncertain none

Snow pack higher temperatures lead to reduced snowpack

uncertain uncertain none

Winter streamflow

higher temperatures lead reduced storage in snowpack, more flow

higher winter precipitation, higher flows 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 generation, lower summer precipitation, lower power generation

uncertain alternative fuels may lead to decreased reliance on hydropower

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 vulnerability

increased population growth, increase 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

increased population, increased demand, increased technological efficiency, reduced demand

Flood and Storm management

uncertain higher winter precipitation, more floods, more pressure

higher fluctuations, more extreme events, higher pressure

more impervious surface, older infrastructure higher pressure


FORWARD ORDER INNOVATION BARRIERS COLLAPSE ADAPTATION

FORWARDTODAY ORDER INNOVATION BARRIERS COLLAPSE ADAPTATION

Prec

ipit

atio

n

Ann

ual r

ainf

all (

in)

10

0

25

1950 2000 2050

Ann

ual r

ainf

all (

in)

10

0

25

1950 2000 2050

Ann

ual r

ainf

all (

in)

10

0

25

1950 2000 2050

Ann

ual r

ainf

all (

in)

10

0

25

1950 2000 2050

Ann

ual r

ainf

all (

in)

10

0

25

1950 2000 2050

Ann

ual r

ainf

all (

in)

10

0

25

1950 2000 2050

Ann

ual r

ainf

all (

in)

10

0

25

1950 2000 2050

Tem

pera

ture

Tem

p (F

)

5

0

10

1950 2000 2050

Tem

p (F

)

5

0

10

1950 2000 2050

Tem

p (F

)

5

0

10

1950 2000 2050

Tem

p (F

)5

0

10

1950 2000 2050

Tem

p (F

)

5

0

10

1950 2000 2050

Tem

p (F

)

5

0

10

1950 2000 2050

Tem

p (F

)

5

0

10

1950 2000 2050

1950 2000

Fluc

tuat

ion

1950 2000 20501950 2000 20501950 2000 2050 1950 2000 2050 20501950 2000 20501950 2000 2050

σ σ σ σ σ σ σ

Clim

ate

Ch

ang

e Slight increase (1.7oF) Slight increase (1.7oF) Major increase (4.4oF) Major increase (4.4oF) Major increase (4oF) Major increase (4oF)

No significant change No significant change Increase (8%) Increase (8%) Slight increase (1.7oF) Decrease (1%)

Variance consistent w/historical pattern


Significant increase in variance

Significant increase in variance





Hu

man

Per

cep

tio

ns

and

Beh

avio

r

Scal

e of

Sha

ring

Dis

coun

t Rat

eG

oal I

nter

depe

nden

cePu

blic

Inve

stm

ents

1

2

3

4

now later now laternow later now later now later now later

High regionally High locally Low High household High locally High locally

Very high Low High Low Low Very high

Very low Low Low High Very high Very low

Very high Same as today Very high Very low Very low Very high



Dem

og

rap

hic

s

year

popu

latio

n

0102

0502

year

popu

latio

n

2010

2050

year

popu

latio

n

2010

2050

year

popu

latio

n

0102

0502

year

popu

latio

n

0102

0502

year

popu

latio

n

0102 2050

year

popu

latio

n

2010

2050

Popu

lati

on G

row

thA

ge S

truc

ture

%

age

5 10

%

age

5 10

%

age

105

%

age

105

%

age

105

%

age

105

%

age

105

Imm

igra

tion

year

% m

igra

tion

100

50

year

% m

igra

tion

100

50

year

% m

igra

tion

100

50

year

% m

igra

tion

100

50

year

% m

igra

tion

100

50

year

% m

igra

tion

100

50

year

% m

igra

tion

100

50

Double today’s pop. Increase at current rate Double today’s pop. Slower growth Declining pop numbers

Increase at current rate

Young and middle age aging Young and middle age aging aging uncertain

Increasing proportion of in-migration

Migration fluctuates in cycles

Increasing proportion of in-migration

Decreasing rates of in-migration

Out-migration Similar to today



Dev

elo

pm

ent

Pat

tern

s

Fore

st A

ggre

gati

onBu

ildin

g Pe

rmits

‘90 ‘00 ‘10 ‘20 ‘30 ‘40 ‘50

Hou

sing

Per

mits

2 2m

3m

1m

‘90 ‘00 ‘10 ‘20 ‘30 ‘40 ‘50

Hou

sing

Per

mits

2 2m

3m

1m

‘90 ‘00 ‘10 ‘20 ‘30 ‘40 ‘50

Hou

sing

Per

mits

2 2m

3m

1m

‘90 ‘00 ‘10 ‘20 ‘30 ‘40 ‘50

Hou

sing

Per

mits

2 2m

3m

1m

‘90 ‘00 ‘10 ‘20 ‘30 ‘40 ‘50

Hou

sing

Per

mits

2 2m

3m

1m

‘90 ‘00 ‘10 ‘20 ‘30 ‘40 ‘50

Hou

sing

Per

mits

2 2m

3m

1m

‘90 ‘00 ‘10 ‘20 ‘30 ‘40 ‘50

Hou

sing

Per

mits

2 2m

3m

1m

Wal

kabi

lity

5

Peop

le /

Impe

rvio

us

peop

le/im

p ar

ea

peop

le/im

p ar

ea

peop

le/im

p ar

ea

peop

le/im

p ar

ea

peop

le/im

p ar

ea

peop

le/im

p ar

ea

peop

le/im

p ar

ea

90 00 50 90 00 50 90 00 50 90 00 50 90 00 50 90 00 50 90 00 50

inUGB

outUGB

(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

Slightly higher Lower Slightly lower Lower Much lower Slightly higher

Increase Decrease Same Decrease Uncertain Increase

Growth but slower Growth but slower Fast growth Slower, then decline Fast then collapse Very slow growth



Eco

no

mic

s

$

1950 2000 2050

GD

P

$

1950 2000 2050

$

1950 2000 2050

$

1950 2000 2050

$

1950 2000 2050

$

1950 2000 2050

$

1950 2000 2050

Perfect D

istrib

ution (4

5 degree) Line

Share of lower income

Shar

e of

inco

me

earn

ed10

0%

100%

Dis

trib

utio

n

Perfect D

istrib

ution (4

5 degree) Line


Shar

e of

inco

me

earn

ed10

0%

100%

Perfect D

istrib

ution (4

5 degree) Line


Shar

e of

inco

me

earn

ed10

0%

100%

Perfect D

istrib

ution (4

5 degree) Line


Shar

e of

inco

me

earn

ed10

0%

100%

Perfect D

istrib

ution (4

5 degree) Line


Shar

e of

inco

me

earn

ed10

0%

100%

Perfect D

istrib

ution (4

5 degree) Line


Shar

e of

inco

me

earn

ed10

0%

100%

Perfect D

istrib

ution (4

5 degree) Line


Shar

e of

inco

me

earn

ed10

0%

100%

2

Div

ersi

�cat

ion

Sectors

%

Sectors

%

Sectors

%

Sectors

%

Sectors

%

Sectors

%

Sectors

%

Trad

e D

epen

denc

e

ImportsExports

$70m $45m E I E IE I E I E I E I

Increasing, current rate Reduced rate over time Faster rate of increase Unstable economy Economic depression Reduced rate over time

Highly diverse Dominated by few sectors

Dominated by high-tech

Highly dominated by few sectors

Highly dominated by few sectors

Highly diverse

Balanced, but significant #s

Uncertain Highly dependent on trade

Dependent on imports Reduced overall, dependent on imports

Balanced, minor reliance on trade

Higher equity Same as today Less equity than today High inequity Less equity than today Higher equity



Go

vern

ance

# of

bill

s

# of

bill

s

passed e�ective passed e�ective

50

100

Lead

ersh

ip

passed e�ective passed e�ective passed e�ective passed e�ective passed e�ective

# of

bill

s

# of

bill

s

# of

bill

s

# of

bill

s

# of

bill

s

6

Part

ners

hips

# of

par

tner

ship

s

priv

ate

�rm

s

publ

ic a

genc

ies

non-

pro�

ts

acad

emia

# of

par

tner

ship

s

priv

ate

�rm

s

publ

ic a

genc

ies

non-

pro�

ts

acad

emia

# of

par

tner

ship

s

priv

ate

�rm

s

publ

ic a

genc

ies

non-

pro�

ts

acad

emia

# of

par

tner

ship

s

priv

ate

�rm

s

publ

ic a

genc

ies

non-

pro�

ts

acad

emia

# of

par

tner

ship

s

priv

ate

�rm

s

publ

ic a

genc

ies

non-

pro�

ts

acad

emia

# of

par

tner

ship

s

priv

ate

�rm

s

publ

ic a

genc

ies

non-

pro�

ts

acad

emia

# of

par

tner

ship

s

priv

ate

�rm

s

publ

ic a

genc

ies

non-

pro�

ts

acad

emia8

Locu

s of P

ower

7

Many initiatives passed; effective

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

High; non-profit, academia

Low; public High; private Low; private High; non-profit / private

High, all



Kn

ow

led

ge

and

Info

rmat

ion 50

100

% o

f 25+

Pop

HS+ BA+

King

Mason

‘90

‘90

50

100

% o

f 25+

Pop

HS+ BA+

50

100

% o

f 25+

Pop

HS+ BA+

50

100

% o

f 25+

Pop

HS+ BA+

50

100

% o

f 25+

Pop

HS+ BA+

50

100

% o

f 25+

Pop

HS+ BA+

50

100

% o

f 25+

Pop

HS+ BA+

Att

ainm

ent

Inve

stm

ent

Acc

essi

bilit

y

5

$ pe

r cap

ita90 00 50

$ pe

r cap

ita

90 00 50

K-12

higher

$ pe

r cap

ita

90 00 50

$ pe

r cap

ita

90 00 50

$ pe

r cap

ita

90 00 50

$ pe

r cap

ita

90 00 50

$ pe

r cap

ita

90 00 50

Increase attainment Similar to today Higher education with in-migration

Increased division, more BA, less HS

Out-migration of Higher education

Increased attainment

Increasing Increased for new schools

Slight increase; private Decrease with time Falls with decreasing funds

Increasing

Increasing Same Slight increase Decrease Uncertain Increase



Nat

ura

l Haz

ard

s

Mag

nitu

de

Vul

nera

bilit

y

1950 2000 2050

Co

st (i

n B

illio

ns)

1950 2000 2050

Co

st (i

n B

illio

ns)

1950 2000 2050

Co

st (i

n B

illio

ns)

1950 2000 2050

Co

st (i

n B

illio

ns)

1950 2000 2050

Co

st (i

n B

illio

ns)

1950 2000 2050

Co

st (i

n B

illio

ns)

Co

st (i

n B

illio

ns)

1950 2000 2050

Freq

uenc

y

1950 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 double the current rate

Increasing at double the current rate


Less vulnerable than today

Vulnerable at coast and mountains


Highly vulnerable at coast

Increasing vulnerability


Decreased magnitude of events

Uncertain High fluctuation with major events

Increasing magnitude over time

Increasing magnitude over time

Decreased magnitude of events



Pu

blic

Hea

lth

Reso

urce

Abu

ndan

ceSh

ell�

sh

Agr

icul

ture

2000 20501980

Shel

l�sh

Agr

icul

ture

2000 20501980

Shel

l�sh

Agr

icul

ture

2000 20501980

Shel

l�sh

Agr

icul

ture

2000 20501980

Shel

l�sh

Agr

icul

ture

2000 20501980

Shel

l�sh

Agr

icul

ture

2000 20501980

Shel

l�sh

Agr

icul

ture

2000 20501980

Hea

lth S

tatu

s

2000 2050

% p

oor h

ealth

2000 2050

% p

oor h

ealth

2000 2050

% p

oor h

ealth

2000 2050

% p

oor h

ealth

2000 2050

% p

oor h

ealth

2000 2050

% p

oor h

ealth

2000 2050

% p

oor h

ealth

Reso

urce

Dis

trib

utio

n%

uni

nsur

ed

2000 2050

% u

nins

ured

2000 2050

% u

nins

ured

2000 2050

% u

nins

ured

2000 2050

% u

nins

ured

2000 2050

% u

nins

ured

2000 2050

% u

nins

ured

2000 2050

Healthier population Increase disease Outbreak followed by treatment

Increasing ailment Unhealthy population Healthier population

All insured by 2020’s Same as today All insured by 2030’s Less insured than today by 2020’s

Less insured than today by 2040’s

All insured by 2020’s

More shellfish, same Ag.

Slow decline in both Decline followed by new techniques

Declining, Reliance on global goods

Collapse of both More shellfish and Ag.



Infr

astr

uct

ure

an

d T

ech

no

log

y

Inve

stm

ents

high

way

stra

nsit

rene

wab

leel

ectri

c

wat

erw

aste

sew

er

$ m

illio

ns

high

way

stra

nsit

elec

tric

wat

er

was

tese

wer

$ m

illio

ns

high

way

stra

nsit

elec

tric

wat

er

was

tese

wer

$ m

illio

ns

high

way

s

elec

tric

wat

erw

aste

sew

er

$ m

illio

ns

high

way

s

elec

tric

wat

erw

aste

sew

er

$ m

illio

ns

trans

it

elec

tric

wat

erw

aste

sew

er

$ m

illio

ns

high

way

stra

nsit

elec

tric

wat

erw

aste

sew

er

$ m

illio

ns rene

wab

le

Type

of I

nfra

stru

ctur

e

4

Conn

ectiv

ity

3

Highly connected Fragmented Highly connected Fragmented Limited Community scale

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


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.


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,


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

- 1 -

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


- 2 -

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.

CHALLENGES OPPORTUNITIES 1 Challenge Assumptions: While a list of 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.

1 Identify Drivers: No drivers were identified.

2 Uncertainty & Surprise: Neither was incorporated into the vision, except perhaps as superficial constraints.

2 Implications of Trajectories: While some simplified trajectories were computed, their implications were only superficially examined.

3 Communicate Complex Info: Complex interactions were generally simplified or ignored.

3 Anticipate Risks: No risks were identified.

4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: While 300 people participated in the charettes, the majority came from design and environmental firms within Seattle.

4 Illuminate Options: Options came from the diversity within teams.

5 Integrate Probable & Desirable: The desirable was selected over the probable.

5 Desirable Future: Perhaps the strongest facet of this project is the opportunity to create a shared vision for a desirable future.

6 Assess Tradeoffs: The purpose of the charette was to create a shared vision without constraints, and therefore tradeoffs could not have been explored.

6 Assess Strategies: While many strategies were brainstormed, their cost and benefit were not assessed within the charette process.

Image from one of the teams looking at the downtown


- 3 -

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 decision-makers 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 OPPORTUNITIES 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.

2 Implications of Trajectories: No trajectories were incorporated.

3 Communicate Complex Info: This was a process for listening and not for accurately evaluating strategies.

3 Anticipate Risks: Risks were not incorporated.

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.

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 Tradeoffs: Tradeoffs were superficially examined in conversation, but were not assisted by scientific evidence.

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.


- 4 -

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

• 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 OPPORTUNITIES 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.

2 Implications of Trajectories: Specific numbers were not modeled until after the charette, in the DEIS

3 Communicate Complex Info: Expert opinions about the overall system were not synthesized until after the charette.

3 Anticipate Risks: While some risks were acknowledged (like the viaduct collapsing) unplanned risks were not integrated.

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.

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 Tradeoffs: The purpose of the charette was to generate unconstrained ideas. The environmental scorecards helped compare their benefits.

6 Assess Strategies: Many strategies were brainstormed, however, their cost and benefit were not assessed within the charette process.

Environmental Scorecard


- 5 -

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. 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 OPPORTUNITIES 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.

1 Identify Drivers: While many drivers were identified, they were based on past understanding of the system and were not necessarily forward thinking.

2 Uncertainty & Surprise: Highly criticized for specifically not addressing uncertainty, and merely extrapolating from past trends.

2 Implications of Trajectories: The largest emphasis in the project was on the implications of different trajectories and their feedback to one another.

3 Communicate Complex Info: For its time the computer model was highly dynamic and integrative, but it wouldn’t be considered so today.

3 Anticipate Risks: While risks were assessed they were limited by our previous understanding of the system. No new risks were identified.

4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: The study incorporated a diverse set of expert scientific knowledge from across the globe, but generally with similar Western values.

4 Illuminate Options: Options generally represented our understanding previous to the model, no new opportunities were illuminated.

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.

5 Desirable Future: A balanced future was described as desirable and its merits were explained as well as steps towards that future.

6 Assess Tradeoffs: Tradeoffs were simplified into the closed system model, i.e. we could decrease our birth rate and maintain our consumption levels.

6 Assess Strategies: Strategies were limited to balancing the system out. All other options merely delayed a doomed outcome.

Graph from book about relationship between population, resources, food per capita and industrial output per capita.


- 6 -

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

CHALLENGES OPPORTUNITIES

1 Challenge Assumptions: No 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 Uncertainty & Surprise: Purely extrapolative, looking at past trends and then changing policy to reflect which lands could be developed.

2 Implications of Trajectories: Model outcomes are as expected, the more area excluded from development, the more compact future development becomes.

3 Communicate Complex Info: Complex interactions are modeled by the computer, rather than being communicated.

3 Anticipate Risks: No risks are integrated into this framework.

4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: Stakeholders were not involved in this process.

4 Illuminate Options: The three policy options are predetermined before running the model.

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.

5 Desirable Future: The alternative futures are created superficially, and are not plausible, and therefore are not selected.

6 Assess Tradeoffs: Tradeoffs are limited to planning decisions which are based on amount of allowable land for development.

6 Assess Strategies: No strategies are assessed.

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


- 7 -

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 decision makers and the general public. Method: The emphasis of the study lies in the complex 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 are not challenged.

1 Identify Drivers: Anticipated drivers are the ‘usual suspects’

2 Uncertainty & Surprise: Uncertainty is not taken into account.

2 Implications of Trajectories: An integrated model of land use and hydrology was helpful to creating realistic implications of different parameters.

3 Communicate Complex Info: Complex information is compiled into the models and the results are communicated to decision makers and the general public.

3 Anticipate Risks: Risks are based on model specifications, and therefore no new risks are identified.

4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: The diversity 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.

4 Illuminate Options: No new options are illuminated.

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.

5 Desirable Future: Not discussed.

6 Assess Tradeoffs: Tradeoffs are integrated into the modeling process.

6 Assess Strategies: Not discussed.

Framework for integrating scientists with policy makers and the public.


- 8 -

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 OPPORTUNITIES 1 Challenge Assumptions: Assumptions are not challenged.

1 Identify Drivers: Anticipated drivers are the ‘usual suspects’

2 Uncertainty & Surprise: Neither was incorporated.

2 Implications of Trajectories: Implications of policy changes on stream ecology were directly addressed.

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.

3 Anticipate Risks: This research study helped identify the specific stream ecology risks posed by alternative policy decisions.

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.

4 Illuminate Options: Policy options were predetermined before running the models. No additional restoration options were illuminated by running the models.

5 Integrate Probable & Desirable: General focus on probable extrapolations of past trends, however the interaction with the stakeholders helped identify more desirable outcomes.

5 Desirable Future: The future options were artificially simplistic, and not intended to be chosen.

6 Assess Tradeoffs: The general tradeoff examined was freedom from strict development regulation versus negative ecological impact to the river basin.

6 Assess Strategies: A second step to this process may become assessing strategies.


- 9 -

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.

Willamette River basin process chart

Conceptual Framework for California’s Water Plan


- 10 -

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 out of the typical supply and demand forecasting done for water plans, this plan integrates a wealth of knowledge into the scenarios.

1 Identify Drivers: Drivers are identified through interviews and workshops with a diversity of stakeholders.

2 Uncertainty & Surprise: Uncertainty is directly integrated, looking at floods, earthquakes, chemical spills, global climate change, water demand, aquatic life, changing plumbing codes, emerging contaminants, etc.

2 Implications of Trajectories: The report does not include the quantified water balances for futures and a shortage analysis but the quantification under each scenario will eventually occur.

3 Communicate Complex Info: A conceptual framework (see previous page) was used to communicate the complex interaction of variable with stakeholders and decision makers.

3 Anticipate Risks: Each scenario examines new risks that could have been overlooked with the previous method.

4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: DWR conducted workshops with decision makers, water managers, and planners to see what would be the most important elements to assess and to see what kind of information is needed. However, no consensus was intended to be reached between stakeholders.

4 Illuminate Options: By incorporating a diversity of stakeholders and measuring actual tradeoffs the hope is that real options are illuminated to the water community that were not available in earlier plans.

5 Integrate Probable & Desirable: Initially probable alternative scenarios were created, then a set of strategies are examined to reach a desirable future.

5 Desirable Future: While the scenarios reflect plausible future whose outcomes are uncontrollable by the water community, the set of strategies are created to achieve 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 using water budgets, this new technique allowed insight into future use and supplied economics, water quality, environmental and social considerations.

6 Assess Strategies: Multiple ‘response packages’ are used to see how each implementation will perform in each future. “Some may be appropriate regardless of the scenario, whereas others may only be suitable if specific conditions occur.”9


- 11 -

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.


- 12 -

CHALLENGES OPPORTUNITIES

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.

1 Identify Drivers: Directly addressed in the workshops, includes tourism. Local control, ecological health, population growth and economic diversity.

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)

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 Communicate Complex Info: This study integrated national impacts like terrorist attacks and commercial recreation with impacts on local ecological resilience.

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 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.

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 Integrate Probable & Desirable: Initially probable alternative scenarios were created, than a set of strategies will be examined to reach a desirable future.

5 Desirable Future: Strategies are targeted at creating a desirable future, however the scenarios are not intended as visions.

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.

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’.


- 13 -

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.


- 14 -

CHALLENGES OPPORTUNITIES 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.

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 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.

2 Implications of Trajectories: Specific quantified trajectories are calculated – see tradeoffs for the list of implications.

3 Communicate Complex Info: Having a purely scientific audience, the entire process was available on the website for commenting.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.


- 15 -

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

Opportunities

Project Type Identify Drivers

Implications of Trajectories

Anticipate Risks

Illuminate Options

Desirable Futures

Assess 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 Vision no no no some some no

Limits to Growth 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

California Water Update 2005 Scenarios yes yes yes yes yes yes

Wisconsin NHLD Project Scenarios yes yes yes yes yes yes

IPCC emissions Scenarios Scenarios yes yes yes some no no

Project Type Challenge Assumptions

Uncertainty & Surprise

Synthesize Information

Dif. Bw Stakeholders

Integrate Probable

& Possible

Assess Tradeoffs

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


- 16 -

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=1051-0761&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


- 17 -

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_delaChesnaye.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/meet/othercorres/ESWmeetingreport.pdf

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

mailto:[email protected]




Documents

Appendix A: Eight Steps of Scenario Building SCENARIO ...pugetsoundnearshore.org/program_documents/ps_future_appenda-i.pdf · Appendix A: Eight Steps of Scenario Building SCENARIO