Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Anticipating floodplain trajectories: a comparison of two alternative futures approaches

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Scenario-based investigations explore alternative future courses of action in a widening array of situations. Anticipating landscape patterns and the values behind them are recurring needs in such investigations. While it is accepted that how scenario assumptions are framed and who frames them matters, the sensitivity of resulting trajectories to contrasting scenario framing and modeling processes is rarely tested. Using comparable scenarios we contrast landscape change trajectories produced from two distinct approaches to modeling scenario assumptions: the first uses lay citizen groups and deterministic land allocation modeling, the second uses experts from biophysical and social sciences and agent-based modeling. Scenarios are defined and mapped for the year 2050 in western Oregon’s Willamette River Basin along a gradient of conservation oriented to development-oriented assumptions using first citizen-based and then expert-based approaches. The landscape variability and trajectories for the citizen-based Conservation 2050 and Development 2050 scenarios are then characterized and compared with those of the expert-based Conservation 2050 and Development 2050 scenarios. Results distinguish areas where trajectories always vary regardless of approach or scenario from those that never vary. Policy influence on trajectory is illustrated using agent-based model results where land conversion serves purposes of wealth production and ecosystem function. Results depict areas with strong coupling between policy and trajectory as those places experiencing the same pattern of change over time regardless of scenario. Results also indicate that the greater the variability of a given scenario’s trajectories, the more successful the scenario is at avoiding scarcity of wealth and ecosystem function.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahern J (2001) Spatial concepts, planning strategies, and future scenarios: a framework method for integrating landscape ecology and landscape planning. In: Klopatek J, Gardner R (eds) Landscape ecological analysis: issues and applications. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 175–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker JP, Landers DH, Lee H II, Ringold PL, Sumner RR, Wigington PJ Jr et al (1995) Ecosystem management research in the Pacific Northwest: five-year research strategy. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development (Washington, DC) EPA/600/R-95/069

  • Baker JP, Hulse DW, Gregory SV, White D, Van Sickle J, Berger PA et al (2004) Alternative futures for the Willamette River Basin, Oregon. Ecol Appl 14:313–324. doi:10.1890/02-5011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner S, Becker C, Faber M, Manstetten R (2006) Relative and absolute scarcity of nature: assessing the roles of economics and ecology for biodiversity conservation. Ecol Econ 59(4):487–498. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.11.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beisner BE, Haydon DT, Ciddington K (2003) Alternative stable states in ecology. Front Ecol Environ 1(7):376–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolte J, Hulse D, Gregory S, Smith C (2006) Modeling biocomplexity—agents, landscapes and alternative futures. Environ Model Softw 22(5):570–579. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.12.033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown DG, Page S, Riolo R, Zellner M, Rand W (2005a) Path dependence and the validation of agent-based spatial models of land use. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 19(2):153–174. doi:10.1080/13658810410001713399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown DG, Riolo RL, Robinson D, North M, Rand W (2005b) Spatial process and data models: toward integration of agent-based models and GIS. J Geogr Syst 7(1):1–23. doi:10.1007/s10109-005-0148-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch G (2006) Future European agricultural landscapes—what can we learn from existing quantitative land use scenario studies? Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:121–140. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter SR (2002) Ecological futures: building an ecology of the long now. Ecology 83:2069–2083

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol 11(4):2138–2152

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis PK, Bankes SC, Egner M (2007) Enhancing strategic planning with massive scenario generation. Technical Report 392, RAND Corporation, National Security Research Division. Santa Monica, CA. http://www.rand.org/

  • Ducot C, Lubben HJ (1980) A typology for scenarios. Futures 12(1):15–57

    Google Scholar 

  • European Environment Agency, Alcamo J (2001) Scenarios as tools for international environmental assessments. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Garman SL, Swanson FJ, Spies TA (1999) Past, present, future landscape patterns in the Douglas-fir region of the Pacific Northwest. In: Rochelle JA, Lehmann LA, Wisniewski J (eds) Forest fragmentation: wildlife and management implications. Brill Academic Publishing, Leiden, pp 61–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Godet M (1987) Scenarios and strategic management. Butterworth

  • Godet M, Roubelat F (1996) Creating the future: the use and misuse of scenarios. Long Range Plann 29:164–171. doi:10.1016/0024-6301(96)00004-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory R, Slovic P (1997) A constructive approach to environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 21:175–181. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(96)00104-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory SV, Swanson FJ, McKee WA, Cummins KW (1991) An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience 41:540–551. doi:10.2307/1311607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory S, Ashkenas L, Oetter D, Minear P, Wildman K, Christy J (2002a) Riparian areas. In: Hulse D, Gregory S, Baker J (eds) Willamette River Basin planning atlas: trajectories of environmental and ecological change. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, pp 98–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory S, Oetter D, Ashkenas L, Minear P, Wildman K, Christy J (2002b) Natural vegetation. In: Hulse D, Gregory S, Baker J (eds) Willamette River Basin planning atlas: trajectories of environmental and ecological change. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, pp 96–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm V, Revilla E, Berger U, Jeltsch F, Mooij WM, Railsback SF et al (2005) Pattern-oriented modeling of agent-based complex systems: lessons from ecology. Science 310:987–991. doi:10.1126/science.1116681

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guzy MR, Smith CL, Bolte JP, Hulse DW, Gregory SV (2008) Policy research using agent-based modeling to assess future impacts of urban expansion into farmlands and forests. Ecol Soc 13(1): 37. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art37/

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond A (1998) Which World? Scenarios for the 21st century. Global destinies, regional choices. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Harms BH, Knaapen JP, Rademakers JG (1993) Landscape planning for nature restoration: comparing regional scenarios. In: Vos CC, Opdam P (eds) Landscape ecology of a stressed environment. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 197–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschorn L (1980) Scenario writing: a developmental approach. J Am Plan Assoc 46(2):172–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS (2001) Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social systems. Ecosystems (N Y, Print) 4:389–405. doi:10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulse D, Gregory S (2004) Integrating resilience into floodplain restoration. J Urban Ecol. Special Issue on Large-Scale Ecosystem Studies: Emerging Trends in Urban and Regional Ecology 7:295–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulse D, Ribe R (2000) Land conversion and the production of wealth. J Ecol Appl 10(3):679–682. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0679:LCATPO]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulse D, Eilers J, Freemark K, White D, Hummon C (2000) Planning alternative future landscapes in Oregon: evaluating effects on water quality and biodiversity. Landsc J 19(2):1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulse DW, Gregory SV, Baker JP (eds) (2002) Willamette River Basin: trajectories of environmental and ecological change. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulse DW, Branscomb A, Payne S (2004) Envisioning alternatives: using citizen guidance to map future land and water use. Ecol Appl 14(2):325–341. doi:10.1890/02-5260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jager W, Janssen MA, De Vries HJM, De Greef J, Vlek CAJ (2000) Behaviour in commons dilemmas: homo economicus and Homo psychologicus in an ecological-economic model. Ecol Econ 35:357–379. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00220-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen MA, Jager W (2000) The human agent in ecological economic models. Ecol Econ 35(3):307–310. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00215-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen MA, Ostrom E (2006) Empirically based, agent-based models. Ecology and Society 11(2):37. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art37/

  • Johnson B, Campbell R (1999) Ecology and participation in landscape-based planning within the Pacific Northwest. Policy Stud J 27(3):502–529. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1999.tb01983.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lackey RT (2006) Axioms of ecological policy. Fisheries 31(6):286–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Landis J (2001) CUF, CUF II, and CURBA: a family of spatially explicit urban growth and land-use policy simulation models. In: Brail RK, Klosterman RF (eds) Planning support systems: integrating geographic information systems, models, and visualization tools. ESRI Press, Redlands, pp 157–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Lempert RJ, Popper SW, Bankes SC (2003) Shaping the next one hundred years: new methods for quantitative, long-term policy analysis. RAND, 1700 Main St., Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138

  • Levin SA (1998) Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems (N Y, Print) 1:431–436. doi:10.1007/s100219900037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liotta PH, Shearer AW (2007) Gaia’s revenge: climate change and humanity’s loss. Praeger Publishers, Westport ISBN: 0-275-98797-3

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y, Mahmoud M, Hartmann H, Stewart S, Wagener T, Semmens D et al (2007) Formal scenario development for environmental impact assessment studies. In: Jakeman A, Voinov A, Rizzoli AE, Chen S (eds) State of the art and futures in environmental modelling and software. IDEA Book Series. Elsevier, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch K (1981) A theory of good city form. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (2001) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Contribution of working group II to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • McHarg IL (1969) Design with nature. Natural History Press for The American Museum of Natural History. Doubleday & Co., Garden City

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows ME (2003) Soil erosion in the Swartland, Western Cape province, South Africa: implications of past and present policy and practice. Environ Sci Policy 6(1):17–28. doi:10.1016/S1462-9011(02)00122-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michener WK, Baerwald TJ, Firth P, Palmer MA, Rosenberger JL, Sandlin EA et al (2001) Defining and unraveling biocomplexity. Bioscience 51(12):1018–1023. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[1018:DAUB]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray T, Rogers P, Sinton D, Steinitz C, Toth R, Way D (1971) Honey Hill: a systems analysis for planning the multiple use of controlled water areas. Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers IWR Report 71-9, vol 1 NTIS doc. no. AD736343, vol 2 NTIS doc. no. AD736344

  • Nassauer J, Corry R (2004) Using normative scenarios in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecol 19:343–356. doi:10.1023/B:LAND.0000030666.55372.ae

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill RV, DeAngelis DL, Waide JB, Allen TFH (1986) A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton (Monographs in Population Biology 23)

  • Ostrom E (1998) A behavioral approach to the rational-choice theory of collective action. Am Polit Sci Rev 92:1–22. doi:10.2307/2585925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker D, Meretsky V (2004) Measuring pattern outcomes in an agent based model of edge effect externalities using spatial metrics. Agric Ecosyst Environ 101:233–250. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2003.09.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker DC, Manson SM, Janssen MA, Hoffmann MJ, Deadman P (2003) Multi-agent systems for the simulation of land-use and land-cover change: a review. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 93(2):314–337. doi:10.1111/1467-8306.9302004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa H (1968) Decision analysis: introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson J (2003) Future subjunctive: backcasting as social learning. Futures 35:839–956. doi:10.1016/S0016-3287(03)00039-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santelmann M, Freemark K, White D, Nassauer J, Clark M, Danielson B et al (2001) Applying ecological principles to land-use decision making in agricultural watersheds. In: Dale VH, Haeuber R (eds) Applying ecological principles to land management. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 226–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoonenboom IJ (1995) Overview and state of the art of scenario studies for the rural environment. In: Schoute JF Th, Finke PA, Veenenklaas FR, Wolfert HP (eds) Scenario studies for the rural environment, selected and edited proceedings of the symposium scenario studies for the rural environment, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 12–15 September 1994. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 15–24

  • Schroter D, Cramer W, Leemans R, Prentice IC, Araujo MB, Arnell NW et al (2005) Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science 25(310):1333–1337. doi:10.1126/science.1115233

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz P (1991) The art of the long view: planning for the future in an uncertain world. Currency Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Shearer AW (2005) Approaching scenario-based studies: three perceptions about the future and considerations for landscape planning. Environ Plann B Plann Des 32:67–87. doi:10.1068/b3116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinitz C (1990) A framework for theory applicable to the education of landscape architects (and other environmental design professionals). Landsc J 9(2):136–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinitz C, McDowell S (2001) Alternative futures for Monroe County, Pennsylvania: a case study in applying ecological principles. In: Dale VH, Haeuber R (eds) Applying ecological principles to land management. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 165–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinitz C, Binford M, Cote P, Edwards T Jr, Ervin S, Forman RTT et al (1996) Biodiversity and landscape planning: alternative futures for the region of Camp Pendleton, California. Harvard University Graduate School of Design, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk T (2003) Scenarios of Central Europe land fragmentation. Land Use Policy 20(2):149–158. doi:10.1016/S0264-8377(02)00082-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Notten PWF, Rotmans J, van Asselt MBA, Rothman DS (2003) An updated scenario typology. Futures 35(5):423–443. doi:10.1016/S0016-3287(02)00090-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Notten PWF, Sleegers AM, van Asselt MBA (2005) The future shocks: on discontinuity and scenario development. Technol Forecast Soc Change 72:175–194. doi:10.1016/S0040-1625(04)00005-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Sickle J, Baker J, Herlihy A, Bayley P, Gregory S, Haggerty P, Ashkenas L, Li J (2004) Projecting the biological condition of wadeable streams, under alternative scenarios of human land and water use. Ecol Appl 14:368–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wack P (1985) Scenarios: uncharted waters ahead. Harv Bus Rev 63(5):72–89

    Google Scholar 

  • White D, Preston EM, Freemark KE, Kiester AR (1999) A hierarchical framework for conserving biodiversity. In: Klopatek JM, Gardner RH (eds) Landscape ecological analysis: issues and applications. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 127–153

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The information in this document was funded in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, through cooperative agreement CR824682 to Oregon State University and the Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium. This manuscript has not been subjected to US EPA review, and does not necessarily represent Agency views. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. The National Science Foundation Program, Biocomplexity in the Environment: Integrated Research and Education in Environmental Systems, Award No. 0120022 also funded part of this research. Additional support came from Oregon State University and the University of Oregon. The authors thank Stan Gregory, Court Smith, Bart Johnson, Denis White, Fred Swanson, Laura Musacchio and three insightful anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA

    David Hulse, Allan Branscomb & Chris Enright

  2. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA

    John Bolte

Authors
  1. David Hulse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Allan Branscomb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chris Enright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John Bolte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Hulse.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hulse, D., Branscomb, A., Enright, C. et al. Anticipating floodplain trajectories: a comparison of two alternative futures approaches. Landscape Ecol 24, 1067–1090 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-9255-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-9255-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation