Technical Report

Case study situation inventory report

Abstract and Figures

We explored different issues and trends at play in the case study areas that might be relevant for designing local scenarios. Particularly, we examined both climate-related and non-climate related aspects, and aspects that the local community has considerable influence on as well as those that are largely beyond their control. These different aspects provide input for developing future visions, scenarios, and potential hinge/branching points. Most case study sites (Jade Bay, Bergen, Dordrecht, Golfe du Morbihan) face climate change related challenges, particularly related to precipitation and sea level rise, and their relation to urban planning, coastal management, and agriculture and aquaculture. For Kerourien, it was more difficult to pinpoint climatic challenges, and the case focused on other grand challenges (social justice, migration, urbanisation & housing) instead. Climate change provides added pressure to these. All case study sites discussed locally important factors that are not or less directly related to climate change, such as local diversity, urban forms, local values and customary practices, local history, economy, (un)employment, social cohesion, social justice, urban renewal and housing issues, migration, and trends in agriculture. The Jade Bay case focused less on non-climate issues, but did focus how local values and practices played an important role. Interestingly, this notion of local values, practices, and particularly also local identity seems to be important in most, if not all, of the case studies (explicitly in Jade Bay, Bergen, Dordrecht, Golfe du Morbihan). Goal/Purpose of the document • Brief exploration of the context in which the scenario exercises will be conducted. • Collect and organise first ideas on the elements that might form the future visions, hinge/branching points, and scenarios.
Content may be subject to copyright.
The CoCliServ project benefits from funding obtained through the
ERA4CS Joint Call on Researching and Advancing Climate Services
CoCliServ is funded by the following national funding agencies: Agence Nationale de la Recherche
(ANR), France; Service public fédéral de programmation politique scientifique (BELSPO), Belgium;
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt EV (DLR), Germany; Nederlandse organisatie voor
wetenschappelijk onderzoek (NWO), the Netherlands; Norges forskningsrad (RCN), Norway.
Deliverable 2.1
Case study situation inventory report
Author(s) and affiliation(s)
Arjan Wardekker (UU-Copernicus),
Werner Krauß (Uni-HB),
Scott Bremer (UiB-SVT),
Juan Baztan (UVSQ-CEARC),
Lionel Jaffrès (Theatre du Grain),
Ana Rocha (UVSQ-CEARC),
Charlotte da Cunha (UVSQ-CEARC),
Birgit Gerkensmeier (HZG),
Florentin Breton (UVSQ-CEARC)
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
Table of contents
Table of contents ............................................................................................................... 2
Executive summary/summary ........................................................................................ 3
Goal/Purpose of the document ...................................................................................... 4
Relationship to the Description of Work (DOW) ........................................................... 4
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5
1.1. Background ............................................................................................................. 5
1.2. Approach ................................................................................................................. 5
1.3. Link with WP1 on narratives ................................................................................. 9
1.4. Link with WP3 on climate services ...................................................................... 9
1.5 Observations from a climate services perspective (Birgit Gerkensmeier &
Florentin Breton) ......................................................................................................... 11
2. Case studies ................................................................................................................. 14
2.1. Jade Bay, Germany (Werner Krauß) .................................................................. 14
2.2. Dordrecht, the Netherlands (Arjan Wardekker) .............................................. 20
2.3. Bergen, Norway (Scott Bremer) ......................................................................... 25
2.4. Golfe du Morbihan, France (Ana Rocha & Charlotte da Cunha) ................... 30
2.5. Kerourien, Brest, France (Juan Baztan & Lionel Jaffrès) ................................. 36
References ........................................................................................................................ 41
Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 42
Appendix A: The three scenario templates for Bergen, in English ...................... 42
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
Executive summary/summary
We explored different issues and trends at play in the case study areas that
might be relevant for designing local scenarios. Particularly, we examined both
climate-related and non-climate related aspects, and aspects that the local
community has considerable influence on as well as those that are largely
beyond their control. These different aspects provide input for developing future
visions, scenarios, and potential hinge/branching points.
Most case study sites (Jade Bay, Bergen, Dordrecht, Golfe du Morbihan) face
climate change related challenges, particularly related to precipitation and sea
level rise, and their relation to urban planning, coastal management, and
agriculture and aquaculture. For Kerourien, it was more difficult to pinpoint
climatic challenges, and the case focused on other grand challenges (social
justice, migration, urbanisation & housing) instead. Climate change provides
added pressure to these.
All case study sites discussed locally important factors that are not or less
directly related to climate change, such as local diversity, urban forms, local
values and customary practices, local history, economy, (un)employment, social
cohesion, social justice, urban renewal and housing issues, migration, and trends
in agriculture. The Jade Bay case focused less on non-climate issues, but did
focus how local values and practices played an important role. Interestingly, this
notion of local values, practices, and particularly also local identity seems to be
important in most, if not all, of the case studies (explicitly in Jade Bay, Bergen,
Dordrecht, Golfe du Morbihan).
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
Goal/Purpose of the document
Brief exploration of the context in which the scenario exercises will be
Collect and organise first ideas on the elements that might form the future
visions, hinge/branching points, and scenarios.
Relationship to the Description of Work (DOW)
This deliverable presents a first exploratory step in Work Package 2: Scenario
design. It bridges between WP1 and WP, by re-examining the material on
narratives of change from WP1 through the lens of WP2.
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
This first deliverable for Work Package 2, is the “Case study situation inventory
report” (D2.1). WP2 focuses on designing new incremental scenario methods,
and testing these in the CoCliServ case study areas. As noted in both the
CoCliServ Description of Work and the Draft Scenario Protocol (Wardekker et al.,
2018), it is important to first scope the local challenges, in order to tailor the
scenario exercises to the local needs. The goal of this document is to establish
some ‘situational awareness’ for the case study areas: what’s happening on the
ground that is relevant to take into account in the scenario exercises?
This report presents some first outlines of the topics and trends that are relevant
for the local communities, and that might take an important role in the future
visions, scenarios, and hinge/branching points.
1.2. Approach
CoCliServ will develop ‘policy scenarios’, also called normative or prescriptive
scenarios, which describe how the future should preferably evolve (Vervoort et
al., 2014; Dammers et al., 2013a,b). They describe the desired future(s) that
should be reached (visions), and potential paths towards these (scenarios).
Generally, these describe pathways that can be controlled, at least to some
extent; e.g. they describe policy strategies or action plans. The scenarios in
CoCliServ will also be ‘incremental’: rather than following a straight line from
present to future, we assume that there might be points or events along the way
that could send the developments in our case study areas into a more or less
desired direction (Vanderlinden, 2015; Wardekker et al., 2018). Some are
controllable by local actors, but many others might be not or less controllable.
We refer to these points as ‘hinge points’ or ‘branching points’.
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
In the Draft Scenario Protocol (Wardekker et al., 2018), we described a five-step
process to co-design the local scenarios:
1. Preparation & scoping
2. Visioning
3. Scenarios & hinge points
4. Coupling to information & climate service needs
5. Synthesis & dissemination
This deliverable focuses on the first step: Preparation & scoping. During this step,
we determine the what, where, when, why, with whom, and how of the scenario
exercises. Many of these aspects relate to the goalsetting and process of the
scenario development, and these have been discussed in detail in milestone
M2.3 (WP2 Implementation Plans). Particularly, we described the goals (why) of
the local implementation of WP2, potential local partners and participants (who),
and our preliminary designs for workshops and planning (when, where, how).
For clarity, however, the case study chapters will briefly recap these issues by
providing a summary of the case study area and its situation and the planned
scenario design process.
The final aspect to establish, is
the scenario work will focus on. For instance
(Wardekker et al., 2018):
What are the problems that the community faces, has faced, or will face in
the future?
Are these related to climate change or weather, directly or indirectly, or
Are they things that they can control, directly or indirectly, or not?
What are the values that members or groups in the community hold dear?
What might they want to strengthen into the future?
What information would we need to conduct the scenario exercise?
The goal of scenarios is often to explore the potential range of plausible futures,
e.g. the range of uncertainties and the option space depending on different
factors or assumptions of how the future might unfold or of what an ideal future
might look like. The choices, uncertainties, and assumptions can be numerous,
and a core challenge is to select those that matter. Translated to the the context
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
of the CoCliServ scenario exercises: there are numerous trends, challenges,
vulnerabilities, strengths & weaknesses, values, and interests/goals for the future
at play at the same time. We can inventory them into longlists. However, it would
be useful if we could order them in some way. Some of these issues might
matter for the scenarios, others might be useful for hinge points; some might
have implications for climate services, and others might not. Inspired on the
diagnostic diagrams used in assumption analysis (Kloprogge et al., 2011; De Jong
et al., 2012; Van der Sluijs & Wardekker, 2015), we’ve developed and
experimented with a diagnostic diagram for CoCliServ. See Table 1. This diagram
cross-examines two aspects:
(a) Which issues are climate related? These aspects are traditionally targeted
by climate services.
(b) Which issues can be influenced/controlled locally? These aspects are
traditionally targeted by normative/policy scenarios.
We’re working on climate services, so climate and weather related aspects will
play an important role. These could focus on general climate or weather
variables (temperature, precipitation, etc.), specific impacts of climate change,
climate sensitive or vulnerable factors, sectors or populations, et cetera.
However, it is abundantly clear from the narratives collected in WP1 that climate
change is not the only problem that our case study areas face. In many cases, it
may not even be the among the most pressing problems to local communities. If
we are to develop climate services based on local concerns, we will need a broad
focus, that gives weight to both climate-related and non-climate issues.
Similarly, there are many aspects that the local communities can influence quite
well. More specifically, there are many ‘events, trends, risks or goals that the
community can directly and significantly influence’. These are issues that are
often well-addressed in classic policy scenarios and backcasting exercises,
because these exercises focus on designing actionable plans to reach desired
futures. However, we need to be aware that there are also numerous issues
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
impacting the city or region that the community cannot influence in any
significant or timely manner. The case study areas cannot counter them directly,
but they may want to develop resilience against these aspects, and explore how
the area might deal with their impact. For example, while a municipality might
not be directly and significantly able to reduce the level of climate change or its
impact on precipitation, it would be able to directly and significantly reduce the
risks of precipitation-related flooding through spatial planning, street design, etc.
For other climate-related issues, such as major surprises in the climate system,
this might not be possible.
Each issue could be further related to the problems/vulnerabilities that people
see, the values & strengths that are relevant to the issue, and the interests that
the community may have toward the future regarding those issues. Most case
studies will elaborate on these aspects later in the process, particularly in the
development of future visions.
Table 1. Scoping the focus of the scenario work in WP2 c ase studies.
- Problems & vulnerabilities
- Values & strengths
- Interests for the future
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
1.3. Link with WP1 on narratives
The scenario work in WP2 will be guided and focused by the narratives collected
in WP1 (deliverables D1.1, D.1.2, D.1.3). WP1 has mapped the narratives (Krauß
et al., 2018a), analysed the chronology and chronotopes (Krauß et al., 2018b),
and provided in-depth analysis of narratives on the relevant actors, issues and
values at stake, voices that are heard or unheard, and desires for the future
(Krauß et al., 2019). These narratives provide sufficient insight into what’s going
on in the case study areas to conduct the ‘situation inventory’ of D2.1, including
local views on problems, visions, trends, desires, et cetera. No additional
empirical work is needed, although most sites have conducted informal meetings
with local partners to further scope the objectives of the local implementation of
WP2. However, the narratives in D1.1-1.3 are not yet ordered in a way that
facilitates easy inclusion into a scenario exercise. Consequently, this deliverable
make the switch from WP1 to WP2, as an intermediate step, re-examining the
narratives through a different lens.
1.4. Link with WP3 on climate services
The CoCliServ process focuses on co-production of (place-based) climate services
with local communities. Such co-production can have a variety of roles and
aspects; it is about more than simply improving the usefulness of the services for
these communities (Bremer et al., 2019). The different WPs and deliverables play
different roles in this process, preparing the way for the work on climate services
in WP3. This deliverable links to (and informs WP3 on) three ‘lenses’ of co-
production in particular: constitutive, interactional and institutional (cf. Bremer et
al., 2019)
. The constitutional lens relates to how local communities understand
Bremer et al. (2019) identifies eight lenses for co-production: constitutive, interactional,
institutional, joint services, empowerment, pedagogical, interactive research, extended science.
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
climate, climate change and climate action: their ideas on relevant aspects of
weather, seasons, natural order, and potential surprises and non-linearities. I.e.
the notions that communities have on relevant climatic ‘normals’, events, and
trends, and whether these might be controllable or not. The interactional lens
deals with the social, cultural and political processes at play in the case study
areas. This relates to the ‘Not/less climate-related’ factors in our analysis, as well
as to local values and identities. Place-based climate services will need to find a
way to incorporate such aspects. How to do that is an open question. For
example, might climate services need to include analyses, data or visualisations
of social trends such as employment, economy, migration, et cetera? Similarly,
how might they connect with local values and identities? The institutional lens
deals with the local institutional situation, capacities, experience, expertise,
resources, and decision-making processes. This will be described in the ‘context’
of each case: who is this community we’re working with, and in which context
and with what goal are we collaborating? For example, the Bergen case involves
much interaction between the local knowledge agents and authorities; the
Dordrecht case deals with interaction between local authorities and citizens; and
the Kerourien case heavily focuses on citizens. This makes a difference for
designing the climate services.
The scan for relevant local issues with our diagnostic diagram (Table 1) might
also indicate where CoCliServ will need to make a creative contribution. The
‘climate-related & locally controllable’ quadrant seems to be where classic
climate services could make important contributions for local actors (particularly
policymakers). For the quadrants ‘Climate-related & not controllable’ and
‘Not/less climate-related & controllable’, more creative approaches might be
needed to develop non-traditional climate services that are useful for local
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
1.5 Observations from a climate services perspective (Birgit
Gerkensmeier & Florentin Breton)
CoCliServ aims to make a contribution in terms of investigating potential
challenges and improvements needed to set up new or improved types and
format for place-based climate services for adaptation at local levels. To achieve
this goal, the CoCliServ approach brings together different perspectives on local
debates and climate services. WP3 highlights the role of the ‘classical’, currently
mostly natural-science-driven climate service community in this process. Most
climate services support society by informing with regard to climate and climate
change, for some with the ultimate purpose of facilitating adaptation (and
mitigation to a lesser extent).
However, it is the aim of WP3 to question and stimulate changes to the classical
climate service perspective in order to better connect climate services to the
locally relevant social, cultural and political processes. In this approach, climate
services have a strong role in promoting awareness, understanding, and ideally,
action. These three aspects are intertwined with the three co-production lenses
mentioned above (constitutive, interactional, institutional), but also with the
others (pedagogical, empowerment, joint services, interactive research, extended
science). This indicates a close link between WP2 and WP3 in terms of scoping
the local challenges and unravelling the needs and requests for local climate
services. For example, WP3 can provide physical information to contextually
improve the point of departure for the scenario activity. In the course of the
scenario exercises, WP3 can offer support at certain points. In return, the results
from the scenario exercise are an essential input for the further work in WP3.
Based on the work performed so far (D3.1, M3.1, M3-2 in particular, available in
April 2019) focusing on deducing connecting points in terms of needs / demands
for climate services/information from the extensive work of WP1, the WP3 work:
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
can basically confirm the observations of WP2 described in the
introduction: the local narratives (WP1) reveal a broad range of challenges
for each case study region, wherein climate and non-climate issues are
closely interwoven with each other. In this context, the inventory of
climate service was able to substantiate these findings. It showed that
‘classical’ climate services provided information and knowledge primarily
on generic climate-related variables. Further tailoring towards aspects that
are locally controllable (e.g. local vulnerabilities), was significantly less
frequent. This current situation is, from the perspective of local climate
services for action, not sufficient to adequately address the complex and
multi-layered challenges.
identified only a very few directly expressed needs for climate services. In
the Morbihan case study, some starting points for classical climate service
tools / information had be deduced and WP3 will continue to pursue this
objective. Beyond that, no direct requirements for climate services could
be identified. Against this backdrop, the WP2 scenario activity is of major
importance and essential for the work in WP3 as it methodologically
represents a new way to identify, together with the local actors, possible
existing needs for both classical and new forms of climate services.
With regard to the close link and exchange between WP2 and 3 in the co-design
process of the local scenarios at different stages of the CoCliServ method, WP3
can support WP2 according to the Draft Scenario Protocol as follows:
1. Preparation & scoping
è WP3: insights in terms of available (classical) climate services (D3-1) and
local climate science knowledge (cf. M3.1) are provided. Furthermore,
WP3 can be of assistance with gathering relevant climate information
(e.g. past and future trends of temperature, precipitation, sea-level rise,
extremes) to provide the workshop participants with a plausible future
physical scenario on which to base their socio-economic projections
(constitutional lens of climate service co-production)
Are the problems that the community faces, has faced, or will face in the
future related to climate change or weather, directly or indirectly, or not?
è WP3: help to identify which are related to climate (as a driver of
problem, part of the problem, or circumstantial / running in the
What information would we need to conduct the scenario exercise?
è Once WP2 has a good overview of the climate information that can be
useful for the scenario exercise, WP3 can provide.
2. Visioning
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
3. Scenarios & hinge points
è WP3 can support the dialogue between climate scientists and users by
linking the developed qualitative scenarios (WP2) to currently dominant
IPCC regional climate scenarios. This activity might be helpful in order
to establish channels of communication and identify how currently
available information may relate to the needs identified.
è Hinge points or elements such as wish lists (as done in Bergen)
developed in the scenario workshops represent an essential input from
WP2 to WP3.
o If hinge points / wish list items related to climate require further
elaboration / substantiation, WP3 can help
4. Coupling to information & climate service needs
è WP3 provides an overview of the available climate information and
services (D3-1; M3.1); if more detailed climate-related questions or
concerns are raised during the scenario exercise, WP3 is happy to
compile and evaluate further information here.
WP3 can also support activities to connect the actual
information/service needs from scenarios and hinge points to the
climate science.
5. Synthesis & dissemination
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
2. Case studies
2.1. Jade Bay, Germany (Werner Krauß)
Desired Futures
How does a climate friendly, earthbound and cosmopolitan coastal landscape
look like, and how do we get there? This is the main question for a scenario
exercise that I distilled from the many interviews, conversations and participant
observation of ongoing events during my fieldwork in 2018. Climate friendly
means the often expressed wish to cope with the challenges of climate change;
earthbound means the deep connection with the coastal landscape, and
cosmopolitan means a sense of belonging that differs from past and present
populist right-wing and isolationist ideologies. Of course, these qualifications are
mine; but as a result of my fieldwork, they should serve well as an incentive for
discussion of desired futures.
The scenario workshop is intended to be inclusive and open to the public. I will
especially invite those people I established relationships with, such as politicians,
administrators, nature conservationists, climate protection managers, members
of NGOs, farmers, journalists and other interested citizens as basis for a
common workshop in the second half of 2019 or early in 2020. In this workshop,
the above listed desired futures for the coastal landscape will serve as a
guideline. The issues at stake will be worked out in the following.
The Jade Bay area is already subject to what Bruno Latour calls ‘the new climatic
regime’. The exposure of the landscape to the challenges of the sea and rising
sea level, to extreme weather events and an abundance of water on the flat land
due to rainfall makes this area extremely vulnerable to climatic changes. The
landscape is to large parts reclaimed from the sea in a century long process; it is
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
a landscape which is constructed through land reclamation, it is protected by
dikes and maintained through drainage infrastructures. The interaction between
geological and historical processes is characteristic for this coastal landscape.
This interaction was and is always shaped historically; for a long time, people
lived on mounds and the pieces of land left from the sea, which extended far
into the inland. Land reclamation for economic and demographic reasons,
territorial claims, German particularism and later on German nation building
shaped the line of dikes as much as the threat from the sea. Current threat from
storm floods and rising sea level cannot be separated from the social
construction of the landscape. Climate change is also present in form of wind
turbines, photovoltaic and biogas; Northern Germany is one of the main sites
where the German energy transition is visibly implemented and has changed the
structure of the landscape accordingly.
Thus, climate change is a current dispositive for coastal politics, economies and
increasingly for coastal identity and the sense of belonging. One of my main
observations is that the distinctions between climate related and not climate-
related problems are fluid, as well as those between “things we can control” and
“things we cannot control”. Climate change turns out to be an extremely complex
issue which emanates on various scales, from the personal to the political, from
the cultural to the natural, or from the local to the global; one of the great
challenges is to figure out how these scales are interconnected. The societal
transformation, which is one of global and domestic climate goals, is already
underway, but it is hardly understood in terms of changes in politics, decision
making and senses of belonging. The scenario exercise about desired futures
can help to become more conscious and more explicit about what it means to
construct a climate friendly, earthbound and cosmopolitan landscape.
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
Climate related issues:
Instead of listing climate related issues in terms of control, I suggest to
understand them in terms of complexity, scales and context. Of course, it is
impossible to stop the rise of sea level; but the rise of sea level is only a problem
because of the line of dikes that stop the sea. The dikes are construction based
on many different factors, most of them being political or economic. This
complexity is true for all of the issues listed below. Climate change on a regional
scale is complex and messy; the problem at stake is to identify the changes that
come into being once the focus is on climate change. While we can identify some
structural changes like the implementation of the energy transition, other things
that change are hardly made explicit.
rising sea level is a challenge for coastal protection; dikes are currently
adapted to the recent projections of the IPCC;
extreme weather events with increased amounts of rainfall are a problem
for the water drainage infrastructures which characterize the flat land; it
gets ever more difficult to bring the water out of the land;
during my fieldwork end of 2017 until September of 2018, climate change
served as an interpretative framework for the extreme winter and
summer season: autumn and winter 2017 / 2018 were extremely wet and
dark, farmers could not bring out the manure because the fields and
meadows were under water, and there were almost no cold days; spring
and summer were extremely dry and sunny, with almost no rainfall and
again problems for the farmers – some of them had to sell cattle because
of the drought;
extreme weather events are a challenge for agriculture; during the period
of my fieldwork, there have been national discussions about the future of
agriculture and the differences between industrialized, conventional and
biological farming in respect to climate adaptability and mitigation;
the production of renewable energies with biogas, wind energy and
photovoltaic has profoundly changed land use and property structures;
there seems to be a common agreement that the production of renewable
energies have reached a limit;
Urban- or better village-sprawl and demographic changes contribute to
the sealing of the soil, increase in auto-mobility and an energy consuming
life style;
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
Climate protection managers and energy concepts are already part and
parcel of official administrations, but not everywhere. Their scope is
limited, and in some municipalities, the concepts are contested.
UNESCO world heritage site and National Park monitors climate change in
its area; there are changes in biodiversity due to climatic changes. Nature
and climate are linked in the concept of biosphere reservations, which is
suggested to be implemented on land – and a source of conflict between
nature conservation and farmers;
Real estate investments in tourism on formerly public ground in the
coastal village of Dangast have divided the village between those who are
in favor of it and those who want a different way of development, based
on natural and cultural values.
Members of a nature conservation NGO propagate climatic friendly life
styles, post-growth strategies, controlled use of energy
Biological farmers propagate the production and distribution of regional
Electricity companies test digitalization of energy use in households and
Values in play
The best way to make climate change and its messy effects explicit is to focus on
narratives of change and the values that are considered at stake. The following
list of ‘values’ is far from being complete; values are always in context and
expressed in stories and in context. Anyway, the list helps to understand some
common elements which are shared in discussions, conversations, media,
narratives etc. All of these values are disputed; they are never “owned”, but they
are contested and maintained, ridiculed or praised, forgotten or reactivated,
depending on the situation.
Many coastal inhabitants share a strong sense of belonging. Belonging is
expressed in the self-identification as Friesians in general, as Friesians as
opposed to North and East Friesians, as Oldenburger or as Butjadinger.
The particularism of the territory before the German Reich is still a marker
for regional and even local identity.
Friesians share a strong sense of autonomy and independence, even
against evidence of the opposite. We talk here about values, and Friesians
“are” independent.
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
Another differentiation is related to the soil; those who live in the
marshes, those who live on the Geest (the sandy soils of the Northern
Plain) or in the moors, and those who live in the towns and villages.
A further differentiation is between those with a genealogy in the region,
those who came here as refugees after WWII from the East, those who
came here as newbies for various reasons;
Identity is closely linked to the characteristics of the landscape, like the
existence of dikes and the drainage system, like the weather and the wind,
like the mainly agrarian landscape, and like the mudflats and tidal land of
the seascape;
Showing a ‘cool’ or indifferent attitude in relation to storm floods, to wind
and weather is a common attitude;
Coastal protection and drainage infrastructures are an identity marker
and a non-disputable value, at least for those who are concerned with it;
Dike and drainage infrastructures are based on a shared body of
knowledge, which is based on science (IPCC), experience (engineers) and
passed on knowledge from previous generation. It is a form of embodied
In coastal protection and other organizations concerned with
infrastructures, the production, maintenance and transition of values to
the next generation is gendered; seen from this perspective, it is a
predominantly patriarchic society;
In farming, inheritance of land property plays a central role. It is
considered important to pass on the land to the next generation. For
many farmers, the land or the landscape are the result of the interaction
of natural and cultural factors; land is a practice, a way of life and a form
of political ecology; it is a way of life that is more-than-human.
The separation of nature and culture is a value in nature protection, but
also in Friesian identity as expressed in popular sayings like “God created
the sea, and the Friesians created the coast”, or in the impersonation of
the forces of the wild sea; Friesians fight against “the blanke Hans”, as the
murderous North Sea is called;
And finally, there are many oppositional categories like neoliberal versus
regional, community centered versus profit, regional versus global,
indigenous versus intruder, town versus country and so on….
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
Scenario Workshop
The scenario workshop will help to identify and to specify the desired futures for
specific areas where climate change and values strongly intersect, such as
coastal protection, nature conservation, agriculture, energy production, tourism
and a regional lifestyle.
As an incentive for discussion and as the conceptual basis for the co-
development of climate services, I suggest a presentation of the regional climate
service from Helmholtz about the projected climate futures of the coast. From
this commonly shared basis, the individual sections will be discussed in several
sections, separated from each other. The common headline for each section is
the overall question: how does a climate friendly, earthbound and cosmopolitan
coastal landscape look like, and how will it come into being.
Who will be involved: everyone interested. It will be announced as a public event,
with the presentation of the regional climate service and an introduction,
followed by scenario exercises to the issues listed above.
The workshop will be in German language; we will need several moderators
which will have to be trained by WP2 members.
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
2.2. Dordrecht, the Netherlands (Arjan Wardekker)
Overview of the case area
Dordrecht is a city of ca. 120.000 inhabitants in the west of the Netherlands, just
east of Rotterdam and close to the sea. It is surrounded by rivers and the sea on
all sides; as locals describe it: “water comes from all directions” (north, east,
south, west, above, below). Consequently, the city is highly sensitive to issues
around weather, water, and climate. It also struggles with socioeconomic issues,
and faces a housing development goal of 10.000-15.000 houses within current
city limits. We’re focusing on the Reeland district of Dordrecht, with a specific
interest in the Vogelbuurt neighbourhood. The area has been affected by
flooding through heavy precipitation evens in recent years. The municipality and
neighbourhood are exploring on how to cope with weather-related issues and
climate change through adaptation, with much local energy and active local
organisations. Furthermore, large scale restructuring and maintenance (e.g.
replacement of social housing estates), sewer replacements, and redesign of
public green spaces and sporting facilities are planned. This provides a window
of opportunity to explicitly take citizens’ desires and climate change concerns
into account when redesigning the area.
The Dordrecht scenario exercise
The goal in the Dordrecht WP2 case study is to codesign future visions and action
scenarios (combining short-term action and long-term strategic plans) for a
climate resilient neighbourhood, with local actors. From the narrative research in
WP1 (Krauß et al., 2018a,b, 2019; Marschuetz, 2018), we learned that authorities
and citizens in Dordrecht have both strong similarities and specific differences in
how they perceive climate, weather, and water in the neighbourhood, and how
they relate that to perspectives on the future. See Figure 1. Both groups are well
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
aware of the history of the city, shaped geographically and economically by
water, and by a series of historical floods. This resulted in a shared identity
surrounding the ‘Island of Dordrecht’, and its inhabitants as ‘islanders
(Marschuetz, 2018; Wardekker & Marschütz, 2018). Other narratives diverged.
Authorities base their narrative on a notion of vulnerability to climate-related
risks, and preparation for climate and water-related extremes through strategic
long-term adaptation efforts, through spatial planning and infrastructure.
Citizens, narrate in a more experiential and holistic way. They observe increasing
water levels and expect this to worsen in the future due to climate change. They
propose and enact practical, small scale actions for dealing with water, as well as
climate mitigation efforts that “tackle the root of these problems” (Marschuetz,
2018; Wardekker & Marschütz, 2018). There are also partly-overlapping concerns
regarding citizen involvement, social cohesion, and socio-economic constraints.
Both authority and citizen narratives are anchored in a shared concern for
climate change and desire for a resilient future. They both provide a valid ‘part of
the picture’ – they are strongly complementary. Consequently, we will work with
a single overall notion/vision of a ‘resilient island’, and further develop sub-
visions on specific aspects by combining elements from both narratives (see
Figure 1).
Figure 1. Narrative-based orientation for the visions in the Dordrecht case (Wardekker & Marschütz, 2018).
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
The scenarios will be further developed in a series of local participatory
workshops. In the first, we will co-design future visions based on the narratives.
In the second, we will develop action scenarios on how to reach those futures,
and inventory hinge points and do a first scan of information needs. A potential
third workshop might further elaborate these into climate service needs and
ideas (within WP3).
Climate-related trends, challenges, and desires
The area experiences flood risks from heavy precipitation, rivers, and sea. All of
these are influenced by climate and climate change. Historical major flood events
have shaped the city and the surrounding region’s geography significantly. There
are also several factors that increase vulnerability: soil subsidence, low-lying
parts of the area that tend to collect runoff from the higher parts of the
neighbourhood, and clay soils in many parts of the area that inhibit water
drainage into the underground. Other potential climate-related issues, such as
heat & health, drought, and impacts on nature and tourism are rarely discussed
in the narratives. Local perceptions of climate change and water risks are also
important; they impact the desirability of the city for potential new residents and
companies. Climate change itself and major international and national trends,
such as sea level rise or river discharge, cannot be controlled locally. Local
resilience and vulnerability, however, can be influenced, particularly for
precipitation-related impacts, and spatial planning (incl. low-lying areas). Soil
subsidence is a local issue; while not easy, it can be managed to some degree.
Riverine flooding to an extent; major flood defences are a regional responsibility,
but the municipality does play a role in flood safety planning, local disaster
management, resilience, and evacuation. Sea level issues, storm surge, and
major flood events are difficult to influence at both neighbourhood and city level.
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
Two potential ‘surprise scenarios’ were identified (Wardekker & Marschütz,
2018). These might contribute to the hinge points:
High river discharge from the east coincides with a North Sea storm, and
possibly a spring tide, and result in a major flood event. The situation can
be partly impacted (positively or negatively) by the responses of German
water safety agencies (east), as well as those in Rotterdam (west).
The population is fed up with growing flood risks or recurring minor
flooding, resulting in a negative stigma for the city and the population
potentially leaving. Particularly of concern are the higher socio-economic
segments – if the richer population leaves, this would heavily impact the
city budget, and consequently the resources that the city has available to
counteract impacts and adapt climate change.
Less climate-related trends, challenges, and desires
Climate change mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and general
sustainable/environmentally friendly practices are highly prevalent in the citizen
narratives. These are difficult to classify as ‘climate’ versus ‘non-climate’ – they do
relate to climate change, but less to climate as interpreted in ‘climate services’.
That is, they require a broader perspective on climate services, so we’ll place
them under ‘less directly climate-related’. Geographical and geological aspects,
such as the clay soil, can’t be realistically changed much. Vogelbuurt is also a
relatively poor area, with much social housing, and parts of the area experience
social and socio-economic problems, such as unemployment, climate/water-
vulnerable groups, and economic vulnerability. The municipality has similar
socio-economic risks through budget constraints and variability, which are
strongly influenced by the socio-economic makeup of the city through property
tax, as well as through regional, national and international economic variability
and change. The large scale urban renewal in the area also present risks for
social cohesion, by displacing residents and degrading social support networks.
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
One potential ‘surprise scenario’ was identified (Wardekker & Marschütz, 2018):
An economic crisis hits key local economic sectors, particularly the ship
building and shipping industries, resulting in major financial and job losses
for Dordrecht, and potentially long-term economic disruption.
Table 2. Summarizing table of relevant factors for Dordrecht.
Less controllable
- Resilience to heavy
precipitation events
- Resilience to riverine floods
(e.g. spatial, infra,
- Spatial planning (e.g. urban
green space & green
corridors, water)
- Public perception of climate
& water
- Soil subsidence &
- River discharge
- Sea level rise
- Major regional flood events
- Storm & wind
- Actions by regional and
international players that
increase local vulnerability
or impacts (Rotterdam
storm surge barrier,
German flood safety policy)
- Geological and geographic
vulnerabilities (e.g. clay
Less directly
- Local sustainability
- Social cohesion
- Local vulnerable groups (to
some extent; e.g. of
vulnerability of elderly,
population health)
- Urban renewal (housing,
infrastructure, facilities)
- City budget constraints &
- Risks & shocks to local
economy and economic
- Unemployment
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
2.3. Bergen, Norway (Scott Bremer)
Bergen is a harbour city in the fjords of Western Norway, with a population in
2016 of 278,121 inhabitants (Statistics Norway, 2016). Bergen today portrays
itself along several key themes. First, it remains the busiest port in Norway in
freight and passengers. Second, Bergen has become an important centre for
higher education and research, with numerous higher education institutions.
Third, it was designated a European City of Culture in 2000. Fourth, Bergen is a
tourism destination appealing both to its cultural heritage and its proximity to
natural landscapes, as the ‘gateway’ to the UNESCO-listed fjords of western
Norway. Finally, it proudly identifies itself as the wettest city in Europe. Bergen’s
wet weather has historically shaped its cultural and social life, from clothing to
city planning, and steered early advances in meteorology and forecasting; Vilhem
Bjerknes founded the Bergen School of Meteorology in 1917. This has nurtured
Bergensers self-image as weather-resilient people.
But the past 15 years has seen Bergen’s identity shift from a ‘weather city’ to a
‘climate city’, with climate change a pervasive matter of concern and care. The
University of Bergen has focused on climate as one of its central three pillars of
research. The local municipality has an ambitious Green Strategy that puts in
place far-reaching mitigative measures, like road tolls, that are at the centre of
heated local debates. A cluster of non-governmental groups promoting climate
action are active in the city. And local cultural institutions like the Philharmonic
Orchestra hold climate-themed events. There is an important on-going public
discourse about how Bergen can be more resilient to climatic change, albeit
mainly within well-defined science and policy communities; enshrined in
scientific research projects and policy and activities. Our workshops sought to
engage with these on-going discussions and offer fresh perspectives.
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
The scenario workshops
On the 19th of November 2018, researchers at the University of Bergen held a
workshop with 18 diverse participants, as part of the CoCliServ project. The
workshop contributed to on-going discussions about how we should plan for
Bergen to cope with climatic change, and had three broad goals.
, it sought
to broaden the participation and thinking around how Bergen should develop
over the next 30 years to be more climate resilient by 2050, introducing fresh
perspectives from new actors using new approaches.
, it sought to build
visions for Bergen’s future that are anchored in an appreciation for Bergen’s
past; the narratives of place and identity that make Bergen particular. In
CoCliServ, this was about linking the workshops to the WP1 narrative research.
, it sought to identify the kinds of knowledge and expertise needed to
support decision-making and action for making Bergen more climate-resilient; to
prioritise climate-related research about Bergen. In CoCliServ, this was about
linking the workshops to the WP3 work on enhancing existing climate
information and services.
Developing realistic and locally-meaningful future visions or scenarios for Bergen
was an important starting point for the workshop.
Preparing the scenarios
In planning the workshop, the Bergen research team had to make some
decisions about how participants would develop the future scenarios that would
steer their work. We decided that groups of participants would be presented
with broadly prepared scenarios that they could tailor to their own aspirations,
rather than develop scenarios on a blank sheet of paper. This was mainly to
streamline the workshop and make it possible to complete the work in a single
day. We decided that groups would be presented with different (though
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
complimentary, and quite tightly interlinked) scenarios, to tease out a
discussions of different development trajectories for Bergen, with different
points of emphasis. Given the size of the workshop (18 participants) we decided
that three scenarios, split over three groups of six, was an appropriate design
and consistent with focus group best practice. And we decided that the scenarios
should be recognisable and relatable to participants. This meant ensuring we
had scenarios that fell within existing debates around how Bergen should plan
for climatic change, as well as some more lateral scenarios. It meant scenarios
that are anchored in existing public narratives of what makes Bergen unique; its
features, culture and identity. The intention was to not have scenarios that were
too fantastical or detached from the lived realties of Bergensers today.
We decided on an approach where groups would be presented with one of three
broad scenario templates, allocated at random, and would personalise this
scenario using up to five ‘elements’ that they thought fitted to the scenario and
made the scenario desirable. These elements were represented by 15 small
cards that distilled key place-making elements of Bergen, distilled from the
analysis of public narratives of Bergen and climate; things like ‘
A climate science
’ or ‘
A city linked to nature
’ or ‘
A port city
’. As evident from these three
examples, some of these cards were quite closely related to climate, and some
were not (see Section 4). Groups were also given a blank card, to create their
own element, and were invited to modify the prepared cards as well.
The three scenario templates
We developed three scenario templates; each with a title, a photo and a short
quote to communicate the general theme associated with that scenario (see
Appendix). ‘
Scenario A: A 1.5 degree city
’ has a quote taken directly from the
municipality’s ‘Green Strategy’, and is also influenced by the County’s ‘Klimaplan’.
It emphasises the city’s role in mitigating climate change by reducing its
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
emissions. ‘
Scenario B: Let it rain
’ voiced a common theme from across the WP1
narrative interviews and ethnographic research, about Bergensers identity as
inherently resilient to all weather, living outdoor lifestyles in all weather. It took a
quote from one of the interviews and emphasises the cities adaptation. ‘
C: High-tech haven
’ was a theme that emerged from one of the interviews and
took quite a different perspective to those normally voiced. It was illustrated with
a quote from the interview and looked at how Bergen could not only cope with
climatic change, but make the most of it for developing an economy based on
climate-related technologies; like renewable energy from wind or waves. The
three scenarios were pilot tested in a teaching course at the Norwegian School of
Business, and Scenario C was the most popular there, indicating that it was a
meaningful scenario for some people in Bergen. The three scenarios were
chosen as they represented three different aspects to a common response; how
to control climate change, how to live with it, and how to make the most of it.
Ultimately any response should include all three aspects, but by teasing them
out we tried to unpack the different discourses around responding to climate
All scenarios and elements were translated into Norwegian and English, with two
groups working in Norwegian and one in English.
The place-making elements
As noted, participants in their groups could modify these scenario templates
with elements on up to five cards. Each had a title and was illustrated with two or
three bulletpoints These elements were important because they defined the
scenario and framed the elements of the future that people saw as important.
This acted to steer all of their subsequent work, on back-casting or distilling
knowledge needs. Some of these elements were climate-related and some were
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
not, and some were more controllable than others. This also defined how much
the scenario was about climate responses that we can actually affect. For this
reason, it is interesting to roughly categorise these elements as climate/non-
climate related, and controllable/uncontrollable in the table below.
Table 3. Summarizing table place-making elements (factors) for Berg en. Numbers indicate cards used during workshop.
Less controllable
2. Climate proof buildings
5. A climate science city
12. Buses, boats and bybanen
6. Resilient Bergensers
10. Safe from climate impacts
Less directly
1. A compact city
3. A port city
4. Walkways and cycle-ways
9. Freeing the waterways
11. Rain-friendly places in the city
13. A city linked to nature
15. Green spaces in the city
7. A historical city
8. A local democracy
14. Diverse and international
This is one way of categorising these different place-making elements; other
categorisations are possible. What is apparent is that around two thirds of the
elements are not directly related to climate, though of course they are not
unrelated. For example, ‘green spaces’ are about improving the quality of the
living environment in the city, and strengthening the links to nature, but they
also have important mitigation and adaptation functions. At the same time,
around two thirds of the elements can be (ostensibly) considered quite highly
controllable, through physically shaping the city. This is important for crafting
scenarios that are able to be defined around concrete actions that can be
affected, and depend less on other uncontrollable factors, like the rate and
composition of immigration into the city, or Bergensers attitudes to nature.
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
2.4. Golfe du Morbihan, France (Ana Rocha & Charlotte da Cunha)
Brief overview of the case study area
Due to its geographical settings, the future challenges of the Golf du Morbihan
are obviously related to climate change. The Golf, its inhabitants and its
economics activities will be exposed to increasing risks of storms, flooding,
submersion, as well as coastline modifications (cumulative effect of submersion
and sea level rise). But before all, the Golf will suffer its territorial development
choice. Present urban development, started in the years 1960-1980, mostly along
the coast and base on secondary houses, influence social and economic
development but also political choices.
The most efficient way to make the Golf du Morbihan more climate proof will be
multifaceted, as divergent future visions, preferences for adaptation options and
other interventions are controversely. The Natural Regional Park has been
created in that sense and diverse local actors tries to express their point of view
in the face of increasing coastal urbanization. In this context, needs for
knowledge and climate services is essential for them and to help decision-maker
to make more informed decisions. Different narratives and framings of timescale
and season have been interpreted in the Golf du Morbihan, in deliverables D.1.1.
and D.1.2. Then, we explored what insights do local narratives in Golf du
Morbihan offer to develop a resilient and desirable future under the influence of
climate change in deliverables D.1.3.
The Golfe du Morbihan scenario exercise
The WP2 will contribute to the ongoing articulation of the CoCliServ consortium
(social and climate scientists) and the local teams (Clim’actions) to provide detailed
scientific information for future climate adaptation in the Golf du Morbihan,
hopefully in support of existing policy frameworks. The objective in the Golf du
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
Morbihan WP2 case study is to codesign future visions and action scenarios
(combining short-term action and long-term strategic plans) for a climate resilient
neighbourhood, with local actors. The scenarios implementation will be the
opportunity to include, in the CoCliServ process, the local decision-maker (elected
representatives and local officials from Golf du Morbihan municipalities) and other
local actors (such as architects, artists and journalists) to this collaboration to bring
new ideas and visions to this core science-policy network. Moreover, this footstep
of scenario development allow to start the artscience conjoint analysis (WP4 -
Task 4.4). Clim’actions is signing a contract with a local artist (Marianne Cardon),
which will develop a practice of participatory art.
During WP1, we have conducted life stories with local economic actors and several
discussions with our local partner Clim’actions. We gathered material on the
history, issues, and narratives. Thereafter, we plan to conduct two local workshops
and another interviews series, through an iterative and interactive process
between social (CEARC) and climate (LSCE) scientist, as well as local artist.
The first workshop will likely focus on presenting the narrative material from WP1
and jointly exploring how that may translate into future visions for the Golf du
Morbihan, by exploring risks from climatic change and events. This will be a short
creative workshop (3 hours), organised in collaboration with the local artist, in
order to facilitate participation of actors. An important challenge will be to see how
much overlap and how much conflict exists, and to create conditions that allow
the main scenarios plot lines to emerge, in order to frame incremental scenarios.
Following this first workshop we will conduct two parallel exercises with a common
objective, the collection of information and opinions on these incremental
scenarios: 1. a series of qualitative interviews, and 2. an artistic work related to
these scenarios to collect, in summer, different data from a larger set of actors
(primary and secondary houses inhabitants and tourists no selected in advance).
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
A second, longer, workshop will use methods based on backcasting to explore one
or two incremental scenarios and their hinge points (1 day). It may be more
strategic in nature and will think about how to best involve the neighbourhood
(inhabitants, organisations, municipalities). It will also involve some discussion of
information and climate services that may be useful for adaptation planning.
Climate-related trends, challenges, and desires.
Controllable locally
Ecosystems preservation and biodiversity protection are transversal issues
that have been mentioned in multiple narratives. Challenges and desires
regarding this subject include: the development of robust governance
structures, management schemes and policies that integrate different
sectors and administrative levels; improvement of local agricultural trade
and the rise of organic farming practices in the 1990’s as a response to
environmental concerns; improved efficiency of transportation and
thermal insulation (indirectly related to climate issues); specific policy-
making regarding sea level rise and its risks to biodiversity; strengthening
of the work developed by Regional Natural Park (PNR) and the Natura
2000 protected area network.
Climate extreme events could endanger production infrastructure. It is not
possible to act locally to avoid them, but adaptative measures can be
adopted, such as building or reinforcing dikes around salt farms.
Protection of traditional economic activities from climate change
phenomena and its consequences, as well as the perpetuation of these
professions, is a source of concern for some of the engaged stakeholders,
such as seashell and salt farming representatives.
Not controllable locally
Climate change perception is commonly expressed in terms of seasonal
changes (drier summers and autumns; wetter winters and springs) and
variations regarding meteorological phenomena (less frequent snowing,
more frequent storms, fewer but hotter summers).
Rise of both water temperature and sea level are extremely relevant
elements for seashell farming. These issues are faced through the
adoption of adaptative measures, such as production relocation to more
appropriate zones.
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
Access to climate information is an important driver of adaptation,
especially for seashell farming.
Not climate-related trends, challenges, and desires
Controllable locally
Over the past decade, some of the main activities in the region have been
affected by not-climate related trends which were, at least partially, locally
controllable. Such changes include agriculture mechanization in the 1960’s
and a salt sale crisis between the 1960’s and the 1980’s, which lead to an
important rate of workers’ exodus, followed by the activity’s revival in the
late 1980’s as a result of a regrouping of local producers.
There is an important participation of organic agriculture in the territory.
In addition to organic practices, current and future concerns in this field
are related to strengthening the social and economic links between
farmers and clients at a local level, which is driven by both local
consumption and tourism-related demands.
In the past 15 years, mortality in cultivated oyster population is a critical
issue for the perpetuation of seashell farming. This phenomenon has been
found to be driven by a virus which rests incubated in cold water and until
surpassing a given temperature threshold. At that point, the dormant virus
is brought into activity. This activation temperature has decreased from 19
°C to 16 °C over the past years, which indicates that even if climate change
is not the main cause, it certainly plays a relevant role in intensifying the
issue in terms of surface water temperature increase. Production is even
more affected in summertime, when hot and anoxic water have led to an
oyster mortality rate up to 70-80%. To overcome this loss during the high
touristic season, producers have resorted to production diversification,
with support of IFREMER
. Additionally, production relocation and new
commercialization methods, resulting from local mobilization and
coordination between oyster farmers, have been put in place.
Regarding coastal management, past changes to the shore and the
contrast regarding primary versus tourism-driven activities have impacted
the economy and the habitat if the Gulf. By the end of the 19th century, an
important number of people who had previously left the region, mainly for
professional reasons, returned to live full-time or seasonally in the
territory. They were attracted by local characteristics such as biodiversity,
“the French institute that undertakes research and expert assessments to advance knowledge on the
oceans and their resources, monitor the marine environment and foster the sustainable development of
maritime activities” (IFREMER, 2018)
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
coastal landscape, leisure activities (notably sailing) and cultural aspects
linked to local tradition. This was responsible for a rapid expansion of the
housing and tourism sectors. Paradoxically, the very elements that drove
them there are threatened by their current presence, due to the
consequent increase in resource demand and real estate pressure
throughout the 20th century. Recently, the increasing costs of accessing
and maintaining the living standards established last century have been
contributing to increase inequality and changing the leisure sector. This
new dynamic also testifies of a move from proprietary towards functional
or usage economy models, where individual property is replaced by the
renting or sharing of goods and services. Current and future concern
about policy-making which is able to integrate different sectors (notably
marine and terrestrial activities), as well as throughout different levels
(local, regional, national), was identified in the narratives.
Loss of local identity due to the abovementioned socioeconomic and
environmental changes is a point of concern mentioned in the narratives.
Although climate change plays a role, it is not the main driver.
Not controllable locally
The development of technological solutions which can contribute to
adaptative measures is mentioned explicitly regarding the oyster mortality
issue. Although some measures adopted to respond to this situation have
been mentioned in the “Controllable locally” category, the development of
some technological solutions might be carried out at other spheres, such
as the academic environment or national level agencies, such as IFREMER.
Table 4. Summarizing table of relevant factors for Golfe du Morbihan.
Things we can control
Things we can’t control
Problems and vulnerabilities
- Risks to production infrastructure
due to climate events;
Values and strengths
- Environment and biodiversity
- Perpetuation of traditional
economic activities;
- Adaptative capacity (collective
- Rise of organic farming as a
response to environmental needs;
Problems and vulnerabilities
- Changes to seasonal dynamics;
- Changes to frequency and
duration of meteorological
phenomena (snow, rainfall);
- Water temperature increase;
- Sea level rise;
Values and strengths
- Adaptative capacity
(information dependant)
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
Interests for the future
- Ecosystems preservation;
- Reducing human impact on the
- Improvement of local trade;
- Improvement of organic practices;
- Improved transport efficiency;
- Improved thermal insulation;
- Strengthened governance
(Regional Natural Park, cross-level
coastal management strategies);
Interests for the future
- Access to climate information;
Not climate-
Problems and vulnerabilities
- Agriculture mechanization;
- Accelerated development of
tourism and secondary housing
- Salt sales crisis and workers
- Loss of local identity;
- Inequality intensification;
- Evolution from proprietary
economy towards a
functional/usage model;
- Resource demand increase;
- Real estate pressure;
- Disease spreading in oyster farms
leading high mortality rate (though
partially climate change driven);
Values and strengths
- Adaptative capacity, such as
production diversification and
relocation (although this is at least
partially driven by climate change);
- Local level workers mobilization to
establish collective action;
Interests for the future
- Dynamization of agriculture;
- Integrated policy-making and
management of coastal areas
(cross-level and cross-sectoral);
Problems and vulnerabilities
- Vulnerability of oyster farming
regarding high rates of
production loss (partially related
to climate issues);
Values and strengths
- Perpetuation of traditional
economic activities;
Interests for the future
Development of technological
solutions that could be applied
locally to enhance vulnerability;
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
2.5. Kerourien, Brest, France (Juan Baztan & Lionel Jaffrès)
(Prepared by Juan Baztan and Lionel Jaffrès, edited by Bethany Jorgensen)
Brief overview of the Kerourien case study area
As described in the DOW and previous deliverables (D1.1, D1.2, D1.3), Kerourien
is in a peri-urban context in the Saint-Pierre quarter in Brest, France. According
to the 2013 census, Kerourien has 1200 residents. It is a priority area, mostly
structured around post-war housing projects, with a strong “social inclusion”
effort focus. Kerourien is one of the most diverse areas in the city and the most
challenging in terms of urbanization, migration, and empowerment.
The Kerourien scenario exercise
The scenario exercise follows “The beautiful stories of Kerourien” festival that
took place in October 2018, bringing together local stakeholders, other
neighborhood residents and project participants through a multi-day festival that
included three art forms synthesizing and embedding the efforts of WP1 in
narratives as described in D1.3 and 2, two public meetings that created the
conditions allowing for the emergence of the main scenario plot lines. The two
debates, 2h each, are entitled “Power” and “What to do today to love our
neighborhood tomorrow”. Completing the public debates and art forms allowed
us to identify preliminary questions from the five main narratives :
(i) How are community priorities such as housing and physical safety
connected with climate narratives in representations of daily life and
world views;
(ii) How do participants embody, through their personal trajectories and
experiences, climatic histories that bridge regional and global
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
(iii) Potential connections between expectations and climatic conditions;
(iv) Political choices regarding climatic questions; and
(v) The dialogue between these political choices and residents’ dynamics.
From these, we reach the three main narrative lines that will be explored in the
next steps of the scenario exercise, with special emphasis on how gender weaves
into them:
Box 1: Three main narrative lines that will be explored in the next steps of the scenario exercise.
Sc_K_1: Social justice related with climate change and local weather.
Sc_K_2: Migrations and their associated consequences at each unbalanced step.
Sc_K_3: Housing and urbanization in a changing climate context.
These three key horizons will be explored through climate change lenses, and
developed during the scenario workshops that will be organized to develop the
main scenario plot lines with key stakeholders and inhabitants that have been
engaged in the previous phases of the process.
The complementary constraints that we have in Kerourien within the CoCliServ
scenario exercise comes from three different components: (i) Epistemological :
How do we connect available knowledge from natural sciences with inhabitants’
daily life needs and emergencies? (ii) Pragmatic: How do we keep inhabitants
engaged once the most stimulating part of the process is finished? And (iii)
Ethical: Which ethically robust position do we need to have when we share
efforts with local communities concerning possible futures? The way we
integrate these constraints in the Kerourien scenario exercise will be distributed
to scenario exercise participants detailing the constraints, the limits of our
approach, the intentions, and the objectives.
The incremental scenario development we are engaged in through the CoCliServ
Kerourien process is rooted in a paradigm that assumes the scenario-exercise is
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
a social process (Garb 2008, Vanderlinden, 2015) allowing (i) scientific knowledge
its own role in the construction of the emergent narrative during the scenario-
exercise that embrace the evolution of the related item, and its complexity, in the
whole system and (ii) to the participants to go beyond the non-probabilistic
nature of the hinge points (Vanderlinden, 2015).
Climate-related and indirectly climate-related trends, challenges, and desires
The inhabitants are aware of their desires and in their articulation there appears
to be a need to clarify the trends and challenges that they will face. These three
anchors -desires, trends and challenges- will structure the narratives that will be
created during the scenario exercise in connection with weather and climatic
conditions. We assume that weather and climate change are not under the
influence of the local residents, as they are not connected to the main sources of
green gas emissions nor to the political decision-making level that can move
policy; however, it is extremely important for us in Kerourien to note the
inhabitants do have a key role key in how they face climate change impacts and
how they are empowered in the co-construction of climate services.
The main challenge for us is to connect the identified desired futures expressed
through the inhabitants’ and stakeholders’ narratives with available scientific
knowledge about climate change in order to develop scenario-based narratives
that capture the complexity and empower the inhabitants through the process.
This will feed the Kerourien scenario and hinge points report (D2.2) and the
ground-tested scenario development protocol (D2.3).
Kerourien inhabitants are stressed in their daily lives by their economic
constraints and associated societal challenges, such as racism and well-being,
and this puts climate change related issues in the background; such issues will
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
explicitly be brought to the fore during the scenario exercise when the outcome
narratives connect local narratives with available scientific knowledge.
Table 5. Three main narrative lines (with relevant factors) that will be explored in the next steps of the scenario exercise.
Trends, challenges
and desires
Controllable locally
Not controllable locally
Social justice
Local funding.
School dynamics.
Local NGO dynamics.
Trust conditions.
Criteria for the
Rules for the public-
and private-sector
Regional and national
Inform migrants about
the climatic conditions in
the places they come
from or want to go next.
Migration flow.
Trigge r/s for
Housing and
Union for H/U rights.
Political pressure.
Climate planning.
Water scarcity
Energy planning.
urbanization planning.
Investments for
housing rehabilitation;
Ongoing and forthcoming mitigation and adaptation strategies, including a
robust starting point for additional climate services, need to be rooted in bridges
that connect community concerns and values with available scientific knowledge.
Climate services appear as an opportunity for the inhabitants in their
empowerment process. Elements based in climate change science are crucial for
answering questions related to migration, urbanization and housing (Box 1 and
Table 5).
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
Next steps for field work action
With the main narrative lines identified, we need to improve the connection with
available scientific knowledge, particularly with the “WP3: local climate
information assessment and evaluation”, in order to find the best fit during the
scenario exercise process. The aim is to use two distinct narrative lines, one
coming from WP1 and one from WP3, and enable the emergence of a third
narrative form that reveals more completely the complexity of local needs in
terms of climatic services. The scenario exercise presents the chance to formally
develop answer/s to the question “how to get there*”, there* being the future
where the inhabitants want to be.
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
Bremer, S., A. Wardekker, S. Dessai, S. Sobolowski, R. Slaattelid, J. van der Sluijs (2019). "Toward a multi-
faceted conception of co-production of climate services".
Climate Services
, 13, 42-50.
Dammers, E., S. van ‘t Klooster, B. de Wit, H. Hilderink, A. Petersen, W. Tuinstra (2013a). "Scenario’s maken
voor milieu, natuur en ruimte: Een handreiking". [Developing scenarios for environment, nature, and space:
A guidance] PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bilthoven.
Dammers, E., S. van ‘t Klooster, B. de Wit, H. Hilderink, A. Petersen, W. Tuinstra (2013b). "Scenario’s maken
voor milieu, natuur en ruimte: Een checklist". [Developing scenarios for environment, nature, and space: A
checklist] PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bilthoven.
De Jong, A., J.A. Wardekker, J.P. van der Sluijs (2012). "Assumptions in quantitative analyses of health risks of
overhead power lines".
Environmental Science & Policy
, 16, 114-121.
Garb Y., S. Pulver, S. Vandeveer (2008). “Scenarios in society, society in scenarios: toward a social scientific
analysis of storyline-driven environmental modeling”.
Environmental Research Letters
, 3, 4, 045015.
Haasnoot, M., J.H. Kwakkel, W.E. Walker, J. ter Maat (2013). "Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for
crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world".
Global Environmental Change
, 23 (2), 485-498.
IFREMER (2018). The Institute. Website consulted on: 18/02/2019. Available at:
Kloprogge P., J.P. van der Sluijs, A.C. Petersen (2011). "A method for the analysis of assumptions in model-
based environmental assessments".
Environmental Modelling & Software
, 26, 289301.
Krauß, W., S. Bremer, A. Wardekker, B. Marschütz, J. Baztan, C. da Cunha (2018a). "Initial mapping of
narratives of change". CoCliServ report D1.1. CoCliServ, Guyancourt.
Krauß, W., S. Bremer, A. Wardekker, B. Marschütz, J. Baztan, C. da Cunha (2018b). "Chronology and in-depth
analysis of weather-related and place-specific narratives of climate change". CoCliServ report D1.2.
CoCliServ, Guyancourt.
Krauß, W., S. Bremer, A. Wardekker, B. Marschütz, J. Baztan, C. da Cunha (2019). "Relevant excerpts from
interviews and protocols". CoCliServ report D1.3. CoCliServ, Guyancourt.
Marschuetz, B. (2018). "Narratives for a future-proof city: The case of Dordrecht, The Netherlands". MSc
thesis. Utrecht University, Utrecht.
Van der Sluijs, J.P., J.A. Wardekker (2015). "Critical appraisal of assumptions in chains of model calculations
used to project local climate impacts for adaptation decision support the case of Baakse Beek".
Environmental Research Letters
, 10, 045005.
Vanderlinden J.-P. (2015). “Prévoir l'imprévu”.
Ceriscope Environnement et Relations Internationales
Vervoort, J.M., P.K. Thornton, P. Kristjanson, W. Förch, P.J. Ericksen, K. Kok,..., A. Wilkinson (2014). "Challenges
to scenario-guided adaptive action on food security under climate change".
Global Environmental Change
28, 383-394.
Wardekker, A., B. Marschütz (2018). "Framing the future: Using local narratives of change to explore future
visions and knowledge needs for urban climate resilience" Paper presented at the PNS4 Post-Normal
Science Symposium, 15-17 November 2018, Barcelona, Spain.
Wardekker, A., J. Baztan, S. Bremer, W. Krauβ, H. Runhaar, J. van der Sluijs, J.P. Vanderlinden, J. Vervoort, D.
Wildschut (2018). “Draft scenario protocol”. ERA4CS CoCliServ report M2.1. CoCliServ, Guyancourt, France.
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
Appendix A: The three scenario templates for Bergen, in English
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
“The goal is for the people of Bergen to limit their climate footprint in line with
the UN agreement on climate change. In 2050, we will have succeeded in
ensuring that the people of Bergen do not contribute more GHG emissions than
the Earth can handle.” (Grønn Strategi, 2016)
Scenario A:
A 1.5 degree city
Wikimedia Commons, 2012
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
“If it means you can have more rain festivals or go outside and do crazy things
when it’s wet, maybe people can do that! […] Rain isn’t good or bad, it’s just a
fact of life.” (Interviewee 4)
Scenario B:
Let it rain!
Deliverable2.1: Case study situation inventory report
“Bergen could become a high-tech haven, particularly for marine resources and
technology like electrical power; being a battery for Europe through water, wind
and waves.” (Interviewee 9)
Scenario C:
High-tech haven
Wikimedia commons
... As methodological guide, we've used the CoCliServ Draft Scenario Protocol . We built on the initial inventory in Deliverable 2.1 (Wardekker et al., 2019a), which established 'situational awareness': what's happening on the ground that is relevant to take into account in the scenario exercises? The purpose of Deliverable 2.2 is to: (a) codesign practical visions, scenarios, and hinge points for the local case studies, (b) test the Draft Scenario Protocol (which will be refined based on our practical experiences), and (c) provide input for WP3 (Local Climate Information), which will use it to compare the local knowledge needs with the currently existing climate information and climate services. ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
We conducted case studies using a novel incremental scenario approach. With local actors, we co-developed visions of desirable futures, normative scenarios that might lead towards those futures, and inventoried ‘hinge points’: critical moments in time where things might lead to a better or worse future. To bridge the latter, specific information or climate services might be needed. The cases showed that the new approach could be applied and tailored successfully in a variety of situations. The novel notion of hinge points allowed us to inventory critical challenges and ambitions relevant to the local situation: climate-related as well as key socio-economic, legal, policy/political, and technological ones. It also resulted an inventory of key information and climate service needs.
... project is to build on the narratives and result in something that can be used to reflect on and design new climate services.The WP2 process consistent of five stages. First, a Draft Scenario Protocol was developed based on a review of the literature on participatory scenario design,Wardekker et al., 2019). Third, we applied our novel incremental scenario method empirically in the five case studies and drew both case-related and methodological ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
We developed, tested and refined a novel incremental participatory scenario approach. This method allows for the development of normative scenarios, pathways that lead to desirable futures, with local communities, through a non-linear approach. Developments in the real world rarely follow straightforward linear paths. The approach inventories ‘hinge points’: critical moments in time where things might lead to a better or worse future. The hinge points facilitate the inventory of critical challenges and ambitions relevant to the local situation: climate-related as well as key socio-economic, legal, policy/political, and technological ones. They also allow for exploration of key needs for information or climate services that might be useful to local actors at a given point in time. The method was ground-tested and refined in five case studies in the Netherlands, Norway, France, and Germany. The cases showed that the new approach could be applied and tailored successfully in a variety of situations. Goal/Purpose of the document - Document the novel participatory incremental scenario approach developed by the CoCliServ project. - Detail how locally embedded visions, scenarios, hinge points, and climate information needs can be derived, together with local communities. - Provide guidance and examples to others who might want to use this incremental scenario approach.
... ( Wardekker et al., , 2019: het ontwikkelen van toekomstvisies en scenario's. Deze workshop levert de Nederlandse bijdrage hiervoor. ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
Samen met beleidsmakers, bewoners en onderzoekers is nagedacht over toekomstvisies en plannen voor de Vogelbuurt in Dordrecht, in de context van een ‘veerkrachtige Vogelbuurt in een toekomstig klimaat’. Twee visies en tijdslijnen werden ontwikkeld: ‘Hechte eilandgemeenschap’ en ‘Innovatieve verbindingen’. Ook werd nagedacht over ‘kritieke momenten’, waarop de plannen de mist in zouden kunnen gaan of juist beter kunnen uitpakken, en over informatiebehoeften. Uit de discussie over ‘Hechte eilandgemeenschap’ in de toekomst komt idealiter een vorm van wijkenergie, wijkgroen en wijksamenwerking naar voren. Dordtenaren houden namelijk graag zaken zelf in de hand. Veel maatregelen vereisen op korte termijn inzet van de gemeente (o.a. samenstelling buurt behouden, vergroenen, opknapwerkzaamheden, voorlichting geven) die vervolgens kan afzwakken door gemeentelijke potjes te ontschotten, taken te decentraliseren en meer zelfstandigheid aan de buurt te geven. De kritieke momenten in de verhaallijnen kunnen voor bepaalde crises zorgen die bewerkstelligen dat de buurt hechter wordt. Uit de discussie over ‘Innovatieve verbindingen’ komt naar voren dat er op veel terreinen integrale plannen voor de stad en de wijk gemaakt kunnen worden, maar dat die sterk afhangen van ontwikkelingen in EU en Nederlandse wetgeving. Voorbereid zijn op verrassingen en kapitaliseren op ‘kleine rampen’ (verstoringen, incidenten, etc.) is belangrijk omdat dit de soms stroperige ontwikkelingen in een versnelling kan brengen. Verder is het bevorderen van samenwerking in de wijk en tussen wijk en Gemeente belangrijk. Data en (slimme) technologie kunnen gebruikt worden om meer inzicht te geven in wat er speelt in de wijk, koppelingen tussen problemen/oplossingen te laten zien en sneller te reageren. Dit is wel afhankelijk van het debat over technologie en privacy. De workshop leverde tal van ideeën op en de uitwisseling tussen beleid, wijk en wetenschap werd gewaardeerd. Het werken met soms abstracte zaken als visies, scenario’s, kritieke momenten en innovatieve verbindingen in de groepen ging prima. Wel vonden deelnemers het nuttig om een dergelijke sessie in ‘flitsvorm’ (bijv. 1 uur) te herhalen met een grotere groep bewoners.
Technical Report
Full-text available
In this report, local climate service components are evaluated. In CoCliServ, local climate service components are 1) local narratives (input from WP1) and 2) existing climate information and services (assessed in task 3.1.). For each case study site, local narratives of change are evaluated according to potential entry points for local contextualization of climate information. Based on these results, further steps for the evaluation of climate service components are derived and carried out for each case study site.
Technical Report
Full-text available
How can scientific climate knowledge be transformed into locally meaningful knowledge? CoCliServ explores new ways in climate communication and shifts the focus on narratives in order to co-develop new forms of climate services for action. Narratives of change provide local knowledge, they facilitate decision-making, and they help identifying information needs and addressing local communities’ concerns, aspirations and goals. Narratives add value and meaning to scientific data about climate change and turn ‘matters of fact’ into ‘matters of concern’. Based on the mapping, analysis and interpretation of narratives of change, CoCliServ develops vision-based scenarios, deploying an incremental and community-led strategy. Exemplary collaborative relationships between climate science and local communities will be established in five representative case-studies: in Bergen / Norway; in the Jade Bay area in Lower Saxony / Germany; in Dordrecht / Netherlands; in St. Pierre / Kerourien and in the Golf du Morbihan in France. In this report, we present the results of D1.3. After the mapping of narratives in D1.1. (Krauß et al., 2018 a) and the chronology and in-depth analysis of weather-related local narratives in D1.2 (Krauß et al. 2018 b),in this deliverable we document and analyse place-specific excerpts of interviews and protocols. These excerpts serve to outline a corpus of narratives for the co-development of climate services for action. This choice of narratives serves to frame and to provide content for scenario building (WP2) and climate services (WP3), and is in some cases in alignment with (prospective or already active) citizen scientists and artists. The goal is to present selected narratives of change based on interview and protocol excerpts in order to • characterise place-specific conflict or problem constellations • identify the issues at stake and the relevant actors involved • outline desired futures on this basis In doing so, D 1.3 seeks to provide the link between the work packages 1 and 2 as abasis for the co-development of climate services for action.
Full-text available
Increasing numbers of scholars and practitioners appeal to procedural theories of ‘co-production’ as they work to transform climate science into climate services. Most work in this direction theorises co-production as an ‘iterative and interactive’ process between climate service providers and users, with success measured mainly in terms of the usefulness and usability of the information product for the user. But notwithstanding these first important steps, this perspective paper argues that the current study of climate service co-production is too narrowly framed, and fails to properly engage with the broad and rich literature that conceives of co-production processes in a diversity of ways. The authors suggest a fresh look on co-production as a process best examined simultaneously from several complimentary perspectives, with reference to recent work reconceptualising co-production as an eight-sided ‘prism’. Using an illustrative example of climate services developed to predict and visualise future flooding in the municipality of Voss, in Norway, the paper demonstrates how this prism concept of co-production can enable a more comprehensive view on co-production as a multi-faceted phenomenon, improve mutual understanding among actors and, ultimately, help design climate services that are better tailored for climate change responses in particular contexts. Keywords: Climate services, Co-production, Evaluation, Voss
Full-text available
Climate change and extreme events brought about by it increasingly threaten an urbanising humanity and imposes the need for adapting to arising challenges and mitigate further climate change due to the limitations of adaptation. Climate action, with many activities depending on behavioural changes, should be centred around people’s lives and aspirations for a desirable future to let people identify with these measures and thus let them become part of desired futures, which will be certainly shaped by climate change. One way to elicit such desired futures is to focus on people’s narratives, which are in principal stories and shared realities that bind people together, foster interaction among them, and let people make sense of the world they live in as narratives organize their experiences. Narratives unfold around key events, actors, activities, relations between them as well as embeddedness in time and space and are therefore holding crucial implications for future-proofing a place. Studying narratives within a case study in Dordrecht, an island in the South-Western Dutch Delta, involved authorities and citizens eliciting their narratives around weather and water affecting the city. This research unearthed nine main narrative themes shedding light on the historical struggle of the city with water that is shaping its fate until today. Exposure to water and weather causing threats for Dordrecht that are increasing in their severity due to climate change related extremes and sea-level rise, as well as the vision for a climate resilient and safe future become obvious in the elicited narratives. This study let both shared and diverging stories among authorities and citizens appear, with the shared underlying motivator of climate change employing a climate threat frame being critical for climate-proofing Dordrecht. Shared narratives involve historical struggles, outlooks for the future as well as both constraints and drivers for collective problem solving. Diverging narratives state specificities of threats and occurring measures to deal with them. Involved authorities are focusing more on water management and detailed strategies to deal with vulnerabilities arising out of climate change and its impacts, whereas inhabitants narrate more holistically on their experiences with weather, water, and mitigating climate change in order to safeguard the future of Dordrecht and its inhabitants. Finally, elicited narratives imply the need for actively involving authorities and citizens in collaborative governance arrangements focusing simultaneously on climate adaptation and climate mitigation to bridge the elicited divergence in this endeavour and act on anthropogenic climate change.
Full-text available
In order to enable anticipation and proactive adaptation, local decision makers increasingly seek detailed foresight about regional and local impacts of climate change. To this end, the Netherlands Models and Data-Centre implemented a pilot chain of sequentially linked models to project local climate impacts on hydrology, agriculture and nature under different national climate scenarios for a small region in the east of the Netherlands named Baakse Beek. The chain of models sequentially linked in that pilot includes a (future) weather generator and models of respectively subsurface hydrogeology, ground water stocks and flows, soil chemistry, vegetation development, crop yield and nature quality. These models typically have mismatching time step sizes and grid cell sizes. The linking of these models unavoidably involves the making of model assumptions that can hardly be validated, such as those needed to bridge the mismatches in spatial and temporal scales. Here we present and apply a method for the systematic critical appraisal of model assumptions that seeks to identify and characterize the weakest assumptions in a model chain. The critical appraisal of assumptions presented in this paper has been carried out ex-post. For the case of the climate impact model chain for Baakse Beek, the three most problematic assumptions were found to be: land use and land management kept constant over time; model linking of (daily) ground water model output to the (yearly) vegetation model around the root zone; and aggregation of daily output of the soil hydrology model into yearly input of a so called ‘mineralization reduction factor’ (calculated from annual average soil pH and daily soil hydrology) in the soil chemistry model. Overall, the method for critical appraisal of model assumptions presented and tested in this paper yields a rich qualitative insight in model uncertainty and model quality. It promotes reflectivity and learning in the modelling community, and leads to well informed recommendations for model improvement.
Full-text available
This paper examines the development and use of scenarios as an approach to guide action in multi-level, multi-actor adaptation contexts such as food security under climate change. Three challenges are highlighted: (1) ensuring the appropriate scope for action; (2) moving beyond intervention-based decision guidance; and (3) developing long-term shared capacity for strategic planning. To overcome these challenges we have applied explorative scenarios and normative back-casting with stakeholders from different sectors at the regional level in East Africa. We then applied lessons about appropriate scope, enabling adaptation pathways, and developing strategic planning capacity to scenarios processes in multiple global regions. Scenarios were created to have a broad enough scope to be relevant to diverse actors, and then adapted by different actor groups to ensure their salience in specific decision contexts. The initial strategy for using the scenarios by bringing a range of actors together to explore new collaborative proposals had limitations as well as strengths versus the application of scenarios for specific actor groups and existing decision pathways. Scenarios development and use transitioned from an intervention-based process to an embedded process characterized by continuous engagement. Feasibility and long-term sustainability could be ensured by having decision makers own the process and focusing on developing strategic planning capacity within their home organisations. 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (
Full-text available
One of the major issues hampering the formulation of uncontested policy decisions on contemporary risks is the presence of uncertainties in various stages of the policy cycle. In literature, different lines are suggested to address the problem of provisional and uncertain evidence. Reflective approaches such as pedigree analysis can be used to explore the quality of evidence when quantification of uncertainties is at stake. One of the issues where the quality of evidence impedes policy making, is the case of electromagnetic fields. In this case, a (statistical) association was suggested with an increased risk on childhood leukaemia in the vicinity of overhead power lines. A biophysical mechanism that could support this association was not found till date however. The Dutch government bases its policy concerning overhead power lines on the precautionary principle. For The Netherlands, previous studies have assessed the potential number of extra cases of childhood leukaemia due to the presence over overhead power lines. However, such a quantification of the health risk of EMF entails a (large) number of assumptions, both prior to and in the calculation chain. In this study, these assumptions were prioritized and critically appraised in an expert elicitation workshop, using a pedigree matrix for characterization of assumptions in assessments. It appeared that assumptions that were regarded to be important in quantifying the health risks show a high value-ladenness. The results show that, given the present state of knowledge, quantification of the health risks of EMF is premature. We consider the current implementation of the precautionary principle by the Dutch government to be adequate.
Full-text available
A new paradigm for planning under conditions of deep uncertainty has emerged in the literature. According to this paradigm, a planner should create a strategic vision of the future, commit to short-term actions, and establish a framework to guide future actions. A plan that embodies these ideas allows for its dynamic adaptation over time to meet changing circumstances. We propose a method for decisionmaking under uncertain global and regional changes called ‘Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways’. We base our approach on two complementary approaches for designing adaptive plans: ‘Adaptive Policymaking’ and ‘Adaptation Pathways’. Adaptive Policymaking is a theoretical approach describing a planning process with different types of actions (e.g. ‘mitigating actions’ and ‘hedging actions’) and signposts to monitor to see if adaptation is needed. In contrast, Adaptation Pathways provides an analytical approach for exploring and sequencing a set of possible actions based on alternative external developments over time. We illustrate the Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways approach by producing an adaptive plan for long-term water management of the Rhine Delta in the Netherlands that takes into account the deep uncertainties about the future arising from social, political, technological, economic, and climate changes. The results suggest that it is worthwhile to further test and use the approach.