Discursive Relationships Between Landscape Science, Policy and Management Practice: Concepts, Issues and Examples - Landscape Ecology for Sustainable Environment and Culture - page 222

many cases are entirely expert based (Steinitz et al. 2003 ). They are almost always
interdisciplinary (Tress et al. 2003 ).
Studies that seek knowledge through projecting alternative futures have a his-
tory dating back to at least the 1950s, when Herman Kahn used the term 'scenario'
to identify long range depictions of the future concentrating on ''causal processes
and decision points'' (Kahn and Weiner 1967 ). In defining scenarios, Shearer
( 2005 ) identifies four common features- they are fictional descriptions of future
change; they describe related situations; they describe what could happen as
opposed to what will happen or even is likely to happen; and they organize
knowledge within explicitly defined frameworks. In landscape ecological plan-
ning, scenarios are distinguished from alternative futures by their focus (Steinitz
et al. 2003 ; Nassauer and Corry 2004 ; Shearer 2005 ). Scenarios describe different
sets of assumptions that underlie potential change in landscape pattern (Hulse et al.
2002 ; Opdam et al. 2002 ; Nassauer and Corry 2004 ). Normative landscape sce-
narios describe futures that should exist or are preferable and can ''inspire policy
by providing images of landscapes that could meet societal goals'' (Nassauer and
Corry 2004 , p. 344). They lead to processes of making alternative decisions and
actions that could result in different courses of events. Therefore, they describe
change that could, but not necessarily will, take place over time. Scenarios in turn
result in alternative futures, which describe the functional consequences of sce-
narios (Nassauer and Corry 2004 ). Thus scenarios can be thought of as processes,
while alternative futures can be seen as results of processes- the landscape
outcomes.
From this perspective, alternative futures can be analyzed at many different
times from the near future to very distant future. The alternative future at any
given time is uniquely based on the scenarios (assumptions, decisions, actions, and
events) that lead to it. Both scenarios and alternative futures are fictional in the
sense that they have not yet occurred: actual decisions, actions, and events will
lead to the concrete conditions of the future. Emmelin ( 1996 ) therefore proposed a
methodology through which scenario studies and future landscapes can be used for
landscape specific impact assessments of general policy proposals, such as changes
of legislation and national/regional policies including agricultural policy.
The role of the scientists (such as landscape ecologists) in alternative futures is
typically framed in terms of independent experts who investigate and present
knowledge about alternatives and how they perform, from which the elected
political decision makers can then choose a preferred policy. In some cases, there
is involvement of stakeholders such as local communities in the development of
alternative scenarios, and experts may be involved in identifying community
preferences or values for different scenarios.
Nassauer and Corry ( 2004 ) and Nassauer and Opdam ( 2008 ) explicitly frame
the alternative futures process as a scientific investigation, in which alternative
normative outcomes are presented as hypotheses about how landscape should
change, which can be tested under various assumptions about landscape dynamics.
The results are then conveyed to political decision makers and citizens to act upon.
In this, the models follow Dryzek's ( 2005 ) argument that in order to ensure the