Climatic Change

, Volume 117, Issue 4, pp 627–646 | Cite as

Scenarios that illuminate vulnerabilities and robust responses

  • Robert LempertEmail author


Scenarios exist so that decision makers and those who provide them with information can make statements about the future that claim less confidence than do predictions, projections, and forecasts. Despite their prevalence, fundamental questions remain about how scenarios should best be developed and used. This paper proposes a particular conceptualization of scenarios that aims to address many of the challenges faced when using scenarios to inform contentious policy debates. The concept envisions scenarios as illuminating the vulnerabilities of proposed policies, that is, as concise summaries of the future states of the world in which a proposed policy would fail to meet its goals. Such scenarios emerge from a decision support process that begins with a proposed policy, seeks to understand the conditions under which it would fail, and then uses this information to identify and evaluate potential alternative policies that are robust over a wide range of future conditions. Statistical cluster analyses applied to databases of simulation model results can help identify scenarios as part of this process. Drawing on themes from the decision support literature, this paper first reviews difficulties faced when using scenarios to inform climate-related decisions, describes the proposed approach to address these challenges, illustrates the approach with applications for three different types of users, and concludes with some thoughts on implications for the provision of climate information and for future scenario processes.


Intuitive Logic Global Change Scenario Global Change Assessment Model Decision Support Process Scenario Exercise 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The ideas expressed in this essay emerged from fruitful discussions, collaborations, and debates with numerous wonderful colleagues. I owe particular thanks to Andy Parker for comments on this manuscript and to Chris Weaver for encouragement and funding of several earlier versions. Comments from two anonymous reviewers played a key role in shaping the essay you see here. I thank the National Science Foundation for its support through grant SES‐0345925 and the center for Climate and Energy Decision Making (SES‐0949710) for its support through a cooperative agreement between the National Science Foundation and Carnegie Mellon University.


  1. Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Chang 16:228–268Google Scholar
  2. America’s Climate Choices (ACC) (2010) Informing an effective response to climate changeGoogle Scholar
  3. Bankes SC (1993) Exploratory modeling for policy analysis. Oper Res 41(3):435–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkes F (2007) Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience thinking. Nat Hazard 41:283–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bishop P, Hines A, Collins T (2007) The current state of scenario development: an overview of techniques. Foresight 9(1):5–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borjeson L, Hojer M, Dreborg I, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2006) Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide. Futures 38:723–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradfield R, Wright G, Burt G, Cairns G, Heijden KVD (2006) The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning. Futures 37:795–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown C (2010) “The end of reliability.” J Water Resour Plan Manag 143–145Google Scholar
  9. Bryant BP, Lempert RJ (2010) Thinking inside the box: a participatory, computer-assisted approach to scenario discovery. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 77:34–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carter TR, Jones RN, Lu SBX, Conde C, Mearns LO, O’Neill BC, Rounsevell MDA, Zurek MB (2007) New assessment methods and the characterisation of future conditions. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, Linden PJvd, Hanson CE (eds) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1: 33–171Google Scholar
  11. Dessai S, Hulme M (2004) Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Clim Pol 4:107–128Google Scholar
  12. Dessai S, Hulme M (2007) Assessing the robustness of adaptation decisions to climate change uncertainties: a case study on water resources management in the East of England. Glob Environ Chang 17(1):59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dixon L, Lempert RJ, LaTourrette T, Reville RT (2007) The federal role in terrorism insurance: evaluating alternatives in an uncertain world. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, p 150Google Scholar
  14. Dodd C (2007, November 16) “Terrorism risk insurance program reauthorization.” Congr Rec 153: S14592Google Scholar
  15. European Environmental Agency (EEA) (2009) Looking back on looking forward: a review of evaluative scenario literature. CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  16. Friedman JH, Fisher NI (1999) Bump hunting in high-dimensional data. Stat Comput 9:123–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fussel H-M (2007) Vulnerability: a generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research. Glob Environ Chang 17:155–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garb Y, Pulver S, VanDeveer SD (2008) Scenarios in society, society in scenarios: toward a social scientific analysis of storyline-driven environmental modeling. Environ Res Lett 3:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Groves DG, Lempert RJ (2007) A new analytic method for finding policy-relevant scenarios. Glob Environ Chang 17:73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Groves DG, Davis M, Wilkinson R, Lempert R (2008a) “Planning for climate change in the Inland Empire: Southern California.” Water Resour IMPACT JulyGoogle Scholar
  21. Groves DG, Knopman D, Lempert R, Berry S, Wainfan L (2008b) Presenting uncertainty about climate change to water resource managers–summary of workshops with the inland empire utilities agency. RAND Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  22. Groves DG, Lempert RJ, Knopman D, Berry S (2008c) Preparing for an uncertain future climate in the inland empire–identifying robust water management strategies. RAND Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  23. Grubler AN, Nakicenovic N (2001) Identifying dangers in an uncertain climate. Nature 412:15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hulme M, Dessai S (2008) Predicting, deciding, learning: can one evaluate the ‘success’ of national climate scenarios? Environ Res Lett 3:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. IEUA (2005) 2005 regional urban water management plan. Inland Empire Utilities Agency, ChinoGoogle Scholar
  26. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, intergovernmental panel on climate changeGoogle Scholar
  27. Jenkins H (August 8, 2007) Terror insurance is here to stay. Wall Str JGoogle Scholar
  28. Kahneman D, Lovallo D (1993) Timid choices and bold forecasts: a cognitive perspective on risk taking. Manag Sci 39(1):17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kirshen P, Watson C, Dougla E, Gontz A, Lee J, Tian Y (2008) Coastal flooding in the northeastern United States due to climate change. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 13:437–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lempert RJ (2007) Can scenarios help policymakers be both bold and careful? In: Fukuyama F (ed) Blindside: how to anticipate forcing events and wild cards in global politics. Brookings Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  31. Lempert RJ, Collins M (2007) Managing the risk of uncertain threshold responses: comparison of robust, optimum, and precautionary approaches. Risk Anal 27(4):1009–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lempert R, Groves DG (2010) Identifying and evaluating robust adaptive policy responses to climate change for water management agencies in the American West. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 77:960–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lempert RJ, Popper SW, Bankes S (2002) Confronting surprise. Soc Sci Comput Rev 20(4):420–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lempert RJ, Popper SW, Bankes SC (2003) Shaping the next 100 years: new methods for quantitative, long-term policy analysis. RAND Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  35. Lempert R, Nakicenovic N, Sarewitz D, Schlesinger M (2004) Characterizing climate-change uncertainties for decision-makers–an editorial essay. Clim Chang 65(1–2):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lempert RJ, Groves DG, Popper SW, Bankes SC (2006) A general, analytic method for generating robust strategies and narrative scenarios. Manag Sci 52(4):514–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. March J, Simon H (1958) Organizations. John WileyGoogle Scholar
  38. March J, Sproul L, Tamuz M (1991) Learning from samples of one or fewer. Organ Sci 2:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McJeon HC, Clarke L, Kyle P, Wise M, Hackbarth A, Bryant B, Lempert RJ (2011) Technology interactions among low-carbon energy technologies: what can we learn from a large number of scenarios? Energy Econ 33:619–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Means E, Laugier M, Daw J, Kaatz L, Waage M (2010) Decision support planning methods: incorporating climate change into water planning, water utility climate alliance: 76Google Scholar
  41. Morgan MG, Henrion M (1990) Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Morgan MG, Keith DW (2008) Improving the way we think about projecting future energy use and emissions of carbon dioxide. Clim Chang 90:189–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Morgan MG, Dowlatabadi H, Henrion M, Keith D, Lempert RJ, McBride S, Small M, Wilbanks T (2009) Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientific uncertainty in decision-making. Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2 Washington D.C., U.S. Climate Change Science Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationGoogle Scholar
  44. Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries B, Fenhann J, Gaffin S, Gregory K, Grubler A, Jung TY, Kram T, La Rovere EL, Michaelis L, Mori S, Morita T, Pepper W, Pitcher HM, Price L, Riahi K, Roehrl A, Rogner H-H, Sankovski A, Schlesinger M, Shukla P, Smith SJ, Swart R, van Rooijen S, Victor N, Dadi Z (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios: a special report of working group III of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  45. National Research Council (2009) Informing decisions in a changing climate. T. N. A. Press. Washington, DC, Panel on Strategies and Methods for Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Climate Change, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and EducationGoogle Scholar
  46. Nelson DR, Adger N, Brown K (2007) Adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a resilience framework. Annu Rev Environ Resour 32:395–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Olsson P, Gunderson LH, Carpenter SR, Ryan P, Lebel L, Folke C, Holling CS (2006) Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 11(1):18Google Scholar
  48. O'Neill BC, Nakicenovic N (2008) Learning from global emissions scenarios. Environ Res Lett 3:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. O'Neill BC, Pulver S, VanDeveer SD, Garb Y (2008) Editorial–where next with global environmental scenarios? Environ Res Lett 3:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Parson EA (2008) Useful global-change scenarios: current issues and challenges. Environ Res Lett 3:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Parson EA, Burkett V, Fischer-Vanden K, Keith D, Mearns LO, Pitcher H, Rosenweig C, Webster M (2007) Global-change scenarios: their development and use, synthesis and assessment product 2.1b. US Climate Change Science ProgramGoogle Scholar
  52. Pidgeon N, Fischhoff B (2011) The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nat Clim Chang 1:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Popper SW, Berrebi C, Griffin J, Light T, Min EY, Crane K (2009) Natural gas and Israel’s energy future: near-term decisions from a strategic perspective. RAND Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  54. Postma TJBM, Liebl F (2005) How to improve scenario analysis as a strategic management tool? Technol Forecast Soc Chang 72:161–173Google Scholar
  55. Ranger N, Millner A, Dietz S, Fankhauser S, Lopez A, Ruta G (2010) Adaptation in the UK: a decision making process. Granthan/CCEP Policy BriefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rittel H, Webber M (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rounsevell MDA, Metzger MJ (2010) Developing qualitative scenario storylines for environmental change assessment. Adv Rev WIREs Clim Chang 1:606–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rozenberg J, Guivarch C, Lempert R, Hallegatte S (2012) Building SSPs: a scenario elicitation methodology to map the space of possible future mitigative and adaptative capacity. FEEM (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei) Working Paper. 2012.052Google Scholar
  59. Sarewitz D, Pielke JRA (2000) Science, prediction: decision-making, and the future of nature. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  60. Savage LJ (1954) The foundation of statistics. Dover PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  61. Schneider SH (2001) What is ‘dangerous’ climate change? Nature 411:17–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schoemaker PJH (1993) Multiple scenario development: its conceptual and behavioral foundation. Strateg Manag J 14(3):193–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schwartz P (1996) The art of the long view–planning for the future in an uncertain world. Currency-Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  64. Shapiro I (2003) Moral foundation of politics. Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
  65. Smith JB, Schneider SH, Oppenheimer M, Yohe GW, Hare W, Mastrandrea MD, Patwardhan A, Burton I, Corfee-Morlot J, Magadza CHD, Fuessel H-M, Pittock AB, Rahman A, Suarez A, Ypersele J-PV (2009) Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) “reasons for concern”. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:4133–4137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Treverton G (2001) Reshaping national intelligence for an age of information. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  67. U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century (1999) New world coming: American security in the 21st century, Study AddendumGoogle Scholar
  68. van der Heijden K (1996) Scenarios: the art of strategic conversation. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  69. Van Notten P, Sleegers AM, van Asselt MBA (2005) The future shocks: on discontinuity and scenario developments. Futures 35:423–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. van’t Klooster SA, van Asselt MBA (2006) Practising the scenario-axes technique. Futures 38(1):15–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wack P (1985) “The gentle art of reperceiving–scenarios: uncharted waters ahead (part 1 of a two-part article).” Harv Bus Rev (September–October): 73–89Google Scholar
  72. Walker BH, Anderies JM, Kinzig AP, Ryan P (2006) Exploring resilience in social-ecological systems: comparative studies and theory development. CSIRO Publishing, CollingwoodGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RAND Corporation 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RANDSanta MonicaUSA

Personalised recommendations