| The intention of this thesis was to test two variations of a method for constructing future scenarios for their perceived effectiveness in a decision making context. The processes were organized around the exploration of critical uncertainties—aspects of the future which are difficult to predict and which could significantly impact the success of current plans. A question that results from this approach is what is more useful: understanding the forces of change which could produce these situations? Or, understanding what might occur if they were to materialize? The former allow for an assessment of the likelihood of change. The latter allow for an understanding of the significance of change. Having both perspectives is desirable, but given limited resources, what are the differences of having only one?; A case study employing ten environmental managers was developed on Delphi-based methodology. Five possible futures were developed: a Surprise Free future and four alternatives based on the most significant critical uncertainties. To develop the alternatives, the group was divided into halves. Sub-group A used the critical uncertainties as ending-points and mapped occurrences that could bridge the present with the futures; Sub-group B used the critical uncertainties as starting-points and mapped occurrences that could follow.; Sub-group A had a greater sense that the scenarios were logically consistent and that the set was more comprehensive relative to land management concerns. This result may reflect that sub-group A scenarios had a cognitive anchor in the present and were more readily perceived as salient and more viable. Additionally, while the sub-groups were randomly assigned, the members of sub-group A had more work experience. As such, they may have a broader understanding of change and, commensurately, be more comfortable with future contingencies. Second, the scenarios described by sub-group B tended to direct the alternatives back toward the Surprise Free future. It is possible that this group found a cognitive anchor in the projection of current trends and moved toward them. This result may also reflect that the scenarios were constructed by managers who primarily implement policies at a local level and do not participate in strategic planning efforts. |
