Scenario Planning: An Introduction for 

Fishery Managers

Kathryn M. Frens and Wendy E. Morrison

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OSF-9 

July 2020

Scenario Planning: An Introduction for Fishery Managers

Kathryn M. Frens and Wendy E. Morrison

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OSF-9 

July 2020

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Wilbur L. Ross, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Dr. Neil Jacobs, Acting Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

ii

Recommended citation:

Frens, Kathryn M., and Wendy E. Morrison. 2020. Scenario Planning: An Introduction for Fishery 

Managers. U.S. Dept. of Commer., NOAA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OSF-9, 38 p.

Copies of this report may be obtained from:

Domestic Fisheries Division

Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

1315 East-West Highway, SSMC3 

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Or online at:

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resources/all-publications
iii

Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................1

2.0 WHAT IS SCENARIO PLANNING? ................................................................................................2

3.0 WHEN COULD SCENARIO PLANNING BE MOST HELPFUL? .................................................4

4.0 THE SCENARIO PLANNING PROCESS ........................................................................................5

5.0 WHAT PROJECTS ARE INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT?......................................................8

6.0 SCENARIO PLANNING PROJECT SUMMARIES.........................................................................9

6.1 Tijuana National Estuarine Research Reserve ................................................................................9

6.2 Great Barrier Reef Catchment.......................................................................................................13

6.3 Rhode Island Fisheries..................................................................................................................17

6.4 Barents Sea....................................................................................................................................20

6.5 Yukon Territory ............................................................................................................................23

6.6 Gulf of Maine Salmon...................................................................................................................26

6.7 Apostle Islands National Lakeshore..............................................................................................29

7.0 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................................32

REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................34

APPENDIX 1: SCENARIO PLANNING GUIDES AND HANDBOOKS ...........................................36

APPENDIX 2: SCENARIO PLANNING PROJECTS ..........................................................................37
iv
1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The fisheries of the United States are facing unprecedented challenges due to changing 

ocean conditions and market forces. For example, a marine heat wave in the Gulf of Alaska 

from 2014 to 2016 resulted in a significant decline in the stock of Pacific cod, as well as a 

number of other ecosystem impacts. Even though scientists detected the decline in Pacific 

cod and were able to adjust catch limits accordingly, the new limits had negative effects on 

many Alaska fishing communities where cod is a vital resource (Townsend, et al., 2019). The 

same marine heat wave was also connected to a rise in whale entanglements in crab fishing 

gear along the U.S. west coast (Santora et al. 2020). Meanwhile, the crab fishery itself is at 

risk from ocean acidification (Bednaršek, et al., 2020).

Unpredictable events, combined with a changing climate and changes in global markets, 

form novel contexts in which fishery managers now have to work. Unlike scientific 

uncertainty, which is estimated and incorporated into management decisions, these largescale changes often defy prediction. In the meantime, the fishery manager’s mandate—to 

ensure that fisheries are both ecologically sustainable and economically profitable—has not 

changed. The challenge that fishery managers now face is planning to fulfill this mandate 

when the future holds multiple areas of uncertainty, and when these areas of uncertainty can 

affect one another. If future conditions are full of surprises, how can managers plan for 

effective fisheries management in five years, let alone twenty years?

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a tool known as scenario planning, which can 

help answer this question. Scenario planning is a method of identifying uncertainties and 

determining options that will meet management goals across multiple possible sets of future 

conditions (Peterson, Cumming, & Carpenter, 2003; Rowland, Cross, & Hartmann, 2014; 

National Park Service, 2013). In this document, we introduce scenario planning, provide 

examples of past scenario planning projects, and discuss some considerations for managers 

when developing a scenario planning exercise.

This document is intended as a resource for practitioners who are considering engaging in 

a scenario planning process by providing examples and analysis of previous scenario 

planning projects. Sections 2 and 3 introduce concepts and considerations key to scenario 

planning. Section 4 describes some commonalities of many scenario planning projects and 

lists common scenario planning steps. Section 5 describes how scenario planning projects 

were chosen for inclusion in this document. Section 6 encompasses seven summaries of 

diverse scenario planning projects. Section 7 provides a discussion of the lessons learned 

from the seven summaries. Appendix 1 lists published guides to scenario planning, and 

Appendix 2 is a table of published scenario planning projects.
2

2.0 WHAT IS SCENARIO PLANNING?

Scenario planning is a method of integrating uncertainty into planning for managing 

resources. Scenario planners look for areas of high uncertainty in a system and imagine 3-4 

future situations, termed scenarios, that could occur given the uncertainties identified.

Participants in scenario planning projects then look for management options or changes that 

would be useful across any of these plausible future scenarios. In this way, scenario planning 

can help managers and stakeholders understand where management strategies may need to 

change to prepare for the future. The end goals of scenario planning are to provide better 

policy or decision support and stimulate engagement in the process of change (Bizikova & 

Hatcher, 2010).

In natural resources management, scenario planning has most commonly been used to 

plan for adaptation to climate change, but it can be used to address many types of change or 

uncertainty, including uncertainties in regulations, markets, or the environment. Scenario 

planning offers the opportunity to integrate multiple forms of knowledge into multidimensional futures; quantitative data (for example, population change) can be combined 

with qualitative data (for example, political environment) to create plausible sets of future 

conditions under which resources will need to be managed.

Scenario planning was initially developed for military research, and transitioned into the 

corporate world in the 1970s. Shell Oil was an early adopter of scenario planning (Peterson, 

Cumming, & Carpenter, 2003), and the company’s success with the method sparked interest 

from other private businesses, as well as the United States government. Scenario planning 

applications in natural resources management have increased quickly during the 21st century, 

spearheaded in the United States by the US National Park Service, which has carried out 

multiple scenario planning exercises for climate change using a standard protocol (Runyon, 

Carlson, Gross, Lawrence, & Schurmann, 2020). A few other organizations have adopted 

“standard” methodologies, but most scenario planning projects use methods that are adapted 

to fit the context of the individual project.

At its best, scenario planning is a collaborative process that includes input from multiple 

stakeholder groups, including resource managers, scientists, and resource users (OterosRozas, Ravera, & Palomo, 2015). Broad participation expands the sources of information that 

are included in the project, and also promotes buy-in from groups that may be less active in 

the management process. Participatory scenario planning projects take months or years to 

complete, and often involve a trained facilitator. While every project is different, most use 

some form of the process described in Section 4. The participatory process allows a more 

comprehensive examination of uncertainties than simulation-driven processes, and provides 

the opportunity to include non-quantifiable drivers, such as stakeholder attitudes, in the
3

scenarios. Thus, we believe that the scenarios generated by participatory processes can better 

reflect the true range of plausible future conditions for the study system. The participatory 

nature of these projects also generates additional benefits, such as increased trust in the 

planning process and communication among stakeholder groups. These less-tangible benefits 

can be critical to the success of a planning project.

Scenario planning is not a form of prediction (Weeks, Malone, & Welling, 2011). This 

makes it particularly useful in fields, including natural resources, where small changes in the 

system can drastically change future outcomes, and where tipping points and surprises are 

common (Peterson, Cumming, & Carpenter, 2003). If managers rely solely on scientific 

models that attempt to predict the most likely future in an uncertain and interconnected 

system, there is a strong chance that the current models will be incorrect and thus the 

managers will be unprepared for the actual outcomes. Anomalies like the 2014-2016 marine 

heat wave are not built into typical models, and thus managers may have little experience 

considering the impacts of similar surprises. In scenario planning, managers are encouraged 

to think about the unexpected and adopt strategies that are adaptable to unprecedented events.

Figure 1: Scenario planning incorporates uncertainty and surprises to develop management 

strategies across multiple futures (Weeks et al 2011).
4

A broad range of project methods are termed “scenarios” in the scientific literature, but 

not all of these methods reflect the outside-the-box thinking and narrative focus that is the 

hallmark of scenario planning. For example, planning exercises based on the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emissions scenarios are common.

However, these emissions scenarios are more a series of related mathematical models than 

they are a set of multi-dimensional plausible futures. Scenario planning incorporates 

qualitative and quantitative data to build a set of divergent scenarios that allow managers to

plan for surprises.

Management strategy evaluation (MSE), a current priority of NMFS Science Centers, has 

many attributes in common with scenario planning. Both methods have the goal of 

identifying management actions that are robust to uncertainty. However, MSE and scenario 

planning have different emphases which can complement one another. MSE typically uses 

simulations to compare how alternative management strategies meet pre-identified, 

quantitative goals such as landings or percentage of stocks not overfished. Scenario planning 

is generally more descriptive, combining local knowledge of the system with some 

quantitative data to describe multiple plausible future conditions. While scenario planning 

might make use of simulations in the vein of MSE, the narrative creativity facilitated by 

scenario planning provides space for participants to imagine entirely different futures from 

those that can be simulated.

3.0 WHEN COULD SCENARIO PLANNING BE MOST HELPFUL?

Scenario planning can be used to inform management in a wide variety of situations and 

systems. Whenever uncertainty is high and many aspects of the system are outside the 

control of managers, (a common combination in natural resources) scenario planning can be 

useful. What kind of process to use and which stakeholders to involve are decisions to be 

made on a case-by-case basis, based on project needs and resources (see Section 4).

Scenario planning has benefits that go beyond informing management. Situations in 

which different stakeholder groups have different knowledge bases, with little 

communication among groups, can benefit from the information exchange inherent in this 

process. Groups of users who have historically been less engaged in fisheries management 

can participate in the scenario planning process, empowering them to help clarify the value 

of the resource and increasing trust between managers and users. Even in situations of 

conflict, scenario planning can be used to identify commonalities in the futures participants 

hope to see or hope to avoid, and to develop a common language among participants.

Participatory scenario planning is not a panacea to all natural resource planning 

problems. It tends to be resource-intensive, often taking years to complete and requiring
5

significant effort from the project team and facilitator. Power imbalances, including those of 

education and economics, among participants can affect the success of the project if they are 

not carefully considered (Reed, et al., 2013). Thus, if limited time or resources are available 

for the project, tools other than scenario planning may better fit the project needs. In addition, 

scenario planning may not be useful when current uncertainties are so overwhelming that the 

future seems irrelevant to stakeholders (J. Star, personal communication).

4.0 THE SCENARIO PLANNING PROCESS

While the general understanding of the scenario planning tool is clear (see section 2), the 

specific methods followed to implement a scenario planning project can vary. There are 

many scenario planning processes, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. We 

recommend that project teams adapt the processes as needed for their context and resources. 

Table 1 uses the National Park Service’s five phases of a scenario planning project to detail 

the goals, steps, and outcomes of the process. These steps are flexible and are used in most 

scenario planning projects, regardless of specific approach. In the summaries in Section 6, 

you will find examples of how different organizations have approached this process.

The scenario planning process begins with an orientation to the problem and how 

scenario planning can help find management actions that address the problem. This phase is 

usually carried out by a small core team, which defines the purpose of the project and 

determines its goals and desired outcomes. The core team often includes a scenario planning 

expert and/or a facilitator who will help lead the process. During this phase, the team 

typically decides on the process they will use for the rest of the project.

The second phase involves further exploration into the focal problem. Exploration of the 

focal issue and identification of key drivers and uncertainties can be done by the core team, 

but often also includes interviews or workshops with stakeholders. This phase lays the 

groundwork for the scenario building, and can be an important time to build trust among and 

gain buy-in from stakeholders.

In Phase 3 of the process, the scenarios are constructed. Who constructs them varies from 

project to project: scenarios can be built collaboratively in workshops or by smaller 

stakeholder groups. Alternatively, the core team can build the scenarios and present them to 

stakeholders later in the process. Many methods of scenario building exist (see Section 6 for 

some examples), but all rely on the drivers and uncertainties identified in Phase 2 of the 

project.

The fourth phase, application, involves in-depth examination of the scenarios and 

evaluation of management actions under the conditions in the scenarios. This phase is
6

typically carried out in a workshop or series of workshops in which stakeholders discuss the 

implications of the scenarios for the focal issue and look at the focal issue from multiple 

perspectives. A facilitator trained in scenario planning methods usually guides this process. 

This phase should produce recommendations of management actions that would be 

appropriate under more than one scenario.

The final phase of the project involves monitoring the environment for changes that 

indicate that the management recommendations should be implemented. Some projects preidentify triggers, such as a certain amount of sea level rise, to signal to managers that it’s 

time to implement a particular management action. If the scenario planning project has not 

been led by managers, this phase should also include communication between the project 

team and key managers, to ensure that the results of the scenario planning process can be 

applied.

While we have presented this process as a sequence of five phases, in practice the process 

should be more cyclical than linear. As understanding of the future improves, the scenario 

planning process could be repeated. Ideally, managers will adopt a scenario planning mindset 

in which they automatically consider uncertainties and multiple plausible scenarios when 

making any management decision; for example, they will always ask whether a proposed 

change in management will create a management system that is more or less responsive to 

plausible changes in the ecosystem.
7

The Scenario Planning Process 

Table 1: Scenario planning process, adapted from National Park Service, 2013. 

Goal Steps Outcomes/Products

Phase 1: Orient

Set up project for success • Establish purpose and scope of project

• Determine type of desired outcomes 

• Specify focal issue (strategic challenge) to 

explore 

• Recruit core team

• An understanding of the purpose, 

desired outcomes, focal issue and 

scope of project

Phase 2: Explore 

Identify and analyze drivers, 

variables, trends, and uncertainties 

• Identify drivers, variables, and uncertainties

• Identify potential impacts

• Survey or interview stakeholders to improve 

understanding of issue (optional) 

• Tables, conceptual models, charts, 

graphics, or maps that capture 

drivers, variables, or uncertainties

Phase 3:Synthesize & Create ScenariosProduce small number of scenarios 

using critical forces and impacts 

identified in Phase 2 

• Determine critical uncertainties (uncertainties 

with large impact on focal issue)

• Build scenario frameworks and choose 

scenarios

• Develop scenario narratives

• Review scenarios for plausibility

• 3-5 plausible, relevant, challenging 

and divergent scenarios using 

critical uncertainties to inform, 

inspire and test actions/strategies

Phase 4: Apply 

Answer “So what?” questions: 

What are the impacts of these 

plausible futures? What can we do 

about it? 

• Identify scenario implications

• Develop, test and prioritize management 

actions

• Use scenarios to inform management 

strategies

• List of actions, strategies, or areas 

for additional research based on 

discussions initiated by scenarios

Phase 5: Monitor 

Identify important indicators 

(trigger points) that can signal 

changes in the environment as 

future unfolds 

• Select indicators to monitor

• Monitor environment changes

• List of indicators and early 

warning signals for continued 

research and monitoring

• A monitoring strategy
8

5.0 WHAT PROJECTS ARE INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT?

We reviewed about 50 scenario planning projects, which were identified through 

literature searches on Google Scholar, a grey literature search conducted by researchers at 

NOAA Central Library, and using snowball search techniques. This number is not precise 

due to some ambiguity around the term “scenario planning” and possible duplication, such as 

when one project is used to pilot another project. We screened the identified projects for 

inclusion in this document based on the following criteria:

1. The project must be focused on scenario planning for natural resources management.

2. The project must include a participatory element involving stakeholders beyond those 

leading the project.

3. The project report must be publicly available or accessible electronically through the 

NOAA Library.

Together, these criteria ensure that the projects included in Section 6 and Appendix 2 of 

this document are both relevant and accessible to natural resources managers. Every project 

we could find that met all of the above criteria is included in Appendix 2, although there are 

almost certainly more scenario planning projects in existence.

Of the projects we screened, 30 met all three of the criteria above. Criterion 3 excluded 

several projects that are available only in academic journals or that have not been published. 

Criterion 2 excluded most projects that solely used quantitative data, since these projects tend 

to not be stakeholder-inclusive, as well as projects conducted by a small research team 

without outside input. While the projects included in this document leverage expert opinion 

and quantitative models in various ways, all of them include a phase in which knowledge is 

generated and/or evaluated by groups of stakeholders or experts from outside the project 

team, who have different areas of expertise.

Our definition of “stakeholders” was deliberately broad; in some cases, the stakeholders 

were all recognized experts on some aspect of the system being studied, while other projects 

included members of the general public or resource users. The intention was to include 

projects in which the project managers expanded their sources of knowledge to include 

information generated in a cooperative process, usually a workshop.

Appendix 2 provides basic information on all 30 scenario planning projects, and shows 

the range of participants and timeframes that projects have required. Section 6 of this 

document contains longer summaries of seven of the scenario planning projects found in 

Appendix 2. These summaries examine the processes and results of each project in detail. 

The case study projects were chosen to represent a broad range of scenario planning 

processes and goals, rather than to provide a representative picture of how participatory 

scenario planning is “typically” done.
9

While the majority of the projects highlighted in this document took place in the Englishspeaking world, participatory scenario planning has been used in multiple languages, 

countries, and cultures. Scenario planning exercises can be conducted by almost anyone and 

are often reported in the “gray literature,” so it is difficult to ascertain how complete the list 

of projects is in Appendix 2. New studies are probably being published frequently. It is clear 

from our examples that innovation in scenario planning methods is common and that no two 

processes are exactly alike, and we encourage natural resources managers to adapt the 

method to their particular context and needs.

6.0 SCENARIO PLANNING PROJECT SUMMARIES

6.1 Tijuana National Estuarine Research Reserve

Project Title: Scenario planning: overcoming uncertainty and informing action 

Location: Tijuana National Estuarine Research Reserve, California and Mexico 

Year Completed: 2016

Agency/Institution: NOAA and NERRS Science Cooperative

Background: The Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve is situated on the 

border between California, U.S.A, and Baja California, Mexico. The Reserve contains the 

largest intact coastal wetland system in Southern California, despite pressure from 

surrounding development. Managers began a climate vulnerability analysis to plan for the 

Reserve under future climate conditions, but soon realized uncertainty was extremely high in 

several areas relevant to the Reserve, including estuarine water levels, extreme events, and 

connection between the ocean and the estuary. In light of this uncertainty, they opted for a 

scenario planning project.

Objective: Inform the development of adaptation strategies addressing the impacts of 

climate change, specifically sea level rise and riverine flooding.

Time frame: about 2 years

Format: Project team chose scenario drivers and generated basic scenarios (Figure 1); 2 

daylong in-person workshops discussed implications of scenarios for physical and biological 

environments, 1-on-1 interviews with local organizations discussed adaptation.

Participants: about 60
10

Outside facilitator used: Yes

Number of scenarios: 4 

Project characteristics: This project uses a common scenario generation method, in which 

two primary variables or drivers are identified, then used as axes to define four scenarios. 

Two workshops, each with a different group of participants, created very in-depth narratives 

based on the scenarios. 

Process: The project team chose two drivers of change—frequency of “extreme flow” events 

and tidal prism—and used them to create four scenarios. They first presented them at a 

workshop to an invited group of about 40 experts in various aspects of the physical 

environment in the Reserve. These participants built out implications of each scenario for 

environmental characteristics such as surface and groundwater salinity, sediment dynamics, 

and several other areas. A second workshop was comprised of 8-10 experts in the biological 

environment in the Reserve, who built out implications of each scenario for different 

ecological environments. This workshop also assessed the vulnerability of each ecosystem 

type under the different scenarios. Finally, the project team conducted a series of one-on-one 

interviews with local stakeholder groups to discuss the implications of the scenarios for 

people and infrastructure. 

Project results: Conversations with stakeholders showed that scenarios in which the tidal 

prism increased and the river mouth stayed open were preferred to scenarios involving a 

decreased tidal prism. This scenario planning exercise supported the Reserve’s tidal marsh 

restoration program by confirming that restoration to increase tidal prism would increase the 

system’s overall resilience even with the sea level rising.

Reports and products: A partial project report is available at: http://trnerr.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/03/scenario-planning-guidebook_draft_Dec2016.pdf

Scenario excerpts (all excerpts are from the “Salt Flats” section of the scenarios):

From Scenario A (Increased extreme river flow events and decreased tidal prism): Mostly 

closed river mouth will lead to high salinity as water trapped behind the river mouth 

evaporates, increasing habitat area. Additionally, extreme events will increase sediment 

aggradation, as sediment is trapped behind the closed river mouth, helping to increase habitat 

area. However, increased extreme events will occasionally open the river mouth altering 

salinity and aggradation of sediment, keeping the increase in habitat area small.
11

From Scenario B (Increased extreme river flow events and increased tidal prism): Open river 

mouth and increased tidal prism, coupled with increased extreme events will lead to a small 

decrease in habitat area, due to increased freshwater inputs, increased coastal flooding and 

inundation (SLR outpaces aggradation in the lower valley).

From Scenario C (Decreased extreme river flow events and decreased tidal prism): Closed 

river mouth will lead to high salinity as water trapped behind the river mouth evaporates, 

increasing habitat area. Additionally, extreme events will increase sediment aggradation in 

the lower valley, as sediment is trapped behind the closed river mouth, making the increase 

in habitat area large.

From Scenario D (Decreased extreme river flow events and increased tidal prism): Mostly 

open river mouth and increased tidal prism will lead to a large decrease in habitat area, due to 

the increased of intertidal and saltmarsh habitats, and SLR outpacing aggradation in the 

lower valley.
12

Figure 2: Two drivers generate four scenarios for Tijuana National Estuarine Research 

Reserve’s scenario planning project (Boudreau, Crooks, Goodrich, & Lorda, 2016).
13

6.2 Great Barrier Reef Catchment

Project Title: Future Scenarios for the Great Barrier Reef Catchment

Location: Queensland, Australia

Year completed: 2009 

Agency/Institution: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization 

(CSIRO) Water for a Healthy Country

Background: The Great Barrier Reef catchment, located in northwest Australia, has 

experienced a significant decline in water quality in recent years, which has led to the 

degradation of ecosystems on the Great Barrier Reef. CSIRO partnered with the government 

of Australia and other stakeholder groups to attempt to reverse the decline in water quality 

and realize increased benefits from water in the catchment as a whole.

Objective: Work in collaboration with representatives from Australian and Queensland 

government, local government, regional Natural Resource Management (NRM) bodies, nongovernment organizations (NGOs), peak industry and research organizations to: 

• Identify and analyze the key factors or variables likely to fundamentally influence the 

behavior of communities, industries and natural ecosystems in the Great Barrier Reef 

(GBR) catchment;

• Articulate and challenge expectations about the future;

• Develop four plausible scenarios that describe what the GBR catchment might be like for 

communities, industries and resource agencies in 2050; and

• Facilitate wide and ongoing communication and uptake of the findings to enhance the 

capacity of planners and policy-makers in strategic decision-making about the future of 

the GBR catchment.

Time frame: Unknown, preparation and reporting timelines not given 

Format: Project team interviewed experts, identified drivers of change, and developed 

scenarios (Figure 2). 1-day in-person workshop evaluated the plausibility of scenarios, 

identified implications of the scenarios for different stakeholder groups, and discussed 

possible responses to each scenario. 

Participants: 47 experts were interviewed about drivers of change in the region. An 

unknown number of stakeholders attended two briefing sessions on the project. 41 

stakeholders attended the workshop, including 14 who had been involved in the interview or 

briefing stages.
14

Outside facilitator used: Yes

Number of scenarios: Four 

Project characteristics: This project uses a common scenario generation method, in which 

in which two primary variables or drivers are identified, then used as axes to define four 

scenarios. In this case, the drivers were identified and the scenarios created ahead of the 

workshop; however, because this method does not necessitate use of quantitative data, 

stakeholders could choose drivers and create scenarios during the workshop as well. 

Process: Researchers identified a pool of experts and high-level stakeholders from research, 

industry, government, and other sectors and sent letters requesting interviews with these 

individuals. The interviews focused on the interviewee’s perspectives on possible futures and 

drivers of change in the GBR region. Researchers then synthesized the interviews into 

several categories of drivers and uncertainties. Of these, they identified two drivers that were 

important and highly uncertain, and crossed these two drivers (climate change and influences 

on governance) to yield four scenarios (Figure 2). They presented the four scenarios at the 

workshop. Workshop participants discussed each scenario’s plausibility, assumptions, risks, 

and opportunities, then listed common themes that had emerged across multiple scenarios.

They then discussed the implications of each scenario for a series of five issue areas: research 

and knowledge, regulation, infrastructure and land-use planning, industry and production, 

and traditional owners. 

Project results: Specific future actions that are robust to more than one scenario were not 

identified. Broader categories of actions were discussed, including the need to engage in 

policy directions at a high level and the need for further community engagement. The 

researchers presented the results of this project in two public seminars and have met with 

several agencies and environmental organizations about the project. 

Reports and products: The full text of the project summary is available at: 

http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/waterforahealthycountry/2009/wfhc-future-scenariosGBR-catchment.pdf

Scenario excerpts:

From “No Limits to Growth”: “By 2050, land uses have intensified in the GBR catchment in 

response to increased economic growth. However, biodiversity in the Wet Tropics Rainforest 

and the GBR have been impacted by heat stress and habitat loss. Coastal erosion continues in 

places where coastlines are not actively managed and protected. In 2050, mining and farming 

are the backbones of the regional economy, while tourism is still a major contributor due to 

increased marketing efforts to attract visitors to the area.”
15

From “Saving the Reef”: “High transportation costs and environmental consciousness lead to 

a high degree of regional self-sufficiency and a boost in organic farming. In areas that are 

prone to flooding, cropland is reduced considerably. Many farms in the region have become 

unviable over time and are now managed for environmental outcomes, i.e. ecosystem 

services. Others are focusing on growing regional products and organic food. In 2050, 

tourism is the backbone of the regional Future Scenarios for the Great Barrier Reef 

Catchment Page 11 economy, despite reductions in international air travel. Climate friendly 

and nature-based tourism, such as hiking, biking and canoeing, is promoted.”

From “Booming Sea-Change”: “In 2050, a patchwork of highly intensive land uses 

interspersed with a network of protected areas cover the region. This is impacting terrestrial 

biodiversity, despite major conservation efforts at the global level. Concerns over the storage 

of nuclear waste that were initially outweighed by the ability of nuclear power to cut 

greenhouse gas emissions are slowly rising. Oil drilling is being re-considered in the GBR 

area due to global oil shortages. Prosperity in the region remains largely resource-based 

despite attempts to move towards a knowledge-and-services economy.”

From “Revitalised Country Towns”: “In 2050, land uses include agriculture, forestry, 

protected areas, mining, alternative energy, tourism, education, health and the arts. Farms are 

often community supported and act as social, cultural and educational places. Environmental 

impacts on water, biodiversity and landscape aesthetics are being mitigated through strict 

regulations supported by the community.”
16

Figure 3: Two drivers combined to form four possible futures for the Great Barrier Reef 

catchment (Bohnet, Bohensky, Gambley, & Waterhouse, 2008).
17

6.3 Rhode Island Fisheries 

Project Title: Resilient Fisheries RI

Location: Rhode Island, United States

Year completed: 2018 

Agency/Institution: None; project website states “The Resilient Fisheries RI project is a 

decentralized, grassroots project belonging to the entire RI commercial fishing industry. The 

initial phase of the project was supported through a Saltonstall Kennedy grant from the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration awarded to the RI Natural History Survey, which acted 

as fiscal sponsor for the project from September 2015 - April 2018.” 

Background: Fishermen in Rhode Island, like many others in the northeastern United States, say 

they are facing increasing regulatory, economic, and environmental challenges in their work. 

This project began with the intention to identify and plan for key environmental challenges to the 

Rhode Island commercial fishing fleet. The fishermen that were interviewed as an early part of 

this project identified regulatory and economic challenges as being just as important as 

environmental issues, and so the project expanded to examine the Rhode Island fishing industry 

as a whole, identify positive future directions, and plan for how to get the future the fishermen 

envisioned for their industry. 

Objective: None stated

Time frame: September 2015-May 2018 

Format: Project team conducted 48 in-person stakeholder interviews. External issue experts led 

10 2-hour seminars on topics that had been identified during the interviews. Project team 

developed scenarios. Participants in 1-day scenario planning workshop discussed implications of 

scenarios and possible management actions. This was followed by several month review and cowriting process and an implementation meeting.

Participants: 125 members of the commercial fishing industry participated in some way, 

including 48 interviewees and 45 scenario planning workshop participants. 

Outside facilitator used: Yes

Number of scenarios: Four 

Project characteristics: This project was an integrated, grassroots effort that evolved 

considerably based on stakeholder input. The project team invested a lot of time in reaching out 

to the community at large in different ways, ensuring that their scenario planning process would 

reflect stakeholder concerns accurately.

Process: A series of interviews with fishing industry stakeholders identified key changes and 

challenges in the Rhode Island commercial fishery. Subsequently, ten evening seminars were 

held over the course of three months on topics of interest identified during the interviews. The 

information collected in the interviews and from discussions during the seminars was used to 
18

help generate the scenarios used in the scenario planning workshop. At the workshop, 

participants were divided into four groups, and each group was given a unique environmental 

scenario and a unique sociopolitical scenario (Figure 3). Participants reflected on what it would 

be like to be involved in commercial fishing in the context generated by the combination of their 

scenarios. They then proposed strategies to achieve a healthy fishing industry in the years 2025-

2030 under this alternative future. Finally, all groups came together and “stress-tested” one 

another’s strategies, scoring them based on how well they functioned under other alternative 

futures. This process produced seven key groups of strategies that emerged as useful under many 

different futures.

Project results: A launch event for the implementation of the project was held in May of 2018, 

which included breakout groups to discuss next steps for each of the seven strategies. No 

management outcomes have been reported to date.

Reports and products: The project report, “Blueprint for Resilience” was published in April 

2018, with the goal of serving as a “platform for strategizing about the future of Rhode Island's 

fishing industry.” Individual reports on the interviews, the seminars, and the scenario planning 

workshop were also published. All project materials can be found at www.resilientfisheriesri.org.
19

Figure 4: Four “natural environment” and four “sociopolitical environment” scenarios 

combined to form four alternative futures for Rhode Island fisheries (Schumann, 2017).
20

6.4 Barents Sea

Project Title: A participatory scenario method to explore the future of marine social‐ecological

systems

Location: Barents Sea, Norway

Year Completed: 2018 

Agency/Institution: Euromarine+ Program; Norwegian Institute of Marine Research

Background: The Barents Sea sits at the interface of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans, north of 

Norway and Russia. It supports large commercial fisheries and is likely to be highly impacted by 

climate change in the near future.

Objective: Produce a set of truly multi‐perspective scenarios, which are developed in a 

participatory manner while preserving knowledge and practices specific to individual disciplines. 

Time frame: Unknown 

Format: 3-day workshop 

Participants: 18 workshop participants included representatives of the fishing industry, fisheries 

policy, NGOs, and research in several disciplines. 

Outside facilitator used: No

Number of scenarios: Three

Project characteristics: Unlike many scenario planning processes, which consider integrated 

scenarios from the start, the leaders of this project chose to first ask participants to develop 

scenarios from particular “perspectives” that had been identified prior to the workshop 

Process: The research team identified four areas of interest in marine social-ecological systems: 

fisheries management, ecosystem, climate, and global governance. Participants identified trends 

in each area of interest (termed “perspectives,”) then examined futures arising from a baseline, 

an improved, and a degraded management context for each perspective individually. The single 

perspectives were then combined (Figure 4). As a group, participants chose and developed three 

contrasting scenarios that included elements of each perspective. The three scenarios were A) the 

expected: all baselines, B) the wildcard: degraded fisheries management, healthy ecosystem, cold 

future, and declining governance, and C) other potential trajectories: improved fisheries 

management, unhealthy ecosystem, baseline ocean climate, and baseline governance. For each 

scenario, participants detailed the characteristics of the Barents Sea in 2050 and the trajectory 

over time that had resulted in those characteristics.

Project results: No management outcomes are listed in the paper.
21

Reports and products: The project leaders end the paper with a discussion of the limitations 

and possibilities of this method of scenario planning. It was published in the journal Fish and 

Fisheries and is available here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/faf.12356

Scenario excerpts:

From “Scenario A: Baseline in all perspectives”: “A sustained economic context of financial 

globalization combined with continued climate change has resulted in high economic profits 

from a more productive ecosystem. There is a high level of wealth concentration, that is fewer 

vessel owners, while local fishing communities are more economically dependent on inter alia 

eco‐tourism and recreational fishing. Despite global warming and a stressed global economic and 

governance context, ecosystem health and fisheries management in the Barents Sea have 

improved. This situation was made possible by the inertia in many processes relevant to all 

perspectives.”

From “Scenario B: Cold future, decline of governance, degraded fisheries management, healthy 

ecosystem”: “The socio‐economic system in Norway, with a relatively even distribution of 

wealth, started to crack and the general trust between people and public organizations slowly 

eroded to the extent that finding common and future‐oriented solutions became difficult. Good 

ecosystem health combined with the increasing demand for seafood, high economic rent, 

increasing negotiating power of fishing firms, degradation of the political climate and declining 

faith in scientific predictions led to a reduction in governments' power to regulate fisheries. 

Communication and trust between scientists, fishing firms and managers slowly declined. A 

situation of laissez‐faire management emerged, in which ecological and societal concerns 

received little attention.”

From “Scenario C: Baseline ocean climate, baseline governance, improved fisheries 

management, poor ecosystem health”: “Global increase in demand for seafood, oil and transport 

has maintained the good economic status of the Barents Sea MSES. Simultaneously, the general 

public has acquired a better understanding of the importance of living marine resources, 

including their long term and sustainable management; fishers and the industry have adopted a 

decadal perspective on every aspect of management of marine living resources, including the 

resolution of conflicts with other industries (oil, tourism, fisheries, shipping). Comprehensive 

management plans have been developed for several types of marine resources other than fish 

stocks.” 
22

Figure 5: Single-perspective scenarios combined to form multi-perspective scenarios in the 

Barents Sea Circles marked “A”, “B”, and “C” represent scenarios selected for analysis 

(Planque, et al., 2019).
23

6.5 Yukon Territory

Project Title: Scenario Planning During Rapid Ecological Change 

Location: Southern Yukon Territory, Canada 

Year completed: 2013 

Agency/Institution: University of Saskatchewan

Background: Within the past 50 years, wood bison were reintroduced to the Yukon Territory, in 

far northwestern Canada. Elk were introduced into the territory for the first time, and mule deer 

are moving northward from British Columbia. Strong traditions of subsistence hunting and 

trapping make these changes in the ecosystem highly impactful on local communities.

Objective: Identify wildlife management goals in a rapidly changing social-ecological system.

Time frame: January 2012-February 2013 

Format: 3 workshops. The first lasted 1 day, during which participants identified drivers of 

change. The second lasted 2 days, during which participants developed scenario narratives. The 

third and final workshop ran for 1 day, during which participants considered management 

responses to each scenario. 

Participants: 15 total; individual workshops ranged from 6-9 participants. All participants were 

natural resources managers in the region.

Outside facilitator used: No. The workshops were facilitated by one of the project leads, who 

had extensive existing relationships among stakeholders in the region. 

Number of scenarios: Four 

Project characteristics: This project used three workshops, which encompassed the entire 

scenario planning process, rather than having the project team conduct part of the process prior 

to the workshops. Different combinations of stakeholders attended each workshop. While using a 

“crossed drivers” system similar to several other projects, this project evaluated three drivers 

instead of the more typical two. The scenarios were expressed creatively, through illustration and 

narration. 

Process: The first workshop focused on identifying drivers of change in the system. The 

participants identified 46 drivers of change, which they grouped into 3 axes: “Changing 

ecological-social interactions,” “land use,” and “the human factor.” Each axis had two polar 

directions across which change might manifest. Combining the axes yielded eight scenarios, four 

of which participants identified as plausible (Figure 5). The second workshop focused on 

developing narratives for these four plausible scenarios for the year 2032 (20 years into the 

future.) Each scenario was narrated by an imaginary news article from 2032 and illustrated 

pictorially. Participants in the third workshop examined possible management responses to each 

scenario.
24

Project results: No management outcomes from the project were detailed in the report. The 

primary outcomes seem to have been lessons about how to conduct scenario planning exercises 

and other intangible outcomes, including improved communication and social learning. 

Reports and products: The report was published in Ecology and Society in 2015 and can be 

accessed here: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol20/iss1/art61/

Scenario excerpts:

From “Doom and Gloom (Scenario 1)”: “The land-based economy of old dried up as prices and 

demand for land-based goods plummeted. Cabins rot as trappers continue to stay out of the bush. 

“I think the only ones of us still out here are the ones who are too old to know another way to 

live,” says 65-yr-old Garret “Snare” Hill. Traps unset, berries unpicked and medicines 

uncollected. Old activities like these that once gave the Yukon a “last frontier” feel have 

disappeared, leaving those with the land at heart asking, “Do we have another Yukon to move 

to?””

From “Slow Boil (Scenario 2)”: ““Outfitting has become a hard business,” says Chris Masterson 

of Kluane Lake Outfitters. “We can no longer guide for caribou or sheep, which were huge 

economic drives.” He adds that, “several of his clients mentioned crisscrossing ATV trails 

making the landscape look less wild.” The wild, remote feeling of the landscape is a feature that 

has been a selling point of outfitting in the Yukon for generations but, as Masterson says, is 

disappearing.” 

From “A Confused State (Scenario 3)”: “Initially decisions to shift management priorities were 

not popular with the public. But both Environment Yukon and First Nations governments in the 

southwest Yukon agree that management has to be directed where it can be effective. 

“Management has changed to focus more on resilience of the landscape,” says Chang. “To 

achieve this we are promoting cooperation between departments.” Rogers says, “Limiting 

nonclimate stressors is the best thing we can do for the Yukon’s wildlife. We have worked with 

Energy, Mines, and Resources to reforest unused logging roads and looked at ways to reduce 

pollution and erosion from mining operations.”” 

From “Win-Win (Scenario 4)”: “Farmer continues to say that, “there is a huge demand for 

people to try to eat locally and so hunting is extremely important, but when it comes to 

supplementing that meat with fruits and vegetables small farming that maintains the health of the 

soil is important.” Dale Pepper of the Yukon Agriculture Association says, “There is a line 

between the kind of farming that is in harmony with the land and the kind that isn’t. The scale of 

southwest Yukon agriculture and the sustainable practices keep that balance. Space is left for the 

wildlife and pesticides are kept out of the watersheds.”” 
25

Figure 6: Scenarios of ecological change selected for analysis in the Yukon (Beach & Clark, 

2015).
26

6.6 Gulf of Maine Salmon 

Project Title: Atlantic Salmon Scenario Planning Pilot Report 

Location: Gulf of Maine, United States 

Year completed: 2019 

Agency/Institution: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

Background: Atlantic salmon is a species that has been identified as being highly vulnerable to 

climate-related impacts across its life stages. This project was undertaken to explore how NOAA 

could improve resilience of Gulf of Maine Atlantic salmon population to climate change. 

Objectives: 1) to better understand the challenges of managing Atlantic salmon in a changing 

climate; 2) to identify and discuss potential management actions and research activities that can 

be undertaken to increase our understanding of the drivers of salmon productivity and resilience; 

3) to increase collaboration and coordination related to the species recovery; and 4) to explore 

how scenario planning can be used to support decisions. 

Time frame: September 2016-October 2017 

Format: 2 webinars followed by a 2-day workshop. 

Participants: The 22 participants, all Federal employees, were invited based on their expertise 

in areas important to Atlantic salmon science and management.

Outside facilitator used: Yes

Number of scenarios: 4 

Project characteristics: In this project, participants did significant work in advance of the 

workshop to define and develop scenarios, so that more workshop time could be focused on 

implementing management actions.

Process: The project began with a webinar in which participants identified and classified drivers 

critical to Atlantic salmon survival. A small subgroup was formed to determine which drivers 

were the most important and uncertain. The project team used the drivers selected by the 

subgroup to draft scenarios, which were presented to all participants in a second webinar. The 

project team incorporated feedback from the webinar and completed the scenario matrix prior to 

the workshop (Figure 6). At the workshop, participants were divided into four groups, and each 

group was given a scenario to develop. After discussing implications of each scenario for salmon 

in the future, each group generated a list of management and research actions that could be 

implemented under their scenario to improve Atlantic salmon resilience in a changing climate.

Subsequently, participants were divided into two groups to identify high-priority actions that 

could be taken in the short term at two spatial scales (watershed and estuarian/marine.)
27

Project results: Several climate-related actions informed by this exercise were included in the 

2019 NOAA/USGS Atlantic Salmon Recovery Plan. Some research needs identified through this 

exercise have been funded through NOAA and external partners, including a habitat analysis, a 

map of cold water salmon refugia, and a new tracking technology to monitor salmon migration.

Reports and products: The full project report is available at: 

https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/policyseries/index.php/GARPS/article/view/15/14

Scenario excerpts:

From “Free-flowing”: “Winters experience less snow and when it does snow, it melts earlier. 

Winter precipitation occurs more frequently as rain. Combined, these conditions lead to higher 

winter and lower spring streamflow... Freshwater accessibility in the watersheds is high due to 

removal or modification of passage barriers. Atlantic salmon are primarily affected by the 

suitability of the marine habitat, the variability in streamflow, and increasing river temperature.”

From “Hanging on by a stream”: “River temperatures and the number of consecutive extreme 

hot days that exceed thermal thresholds for Atlantic salmon increase...Although freshwater 

accessibility in the watersheds is high due to removal or modification of passage barriers, the 

generally drier conditions lead to reduced streamflow year-round. Atlantic salmon are primarily 

affected by the suitability of the marine habitat, lower streamflow for extended periods, and 

higher river temperatures.”

From “Soggy but hindered”: “Winter precipitation occurs more frequently as rain. Combined, 

these conditions lead to higher winter and lower spring streamflow...Freshwater accessibility in 

watersheds is low because most passage barriers remain in place. Atlantic salmon are primarily 

affected by marine habitat suitability, streamflow variability, increasing river temperature, and 

the continued presence of barriers.” 

From “Hot and blocked”: “River temperatures and the number of consecutive extreme hot days 

that exceed thermal Atlantic salmon thresholds increase...Freshwater accessibility in watersheds 

is low because most passage barriers remain in place. Atlantic salmon are primarily affected by 

marine habitat suitability, streamflow variability, increasing river temperature, and the continued 

presence of barriers.” 
28

Figure 7: Climate conditions combined with freshwater accessibility produce four scenarios 

for Gulf of Maine salmon (Borgaard, et al., 2019).
29

6.7 Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

Project Title: Apostle Islands Climate Change Scenario Planning Workshop 

Location: Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Wisconsin, United States 

Year Completed: 2015 

Agency/Institution: US National Park Service

Background: The Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is located on Lake Superior at the 

northern tip of the state of Wisconsin. Recent and anticipated changes in climate have 

implications for infrastructure, visitor numbers and safety, staffing, ecosystem management, and 

other aspects of this National Park Service-managed system of islands and shoreline. The park 

superintendent began the project by asking participants to focus on how the park could prepare 

for the effects of climate change, particularly in the areas of dock design on Lake Superior, 

staffing levels in the winter and shoulder seasons, and altered wildlife and plant species 

distributions. 

Objective: Help senior leadership make management and planning decisions based on up‐to‐ 

date climate science and assessments of future uncertainty. 

Time frame: March 2015-May 2015, including preparation by the project team. 

Format: Project team developed climate futures (Figure 1); 1-day in-person workshop generated 

alternative future scenarios and discussed management implications.

Participants: The 38 workshop participants were almost all affiliated with universities and 

government agencies.

Outside facilitator used: Yes

Number of scenarios: Four, including a baseline that was not discussed in the workshop. 

Project characteristics: This project exemplifies the approach the National Park Service uses 

for its scenario planning projects, in which climate scenarios are generated by experts using 

quantitative input, and are then expanded into qualitative scenarios and applied in a stakeholder 

workshop. 

Process: Climate experts generated four climate futures (one baseline and three alternatives) 

prior to the workshop (Figure 7). These climate futures were developed by the Great Lakes 

Integrated Sciences and Assessment Center using quantitative data. The workshop began with 

several background presentations on the drivers and effects of climate change. Then, workshop 

participants were presented with the climate futures, and were asked to answer the question 

“what would happen in Apostle Islands if each of these three [alternative] scenarios played out 

over the next 25 years?” The discussion around this question resulted in more developed, 

qualitative scenarios that touched on visitor numbers, erosion, access, biodiversity, and safety,
30

among other relevant topics (excerpts below). The participants then evaluated proposed 

management decisions under each of the three alternative scenarios.

Project results: While each qualitative alternative scenario involved many issues, participants 

were asked to evaluate management approaches to three focal areas: dock design, staffing, and 

changes in species distribution. Changing the design of docks to be more flexible to different 

water levels, and to include rails and “flow-through” design was identified as an adaptation that 

would be suitable for all scenarios. The other two focal areas did not have management actions 

identified that were robust across scenarios, although two of the alternative scenarios would 

benefit from more flexibility in staffing. The new docks, designed with features suggested during 

the workshop, were installed in the winter of 2015.

Reports and products: Full report available at: 

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/upload/Scenario-Workshop-APIS508compliant.pdf Scenarios were updated based on more specific climate information here: 

http://www.glisaclimate.org/projects/2125/page/2566

Scenario excerpts:

From “Soggy”: “A wetter climate leads to greater erosion of cliffscapes and sandscapes. Access 

to smaller beaches becomes limited as lake levels rise – loss of beach area causes increased 

trampling of sensitive dune vegetation. Trails are flooded and water quality suffers from 

increased run‐off. High lake levels cause damage to docks and lakeshore infrastructure. Search 

and rescue services are stretched as storms become more common.”

From “Yo-yo”: “However, this increase in attractiveness and attention results in more 

management challenges. Visitor amenities ‐ campsites and docks ‐ are at a premium, and 

unpredictable conditions are on the increase. Many island trips get cancelled due to dangerous 

weather, and search and rescue services are kept busy and often stretched.”

From “Hot and Bothered”: “The warmer, drier conditions cause changes in land use in the 

region: more land is converted to agriculture as the growing season lengthens. Water quality 

declines in the lake as nutrient‐laden runoff and sedimentation rises. Beaches get bigger as lake 

levels fall. Docks are left high and dry in many instances, even as docks are in greater demand 

from more summer visitors and activities.”
31

Figure 8: Expert-generated climate scenarios used in the Apostle Island Climate Change 

Scenario Planning Workshop (Star, et al., 2015).
32

7.0 CONCLUSIONS

Scenario planning is a flexible tool for planning for the future when there is a lot of uncertainty. 

As the summaries in the previous section show, scenario planning can be adapted for many 

systems and purposes. Because of this flexibility, it is important to carefully consider the 

purpose, scope, and desired outcomes of a scenario planning project from the beginning. There is 

no one-size-fits-all approach to conducting scenario planning; each process must be adapted to 

its specific context.

Stakeholder engagement is at the core of scenario planning, and confers benefits that transcend 

the planning process. Inclusion of a diverse group of stakeholders contributes a broad knowledge 

base to the project and helps open lines of communication to various groups in the community. 

However, larger groups, especially those in which responsibility is somewhat diffuse, can have a 

harder time coming to conclusions. The goal of the project and its context should help project 

leaders determine the appropriate level of stakeholder involvement. The project team should 

facilitate interactions among stakeholders so that power imbalances are evened out to the extent 

practicable and all voices are heard, so that creativity is encouraged, and so that relationships are 

strengthened in the process. If the project team members do not themselves come from the 

fishing community, it is important to engage community leaders to identify dynamics that could 

help or hinder an open and successful process.

Implementation of a scenario planning project is a long-term activity; many of the managers we 

spoke with for this review indicated that implementation of their project outcomes was ongoing 

several years after the planning workshop was completed. Scenario planning can also be 

iterative, with a new planning process initiated when conditions have changed significantly from 

the original conditions. Implementation is more likely to be effective when managers commit to 

an implementation phase prior to the beginning of the project, and when managers with decisionmaking authority over implementation resources are involved. We expect that strong engagement 

from Fishery Management Councils will be key to implementing most fishery management 

scenario planning projects in U.S. fisheries.

Scenario planning projects can identify suggested management actions at a variety of different 

levels, ranging from government-wide to individual and from regulatory actions to voluntary 

actions. For example, increased dedication to civic engagement was one result of the Resilient 

Fisheries RI project. In addition, there may not be management options that are applicable under 

all future conditions, so managers will need to weigh the costs and benefits of each option given 

the uncertainties that are present. There may be solutions that are applicable to some, but not all, 

of the plausible futures, or actions that work to spread risk more evenly across futures. The 

ongoing nature of implementation means that all the results of a scenario planning project may 

not be realized for a long time. Scenario planning should be viewed as a long-term investment in 

resources management.
33

Scenario planning is a flexible tool that has potential to help fisheries managers plan for a future 

that is full of uncertainty by working with the uncertainty rather than attempting to reduce it.

Participatory scenario planning also takes advantage of the already-strong connections between 

fishery managers and stakeholders, making it a promising tool for NOAA Fisheries to use in 

planning for sustainable fisheries management in all kinds of futures.
34

REFERENCES

Beach, D. M., & Clark, D. A. (2015). Scenario planning during rapid ecological change: lessons 

and perspectives from workshops with southwest Yukon wildlife managers. Ecology and 

Society, 61. 

Bednaršek, N., Feely, R. A., Beck, M. W., Alin, S. R., Siedlecki, S. A., Calosi, P., . . . Spicer, J. 

I. (2020). Exoskeleton dissolution with mechanoreceptor damage in larval Dungeness 

crab related to severity of present-day ocean acidification vertical gradients. Science of 

the Total Environment, In press.

Bizikova, L., & Hatcher, B. G. (2010). Scenario-Based Planning for a Changing Climate in the 

Bras d'Or Ecosystem. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development. 

Bohnet, I., Bohensky, E., Gambley, C., & Waterhouse, J. (2008). Future Scenarios for the Great 

Barrier Reef Catchment. Canberra, Australia: CSIRO .

Borgaard, D., Dick, D., Star, J., Alexander, M., Bernier, M., Collins, M., . . . Staudinger, M. 

(2019). Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) Climate Scenario Planning Pilot Report. 

Gloucester, MA: Greater Atlantic Region Policy Series [19-05] NOAA Fisheries Greater 

Atlantic Fisheries Regional Office.

Boudreau, D., Crooks, J., Goodrich, K., & Lorda, J. (2016). Scenario planning: overcoming 

uncertainty and informing Action. Imperial Beach, CA: Tijuana River National Estuarine 

Research Reserve.

National Park Service. (2013). Using Scenarios to Explore Climate Change: A Handbook for 

Practitioners. Fort Collins, CO: National Park Service Climate Change Response 

Program.

Oteros-Rozas, E., Ravera, F., & Palomo, I. (2015). Participatory scenario planning in placebased social-ecological research: insights and experiences from 23 case studies. Ecology 

and Society, 32-49. 

Peterson, G., Cumming, G. S., & Carpenter, S. R. (2003). Scenario Planning: a Tool for 

Conservation in an Uncertain World. Conservation Biology, 358-366. 

Planque, B., Mullon, C., Arneberg, P., Eide, A., Fromentin, J.-M., Heymans, J. J., . . . Thorvik, 

T. (2019). A participatory scenario method to explore the future of marine social‐

ecological systems. Fish and Fisheries. 

Reed, M., Kenter, J., Bonn, A., Broad, K., Burt, T., Fazey, I., . . . Ravera, F. (2013). Participatory 

scenario development for environmental management: A methodological framework 

illustrated with experience from the UK uplands. Journal of Environmental Management, 

345-362. 
35

Rowland, E. L., Cross, M. S., & Hartmann, H. (2014). Considering multiple futures: Scenario 

planning to address uncertainty in natural resource conservation. US FIsh and Wildlife 

Service.

Runyon, A., Carlson, A., Gross, J., Lawrence, D., & Schurmann, G. (2020). Using scenarios to 

explore climate change: a handbook for practitioners. Parks Stewardship Forum.

Santora, J. A., Mantua, N. J., Schroeder, I. D., Field, J. C., Hazen, E. L., Bograd, S. J., . . . 

Forney, K. A. (2020). Habitat compression and ecosystem shifts as potential links 

between marine heatwave and record whale entanglements. Nature Communications, 1-

12.

Schumann, S. (2017). Report of the workshop "Future-proofing Rhode Island's Commercial 

Fisheries". South Kingstown, RI: Resilient Fisheries RI.

Star, J., Fischelli, N., Schuurman, G., Welling, L., Rood, R., & Briley, L. (2015). Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore Climate Change Scenario Planning Workshop Summary. National 

Park Service.

Townsend, H., Harvey, C. J., deReynier, Y., Davis, D., Zador, S. G., Gaichas, S., . . . Kaplan, I.

C. (2019). Progress on Implementing Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management in the 

United States Through the Use of Ecosystem Models and Analysis. Frontiers in Marine 

Science.

Weeks, D., Malone, P., & Welling, L. (2011). Climate change scenario planning: A tool for 

managing parks into uncertain futures. Park Science, 26-33.
36

APPENDIX 1: SCENARIO PLANNING GUIDES AND HANDBOOKS

Title Organization URL

Using Scenarios to 

Explore Climate Change: 

A Handbook for

Practitioners

US National Park 

Service

https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/climate/CCScenariosHandbookJuly2013.pd 

f

Scenario planning for 

climate change 

adaptation: A guidance 

for resource managers

Point Blue 

Conservation 

Science and the 

California Coastal 

Conservancy

http://www.prbo.org/refs/files/12263_Moore2013.pdf

Considering multiple 

futures: Scenario 

planning to address 

uncertainty in natural

resource conservation

US Fish and 

Wildlife Service

https://www.fws.gov/home/feature/2014/pdf/Final%20Scenario%20Planning%20Documen

t.pdf

Scenario planning: a tool 

for conservation in an 

uncertain world

Conservation 

Biology

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227600228_Scenario_Planning_a_Tool_for_Con

servation_in_an_Uncertain_World

Oregon Scenario 

Planning Guidelines

Oregon Sustainable 

Transportation 

Initiative

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Documents/Oregon-Scenario-PlanningGuidelines.pdf
37

APPENDIX 2: SCENARIO PLANNING PROJECTS

Title Lead author Year Published Location Total project time # Workshop Participants # Scenarios Scenario method Scenario type

A holistic approach to studying social-ecological systems and its

application to southern Transylvania Hanspach, J 2014 central Romania unknown unknown 4 matrix semi-quantitative

A participatory scenario method to explore the future of marine

social-ecological systems Planque, B 2019 Barents Sea unknown 18 

81 generated, 3

examined combined matrices qualitative

Acadia National Park Climate Change Scenario Planning Workshop* Star, J 2016 Maine, USA unknown 44 4

baseline with

alternatives semi-quantitative

Apostle Island Climate Change Scenario Planning Workshop* Star, J 2015 Wisconsin, USA 3 months 38 3

baseline with

alternatives semi-quantitative

Atlantic Salmon Scenario Planning Pilot Report Borggaard, D 2019 Northeastern USA 1 year 22 4 matrix semi-quantitative

Climate Futures and Rural Livelihood Adaptation Strategies in Nusa

Tenggara Barat Province, Indonesia† Butler, JRA 2011

Nusa Tenggara Barat,

Indonesia 3 years 32 4 matrix qualitative

ClimateFutures,EcosystemServicesandLivelihoodAdaptation

StrategiesinWestNewBritainProvince,Papua New Guinea† Butler, JRA 2012 

West New Britain, Papua

New Guinea 2 years 17 4 matrix qualitative

Current and Future Challenges in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier

Conservation Area Murphree, M 2010

Mozambique, South Africa,

and Zimbabwe 3.5 years unknown 4 matrix qualitative

Erub Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: Community Future Scenarios

and Adaptation Strategies† Bohensky, E 2014 Torres Strait Islands, Australia 3.5 years 30 4 matrix qualitative

Evaluating taboo trade-offs in ecosystems services and human wellbeing Daw, T 2015 Mombasa, Kenya unknown 12-14 4 narrative qualitative

Exploring Futures of EcosystemServicesin Cultural Landscapes 

throughParticipatory Scenario Development in the SwabianAlb,

Germany Plieninger, T 2013 Germany more than 1 year 7-14

2 each in 2 

locations matrix qualitative

Future Ecosystem Services in a Southern African River Basin: a

Scenario Planning Approach to Uncertainty Bohensky, E 2006

Gariep River Basin, Lesotho

and South Africa unknown unknown 4

adaptation of MEA

scenarios qualitative

Future Scenarios for the Great Barrier Reef Catchment† Bohnet, I 2008 Queensland, Australia unknown 41 4 matrix qualitative

Integrating Climate Change in Transportation and Land Use Scenario

Planning Rasmussen, B 2015 New Mexico, USA unknown unknown 3

baseline with

alternatives semi-quantitative

InVEST Scenarios Case Study: Oregon, USA Nelson, E 2012 Oregon, USA 2.5 years 20 3

adaptation of InVEST 

scenarios semi-quantitative

North-central CaliforniaCoast andOceanClimate-SmartAdaptation 

Project Hutto, S 2016 

Greater Farallones National 

MarineSanctuary,California,

USA 1.5 years 24 4 matrix qualitative

Participatory Scenario Planning for Protected Areas Management 

under the Ecosystem Services Framework: the Donana SocialEcological System in Southwestern Spain Palomo, I 2011 southern Spain unknown 32-34 4

adaptation of 

MedAction scenarios qualitative
38

Title Lead author Year Published Location Total project time # Workshop Participants # Scenarios Scenario method Scenario type

Puget Sound Future Scenarios

Puget Sound 

Nearshore

Partnership 2008 Washington, USA 2 years 38 6

combined narrative 

scenarios qualitative

Resilient Fisheries RI none 2018 Rhode Island, USA 2.5 years 45 4

combined narrative

scenarios qualitative

Resource Management and Operations in Central North Dakota* Fisichelli, N 2016 North Dakota, USA unknown unknown 4

baseline with

alternatives semi-quantitative

Salmon 2050 Trammell, EJ 2016 Kenai Peninsula, Alaska ~1 year unknown 5 narrative qualitative

Scenario Planning During Rapid Ecological Change Beach, D 2015 Yukon Territory, Canada 1 year 6-9 4 matrix qualitative

Scenario Planning in the Great Basin Region Wall, T 2015 western USA about 8 months 10-15 4 combined matrices qualitative

Scenario Planning: Overcoming Uncertainty and Informing Action Boudreau, D 2016

Tijuana River Estuary, USA

and Mexico about 2 years 10-40 4 matrix qualitative

Scenario-based planning for a changing climate in the Bras d'Or

Ecosystem Bizikova, L 2010 Nova Scotia, Canada unknown at least 21 3 baseline/best/worst qualitative

Scenario-based stakeholder engagement: Incorporating

stakeholders preferences into coastal planning for climate change Tompkins, E 2008

Christchurch Bay and Orkney

Islands, UK unknown 13-20 4 matrix qualitative

Social-Ecological Scenarios for the Eastern Cape Hamann, M 2012

Eastern Cape Province, South

Africa unknown 19 4 matrix qualitative

Using Climate Change Scenarios to Explore Management at Isle

Royale National Park* Fisichelli, N 2013 Michigan, USA unknown 22 4

baseline with

alternatives semi-quantitative

Using Scenarios to Assess Possible Future Impacts of Invasive

Species in the Laurentian Great Lakes Lauber, T 2016 north central USA 15 months 10

15 total, across

5 species

expert opinion

narrative quantitative

* These projects were done by the US National Park Service following the NPS scenario planning protocol.

† These projects were done by Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation of Australia and all follow similar processes.