Sea Ice
- About
- Imprint
- Scenarios
- Arctic Marine Transportation by 2030
- Introduction
- Aim of this Study
- Key Factor Classification
- Definitions of Key Factors and Future Projections
- 1. Climate
- 2. Legal framework
- 3. Global Trade Dynamics – Global economic growth
- 4. Safety of other Routes
- 5. Socio-economic impact of global climate change
- 6. Oil Price
- 7. Major Arctic Shipping Disasters
- 8. Windows of Operation
- 9. Maritime Insurance Industry
- 10. Collaboration in resource extraction by China, Japan and Russia
- 11. Transit fees
- 12. Conflict between indigenous and commercial use
- 13. Arctic Enforcers
- 14. Energy sources for propulsion
- 15. New resource discovery
- 16. World Trade Patterns
- 17. Regulation in the Arctic
- Consistency matrix
- Scenarios
- Suggest Wild Cards
- Suggest Key Factors
- References
- Glossary
- Yakutat Community Energy Scenarios
- Introduction to Scenario-Management
- The Consistency and Robustness Analysis
- 1. Key Factors and their Future Projections
- 2. Assigning plausibility values to future projections
- 3. Projection Bundles
- 4. Assigning consistency values
- 5. Obtaining overall consistency values for the projection bundles
- 6. The combinatorial problem of the consistency analysis
- 7. The Robustness of a projection bundle
- Disruptive event analysis – Wild Cards
- ScenLab v1.7 Client download
- Arctic Marine Transportation by 2030
3. Projection Bundles
Thus far, we simply have a set of key factors with one or more future projections
each. These future projections need to be grouped into so called projection bundles,
i.e. grouping one of the future projections of each key factor. The central task
is to identify future projections that can occur simultaneously and therefore can
form a consistent picture of the future. To do this manually would be, depending
on the size of the project, very tedious if not impossible.
Example 2
Assume we have the key factor ‘Foreign Policy’ as in Example C.1 and another
key factor ‘Defense Budget’ with the future projections ‘Increasing Budget’, ‘Stable
Budget’ and ‘Decreasing Budget’. Clearly a picture of the future where ‘Preemptive
Strikes’ of ‘Foreign Policy’ and ‘Decreasing Budget’ of ‘Defense Budget’ take
place is inconsistent, i.e. it is very unlikely that these two developments occur
together.
It is more likely that ‘Preemptive Strikes’ and ‘Increasing Budget’ will occur
together, i.e. a future development containing these two projections would be very
consistent.
A usual Scenario project consists of 20 or more key factors with one to four
future projections each. All these future projections need to be paired and their
respective consistency needs to be evaluated.
A projection bundle consisting of n future projections requires (n/2) · (n − 1)
evaluations of paired consistency values. For a project of ten key factors this means
45 evaluations per projection bundle. For a project of 30 key factors this number
grows to 435 evaluations per projection bundle.
Example C.3
For a projection bundle containing 4 future projections one has to do 4/2 · (4−1) = 2 · 3 = 6 evaluations, namely
future projection No.1 needs to be paired and evaluated
with No.2
with No.3
with No.4
future projection No.2
with No.3
with No.4
and future projection No.3
with No.4.
- No comments yet.