Methods for translating narrative scenarios into quantitative assessments of land use change

Abstract

In the land use and land cover (LULC) literature, narrative scenarios are qualitative descriptions of plausible futures associated with a combination of socioeconomic , policy, technological, and climate changes. LULC models are then often used to translate these narrative descriptions into quantitative characterizations of possible future societal and ecological impacts and conditions. To respect the intent of the underlying scenario descriptions, this process of translation needs to be thoughtful, transparent, and reproducible. This paper evaluates the current state of the art in scenario translation methods and outlines their relative advantages and disadvantages, as well as the respective roles of stakeholders and subject matter experts. We summarize our findings in the form of a decision matrix that can assist land use planners, scientists, and modelers in choosing a translation method appropriate to their situation.

From Integrated to Integrative: Delivering on the Paris Agreement

“…System mapping is another expertise-driven methodology that was recently framed in this domain [37], aimed at barrier identification and analysis and heavily based on systems of innovation tools, which too have recently been used to inform climate policy studies (e.g., [38,39]). Fuzzy cognitive maps have also been used to bring stakeholders closer to modellers and translate their inputs into quantitative systems analyses (e.g., [40]). …”

Development of scenarios for land cover, population density, impervious cover, and conservation in New Hampshire, 2010–2100

“…For example, key informant interviews are central to scenario development protocols recommended by the Natural Capital Project run by The Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund (Rosenthal et al 2015). These traditional methods, alongside literature review, are well suited for collaboration with experts and can be used in combination with diverse modeling methods (Mallampalli et al 2016). Translation of qualitative results into quantitative models can be iterative, as in the Storyline and Simulation approach in which stakeholders are asked to provide feedback on scenarios (Alcamo 2008), or, when resources are more limited or stakeholders are unable to commit to multiple workshops, a more streamlined approach can be used, drawing on published literature (Pfeifer et al 2012).…”

“…Methods for scenario development and modeling are highly dependent on the specific objectives of a scenario effort (Mallampalli et al 2016) and should generally meet the following goals: specific needs of the target audience (relevance), transparent and justified methods (credibility), perception of fairness (legitimacy), and provoking new thinking about uncertainty (creativity; Alcamo et al 2006). These goals are often addressed through engagement of stakeholders, including decision makers, experts, and groups affected by scenario outcomes (Mallampalli et al 2016).…”

“…Methods for scenario development and modeling are highly dependent on the specific objectives of a scenario effort (Mallampalli et al 2016) and should generally meet the following goals: specific needs of the target audience (relevance), transparent and justified methods (credibility), perception of fairness (legitimacy), and provoking new thinking about uncertainty (creativity; Alcamo et al 2006). These goals are often addressed through engagement of stakeholders, including decision makers, experts, and groups affected by scenario outcomes (Mallampalli et al 2016). Approaches to translating available information into useful scenarios include innovative methods to involve stakeholders directly in model construction (e.g., Schmitt Olabisi et al 2010) or to incorporate stakeholder knowledge into mathematical models (e.g., Bayesian networks; Meyer et al 2014b), but traditional methods such as interviews and surveys remain major approaches to stakeholder engagement (Mallampalli et al 2016).…”

“…These goals are often addressed through engagement of stakeholders, including decision makers, experts, and groups affected by scenario outcomes (Mallampalli et al 2016). Approaches to translating available information into useful scenarios include innovative methods to involve stakeholders directly in model construction (e.g., Schmitt Olabisi et al 2010) or to incorporate stakeholder knowledge into mathematical models (e.g., Bayesian networks; Meyer et al 2014b), but traditional methods such as interviews and surveys remain major approaches to stakeholder engagement (Mallampalli et al 2016). For example, key informant interviews are central to scenario development protocols recommended by the Natural Capital Project run by The Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund (Rosenthal et al 2015).…”