IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v42y2015i4p754-770.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Radical uncertainty: scenario planning for futures

Author

Listed:
  • Marisa A Zapata
  • Nikhil Kaza

Abstract

The use of scenario planning in urban and regional planning practice has grown in the last decade as one way to face uncertainty. However, in adapting scenario planning from its origins in the business sector, planners have eliminated two key components: (1) the use of multiple scenarios, and (2) the inclusion of diverse organizations, people, and interests through deep deliberations. We argue that this shift limits the ability of planners to plan for multiple plausible futures that are shaped by an increasing number of diverse actors. In this paper, we use case-study research to examine how uncertainty was considered in four scenario-planning processes. We analyzed and compared the cases based on analytical categories related to multiple futures and diversity. We found that the processes that used multiple, structurally distinct scenarios explored a wider range of topics and issues shaping places. All four relied heavily on professional stakeholders as the scenario developers, limiting public input. Only one of the processes that included multiple futures captured the differential effects that scenarios would have on diverse people and interests. Overall, the purpose of the scenario planning drove the participant diversity and ultimately the quality and use of the scenarios.

Suggested Citation

  • Marisa A Zapata & Nikhil Kaza, 2015. "Radical uncertainty: scenario planning for futures," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 42(4), pages 754-770, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:42:y:2015:i:4:p:754-770
    DOI: 10.1068/b39059
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b39059
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/b39059?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marisa A. Zapata, 2013. "Five years later: how California community members acted on transformative learning achieved in a participatory planning process," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 373-387, September.
    2. Arnab Chakraborty & Nikhil Kaza & Gerrit-Jan Knaap & Brian Deal, 2011. "Robust Plans and Contingent Plans," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 77(3), pages 251-266.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Atsede D. Tegegne & Marianne Penker & Maria Wurzinger, 2016. "Participatory Demographic Scenarios Addressing Uncertainty and Transformative Change in Ethiopia," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 277-296, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pan, Meiyu (Melrose) & Wong, Stephen & Tainter, Francis & Woelfel, Steve & Ryan, Alyssa, 2024. "Integrating equity in transportation scenario planning: A systematic review," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 85-95.
    2. Rifat, Shaikh Abdullah Al & Liu, Weibo, 2022. "Predicting future urban growth scenarios and potential urban flood exposure using Artificial Neural Network-Markov Chain model in Miami Metropolitan Area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    3. Lingli Li & Jinjie Wang & Chaoxian Yang & Chaofu Wei, 2021. "Implementation Process of General Land-Use Planning and Its Adjustment—A Case Study of Rongchang District in Chongqing, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-24, May.
    4. Justice Mensah, 2020. "Improving Quality Management in Higher Education Institutions in Developing Countries through Strategic Planning," Asian Journal of Contemporary Education, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 4(1), pages 9-25, June.
    5. Erfani, Goran & Roe, Maggie, 2020. "Institutional stakeholder participation in urban redevelopment in Tehran: An evaluation of decisions and actions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    6. Bev Wilson & Arnab Chakraborty, 2013. "The Environmental Impacts of Sprawl: Emergent Themes from the Past Decade of Planning Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(8), pages 1-26, August.
    7. Arnab Chakraborty, 2012. "Recognizing Uncertainty and Linked Decisions in Public Participation: A New Framework for Collaborative Urban Planning," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 131-148, March.
    8. Zipan Cai & Bo Wang & Cong Cong & Vladimir Cvetkovic, 2020. "Spatial dynamic modelling for urban scenario planning: A case study of Nanjing, China," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1380-1396, October.
    9. Yexuan Gu & Brian Deal & Linda Larsen, 2018. "Geodesign Processes and Ecological Systems Thinking in a Coupled Human-Environment Context: An Integrated Framework for Landscape Architecture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-24, September.
    10. Rozanne Spijkerboer, "undated". "The use of scenario planning as a tool in US public spatial planning practice," NEURUS papers neurusp185, NEURUS - Network of European and US Regional and Urban Studies.
    11. Muhammad Taufiq & Suhirman & Benedictus Kombaitan, 2021. "A Reflection on Transactive Planning: Transfer of Planning Knowledge in Local Community-Level Deliberation," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, June.
    12. Youjung Kim & Galen Newman & Burak Güneralp, 2020. "A Review of Driving Factors, Scenarios, and Topics in Urban Land Change Models," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-22, July.
    13. Mercy Serwah Owusu Ansah & Emmanuel Oppong Peprah, 2022. "The Link between Stakeholder Engagement and Strategic Planning in the Ghana Forestry Sector: A Systematic Literature Review," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 6(5), pages 907-914, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:42:y:2015:i:4:p:754-770. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.