Using Scenarios to Build Planning Capacity

Thinking about the future is central to what planners do as visionaries and cre-

ators of alternatives. Indeed, imagining the future is very human. Consciously or

unconsciously, we construct sentences in our heads, dream possible futures, and

embark on forms of preplanning or mental dry runs moving from imagination to

action. Yet it is often difficult for communities to think about the future because of

day-to-day issues, uncertainty, lack of consensus—and finally, because sometimes

communities are unprepared to see or acknowledge the inevitable outcomes of

current practices.

Scenario planning is one technique to help communities think and plan by

creating and considering future scenarios based on different sets of criteria. The

scenarios help communities clarify the implications of the choices they make today

by viewing the future in the present. Scenario planning is not about predicting the

future, but rather about understanding the ways in which a community perceives

the future in the present. (See scenario planning in the glossary.)

When making scenarios, participants should consider the long-term perspec-

tive, identify how the outside shapes the inside, and consider multiple perspectives.

Considering the long-term perspective requires asking such questions as what do

you think might happen? and what if ? as opposed to what would you like to see

happen? or how would you like your community to look? (Avin and Dembner

2001; Scearce and Fulton 2004). Central to the scenario process is pushing people

to identify and address the forces shaping their environment. In other words, to

imagine how the outside—things the community does not have control over—

shapes their insider world, which the community does control (Avin and Dembner

2001; Scearce and Fulton 2004; Smith chapter 5; Avin chapter 6).

7using scenarios to build planning capacity

Stacy Anne Harwood

136 stacy anne harwood

Finally, scenario planning should involve a diverse group of people and opin-

ions. The focus is on bringing in multiple perspectives and diverse voices to chal-

lenge the assumptions people hold about the future (Scearce and Fulton 2004).

Multiplicity allows the group to develop “a set of reasonably plausible, but struc-

turally different futures,” or what some call “story lines” (Schwartz 1991; Heijden

1996; Cummings chapter 12; Zapata chapter 13). Thus divergent perspectives cre-

ate structural differences among the scenarios.

This chapter explores the effects of community-based scenario planning

activities on planning capacity in Monteverde, Costa Rica. Through interviews and

participant observation between 2002 and 2005 in the Monteverde community, I

suggest that scenario planning shapes the attitudes, beliefs, and behavior of those

involved in the process. For example, when residents view the scenario materials,

they are prompted to articulate what they do not want to see in their community.

Although those participating recognize the need for planning, the process carries

them further to generate specific proposals and ideas. Participants take action by

proposing projects, making grant requests, or lobbying others (including govern-

ment agencies) to act.

The purpose of this chapter is to go beyond describing scenario planning in

the abstract or providing details about how one does scenario planning. It focuses

on how people acting as planners use scenarios to build community capacity to

plan by (1) providing an opportunity for local residents to learn about planning

and land use regulation; (2) stimulating community dialogue about community

values and the translation of the values into physical form; and (3) providing

opportunities to leverage resources.

ta l k i n g a b o u t s c e n a r i o p l a n n i n g i n m o n t e v e r d e

Monteverde refers to a place in Costa Rica, but the name has several meanings, as

illustrated in the map in figure 7.1. The village or town of Monteverde is a small

community settled by U.S. Quakers in the early 1950s. The town of Monteverde

was one of the focus areas for the first year of the scenario planning project. The

district or municipality of Monteverde is a legally established political jurisdiction,

which encompasses several communities or towns that are not political jurisdic-

tions: Monteverde, Santa Elena, Cerro Plano, Los Llanos, parts of San Luis, and

others. The region of Monteverde is a larger landscape area encompassing 16 com-

munities that are economically linked through tourism or dairy production (Sus-

tainable Futures 2002). Planning encompassing this region would also make sense,

but this region overlaps three different provinces, government jurisdictions that

are aggregates of districts. The scenario project’s scope fits most closely the Mon-

teverde District boundaries, though it reaches beyond them to include the town of

Cañitas and parts of San Luis, a town on the southwest side of the San Luis River.

Monteverde residents, particularly those living near the town of Monteverde,

have a long history of decision making through consensus building. The members

of the Quaker community who moved to the area in the early 1950s brought with

them a commitment to group decision making and collective action. Local resi-

using scenarios to build planning capacity 137

dents, both North American Quakers and Costa Ricans, began meeting monthly

at the Reunión del Pueblo de Monteverde, or town meeting, to discuss what to do

about the schools, roads, and electricity; sometimes the meetings extended into the

night. Dialogue about the future occurred elsewhere as well—at bake sales, quilting

sessions, and other social events (Guindon et al. 2001; Rockwell et al. 1991). As the

complexity of the social landscape increased and new towns emerged nearby, the

pressures of change introduced conflicts that could not always be resolved in town

meeting. The Quakers in Monteverde traditionally had relied on various commit-

tees to complete much of their work, a structure whose achievements are evident:

the creation of nonprofits, schools, and local enterprises (such as the Monteverde

Institute and Cheese Factory). Those organizations continue to exercise leader-

ship in the town of Monteverde in conservation and in education, art, and music

opportunities for the region.

Both population and the number of buildings in the region more than dou-

bled between 1980 and 1990, when few official mechanisms for addressing poten-

tially adverse development were in place. Some residents then feared the loss of

the rural, quiet way of life; others worried about harm to the environment; and

some did not want constraints placed on private property. Eventually, in response

to the ongoing changes, a visioning process called Monteverde 2020 (MV2020)

began in 1988, with an all-community workshop organized by local organizations,

which initially funded the process. A three-year grant was then secured from the

Inter-American Foundation to pay for a professional planning coordinator. When

the funds ran out, the formal dialogue process ended. From 1989 to 1991, the

f i g u r e 7 . 1 Municipality of Monteverde


organization running MV2020 created ten working groups to discuss education,

production, recreation, health, roads, conservation, and tourism. Forty-five people

attended a two-day event to create a thirty-year vision for the community; more

than two hundred people participated in the four-year project.

MV2020 contributed to improvements in education, solid waste, and road

maintenance. The resulting trash collection system remained in operation through

2004, when the municipal government took over. In addition, downtown Santa

Elena was paved with locally made bricks. One community leader wrote, “The

process gave people experience in the practice of interinstitutional dialogue. After

the working groups from MV2020 ceased to function, leaders of some local orga-

nizations continued using interinstitutional dialogue to work out specific issues”

(Stuckey 1991).

However, the economic competition among tourist businesses made volun-

tary adoption of MV2020’s recommendations next to impossible to achieve. The

MV2020 organization had no legal authority to enforce laws, and the economic

upswing pushed different groups into rival political camps. The disparate opin-

ions about the effects of development became difficult to negotiate and mitigate

without state involvement. The closest government agency available to assist with

planning required officials to drive from Puntarenas, the capital of the province,

which is two hours away.

As the MV2020 project faded into the background, development continued

haphazardly, with homes abutting roads and rivers, gray water flowing down the

streets and into the rivers, and room additions leaving little room for septic tanks

to function properly. As shown in table 7.1, population doubled again between

the 1990s and 2000s. In the late 1990s, two independent planning efforts began

simultaneously.

Local leaders, in particular those from Santa Elena, the commercial center of

the region, formed a local government encompassing the geographic area soon to

be known as the Municipality of Monteverde (see figure 7.1). These leaders worked

in parallel with other local leaders in a number of other regions throughout the

country. The council was elected in 2002 and by the end of 2003, the municipal

government (the council members, mayor, and modest staff) had joined the com-

munity debate and begun to address some of the region’s challenges by creating

a comprehensive master plan for the municipality. Such a plan was now required

by the national legislation enabling local governance. As the summer of 2005

unfolded, a newly formed, legally empowered planning commission was working

on establishing a planning process.

However, in 2001, before the municipality came on board, the Monteverde

Institute (MVI), a local nonprofit educational institution, had initiated a four-

year-long scenario-planning project. Having read several case studies and project

reports about scenario planning, the institute along with one of its international

service learning programs called Sustainable Futures (SF) spearheaded the project.1

The visual dimension and an emphasis on design influenced the value the institute

saw in scenario planning. Most specifically, the compelling narratives about places


in Dealing with Change in the Connecticut River Valley: A Design Manual for Con-

servation and Development (Yaro 1993), with scenarios that included correspond-

ing design guidelines from a bird’s eye view, suggested an effective organizing

framework. Similarly, the approach and graphics demonstrating build-out under

various zoning regulations and development patterns in “Build-out Analysis of

Four Erie County Towns” (Schneekloth et al. 1990) reinforced the value of looking

at development patterns to understand the future. The scenario-planning method-

ology presented in Avin and Dembner (2001) provided a way for the MVI to push

the dialogue forward into the future after MV2020 faded. Given that the commu-

nity had a long history of participatory planning, the scenario-planning project

was attempting to re-engage leaders. It aimed to shift from abstract discussions

about values, visions, and goals to examining physical implications and design

guidelines of those values, visions, and goals. The scenario project also considered

what past and present trends suggested about the future by asking, What is likely

to happen? What are we uncertain about?

According to the criteria found in Avin and Dembner (2001) and Avin (chap-

ter 6), Monteverde was a logical site for scenario planning because it was undergo-

ing significant change with uncertain outcomes, its leaders were interested in long-

term planning, and all that was taking place in a diverse community with diverging

views about the future. Living within Monteverde’s ecological biodiversity is an

equally diverse group of people and lifestyles: farmers, Quakers, businesspeople,

biologists, tourists, students, Costa Rican migrants, and immigrants from around

the world.2 Monteverde comprises a dozen small towns with a landscape that is a

collage of differing and sometimes conflicting land uses: housing and commercial

development, small farms, pastures and windbreaks, secondary growth and pri-

mary forest. Local residents anticipate population growth continuing, and many

ta b l e 7 . 1Population for Major Monteverde Towns, 1984–2020

1984 1986 1992 2001–2004 2010 2020

Monteverde 132 420 504 584 1,074 2,112

CerroPlano 186 522 564 1,555 2,040

SantaElena 360 1,014 1,616 2,777 5,462

LosLlanos 712 1,143 2,249

SanLuis 364 584 1,150

Cañitas 200 321 632

ScenarioTotals 132 966 2,040 4,040 7,454 13,645

Costa Rica Census

1,467 1,624 2,012 3,285 5,744 8,230

p r o j e c t e d


feel uncertain about the future. Though MV2020 had provided a clear vision of

what people wanted, new people had moved into the area who did not subscribe

to the same vision. Having to sort out the conflicting values of different interest

groups is part of why Monteverde struggles as it seeks to protect the natural envi-

ronment and also addresses growing economic and social disparities. The institute

hoped that the scenarios would help people see where the real conflicts lay and sort

out how individuals’ visions might lead to the same physical reality. Grant (chap-

ter 3) describes use of visions among various constituent groups.

m a k i n g a n d u s i n g s c e n a r i o s i n m o n t e v e r d e

Between 2001 and 2004, six small Monteverde communities participated in a sce-

nario planning process to develop planning and design alternatives for the future.

The goals of the Sustainable Futures (SF) scenario project were to:

visualize future scenarios for land use development;

understand the implications of future-growth scenarios for land use, traffic, and

the environmental carrying capacity; and

develop design guidelines for both conservation and development for the

Monteverde Region (Sustainable Futures 2001, 2).

The project began in the towns of Monteverde and Cerro Plano in 2001, then

moved to Santa Elena in 2002, Los Llanos and Cañitas in 2003, and finally to San

Luis in 2004 (Sustainable Futures 2001; 2002; 2003; 2004). Some small communi-

ties were not included due to constraints on time and resources, so the project

concentrated on the six largest population centers (see figure 7.1).

Three overlapping groups of people participated in the scenario planning

project: (1) those who worked on the project’s inventory, analysis, and scenario

development; (2) those who encountered the scenarios through presentations;

and (3) those who used the scenario materials. Participants in formulating the

scenarios included MVI staff, SF students and faculty, and a small group of repre-

sentatives from each community. People exposed to the scenario planning project

included a broad audience of people who learned about the project through pre-

liminary presentations as well as those attending presentations of the developed

scenarios at public lectures and meetings. Many organizations requested the pre-

sentations as well. Most of the users of the scenarios had worked on creating them

or had requested the presentation for their organizations. The users acquired the

materials and incorporated them into their own presentations, proposals, or other

types of planning or decision making.

The process, which was similar for each community, involved four steps: (1)

inventory and analysis; (2) the scenarios; (3) interpretations and questions; and

(4) presentations and dissemination. Inventory and analysis involved learning

about the history and context of each community. Teams of students helped to

map the community, developing a footprint map of structures, roads, and rivers.

1.

2.

3.


MVI staff and students interviewed local leaders and other important stakeholders

about the historical trends and current issues as well as expectations for the future.

The analysis identified typical development patterns, traffic conditions and flows,

population projections for 2010 and 2020, and other information. Those first two

steps involved the difficult task of locating or gathering data. No municipal-level

information was available until the scenario project began. The institute, with

technical assistance from the Sustainable Futures program, created most of the

baseline information and maps used in the analysis.

After the inventory and analysis, three scenarios were developed for each

community—Business as Usual, Ecotourism and Conservation, and Diversifica-

tion. Each scenario represented a possible future as envisioned and talked about

by the community members. The institute based the three scenarios on conversa-

tions with diverse members in the community, including the ideas of the emerg-

ing municipality. Before the scenario project, the Monteverde Institute had spent

more than ten years working with various community organizations on design and

planning projects. Those experiences also shaped the scenarios, in that the institute

was in position to integrate the many stories told by individuals, organizations,

and the residents of small towns into three distinct yet related scenarios about

Monteverde’s future.

The Business as Usual scenario was built on the assumption that regulation

and community involvement would occur at the individual landowner level. The

Ecotourism and Conservation scenario assumed that land use and planning deci-

sions would center on ecotourism. The Diversification scenario assumed purpose-

ful action toward developing additional economic activities. Each scenario used

a growth rate of 7 percent; the variations were in how the community physically

accommodated the growth, which also had social, environmental, and economic

implications.3 Growth rates were not varied and this scenario planning process

did not consider what the level of population in the region should be (Sustainable

Futures 2001).

The interpretation and question stage of the scenario planning process con-

sidered the implications of each scenario, placing an emphasis on the environ-

mental systems, infrastructure, and services required to support the population

projections. That emphasis inevitably shifted the discussions from the scenarios

to interventions—the design and planning strategies that would support the sce-

narios. These discussions challenged local agencies—the water and sewer boards,

for example—as well as researchers studying pressures on the environment, such

as erosion from surface run-off or the depletion of potable water. Questions

included such things as, Is there a landfill possibility in the Monteverde zone? and

Is it possible to generate a greater water supply in the zone without damaging the

ecosystem? (Sustainable Futures 2001; 2003).

This scenario planning project deviated from the conventional wisdom for

scenario planning advocated by Smith (chapter 5), Avin (chapter 6), and Avin

and Dembner (2001). Between these changes in application and reactions to


the scenarios, several interesting questions were raised about scenario planning.

The project began without commitment from a broad spectrum of community

members—not as recommended in the scenario planning literature.

One criticism that might be raised about this scenario planning project is that

the scenarios perhaps did not look outside-in sufficiently to allow the scenarios

to be structurally different. Looking outside-in means reflecting on what outside

changes could, over time, influence the inside, Monteverde’s own actions. However,

given the enormous challenge of gathering basic information, a deeper focus on

outside factors might have limited the project’s ability to quantify and situate the

stories people told about the inside. Alternatively, How much outside was enough?

Most considered tourism a given, yet it held a number of uncertainties—Would

tourists continue to come to Monteverde? Yes, but how many more? What about

privatization of public utilities or national investment in infrastructure? In the

context of globalization, the Business as Usual scenario shows what happens if

the desire for profit drives development, and the Diversification scenario repre-

sents an economy less susceptible to the highs and lows of tourism, one that

attempts to keep returns on investments and spending contained in the Monte-

verde region.

The initial purpose of the project was to spur conversation about the future

of growth in the region, and from that conversation to evolve guidelines for con-

servation and development. That was not how people used the scenarios, however.

Once the students of SF and the MVI staff disseminated the scenario stories, they

became transformed as they were told and retold. What are the implications of this

retelling? Was a cannibalized version of the project still scenario planning?

Some presentations used the inventory and analysis information instead and

then skipped directly to designing and planning options, assuming the Diversifica-

tion scenario without considering the implications of the Business as Usual or Eco-

tourism and Conservation scenarios. Sometimes Business as Usual was presented

as a disaster situation to stimulate discussion, a tack that conventional wisdom on

scenario planning discourages, but doing that made the scenario difficult to accept

and deal with as a real possibility.

At times, the scenarios were presented as stepping stones. The Business as

Usual scenario struck some as the most plausible in the near future, so it was pre-

sented as the first step. The Ecotourism and Conservation and Diversification sce-

narios became more practical later, so they were presented as the second and third

steps. Presented in this fashion, all of the scenarios were utilized, but in different

time frames. If the scenarios were structurally distinct, would the stepping-stone

version of the scenarios even have been possible?

s t o r i e s o f b u i l d i n g p l a n n i n g c a p a c i t y

Regardless of the challenges in applying theory to practice, the process of mak-

ing and using the scenarios did create opportunities for planning in Monteverde.

This section presents a number of stories about how the scenario planning project

contributed to local planning capacity as a tool to learn about planning, articulate


community values, and leverage resources in Monteverde. (See Myers, chapter 4,

for additional discussion on planning capacity.)

Scenarios as a Tool to Learn About PlanningAs mentioned earlier, Monteverde has a long history of self-help and organiz-

ing community projects. Many people there know what it takes to get an idea off

the ground and implement it, for example, to build schools, health clinics, and

roads. This process is familiar in rural Costa Rica, where communities organize

to improve infrastructure and services. As Monteverde’s economic activity has

expanded and its population has increased, however, the need for a more compre-

hensive type of planning has become apparent. Today the municipality faces the

complicated task of regulating development and creating a legitimate planning

process. One can see how the scenario planning project provided a mental warm

up for that task, to prepare communities and different stakeholder groups for

planning. Scenario planning provided an opportunity for community members to

learn about the place where they live, how to improve it in the short run, and how

to sustain it for the long run (or at least consider alternatives) (Morrish and Brown

1994). The scenarios themselves visualized for the community various possible

ways of supporting the same amount of expected growth. In many ways, MV2020

had taught residents about their community and planning as well, but the visual

materials and multiple scenarios of the SF scenario-planning project enhanced

that understanding more effectively.

As would most planning processes, the scenario planning project provided data

(population, structure, and traffic counts) and tangible products (namely maps) to

the community that could be used immediately. For many people, it was the first

time they had seen an aerial map of their community. When the institute printed

out and posted or distributed the maps, residents would look for their houses, the

soccer field, and other important landmarks (see figure 7.2). Sometimes it would

take a group of people to decipher the map, but after they understood what they

were looking at, the conversations continued on to consider needs and interven-

tions. Several residents from one community stopped by the institute just to spend

time looking at the aerial map. On another occasion, several community leaders

spent several days helping to identify property boundaries on a map to facilitate

residents’ understanding of historical subdivision and development patterns. A

group of young people helped create their own maps of one town, San Luis.

In each case, those involved in the planning activities and the scenario pre-

sentations were introduced to or learned about a number of important aspects

of planning. If they did not know how to read a map, they learned. They saw how

their ideas and observations could be represented on a map and be used to discuss

complicated matters such as developing a trail network. Finally, residents began to

see how where they lived and worked related to activities and land uses in the com-

munity. The other graphic materials also helped to move conversations forward:

One could confirm or challenge assumptions made about development, and then

people were more willing to discuss planning alternatives.


Some property owners could not imagine how the scenarios were even pos-

sible without someone telling them what to do with their property. The scenario

portrayed the future in a way that some people did not view as standard practice

or culturally acceptable—incorporating sustainable technologies into new hous-

ing development, for example. Contrasting the Business as Usual scenario with

the other two scenarios exposed the tension between the rural tradition, in which

individuals decide what happens on their property, and the need for regulating

land use. However, this brought residents and leaders together to talk about the

purposes of planning and about how individual properties make up the larger

landscape that is appropriate for public discussion. The realization that individual

properties sit in relation to others’ properties, critical habitat, and biological cor-

ridors, and have potential for economic development became a familiar one.

While intended to be visual images of possible futures, the scenarios were

sometimes confused as official plans to be implemented. When viewing the sce-

narios for the first time, local residents asked questions about who had the author-

ity to determine land uses. Several times, a local property owner would say, “Who

gives the institute the right to plan? The institute does not own the land. They

are not legally empowered to control land use.” However, to think about land use

in the future, housing development, hiking trails, and public buildings had to be

placed on a map. In addition, the institute applied national environmental stan-

dards at various intensities in the scenarios to demonstrate that current practices

were already in violation of national environmental regulations.

f i g u r e 7 . 2 Scenario Planning ActivitiesSource:SustainableFutures


Scenarios as a Tool to Articulate Community ValuesDuring the summer of 2004, the final year of the scenario planning project, the

San Luis community asked to participate. San Luis is a small agricultural com-

munity of 200 people sitting just below the world-famous Monteverde Cloud

Forest. As coffee, dairy, and other agriculture activities bring less money to local

families, some farmers have sold their land and moved away. In addition, the tour-

ism economy is moving toward the San Luis valley because of its beautiful rural

landscape along two rivers and its proximity to area tourist attractions. Over the

last five years, land ownership has changed rapidly, with many outsiders, primarily

foreigners, purchasing large farms throughout the valley. Local inhabitants, mean-

while, are looking for new economic opportunities by combining the rural lifestyle

with tourism and conservation efforts. Given this context, many San Luis leaders

have been preoccupied with trying to discern what the future holds.

At several meetings, residents and community leaders discussed the chang-

ing land use patterns and possible future scenarios, particularly with respect to

housing patterns. Figure 7.3 shows the location of existing development, mostly

housing, in the upper San Luis valley, as well as two development scenarios. In

comparing the two scenarios, residents quickly raised concerns about density and

the closely spaced housing in the diversity scenarios. Some believed that density

was not compatible with the rural lifestyle. Conversations with San Luis commu-

nity leaders quickly turned to how to maintain the desired quality of life through

future residential land uses, with an emphasis on the rural character. Community

leaders did not like the idea of promoting denser residential areas, though later

recognized the need to plan for such density since that pattern had already begun

to emerge in the upper San Luis valley. The bottom line for residents was to focus

on preserving the family-owned farms that currently make up most of the San Luis

landscape in a very low-density pattern of residential development.

However, given the economic pressure to subdivide large farms in order

to build more housing, those living in other parts of the region expressed the

suspicion that San Luis might not be able to maintain its rural feel and also

achieve some of its other goals, including conserving second-growth forest, if they

allowed only low-density development all over the valley. The Business as Usual

scenario demonstrated how San Luis’s low-density housing pattern would more

rapidly consume the area’s land. As the scenario project progressed, higher density

seemed more feasible to residents as long as it allowed for farming and livestock.

The desire to maintain the rural landscape was accommodated by the concept of

providing pockets of increased housing density but also including land for small-

scale subsistence farming with space for chickens and pigs. Without the various

scenarios and multiple representations at different scales, residents would not

have been able to visualize the trade-offs and opportunities of different develop-

ment patterns and corresponding implications of zoning with respect to the rural

landscape.

Figure 7.4 provides two examples of the design implications for the diversifi-

cation scenario. Each accommodates higher-density development, but maintains


the rural character of the community. The larger lot size is 20 by 60 meters and the

smaller is 15 by 30 meters. Both lot sizes are able to accommodate a standard-sized

home with a garage or carport, a backyard garden, a chicken pen, a front yard for

play, and communal amenities such as water treatment. Using the 15-by-30-meter

lot size would accommodate 21 homes whereas the 20-by-60-meter lot size would

accommodate only 8 homes at most on the same piece of land.

The scenarios also explored the idea of shared amenities and infrastructure.

The San Luis community has a long history of working together to repair roads,

build bridges, and increase access to clean water supply, electricity, and telephone

service. Some residents have lived on cooperative farms, and many are involved in

a coffee cooperative. Given the history of cooperation, the scenarios also incorpo-

rated ways that the community might conserve land, create economic develop-

ment opportunities, and increase community facilities. Figure 7.5 shows the design

implications of creating opportunities for shared facilities and housing develop-

ment. However, many people did not like the idea of cluster housing with shared

San Luis 2004Existing conditions

San Luis 2020Business as usual

San Luis 2020Diversified economy

f i g u r e 7 . 3 Development Scenarios in San LuisSource:SustainableFutures


laundry facilities in the center. Their objections were that in addition to lacking

privacy, the scheme left private property ill defined.

The grid variation of cluster housing more clearly defines private property, but

most people did not embrace the idea of sharing laundry facilities. Women wanted

to have their own facilities close to home; moreover, if they chose to create a small

laundry business, they would prefer to do so without leaving home, because they

also cook, clean, and care for children. The scenario had conceptualized the shared

laundry facilities as providing an economic opportunity, particularly in the rainy

season (most families do not have dryers in San Luis), but it did not account for the

reality of the women’s lives, one that ties them to the home.

Though the purpose of the scenario planning project was simply to generate

discussion about the future, presenting different land use and development sce-

narios led local community members to articulate what future seemed plausible to

them. Most of this, ironically, occurred by recognizing what they did not like about

the scenarios or did not wish to see in their community.

A year later, few in the San Luis community remember many specific details

about the scenario planning project, but that is not to say that it was unproductive.

f i g u r e 7 .4 Design GuidelinesSource:SustainableFutures


Instead of details, the process of exploring community values and development

patterns left lasting impressions on many. The discussions pushed those who cre-

ated the visual materials for the scenarios to explore the design implications of

each one and to try to capture which ideas the community would support in the

future. Not least of the project’s achievements was positioning San Luis to advocate

for the regulations that best support its community values.

Scenarios as a Tool to Leverage ResourcesThe scenario project generated considerable information about both existing

conditions and possible futures in the form of maps, traffic studies, projections,

f i g u r e 7 . 5 Scenarios for Shared FacilitiesSource:SustainableFutures


and graphic images of different development scenarios. The Monteverde Institute

presented and disseminated these materials through PowerPoint presentations

and posters to different community groups and government agencies. The sce-

narios generated dialogue about options and opportunities for planning; but the

materials also became part of a new story told to outsiders (higher-level govern-

ment organizations, international donors, universities) about Monteverde’s crisis.

Monteverde had long been known to the rest of the country and the world for its

ecological splendors and as a model for sustainable development; now community

leaders used the scenario project’s visual material to tell a more dynamic environ-

mental history of Monteverde—a story about haphazard growth, environmental

degradation, and the need to take action. Figure 7.6 illustrates a few of the images

used in the two conflicting stories. All three scenarios challenged the notion that

Monteverde was doing enough to protect the environment.

Monteverde is one of the most biologically diverse regions of the world

because of the variety of physical environments influenced by seasonal and altitu-

dinal variations in rain, temperature, and wind (Clark, Lawton, and Butler 2000).

The discovery of the golden toad in 1966 was particularly important in publiciz-

f i g u r e 7 .6 Scenario StoriesSource:MonteverdeInstitute

Story of Monteverde’s ecological splendorsSustainable development and conservation

Story of Monteverde’s crisisUnregulated growth, traffic, and contamination


ing Monteverde to the global scientific community (Nadkarni and Wheelwright

2000, 5). Biologists working in the community pushed residents to prevent the

deforestation that seemed destined to follow as the area developed, particularly

on the Pacific slope. In conjunction with government efforts and international

pressure, residents developed a network of forest preserves comprising over 56,881

hectares, which is called the Monteverde Reserve Complex, and is located primar-

ily on the Atlantic slope because primary forest land there was less expensive.

In the context of these successful local efforts, the increase in the year-round

population and tourism has nevertheless exposed the limits of past conservation

strategies. Local scientists now understand that protecting certain bird species will

require conservation efforts on the largely deforested Pacific side of the Continen-

tal Divide, as well. After breeding on the Atlantic side, many bird species migrate

to the Pacific side to feed on fruit found only in the rain-shadow forests. Figure 7.7

illustrates the variety of landscape types along the Pacific slope, from the heavily

forested, upper mountains along the Continental Divide to increasingly deforested

areas moving down the mountain. Many bird species need continuous forest to

reach the fruiting trees further down the mountain. Growth runs in a north–south

direction, cutting across the east–west pattern for bird migration. The most heavily

f i g u r e 7 . 7 Aerial View of the Pacific Side of the Monteverde RegionSource:MonteverdeInstitute

Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve

Monteverde

Santa Elena

N


urbanized area is Santa Elena, located approximately one and one-half miles from

the town of Monteverde and five miles from the entrance of the Monteverde Cloud

Forest Reserve, which is just below the Continental Divide on the Pacific side of the

mountain range.

The direction of current development is projected to overtake some of the

critical forest fragments. The scenarios took note of the competing land use, from

forest and agriculture to housing development, and asked where else growth could

occur. The projected population was converted to households, then to structures,

and the estimated number of structures was mapped using typical development

patterns. With the projection that within 15 to 20 years the population of the

region would double, the resulting land development patterns all suggested further

deforestation if some intervention did not occur.

Figure 7.8 demonstrates how the project materials stimulated responses from

the viewers. Where would those houses go? How do we manage growth so as to

protect the environment? What is the carrying capacity for water supply, schools,

and roads? Posing these questions in the face of the possible endangerment of bird

species has been a powerful tool to motivate property owners and outsiders to con-

sider ways to deal with development so as to protect and enhance the remaining

forest fragments. Given the implications of current trends, the story of unregulated

growth and the destruction of the natural environment both resonated with what

residents saw happening around them and moved outside agencies to pay more

attention to Monteverde. A municipal government official commented, “We now

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0 2003 2010 2020

Santa Elena

f i g u r e 7 . 8 Where Might Future Development Occur?

Num

ber

of s

truc

ture

s

Residential Structure Growth Estimates

Los Llanos

Cañitas


have one foot in the door,” meaning that the central government agencies (located

primarily in San José, the nation’s capital city) were now listening to Monteverde’s

requests.

The Monteverde Institute, the chamber of commerce, the municipality, and

others told the “Monteverde in Crisis” story to motivate people to work together

and to generate interest in planning. They also used it to attract technical assis-

tance, private funding, and government resources from outside the region. For

example, the new mayor used the traffic counts and projections to lobby for addi-

tional government support to manage traffic in downtown Santa Elena. Figure 7.9,

showing the existing conditions along a frequently traveled road, represents what

the future might hold for Monteverde based on expected growth and popula-

tion increase: an anticipated traffic jam. This image shocked government officials

into paying attention to requests made by the municipality. Others have used the

scenario materials to apply for grants for projects and to gather data from other

institutions and organizations.

The spatial data, rendered drawings, and other materials convey a level of

technical sophistication that legitimized planning efforts. The scenario project

allowed people to communicate local knowledge, ideas, and possible solutions to

a broader audience that, while unfamiliar with the details of the community, was

positioned to provide access to resources.

c o n c l u s i o n

Monteverde community leaders are familiar with the scenario project; they under-

stand the concept and what it offers as well as what it cannot do. Sometimes the

parcel-level information appears to be irrelevant, demonstrating the limitations

f i g u r e 7 .9 Current and Anticipated TrafficSource:SustainableFutures

Current traffic conditions, 2001 Anticipated traffic conditions, 2020


of the project in that it is not interchangeable with a land use plan. That realiza-

tion has been frustrating to many. Yet, at the same time, the site-specific ideas have

pointed the municipality toward specific areas to take on—the most recent one

being a downtown redesign and traffic-management project.

In part because of the project, more people have a better sense of what could

happen in Monteverde. The project has brought different stakeholder groups

together, not necessarily because they collaborated on the scenario planning proj-

ect, but because those with information (who were more involved in the scenario

project) and other key players all must work together to create meaningful plans

for the region. With the weight of the official municipal planning project on the

community’s shoulders, many see the situation as an opportunity to take action.

The Monteverde experience demonstrates that scenario planning can offer

a new way to think about the future, not just one-time answers or a single plan.

Participants are led to think through the implications of actions made today,

identify what the community can control, and recognize what it cannot control.

Contemplating that information creates the opportunity to rehearse possible and

plausible futures.

e n d n o t e s

1. The Sustainable Futures program was conceived and developed by Nat Scrimshaw and John Trostle

of the Monteverde Institute and Lynda Schneekloth and Robert Shibley, School of Architecture and

Planning, University at Buffalo/SUNY. John and Nat worked to institute and situate the service-

learning program, and Bob and Lynda have dedicated much of their academic life to working with the

institute, particularly through the SF program. Others have contributed to the SF program and the

scenario planning project, including Stacy Harwood at the University of Illinois, Margarita Hill at Cal

Poly San Luis Obispo, David Myers at the University of Maryland, and Scott Shannon at SUNY-ESF

Syracuse.

2. The distinctions presented in this list are not mutually exclusive. One person may be a farmer and

an immigrant, etc. Further, these categories reflect world views and cultural ideologies. For instance,

Quakers are not noted primarily because they practice a specific religion (thus implying that other

social groups countering them might include Catholics or Pentecostals). Rather, the label Quaker

indicates a group affiliation that carries a kind of meaning within the overall Monteverde community.

These labels are complex, multifaceted, and context dependent. In addition, many readers may be

surprised to realize that Costa Rica, unlike many other Central American countries and Mexico, had

a small indigenous population living in the major valley where the Spanish originally settled. In the

context of Monteverde, the original settlers included Costa Rican farmers, primarily from Spanish

heritage, and U.S. Quakers; hence, the lack of inclusion of native or indigenous groups on the list.

3. Moore (chapter 2) discusses possible pitfalls of adopting uniform growth rates across scenarios.

Date post:	23-Nov-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	utah
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Using Scenarios to Build Planning Capacity

Documents