Keywords
many-objective optimisation
Exploratory Modelling & Analysis
scenario discovery
deep uncertainty
How to Cite
Abstract
Complex systems such as cities, energy grids, or the global climate have many plausible futures. Scenarios, or structured narratives of decision-relevant futures, are a common decision support tool for making the complexity and uncertainties of complex systems humanly interpretable. However, the effectiveness of scenario-based decision support depends in part on the usefulness of the selected scenarios. Here we show an optimization-based approach for generating scenarios that are specifically designed to be diverse, plausible, and comprehensive. We establish the advantages of our method by evaluating it against three previously proposed methods: scenario matrices, generic archetypes, and clustering. Our case study is Schelling’s segregation model, a tractable yet behaviorally rich simulation of a complex system. Our results show the proposed optimization-based approach can generate more diverse, plausible, and comprehensive scenarios than existing approaches. The resulting scenarios may provide a more insightful and robust basis for policy decisions, especially for complex systems with emergent behavior or where substantial uncertainties are present.
References
Auping, W. L. (2018). Modelling uncertainty: Developing and using simulation models for exploring the consequences of deep uncertainty in complex problems.
Bankes, S. (1993). Exploratory modeling for policy analysis. Operations Research, 41(3), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.41.3.435
Bell, W. (2003). Foundations of futures studies: Human science for a new era. Transaction Publishers.
Bezold, C. (2009). Aspirational futures: Understanding threats, opportunities and visionary possibilities. Journal of Futures Studies, 13(4), 81–90.
Bryant, B. P., & Lempert, R. J. (2010). Thinking inside the box: A participatory, computer-assisted approach to scenario discovery. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(1), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.08.002
Carlsen, H., Lempert, R., Wikman-Svahn, P., & Schweizer, V. (2016). Choosing small sets of policy-relevant scenarios by combining vulnerability and diversity approaches. Environmental Modelling & Software, 84, 155–164.
Chérel, G., Cottineau, C., & Reuillon, R. (2015). Beyond corroboration: Strengthening model validation by looking for unexpected patterns. PLOS ONE, 10(9), e0138212. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138212
Cook, M. (2004). Universality in elementary cellular automata. Complex Systems, 40.
Dator, J. (2009). Alternative futures at the Manoa School. Journal of Futures Studies, 14(2), 1–18.
Davis, P. K., Bankes, S. C., & Egner, M. (2007). Enhancing strategic planning with massive scenario generation: Theory and experiments (Technical Report No. TR-392). RAND National Security Research Division.
de Regt, H. W., & Parker, W. S. (2014). Introduction: Simulation, visualization, and scientific understanding. Perspectives on Science, 22(3), 311–317. https://doi.org/10.1162/POSC_e_00135
Derbyshire, J. (2020). Answers to questions on uncertainty in geography: Old lessons and new scenario tools. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 52(4), 710–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X19877885
Derbyshire, J. (2022). Increasing preparedness for extreme events using plausibility-based scenario planning: Lessons from COVID-19. Risk Analysis, 42(1), 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13827
Dolan, F., Lamontagne, J., Link, R., Hejazi, M., Reed, P., & Edmonds, J. (2021). Evaluating the economic impact of water scarcity in a changing world. Nature Communications, 12(1), 1915. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22194-0
Edali, M., & Yücel, G. (2019). Exploring the behavior space of agent-based simulation models using random forest metamodels and sequential sampling. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 92, 62–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2018.12.006
Eker, S., & Kwakkel, J. H. (2018). Including robustness considerations in the search phase of many-objective robust decision making. Environmental Modelling & Software, 105, 201–216.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L
Gotts, N. M., van Voorn, G. A., Polhill, J. G., de Jong, E., Edmonds, B., Hofstede, G. J., & Meyer, R. (2019). Agent-based modelling of socio-ecological systems: Models, projects and ontologies. Ecological Complexity, 40, 100728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2018.07.007
Grimm, V., Augusiak, J., Focks, A., Frank, B. M., Gabsi, F., Johnston, A. S., Liu, C., Martin, B. T., Meli, M., Radchuk, V., et al. (2014). Towards better modelling and decision support: Documenting model development, testing, and analysis using TRACE. Ecological Modelling, 280, 129–139.
Grimm, V., Railsback, S. F., Vincenot, C. E., Berger, U., Gallagher, C., DeAngelis, D. L., Edmonds, B., Ge, J., Giske, J., Groeneveld, J., et al. (2020). The ODD protocol for describing agent-based and other simulation models: A second update to improve clarity, replication, and structural realism. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 23(2).
Haasnoot, M., Kwakkel, J. H., Walker, W. E., & ter Maat, J. (2013). Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.006
Hadka, D. (2015). Platypus. https://github.com/Project-Platypus/Platypus
Halim, R. A., Kwakkel, J. H., & Tavasszy, L. A. (2016). A scenario discovery study of the impact of uncertainties in the global container transport system on European ports. Futures, 81, 148–160.
Helbing, D. (2013). Globally networked risks and how to respond. Nature, 497(7447), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12047
Helgeson, C., Srikrishnan, V., Keller, K., & Tuana, N. (2021). Why simpler computer simulation models can be epistemically better for informing decisions. Philosophy of Science, 88(2), 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1086/711501
Islam, T., & Pruyt, E. (2016). Scenario generation using adaptive sampling: The case of resource scarcity. Environmental Modelling & Software, 79, 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.09.014
Iwanaga, T., Steinmann, P., Sadoddin, A., Robinson, D., Snow, V., Grimm, V., & Wang, H.-H. (2022). Perspectives on confronting issues of scale in systems modeling. SocioEnvironmental Systems Modelling, 4.
Jafino, B. A., & Kwakkel, J. H. (2021). A novel concurrent approach for multiclass scenario discovery using multivariate regression trees: Exploring spatial inequality patterns in the Vietnam Mekong Delta under uncertainty. Environmental Modelling & Software, 145, 105177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105177
Jafino, B. A., Kwakkel, J. H., & Taebi, B. (2021). Enabling assessment of distributive justice through models for climate change planning: A review of recent advances and a research agenda. WIREs Climate Change, 12(4), e721. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.721
Kahagalage, S. D., Turan, H. H., Elsawah, S., & Gary, M. S. (2024). Exploratory modelling and analysis to support decision-making under deep uncertainty: A case study from defence resource planning and asset management. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 200, 123150.
Kazil, J., Masad, D., & Crooks, A. (2020). Utilizing Python for agent-based modeling: The Mesa framework. In Social, Cultural, and Behavioral Modeling: 13th International Conference, SBP-BRiMS 2020, Washington, DC, USA, October 18–21, 2020, Proceedings 13 (pp. 308–317). Springer.
Kollat, J., & Reed, P. (2006). Comparing state-of-the-art evolutionary multi-objective algorithms for long-term groundwater monitoring design. Advances in Water Resources, 29(6), 792–807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2005.07.010
Kwakkel, J. H. (2017). The Exploratory Modeling Workbench: An open source toolkit for exploratory modeling, scenario discovery, and (multi-objective) robust decision making. Environmental Modelling & Software, 96, 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.06.054
Kwakkel, J. H. (2019). A generalized many-objective optimization approach for scenario discovery. Futures & Foresight Science, 1(2), e8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ffo2.8
Kwakkel, J. H., Auping, W. L., & Pruyt, E. (2013). Dynamic scenario discovery under deep uncertainty: The future of copper. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(4), 789–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.09.012
Lamontagne, J. R., Reed, P. M., Link, R., Calvin, K. V., Clarke, L. E., & Edmonds, J. A. (2018). Large ensemble analytic framework for consequence-driven discovery of climate change scenarios. Earth’s Future, 6(3), 488–504. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000701
Lempert, R. J., Groves, D. G., Popper, S. W., & Bankes, S. C. (2006). A general, analytic method for generating robust strategies and narrative scenarios. Management Science, 52(4), 514–528. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0472
Lempert, R. J., Popper, S. W., & Bankes, S. C. (2003). Shaping the next one hundred years: New methods for quantitative, long-term policy analysis. RAND.
Lord, S., Helfgott, A., & Vervoort, J. M. (2016). Choosing diverse sets of plausible scenarios in multidimensional exploratory futures techniques. Futures, 77, 11–27.
MacQueen, J. (1967). Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Volume 1: Statistics (pp. 281–298).
Maier, H., Guillaume, J., van Delden, H., Riddell, G., Haasnoot, M., & Kwakkel, J. (2016). An uncertain future, deep uncertainty, scenarios, robustness and adaptation: How do they fit together? Environmental Modelling & Software, 81, 154–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.03.014
Maier, H., Razavi, S., Kapelan, Z., Matott, L., Kasprzyk, J., & Tolson, B. (2019). Introductory overview: Optimization using evolutionary algorithms and other metaheuristics. Environmental Modelling & Software, 114, 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.11.018
McPhail, C., Maier, H. R., Westra, S., Kwakkel, J. H., & Linden, L. (2020). Impact of scenario selection on robustness. Water Resources Research, 56(9). https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR026515
Nakicenovic, N., Alcamo, J., Grubler, A., Riahi, K., Roehrl, R., Rogner, H., & Victor, N. (Eds.). (2000). Special report on emissions scenarios: A special report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K., & Belitz, K. (1994). Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the Earth sciences. Science, 263(5147), 641–646. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.263.5147.641
Polhill, J. G., Hare, M., Bauermann, T., Anzola, D., Palmer, E., Salt, D., & Antosz, P. (2021). Using agent-based models for prediction in complex and wicked systems. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 24(3).
Pot, W., Scherpenisse, J., & ’t Hart, P. (2022). Robust governance for the long term and the heat of the moment: Temporal strategies for coping with dual crises. Public Administration. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12872
Pruyt, E., & Islam, T. (2015). On generating and exploring the behavior space of complex models. System Dynamics Review, 31(4), 220–249. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1544
Pruyt, E., Islam, T., & Arzt, T. (2018). On the spot and map: Interactive model-based policy support under deep uncertainty. In Policy Analytics, Modelling, and Informatics: Innovative Tools for Solving Complex Social Problems (pp. 315–342).
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4.
Rizzoli, A. E., & Young, W. J. (1997). Delivering environmental decision support systems: Software tools and techniques. Environmental Modelling & Software, 12(2–3), 237–249.
Rosenhead, J., Elton, M., & Gupta, S. K. (1972). Robustness and optimality as criteria for strategic decisions. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 23(4), 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.1972.72
Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., Cowan, N., Zwilling, C. E., Morey, C. C., & Pratte, M. S. (2008). An assessment of fixed-capacity models of visual working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(16), 5975–5979. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0711295105
Rozenberg, J., Guivarch, C., Lempert, R., & Hallegatte, S. (2014). Building SSPs for climate policy analysis: A scenario elicitation methodology to map the space of possible future challenges to mitigation and adaptation. Climatic Change, 122(3), 509–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0904-3
Schelling, T. C. (1971). Dynamic models of segregation. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1(2), 143–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1971.9989794
Seeve, T., & Vilkkumaa, E. (2022). Identifying and visualizing a diverse set of plausible scenarios for strategic planning. European Journal of Operational Research, 298(2), 596–610.
Siegenfeld, A. F., & Bar-Yam, Y. (2020). An introduction to complex systems science and its applications. Complexity, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6105872
Skegg, D., Gluckman, P., Boulton, G., Hackmann, H., Karim, S. S. A., Piot, P., & Woopen, C. (2021). Future scenarios for the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet, 397(10276), 777–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00424-4
Spaniol, M. J., & Rowland, N. J. (2019). Defining scenario. Futures & Foresight Science, 1(1), e3. https://doi.org/10.1002/ffo2.3
Steinmann, P., Auping, W. L., & Kwakkel, J. H. (2020). Behavior-based scenario discovery using time series clustering. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 156, 120052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120052
Steinmann, P., van der Zwet, K., & Keijser, B. (2024). Simulation-based generation and analysis of multidimensional future scenarios with time series clustering. Futures & Foresight Science, 6(4), e194.
Sterman, J. D. (1994). Learning in and about complex systems. System Dynamics Review, 10(2–3), 291–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.4260100214
Stonedahl, F., & Wilensky, U. (2011). Finding forms of flocking: Evolutionary search in ABM parameter-spaces. In T. Bosse, A. Geller, & C. M. Jonker (Eds.), MultiAgent-Based Simulation XI (Vol. 6532, pp. 61–75). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18345-4_5
Student, J., Kramer, M. R., & Steinmann, P. (2020). Simulating emerging coastal tourism vulnerabilities: An agent-based modelling approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 85, 103034.
Sun, Z., Lorscheid, I., Millington, J. D., Lauf, S., Magliocca, N. R., Groeneveld, J., Balbi, S., Nolzen, H., Müller, B., Schulze, J., et al. (2016). Simple or complicated agent-based models? A complicated issue. Environmental Modelling & Software, 86, 56–67.
ten Broeke, G., & Tobi, H. (2021). Mapping validity and validation in modelling for interdisciplinary research. Quality & Quantity, 55(5), 1613–1630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-01073-8
ten Broeke, G., van Voorn, G., Ligtenberg, A., & Molenaar, J. (2021). The use of surrogate models to analyse agent-based models. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 24(2), 3.
ter Hoeven, E., Kwakkel, J., Hess, V., Pike, T., Wang, B., Kazil, J., et al. (2025). Mesa 3: Agent-based modeling with Python in 2025. Journal of Open Source Software, 10(107), 7668.
Thompson, E. L., & Smith, L. A. (2019). Escape from model-land. Economics, 13(1), 20190040. https://doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2019-40
Tietje, O. (2005). Identification of a small reliable and efficient set of consistent scenarios. European Journal of Operational Research, 162(2), 418–432.
Trindade, B. C., Gold, D. F., Reed, P. M., Zeff, H. B., & Characklis, G. W. (2020). Water pathways: An open source stochastic simulation system for integrated water supply portfolio management and infrastructure investment planning. Environmental Modelling & Software, 132, 104772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104772
Trutnevyte, E. (2013). Expanse methodology for evaluating the economic potential of renewable energy from an energy mix perspective. Applied Energy, 111, 593–601.
Uruena, S. (2019). Understanding “plausibility”: A relational approach to the anticipatory heuristics of future scenarios. Futures, 111, 15–25.
Verstegen, J. A., Jonker, J. G. G., Karssenberg, D., van der Hilst, F., Schmitz, O., de Jong, S. M., & Faaij, A. P. C. (2017a). How a Pareto frontier complements scenario projections in land use change impact assessment. Environmental Modelling & Software, 97, 287–302.
Verstegen, J. A., van der Hilst, F., & Karssenberg, D. (2017b). Locating the position of a scenario projection in solution space. In The 20th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science, Wageningen, NL.
Von Bertalanffy, L., & Sutherland, J. W. (1974). General systems theory: Foundations, developments, applications. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, (6), 592–592.
Voros, J. (2017). Big history and anticipation. In R. Poli (Ed.), Handbook of Anticipation (pp. 1–40). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31737-3_95-1
Walker, W. E. (2000). Policy analysis: A systematic approach to supporting policymaking in the public sector. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 9(1–3), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1360(200001/05)9:1/3<11::AID-MCDA264>3.0.CO;2-3
Wiek, A., Withycombe Keeler, L., Schweizer, V., & Lang, D. J. (2013). Plausibility indications in future scenarios. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 9(2–3–4), 133–147.
Wilkinson, A., Kupers, R., & Mangalagiu, D. (2013). How plausibility-based scenario practices are grappling with complexity to appreciate and address 21st century challenges. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(4), 699–710.
Wilson, I. (1998). Mental maps of the future: An intuitive logics approach to scenarios. In Learning from the future: Competitive foresight scenarios (pp. 81–108).
Winsberg, E. B. (2010). Science in the age of computer simulation. The University of Chicago Press.
Wolters, H., van den Born, G. J., Dammers, E., & Reinhard, S. (2018). Deltascenario’s voor de 21e eeuw, actualisering 2017 (Technical report). Deltares.
Wright, G., Bradfield, R., & Cairns, G. (2013). Does the intuitive logics method – and its recent enhancements – produce “effective” scenarios? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(4), 631–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.09.003
Zatarain Salazar, J., Castelletti, A., & Giuliani, M. (2022). Multi-objective robust planning tools. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.626
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Patrick Steinmann, Judith Verstegen, George van Voorn, Sabin Roman, Arend Ligtenberg