Forecasting (explorative) vs. backcasting (normative) scenarios.
Normative scenarios answer the question: How can a target, which we here name "primary target", be reached?
One suggested categorization is [8]: Quantitative vs qualitative Exploratory vs normative Predictive vs open Reliance on creativity vs reliance on evidence, and Forecasting (explorative) vs. backcasting (normative) scenarios.
This paper aims to explore how to assess future scenarios, categorised according to Börjeson et al. (Futures 38 723 739, 2006) i.e. predictive, explorative and normative scenarios.
Based on Börjeson et al.'s typology [10], we consider three types of scenarios: predictive, (forecasts and what-if scenarios), explorative (external and strategic scenarios), and normative scenarios (preserving or transformative (e.g. backcasting)) answering the respective questions: What will happen?
Ideally assessments of normative scenarios (backcasting) should be done in an iterative way so adjustments can be made to scenarios if backcasting goals are not fulfilled in a first assessment and if additional sustainability issues are identified and could be addressed [12, 36].
To illustrate this concept, we created a map of oil and gas development potential for portions of 12 states in the Intermountain West and used this map and published projections from federal land management agencies to model future oil and gas build-out scenarios at two levels, as opposed to using expert or stakeholder input to create normative scenarios or "visions" (i.e. [18], [19]).
Normative scenarios begin with a set of characteristics at the end of the time horizon and are constructed backwards (15).
While our findings are based on the potential effects of an economic crisis on a change in smoking status, it is not clear whether these similar findings would hold true in normal scenarios and, thus, caution is warranted when generalising our findings to other normative scenarios.
Therefore, we used normative landscape scenario method to develop two scenarios.
