Long-range regional planning asks the public to consider decisions whose consequences may extend decades into the future. Yet residents generally encounter transportation and land-use issues through immediate experiences: getting to work, finding affordable housing, reaching essential services, or dealing with a disrupted commute. A communication program must connect those experiences to regional choices without requiring participants to master forecasting models or technical planning documents.

The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC), whose planning region covers nine counties in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, used exploratory scenario planning to make that connection during development of Connections 2045. Its Greater Philadelphia Future Forces initiative examined how major changes could affect the region through 2045. The five forces addressed urban development, changing employment arrangements, climate disruption, technology-enabled transportation, and domestic energy production. 

DVRPC subsequently presented the scenarios in public workshops and asked participants what they wanted the region to look like in 2045. By exploring possible changes before discussing preferred outcomes, the commission gave residents a concrete starting point for considering long-term regional priorities. The process offers a practical example of how scenario planning can connect complex planning questions to a public conversation about the future residents want to help shape.  

This case study explores how DVRPC used scenario planning to make long-range decisions more accessible and connect public priorities to a shared regional vision.

The Communication Challenge in Long-Range Regional Planning

Connecting a Distant Planning Horizon to Everyday Decisions

A regional plan must address relationships that are difficult to explain through isolated project descriptions. Where housing is built affects transportation needs. Employment patterns influence when and where people travel. Infrastructure choices affect access to opportunity, while environmental conditions affect whether those systems remain dependable. Residents may recognize each issue individually without seeing how regional decisions connect them.

The communication challenge is therefore partly a question of entry point. Asking people to review a completed technical document gives them something concrete to respond to, but it also asks them to enter a conversation already organized around professional categories. An earlier discussion about the future can create space for people to explain the outcomes they value before staff translate those priorities into goals and strategies.

DVRPC’s technical report described the wider forces confronting regions as social, technical, economic, environmental, and political, commonly abbreviated as STEEP. It recognized that major changes could occur beyond the control of individual governments or organizations. The report situated scenario planning within a broader process of strategy development, implementation, and performance monitoring. 

From a communication perspective, that framework offers an alternative to presenting a single forecast as the complete account of the future. An agency can explain what it expects while also discussing conditions that could alter those expectations. Residents can then consider which outcomes deserve protection and which choices should remain adaptable.

Building the Greater Philadelphia Futures Group

Bringing Different Forms of Expertise into the Discussion

DVRPC convened the Greater Philadelphia Futures Group in fall 2014. Its participants represented academia, business, nonprofit organizations, and government, with expertise extending across economics, land use, environmental issues, public health, transportation, technology, and environmental justice. The initial meeting identified 31 potential forces; the second reduced the list to 17. Members of the group and DVRPC’s Regional Technical Committee then voted online on the impact and likelihood of those forces. 

This sequence matters because the eventual public discussion rested on a prior effort to identify which uncertainties merited attention. An agency cannot present every possible change with equal emphasis and still expect participants to engage meaningfully. Selecting a manageable set of forces creates a clearer discussion, provided that the selection process is visible and its assumptions remain open to examination.

The range of expertise also has a communication implication. Transportation specialists can explain network performance, but changes in work, health, housing, or technology may affect travel in ways that extend beyond conventional transportation categories. Including those perspectives helps an agency develop explanations that connect its planning responsibilities to wider community concerns.

The Futures Group and the later public outreach served different purposes. Expert participation helped identify and examine possible changes; public participation helped articulate preferred regional outcomes. For other agencies, preserving that distinction is essential. A technically varied working group can strengthen scenario development, while broader outreach remains necessary to understand the priorities of people affected by the plan.

The Five Future Forces

DVRPC published Greater Philadelphia Future Forces in April 2016. It identified five forces: Enduring Urbanism, the Free Agent Economy, Severe Climate, Transportation on Demand, and the U.S. Energy Boom. The report examined them through what-if scenarios extending to 2045 and identified opportunities, challenges, and potential responses. These were exploratory planning tools, rather than assurances that any particular future would occur. 

Enduring Urbanism examined continued movement of people and jobs toward walkable centers. As a communication topic, this connects regional development patterns to recognizable questions about housing choice, neighborhood amenities, and access to destinations. It offers a way to discuss the implications of growth through the places people inhabit and use.

The Free Agent Economy considered increased outsourcing and automation and the possibility that individuals would need to create their own economic opportunities. The communication significance is that transportation needs can be discussed in relation to how people work. Agencies adapting this approach can ask how changing employment arrangements might affect access, affordability, and the usefulness of existing services.

Severe Climate addressed significant disruption associated with continued increases in atmospheric carbon. Transportation on Demand considered the role of smartphones, applications, and real-time information in combining new and existing travel options. The U.S. Energy Boom explored the implications of abundant domestic oil and natural gas and low energy costs. 

These subjects provide several points of entry into a regional discussion. A participant concerned about reliable transportation may approach climate through service disruption, while someone concerned about employment may focus on access to changing job opportunities. The communication lesson is to explain each force through its consequences for daily life, while making clear that the scenario’s assumptions are conditions being explored.

Moving from Scenario Development to Public Engagement

Asking Residents What They Wanted the Region to Become

DVRPC’s draft Connections 2045 plan documents a series of workshops held in spring 2016. Staff presented the Future Forces scenarios, discussed them with participants, and then posed questions about what attendees would prefer the region to look like in 2045. Additional stakeholder outreach and an online survey supplemented the workshops. Staff organized the responses by topic to inform the regional vision. 

The order of that conversation is central to the case study. Participants received a framework for considering possible change before being asked about their preferred future. That gave the visioning discussion a context: aspirations could be considered alongside conditions that might make them easier or harder to achieve.

This design also separates two questions that are easily confused in public communication. What might happen is an analytical question about plausible change. What should the region seek to achieve is a question about priorities and values. A resident can recognize the possibility of a development without supporting every consequence associated with it.

For another regional agency, the practical implication is to give participants a clear role. The agency can explain that it is seeking input on goals, priorities, or acceptable tradeoffs, while staff remain responsible for technical analysis. This allows residents to contribute knowledge about their needs and communities without implying that they must personally validate a model.

Translating Public Priorities into Planning Principles

A public engagement process becomes more useful when the relationship between the discussion and the resulting plan is understandable. Workshop comments can identify concerns, but agencies must also explain how those concerns are organized and used. Otherwise, participants may have difficulty recognizing their priorities in the language of the final document.

Connections 2045’s five principles addressed environmental sustainability, livable communities, economic growth, equity and diversity, and an integrated multimodal transportation network. DVRPC subsequently used those principles in describing eligible local planning work, demonstrating their role as a framework extending beyond the initial visioning discussion. 

The communication interpretation is that principles can bridge public aspirations and professional planning decisions. Residents may express a need for easier access to employment or a concern about displacement; a planning framework can organize such issues while preserving their meaning. The framework must then be connected to goals and strategies specific enough to guide decisions.

Other agencies can strengthen this connection by publishing an explanation of the themes heard, the priorities reflected in the plan, and the constraints affecting implementation. That is a recommendation drawn from this case’s structure, rather than a claim that DVRPC documented every individual comment in that way. Its purpose is to make the influence of participation visible.

Turning Uncertainty into Actions

Universal Actions, Contingent Actions, and Leading Indicators

DVRPC’s scenario work differentiated universal actions, which could benefit the region across different futures, from contingent actions responding to particular forces. It also identified leading indicators to help determine whether a force was emerging. The draft Connections 2045 plan stated that both sets of recommendations were incorporated into the plan and acknowledged that implementation required weighing costs and benefits. 

The technical report’s universal recommendations included encouraging mixed-use infill where transportation and utility capacity already existed and developing communities that supported aging in place. These examples show that the scenario exercise extended into development and community conditions, alongside transportation considerations. 

The distinction between universal and contingent actions offers a useful way to communicate why a plan contains both immediate priorities and adaptable responses. An agency can explain why some investments remain valuable under several conditions, while other choices depend on evidence of a particular change. Uncertainty becomes a reason to monitor and prepare.

Leading indicators also suggest a continuing communication responsibility. Agencies applying this approach should identify what information they will follow, how often it will be reviewed, and how changes might affect decisions. Explaining that process helps residents understand how a long-range plan can remain useful even when its underlying conditions evolve.

What the Documented Results Establish

The strongest evidence from this case concerns the planning process and its outputs. DVRPC developed a structured set of Future Forces, used the scenarios in public visioning, and incorporated recommendations into Connections 2045. The commission’s board adopted the plan on October 26, 2017. These are identifiable institutional results, rather than estimates of how residents felt about the process. 

The work also had a subsequent implementation connection. DVRPC developed a Municipal Implementation Toolbox organized around the plan’s five principles. Its description explained that the resource offered recommended tools, case studies, resources, and sample ordinances to help municipalities implement the plan’s goals. 

Together, these records establish a progression from exploring uncertainty to developing a regional vision and supporting local implementation. The communication value lies in connecting stages that can otherwise appear unrelated to the public. A future-oriented discussion has more practical meaning when it informs a plan and is followed by resources for acting on that plan.

The sources reviewed do not establish that scenario planning increased participation by a specified percentage, produced a more representative audience than previous outreach, or independently improved public trust. Those outcomes should not be presented as measured achievements. The case supports an analysis of how the engagement was designed and connected to planning decisions.

Why the Approach Matters for Regional Planning Communication

Making the Public Question Easier to Understand

The communication strength of the approach lies in the relationship between explanation and participation. Residents were introduced to possible forces of change and then asked about their preferred regional future. That structure gives the discussion a purpose beyond receiving general reactions to a document.

It can also make long-range planning relevant to people with different interests. Questions about housing, employment, environmental conditions, and access to services connect planning to everyday concerns. The inference is that this range of topics can offer more ways into a conversation, although participation data would be needed to determine whether it actually brought in different audiences.

A second strength is the treatment of uncertainty. Presenting several possible forces allows an agency to explain why plans must consider change without suggesting that every possibility is equally likely. Clear communication should distinguish evidence, assumptions, modeled consequences, and policy preferences so that participants know what they are being asked to evaluate.

A third strength is the route from discussion to action. The use of planning principles and universal or contingent responses gives staff a framework for translating broad concerns into decisions. Agencies should preserve that route in public materials so that the initial invitation to participate remains to the work that follows.

Lessons for City, County, and Regional Agencies

Agencies considering a similar approach should begin with a real decision that public input can influence. Scenario engagement is most useful when it helps shape a vision, priorities, or responses to uncertainty. Its purpose should be stated before participants invest their time.

The scenarios should then be developed around a manageable set of consequential uncertainties. Technical staff and outside partners can help test assumptions, while public-facing explanations should connect each uncertainty to recognizable effects. The objective is to preserve analytical substance while making the discussion understandable.

Participation channels require their own design. Workshops permit questions and discussion, while surveys can offer another route for people unable to attend. Agencies should also consider language, accessibility, scheduling, and trusted community partners, and should evaluate whom they reached. These are recommended adaptations, not claims about services documented for DVRPC’s 2016 workshops.

Finally, agencies should measure both process and influence. Attendance and survey counts describe activity, but stronger evaluation examines participant understanding, representation, and the decisions affected by input. A clear record of those measures would allow future case studies to assess engagement outcomes more precisely.

Conclusion: Scenario Planning as a Framework for Public Engagement

DVRPC’s Future Forces initiative illustrates how a regional agency can connect an uncertain planning horizon to a public conversation about desired outcomes. The documented sequence brought together expertise, developed five forces, presented them in workshops, and used outreach to inform the Connections 2045 vision. It linked those discussions to recommendations and subsequent implementation resources.

For communication practitioners, the transferable lesson is to give residents enough context to discuss consequential choices before asking them to respond to a completed plan. Scenario planning can support that task when its assumptions are clear, its questions are understandable, and its relationship to decisions is visible.

The case’s value rests on that documented design. Other agencies can adapt the approach while building stronger evidence about who participates, what they understand, and how their contributions affect policy. Doing so would combine a substantive public conversation with an accountable record of its influence.

SCG’s Strategic Approach to Regional Planning Communication

Align your agency’s planning information, public outreach, and stakeholder engagement

SCG helps regional planning agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, and city and county planning departments assess communication needs, organize complex information, and develop frameworks and materials that support public understanding. That work can connect technical explanations, stakeholder outreach, meeting materials, and public-facing information across departments and partner agencies.

Whether an agency is preparing a long-range plan, explaining scenarios, organizing a visioning process, or communicating implementation priorities, a coordinated communication framework can clarify what residents are being asked to consider and how their input will be used. It can also help staff maintain consistent explanations as planning moves from analysis to decisions and implementation.

Use the form below to connect with our team and explore how a strategic communication framework can strengthen your agency’s planning outreach and public engagement.