Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Things become complicated in Tlön; they also tend to become effaced and lose their
details when they are forgotten. A classic example is the doorway which survived so long
as it was visited by a beggar and disappeared at his death.
1
(Borges, 1961, p. 39)
The central approach in this topic has been the development of scenarios in transport for
various contexts, and to demonstrate that the impossible can become possible through concerted
action from all stakeholders and through clear and consistent policy packages. Scenarios are
widely used at all levels of decision-making, particularly as they relate to climate change and
energy use, and common messages can be summarised from the previous chapters:
1
In terms of definition, scenario analysis is often conflated with option analysis, but we
have used scenarios in the tradition of Herman Kahn, incorporating wide-ranging issues
into images of very different futures that affect transport planning at the city level. There
is a large difference here to the use of option analysis in transport planning, where many
options are often considered, such as route alignments and pricing changes. We have been
concerned with strategy development at the strategic level, and the possible choices in
direction to be taken.
2
The scenarios used have usually numbered between two and four, and it is better not to
generate too many in a strategic decision-making process. Scenarios should also represent
very different futures, and many studies end up with two more extreme alternatives and
some sort of compromise in between. All scenarios need to be distinctive and represent
plausible futures, but of course they are unlikely to result in blueprints for any particular
future.
3
The scenario analysis process works well if it is explicitly participatory, and this should
include experts and wider stakeholders. Historically, experts have been used as the main
source of guidance, but this can lead to a narrow frame of understanding and innovation,
and perhaps also limit the ultimate acceptability of the scenarios as developed. The
participation should occur at many different stages in the process and should include a
wide range of views, including experts, wider stakeholders and ideally the public, so that
a diversity of views can be obtained, including some of the more radical options.
4
The expectations from participants must be realistic, and within the appropriate time
frames, but the debate must also allow for the opportunity to break out of conventional
thinking. A question here is whether it is better to achieve more modest objectives, rather
than fail against more ambitious ones, but certainly the strategic policy issues we face
demand innovative responses.
5
A range of different timelines have been used in the case studies presented here. The
future should not be too close, as this reduces the opportunity to think about trend-breaking
futures, but it should also not be too far in the future, as indeterminacy will increase.
With the rapidly changing cities, a shorter timescale may be more appropriate as change
is happening very quickly. In more well-established cities a longer term horizon might
be effective, but with intermediate time points when certain objectives need to have been
reached.
6
It is helpful if the likely impacts of scenarios are quantified in some way, so that the
scales of change can be assessed. This can be against CO2 or indeed any metric(s) that
is (are) deemed important. As part of each scenario, there should be clear milestones
and achievable targets so that progress in the direction anticipated can be monitored, and
