Local perspectives and global archetypes in scenario development

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Contrasting social-ecological scenarios can help stakeholders envision potential futures and navigate change and uncertainty. Scenario developers integrate stakeholder perceptions into storylines to increase scenario relevance and plausibility while relying on archetypes of change from scenario literature to enrich narratives. This research examines the contributions of local perspectives and global archetypes to scenario development through a case study of a regional scenario project, Yahara 2070, in Wisconsin, USA. Interviews with 50 Yahara watershed stakeholders and 5 members of the project's scenario development team were examined to compare themes from scenario archetypes with local perspectives on how change is expected to occur. We next examined how these two sources of inspiration for trajectories of change were used in the development of the Yahara 2070 scenarios. Both global archetypes and local stakeholders emphasized social values, market forces, and policy reform as influences in determining the future, which were reflected in Yahara 2070. However, stakeholders were less likely to mention institutional breakdown, an important theme from the global scenarios literature that was included in Yahara 2070. This research offers a new approach to analyzing similarities and differences between scenarios' narratives and local perspectives. Scenario development may involve tensions between the goals of reflecting stakeholder views and including narratives from the global scenarios literature that may be useful for creating divergent model trajectories and addressing dramatic change into the future. To improve scenario development, scenario projects should document the development process in academic and nonacademic venues, explicitly highlighting sources and constraints in storyline development.

Understanding relationships among ecosystem services across spatial scales and over time

“…We performed simulations from 2001−2070, where 2001−2010 was considered as the baseline for comparison, and 2011−2070 were simulated under four scenarios that contrasted in social, political, economic and biophysical drivers (Carpenter et al 2015, Booth et al 2016, Wardropper et al 2016. Complete scenario narratives are available at Yahara2070.org.…”

Archetype analysis in sustainability research: meanings, motivations, and evidence-based policy making

“…Accordingly, archetype analyses do not adopt research designs of single case studies. Instead, typical methods include meta-analyses of case studies , statistical analyses , system dynamics modeling , and participatory scenario development (Wardropper et al 2016), among others. For a detailed assessment of the methodological portfolio, see Sietz, Frey, Roggero, et al unpublished manuscript. Preconditions for archetype analysis are that multiple cases are sufficiently similar in the defining features of the considered phenomenon (e.g., large-scale land acquisitions, climate change adaptation) and the cases share some attributes (e.g., variables and causal mechanisms) that are similar in qualitative or quantitative terms.…”

“…Third, researchers use archetypes for scenario development, where they serve to distinguish multiple future scenarios of the system of concern, often combined with stakeholder engagement (Hunt et al 2012, Wardropper et al 2016. For instance, the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services used scenario archetypes to classify sets of internally consistent scenarios that embody common characteristics (van Vuuren et al 2012, IPBES 2016.…”

“…The literature shows various examples of how archetype analysis has been integrated into transdisciplinary research (Hurni et al 2004, Brezenina et al 2017, assessment processes (Jäger et al 2007), or scenario development (Wardropper et al 2016) in which the joint involvement of researchers, decision makers, and stakeholders contributed to the analysis. Archetypes served as a boundary concept in the joint participatory analysis of problems and solutions.…”

Archetyping shared socioeconomic pathways across scales: an application to central Asia and European case studies

“…Similarities and differences are discussed in the Results. The analysis assumes that STEEP drivers are influential at both local and global scales (Hunt et al 2012, Wardropper et al 2016), but local stakeholder perceptions of change may diverge from the global pathways (Wardropper et al 2016). Cultural theory facilitates systematic interpretation of beliefs about society and nature at each scenario scale (Boschetti et al 2016).…”