The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Developing qualitative scenario storylines for environmental change assessment
Abstract
This article reviews the historic evolution of qualitative scenario storylines and the various methods used in their development and application in environmental change assessment. The scenario method largely emerged from military strategy and war planning, with the techniques being adopted and advanced further by the business sector. Scenario storylines became widely applied to environmental problems from the 1970s and since then a number of new studies have been developed at both global and regional scales. Many different methods are used in scenario storyline development although most examples applied to environmental change assessment are exploratory and defined through a matrix logic that reflects different dimensions of environmental change drivers. This article discusses several development techniques for scenario storylines, provides examples of existing scenario storylines, discusses the differences between them, and highlights a number of limitations in the current scenario storyline development methods. The credibility, legitimacy, and saliency of future scenario storylines are discussed with respect to personal beliefs, the equifinality of alternative development pathways, the validation and uncertainty of assumptions, stakeholder engagement in visions development, and participatory methods. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This article is categorized under: Assessing Impacts of Climate Change > Scenario Development and Application Integrated Assessment of Climate Change > Integrated Scenario Development
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Maier, H. R., Guillaume, J. H. A., van Delden, H., Riddell, G. A., Haasnoot, M., & Kwakkel, J. H. (2016) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.03.014 · Cited by 490
Global forecasts of shipping traffic and biological invasions to 2050
Sardain, A., Sardain, E., & Leung, B. (2019) · Nature Sustainability · doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0245-y · Cited by 466
Challenges for land system science
Rounsevell, M. D. A., Pedroli, B., Erb, K.-H., Gramberger, M., Busck, A. G., Haberl, H., Kristensen, S., Kuemmerle, T., Lavorel, S., Lindner, M., et al. (2012) · Land Use Policy · doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.01.007 · Cited by 393
Self-citationConceptual elements of climate change vulnerability assessments: a review
Bruno Soares, M., S. Gagnon, A., & M. Doherty, R. (2012) · International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management · doi:10.1108/17568691211200191 · Cited by 110
Increasing the effectiveness of participatory scenario development through codesign
McBride, M. F., Lambert, K. F., Huff, E. S., Theoharides, K. A., Field, P., & Thompson, J. R. (2017) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-09386-220316 · Cited by 88
Metadata
- Authors
- Rounsevell, M. D. A., & Metzger, M. J.
- Venue
- WIREs Climate Change
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-07
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 606-619
- ISSN
- 1757-7780 (ISSN-L)
- 1757-7799
- OpenAlex
- W1902577000
- Cited by
- 328
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Developing qualitative scenario storylines for environmental change assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/wcc.63
- The paper
- Rounsevell, M. D. A., & Metzger, M. J. (2010). Developing qualitative scenario storylines for environmental change assessment. WIREs Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.63
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.