Table 2. We define three categories of scenarios: single-scale, loosely linked multiscale, and tightly coupled cross-scale. Each of these has specific advantages and disadvantages, and the type most suited to a particular scenario exercise will depend on the objectives of the exercise.
| |
| |
|
Single scale |
Multiscale |
|
|
|
Loosely linked |
Tightly coupled
(cross-scale) |
| |
|
| Number of focal scales |
1 |
At least 2 |
At least 2 |
|
| Consistency of storylines across
scales |
Not relevant |
Storylines usually differ and
are inconsistent across scales |
Storylines have a high level of
consistency across scales, and there is an explicit focus
on downscaling and/or upscaling. |
|
| Consideration of drivers at other
scales |
Exogenous drivers from other scales
included to the extent that they are relevant to the focal
scale |
Exogenous drivers and constraints
from higher and lower scales are included in a similar way
to single-scale scenarios. The set of scenarios is usually
constructed within a common broad conceptual framework and
will incorporate similar types of drivers at different scales. |
Exogenous drivers and constraints
from higher and lower scales are included via downscaling
and upscaling procedures. |
|
| Consideration of feedbacks between
scales |
Not considered |
May or may not be considered |
Explicit linkages between scales
and incorporation of feedbacks |
|
| Main advantages |
Simple; no distraction by concerns
at other scales |
Allows stakeholders at each scale
to frame the issues that are important to them from their
specific perspective |
Allows for consideration of feedbacks
between scales and evaluation of how an issue plays out at
different scales |
|
| Main disadvantages |
Important feedbacks between scales
may be missed or important externalities at other scales may
be overlooked. |
Scenario outcomes at different
scales or different places are not directly comparable. |
Very costly; may lose credibility
because stakeholders at, especially, lower scales may not
have much latitude to define the issues to be considered |
|
| Example |
Mont Fleur Scenarios (Kahane 1992) |
Southern African MA scenarios
(Biggs et al. 2004) |
MedAction scenarios (Kok et al.
2006a,b) |
|
|
| |
|