Speaker
Description
Exploratory scenario-building processes have proven valuable in addressing uncertainty and complexity in urban and transport systems by creating coherent narratives that capture broad trends at global or national scales (Banister & Hickman, 2013; Tuominen et al., 2014; Melander, 2018). However, a significant challenge lies in bridging these exploratory scenario narratives with spatial and local realities, which are crucial for guiding effective policymaking in urban, regional, and mobility planning. Participatory approaches show promise by integrating both expert and local knowledge into the scenario mapping process (Molinero-Parejo et al., 2021; Rivas-Tabares et al., 2022; Lamarque et al., 2013), but current practices often treat the scenario mapping process as a final, one-way step, culminating in narrative-based maps. As a result, the spatial insights and local perspectives uncovered during these mapping processes are typically not integrated into the scenario narratives.
This study investigates whether and how exploratory scenario narratives and participatory mapping processes can establish a reciprocal relationship wherein narrative-based maps contribute to spatially shaping scenario narratives. The methodology involved three academically constructed cases tested in an experimental setting. Each case was operationalised in a workshop with six participants, including experts and local stakeholders. The participants engaged in collaborative mapping activities, focusing on changes in land use and transportation according to three 2050 exploratory scenario narratives for the Henares Corridor (Madrid, Spain) (Soria-Lara et al., 2021). A structured observation approach was used to analyse the dialogue and interaction dynamics during the mapping episodes (i.e., distinct segments of the workshops leading to relevant spatial transformations). This approach provides the research team with insights into the influence of participatory mapping on shaping the spatial and local dimensions within scenario narratives.
The spatial transformations mapped during the workshops revealed how participatory mapping can shape scenario narratives in diverse and impactful ways, leading to the identification of three distinct categories of mapping episodes. The first group of episodes complemented the future narratives by adding spatial representations of familiar, recognisable elements. In these instances, the discussions and interactions among participants did not introduce new ideas but reinforced and clarified existing aspects of the narratives. The second category, however, showcased the ability of participatory mapping to expand the scope of the narratives. Participants brought forward fresh elements and perspectives that had not been explicitly considered in the original scenarios. Despite these additions, the overall coherence of the narratives remained intact, highlighting the adaptability of the scenarios. The final group revealed the most transformative potential of participatory mapping. In these episodes, participants made spatial changes that not only diverged from the original projections but also reshaped key aspects of the future narratives, introducing substantial modifications.
The diversity observed in the mapping episodes highlights the dynamic and transformative role that participatory mapping can play in evolving and enriching scenario narratives. The implications of these findings for scenario planning are profound. This study reinforces the idea that participatory scenario mapping is not just a helpful tool but an essential one, challenging traditional views that treat scenarios as static endpoints or scenario mapping as a simple visualisation technique. Instead, the results advocate for a more iterative and adaptive approach to scenario-building—one in which narratives continuously evolve through ongoing collaboration with both experts and local stakeholders. In this process, participatory mapping acts as a vital feedback loop, ensuring that scenario planning remains responsive not only to global or national trends but also to the specific challenges and dynamics at the local level.
References
Banister, D., & Hickman, R. (2013). Transport futures: Thinking the unthinkable. Transport Policy, 29, 283–293.
Tuominen, A., Tapio, P., Varho, V., Jarvi, T., & Banister, D. (2014). Pluralistic backcasting: Integrating multiple visions with policy packages for transport climate policy. Futures, 60, 41–58
Melander, L. (2018). Scenario development in transport studies: Methodological considerations and reflections on delphi studies. Futures, 96, 68–78.
Molinero-Parejo, R., Aguilera-Benavente, F., Gómez-Delgado, M., & Soria-Lara, J. A. (2021). Mapping disruptive long-term scenarios using a participatory approach. Journal of Maps, 17(1), 106–115.
Rivas-Tabares, D., Tarquis, A. M., De Miguel, A., Gobin, A., & Willaarts, B. (2022). Enhancing LULC scenarios impact assessment in hydrological dynamics using participatory mapping protocols in semiarid regions. Science of the Total Environment, 803, Article 149906.
Lamarque, P., Artaux, A., Barnaud, C., Dobremez, L., Nettier, B., & Lavorel, S. (2013). Taking into account farmers’ decision making to map fine-scale land management adaptation to climate and socio-economic scenarios. Landscape and Urban Planning, 119, 147–157
Soria-Lara, J. A., Ariza-Álvarez, A., Aguilera-Benavente, F., Cascajo, R., Arce-Ruiz, R. M., López, C., & Gómez-Delgado, M. (2021). Participatory visioning for building disruptive future scenarios for transport and land use planning. Journal of Transport Geography, 90, 102907.
| Keywords | Uncertainty; Transport; Land Use; Visioning; Foresight |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
