Open AccessSpatial Simulation of Codesigned Land Cover Change Scenarios in New England: Alternative Futures and Their Consequences for Conservation Priorities
Author(s) -
Thompson Jonathan R.,
Plisinski Joshua S.,
Lambert Kathy Fallon,
Duveneck Matthew J.,
Morreale Luca,
McBride Marissa,
MacLean Meghan Graham,
Weiss Marissa,
Lee Lucy
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
earth's future
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.641
H-Index - 39
ISSN - 2328-4277
DOI - 10.1029/2019ef001348
Subject(s) - futures contract , stakeholder , scenario analysis , land cover , environmental resource management , land use, land use change and forestry , land use , outreach , climate change , computer science , variety (cybernetics) , citizen journalism , stakeholder engagement , environmental science , ecology , civil engineering , engineering , world wide web , business , finance , artificial intelligence , political science , law , biology , public relations
Scientists are increasingly engaging with stakeholders to codesign scenarios of land use change necessitating methods to translate the resulting qualitative scenarios into quantitative simulations. We demonstrate a transparent method for translating participatory scenarios to simulations of land use and land cover (LULC) change using the New England Landscape Futures (NELF) project as a case study. The NELF project codesigned four divergent narrative scenarios that contrast with a Recent Trends scenario projecting a continuation of observed changes New England over the past 20 years. Here, we (1) describe the process and utility of translating qualitative scenarios into spatial simulations using a dynamic cellular land change model, (2) evaluate scenario LULC configuration relative to the Recent Trends scenario and to each other, (3) compare the fate of forests within stakeholder‐defined areas of concern, and (4) describe how a user‐inspired outreach tool was developed to make the simulations and analyses accessible to a diverse user group. The associated simulations are strongly divergent in terms of the amount of LULC change and the spatial pattern of change. Among the scenarios, there is a fivefold difference in the amount of high‐density development and a twofold difference in the amount of protected land. Features of the simulations can clearly be linked back to the original storylines. Overall, the rate of LULC change has a greater influence on stakeholder areas of concern than the spatial configuration. The simulated scenarios have been integrated into an online mapping tool via a user‐engagement process meeting the needs of a variety of stakeholders.