Appendix A: Eight Steps of Scenario Building SCENARIO BUILDING ...

Appendix A: Eight Steps of Scenario Building SCENARIO BUILDING 1. Identify focal issue or decision In studying alternative ‘futures’ we are using Scenario Building‐‐an approach originally proposed as a business strategy in 1970s (Royal Dutch/Shell) and recently applied in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment—to systematically and creatively think about plausible futures. Scenarios are plausible alternative futures ‐‐ what might happen under particular assumptions. By focusing on key drivers, complex interactions, and irreducible uncertainties, scenario building generates the futures within which we can assess alternative mitigation strategies including the future without restoration. Scenario building generally involves eight key steps. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Identify focal issue or decision Identify driving forces Rank importance & uncertainty Select scenario logics Flesh‐out the scenarios Select indicators for monitoring Assess impacts for different scenarios Evaluate alternative strategies

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

The focal issue represents the question about the future that an organization is confronting. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) focused on the implications of four different approaches for managing ecosystem services in the face of growing human demand for them. 2. Identify driving forces Driving forces represent key variables and their trends in the macro‐ environment that influence the focal issue. The MEA selected nine key driving forces to include within the scenarios: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Demographic Drivers Economic Drivers: Consumption, Production, and Globalization Sociopolitical Drivers Cultural and Religious Drivers Science and Technology Drivers Climate Variability and Change Plant Nutrient Use Land Conversion Biological Invasions and Diseases

Appendix A: Eight Steps of Scenario Building 3. Rank importance & uncertainty

4. Select scenario logics

Identified driving forces are ranked in terms of their uncertainty and importance in relation to the focal issue. This step directs the outcome of the final scenarios as the two most important and uncertain drivers define the most divergent and relevant future conditions to be included in the final set

The logics are defined by exploring the interactions of the most uncertain and important drivers such that alternative frames are created, each representing a divergent yet plausible scenario.

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

For each driving force two attributes are selected representing two polar directions in which the drivers can go in the future. For the economic driver, the MEA looked at one end being globalization and the other regionalization. Within globalization economic equity and public goods were delivered, while regionalization reflected security and economic growth. For the socio‐political driver MEA focused on either a reactive or proactive ecosystem management.

Appendix A: Eight Steps of Scenario Building 5. Flesh‐out the scenarios

6. Select indicators for monitoring

Each scenario is developed by exploring the implications of alternative trajectories on the focal issue under the set parameters defined by the interactions between the key driving forces. The MEA describes four scenarios based on the logics described in the previous steps as well as modeled values for the other seven driving forces.

A set of indicator are selected to assess the implications of alternative futures on the focal issue. Metrics refer to a measure used to determine a certain condition.

The four scenarios described are: •

•

• •

The Global Orchestration: a socially conscious globalization, one in which we emphasize equity, economic growth, and public goods, reacting to ecosystem problems when they reach critical stages. Order from Strength: representing a regionalized approach, in which our emphasis is on security and economic growth, again reacting to ecosystem problems only as they arise. Adapting Mosaic: a regionalized approach, emphasizing proactive management of ecosystems, local adaptation, and flexible governance. TechnoGarden: a globalized approach with an emphasis on green technology and a proactive approach to managing ecosystems.

The MEA looked at three major components for assessing change under each scenario: ecosystem services, biodiversity and human well‐being. Under each component multiple indicators were monitored. For example, under biodiversity, within the subcategory of terrestrial biodiversity, habitat loss was selected as one indicator.

Appendix A: Eight Steps of Scenario Building 7. Assess impacts for different scenarios

8. Evaluate alternative strategies

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

The main objective of scenarios is to inform strategic decision‐making. Once alternative scenarios are described, managers can evaluate the efficacy of alternative strategies across the suite of scenarios.

For each of the indicators selected above the MEA proceeded to model the change under each scenario. For example, habitat loss is assessed for each of the four scenarios. Other impacts include land cover, potential species loss, income distribution, GDP, rate of improvement of technological efficiency, renewable energy, greenhouse gas emissions, sea level rise, number of malnutritioned children, bio‐fuel production, etc..

The MEA starts this process by looking at international agencies accountable for creating strategies, and then evaluates how the impacts under different scenarios affect the goals and objectives of these agencies. The six agencies include the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention, the Desertification Convention, National Governments, Communities and NGOs, and the Private Sector. For example, for the Convention on Biological Diversity the alternative scenarios reflect threats to biodiversity from climate change, pollution, invasive species, Overexploitation and inappropriate management, and Habitat transformation.

After associating specific threats with strategies, alternative policies are assessed under each scenario. What might work very well under ‘Order from Strength’ may be ineffective for ‘Techno Garden’. For example, for the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands the MEA looked at which policies would work well for each scenario.

APPENDIX B: EXPERTISE INVOLVED Appendix B1: Initial Interviews In order to identify a broad set of drivers of change for the future of the Puget Sound nearshore, the Urban Ecology Research Lab [UERL] sought to include a diverse representation of experts. Some areas of expertise were directly linked to understanding nearshore ecosystems. These areas included oceanographers, nearshore ecologists, marine habitat specialists, climatologists, and geomorphologies. The UERL targeted additional areas of expertise that focused on regional changes including demographers, economists, statisticians, developers, planners and industry leaders. The UERL also aimed to include groups that are similarly involved in assessing the health of this region and that may be directly impacted by changes in nearshore ecosystem functions. Expertise corresponding to these roles included non‐profit organizations, non‐governmental organizations, environmental trend watchers, tribal organizations, and advocacy groups. Lastly, in order to identify additional experts, the UERL conducted a snowball technique asking each participant in the initial interviews if there were additional expertise we should seek. Based on this additional input the UERL added historians, politicians, and design agencies to our list of targeted expertise. Table 1 Interview expertise

The UERL divided the breadth of expertise into eight general groups who share a similar working knowledge. The intent of this separation was to ensure that participants could easily exchange ideas and maintain a focused discussion. The panel groups were split into biological scientists, physical scientists, social and behavior scientists, planners, the private sector, non‐profit organizations, public agencies, and advocacy groups for subsistence living.

The UERL initially contacted sixty‐one experts for interviews and were able to schedule with thirty four of them. The UERL conducted a total of eight individual interviews and ten panel interviews. The area of expertise and contributing agency1 is outlined for each interview and panel in the table below. In addition to a core set of question asked of all participants, additional questions targeted three specific types of participants: scientists, users, and impacted parties. Table 2 describes the three participant types. Appendix C includes the three sets of discussion questions. Table 2 Participant types

1 To maintain the anonymity of the participants names are not given.

Appendix B2: Workshop Thirty eight people attended the workshop, including representatives from public, private agencies and non‐ governmental organizations (see Table 3 for a list of agencies). Several academic disciplines were represented including geomorphology, geography, climatology, oceanography, ecology, biology, business and economic development. Table 3 Agencies involved at the workshop

Appendix B3: Panel Discussions B3a: After the workshop the UERL focused on panel discussions as a means of refining the scenario logics and finalizing the scenario narratives. The objective of the panel discussion was to fill in the details of each frame with relevant and internally consistent data. Instead of looking for breadth, the UERL targeted specific experts who filled critical roles in the scenario development process. Overall the UERL and the Future Without Workgroup identified over 200 experts, contacted over 100 different agencies and personally interviewed 53 experts. Fourteen teams separated participants with similar areas of expertise into discussion forums that were responsible for developing critical elements of the scenarios. Utilizing the ten driving forces identified by the interviews the UERL developed ten teams of experts, each representing one driving force. Based on the two most important and uncertain driving forces identified at the workshop we developed a ‘core team’ of climate change and human perception experts to lead the scenario hypotheses development. The UERL also held panel discussions for each of the supporting eight key driving forces separately. The core team met twice, initially to define scenario hypotheses and second to refine the scenarios after receiving feedback synthesized from to supporting teams. In addition to these 10 teams the UERL held one meeting with communication experts and one with public agency heads to help delineate critical elements to include within the final scenarios to ensure their usability. In the next phase of this project the UERL in conjunction with the FWW will share the final scenarios with a team of metrics and ecosystem health experts, as well as a modeling team in order to develop the assessment component of this project. Figure 1 illustrates the order for meetings of the discussion forums and the integral feedback between forums. The following pages describe the agencies and expertise targeted and included within the panel discussions. Many participants had multiple areas of expertise and represented multiple agencies, and therefore the total numbers represent a higher value than the number of individual experts. Identified Over 243 experts were identified by the UERL, the FWW and nominated by participating experts. The list of experts was systematically reviewed in order to ensure that the most relevant and divergent expertise are incorporated into the final scenarios. Contacted The UERL contacted 112 experts from various disciplines. Experts were provided a factsheet summarizing the project’s objectives, their role and the panel’s discussion questions (included in Appendix C2). Panel discussions generally required about 2‐3 hours of preparation, 3 hours of attending the actual discussion and additional hours for feedback and correspondence. Participation was voluntary without compensation. Interested Out of the experts contacted 90 individuals responded that they were interested in being involved in the process in some manner. Numerous efforts were put forth to include these participants if not directly in a panel discussion than through correspondence and feedback on the final report. Met with

Fifty six experts participated in the scenario development process. While the majority were present for panel discussions involving other experts representing a specific driving force, many experts were accommodated through individual interviews, either in person, or over the phone, or by email communication. Table 4 Participants sorted by Driving Forces Driving Force Agency Communication Climate Change Human Perceptions and Behavior Demography Development Patterns Economy Governance Knowledge and Information Natural Hazards Public Health Infrastructure and Technology Metrics and Ecosystem Function Modeling TOTALS

Identified Contacted Interested Met with 14 13 7 10 7 6 4 4 22 12 5 9 20 20 22 26 16

10 10 12 14 8

6 6 11 9 5

6 4 6 3 5

13 9 23

2 7 13

0 7 11

0 5 7

17

9

4

4

24 15 248

6 6 128

5 3 90

0 0 56

Table 5 Expertise met with Expertise Agency representation Air quality monitoring and modeling Aquatic ecosystems and climate dynamics Architecture and city politics City planning Classification of shorelines and modeling Communication and education Communication scientific data Community development and water resources Comparative and historical social science, social movements and collective action theory, politics, and religion. Conservation plans and the Cascade Agenda Demography and social structure Duwamish cleanup, PCBs and superfund Effects of environmental stress on forest ecosystems, with emphasis on fire ecology and climatic change Environmental outreach and ecosystem health Federal agency representation Film-making Film-making Forest tree physiology; Stress and carbon physiology; Subalpine ecosystems and SRIC Geology and geohydrology Geomorphology Glaciology GMA Growth Hearings Board, and city planning Governance and legislation Hood Canal, dissolved oxygen Labor economics, inequality, economics of the family Labor economics; social demography; social welfare policy Large-scale utilities infrastructure Long-range planning Master plans and natural area plans Modeling of fate and transport of pathogens in the environment Natural hazard mitigation New home construction Political science and collaboration Public health, obesity Public health, risk analysis and communication Public transportation Quantitative methods applied to resource management and environmental impact assessment Real estate development and market forces. Seismology Shore lands and environmental assistance Social evaluation systems and environmental economics Social feasibility of ecosystem based management and marine protected areas Sociology focusing on social identity and group formation State demographics modeling State health and communication Statistical models for the analysis of social networks and labor economics Thermohaline, abyssal, and equatorial ocean circulation Total energy system planning Urban planning and design for sustainable building and master plans Waste-water treatment facilities, CSO, water reuse and bio-solids Watershed coordination Watershed management and pollution abatement

Table 6 Agency representation Part 1 of 3

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

Identified Contacted Interested Met with 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 5 4 4 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Table 6 Agencies representation Part 2 of 3

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

Identified Contacted Interested Met with 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 1 7 7 7 7 2 2 2 2 9 4 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 2 1 0 0 5 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

Table 6 Agency representation Part 3 of 3

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

Identified Contacted Interested Met with 1 1 1 0 3 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 3 3 2 2 7 2 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 8 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 6 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 9 5 5 4 6 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

Puget Sound Nearshore Restoration Program

The Puget Sound Nearshore Restoration Program (PSNERP) focuses on nearshore restoration projects in conjunction with the U.S. Army Cops of Engineers (USACE), EPA and other federal, state, and local partners. As a precursor to restoration, USACE requires PSNERP to perform an analysis of the past, present and future conditions in the Puget Sound nearshore to illustrate the anticipated benefits of the restoration effort and to justify the financial investment. The goal of the Future Without Project is to assess the benefits of alternative restoration measures in an uncertain future.

Future Without The Future Without Project evaluates the impact to the nearshore assuming that a comprehensive, large scale nearshore ecosystem restoration project does not occur within the timeframe of fifty years. The UW Urban Ecology Research Laboratory has teamed up with PSNERP to develop multiple plausible futures for the Puget Sound’s nearshore ecosystem. To this end, we have identified a diverse set of experts to gather their perceptions of the major driving forces that will ultimately decide the nearshore’s future. These insights will be synthesized into a set of scenarios that narrate or describe potential trajectories. The scenarios will be evaluated through an integrated framework of spatially explicit models. The outcomes of these analyses will assess the impact of restoration (or the absence of it) on a set of values attributed to the nearshore ecosystem.

What is the Nearshore Ecosystem? The nearshore zone lies between the top of shoreline bluffs, across the beach, and into the water where the low tide line falls. Further, it extends upstream into estuaries to the extant of tidal influence. The nearshore ecosystem is composed of the entire network of connections influencing the nearshore zone and is therefore much broader than the nearshore zone alone. The nearshore ecosystem includes runoff from uphill developments, salmon who travels upstream, atmospheric conditions, and the biogeochemical regulations of the marine waters. The nearshore ecosystem provides a common resource to the people of the Puget Sound, from scenic views, an abundance of fish, recreational amenities and wildlife habitat. In order to effectively restore or mitigate the nearshore we are investigating the entire suite of driving forces that influence its future.

Topics for the Panel Discussion: Discussion panels are formed to explore various perspectives on the Puget Sounds’ future. The following topics will be discussed within each panel:

1] What significant changes will occur in the Puget Sound in the next 50-years? 2] What are the key drivers of these changes?

Driving forces are factors or phenomena which alter the future trajectory in significant ways. For example, demographics or climate change are driving forces.

3] What evidence confirms influence of these driving forces? 4] How will these drivers affect the nearshore? 5] What evidence supports connections between these drivers and the nearshore conditions? 6] Which driving forces are the most important? (in terms of their extent and degree of impact) 7] What evidence shows the impact of this driver in this region? (Extent, resolution, indicators…) 8] What models have been developed to predict the impact of this driver? 9] Which driving forces are the most uncertain? An uncertain driving force has low predictability and a wind range of possible outcomes. 10] What is the uncertainty associated with these drivers? 11] What are good measures to predict change? What are some warning signals of a trend? For example, change in snowpack is a sign of climate change.

Nearshore ecosystem Nearshore zone Sand dune

Offshore zone

Ridge High Water Mark Low Water Mark Bar Inter tidal zone

Tidal range

For additional information please contact Michal Russo at mr7@ u.washington.edu or 206.579.8303

SUMMER

Example: In the example below, two driving forces

are chosen: climate change and the rate of technological innovation. For each driving force two plausible future values are selected. When we cross the two axes we are left with four squares, each representing a future scenario. Taking the top left square, imagine the future of the Puget Sound if the impact of climate change was very severe and simultaneously we saw very rapid development of technologies at the forefront. Would we adapt? What would our nearshore look like? What would our economy and transportation look like? These conversations are intended to help us generate ideas about how uncertainty might unfold, and what strategies would be most effective at protecting our shared values.

Climate Change: Major impact Technology: High rate of innovation

Climate Change: Major impact

Climate Change: Minor impact

Climate Change: Minor impact Technology: Low rate of innovation

Technology: High rate of innovation

Technology: Low rate of innovation

The Future Without Team http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org/

Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Bernard Hargrave, US Army Corps of Engineers Fred Goetz, US Army Corps of Engineers Charles Simenstad, School of Aquatic + Fishery Sciences, UW Curtis Tanner, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Doug Myers, Puget Sound Action Team Jacques White, The Nature Conservancy Michael Rylko, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 Thomas Leschine, School of Marine Affairs, UW Guy Gelfenbaum, USGS Coastal and Marine Geology

Urban Ecology Research Laboratory Marina Alberti, UW Jeff Hepinstall, UW Michal Russo, UW

FALL

March

WINTER

Panel Discussions FactSheets

Scenario Building involves eight steps: 1. Identify focal issue or decision 2. Identify driving forces 3. Rank their importance and uncertainty 4. Select scenario logics 5. Flesh-out the scenarios 6. Select indicators for monitoring 7. Assess impacts under different scenarios 8. Evaluate alternative strategies

December

September

Timeline of Process

In studying alternative ‘futures’ we will use Scenario Building-an approach originally proposed as a business strategy in 1970s (Royal Dutch/Shell) and recently applied in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment—to systematically and creatively think about plausible futures. Scenarios are plausible alternative futures. By focusing on key drivers, complex interactions, and irreducible uncertainties, scenario building generates the futures within which we can assess alternative mitigation strategies including the future without restoration.

June

Scenario Building

Modeling

Workshop 1

Workshop 2 Synthesis

Outline of Process Panel Discussion

The purpose of the panel discussions is to integrate the perspectives from a diversity of disciplines in order to challenge our assumptions about what the major impacts to the Nearshore Ecosystem are likely to be in the next 50 years. Questions are specifically geared to identify important and uncertain driving forces and to gather information on those driving forces.

Factsheets of Driving Forces Based on the list of driving forces heard at the discussions, we will compile a set of summary sheets for facilitation in the workshop. Each factsheet will integrate a single driving force with plausible trends and research findings from published scientific literature.

Workshop 1 The first workshop will develop scenarios. The steps include: •Selecting driving forces in an interdisciplinary team •Ranking their importance and uncertainty •Hypothesizing the interactions with other driving forces •Developing scenario logics •Exploring impacts on human and ecosystem services

Modeling Models will be used to quantify specific impacts on the nearshore ecosystem under different scenarios. Models will integrate multiple factors and dynamic relationships into the computational process. The modeling team will identify and reveal model uncertainties. Models will be utilized to evaluate the impact of each scenario on multi-dimensional values from ecosystem to health, social and economic functions.

Workshop 2 We will conduct a second workshop to assess the scenarios. The steps include: •Testing hypotheses of impacts under alternative scenarios •Assessing model outputs and uncertainties •Evaluating impacts of scenarios on selected indicators •Evaluating the effects of alternative policies and strategies

SUMMER












FALL

March

WINTER



December

September

Timeline of Process


June

Scenario Building

Modeling

Workshop 1








SUMMER












FALL

March

WINTER



December

September

Timeline of Process


June

Scenario Building

Modeling

Workshop 1








Puget Sound Future Scenarios Puget Sound Future Scenarios Scenario Planning is a tool for conducting future assessments by focusing on key drivers, complex interactions, and irreducible uncertainties. Scenario planning was originally proposed as a business strategy in 1970s (Royal Dutch/Shell) and recently applied in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment—to systematically and creatively think about alternative plausible futures. Scenarios describe what might happen under particular assumptions in order to help decision makers implement better informed strategies. The Puget Sound Future Scenarios are developed for the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership in order to describe alternative plausible futures for the region over the next fifty years. The scenarios serve to define future baseline conditions for the Puget Sound Region’s nearshore ecosystems and evaluate alternative strategies to restore ecosystem function.

Project Leaders and Participating Experts The Puget Sound Future Scenarios is a collaborative project between the Future Without Team, a working group of the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership (PSNP), and the Urban Ecology Research Laboratory (UERL) of the University of Washington. The Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership is a cooperative effort among U.S. Corps of Engineers and the WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, working in conjunction with the US Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, People for Puget Sound, US Geological Survey, WA Dept. of Ecology, the Salmon Recovery Fund, King County, WA Dept. Natural Resources, Northwest Straits Commission, US Dept. of Energy, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, National Wildlife Federation, Pacific Northwest National Laboratories, Pierce County, Navy Region NW, the Nature Conservancy, Taylor Shellfish Company, the University of Washington, and the Puget Sound Action Team.

Objectives of the Scenarios: Explore different plausible trajectories for the Puget Sound region Help define future baseline conditions Anticipate the implications of alternative restoration strategies Illuminate previously unanticipated risks and opportunities for planning in this region How will the scenarios be used? The final scenarios will describe region-wide, long term, baseline conditions, and can be utilized to evaluate alternative implementation strategies. While primarily used by the PSNP to evaluate restoration portfolios, the scenarios will allow a broad spectrum of public agencies to test their long range plans against the inherent uncertainty of the future. While the future is unlikely to turn out exactly like any single scenario, the suite of scenarios allow decision makers to explore a wider range of plausible circumstances than are traditionally integrated into long range planning. For example, consider the following three long term decisions: Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership – Which bulkhead should be removed to reconnect nutrient, sediment and water flow without major damage to nearby residences or sensitive nearshore aquatic communities? Trust for Public Lands – Where should land be purchased to have the greatest benefit on ecological function? WA Department of Ecology - Where should we concentrate our clean up efforts, to elevate water quality without risk of recontamination?

Scenario 1

Develop scenario narratives Select metrics for assessing impacts Develop an integrated model framework to assess impacts of alternative scenarios

Phase III

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

Identify focal issue Identify key driving forces Select most important and uncertain driving forces Develop scenario logics

Phase II

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

Process The Puget Sound Future Scenarios project was initiated in July 2005. Phase I of the project involved laying out the scenario parameters including the focal issue, time scale, key driving forces and scenario logics. We are currently at the beginning of Phase II; developing the scenario narratives. This process involves talking to experts representing disciplines from each of the ten key driving forces and integrating their knowledge to develop six compelling and internally consistent scenarios for the future of this region. In Phase III we hope to develop an integrated model to assess the impact of each scenario on nearshore ecosystem functions. The scenarios will serve as the input, or set of assumptions, for each model run. The assessment for each scenario will serve as baseline future conditions onto which alternative restoration and implementation portfolios can be overlaid and evaluated.

Phase I

Scenario 3

Each decision benefits from exploring the range of plausible trajectories of key driving forces described under each scenario. How will the hydrological regime been influenced by climate change? Which areas are at greatest threat from flooding and shoreline movement? Where will the greatest development pressures be? How will public infrastructure for wastewater and runoff be transformed by innovative technology and doubling population numbers? Which forested patches will be critical to maintain for habitat connectivity? What value will society place on ecosystem functions such as clean water, shellfish health and shared public land?

The Puget Sound Future Scenarios project has involved planners, scientists, and professionals from across the Puget Sound basin. Currently over 150 experts have been integral in the development of the Puget Sound Future Scenarios. Disciplines represented have spanned the continuum of climatologists to economists and filmmakers. Scenario development requires the active involvement of experts with knowledge of key driving forces that are powerfully influencing this region’s future. Participating expert must be simultaneously comfortable with accurate scientific data and a high level of uncertainty associated with a long term outlook. Furthermore, the scenario development must involve experts who are able to communicate across disciplinary boundaries in order to capture the interaction between key driving forces over a dynamic array of spatial and temporal scales.

Develop spatially explicit model to assess scenario impact on nearshore ecosystem function Assess nearshore impacts of alternative scenarios Evaluate alternative restoration strategies under each scenario

Puget Sound Future Scenarios Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior

The Puget Sound Future Scenarios describe a suite of future conditions for this region. Each scenario explores a different plausible narrative for the Puget Sound region illuminating previously unanticipated risks and opportunities for planning in this region. Future conditions depend on the interaction of inherently uncertain driving forces. The scenario development process provides an approach for understanding the spectrum of trajectories created by the interactions between critical driving forces. Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior were selected as the most uncertain and important key driving forces. The six scenarios were identified by looking at the interaction between uncertain aspects of these two drivers.

The Ten Key Driving Forces Ten key driving forces are identified for the development of the Puget Sound Future Scenarios. 1. Climate Change 2. Demographics 3. Development Patterns 4. Economics 5. Human Perceptions and Behavior 6. Knowledge and Information 7. Natural Hazards 8. Public Health 9. Regulations, Government and Leadership 10. Technology and Infrastructure

Climate Change - Magnitude Major: The magnitude of climate change is large, as is described in Scenario A1 of the IPCC scenarios (IPCC, 2000). For example we have high sea level rise, glacial melting, temperature increase, summer droughts, and winter flooding minor

major

Minor: Climate impacts is dampened due to altered global behavior, as is illustrated in the IPCC scenario B1 (IPCC, 2000). We see minimal change from climate impacts in this region over the next 50 years. Regional affects are further offset by the resilience of the Puget Sound ecosystem.

Climate Change - Rate slow

fast

Fast: Impacts from climate change occur rapidly. Over the next fifty years, climate change happens quickly, surpassing thresholds and occurring in large waves causing a state of crisis. Slow: Change occurs slowly or incrementally. Sometimes change occurs so slow, local residents hardly notice the impacts . The extra time may give us the opportunity to plan ahead, on the other hand we may ignore many indicators of oncoming change.

Human Perceptions & Behavior - Social Values private

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

public

Public: This approach values public goods and services. We are more likely to see government funding for social programs or a desire for economic equity.

Human Perceptions & Behavior - Future Valuation Long Term: We place a high value on the future, and therefore value long-term decision making. We maintain a low discount rate which allows us to maintain a high value for decisions that emerge over a long time period. long

short

Short Term: We place a high value on the present time, and therefore value short-term decisions. We discount the future at a high rate, which keeps us from seeing value in decisions that don’t emerge for a long time period.

1 3

2a 2b 4a 4b

The Puget Sound Future Scenarios Scenario 1 Climate change has a minor impact The rate of climate change is slow Social values focus on private goods Society’s valuation of the future is short term Scenario 2A Climate change has a major impact The rate of climate change is slow Social values focus on private goods Society’s valuation of the future is long term Scenario 2B Climate change has a major impact The rate of climate change is fast Social values focus on private goods Society’s valuation of the future is short term Scenario 3 Climate change has a minor impact The rate of climate change is slow Social values focus on public goods Society’s valuation of the future is long term Scenario 4A Climate change has a major impact The rate of climate change is fast Social values focus on public goods Society’s valuation of the future is long term Scenario 4B Climate change has a major impact The rate of climate change is slow Social values focus on public goods Society’s valuation of the future is short term


Puget Sound Future Scenarios Men will not believe what does not fit with their plans or suit their prearrangements.

Agenda • Overview of the meeting • Description of role and opportunity for feedback • Brief review of scenarios • Team trajectory definition • Scenario hypotheses discussion Role The scenarios will be developed by describing the trajectories of each of the ten key driving forces under each scenario. Ten separate expert teams will represent each of the ten key driving forces previously identified in Phase I. The Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior have a leading role since these two driving forces have been identified as the most uncertain and important by a preceding workshop. These two expert teams will focus on the potential projections of future climate impacts as well as societal behavior and perceptions. The teams will meet together to narrate the initial scenario storylines by drawing up hypotheses for the direction of each scenario. After the hypotheses development the supporting eight expert teams will contribute substantive details about each scenario. Each team will be responsible for delineating alternative future trajectories of their driving force under each scenario. After all ten teams meet; their synthesis will come back to the Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior Teams. The synthesis will be reviewed for consistency, completeness and comprehensibility. Directed questions for missing or inconsistent information will be asked of individuals from the supporting teams based on their areas of expertise. Climate Change Team A focus on potential projections of future climate impacts, especially as they pertain to changes in the hydrological regime of this region. Human Behavior and Perceptions Team A focus on how societal behavior and perceptions may change in this region, and the consequent influence on lifestyle, consumption, attitudes and ethics. Feedback The climate change and human perceptions and behavior teams will meet together once to develop the trajectories for each driving force, and to develop the scenario hypotheses. After all ten expert teams meet, the two teams will meet again to refine the scenarios and identify keep data gaps and inconsistencies. There is an almost irresistible temptation to choose one scenario over the other: to say, in effect, ‘this is the future which we believe will take place. The other futures are interesting. But they are irrelevant. We are going to follow this scenario. ‘- Unfortunately reality does not follow even the best thought out scenario.

Discussion Questions Human Perceptions and Behavior 1. The scenarios are divided by private and public social values. How would you characterize the two alternatives and their impact on this region? a. What specific parameters help describe the relative impacts? 2. The scenarios are subdivided by a long and short term future valuation. How would these valuation alternatives impact this region? a. What specific parameters help describe the relative impacts? Climate Change 1. The scenarios are divided by the magnitude of impact this region will experience from climate change. How would you characterize a major and minor impact for this region? a. What specific parameters help describe the relative impacts? 2. The scenarios are subdivided by the rate or pace of climate change we may experience in this region. What would a ‘fast’ versus ‘slow’ pace of climate impacts look like? a. What specific parameters help describe the relative impacts? Both Teams 1. A fundamental element in scenario development is looking at the interaction between driving forces. The six scenarios integrate climate change with human perceptions and behavior. a. How might these two driving forces interact? b. How might the interaction create alternative trajectories? 2. As a leading team, your role is developing the primer scenarios that the supporting teams will utilize to forecast the trajectories of their driving force. Describe the hypothesis behind each scenario. 3. What elements should each scenario contain? 4. What questions should we be asking of the experts for the “supporting eight key driving forces”? 5. In furthering the understanding of human perceptions and behavior under the alternative scenarios: a. What publications should we refer to (review of current literature?) b. What models are available? c. Who should we be talking to? “scenarios deal with two worlds. The world of facts and the world of perceptions.”

Ground rules The scope is 50 years out The extent is the entire Puget Sound basin. The final six scenarios should represent widely different futures Maximize the difference in trajectories between scenarios, expand the possibilities. Remember to keep the storylines consistent and credible – what is plausible While no individual scenario is supposed to represent the actual future of this region, the suite of scenarios together should represent the plausible bounds of reality for this region’s future.

“I don’t mean to suggest that you spend all of your waking hours considering arcane possibilities, the trick is finding those possibilities to consider which are significant.”


Puget Sound Future Scenarios Driving Force Trajectory Building – Each team 1) Develop a working definition for your driving force Example: Climate Change refers to the variation in the Earth's global or regional climate over time. It describes changes in the variability or average state of the atmosphere over time scales ranging from decades to millions of years. 2) Develop a working definition of each of the two aspects (i.e. magnitude + rate, social value, future valuation) Example: Future valuation refers to the discount rate we place on our decisions and investments or how much value having something now as opposed to in the future. 3) Define each of the aspect’s alternative endpoints (i.e. major and minor) – be clear and specific. Example: Long Term Future valuation refers to placing a high value on the future and valuing long term decision making. 4) Select up to three variables that help describe the influence of each aspect. These variables should be selected based on the following criteria: a. Information, whether qualitative or quantitative, about this variable is available. Example: projections of sea level rise for this region exist and can help describe the variation in the magnitude of climate impacts. b. This variable is comfortably understood by a wide audience. Example: Consumer behavior may help describe changes in social values in a manner that is easily understood. c. This variable is important, in its relationship to the other 9 key driving forces Example: Monthly precipitation statistics may help the infrastructure and technology team understand the impact of the magnitude of climate change. d. This variable is meaningful in thinking about the nearshore? Example: Use of leisure time could be a good variable to describe changes in human behavior as they relate to impacts on the region’s ecosystems including the nearshore.

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

Scenario Hypotheses - Both Teams 1) Share your definitions and variable selections. with the other team. 2) Collaborate with the other team to assign a value for each variable, and to each scenario while keeping in mind the interaction between climate and human perceptions and behavior. 3) Develop a hypothesis for each scenario – a. Sketch out a narrative and trajectory for each aspect under each scenario b. How does the impact of each aspect unfold over the fifty year time horizon? c. What does the region look like under this scenario? 4) What do you see happening with the other key driving forces? What are hypothesized relationships between climate change and human perceptions and each of the other key driving forces? Example: How does massive regional flooding and effect economic growth? How does a society valuing public long term investments effect regional regulations and leadership? how does sea level rise impact development patterns? 5) Come up with three adjectives to describe each scenario 6) Develop a set of questions to ask each of the supporting expert teams a. What do we need to know in order to refine each scenario? b. What pieces of information are critical in developing the other trajectories? What are the limiting factors under each scenario?

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

5) Identify key publications and reports with regional trajectories for each aspect and its variables. 6) Delineate gradients and critical values for each aspect. Describe at least 2, and at most 6, values for each gradient. Example: Aspect-Future Valuation; support of public infrastructure no support

investment in road expansion

neutral or undecided

Scenarios highlight possibilities

strong support

investment in a regional mass transit system


Scenario planning quotes by Schwartz 1991


Demographics Team Agenda • Overview of the meeting • Description of role and opportunity for feedback • Brief review of scenarios • Discussion “scenarios deal with two worlds. The world of facts and the world of perceptions.”

Role The scenarios will be developed by describing the trajectories of each of the ten key driving forces under each scenario. Ten separate expert teams will represent each of the ten key driving forces previously identified in Phase I. The Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior have a leading role since these two driving forces have been identified as the most uncertain and important by a preceding workshop. These two expert teams will meet together to narrate the initial scenario storylines by drawing up hypotheses for the direction of each scenario. In addition, these teams will focus on the potential projections of future climate impacts as well as societal behavior and perceptions. The supporting eight expert teams will contribute substantive details about each scenario. Each team will be responsible for delineating alternative future trajectories of their driving force under each scenario. While panels will consist of experts with similar areas of expertise, teams will have access to information compiled by other teams and the opportunity to work collaboratively. After all ten teams meet their synthesis will come back to the Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior Teams. The synthesis will be reviewed for consistency, completeness and comprehensibility. Directed questions for missing or inconsistent information will be asked of individuals from the supporting teams based on their areas of expertise. Demographics Team The demographics team will focus on the future demographic distribution for this region including population size and growth rates, age and race distribution, household size and migration patterns. While climatic and human parameters for each scenario should contribute to the decision about the direction of population growth – it is conversely important to evaluate the impact of demographics on altering the direction, magnitude and rate of change for selected aspects of climate change and human perceptions and behavior. Feedback The demographics team will meet together once to develop the trajectories for the Puget Sound Scenarios. Team members are encouraged to provide further feedback to the team as a follow up to the meeting discussion. After the scenarios are synthesized, including trajectory input from all ten expert teams, team members will have an opportunity to comment on the final product. “I don’t mean to suggest that you spend all of your waking hours considering arcane possibilities, the trick is finding those possibilities to consider which are significant.”


Discussion Questions On the following page are step by step instructions for developing trajectories. Please keep these these questions in mind. 1) What are the potential trajectories for demographic variables within the Puget Sound basin over the next fifty years? For population growth; density; age structure; gender; diversity; household size; income; birth rates; mortality; and migration rates. Are there important phenomena to consider – the baby boom (and echo)? Immigration impacts from economic transitions? 2) How will the six scenarios impact demographic trajectories? 3) How might demographic patterns interact with climate impacts? How will the six scenarios impact population growth or decline? Is there a possibility of decline in population from a major crisis? Could climate impacts affect cultural diversity? the population age structure? fertility or mortality rates? immigration rates? How might population growth interact with climate change? How might population growth impact development patterns? economic growth? infrastructure and technology? regulations? 5) How might demographic patterns be impacted by changes in human perceptions and behavior? How might collectivist versus individualistic social values influence household size? age structure? fertility and mortality? migration? How might perceptions influence population patterns (location and density of population growth)? How might a short term versus long term future valuation impact demographic patterns? 6) How might demographic patterns impact human perceptions and behaviors? Would a rapid population growth push people towards individualistic values? Would an aging population push social valuation towards long term thinking? 7) What questions should we ask of the supporting experts? 8) In furthering the understanding of demographics under the alternative scenarios: What are good resources (i.e. publications, agencies, reports, model) to collect additional information on this topic? Who else should we talk to? There is an almost irresistible temptation to choose one scenario over the other: to say, in effect, ‘this is the future which we believe will take place. The other futures are interesting. But they are irrelevant. We are going to follow this scenario. ‘- Unfortunately reality does not follow even the best thought out scenario.



Development Patterns Team Agenda • Overview of the meeting • Description of role and opportunity for feedback • Brief review of scenarios • Discussion “scenarios deal with two worlds. The world of facts and the world of perceptions.”

Role The scenarios will be developed by describing the trajectories of each of the ten key driving forces under each scenario. Ten separate expert teams will represent each of the ten key driving forces previously identified in Phase I. The Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior have a leading role since these two driving forces have been identified as the most uncertain and important by a preceding workshop. These two expert teams will meet together to narrate the initial scenario storylines by drawing up hypotheses for the direction of each scenario. In addition, these teams will focus on the potential projections of future climate impacts as well as societal behavior and perceptions. The supporting eight expert teams will contribute substantive details about each scenario. Each team will be responsible for delineating alternative future trajectories of their driving force under each scenario. While panels will consist of experts with similar areas of expertise, teams will have access to information compiled by other teams and the opportunity to work collaboratively. After all ten teams meet their synthesis will come back to the Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior Teams. The synthesis will be reviewed for consistency, completeness and comprehensibility. Directed questions for missing or inconsistent information will be asked of individuals from the supporting teams based on their areas of expertise. Development Patterns Team The development patterns team will focus on future development in terms of both configuration and composition. The team will identify spatial and temporal patterns of change to the region’s landscape. Further the team will clarify specific attributes of new development such as form and density. While climatic and human parameters for each scenario should contribute to the decision about the direction of new development – it is conversely important to evaluate the impact of development on altering the direction, magnitude and rate of change for selected aspects of climate change and human perceptions and behavior. Feedback The development patterns team will meet together once to develop the trajectories for the Puget Sound Scenarios. Team members are encouraged to provide further feedback to the team as a follow up to the meeting discussion. After the scenarios are synthesized, including trajectory input from all ten expert teams, team members will have an opportunity to comment on the final product.

Discussion Questions On the following page are step by step instructions for developing trajectories. Please keep these these questions in mind. 1) What are the potential trajectories for development within the Puget Sound basin over the next fifty years? 2) What might this region’s development look like in terms of the amount of new development, location, density, form and style? 3) How will the six scenarios impact development patterns overall? What are the threats from Climate Change? How might development patterns impacts interact with climate impacts? How might development patterns be impacted by changes in human perceptions and behavior? How will the six scenarios impact the number of people per impervious surface? landcover change (forest loss, agricultural transition, wetland loss/restoration), the GMA and growth boundaries, new structures and their footprint, and fragmentation / connectivity? Where might new development take place (by the shore, uplands or sprawled, by city center or by edge)? What will be the form of new development? What might the future of property ownership look like (what’s protected, what is most vulnerable to development, etc.) What will future development practices look like? how will they influence our lifestyle? 5) What questions should we ask of the supporting experts? 6) In furthering the understanding of public health under the alternative scenarios: What are good resources (i.e. publications, agencies, reports, model) to collect additional information on this topic? Who else should we talk to? There is an almost irresistible temptation to choose one scenario over the other: to say, in effect, ‘this is the future which we believe will take place. The other futures are interesting. But they are irrelevant. We are going to follow this scenario. ‘- Unfortunately reality does not follow even the best thought out scenario.

Ground rules The scope is 50 years out The extent is the entire Puget Sound basin. The final six scenarios should represent widely different futures Maximize the difference in trajectories between scenarios, expand the possibilities. Remember to keep the storylines consistent and credible – what is plausible While no individual scenario is supposed to represent the actual future of this region, the suite of scenarios together should represent the plausible bounds of reality for this region’s future. “I don’t mean to suggest that you spend all of your waking hours considering arcane possibilities, the trick is finding those possibilities to consider which are significant.”



Economics Team Agenda • Overview of the meeting • Description of role and opportunity for feedback • Brief review of scenarios • Discussion “scenarios deal with two worlds. The world of facts and the world of perceptions.”

Role The scenarios will be developed by describing the trajectories of each of the ten key driving forces under each scenario. Ten separate expert teams will represent each of the ten key driving forces previously identified in Phase I. The Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior have a leading role since these two driving forces have been identified as the most uncertain and important by a preceding workshop. These two expert teams will meet together to narrate the initial scenario storylines by drawing up hypotheses for the direction of each scenario. In addition, these teams will focus on the potential projections of future climate impacts as well as societal behavior and perceptions. The supporting eight expert teams will contribute substantive details about each scenario. Each team will be responsible for delineating alternative future trajectories of their driving force under each scenario. While panels will consist of experts with similar areas of expertise, teams will have access to information compiled by other teams and the opportunity to work collaboratively. After all ten teams meet their synthesis will come back to the Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior Teams. The synthesis will be reviewed for consistency, completeness and comprehensibility. Directed questions for missing or inconsistent information will be asked of individuals from the supporting teams based on their areas of expertise. Economics Team The economics team will focus on the region's economy under alternative scenarios. Critical components include the strength of the economy, the interaction between the global, national and regional economy, the diversity and direction of employment opportunities. While climatic and human parameters for each scenario should contribute to the decision about the direction of economic growth – it is conversely important to evaluate the impact of the economy on altering the direction, magnitude and rate of change for selected aspects of climate change and human perceptions and behavior. Feedback The economics team will meet together once to develop the trajectories for the Puget Sound Scenarios. Team members are encouraged to provide further feedback to the team as a follow up to the meeting discussion. After the scenarios are synthesized, including trajectory input from all ten expert teams, team members will have an opportunity to comment on the final product. For more information, please visit our website at: online.caup.washington.edu/projects/futurewithout

Discussion Questions On the following page are step by step instructions for developing trajectories. Please keep these these questions in mind. 1) What are future projections for the economic growth in this region including the Washington GDP? the labor force (skilled, education, sector (technology, industry, etc.), the diversity of our economy, will we encounter a boom or bust? How will the national economy impact this region? 2) What are the probability distributions of economic events and projections within the Puget Sound basin over the next fifty years? 3) How will the six scenarios impact the regional economy? What are the threats from Climate Change? How might economic change interact with climate impacts? How might the economy be impacted by changes in human perceptions and behavior? 4) How will the six scenarios interact with economic change to influence: How will the local economy change under each scenario? Will this region lose its competitive niche? How does will economic change interact with transportation? How will economic change interact with migration patterns? 5) What questions should we ask of the supporting experts? 6) In furthering the understanding of economics under the alternative scenarios: what are good resources (i.e. publications, agencies, reports, model) to collect additional information on this topic? Who else should we talk to? There is an almost irresistible temptation to choose one scenario over the other: to say, in effect, ‘this is the future which we believe will take place. The other futures are interesting. But they are irrelevant. We are going to follow this scenario. ‘- Unfortunately reality does not follow even the best thought out scenario.



Infrastructure and Technology Team Agenda • Overview of the meeting • Description of role and opportunity for feedback • Brief review of scenarios • Discussion “scenarios deal with two worlds. The world of facts and the world of perceptions.”

Role The scenarios will be developed by describing the trajectories of each of the ten key driving forces under each scenario. Ten separate expert teams will represent each of the ten key driving forces previously identified in Phase I. The Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior have a leading role since these two driving forces have been identified as the most uncertain and important by a preceding workshop. These two expert teams will meet together to narrate the initial scenario storylines by drawing up hypotheses for the direction of each scenario. In addition, these teams will focus on the potential projections of future climate impacts as well as societal behavior and perceptions. The supporting eight expert teams will contribute substantive details about each scenario. Each team will be responsible for delineating alternative future trajectories of their driving force under each scenario. While panels will consist of experts with similar areas of expertise, teams will have access to information compiled by other teams and the opportunity to work collaboratively. After all ten teams meet their synthesis will come back to the Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior Teams. The synthesis will be reviewed for consistency, completeness and comprehensibility. Directed questions for missing or inconsistent information will be asked of individuals from the supporting teams based on their areas of expertise. Infrastructure and Technology Team The infrastructure and technology team will focus on technological advances and their potential implementation through infrastructure improvements in the arenas of energy provision, water supply, transportation and sewer and waste removal. While climatic and human parameters contribute to the decision about the direction of technological growth – it is conversely important to evaluate the impact of technology and infrastructure on altering the direction, magnitude and rate of change for selected aspects of climate change and human perceptions and behavior. Feedback The infrastructure and technology team will meet together once to develop the trajectories for the Puget Sound Scenarios. Team members are encouraged to provide further feedback to the team as a follow up to the meeting discussion. After the scenarios are synthesized, including trajectory input from all ten expert teams, team members will have an opportunity to comment on the final product. “I don’t mean to suggest that you spend all of your waking hours considering arcane possibilities, the trick is finding those possibilities to consider which are significant.”


Discussion Questions On the following page are step by step instructions for developing trajectories. Please keep these these questions in mind. 1) What are the potential trajectories for technological and infrastructure variables within the Puget Sound basin over the next fifty years? 2) How will the six scenarios impact infrastructure and technology trajectories? 3) How might infrastructure and technology patterns interact with climate impacts? How will the six scenarios impact rate of innovation? Services and facilities? Economic activity? Transportation modes? Energy provision? Water provision? Waste disposal? How will activities such as natural extraction such as mining, forest/timber, water, oil, etc change? 4) How might social conditions change to impact innovation? How might collectivist versus individualistic social values influence innovation? How might a short term versus long term future valuation impact innovation trends? 5) How might technology and infrastructure impact human perceptions and behaviors? 6) What are some potential technological changes that we could see? What might be their implications for the nearshore and impacts on other drivers? 7) How will this region’s technological innovations compare to national and global advances? 8) What are possibilities in the arena of genetic or health changes? 9) In furthering the understanding of demographics under the alternative scenarios: What questions should we ask of the supporting experts? What are good resources (i.e. publications, agencies, reports, model) to collect additional information on this topic? Who else should we talk to? There is an almost irresistible temptation to choose one scenario over the other: to say, in effect, ‘this is the future which we believe will take place. The other futures are interesting. But they are irrelevant. We are going to follow this scenario. ‘- Unfortunately reality does not follow even the best thought out scenario.



Public Health Team Agenda • Overview of the meeting • Description of role and opportunity for feedback • Brief review of scenarios • Discussion “scenarios deal with two worlds. The world of facts and the world of perceptions.”

Role The scenarios will be developed by describing the trajectories of each of the ten key driving forces under each scenario. Ten separate expert teams will represent each of the ten key driving forces previously identified in Phase I. The Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior have a leading role since these two driving forces have been identified as the most uncertain and important by a preceding workshop. These two expert teams will meet together to narrate the initial scenario storylines by drawing up hypotheses for the direction of each scenario. In addition, these teams will focus on the potential projections of future climate impacts as well as societal behavior and perceptions. The supporting eight expert teams will contribute substantive details about each scenario. Each team will be responsible for delineating alternative future trajectories of their driving force under each scenario. While panels will consist of experts with similar areas of expertise, teams will have access to information compiled by other teams and the opportunity to work collaboratively. After all ten teams meet their synthesis will come back to the Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior Teams. The synthesis will be reviewed for consistency, completeness and comprehensibility. Directed questions for missing or inconsistent information will be asked of individuals from the supporting teams based on their areas of expertise. Public Health Team The public health team will focus on the interaction between the landscape and human health. This team will look at how environmental changes including urbanization, pollutants and declining accessibility to natural resources may influence public health. While climatic and human parameters for each scenario should contribute to the decision about the impact of public health – it is conversely important to evaluate the impacts public health may have in altering the direction, magnitude and rate of change for selected aspects of climate change and human perceptions and behavior. Feedback The public health team will meet together once to develop the trajectories for the Puget Sound Scenarios. Team members are encouraged to provide further feedback to the team as a follow up to the meeting discussion. After the scenarios are synthesized, including trajectory input from all ten expert teams, team members will have an opportunity to comment on the final product.

Discussion Questions On the following page are step by step instructions for developing trajectories. Please keep these these questions in mind. 1) What are future projections for public health in this region including health habits such as diet and exercise, air and water quality, health impacts from changes in agriculture and aquaculture? 2) What are the probability distributions of public health impacts within the Puget Sound basin over the next fifty years? 3) What are reported challenges with future incidences of specific diseases, contamination of food, cancer rates and other long term illnesses, mental health and perceptions of the environment? 4) How will the six scenarios impact Public Health overall? What are the threats from Climate Change? How might public health impacts interact with climate impacts? How might public health be impacted by changes in human perceptions and behavior? How does the impact of pollution alter under each scenario? What is the impact on our food sources? How might changes in the state of agriculture and aquaculture in the future impact public health? How will health care provision interact with these factors? 5) What questions should we ask of the supporting experts? 6) In furthering the understanding of public health under the alternative scenarios: What are good resources (i.e. publications, agencies, reports, model) to collect additional information on this topic? Who else should we talk to? There is an almost irresistible temptation to choose one scenario over the other: to say, in effect, ‘this is the future which we believe will take place. The other futures are interesting. But they are irrelevant. We are going to follow this scenario. ‘- Unfortunately reality does not follow even the best thought out scenario.




Regulations, Government and LeadershipTeam Agenda • Overview of the meeting • Description of role and opportunity for feedback • Brief review of scenarios • Discussion “scenarios deal with two worlds. The world of facts and the world of perceptions.”

Role The scenarios will be developed by describing the trajectories of each of the ten key driving forces under each scenario. Ten separate expert teams will represent each of the ten key driving forces previously identified in Phase I. The Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior have a leading role since these two driving forces have been identified as the most uncertain and important by a preceding workshop. These two expert teams will meet together to narrate the initial scenario storylines by drawing up hypotheses for the direction of each scenario. In addition, these teams will focus on the potential projections of future climate impacts as well as societal behavior and perceptions. The supporting eight expert teams will contribute substantive details about each scenario. Each team will be responsible for delineating alternative future trajectories of their driving force under each scenario. While panels will consist of experts with similar areas of expertise, teams will have access to information compiled by other teams and the opportunity to work collaboratively. After all ten teams meet their synthesis will come back to the Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior Teams. The synthesis will be reviewed for consistency, completeness and comprehensibility. Directed questions for missing or inconsistent information will be asked of individuals from the supporting teams based on their areas of expertise. Regulations, Government and Leadership Team The government regulations and leadership team will be addressing alternative forms of governance for this region including political leadership, strength of public will, the direction of new regulation, and the centralization of control. While climatic and human parameters for each scenario should contribute to the decision about the direction of government, regulations and leadership – it is conversely important to evaluate the impact of regulations on altering the direction, magnitude and rate of change for selected aspects of climate change and human perceptions and behavior. Feedback The government regulations and leadership team will meet together once to develop the trajectories for the Puget Sound Scenarios. Team members are encouraged to provide further feedback to the team as a follow up to the meeting discussion. After the scenarios are synthesized, including trajectory input from all ten expert teams, team members will have an opportunity to comment on the final product. “I don’t mean to suggest that you spend all of your waking hours considering arcane possibilities, the trick is finding those possibilities to consider which are significant.”


Discussion Questions On the following page are step by step instructions for developing trajectories. Please keep these these questions in mind. 1) What are the potential trajectories for regulations, government and leadership (RGL) within the Puget Sound basin over the next fifty years? How might the influence of different partisan views impact this region? How might federal changes in RGL impact this region? How might local decisions change regional ones? What about the tribes? What will be their role? What might be the influence of political will? Which regulations might be coming in over the next fifty years? 2) How will the six scenarios impact RGL trajectories? 3) How might climate change alter the role of government? Alter the direction of regulations? Influence our political leadership? How might a major impact from climate change impact these trajectories? How might major fluctuations, or a crisis, impact these trajectories? 4) How might climate change be affected by changes in our RGL? 5) How might public perceptions and behavior impact RGL? How might individualistic or collectivist social values influence the strength of government, the direction of regulations? The influence of our leadership? How might short term versus long term future valuation impact the direction and form of of regulations? 6) How might RGL conversely alter human perceptions and behavior? 7) What are opportunities for new bills under each scenario? What is the interaction with other key drivers including changes in economic development, in infrastructure, in direction of growth? How might the six scenarios impact the centralization of government? 8) What questions should we ask of the supporting experts? 9) In furthering the understanding of RGL under the alternative scenarios: What are good resources (i.e. publications, agencies, reports, model) to collect additional information on this topic? Who else should we talk to? There is an almost irresistible temptation to choose one scenario over the other: to say, in effect, ‘this is the future which we believe will take place. The other futures are interesting. But they are irrelevant. We are going to follow this scenario. ‘- Unfortunately reality does not follow even the best thought out scenario.


APPENDIX D: SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS Overview The input from participating experts through the scenario development process led to a series of assumptions about future trajectories of key driving forces. These assumptions can be simplified into a series of correlations between multiple trajectories of specific driving forces’ dimensions. For example, a fast economic growth can be correlated to a fast population growth. In this appendix the assumptions are laid out in terms of 1) changes in climatically influenced variables (i.e. sea level rise, streamflow, snowpack) under the six scenarios 2) the assumptions about the trajectories of the 35 indicators under the 6 scenarios and 3) the linkages between specific dimensions of multiple drivers.

APPENDIX D: SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS Appendix D1: climate change assumptions and associated impact trajectories Assumptions Temperature Precipitation Sea level rise higher temperatures lead to higher higher precipitation leads to higher SLR sea level rise Snow pack higher temperatures lead to reduced uncertain snowpack Winter higher temperatures lead reduced higher winter precipitation, higher flows streamflow storage in snowpack, more flow

Variance

Other drivers

uncertain

none

uncertain

none

higher fluctuations, higher peak flows

more impervious, less infiltration, higher peak winter flows

Summer streamflow

higher temperatures reduced summer snowpack melt, lower summer flows

less summer precipitation, lower summer flows

higher fluctuations, lower peak flows

increased out-stream usage (human water consumption, i.e. drinking, irrigation, cooling) decreased summer flows

Water quality

higher temperatures, more nutrient growth, lower dissolved oxygen, decreased water quality

higher winter precipitation may lead to increase runoff, sedimentation and scouring; lower precipitation may reduce water volumes leading to decreased quality

higher fluctuations, more frequent extremes, lower water quality

increased impervious surface and natural land cover fragmentation, increased transportation and industry pollutants lead to decreased water quality

Forests

higher temperatures, increased growing season, increase pest species.

summer droughts may increase plant mortality and fire vulnerability

higher fluctuations, increased vulnerability

increased development pressure (due to economic and population growth) and decreased valuation of timber leads to clear cutting

Hydropower

higher temperatures may increase energy demand (air conditioning)

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

Agriculture and Fisheries

higher temperatures may increase growing season

summer droughts may increase plant mortality, winter precipitation may increase flooding and lower w.q.

higher fluctuations increased increased population growth, increase vulnerability demand on resources, decease export to import ratio, increase reliance on local resources, technological innovation more productive yields

Water supply systems

less water in snowpack, less summer water storage

lower summer precipitation, higher water consumption competition

higher fluctuations, higher need for reservoirs

Flood and Storm uncertain management

higher winter precipitation, more floods, higher fluctuations, more more pressure extreme events, higher pressure

alternative fuels may lead to decreased reliance on hydropower

increased population, increased demand, increased technological efficiency, reduced demand more impervious surface, older infrastructure higher pressure

APPENDIX D: SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS

1950

2000

2050

Fluctuation

2000

2050

1950

2000

25

25

25

1950

0 2000

2050

1950

10

0 2000

2050

1950

2000

2050

Variance consistent w/historical pattern

0

1950

No significant change

σ

10

2000

2050

2000

2050


10

0

1950

Increase (8%)

σ

1950

Annual rainfall (in)

25

2000

σ

1950

2000

2050

Significant increase in variance

1950

2000

2050

Significant increase in variance

0

2050

1950

Major increase (4oF)

25

1950

10

0 2000

2000

2050

Major increase (4oF)

2050

25

10

0

1950

Slight increase (1.7oF)

σ

2000

Temp (F)

Temp (F) 1950

2050

Increase (8%)

5

0

2050

Major increase (4.4oF)

10

5

10


1950

2050

Major increase (4.4oF)

σ

2000

2000

ADAPTATION 10

0


No significant change

1950

1950

5


2050

σ

Temp (F)

2050

COLLAPSE 10

0


0

2000

5

0


10

1950

10

10

5

BARRIERS


2050

25

INNOVATION

0


2000


Precipitation

5

0 1950

Climate Change

5

10

Temp (F)

Temp (F)

Temperature

10

ORDER

Temp (F)

FORWARD

Temp (F)

TODAY

2000

2050

Decrease (1%)

σ

1950

2000

2050


1950

2000

2050


Scale of Sharing Goal Interdependence Discount Rate Public Investments

Human Perceptions and Behavior

TODAY

FORWARD

ORDER

INNOVATION

BARRIERS

COLLAPSE

ADAPTATION

High regionally

High locally

Low

High household

High locally

High locally

Very high

Low

High

Low

Low

Very high

1

2

3

now

later

now

later

now

later

now

later

now

later

now

later

Very low

Low

Low

High

Very high

Very low

Very high

Same as today

Very high

Very low

Very low

Very high

4

Increasing proportion of in-migration

year

Migration fluctuates in cycles

Increasing proportion of in-migration

100

%

uncertain

100

50

year

Out-migration

% migration

100

% migration

% migration

2050

age

aging

Decreasing rates of in-migration

5

5

age

aging

year

10

Increase at current rate

%

50

2010

population

Declining pop numbers 10

year

10

5

age year

2050

2010

population

population 10

5

50

ADAPTATION

year

%

100

% migration

50

2050

2010

2050

2010

population age

age

10

10

year

% migration

% migration

% migration

year

50

Young and middle age

100

100

100

Slower growth

%

aging

COLLAPSE

year

Double today’s pop.

%

Young and middle age

BARRIERS

year

Increase at current rate

%

50

2050

year

age

5

10

5

age

Age Structure

%

INNOVATION

population year

5

year

2010

2010

2050

ORDER

population

population

2010

2050

FORWARD

Double today’s pop.

Immigration

Demographics

Population Growth

TODAY

50

year

Similar to today

50

90 00

90 00

50

50

90 00

90 00

50

ADAPTATION people/imp area

COLLAPSE people/imp area

BARRIERS people/imp area

people/imp area

outUGB

INNOVATION

people/imp area

ORDER

people/imp area

people/imp area

People / Impervious

Walkability

FORWARD

inUGB

90 00

90 00

50

90 00

50

50

(In) increase (Out) same

(In)increase (Out) decrease

(In) increase (Out) same .

(In)same (Out) decrease

(In)decrease (Out) decrease

(In) high increase (Out) high increase

Increase

Decrease

Same

Decrease

Uncertain

Increase

Slightly higher

Lower

Slightly lower

Lower

Much lower

Slightly higher

‘90 ‘00 ‘10 ‘20 ‘30 ‘40 ‘50

1m

2

2m 1m

2m

2

1m

2

2m 1m

3m 2

2m 1m

Housing Permits

2m

3m

Housing Permits

1m

2

3m

Housing Permits

2m

3m

Housing Permits

2

3m

Housing Permits

3m

Housing Permits

Forest Aggregation

5

Housing Permits

Building Permits

Development Patterns

TODAY

3m 2m

2

1m

‘90 ‘00 ‘10 ‘20 ‘30 ‘40 ‘50

‘90 ‘00 ‘10 ‘20 ‘30 ‘40 ‘50

‘90 ‘00 ‘10 ‘20 ‘30 ‘40 ‘50

‘90 ‘00 ‘10 ‘20 ‘30 ‘40 ‘50

‘90 ‘00 ‘10 ‘20 ‘30 ‘40 ‘50

‘90 ‘00 ‘10 ‘20 ‘30 ‘40 ‘50

Growth but slower

Growth but slower

Fast growth

Slower, then decline

Fast then collapse

Very slow growth

Share of lower income

100%

Diversification

%

$70m

Less equity than today

%

2000

ist

rib

ut

io

n

(4

5

de

gr ee

Share of income earned

)L in e

100%

Reduced rate over time


100%

Less equity than today

%

2050

tD


)L in e gr ee de 5 (4 n io ut rib ist tD Share of lower income

1950

100%

Economic depression

100%

High inequity

2050

fe c

2000

Pe r

1950

fe c

)L in e gr ee de 5 (4 n io ut rib ist tD fe c Share of lower income

100%

%

2050

Unstable economy

100%


)L in e gr ee de 5 (4 n io ut rib ist tD fe c Share of lower income

2000

Pe r

1950

Faster rate of increase

100%

Same as today

2050

$

100%

2000

ADAPTATION

$


1950

100%

)L in e gr ee de 5 (4 n Share of lower income

100%

%

Sectors

Exports

2050

Reduced rate over time

Higher equity

%

2000

100%


Pe r

fe c

tD

ist

rib

ut

io

n

(4

5

de

gr ee

)L in e

100%


)L in e gr ee de

5

(4

n io ut rib ist tD fe c Pe r

Distribution

2


Trade Dependence

Economics

Increasing, current rate

1950

COLLAPSE

$

Pe r

2050

io

2000

ut

1950

rib

2050

ist

2000

BARRIERS

$

tD

1950

$


$

INNOVATION

fe c

$

ORDER

Pe r

FORWARD

Pe r

GDP

TODAY

100%

Higher equity

%

Sectors

Sectors

Sectors

Sectors

Sectors

Sectors

Highly diverse

Dominated by few sectors

Dominated by high-tech

Highly dominated by few sectors

Highly dominated by few sectors

Highly diverse

Imports

$45m

E

I

Balanced, but significant #s

E

I Uncertain

E

I

Highly dependent on trade

E

I

Dependent on imports

E

I

Reduced overall, dependent on imports

E

I

Balanced, minor reliance on trade

public agencies

private firms

# of partnerships

Partnerships

8 Many initiatives passed, ineffective Few passed; highly effective Few passed; few effective Many passed; ineffective Many passed; effective

Fragmented, networked Fragmented, autocratic Uncertain Fragmented, autocratic Unified, autocratic Fragmented, networked

# of partnerships

7 Many initiatives passed; effective

High; non-profit, academia Low; public High; private Low; private High; non-profit / private High, all

academia

passed

non-profits

public agencies

effective

private firms

50

# of bills

COLLAPSE

# of partnerships

academia

passed

non-profits

effective

public agencies

# of bills

BARRIERS

private firms

# of partnerships

academia

passed

non-profits

effective

public agencies

# of bills

INNOVATION

private firms

# of partnerships

academia

passed

non-profits

public agencies

effective

private firms

# of bills

ORDER

# of partnerships

academia

passed

non-profits

effective

public agencies

# of bills

# of bills

FORWARD

private firms

academia

passed

non-profits

public agencies

effective

private firms

# of bills

Leadership

6

# of partnerships

passed

academia

non-profits

Locus of Power

Governance

TODAY ADAPTATION

100

effective

HS+

higher

90 00

50

HS+

Similar to today

90 00

50

90 00

50

HS+

BA+

90 00

50

50

HS+

Increased division, more BA, less HS

90 00

BA+

50

HS+

Out-migration of Higher education

50

100

% of 25+ Pop

% of 25+ Pop

100

50

BA+

Higher education with in-migration

$ per capita

K-12

$ per capita

$ per capita

Investment

Increase attainment

BA+

50

100

ADAPTATION

BA+

Increased attainment

$ per capita

BA+

100

COLLAPSE

$ per capita

HS+

50

BARRIERS

$ per capita

BA+

100

$ per capita

Mason

50

INNOVATION

% of 25+ Pop

‘90

100

% of 25+ Pop

% of 25+ Pop

Attainment

50 King

HS+

Accessibility

Knowledge and Information

100 ‘90

ORDER

% of 25+ Pop

FORWARD

% of 25+ Pop

TODAY

90 00

50

90 00

50

Increasing

Increased for new schools

Slight increase; private

Decrease with time

Falls with decreasing funds

Increasing

Increasing

Same

Slight increase

Decrease

Uncertain

Increase

5

FORWARD

ORDER

INNOVATION

BARRIERS

COLLAPSE

ADAPTATION

2000

2050

1950

2000

2050

1950

2000

2050

1950

2000

2050

1950

2000

2050

1950

2000

2050

1950

2000

2050

Stable at today’s frequency

Increasing at current rate


Increasing at 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


1950

2000

2050

1950

2000

2050

Decreased magnitude of events

1950

2000

Uncertain

2050

1950

2000

2050

High fluctuation with major events

1950

2000

2050

Increasing magnitude over time

1950

Cost (in Billions)

Cost (in Billions)

Cost (in Billions)

Cost (in Billions)

Cost (in Billions)

Cost (in Billions)

Cost (in Billions)

Vulnerability

1950

Magnitude

Natural Hazards

Frequency

TODAY

2000

2050

Increasing magnitude over time

1950

2000

2050

Decreased magnitude of events

2050

1980 2000

2050

More shellfish, same Ag.

1980 2000

Slow decline in both

1980 2000

Decline followed by new techniques

2050

2000

2050

2000

Less insured than today by 2020’s

1980 2000

2050

Declining, Reliance on global goods

2050

Healthier population

% uninsured

Unhealthy population

2000

2050

Less insured than today by 2040’s

1980 2000

2050

Collapse of both

2000

2050

All insured by 2020’s

1980 2000

Agriculture

2050

2050

2000

% uninsured

Increasing ailment

% poor health

% poor health

% poor health

2050

% uninsured 2000


2050

2000

Shellfish

2050

Same as today

Shellfish

Agriculture

Shellfish

Agriculture

Shellfish

Resource Abundance

1980 2000

Outbreak followed by treatment

ADAPTATION

Agriculture

2000


2050

Shellfish

2050

COLLAPSE

Agriculture

2000

2000

% uninsured

Increase disease

BARRIERS

Shellfish

2050

2050

% uninsured

% uninsured

% uninsured

Resource Distribution

Healthier population

2000

% poor health 2000

Agriculture

2050

Shellfish

2000

Agriculture

2050

INNOVATION

% poor health

ORDER

% poor health 2000

Public Health

FORWARD

% poor health

Health Status

TODAY

2050

More shellfish and Ag.

Connectivity

FORWARD

ORDER

INNOVATION

BARRIERS

COLLAPSE

ADAPTATION

Highly connected

Fragmented

Highly connected

Fragmented

Limited

Community scale

sewer waste water

electric

transit

$ millions

sewer waste water

highways

electric

$ millions

sewer waste water

highways

electric

$ millions

water

sewer waste

highways transit

electric

$ millions

water

waste sewer

renewable

transit highways

electric

$ millions

waste water

renewable

sewer

highways transit

electric

$ millions

sewer waste water

highways transit

electric

3

$ millions

Investments Type of Infrastructure

Infrastructure and Technology

TODAY

Higher $ in shared resources

Increased $ for extension of services

Increased $ in new technologies

Increased $ in energy and protection

Less $ except for water

Increased $ esp. sewer and water

Renewable resources, adaptive, shared

Extensions, rigid, inefficient

Cutting edge, efficient

Reactive, rigid, independent

Reactive, ineffective

Renewable, adaptive, small-scaled

4

APPENDIX D: SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS Appendix D3: Linkages between multiple driving forces’ dimensions Demographics and Economics (growth): If the economy continues to grow, this will cause an increase in population growth, these two trends match each other very closely, if unemployment increases out‐migration increases as well. The Boeing Bust of the late 1960s and early 1970s resulted in probably the greatest exodus of population from Washington. Migration slowed appreciably in the last recession, but has rebounded since 2003 as the labor market strengthened. The poor economic climate in California resulted in out‐ migration of about 400,000 people per year in the early 1990s. Even though Washingtonʹs economic growth was slow during that period, it still outpaced Californiaʹs, thus being a migratory magnet to many from the Golden State (Washington Trends, OFM 2007). Demographics and Development Patterns: Metropolitan areas are expected to grow faster than outlying rural areas. King County for example, is expected to grow by 30% between 2000 and 2030. On the other hand due to high living expenses, King County is considered a stepping stone from some migrants. They move to King for the jobs and then move out to settle in adjacent counties where the housing is cheaper. Demographics (age structure) and Knowledge and Information (spending): Studies have shown that an aging population has a negative effect on education spending (Harris et al, 2000). As a larger percentage of the population becomes 65 and over, how will our already poorly funded schools be affected? Climate Change and Development Patters: Increasing fuel prices might change the old real estate motto ‘location, location, location’ into ‘proximity, proximity, proximity’. Although perhaps similarly influential will be increasing lowland floods leading to a third motto ‘elevation, elevation, elevation’.

Economy, Development Patterns and Governance (regulatory strength): Our ability to enforce strict regulations on new developments is largely supported by a very strong growth in construction activity. If the Region’s economy fails the rate of new housing development will fall. As the Region becomes more reliant on new development to finance government, they will likely relax regulations to make it more attractive to build in this region. Economy and Infrastructure and Technology (investments): Some studies have shown a relationship between increase investments in transportation infrastructure and increased economic growth (Fisher, 1997). In return when the economy does well, it brings people in, more people bring in more revenue, which builds more infrastructure, which attracts more businesses (OFM, 2007). Economy and Knowledge (educational attainment): The Region has many skilled workers who have been on a large part imported into this region. This has caused a large concern in State Government, with a large push to produce more education locally. If the Region cannot produce a skilled labor force here, many high school graduates will have to leave the region in order to find jobs. Economy (inequality) and Development Patterns: As income inequality grows, the rich produce more money and build second homes, especially along natural areas such as the Puget Sound shore. Economy and Demographics (growth rate): In the past, low unemployment and high real estate values have reduced fertility rates. Japan and Italy, for example, are actually losing people over time due to low fertility rates as they have fallen below replacement levels.

APPENDIX D: SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS Climate Change and Natural Hazards (frequency) One easy translation to see the impact of climate change on natural hazards is a foot of seal level rise will change the frequency of an event one level, that is a 100year event becomes a 10year, a ten year becomes a one year. Natural hazards generally reflect events that are rare and have a high impact (see Figure 1, lower left quadrant). Events that have an impact but occur frequently society has adapted to, like changes in seasons, and diurnal changes. Events that have little impact we also don’t care about, even the rare ones do little other than annoy or intrigue us. A possible question for this region’s future may be: will the interactions between future trajectories of key driving forces such as climate impacts, population growth, infrastructure investments and development patterns cause a shift in the frequency of natural events and force us to adapt to conditions we currently view as hazardous? Climate Change and Natural Hazards (seismic activity) Glacier changes influenced by increases in temperature may create pressure changes influencing the frequency of seismic activity. Further, climatic changes may alter our regional vulnerability when volcanoes do erupt; as snow cover disappears, the vegetation underneath is removed and lahar impact is greater; with no water content, no vegetation there is little holding the material in place. Development Patterns and Natural Hazards (vulnerability): There is a paradox of centralization, the denser the population the greater the vulnerability if that area is hit. However, decentralization increases change in natural land cover and increased miles of infrastructure increasing our vulnerability as a region.

Economy and Natural Hazards: If Rainer erupts Boeing will likely leave the region, it is simply a visibility issue, they won’t be able to fly. Knowledge and Human Perceptions and Behavior (future valuation) Higher education can cause people to have a longer term future valuation (Strenze, 2007). Climate Change and Public Health (resource abundance) Climate change could increase the viability of some organisms responsible for harmful algal blooms in Puget Sound. In addition, sea level rise will likely increase loss of shellfish growing areas. Agriculture may increase due to longer growing seasons, but may decrease due to limited water and increased vulnerability to pest outbreaks. Smaller farms may be more resilient to climate change as they may have greater crop diversity or be more adaptive, able to rapidly switch to another crop (CIG, 2007). Development Patterns (intensity) and Infrastructure: Transportation is intricately tied to land use. If mixed‐use high density developments dominate over rural residential developments regional reliance on service extension and single occupancy vehicles will likely decrease. Public Health and Economy (inequity) Recent research has shown a strong relationship between obesity and poverty. One argument for this trend is an inverse relationship between energy density (kcal / 100g) and energy cost ($/1000cal) (Drewnoski). Energy dense grains, sugars and fats provide the most energy (Kcal) and least nutrients per unit cost. The differential in energy cost between lard and lettuce is several thousand percent. Further, healthier perishable foods such as fresh vegetables and fruit, fish and lean meats are less affordable than dry and processed foods with a longer stable shelf life. The sustainability of our regional resources including agricultural fields,

APPENDIX D: SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS orchards, aquaculture and fishing is important in supplying an affordable healthy diet to Northwest residents. If ecosystem functions degrade such that local fish and produce are less abundant, more expensive and more contaminated, what will happen to obesity rates in this region? Will rising fuel costs function to increase the cost of long‐distance imported foods in relation to short‐distance fresh foods?

Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding Comparing Approaches to Futures Studies The following summary is intended to reveal what tools are out there for long term planning, and the positive and negative aspects each tool or approach provides. We have evaluated 10 diverse case studies mostly focusing on ecological research on water quality and quantity, open space, disaster mitigation and relief, and air quality. Projects range from local to global scale, from qualitative visions, to highly quantified extrapolative computer models, to scenarios. Since each project has a different goal in mind, we found it invaluable to have a method of comparing the case studies based on our own goals for a successful futures study for the Future Without project. For each of these studies a brief description is included alongside comments on the focus, chosen method, and intended audience. This is followed by a comparison of six challenges and opportunities. The ten case studies will be followed by a summary of how they compare to one another, and one we feel that scenario building is the most appropriate choice for the Future Without Project. Challenges and Opportunities: Challenges for dealing with a long term plan: 1. Challenge our assumptions about the future 2. Take in to account uncertainty and surprise 3. Synthesize and communicate complex information 4. Understand and resolve differences among stakeholders 5. Integrate probable futures with desirable ones 6. Assess tradeoffs among alternative strategies Opportunities to consider about what to include: 1. Provide insight into drivers of change 2. Reveal the implications of potential future trajectories 3. Anticipate problems and potential risks 4. Illuminate opportunities and options for action 5. Identify desirable future and how to get there 6. Develop and Assess strategies and plans Case Studies evaluated: 1. Open Space 2100 2. Waterfront Charette, Downtown Seattle 3. Listening to the City: Manhattan, NY 4. Limits to Growth 5. NASA SLEUTH, Baltimore, MD 6. USGS Southwest Florida Study 7. Willamette River Basin Alternatives 8. California Water Update 2005 9. Wisconsin, Northern Highlands Lake District Project 10. IPCC Emissions Scenarios

-1-

Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding

OPEN SPACE 2100 “The Green Futures Charette was a community-based design and planning exercise focused on building momentum toward an integrated vision of open space in Seattle.”1 Post-charette, participants were offered the opportunity to continue to develop and refine their visions with advanced landscape architecture and planning students in design studios at the University of Washington. The results of both the charette and studio were on display at various gallery displays throughout the city. Focus: To create a 100-year open space plan for the City of Seattle. Method: Citizens from civic, environmental, business, neighborhood and community groups joined with the University of Washington for a 2-day charette. Audience: The final audience will be city council who will have the option of approving the plan. While ideas from the charettes will be included within the plan, it is yet not clear how. The plan is intended to be useful both for the next century and to have immediate application by influencing agency planning, neighborhood implementation efforts, and a potential parks levy in 2008.

Image from one of the teams looking at the downtown CHALLENGES OPPORTUNITIES 1 Challenge Assumptions: While a list of 1 Identify Drivers: No drivers were identified. assumptions were included as ground rules for the charette, the emphasis was on creating a vision for open space based on what people would like to see, rather than what they think might happen. 2 Uncertainty & Surprise: Neither was 2 Implications of Trajectories: While incorporated into the vision, except some simplified trajectories were perhaps as superficial constraints. computed, their implications were only superficially examined. 3 Communicate Complex Info: Complex 3 Anticipate Risks: No risks were interactions were generally simplified or identified. ignored. 4 Illuminate Options: Options came from 4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: While 300 the diversity within teams. people participated in the charettes, the majority came from design and environmental firms within Seattle. 5 Integrate Probable & Desirable: The 5 Desirable Future: Perhaps the strongest desirable was selected over the probable. facet of this project is the opportunity to create a shared vision for a desirable future. 6 Assess Strategies: While many 6 Assess Tradeoffs: The purpose of the strategies were brainstormed, their cost charette was to create a shared vision without constraints, and therefore tradeoffs and benefit were not assessed within the charette process. could not have been explored. -2-

Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding LISTENING TO THE CITY “This forum was organized by the Civic Alliance to Rebuild Downtown New York. Its goal was to provide people who live and work in the region and others whose lives have been irrevocably altered by the terrorist attacks with the opportunity to profoundly influence the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan and the creation of a fitting memorial. Participants shared with one another how the events of September 11 impacted their lives, developed a common vision for downtown, and defined what a memorial should represent.” 2 Focus: With over 600 participants this forum highlighted the diversity of voices that need to be heard and the need for collaboration. The focus was on creating a vision and principles to eventually evaluate proposals initiated from developers. Method: America Speaks facilitated the forum, with high tech ‘deliberative planning’ tools that aided a ‘real time’ discussion between 600 participants; dubbed a ‘modern town hall meeting’2. Audience: The vision will be a part of a final report, which will be presented to decisionmakers to guide their work. It is not clear how directly the output will be used, only that decision makers “will ultimately decide the future of Lower Manhattan”2. CHALLENGES 1 Challenge Assumptions: The mere diversity of opinions in one room must have challenged some assumptions, but no systematic process was established for doing so. 2 Uncertainty & Surprise: Uncertainty was treated reactively without a systematic process for proactively incorporating future uncertainty. 3 Communicate Complex Info: This was a process for listening and not for accurately evaluating strategies. 4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: Within the forum differences were solved through voting, however since decision makers had final autonomy over the decisions, a true deliberative process was not created. 5 Integrate Probable & Desirable: The desirable was selected over the probable.

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

OPPORTUNITIES 1 Identify Drivers: No drivers were identified.

2 Implications of Trajectories: No trajectories were incorporated.

3 Anticipate Risks: Risks were not incorporated. 4 Illuminate Options: Options came from different teams in the room, but they were limited to the discussion direction of the forum. 5 Desirable Future: America Speaks facilitated ‘real-time’ consensus within the table teams, and the entire room. By the end of the 6-hour session a unified vision and set of principles were voted on. 6 Assess Strategies: In “Listening to the City II” specific strategies initiated from developers and the city will be evaluated based on the vision and principles set forth in the first forum.

-3-

Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding SEATTLE’S DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT CHARETTE A charette was held to generate creative ideas about what to do with the Seattle Waterfront if the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall were to be rebuilt. The goals were to: • Identify visionary ideas about how Seattle’s waterfront could develop Environmental Scorecard • Expand the list of what uses should be considered • Provide creative input that informs the process for creating the Central Waterfront Concept Plan • Educate people about the tangle of issues along the waterfront • Help gauge public opinion 3 Focus: A creative opportunity for the design community to generate ideas about what the future of the Seattle Waterfront should be.3 Method: A charette including over 300 participants that divided into 22 teams. Each team created its own vision for the downtown. An environmental scorecard was used to more systematically compare each vision. Audience: The final audience included planners and decision makers who will create the ‘plan’. However, the opportunity to reach out to the public was an important step along the way as indicated by one of the preliminary goals. CHALLENGES 1 Challenge Assumptions: Innovative design ideas challenge our assumptions about how to plan or develop the downtown, but not about what they future might bring to us. 2 Uncertainty & Surprise: Neither was incorporated into the vision.

OPPORTUNITIES 1 Identify Drivers: No drivers were identified.

3 Communicate Complex Info: Expert opinions about the overall system were not synthesized until after the charette. 4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: While 300 people participated in the charette, the majority came from design and environmental firms within Seattle. Experts were consulted in a separate process. 5 Integrate Probable & Desirable: The desirable was selected over the probable. 6 Assess Tradeoffs: The purpose of the charette was to generate unconstrained ideas. The environmental scorecards helped compare their benefits.

2 Implications of Trajectories: Specific numbers were not modeled until after the charette, in the DEIS 3 Anticipate Risks: While some risks were acknowledged (like the viaduct collapsing) unplanned risks were not integrated. 4 Illuminate Options: While several design options were created, their diversity was limited to the narrowly defined assumptions about the future. 5 Desirable Future: Because each team created its own vision, no unified desirable future was selected. 6 Assess Strategies: Many strategies were brainstormed, however, their cost and benefit were not assessed within the charette process.

-4-

Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding LIMITS TO GROWTH One of the earliest (1970) dynamic interaction models of how the global future might turn out utilizing feedback controlled computer generated outputs of GDP and birth and death rates. Alternative futures were included based on changes to population flow rates, consumption levels, technology and social changes.

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

Focus: To create a computer model that would generate plausible futures based on past trajectories and known supply quantities. The overall intent is to reflect on the limitations of the earth as a closed system, and how in order to reach sustainable levels, we must balance inputs and outputs. Method: For its time, a very robust and complex computer model that simulated feedback loops, consumptions rates and available product. The model was created based on expert knowledge from a global scientific community. Audience: Considered a ‘warning’ to the greater public, but primarily focusing on scientists and decision makers. Mostly academics ended up reading the report. CHALLENGES 1 Challenge Assumptions: While the intent was to challenge our assumptions about ‘the limits to growth’, this study was criticized for not expanding the scope of assumptions further. 2 Uncertainty & Surprise: Highly criticized for specifically not addressing uncertainty, and merely extrapolating from past trends. 3 Communicate Complex Info: For its time the computer model was highly dynamic and integrative, but it wouldn’t be considered so today. 4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: The study incorporated a diverse set of expert scientific knowledge from across the globe, but generally with similar Western values. 5 Integrate Probable & Desirable: Overall, only the probably was examined, however, a desirable situation was examined where a balanced system depended on the way we lead our lives. 6 Assess Tradeoffs: Tradeoffs were simplified into the closed system model, i.e. we could decrease our birth rate and maintain our consumption levels.

OPPORTUNITIES 1 Identify Drivers: While many drivers were identified, they were based on past understanding of the system and were not necessarily forward thinking. 2 Implications of Trajectories: The largest emphasis in the project was on the implications of different trajectories and their feedback to one another. 3 Anticipate Risks: While risks were assessed they were limited by our previous understanding of the system. No new risks were identified. 4 Illuminate Options: Options generally represented our understanding previous to the model, no new opportunities were illuminated. 5 Desirable Future: A balanced future was described as desirable and its merits were explained as well as steps towards that future. 6 Assess Strategies: Strategies were limited to balancing the system out. All other options merely delayed a doomed outcome.

-5-

Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding NASA SLEUTH – BALTIMORE MD SLUETH is a computer generated model which predicts land cover change based on a series of calibrations using past trends for slope, land use, excluded, urban, transportation and hillshade layers. Three models were run, changing the percentage of ‘exclusion’ (areas that cannot be developed) based on three policy options, allowing for all unprotected lands at developable, protecting only forest and allowing for 30% growth, or allowing for only 20% growth. Focus: Urban growth model based on alternative planning controls Method: Computer model run by planners and technicians. Audience: Academics, decision makers and planners

Current

Managed Growth

Ecological

Current: development policies remained the same. development increased by 80% Managed growth scenario: assumed added protection of forests and agriculture areas and placed moderate growth boundaries around already built areas. 30% Ecological scenario: strong protection of most forests and agricultural 5

CHALLENGES 1 Challenge Assumptions: No

2 Uncertainty & Surprise: Purely extrapolative, looking at past trends and then changing policy to reflect which lands could be developed. 3 Communicate Complex Info: Complex interactions are modeled by the computer, rather than being communicated. 4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: Stakeholders were not involved in this process. 5 Integrate Probable & Desirable: Only one probable future is created based on extrapolation of past trends while policy choices creates alternative outcomes evaluated for their desirability. 6 Assess Tradeoffs: Tradeoffs are limited to planning decisions which are based on amount of allowable land for development.

OPPORTUNITIES 1 Identify Drivers: SLEUTH Drivers are the same for each situation independently of the project; looking at land use, slope, hillshade, transportation, and urban land. 2 Implications of Trajectories: Model outcomes are as expected, the more area excluded from development, the more compact future development becomes. 3 Anticipate Risks: No risks are integrated into this framework. 4 Illuminate Options: The three policy options are predetermined before running the model. 5 Desirable Future: The alternative futures are created superficially, and are not plausible, and therefore are not selected. 6 Assess Strategies: No strategies are assessed.

-6-

Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding USGS SOUTHWEST FLORIDA STUDY The purpose was to create a plan for water resources. The process was split into three phases including scientists, decision makers and the public. The study addresses the health of ecosystems based on water flow, water quality, water supply, maintenance of existing flood protection, wildlife, biological diversity and natural habitat. This project was recommended because “(1) water-supply and ecological issues with water releases from Lake Okeechobee to the Caloosahatchee River, and because (2) inland hydrologic alterations have substantial existing and potential effects on rich natural resources and biodiversity within the study area.”6 Focus: This study incorporates three models (land cover, hydrological, and habitat) with feedback from Framework for integrating decision makers and the general public. scientists with policy makers and Method: The emphasis of the study lies in the complex the public. series of models run. Audience: Decision Makers (the policy level) were supposed to prioritize and negotiate among potential strategies, as they were shown to impact the evaluation of alternative scenarios. The public was included in an education level. CHALLENGES OPPORTUNITIES 1 Challenge Assumptions: Assumptions 1 Identify Drivers: Anticipated drivers are are not challenged. the ‘usual suspects’ 2 Uncertainty & Surprise: Uncertainty is 2 Implications of Trajectories: An not taken into account. integrated model of land use and hydrology was helpful to creating realistic implications of different parameters. 3 Communicate Complex Info: Complex 3 Anticipate Risks: Risks are based on information is compiled into the models model specifications, and therefore no new and the results are communicated to risks are identified. decision makers and the general public. 4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: The diversity 4 Illuminate Options: No new options are illuminated. in stakeholders is handled by letting the experts come up with the models and parameters and than allowing the decision makers and public to comment on the results and suggest changes. 5 Desirable Future: Not discussed. 5 Integrate Probable & Desirable: Only one probable future is created based on extrapolation of past trends while policy choices creates alternative outcomes evaluated for their desirability. 6 Assess Tradeoffs: Tradeoffs are 6 Assess Strategies: Not discussed. integrated into the modeling process.

-7-

Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN ALTERNATIVES This alternative futures analysis provided 3 alternatives for the year 2050, testing the implications of three land and water strategies; business as usual, high conservation measures, and high development rates. Similar to the SLEUTH model, the study focused on one future onto which policies are imposed to create different implications. The study focused on modeling the sensitivity of valued endpoints such as water availability, stream condition, and terrestrial wildlife, as they are influenced by the different planning strategies. The output of these models was then communicated with many stakeholder groups in order to develop a vision for a restoration strategy. Focus: Looking at alternate policy impacts on water availability, stream condition and terrestrial life. Method: Use current and historical trends to calibrate model, create alternative futures based on degrees of land protection. Audience: Large focus on interacting with stakeholders. The process was said to ‘help community members articulate and understand their different viewpoints and priorities’7. However, in the end it was ‘principally a research project, conducted by landscape planners and scientists in academia and government.”8 CHALLENGES 1 Challenge Assumptions: Assumptions are not challenged. 2 Uncertainty & Surprise: Neither was incorporated. 3 Communicate Complex Info: The integration of the models helped stakeholders and decision makers understand the complex relationship between policy changes and specific impacts to the ecology of the river basin. 4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: Focus on a consensus building process, including many members of the public, as well as officials and planners. However, being a more academic exercise, there were no implications about how policy might change from this. 5 Integrate Probable & Desirable: General focus on probable extrapolations of past trends, however the interaction with the stakeholders helped identify more desirable outcomes. 6 Assess Tradeoffs: The general tradeoff examined was freedom from strict development regulation versus negative ecological impact to the river basin.

OPPORTUNITIES 1 Identify Drivers: Anticipated drivers are the ‘usual suspects’ 2 Implications of Trajectories: Implications of policy changes on stream ecology were directly addressed. 3 Anticipate Risks: This research study helped identify the specific stream ecology risks posed by alternative policy decisions.

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

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

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

-8-


Willamette River basin process chart

CALIFORNIA WATER UPDATE “To acknowledge that we don’t know with certainty what will happen in the future, this water plan update has three plausible yet very different baseline scenarios for 2030.”9 The scenarios are created by varying assumptions about important factors that affect water use and supplied , but that the water community has little control over; population growth, development patterns, crop markets, industrial productivity, and environmental regulations. As with the Willamette River Basin project, this set of alternative futures has three scenarios corresponding with a ‘high, medium and low’ level of regulations, however these options are more multi-faceted than the Willamette River Basin futures, incorporating potential futures from a diversity of sources. In response to each scenario, a mix of implementing strategies are described.

Conceptual Framework for California’s Water Plan

-9-


Focus: Focus on alternative response strategies to deal with water shortages in California based on three plausible scenarios for 2030. Method: 3 scenarios are created by varying assumptions about important factors that affect water use and supplies, but the water community has little control regarding. Audience: Foremost to decision makers, and secondly to planners and the public for education. CHALLENGES OPPORTUNITIES 1 Challenge Assumptions: Yes, breaking 1 Identify Drivers: Drivers are identified through interviews and workshops with a out of the typical supply and demand diversity of stakeholders. forecasting done for water plans, this plan integrates a wealth of knowledge into the scenarios. 2 Implications of Trajectories: The report 2 Uncertainty & Surprise: Uncertainty is does not include the quantified water directly integrated, looking at floods, balances for futures and a shortage earthquakes, chemical spills, global analysis but the quantification under each climate change, water demand, aquatic scenario will eventually occur. life, changing plumbing codes, emerging contaminants, etc. 3 Communicate Complex Info: A 3 Anticipate Risks: Each scenario conceptual framework (see previous page) examines new risks that could have been was used to communicate the complex overlooked with the previous method. interaction of variable with stakeholders and decision makers. 4 Illuminate Options: By incorporating a 4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: DWR diversity of stakeholders and measuring conducted workshops with decision actual tradeoffs the hope is that real makers, water managers, and planners to options are illuminated to the water see what would be the most important elements to assess and to see what kind of community that were not available in earlier plans. information is needed. However, no consensus was intended to be reached between stakeholders. 5 Integrate Probable & Desirable: Initially 5 Desirable Future: While the scenarios reflect plausible future whose outcomes probable alternative scenarios were are uncontrollable by the water community, created, then a set of strategies are the set of strategies are created to achieve examined to reach a desirable future. a shared vision of what the future should be. That vision was put together with a variety of stakeholders during the workshops. 6 Assess Tradeoffs: Rather than simply 6 Assess Strategies: Multiple ‘response using water budgets, this new technique packages’ are used to see how each allowed insight into future use and supplied implementation will perform in each future. economics, water quality, environmental “Some may be appropriate regardless of and social considerations. the scenario, whereas others may only be suitable if specific conditions occur.”9

- 10 -


WISCONSIN NORTHERN HIGHLANDS LAKE DISTRICT PROJECT Three scenarios form 2002 to 2027 are created in order to deal with uncertainty of impacts from outside the Lake District region on both residents and ecological services. “While none of the scenario is likely to come true, the future will probably bring some elements of each scenario. It will be interesting to consider the likely consequences of alternative policies for the NHLD in the context of each scenario. 9 Focus: Looking at impacts on water quality and fish populations as impacted by four scenarios on ecological vulnerability. Method: Scenario planning using the key drivers of ecological change and economic growth. Audience: Primarily academic, creating a test bed to see how well the MEA process works on local conservation problems. While there is mention of helping people see the impact of their potential actions, this was not a highlight.

Graphic of scenarios narrated and their associated drivers (arrows)

Model for integrating drivers, actors, linkages and specific ecological parameters together.

- 11 -


CHALLENGES 1 Challenge Assumptions: Looking at factors such as untapped potential for creative solutions in the tribes and lake associations is just one example of how this scenario building process allowed ecologists to think outside the box. 2 Uncertainty & Surprise: Looked at a long history of knowledge about the area, but complemented it with potential uncertainties, and how they might turn out. “The seeds of all these scenarios are there today, but each scenario shows us what could happen if one of the emerging trends dominates”.9 (Peterson, 2003) 3 Communicate Complex Info: This study integrated national impacts like terrorist attacks and commercial recreation with impacts on local ecological resilience.

4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: Teamed up with people from the community including: officials, members of lake association, tribes, realtors, business owners, and full and part time residents as well as a small team of scientists and water managers. 5 Integrate Probable & Desirable: Initially probable alternative scenarios were created, than a set of strategies will be examined to reach a desirable future. 6 Assess Tradeoffs: The scenarios are grounded in scientific research including simulation models of NHLD economics, population growth and ecology. Ecological changes draw on more than two decades of data collected from the lakes on water chemistry, lake habitat, and fish composition.

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

2 Implications of Trajectories: Trajectories include population, demography, economics, landscape form, aesthetics, water quality, habitat, forests, wildlife, and ecosystem management are estimated and compared for each scenario. 3 Anticipate Risks: Not only are the typical risks such as over-fishing or increased development addressed, new risks such as economic collapse or a fearful society retreating to second homes are acknowledged as risks. 4 Illuminate Options: While this project has not yet assessed strategies, options are illuminated by the mere fact that potential futures that would normally have been overlooked are now visible and acknowledged. 5 Desirable Future: Strategies are targeted at creating a desirable future, however the scenarios are not intended as visions. 6 Assess Strategies: While the potential to evaluate strategies based on the information given in the scenarios is there, this is still considered a ‘next step’.

- 12 -

Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding IPCC EMISSIONS SCENARIOS These scenarios were initiated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change in order to evaluate alternative mitigation and adaptation strategies for minimizing emissions under alternatives plausible futures. “The results of this work show that different social, economic, and technological development have a strong impact on emissions trends.”10 Four narrative scenarios were formulated, with no single ‘official’ model selected. Computer modeling was run on the four scenarios with slight alterations of parameters leading to 40 quantifiable outcomes. Focus: Future emission levels were simulated based on alternative futures. Method: Families of scenarios were created by looking at key driving forces. Computer models were run to understand variations in the impact. Audience: The scenarios were made available to climate modelers, who could then use them as a basis for the assessment of climatic changes. In addition, it was the intent for the scenarios to be used as the basis for analysis by the wider research and policy community of climate change and other environmental problems.

Families of scenarios run by the IPCC, showing the number of model runs processed with different parameters.

- 13 -


CHALLENGES 1 Challenge Assumptions: Assumptions were directly challenged by an ‘open’ review process of the resultant emissions scenarios by a wide range of scientific perspectives. The IPCC advertised in relevant scientific journals, created a web site documenting the SRES process and intermediate results to facilitate outside input. 2 Uncertainty & Surprise: While the intention was to directly deal with a ‘highly uncertain future’ drivers such as technology and population growth didn’t step outside of a comfortable range. 3 Communicate Complex Info: Having a purely scientific audience, the entire process was available on the website for commenting. 4 Dif. Among Stakeholders: This process was limited to the scientific community which was able to provide feedback to the writers and modelers, bit not necessarily to engage in conversation with one another. 5 Integrate Probable & Desirable: Only the probable was examined, no judgment is offered in the report as to the preference for any of the scenario as ‘any scenario includes subjective elements and is open to interpretations.’10 Policy choices were not integrated into this report. However, policy and decision makers will hopefully be aided by the report. 6 Assess Tradeoffs: Tradeoffs are given as objective quantitative outcomes of the model including: GDP, per capita ratio between developed countries and economies in transition, energy, share of coal, and emission amounts of different gases.

OPPORTUNITIES 1 Identify Drivers: Several drivers are included while some such as technological innovation and population growth are typical, others such as social and cultural interactions are less conventional.

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

3 Anticipate Risks: While the output is not evaluated as risk by this panel, it is assumed that different countries have levels of acceptability and be able to gage the risk of each scenario. 4 Illuminate Options: While this report does not focus on policy options it is intended to aid decision makers in selecting policies in reaction to alternative futures. 5 Desirable Future: Intentionally no desirable future is selected in this report because it is considered subjective and left open to decision makers and stakeholders for value implications.

6 Assess Strategies: Strategies are not addressed as the focus of this report is to predict plausible emissions level and not how to achieve a desirable future.

- 14 -

Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding Summary Through these case studies our interest in proceeding with scenario planning was reconfirmed. In terms of challenging assumptions we found that the best studies integrated a diversity of experts while looking outside of the predetermined discipline for important changes. Uncertainty and surprise was repeatedly ignored in all but the scenario studies. However, it was the interest and focus on uncertainty that allowed the planners and ecologist to critically look at available options. We found the technique of visioning was least likely to synthesize complex information for discussion purposes for the sake of simplification with a diverse audience. However, extrapolative technologies generally separated conversations with experts from a more educational orientation towards stakeholders and the public. In general studies did not ask multiple stakeholders or experts to assess tradeoffs and reach a common vision for a desirable future. While we felt that a futures study must integrate probable futures with strategies for accomplishing a shared desirable future outcome, most studies did not integrate the two. While visioning focused only on the desirable, most extrapolative studies focus on a single plausible future and imposed superficial policy levels to assess which future is more desirable. Tradeoffs between strategies were limited to the amount of grounding that had been achieved and the potential for discussion about those impacts. We found the scenarios to be the most capable of assessing the tradeoffs based on alternative futures. Challenges Project

Type

Challenge Uncertainty & Assumptions Surprise

Synthesize Information

Dif. Bw Stakeholders

Integrate Assess Probable Tradeoffs & Possible

Open Space 2100

Vision

some

no

no

no

no

no

Manhattan’s Listening to the City

Vision

some

no

no

some

no

some

Seattle’s Central Waterfront

Vision

some

no

no

no

no

some

Limits to Growth

Extrapolative some

no

some

no

yes

some

NASA Sleuth Baltimore, MD.

Extrapolative no

no

some

no

some

some

USGS Southwest Florida Study

Extrapolative no

no

some

some

some

some

Willamette River Basin Alt.

Extrapolative no

no

yes

some

some

some

California Water Update 2005

Scenarios

yes

yes

yes

some

yes

yes

Wisconsin NHLD Project

Scenarios

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

IPCC emissions Scenarios

Scenarios

yes

some

yes

some

no

yes

Opportunities Project

Type

Identify Drivers

Implications of Trajectories

Anticipate Risks

Illuminate Options

Desirable Assess Futures Strategies

Open Space 2100

Vision

no

some

no

some

yes

no

Manhattan’s Listening to the City

Vision

no

no

no

some

yes

no

Seattle’s Central Waterfront Limits to Growth

Vision

no

no

no

some

some

no

Extrapolative

some

yes

some

no

yes

some

NASA Sleuth Baltimore, MD.

Extrapolative

some

some

no

no

no

no

USGS Southwest Florida Study

Extrapolative

some

yes

no

no

no

no

Willamette River Basin Alt.

Extrapolative

some

yes

yes

no

no

no

Scenarios

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

California Water Update 2005 Wisconsin NHLD Project

Scenarios

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

IPCC emissions Scenarios

Scenarios

yes

yes

yes

some

no

no

- 15 -

Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding As with the challenges, we found that scenario building also rated the highest in terms of captured opportunities. While drivers were identified in many of the extrapolative studies, they were generally relegated to the ‘usual suspects’ and did not attempt to push out into other disciplines or larger regional impacts. The implications of trajectories was generally fairly accomplished in the extrapolative studies, however the implications were made on a small subset of pre-selected values. As far as risks were concerned we felt that scenarios pushed the envelope in terms of being able to anticipate risks that were not obvious at the onset of the study; that is the process itself was helpful in generating information about risks. Similarly, with options, scenario building was able to expand the potential options beyond those ones available at the onset of the study. A major difference between scenario building and the other two methods is the connection between selecting a desirable future and assessing strategies. In visioning desirability is discussed, however the plausibility of that future is unexamined. In extrapolative studies, a singular plausible future is examined while the desirability is delegated into a set of overly simplified policy options, i.e. business as usual, more conservation or more development. In scenario building a set of plausible futures is created, and strategies are used to test effective methods for changing those plausible futures in a direction we are comfortable with. Lastly, strategies become more dynamic, as stakeholders begin to see that some strategies may work in some instances and not in others. List of resources 1. Open Space Charette: http://depts.washington.edu/open2100/ 2. Listening to the City: Manhattan, NY: http://www.civic-alliance.org/pdf/0207LTCreport.pdf Other sources: http://www.listeningtothecity.org/ http://www.listeningtothecity.org/background/final_report_9_20.pdf 3. Seattle’s Waterfront Slide show, introduction, Visioning Charette http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/DPD/Planning/Central_Waterfront/CharretteExhibit/de fault.asp 4. Limits to Growth Meadows, S.H. 1972. The Limits to growth; a report for the Club of Rome's project on the predicament of mankind. New York. Universe Books Book review at: http://www.globalfuture.com/book-limitstogrowth.htm 5. NASA SLEUTH – Baltimore, MD http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0322sleuth.html 6. USGS Southwest Florida Study: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3113/#pdf 7. Willamette River Basin http://oregonstate.edu/dept/pnw-erc/ http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/projects/alternativefutures/twopager.pdf 7 . http://www.esajournals.org/esaonline/?request=get-document&issn=10510761&volume=014&issue=02&page=0313 8. California Water Plan The main website: http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/ volume 1 of the plan: http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/cwpu2005/index.cfm#vol1 Wisconsin's Northern Highlands Lake District 9. http://limnology.wisc.edu/nhld/sept2002kemp/ShortReport_20Dec02.pdf (p3) http://www.wisconline.com/feature/NHLD.html http://limnology.wisc.edu/courses/zoo725/2005Lectures/050419_NHLD.pdf Published paper: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol7/iss3/art1/print.pdf

- 16 -

Appendix E: Visions, extrapolations and scenario bulding Paper citation: Peterson GD, Beard TD, Beisner BE, Bennet EM, Carpenter SR, Cumming GS, Dent CL, Havlicek TD. Assessing future ecosystem services a case study of the Northern Highlands Lake District, Wisconsin CONSERVATION ECOLOGY 7 (3): Art. No. 1 DEC 2003 Article: Researchers envision the future of Northern Wisconsin Lakes: http://www.news.wisc.edu/story.php?get=8718 10. IPCC Emissions Scenarios http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/spmpdf/sres-e.pdf http://www.climatescience.gov/workshop2005/presentations/breakout_2A_delaC hesnaye.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/meet/othercorres/ESWmeetingreport.pdf

- 17 -

PUGET SOUND FUTURE SCENARIOS Appendices F – I Appendix F: Initial Interview Summaries- email Marina for pdf Appendix G: Driving Forces Factsheets- email Marina for pdf Appendix H: Workshop Summary- email Marina for pdf Appendix I: Workshop Agenda and Task- email Marina for pdf

Appendix A: Eight Steps of Scenario Building SCENARIO BUILDING ...

Appendix A: Eight Steps of Scenario Building SCENARIO BUILDING ...

Suggest Documents

Gender-Specific Spatial Perspectives and Scenario Building ...

Scenario building: Uses and abuses - CiteSeerX

Building Virtual Environment for Feeding Scenario Simulation

Standard-compliant Scenario Building with ... - Semantic Scholar

Building a scenario based active mapping investment tool within a ...

Building a scenario based active mapping investment tool ...www.researchgate.net › publication › fulltext › Building-a

The use of intuition during scenario building activities ...

Scenario

A Multi-layer Scenario Analysis layer Scenario

scenario

Appendix 3: Analysis without uncertainty and scenario

An Event Building scenario in the trigger-less PANDA ...

Using Scenario Networks for Scenario

Scenario Building for E-Government in 2020 - IEEE Computer Society

Building Damage Assessment Using Scenario Based Tsunami ... - MDPI

foresight scenario building and multi-criteria appraisal to inform ...

Scenario building based on formal methods and ... - CiteSeerX

Towards Building an Interactive, Scenario-based Training ... - CiteSeerX

Scenario Building for E-Government in 2020 - CiteSeerX

Appendix A: Building an inverter

Eight steps to building an HPE BladeSystem family guide [PDF]

Eight steps to building an HPE BladeSystem family guide

a Scenario-Simulation Approach

A reverse logistics scenario