building scenarios

AppendixA:EightStepsofScenarioBuilding

SCENARIOBUILDING

InstudyingalternativefuturesweareusingScenarioBuildinganapproachoriginallyproposedasabusinessstrategyin1970s(RoyalDutch/Shell)andrecentlyappliedintheMillenniumEcosystemAssessmenttosystematicallyandcreativelythinkaboutplausiblefutures.Scenariosareplausiblealternativefutureswhatmighthappenunderparticularassumptions.Byfocusingonkeydrivers,complexinteractions,andirreducibleuncertainties,scenariobuildinggeneratesthefutureswithinwhichwecanassessalternativemitigationstrategiesincludingthefuturewithoutrestoration.

Scenariobuildinggenerallyinvolveseightkeysteps.

1. Identifyfocalissueordecision2. Identifydrivingforces3. Rankimportance&uncertainty4. Selectscenariologics5. Fleshoutthescenarios6. Selectindicatorsformonitoring7. Assessimpactsfordifferentscenarios8. Evaluatealternativestrategies

Intheexamplebelow,theMillenniumEcosystemAssessmentisusedtodescribetheeightkeystepstothescenariobuildingprocess.

1.Identifyfocalissueordecision

Thefocalissuerepresentsthequestionaboutthefuturethatanorganizationisconfronting.

TheMillenniumEcosystemAssessment(MEA)focusedontheimplicationsoffourdifferentapproachesformanagingecosystemservicesinthefaceofgrowinghumandemandforthem.

2.Identifydrivingforces

Drivingforcesrepresentkeyvariablesandtheirtrendsinthemacroenvironmentthatinfluencethefocalissue.

TheMEAselectedninekeydrivingforcestoincludewithinthescenarios:

1. DemographicDrivers2. EconomicDrivers:Consumption,Production,andGlobalization3. SociopoliticalDrivers4. CulturalandReligiousDrivers5. ScienceandTechnologyDrivers6. ClimateVariabilityandChange7. PlantNutrientUse8. LandConversion9. BiologicalInvasionsandDiseases


3.Rankimportance&uncertainty

Identifieddrivingforcesarerankedintermsoftheiruncertaintyandimportanceinrelationtothefocalissue.Thisstepdirectstheoutcomeofthefinalscenariosasthetwomostimportantanduncertaindriversdefinethemostdivergentandrelevantfutureconditionstobeincludedinthefinalset

Fromtheninedrivingforcesabove,thetwomostuncertainandimportantdrivingforceswereselected;economicandsociopoliticaldrivers.

4.Selectscenariologics

Thelogicsaredefinedbyexploringtheinteractionsofthemostuncertainandimportantdriverssuchthatalternativeframesarecreated,eachrepresentingadivergentyetplausiblescenario.

Foreachdrivingforcetwoattributesareselectedrepresentingtwopolardirectionsinwhichthedriverscangointhefuture.Fortheeconomicdriver,theMEAlookedatoneendbeingglobalizationandtheotherregionalization.Withinglobalizationeconomicequityandpublicgoodsweredelivered,whileregionalizationreflectedsecurityandeconomicgrowth.ForthesociopoliticaldriverMEAfocusedoneitherareactiveorproactiveecosystemmanagement.


5.Fleshoutthescenarios

Eachscenarioisdevelopedbyexploringtheimplicationsofalternativetrajectoriesonthefocalissueunderthesetparametersdefinedbytheinteractionsbetweenthekeydrivingforces.TheMEAdescribesfourscenariosbasedonthelogicsdescribedinthepreviousstepsaswellasmodeledvaluesfortheothersevendrivingforces.

Thefourscenariosdescribedare:

TheGlobalOrchestration:asociallyconsciousglobalization,oneinwhichweemphasizeequity,economicgrowth,andpublicgoods,reactingtoecosystemproblemswhentheyreachcriticalstages.

OrderfromStrength:representingaregionalizedapproach,inwhichouremphasisisonsecurityandeconomicgrowth,againreactingtoecosystemproblemsonlyastheyarise.

AdaptingMosaic:aregionalizedapproach,emphasizingproactivemanagementofecosystems,localadaptation,andflexiblegovernance.

TechnoGarden:aglobalizedapproachwithanemphasisongreentechnologyandaproactiveapproachtomanagingecosystems.

6.Selectindicatorsformonitoring

Asetofindicatorareselectedtoassesstheimplicationsofalternativefuturesonthefocalissue.Metricsrefertoameasureusedtodetermineacertaincondition.

TheMEAlookedatthreemajorcomponentsforassessingchangeundereachscenario:ecosystemservices,biodiversityandhumanwellbeing.Undereachcomponentmultipleindicatorsweremonitored.Forexample,underbiodiversity,withinthesubcategoryofterrestrialbiodiversity,habitatlosswasselectedasoneindicator.


7.Assessimpactsfordifferentscenarios

Usingtheselectedindicators,scenarioplannersassesshowthefocalissueisimpactedundereachscenario.

ForeachoftheindicatorsselectedabovetheMEAproceededtomodelthechangeundereachscenario.Forexample,habitatlossisassessedforeachofthefourscenarios.Otherimpactsincludelandcover,potentialspeciesloss,incomedistribution,GDP,rateofimprovementoftechnologicalefficiency,renewableenergy,greenhousegasemissions,sealevelrise,numberofmalnutritionedchildren,biofuelproduction,etc..

8.Evaluatealternativestrategies

Themainobjectiveofscenariosistoinformstrategicdecisionmaking.Oncealternativescenariosaredescribed,managerscanevaluatetheefficacyofalternativestrategiesacrossthesuiteofscenarios.

TheMEAstartsthisprocessbylookingatinternationalagenciesaccountableforcreatingstrategies,andthenevaluateshowtheimpactsunderdifferentscenariosaffectthegoalsandobjectivesoftheseagencies.ThesixagenciesincludetheConventiononBiologicalDiversity,theRamsarConvention,theDesertificationConvention,NationalGovernments,CommunitiesandNGOs,andthePrivateSector.Forexample,fortheConventiononBiologicalDiversitythealternativescenariosreflectthreatstobiodiversityfromclimatechange,pollution,invasivespecies,Overexploitationandinappropriatemanagement,andHabitattransformation.

Afterassociatingspecificthreatswithstrategies,alternativepoliciesareassessedundereachscenario.WhatmightworkverywellunderOrderfromStrengthmaybeineffectiveforTechnoGarden.Forexample,fortheRamsarConventiononWetlandstheMEAlookedatwhichpolicieswouldworkwellforeachscenario.

APPENDIXB:EXPERTISEINVOLVED

AppendixB1:InitialInterviews

InordertoidentifyabroadsetofdriversofchangeforthefutureofthePugetSoundnearshore,theUrbanEcologyResearchLab[UERL]soughttoincludeadiverserepresentationofexperts.Someareasofexpertiseweredirectlylinkedtounderstandingnearshoreecosystems.Theseareasincludedoceanographers,nearshoreecologists,marinehabitatspecialists,climatologists,andgeomorphologies.TheUERLtargetedadditionalareasofexpertisethatfocusedonregionalchangesincludingdemographers,economists,statisticians,developers,plannersandindustryleaders.TheUERLalsoaimedtoincludegroupsthataresimilarlyinvolvedinassessingthehealthofthisregionandthatmaybedirectlyimpactedbychangesinnearshoreecosystemfunctions.Expertisecorrespondingtotheserolesincludednonprofitorganizations,nongovernmentalorganizations,environmentaltrendwatchers,tribalorganizations,andadvocacygroups.Lastly,inordertoidentifyadditionalexperts,theUERLconductedasnowballtechniqueaskingeachparticipantintheinitialinterviewsiftherewereadditionalexpertiseweshouldseek.BasedonthisadditionalinputtheUERLaddedhistorians,politicians,anddesignagenciestoourlistoftargetedexpertise.Table1Interviewexpertise

TheUERLdividedthebreadthofexpertiseintoeightgeneralgroupswhoshareasimilarworkingknowledge.Theintentofthisseparationwastoensurethatparticipantscouldeasilyexchangeideasandmaintainafocuseddiscussion.Thepanelgroupsweresplitintobiologicalscientists,physicalscientists,socialandbehaviorscientists,planners,theprivatesector,nonprofitorganizations,publicagencies,andadvocacygroupsforsubsistenceliving.

TheUERLinitiallycontactedsixtyoneexpertsforinterviewsandwereabletoschedulewiththirtyfourofthem.TheUERLconductedatotalofeightindividualinterviewsandtenpanelinterviews.Theareaofexpertiseandcontributingagency1isoutlinedforeachinterviewandpanelinthetablebelow.Inadditiontoacoresetofquestionaskedofallparticipants,additionalquestionstargetedthreespecifictypesofparticipants:scientists,users,andimpactedparties.Table2describesthethreeparticipanttypes.AppendixCincludesthethreesetsofdiscussionquestions.Table2Participanttypes

1Tomaintaintheanonymityoftheparticipantsnamesarenotgiven.

AppendixB2:Workshop

Thirtyeightpeopleattendedtheworkshop,includingrepresentativesfrompublic,privateagenciesandnongovernmentalorganizations(seeTable3foralistofagencies).Severalacademicdisciplineswererepresentedincludinggeomorphology,geography,climatology,oceanography,ecology,biology,businessandeconomicdevelopment.

Table3Agenciesinvolvedattheworkshop

AppendixB3:PanelDiscussions

B3a:AftertheworkshoptheUERLfocusedonpaneldiscussionsasameansofrefiningthescenariologicsandfinalizingthescenarionarratives.Theobjectiveofthepaneldiscussionwastofillinthedetailsofeachframewithrelevantandinternallyconsistentdata.Insteadoflookingforbreadth,theUERLtargetedspecificexpertswhofilledcriticalrolesinthescenariodevelopmentprocess.OveralltheUERLandtheFutureWithoutWorkgroupidentifiedover200experts,contactedover100differentagenciesandpersonallyinterviewed53experts.Fourteenteamsseparatedparticipantswithsimilarareasofexpertiseintodiscussionforumsthatwereresponsiblefordevelopingcriticalelementsofthescenarios.UtilizingthetendrivingforcesidentifiedbytheinterviewstheUERLdevelopedtenteamsofexperts,eachrepresentingonedrivingforce.Basedonthetwomostimportantanduncertaindrivingforcesidentifiedattheworkshopwedevelopedacoreteamofclimatechangeandhumanperceptionexpertstoleadthescenariohypothesesdevelopment.TheUERLalsoheldpaneldiscussionsforeachofthesupportingeightkeydrivingforcesseparately.Thecoreteammettwice,initiallytodefinescenariohypothesesandsecondtorefinethescenariosafterreceivingfeedbacksynthesizedfromtosupportingteams.Inadditiontothese10teamstheUERLheldonemeetingwithcommunicationexpertsandonewithpublicagencyheadstohelpdelineatecriticalelementstoincludewithinthefinalscenariostoensuretheirusability.InthenextphaseofthisprojecttheUERLinconjunctionwiththeFWWwillsharethefinalscenarioswithateamofmetricsandecosystemhealthexperts,aswellasamodelingteaminordertodeveloptheassessmentcomponentofthisproject.Figure1illustratestheorderformeetingsofthediscussionforumsandtheintegralfeedbackbetweenforums.

Thefollowingpagesdescribetheagenciesandexpertisetargetedandincludedwithinthepaneldiscussions.Manyparticipantshadmultipleareasofexpertiseandrepresentedmultipleagencies,andthereforethetotalnumbersrepresentahighervaluethanthenumberofindividualexperts.IdentifiedOver243expertswereidentifiedbytheUERL,theFWWandnominatedbyparticipatingexperts.Thelistofexpertswassystematicallyreviewedinordertoensurethatthemostrelevantanddivergentexpertiseareincorporatedintothefinalscenarios.ContactedTheUERLcontacted112expertsfromvariousdisciplines.Expertswereprovidedafactsheetsummarizingtheprojectsobjectives,theirroleandthepanelsdiscussionquestions(includedinAppendixC2).Paneldiscussionsgenerallyrequiredabout23hoursofpreparation,3hoursofattendingtheactualdiscussionandadditionalhoursforfeedbackandcorrespondence.Participationwasvoluntarywithoutcompensation.InterestedOutoftheexpertscontacted90individualsrespondedthattheywereinterestedinbeinginvolvedintheprocessinsomemanner.Numerouseffortswereputforthtoincludetheseparticipantsifnotdirectlyinapaneldiscussionthanthroughcorrespondenceandfeedbackonthefinalreport.Metwith

Fiftysixexpertsparticipatedinthescenariodevelopmentprocess.Whilethemajoritywerepresentforpaneldiscussionsinvolvingotherexpertsrepresentingaspecificdrivingforce,manyexpertswereaccommodatedthroughindividualinterviews,eitherinperson,oroverthephone,orbyemailcommunication.Table4ParticipantssortedbyDrivingForces

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

Table5Expertisemetwith

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

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

Table6AgencyrepresentationPart1of3

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

Table6AgenciesrepresentationPart2of3

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

Table6AgencyrepresentationPart3of3

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

Puget Sound Nearshore Restoration ProgramThe Puget Sound Nearshore Restoration Program (PSNERP) focuses on nearshore restoration projects in conjunction with the U.S. Army Cops of Engineers (USACE), EPA and other federal, state, and local partners. As a precursor to restoration, USACE requires PSNERP to perform an analysis of the past, present and future conditions in the Puget Sound nearshore to illustrate the anticipated benefits of the restoration effort and to justify the financial investment. The goal of the Future Without Project is to assess the benefits of alternative restoration measures in an uncertain future. Future WithoutThe Future Without Project evaluates the impact to the nearshore assuming that a comprehensive, large scale nearshore ecosystem restoration project does not occur within the timeframe of fifty years. The UW Urban Ecology Research Laboratory has teamed up with PSNERP to develop multiple plausible futures for the Puget Sounds 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 nearshores future. These insights will be synthesized into a set of scenarios that narrate or describe potential trajectories. The scenarios will be evaluated through an integrated framework of spatially explicit models. The outcomes of these analyses will assess the impact of restoration (or the absence of it) on a set of values attributed to the nearshore ecosystem.

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

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

1] What significant changes will occur in the Puget Sound in the next 50-years?

2] What are the key drivers of these changes?Driving forces are factors or phenomena which alter the future trajectory in significant ways. For example, demographics or climate change are driving forces.

3] What evidence confirms influence of these driving forces?

4] How will these drivers affect the nearshore?

5] What evidence supports connections between these drivers and the nearshore conditions?

6] Which driving forces are the most important? (in terms of their extent and degree of impact)

7] What evidence shows the impact of this driver in this region? (Extent, resolution, indicators)

8] What models have been developed to predict the impact of this driver?

9] Which driving forces are the most uncertain?An uncertain driving force has low predictability and a wind range of possible outcomes.

10] What is the uncertainty associated with these drivers?

11] What are good measures to predict change?What are some warning signals of a trend? For example, change in snowpack is a sign of climate change.

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

Nearshore zone Offshore zone

Tidalrange

BarIntertidalzone

Ridge

Sand dune

High Water Mark

Low Water Mark

Nearshore ecosystem

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

Puget Sound Nearshore PartnershipBernard Hargrave, US Army Corps of Engineers

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

Doug Myers, Puget Sound Action TeamJacques White, The Nature Conservancy

Michael Rylko, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 Thomas Leschine, School of Marine Affairs, UW

Guy Gelfenbaum, USGS Coastal and Marine Geology

Urban Ecology Research LaboratoryMarina Alberti, UW Jeff Hepinstall, UWMichal Russo, UW

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

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

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

Timeline of Process

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

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

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

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

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

SUMMER FALL WINTER

June

Sep

tem

ber

Dec

embe

r

Mar

ch

Panel Discussions

FactSheets

Modeling

Workshop 1

Synthesis

Workshop 2

Technology: High rate of innovation

Climate Change: Major impact

Climate Change: Major impactTechnology: Low rate of innovation

Technology: High rate of innovation

Climate Change: Minor impact

Climate Change: Minor impactTechnology: Low rate of innovation

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

Puget Sound Future Scenarios

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

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

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

Phase II

Phase I

Phase III

Project Leaders and Participating ExpertsThe Puget Sound Future Scenarios is a collaborative project between the Future Without Team, a working group of the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership (PSNP), and the Urban Ecology Research Laboratory (UERL) of the University of Washington.

The Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership is a cooperative effort among U.S. Corps of Engineers and the WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, working in conjunction with the US Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, People for Puget Sound, US Geologi-cal Survey, WA Dept. of Ecology, the Salmon Recovery Fund, King County, WA Dept. Natural Resources, Northwest Straits Commission, US Dept. of Energy, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, National Wildlife Federation, Pacific Northwest National Laboratories, Pierce County, Navy Region NW, the Nature Conservancy, Taylor Shellfish Company, the University of Washington, and the Puget Sound Action Team.

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

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

Puget Sound Future ScenariosScenario Planning is a tool for conducting future assessments by focusing on key drivers, complex interactions, and irreducible uncertainties. Scenario planning was originally proposed as a business strategy in 1970s (Royal Dutch/Shell) and recently applied in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessmentto 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 Regions nearshore ecosystems and evaluate alternative strategies to restore ecosystem function.

Objectives of the Scenarios:

Explore different plausible trajectories for the Puget Sound region

Help define future baseline conditions

Anticipate the implications of alternative restoration strategies

Illuminate previously unanticipated risks and opportunities for planning

in this region

How will the scenarios be used?The final scenarios will describe region-wide, long term, baseline conditions, and can be utilized to evaluate alternative implementation strategies. While primarily used by the PSNP to evaluate restoration portfolios, the scenarios will allow a broad spectrum of public agencies to test their long range plans against the inherent uncertainty of the future. While the future is unlikely to turn out exactly like any single scenario, the suite of scenarios allow decision makers to explore a wider range of plausible circumstances than are traditionally integrated into long range planning.

For example, consider the following three long term decisions:Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Which bulkhead should be removed to

reconnect nutrient, sediment and water flow without major damage to nearby residences or sensitive nearshore aquatic communities?

Trust for Public Lands Where should land be purchased to have the greatest benefit on ecological function?

WA Department of Ecology - Where should we concentrate our clean up efforts, to elevate water quality without risk of recontamination?

Each decision benefits from exploring the range of plausible trajectories of key driving forces described under each scenario.

How will the hydrological regime been influenced by climate change? Which areas are at greatest threat from flooding and shoreline movement?

Where will the greatest development pressures be? How will public infrastructure for wastewater and runoff be transformed by innovative technology and doubling population numbers?

Which forested patches will be critical to maintain for habitat connectivity?

What value will society place on ecosystem functions such as clean water, shellfish health and shared public land?

Scenario 1

Scenario 3

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


The Puget Sound Future Scenarios

1

34b

4a2b

2a

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ten Key Driving Forces

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

Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior

The Puget Sound Future Scenarios describe a suite of future conditions for this region. Each scenario explores a different plausible narrative for the Puget Sound region illuminating previously unanticipated risks and opportunities for planning in this region.

Future conditions depend on the interaction of inherently uncertain driving forces. The scenario development process provides an approach for understanding the spectrum of trajectories created by the interactions between critical driving forces.

Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior were selected as the most uncertain and important key driving forces. The six scenarios were identified by looking at the interaction between uncertain aspects of these two drivers.

Human Perceptions & Behavior - Social Valuesprivate

public

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

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

Climate Change - Rateslow

Fast: Impacts from climate change occur rapidly. Over the next fifty years, climate change happens quickly, surpassing thresholds and occurring in large waves causing a state of crisis.

Slow: Change occurs slowly or incrementally. Sometimes change occurs so slow, local residents hardly notice the impacts . The extra time may give us the opportunity to plan ahead, on the other hand we may ignore many indicators of oncoming change.

Human Perceptions & Behavior - Future Valuation

long short

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

Short Term: We place a high value on the present time, and therefore value short-term decisions. We discount the future at a high rate, which keeps us from seeing value in decisions that dont emerge for a long time period.

Climate Change - Magnitude

majorminor

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

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

fast

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




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

RoleThe scenarios will be developed by describing the trajectories of each of the ten key driving forces under each scenario. Ten separate expert teams will represent each of the ten key driving forces previously identified in Phase I. The Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior have a leading role since these two driving forces have been identified as the most uncertain and important by a preceding workshop. These two expert teams will focus on the potential projections of future climate impacts as well as societal behavior and perceptions. The teams will meet together to narrate the initial scenario storylines by drawing up hypotheses for the direction of each scenario.

After the hypotheses development the supporting eight expert teams will contribute substantive details about each scenario. Each team will be responsible for delineating alternative future trajecto-ries of their driving force under each scenario.

After all ten teams meet; their synthesis will come back to the Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior Teams. The synthesis will be reviewed for consistency, completeness and comprehensibility. Directed questions for missing or inconsistent information will be asked of individuals from the supporting teams based on their areas of expertise.

Climate Change TeamA focus on potential projections of future climate impacts, especially as they pertain to changes in the hydrological regime of this region.

Human Behavior and Perceptions TeamA focus on how societal behavior and perceptions may change in this region, and the consequent influence on lifestyle, consumption, attitudes and ethics.

FeedbackThe climate change and human perceptions and behavior teams will meet together once to develop the trajectories for each driving force, and to develop the scenario hypotheses. After all ten expert teams meet, the two teams will meet again to refine the scenarios and identify keep data gaps and inconsistencies.

Discussion QuestionsHuman Perceptions and Behavior1. The scenarios are divided by private and public social values. How would you characterize the two alternatives and their impact on this region?

a. What specific parameters help describe the relative impacts? 2. The scenarios are subdivided by a long and short term future valuation. How would these valuation alternatives impact this region?

a. What specific parameters help describe the relative impacts?

Climate Change1. The scenarios are divided by the magnitude of impact this region will experience from climate change. How would you characterize a major and minor impact for this region?

a. What specific parameters help describe the relative impacts? 2. The scenarios are subdivided by the rate or pace of climate change we may experience in this region. What would a fast versus slow pace of climate impacts look like?

a. What specific parameters help describe the relative impacts?

Both Teams1. A fundamental element in scenario development is looking at the interaction between driving forces. The six scenarios integrate climate change with human perceptions and behavior.

a. How might these two driving forces interact? b. How might the interaction create alternative trajectories?

2. As a leading team, your role is developing the primer scenarios that the supporting teams will utilize to forecast the trajectories of their driving force. Describe the hypothesis behind each scenario. 3. What elements should each scenario contain? 4. What questions should we be asking of the experts for the supporting eight key driving forces? 5. In furthering the understanding of human perceptions and behavior under the alternative scenarios:

a. What publications should we refer to (review of current litera-ture?) b. What models are available? c. Who should we be talking to?

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

I dont mean to suggest that you spend all of your waking hours considering arcane possibilities, the trick is finding those possibilities to consider which are significant.

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

There is an almost irresistible temptation to choose one scenario over the other: to say, in effect, this is the future which we believe will take place. The other futures are interesting. But they are irrelevant. We are going to follow this scenario. - Unfortunately reality does not follow even the best thought out scenario.

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


Driving Force Trajectory Building Each team

1) Develop a working definition for your driving force

Example: Climate Change refers to the variation in the Earth's global

or regional climate over time. It describes changes in the variability or

average state of the atmosphere over time scales ranging from

decades to millions of years.

2) Develop a working definition of each of the two aspects (i.e.

magnitude + rate, social value, future valuation)

Example: Future valuation refers to the discount rate we place on our

decisions and investments or how much value having something now

as opposed to in the future.

3) Define each of the aspects alternative endpoints (i.e. major and

minor) be clear and specific.

Example: Long Term Future valuation refers to placing a high value

on the future and valuing long term decision making.

4) Select up to three variables that help describe the influence of

each aspect. These variables should be selected based on the

following criteria:

a. Information, whether qualitative or quantitative, about this

variable is available.

Example: projections of sea level rise for this region exist and can

help describe the variation in the magnitude of climate impacts.

b. This variable is comfortably understood by a wide audience.

Example: Consumer behavior may help describe changes in social

values in a manner that is easily understood.

c. This variable is important, in its relationship to the other 9 key

driving forces

Example: Monthly precipitation statistics may help the infrastruc-

ture and technology team understand the impact of the magnitude

of climate change.

d. This variable is meaningful in thinking about the nearshore?

Example: Use of leisure time could be a good variable to describe

changes in human behavior as they relate to impacts on the

regions ecosystems including the nearshore.

5) Identify key publications and reports with regional trajectories

for each aspect and its variables.

6) Delineate gradients and critical values for each aspect. Describe

at least 2, and at most 6, values for each gradient.

Example: Aspect-Future Valuation; support of public infrastructure

Scenario Hypotheses - Both Teams

1) Share your definitions and variable selections. with the other

team.

2) Collaborate with the other team to assign a value for each

variable, and to each scenario while keeping in mind the interac-

tion between climate and human perceptions and behavior.

3) Develop a hypothesis for each scenario

a. Sketch out a narrative and trajectory for each aspect under each

scenario

b. How does the impact of each aspect unfold over the fifty year

time horizon?

c. What does the region look like under this scenario?

4) What do you see happening with the other key driving forces?

What are hypothesized relationships between climate change and

human perceptions and each of the other key driving forces?

Example: How does massive regional flooding and effect economic

growth? How does a society valuing public long term investments

effect regional regulations and leadership? how does sea level rise

impact development patterns?

5) Come up with three adjectives to describe each scenario

6) Develop a set of questions to ask each of the supporting expert

teams

a. What do we need to know in order to refine each scenario?

b. What pieces of information are critical in developing the other

trajectories? What are the limiting factors under each scenario?


Scenarios highlight possibilities

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

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

Scenario planning quotes by Schwartz 1991

strong supportno support neutral or undecided

investment in road expansion investment in a regional mass transit system



Demographics Team

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

RoleThe scenarios will be developed by describing the trajectories of each of the ten key driving forces under each scenario. Ten separate expert teams will represent each of the ten key driving forces previously identified in Phase I. The Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior have a leading role since these two driving forces have been identified as the most uncertain and important by a preceding workshop. These two expert teams will meet together to narrate the initial scenario storylines by drawing up hypotheses for the direction of each scenario. In addition, these teams will focus on the potential projections of future climate impacts as well as societal behavior and perceptions.

The supporting eight expert teams will contribute substantive details about each scenario. Each team will be responsible for delineating alternative future trajectories of their driving force under each scenario. While panels will consist of experts with similar areas of expertise, teams will have access to information compiled by other teams and the opportunity to work collaboratively.

After all ten teams meet their synthesis will come back to the Climate Change and Human Perceptions and Behavior Teams. The synthesis will be reviewed for consistency, completeness and comprehensibility. Directed questions for missing or inconsistent information will be asked of individuals from the supporting teams based on their areas of expertise.

Demographics TeamThe demographics team will focus on the future demographic distribution for this region including population size and growth rates, age and race distribution, household size and migration patterns. While climatic and human parameters for each scenario should contribute to the decision about the direction of population growth it is conversely important to evaluate the impact of demographics on altering the direction, magnitude and rate of change for selected aspects of climate change and human percep-tions and behavior.

FeedbackThe demographics team will meet together once to develop the trajectories for the Puget Sound Scenarios. Team members are encouraged to provide further feedback to the team as a follow up to the meeting discussion. After the scenarios are synthesized, including trajectory input from all ten expert teams, team members will have an opportunity to comment on the final product.

Discussion QuestionsOn the following page are step by step instructions for developing trajectories. Please keep these these questions in mind.

1) What are the potential trajectories for demographic variables

within the Puget Sound basin over the next fifty years?For population growth; density; age structure; gender; diversity; household size; income; birth rates; mortality; and migration rates.Are there important phenomena to consider the baby boom (and echo)? Immigration impacts from economic transitions?

2) How will the six scenarios impact demographic trajectories?

3) How might demographic patterns interact with climate impacts? How will the six scenarios impact population growth or decline? Is there a possibility of decline in population from a major crisis? Could climate impacts affect cultural diversity? the population age structure? fertility or mortality rates? immigration rates?How might population growth interact with climate change? How might population growth impact development patterns? economic growth? infrastructure and technology? regulations?

5) How might demographic patterns be impacted by changes in

human perceptions and behavior?How might collectivist versus individualistic social values influence household size? age structure? fertility and mortality? migration?How might perceptions influence population patterns (location and density of population growth)?How might a short term versus long term future valuation impact demographic patterns?

6) How might demographic patterns impact human perceptions

and behaviors? Would a rapid population growth push people towards individualis-tic values? Would an aging population push social valuation towards long term thinking?

7) What questions should we ask of the supporting experts?

8) In furthering the understanding of demographics under the

alternative scenarios: What are good resources (i.e. publications, agencies, reports, model) to collect additional information on this topic? Who else should we talk to?








Development Patterns Team





Development Patterns TeamThe development patterns team will focus on future development in terms of both configuration and composition. The team will identify spatial and temporal patterns of change to the regions landscape. Further the team will clarify specific attributes of new development such as form and density. While climatic and human parameters for each scenario should contribute to the decision about the direction of new development it is conversely important to evaluate the impact of development on altering the direction, magnitude and rate of change for selected aspects of climate change and human perceptions and behavior.

FeedbackThe development patterns team will meet together once to develop the trajectories for the Puget Sound Scenarios. Team members are encouraged to provide further feedback to the team as a follow up to the meeting discussion. After the scenarios are synthesized, including trajectory input from all ten expert teams, team members will have an opportunity to comment on the final product.


1) What are the potential trajectories for development within the

Puget Sound basin over the next fifty years?

2) What might this regions development look like in terms of the

amount of new development, location, density, form and style?

3) How will the six scenarios impact development patterns overall?

What are the threats from Climate Change?

How might development patterns impacts interact with climate

impacts?

How might development patterns be impacted by changes in human

perceptions and behavior?

How will the six scenarios impact the number of people per impervi-

ous surface? landcover change (forest loss, agricultural transition,

wetland loss/restoration), the GMA and growth boundaries, new

structures and their footprint, and fragmentation / connectivity?

Where might new development take place (by the shore, uplands or

sprawled, by city center or by edge)?

What will be the form of new development?

What might the future of property ownership look like (whats

protected, what is most vulnerable to development, etc.)

What will future development practices look like? how will they

influence our lifestyle?


6) In furthering the understanding of public health under the

alternative scenarios:

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

to collect additional information on this topic?

Who else should we talk to?








Economics Team





Economics TeamThe economics team will focus on the region's economy under alternative scenarios. Critical components include the strength of the economy, the interaction between the global, national and regional economy, the diversity and direction of employment opportunities. While climatic and human parameters for each scenario should contribute to the decision about the direction of economic growth it is conversely important to evaluate the impact of the economy on altering the direction, magnitude and rate of change for selected aspects of climate change and human percep-tions and behavior.

FeedbackThe economics team will meet together once to develop the trajectories for the Puget Sound Scenarios. Team members are encouraged to provide further feedback to the team as a follow up to the meeting discussion. After the scenarios are synthesized, including trajectory input from all ten expert teams, team members will have an opportunity to comment on the final product.


1) What are future projections for the economic growth in this

region including the Washington GDP? the labor force (skilled,

education, sector (technology, industry, etc.), the diversity of our

economy, will we encounter a boom or bust? How will the national

economy impact this region?

2) What are the probability distributions of economic events and

projections within the Puget Sound basin over the next fifty years?

3) How will the six scenarios impact the regional economy?


How might economic change interact with climate impacts?

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

tions and behavior?

4) How will the six scenarios interact with economic change to

influence:

How will the local economy change under each scenario?

Will this region lose its competitive niche?

How does will economic change interact with transportation?

How will economic change interact with migration patterns?


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

tive scenarios:

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










Infrastructure and Technology Team





Infrastructure and Technology TeamThe infrastructure and technology team will focus on technological advances and their potential implementation through infrastructure improvements in the arenas of energy provision, water supply, transportation and sewer and waste removal. While climatic and human parameters contribute to the decision about the direction of technological growth it is conversely important to evaluate the impact of technology and infrastructure on altering the direction, magnitude and rate of change for selected aspects of climate change and human perceptions and behavior.

FeedbackThe infrastructure and technology team will meet together once to develop the trajectories for the Puget Sound Scenarios. Team members are encouraged to provide further feedback to the team as a follow up to the meeting discussion. After the scenarios are synthesized, including trajectory input from all ten expert teams, team members will have an opportunity to comment on the final product.


1) What are the potential trajectories for technological and

infrastructure variables within the Puget Sound basin over the next

fifty years?

2) How will the six scenarios impact infrastructure and technology

trajectories?

3) How might infrastructure and technology patterns interact with

climate impacts? How will the six scenarios impact rate of innovation? Services and facilities? Economic activity? Transportation modes? Energy provi-sion? Water provision? Waste disposal?How will activities such as natural extraction such as mining, forest/timber, water, oil, etc change?

4) How might social conditions change to impact innovation?How might collectivist versus individualistic social values influence innovation? How might a short term versus long term future valuation impact innovation trends?

5) How might technology and infrastructure impact human percep-

tions and behaviors?

6) What are some potential technological changes that we could

see? What might be their implications for the nearshore and impacts

on other drivers?

7) How will this regions technological innovations compare to

national and global advances?

8) What are possibilities in the arena of genetic or health changes?

9) In furthering the understanding of demographics under the


What questions should we ask of the supporting experts? What are good resources (i.e. publications, agencies, reports, model) to collect additional information on this topic? Who else should we talk to?








Public Health Team





Public Health TeamThe public health team will focus on the interaction between the landscape and human health. This team will look at how environ-mental changes including urbanization, pollutants and declining accessibility to natural resources may influence public health. While climatic and human parameters for each scenario should contribute to the decision about the impact of public health it is conversely important to evaluate the impacts public health may have in altering the direction, magnitude and rate of change for selected aspects of climate change and human perceptions and behavior.

FeedbackThe public health team will meet together once to develop the trajectories for the Puget Sound Scenarios. Team members are encouraged to provide further feedback to the team as a follow up to the meeting discussion. After the scenarios are synthesized, including trajectory input from all ten expert teams, team members will have an opportunity to comment on the final product.


1) What are future projections for public health in this region

including health habits such as diet and exercise, air and water

quality, health impacts from changes in agriculture and aquaculture?

2) What are the probability distributions of public health impacts

within the Puget Sound basin over the next fifty years?

3) What are reported challenges with future incidences of specific

diseases, contamination of food, cancer rates and other long term

illnesses, mental health and perceptions of the environment?

4) How will the six scenarios impact Public Health overall?


How might public health impacts interact with climate impacts?

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

tions and behavior?

How does the impact of pollution alter under each scenario?

What is the impact on our food sources?

How might changes in the state of agriculture and aquaculture in the

future impact public health?

How will health care provision interact with these factors?


6) In furthering the understanding of public health under the


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










Regulations, Government and LeadershipTeam





Regulations, Government and Leadership TeamThe government regulations and leadership team will be addressing alternative forms of governance for this region including political leadership, strength of public will, the direction of new regulation, and the centralization of control. While climatic and human param-eters for each scenario should contribute to the decision about the direction of government, regulations and leadership it is conversely important to evaluate the impact of regulations on altering the direction, magnitude and rate of change for selected aspects of climate change and human perceptions and behavior.

FeedbackThe government regulations and leadership team will meet together once to develop the trajectories for the Puget Sound Scenarios. Team members are encouraged to provide further feedback to the team as a follow up to the meeting discussion. After the scenarios are synthesized, including trajectory input from all ten expert teams, team members will have an opportunity to comment on the final product.

Discussion QuestionsOn the following page are step by step instructions fo

building scenarios

Documents