# Presentation: 161815

## Panel 3: Spatial Analytical Methods and Future Scenarios

- James Goldstein & Anna Fleder
- Tellus Institute
- Boston, MA
- U.S. EPA Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability Progress Review Workshop
- October 18, 2005

## Overview of Presentation

- Project Background
- The role and use of scenarios
- Creating Scenarios for the Boston Region
- Discussion

## 1. Project Background

- Increasing global interconnectedness has led to urgent large-scale problems -- clear need for preventative approaches & linking local with global
- Developing scenarios to support regional planning for sustainability by providing tools and methods
- Piloting this approach in Boston region

**Notes:**
Global markets, cultural interconnections
In interconnected world, impact of economic growth – both positive and negative – is deepened
Increased income inequality both globally and locally
 Urban metropolitan areas are particularly important – large fraction of population with increasing urbanization..., concentrated areas of resource consumption, mostly from outside the immediate region
 Need to link local plans, policies, and activities with global considerations of resource sustaianabiliity, assimilative capacity, and equity

## 2. Role of Scenarios

- Scenarios=Future Images + Possible Pathways
- Stories, both qualitative and quantitative, about how the future ***could*** unfold
- Fire up imagination, inspire and motivate action
- Early warnings about imminent dangers based on current trends
- Generate knowledge to conceive and evaluate alternative pathways
- Provide social legitimacy for early action

**Notes:**
--how opening slide with definition only—bascially your first bullet—to focus the mind of participants.  Then follow with role
--If logic is scenarios are pathways to visions., then reverse words in title.  
--my rule on powerpoints is lean as possible; minimize verbs.  Verbs can be spoken, need not be written, e.g. “generate” and “provide” not necessary
--last bullet deserves higher profile

## Branch Points

**Branch Points**

- Sources of Uncertainty
*Ignorance*
*Surprise*
*Volition*

**Notes:**
As current trends and driving forces unfold and interact with new factors, contingencies and behaviors, the global trajectory can branch into alternative pathways. These are critical years – a “time of choices” - where the decisions we make now can influence the fundamental direction of development in the coming decades. 
Predicting the future is impossible due to three types of uncertainty [click]:
[click] Ignorance – our understanding of current conditions and the forces causing change is limited. 
[click] Surprise – novel phenomena and unexpected events can alter pathways.  
[click] Volition - the future is subject to human choices that have not yet been made. 
Although we cannot predict the future, scenarios can help us to clarify the choices and to act wisely. [click] Scenarios are accounts of plausible possibilities told in words and numbers.

Assessing long-term issues (e.g., climate change) poses scientific and methodological challenges
Conventional trend analysis and modeling is inadequate; three types of indeterminancy:
ignorance
surprise
volition
Scenarios are a powerful means for examining long-term futures, including uncertainties 

## Components of Scenarios

- Where do we want to go?
*Images* of economy, politics, culture and society that suggest coherent and plausible futures
- How do we get there?
*Pathways* to bridge today’s conditions with the images of the future
*Actions*: gathering resources, motivating people

**Notes:**
Develop and spread a coherent, inspiring, and legitimate vision for a just, ecological and pluralistic global future

## Anatomy of Scenarios

**Anatomy of Scenarios**

## Global Links:Implications for Local Scenarios

- Local scenarios may connect more tangibly to social change processes than global scenarios
- Enlarges and enriches stakeholder process
- Promotes linkage to initiatives around the world; builds global solidarity
- Introduces exogenous variables that condition local planning and decision-making
- Identifies new goals and indicators

## Multi-Stakeholder Processes

- Normative visions and scenarios without broad stakeholder endorsement will never be realized
- On the other hand, stakeholders have difficulties thinking “out of the box”
- Need concrete small steps that can be realized in the short term to demonstrate success
- Visioning and backcasting together with stakeholders can facilitate social learning

## 3. Developing Scenarios for the Boston Region

- Three archetype scenarios being developed:
**Business-As-Usual** (BAU): little change in production and consumption patterns; GHG emissions and ecological footprints grow; equity not addressed
**Policy Reform**: technological and policy measures emphasized to moderate ecological destruction and social inequality
**Deep Change**: changes in values lead to changes in lifestyles and institutions (along with technological innovations) to achieve sustainability with global responsibility

**Notes:**
 As I mentioned this morning, the scenario development process is an iterative process involving our collaborators and our Working Group of outside advisors.
 Also remember that we’re using the PoleStar software scenario tool, which I’ll talk a little bit more about in a minute

## Scenario 1: Business-As-Usual

- Boston in 2050 stays the course of Boston in 2005:
- Dominant values (“the American dream”) and consumerism persist
- Income and health inequalities become deeper
- Dependence on imported raw materials increases
- Urban sprawl and car dependence grows
- Increased CO2 emissions and footprints leads to climate change with global as well as local impacts

## Scenario 2: Policy Reform

- 	Boston in 2050 has seen government-led policies and technological change to address many of the problems of the BAU scenario:
- CO2 emissions have decreased somewhat
- Income and social inequalities reduced
- Resources are used more efficiently
- Sprawl mitigated to a degree
- Global resource depletion continues
- Climate change and global inequality persist

## Scenario 3: Deep Change

- 	By 2050, Boston has seen political engagement towards transformation of values and lifestyles:
- Growing awareness of global connectedness and responsibility
- Deep changes in lifestyles, behavior, and institutions have led to huge reductions in CO2 emissions and footprint
- Quality-of-life (clean environment, sense of community, social equity) replaces economic growth and material consumption as key driver

## Business-As-UsualTransportation & Land Use

- Most growth seen in communities outside Rte. 128
- Private car use and VMT greater than in 2005; GHG emissions continue to grow
- Congestion and commuting times worsen
- Large inefficient vehicles continue to dominate
- Modest improvements in public transportation, but transit ridership low

**Notes:**
So for the Transportation & Land Use dimension in 2050 in the Business-As-Usual case we see ....

## Policy ReformTransportation & Land Use

- High fuel and vehicle taxes curtail private vehicle use; VMT reduced modestly
- Congestion and commuting time stabilized at 2005 levels
- Transport-related GHGs reduced moderately through efficiency improvements
- Improved rail and transit links (e.g., North & South Stations)
- TOD popular in much of the inner core communities
- Lack of regionally coordinated land-use planning; sprawling development in outer ring

**Notes:**
And in the Policy Reform case...

## Deep ChangeTransportation & Land Use

- GHG emissions from transportation reduced by 70%
- New regional governing body coordinates land-use decision-making; promotes density, transit, and healthy lifestyles and mixed use
- Private car use reduced significantly; transit and alternative modes dominate
- Major roadways redesigned to accommodate alternative modes
- Congestion and commuting time markedly reduced
- Parts of downtown Boston closed to private vehicles; served by free transit and other modes

**Notes:**
And in the Deep Change case, there has been deep value change, with sustainability and global responsibility adopted as overarching goals
Thus, ....

## Annual Miles Traveled in Personal Vehicles

**Notes:**
Now, to show you what this implies numerically for the Boston region, I’d like to show you a few slides based on the outputs from PoleStar.
Currently, residents of the region travel almost 20 billion miles per year in personal vehicles. Under BAU, this will rise to about 25 billion VMT by 2050. 
In the Policy Reform case there is a modest reduction in VMT relative to the BAU, due to efficiency improvements, perhaps from stricter CAFÉ standards. But personal vehicle miles are still increasing.
In the Deep Change case, VMT drops dramatically. In addition to the efficiency gains due to technology improvements, there is a major shift away from private transportation and towards public transit, walking and biking. Other factors contributing to the reduction are: more compact, mixed-use development, requiring shorter trips that can be done via other modes.

## CO2 Emissions

**Notes:**
For CO2 emissions, we see a somewhat different picture. (Note: This is for total CO2, not that just related to transportation).
In the BAU case, climate protection activities are not pursued and CO2 emissions continue to rise, from about 43 million tons per year in 2000 to about 65 million tons in 2050.
Under Policy Reform, we see dramatic reductions in CO2 relative to BAU to about 30 million tons per year, as climate protection actions are taken, including a shift to hydrogen vehicles, much more efficient devices, including vehicles, and a shift to alternative sources of energy (primarily for buildings and industry). Note that this 30% reduction, while quite substantial given population and economic growth over this period, still falls far short of what is needed for climate stabilization.
In the Deep Change scenario, in addition to the technological improvements, we include lifestyle changes such as changes in land-use patterns that require less travel, smaller housing units, etc. Note that this still falls a little short of the 75-80% overall CO2 reductions required for climate stabilization.

## Land Area Required for Food

**Notes:**
Though not related to transportation, food production has a major impact on land use. Of course most of the food we eat in the Boston area is produced outside this region, so we don’t immediately see the land impacts. However, they are very real...
In the BAU case, the region still imports the vast majority of our food supply, we have a relatively high fraction of meat, and farming practices do not change much.
In Policy Reform, we see improved yields based on different farming techniques and adoption of best practices and technologies. Diets and lifestyles remain unaffected.
In Deep Change, we see changed consumption patterns to a more vegetarian diet, in addition to adoption of best practices.

## Business-As-UsualPoverty & Inequality

- New employment opportunities mostly outside inner core
- Little attention to poverty reduction; poverty rate persists
- Growing income gap between skilled and unskilled jobs
- Inequality continues to increase

**Notes:**
A second dimension is poverty and inequality. Again, just to give you a flavor for this, in BAU...

## Policy ReformPoverty & Inequality

- Employment centers develop near transit nodes (diverse opportunities: from service to professional)
- Policy initiatives raise the minimum wage, increase job training opportunities
- Poverty stabilized but remains concentrated in inner core
- Inequality improves slightly

## Deep ChangePoverty & Inequality

- Poverty reduction and equality among key values adopted and acted upon
- Shorter work week leads to reduction in unemployment
- Affordable housing and universal health care reduce the financial burden on poor households
- “Living wage” adopted and poverty significantly reduced
- Considerable improvement in income equality

## Population Below the Poverty Line

**Notes:**
To show this quantitatively, based on PoleStar results, in the BAU poverty is not seriously addressed (the “trickle down” philosophy is still widely held) we see a continuation of past trends with the number of people below the poverty increases from over 750,000 in 2005 to well over a million in 2050. 
In Policy Reform, significant initiatives to raise wages, create jobs near transit, and provide job training go a long way to reducing poverty, though it persists and is concentrated in the inner core.
In Deep Change, poverty is virtually eliminated by 2025 or so, reflecting the deep commitment to doing so primarily through stronger social safety nets such as programs to provide basic income for (but it also builds on reduced unemployment, adoption of a “living wage,” provision of affordable housing and universal health care, etc.).

## Income Inequality

**Notes:**
Similar to poverty reduction, this shows what happens to income inequality in the three scenarios, using the Gini coefficient. A Gini coefficient of 0 is perfect equality, 1 is total inequality. You can see that inequality gets worse in the BAU case, where it really isn’t addressed.
It stabilizes and declines a little in the Policy reform case, which is focused on moving poor people up the ladder, with reduced unemployment and increases in the minimum wage.
And it drops dramatically in the Deep Change scenario, again related to changes in underlying values, which lead to structural shifts in the economy away from speculative wealth creation to socially productive sectors such as education and health care, plus adoption of stronger social safety nets such as programs to provide basic income for all citizens.

## 4. Discussion

- What does it mean for the Boston region to pursue a sustainable future when the rest of the country/world is not?
- Boston could serve as a model for other regions
- We could assume that similar deep changes are taking place throughout the country and beyond
- What role can scenario development processes play in informing planning and bringing about coherence and a sense of direction?

## Contact Information

- James Goldstein
- Senior Fellow
- jgold@tellus.org

- Anna Fleder
- Research Analyst
- afleder@tellus.org

- Tellus Institute
- 11 Arlington St.
- Boston, MA 02116
- (617) 266-5400