Search for: All records

Abstract Scientists are increasingly engaging with stakeholders to codesign scenarios of land use change necessitating methods to translate the resulting qualitative scenarios into quantitative simulations. We demonstrate a transparent method for translating participatory scenarios to simulations of land use and land cover (LULC) change using the New England Landscape Futures (NELF) project as a case study. The NELF project codesigned four divergent narrative scenarios that contrast with a Recent Trends scenario projecting a continuation of observed changes New England over the past 20 years. Here, we (1) describe the process and utility of translating qualitative scenarios into spatial simulations using a dynamic cellular land change model, (2) evaluate scenario LULC configuration relative to the Recent Trends scenario and to each other, (3) compare the fate of forests within stakeholder‐defined areas of concern, and (4) describe how a user‐inspired outreach tool was developed to make the simulations and analyses accessible to a diverse user group. The associated simulations are strongly divergent in terms of the amount of LULC change and the spatial pattern of change. Among the scenarios, there is a fivefold difference in the amount of high‐density development and a twofold difference in the amount of protected land. Features of the simulations can clearly be linked back to the original storylines. Overall, the rate of LULC change has a greater influence on stakeholder areas of concern than the spatial configuration. The simulated scenarios have been integrated into an online mapping tool via a user‐engagement process meeting the needs of a variety of stakeholders. 

This paper is the culmination of several meaning-making activities between an external researcher, PES practitioners, and social scientist researchers who considered the unique contributions that can be made through RPPs on PES (that is, research-practice partnerships on public engagement with science). Based on the experiences from three RPP projects, the group noted that the PES context may be particularly suited to RPPs, and identified the importance of working as thinking-partners who support reciprocal decision-making. Recommendations are made in support of using these approaches to advance practical knowledge-building and reduce shared frustrations about the disconnect between research and practice in PES.