A comparison of approaches in four well-reported theorists of Alternative Futures reveals common patterns of deliberation and decision-making. For clarity, I shorten the nomenclature of the sources to Steinitz (Steinitz, 1990; Steinitz, et al., 2003), Baker/Hulse (Baker, et al., 2004; Hulse, Gregory, & Baker, 2002), Nassauer and Corry (Nassauer & Corry, 2004), and Shearer (Shearer, Mouat, Bassett, Binford, Johnson, & Saarinen, 2006; Shearer, 2005) respectively. Despite individual variations in vocabulary and process, these teams share a similarity of approach relevant to the study. The literature analyzing their approaches is both accessible and plentiful. In this sense, they appear at or near the center of current trends in Alternative Futures theory.
Steinitz poses six questions repeated throughout the Alternative Futures process (Steinitz, 1990; Steinitz, et al., 2003). Each question leads to decisions about how to model the landscape. 1) How should the landscape be described spatially and temporally? Answers to this question are developed into representation models. 2) How does the landscape work functionally and structurally? Answers to this question are developed into process models. 3) How does one know whether the landscape works well? Answers to this question are developed into evaluation models. 4) What would change the landscape (this involves both following the current trend and other possible, accomplishable strategies)? Answers to this question are developed into change models. 5) What differences would the changes cause? Can they be modeled? If so, answers lead to impact models. 6) How is one potential alternative chosen over another? Answers to this question lead to decision models.
27
The first three questions describe landscape extent and function while the second three address change and implementation. The questions are repeated three times, first in the sequence described to establish the need for the study and identify available and needed resources. The second iteration occurs in reverse order to design the study. The final iteration proceeds in the original sequence to complete the work. The project is designed based on the decisions that need to be made. Thus Steinitz acknowledges the presence of both deliberation and decision-making throughout the planning process, and highlights their interconnections (Steinitz, et al., 2003). Figure 2.4 illustrates the iterative nature of the six questions.
Figure 2.4. Steinitz’ six questions used iteratively (Steinitz et al. 2003).
In contrast, Baker/Hulse depict four phases in Alternative Futures projects (Baker, et al., 2004). The first establishes a trajectory of landscape change during which ecological and socio-economic systems – described as landscape conditions - are first described in the past and then compared to those of the present. Landscape conditions are spatially and
How should the landscape be described?
Representation models
How does the landscape work functionally and structurally?
Process models
How does one know whether the landscape works well?
Evaluation models
What would change the landscape?
Change models
What differences would the changes cause?
Impact models
How is one potential alternative chosen over another?
28
quantitatively explicit (Hulse, Branscomb & Payne, 2004). The second phase develops scenarios – the assumptions, decisions, and management actions that could take place over time, thus altering the landscape (Hulse, Branscomb & Payne, 2004, p. 325). The third phase evaluates the impacts of potential scenarios, spatially and quantitatively, at given points in time called futures (Hulse, Branscomb & Payne, 2004, p. 326). The fourth and final phase synthesizes the products so the relative merits of each scenario can be examined (Hulse, Branscomb & Payne, 2004, p. 326).
Each of these phases is a period of deliberation and decision-making. Since it is impossible to analyze and spatially model all possible landscape conditions, the first phase, trajectory of change, requires the planning team and sponsoring agency to agree which landscape conditions will form the basis of the study. Phase two, development of scenarios, requires making coherent sets of assumptions while developing scenarios. An example of an assumption would be the relative percentages of development likely to occur within and outside urban growth boundaries. Hulse et al notes a spectrum of approaches in reaching these assumptions (Hulse, Branscomb & Payne, 2004). A central concern is who makes these assumptions (Hulse, Branscomb & Payne, 2004; Gregory & Slovic, 1997; Johnson & Campbell, 1999). Phase three, evaluation of impacts, involves interpretation of data such as determining an appropriate set of characteristics that represent, the attributes of the actor relevant to the model, and a set of actor behaviors that capture the decisions or actions of the actors in the system (Bolte, Hulse & Gregory, 2006). The final phase, evaluation of merits, involves making judgments based on societal values. Figure 2.5 summarizes the Baker/Hulse process.
29
Figure 2.5. Four phases in Baker/Hulse (Baker, et al., 2004; Hulse, Branscomb & Payne, 2004). The top and middle portions of the diagram describe actions in each of Baker/Hulse’s phases. In the bottom portion, I describe the outcomes of each phase.
The four phases of Baker/Hulse correlate roughly to Nassauer and Corry’s four questions for policy makers that, in turn, correspond to four actions for science (Nassauer & Corry, 2004, pp. 345 – 346). The first question, “what is relevant about the existing landscape and it’s past?” corresponds to the scientific task of collecting data. The second question, “how should the landscape change?” corresponds to formulating and operationalizing hypotheses. A third question, “what is relevant about how the landscape should change?” corresponds to generating new data. Nassauer and Corry consider this the “heart of normative scenario design” (Nassauer & Corry, 2004, pp. 345) because it is dependent on societal values. The fourth question, “how do they [the alternatives] perform?” corresponds to testing the hypotheses. As in the previous models, this process is iterative and involves stakeholder participation. Figure 2.6 summarizes Nassauer and Corry’s questions.
30
Figure 2.6. Nassauer and Corry’s four deliberative questions that correspond to actions in science (Nassauer & Corry, 2004)
Finally, Shearer identifies three questions more deeply embedded in the fundamental structure of Alternative Futures studies (Shearer, 2005). First he asks questions of method, suggesting the general approach be examined to look for assumptions about the extent of stakeholder involvement. On a deeper level, he asks whether studies are normative, meaning investigating futures that are preferable such as preservation of biodiversity - or exploratory, meaning simply futures that could happen. Related to this, he asks whether projects rely on deductive or inductive logic. Deductive approaches start with the desired future (landscape conditions) and ‘reverse engineer’ actions that would lead to those results. Inductive approaches start by describing likely scenarios that lead to a set of future conditions. Shearer next questions the internal logic of Alternative Futures studies. For example, he asks whether a study assumes the processes of development will remain constant. Could, for example, totally new or unexpected development patterns result from a scenario? What if a scenario makes development more attractive in an unexpected location? Does the internal logic account for such changes or does the modeling remain
What is relevant about the existing landscape and its past?
Collecting data
How should the landscape change?
Formulating and operationalizing hypothesis
What is relevant about how the landscape should change?
Generating new data
How do the alternatives perform?
31
constant? Finally, Shearer asks whether the context of a study, in the largest sense of that term, is reflected in its design. Figure 2.7 summarizes Shearer’s questions.
Figure 2.7. Shearer’s embedded questions (Shearer, 2005).