The Problem of the Future: Sustainability Science and Scenario Analysis R.J

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Global Environmental Change 14 (2004) 137–146

The problem of the future: sustainability science and scenario analysis R.J. Swarta,*, P. Raskinb, J. Robinsonc a National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, Netherlands b Boston Center of the Stockholm Environment Institute, Tellus Institute, 11 Arlington Street, Boston, MA 02116-3411, USA c Sustainable Development Research Initiative (SDRI) of the University of British Columbia, 1924 West Mall, UBC Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2

Abstract

Unsustainable tendencies in the co-evolution of human and natural systems have stimulated a search for new approaches to understanding complex problems of environment and development. Recently, attention has been drawn to the emergence of a new ‘‘sustainability science’’, and core questions and research strategies have been proposed. A key challenge of sustainability is to examine the range of plausible future pathways of combined social and environmental systems under conditions of uncertainty, surprise, human choice and complexity. This requires charting new scientiﬁc territory and expanding the current global change research agenda. Scenario analysis—including new participatory and problem-oriented approaches—provides a powerful tool for integrating knowledge, scanning the future in an organized way and internalizing human choice into sustainability science. r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Core questions systems of governance that propagate the values that people want to live by), and the economic (providing an There is wide consensus in both science and policy adequate material standard of living for all) (Robinson that world development continuesto move in an and Tinker, 1998). unsustainable direction. A recent comprehensive review These concerns stimulated a scientific response, as of the state of the environment (UNEP, 2002) findsthat, new research initiatives addressed various biophysical over the last 30 years, human and environmental aspects of global environmental change. In the 1980s, circumstances have changed considerably and inequi- international global environmental change research was tably across the world. Social and environmental coordinated within the frameworksof the World conditionshave deteriorated in many places,and the Climate Research Programme (WCRP), the Interna- integrity of life support systems has come under tional Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) and increasing threat. DIVERSITAS. Asthe importance of socialand Since the seminal report of the Brundtland Commis- economic aspects increasingly became recognized, the sion (WCED, 1987), the policy response has centered on International Human Dimensions Programme (IHDP) a call for sustainable forms of development. While for the social sciences and humanities was formed in the definitions of sustainable development vary widely 1990s. Global environmental change research matured (Robinson, 2002), most call attention to the need to into a broader agenda under the rubric of global change maintain resilience in environmental and social systems research. The interdependence of natural and social by meeting a complex array of interacting environ- systems increasingly led to calls for interdisciplinary mental, social and economic conditions. One version of research efforts (e.g. Lubchenko, 1998; NAS, 1999; such an approach suggests three ‘‘imperatives’’ for IGBP/IHDP/WCRP/Diversitas, 2001). In the context of sustainable development: the ecological (staying within IGBP, the global analysis, integration and modeling biophysical carrying capacity), the social (providing (GAIM) task force is advancing a framework for integrated research (Schellnhuber and Sahagian, 2002). For the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Develop- ment, the world’s scientific research programmes com- *Corresponding author. Tel.: +31-30-274-3026; fax: +31-30-274- 4464. mitted themselves to integrate societal problems into E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R.J. Swart), their endeavors( ICSU (International Council for [email protected] (P. Raskin), [email protected] (J. Robinson). Science), 2002).

Box 1 Core questions for sustainability science 1. How can the dynamic interactionsbetween nature and society—including lagsand inertia—be better incorporated in emerging modelsand conceptualizations that integrate the Earth system, human development, and sustainability? 2. How are long-term trends in environment and development, including consumption and population, reshaping nature-society interactions in ways relevant to sustainability? 3. What determines the vulnerability or resilience of the nature-society system in particular kinds of places and for particular types of ecosystems and human livelihoods? 4. Can scientifically meaningful ‘‘limits’’ or ‘‘boundaries’’ be defined that would provide effective warning of conditions beyond which the nature- society systems incur a significantly increased risk of serious degradation? 5. What systems of incentive structures—including markets, rules, norms and scientific information—can most effectively improve social capacity to guide interactions between nature and society toward more sustainable trajectories? 6. How can today’s operational systems for monitoring and reporting on environmental and social conditions be integrated or extended to provide more useful guidance for efforts to navigate a transition toward sustainability? 7. How can today’s relatively independent activities of research planning, observation, assessment, and decision support be better integrated into systems for adaptive management and societal learning? Source: Kateset al. (2001) . 8. How can the future be scanned in a creative, rigorous and policy-relevant manner that reflects the normative character of sustainability and incorporates different perspectives?’’ Source: thispaper.

While the link between science-driven research activities systems, and providing decision makers with better and sustainability policy development remains weak advice about the effectsof variousformsof behavior or (Cohen et al., 1998), the call to strengthen the contribution intervention. These are indeed critical issues. Our goal of science to a sustainability transition1 hasgrown louder here is to suggest ways in which scenario analysis can (Raven, 2002). Recently, Kateset al. (2001) identified a contribute to addressing them, and in so doing to help framework for an emerging ‘‘sustainability science’’ for broaden the focus to encompass a richer set of generating useful knowledge to support a transition to considerations. These are derived in part from a ‘‘human sustainable development. Such a sustainability science science’’ perspective that emphasizes the need to develop would seek to illuminate the interactions between nature approachesfor evaluating future options,recognizing and society at different geographic scales from global to diverse epistemologies and problem definitions, and local. It would address the behavior of complex self- encompassing the deeply normative nature of the organizing systems and responses of the combined nature- sustainability problem2. society system to multiple and interacting stresses, Where the questions in Box 1 touch upon the future, involving different social actors. It would develop tools the proposed core questions focus on trends and for monitoring key environmental and social conditions, discontinuities in those trends, and how these trends and guidance on effective management systems. may be changed ‘‘in ways relevant to sustainability’’. The seven core questions proposed for sustainability However, they do not underscore the critical role of science by Kateset al. (2001) are collected in Box 1. The envisioning alternative futures, exploring plausible path- emphasis is on understanding the systems complexities ways, and identifying the factors conditioning long-term associated with sustainability, including the provision of outcomes. To highlight some of these issues we have information to help social actors to develop transition added an 8th question in Box 1: ‘‘How can the future be strategies. These core questions are a particular way of scanned in a creative, rigorous and policy-relevant looking at the problem of sustainability, which reflects manner that reflects the normative character of sustain- the scientific perspective it is intended to represent. ability and incorporates different perspectives?’’ Sustainability science is seen as fundamentally a The core questions outlined in Box 1 raise a number problem of representing the interactions, behaviors of research challenges for sustainability, which we and emergent propertiesof combined natural and social discuss in the following section. We go on to summarize parallel developments in the use of scenario analysis to illuminate sustainability problems. We then argue that 1 Detailed analysis of the integrated requirements for a sustainability transition was introduced by Raskin et al. (1998), and further developed by the National Research Council of the National Academy 2 The scientific perspective described by the proposed core questions of Sciencesof the United States(NAS, 1999), which spellsout corresponds to the ‘‘descriptive’’ approach to the social sciences and international targetsfor meeting human needsand preservinglife humanities( Rayner and Malone, 1998), in which normsand valuesare support systems, as a basis for priorities both for research and action. not addressed explicitly. Our approach in this paper attempts to Subsequently, on the policy side, the General Assembly of the United incorporate ‘‘normative’’ (explicitly accounting for the value-ladenness Nationsadopted the Millennium Declaration ( UNGA (United of the issues at stake and associated human goals) and ‘‘interpretive’’ Nations General Assembly), 2000), which includestargetsfor a (characterized by a focuson the meaning created by human agentsin number of social and environmental sustainability problems. the conduct of social life) approaches. ARTICLE IN PRESS R.J. Swart et al. / Global Environmental Change 14 (2004) 137–146 139 scenario analysis is a natural and powerful tool for (viii) combining qualitative and quantitative analysis to advancing important aspects of sustainability science, elevate non-quantifiable cultural, institutional and and close with some observations on future directions. value aspects of the integrated system is required to avoid limiting the analysis to quantifiable aspects which are not necessarily the most crucial;3 2. Research strategies and (ix) making sustainability science more relevant to Kateset al. (2001) conclude that the structure, policy development and action through stakeholder methods, and content of the scientific enterprise would participation: the incorporation of the relevant have to change in order to pursue sustainability science values, perceptions and preferences of societal adequately. From the core questions they derive four actors about the future into the research process is research strategies: needed to encompass forms of knowledge nor- mally not considered by analysts, and normative (i) spanning multiple spatial scales from local to global values. processes; (ii) accounting for temporal inertia and urgency of problemsthat are both long-lived and perilous; (iii) reflecting functional complexity and multiple stresses in human and environmental systems; and 3. Scenario analysis: history and current frontiers (iv) recognizing the wide range of outlooks in order to generate knowledge usable for people with differ- Scanning these various research strategies for a new ent perspectives. sustainability science, a recurrent theme is the challenge of integration. The systemic character of sustainability These are important strategic challenges, indeed, problems demands a holistic perspective that unifies which science has only begun to address. But others across sectors, problems, methods, disciplines, spatial should be highlighted or, where implicit in the four scales and time. Furthermore, the strict distinction generic strategies above, made explicit, in order to draw between the realm of the normative and the objective, attention to the critical problem of the future (Core the ‘‘ought’’ and the ‘‘is’’, is not useful when the system question 8). These are: under scrutiny entrains human values and choices as (v) integrating across policy themes and issues to irreducible and critically important system constituents capture the intricately linked ecological, social, and driversof change. economic, ethical and institutional dimensions of What are scenarios? In the context of sustainability sustainability problems—adequately addressing science, integrated scenarios may be thought of as any specific problems requires a framework that coherent and plausible stories, told in words and reflectsthe breadth and depth of interconnections numbers, about the possible co-evolutionary pathways (e.g., poverty, deforestation, climate change, land of combined human and environmental systems. They tenure systems, income distribution, trade regimes, generally include a definition of problem boundaries, a etc., are co-determining); characterization of current conditionsand processes (vi) reflecting uncertainty: incorporating large uncer- driving change, an identification of critical uncertainties tainties of very different kinds, surprise, critical and assumptions on how they are resolved, and images thresholds and abrupt change that are immanent in of the future. The characterization of the nature of non-linear natural and social systems—the poten- human and environmental response under contrasting tial for and implicationsof novel eventsand rapid future conditionsiskey in scenario formulation. structural change beyond critical thresholds are Reflecting respect for the uncertainty inherent in such fundamental to assesse the resilience, vulnerability systems, scenarios are neither predictions nor forecasts. and suite of possible future states; understanding Scenario analysis is an evolving concept. The term has and reflecting large uncertainty in complex socio- been applied to diverse efforts ranging from literary ecological systems should be an explicit part of the descriptions to model-based projections, from visionary sustainability science strategies; thinking to minor adjustments to ‘‘business-as-usual’’ (vii) accounting for human volition asa key conditioning projections. Although scenario development as a sys- factor of combined human and environmental tematic way of thinking about the future hasa long systems—the constitution, reproduction and re- 3 formulation of human needs, wants and values is Global change science continues to be dominated by quantitative approaches, whereas non-quantifiable factors, such as trust, power, key to illuminating consumption, social goals, emotional attachment and many others, which profoundly affect institutional innovation, social learning and the human behavior and the prospects for sustainability are left implicit or prospects for alternative futures; ignored. ARTICLE IN PRESS 140 R.J. Swart et al. / Global Environmental Change 14 (2004) 137–146 history it has not been codified into a common set of Development, a second ‘‘wave’’ of global scenarios definitionsand procedures.Such methodological ambi- was launched in the context of the sustainability guity is in many ways a source of strength for this challenge. Some were model-based, and focusing on evolving field of inquiry. The range of aimsand the one issue such as climate change (Rotmans, 1990, sheer complexity of the problem demand flexibility and Rotmanset al., 1994 ), but also broader efforts were creative exploration. undertaken, such as the updated work of Meadowset al. The broad use of the term ‘‘scenario’’ for characteriz- (1992) and new integrated studies on such themes as ing the systematic framing of uncertain possibilities can climate change, water scarcity, public health, and land- be traced to post-World War II strategic studies. In use (Rotmansand de Vries,1997 ). The IPCC series of particular, Kahn and Wiener (1967) explored possible greenhouse gas emissions scenarios studies became consequences of nuclear proliferation, defining scenarios successively more sophisticated (IPCC (Intergovern- as ‘‘hypothetical sequences of events constructed with mental Panel on Climate Change), 1990; Leggett et al, the purpose of focusing attention on causal processes 1992; Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000). Meanwhile, a and decision points’’. In the private sector, Shell has number of studies adopted the narrative scenario played a leading role since the 1970s developing tradition (e.g., Svedin and Aniansson, 1987).4 scenarios to highlight world development possibilities The distinction between quantitative (modeling) and that are relevant to the company’sfuture, and to prepare qualitative (narrative) traditionsof scenario analysis company managersfor respondingto an uncertain should be underscored. Quantitative analysis often relies future (Wack, 1985a, b), a process that has been used on formal models, using mathematical algorithms and more widely in the business community since (Schwartz, relationshipsto representkey featuresof human and 1991; Shell, 2002). environmental systems. Quantitative modeling is often Systems modeling is another antecedent to contem- used for predictive analysis, which is appropriate for porary scenario analysis. Mathematical simulations simulating well-understood systems over sufficiently were used to forecast the behavior of the economy, its short times. But as complexity increases and the time pressures on the environment, and resource constraints. horizon of interest lengthens, the power of prediction A controversial early effort was Limits to Growth diminishes. Quantitative forecasting is legitimate to the (Meadowset al., 1972 ) for the Club of Rome, which degree the state of the system under consideration can wasfollowed with more complex modeling exercises be specified, the dynamics governing change are under- (Mesarovic and Pestel, 1974). These studies found that stood and known to be persistent, and mathematical trendsin economy, demography and technology would algorithms can be created that map these relationships overshoot the planet’s carrying capacity in the 21st with sufficient accuracy for simulation. These conditions century, and explored the adjustments to growth are violated when the task is to assess the long-range necessary to avoid such a crisis. While calling attention future of socio-ecological systems—state descriptions to critical problems, the rigidity and uncertainty of the are uncertain, causal interactions are poorly understood model specifications, and underestimation of society’s and non-quantifiable factors are significant. In such adaptive capacity and of human ingenuity in the face of case, even probabilistic forecasting of a given future emerging problems has been used to discredit the work. state, or a spectrum of possible states, is not feasible. In order to emphasize social and political aspects of Systems can branch into multiple future pathways, each development, particularly in developing countries, consistent with current conditions, trends and drivers, Herrera et al. (1976) developed the Latin American and some entailing discontinuous and novel behavior. World Model to explore the requirementsfor a more This suggests the desirability of non-predictive forms of egalitarian future. Hafele. (1981) focused on long-term quantitative scenario analysis. energy optionsin a finite world. The limitationsof quantitative analysismeanthat it Another stream of scenario work focused on envi- should be complemented by qualitative scenario ex- sioning desirable futures, particularly in the energy field, ploration, which can probably better capture other in order to stimulate discussions on how to get there. factors influencing the future such as system shifts and Such ‘‘backcasting’’ studies (Robinson, 1982), mostly at surprises, or non-quantifiable issues such as values, the regional or national level, were conducted in dozens cultural shifts and institutional features. The scenario of countries, inspired by the early work of Lovins(1976, narrative givesvoice to the important qualitative factors 1977) in developing scenarios of ‘‘soft energy paths’’. shaping development such as values, behaviors and More recently, thisbackcasting approach hasbeen institutions, providing a broader perspective than is applied in the context of sustainable futures, at both the regional and global scales (e.g. Robinson et al., 1996; 4 For a recent review of both modeling and narrative global Raskin et al., 1998, 2002). scenarios analyses, mainly related to climate change, see Morita et al. After the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) and the (2001) and for an overview of applicationsof scenariosforclimate 1992 Rio World Conference on Environment and change impacts, see Carter et al. (2001). ARTICLE IN PRESS R.J. Swart et al. / Global Environmental Change 14 (2004) 137–146 141 possible from mathematical modeling alone. Recent 4. Integrating scenario analysis into the sustainability combinationsof long-term narrativeswith scenarios science toolkit quantification are attempting to combine the advantages of both approaches( Raskin et al., 1998; Nakicenovic With thisbackground, the potential for scenario and Swart, 2000, Tansey et al., 2002). Narrative offers analysis as a tool for addressing the core questions and texture, richness and insight, while quantitative analysis methodological challenges of sustainability science offers structure, discipline and rigor. In this sense, comes into focus. Sustainability science must consider scenario analysis, with its rich history of alternative the interplay and dynamic evolution of social, economic traditionsand approaches,offersthe potential of and natural systems—it requires an integrated and long- fostering the integration of descriptive and normative term perspective. It must address the sustainability or interpretive traditions. The art isin the balance process as tentative, open and iterative, involving (Raskin et al., 1996). scientific, policy and public participation. It must Another way of distinguishing between types of capture the possibility of structural discontinuity and scenarios is between primarily descriptive scenarios, surprise in socio-ecological systems. And it must i.e., scenarios describing possible developments starting recognize the critical importance of alternative, and from what we know about current conditionsand sometimes competing, stories, beliefs, institutional con- trends, and primarily normative scenarios, i.e., scenarios texts and social structures. which are constructed to lead to a future that is afforded Modern scenario methods are well-suited to these a specific subjective value by the scenario authors. We tasks. They can help to organize scientific insight into an add the word ‘‘primarily’’ because in practice scenarios integrated framework, gauge emerging risks, and have elementsof both types,but with great differences challenge the imagination. They can provide a means in emphasis. Neither of these types is value-free, since for integration of descriptive and narrative elements, both embody extra-scientific judgments about how the and qualitative and quantitative information. They ease problem isto be framed, and what are reasonable or communication with non-scientific audiences, and can feasible assumptions. However, they differ in terms of engage diverse stakeholders as actors in scenario design overall purpose. That is, the choice between descriptive and refinement. Though their subject is the future, or normative scenarios is dependent on the objectives of scenarios can catalyze and guide appropriate action the scenario development exercise. Normative scenarios today for a sustainability transition. represent organized attempts at evaluating the feasibility Table 1 summarizes how scenario analysis can and consequences of trying to achieve certain desired contribute to the variousstrategiesintroduced in the outcomes or avoid the risks of undesirable ones. previoussection. Several examplesof recent projects Descriptive scenario analysis, on the other hand, tries demonstrate that various of the strategic challenges to articulate different plausible future societal develop- discussed above can be successfully met by scenario ments, and explore their consequences. development and analysis. The work of the Global From a methodological point of view, scenario Scenario Group (Gallopin et al., 2001; Raskin et al., authorscan attempt to discern the likely outcome of a 1998, 2002;seehttp://www.gsg.org) not only couples range of ‘‘expected’’ trends,5 outline the implicationsof regional to global scales, it also demonstrates how different assumptions not chosen on the basis of narratives can be successfully combined with model- likelihood (what-if analysis) or examine the feasibility based quantification of socio-economic developments and implications of desirable futures—or risks of and the environmental changesthey cause.Their undesirable ones (backcasting). For sustainability pro- regional elaboration by UNEPsGlobal Environmental blems, a combination of backcasting from an array of Outlook (UNEP, 2002) added a participatory regional possible end-states and forward-looking analysis from consultative process and a direct link with policy initial conditionsand driversof change isappropriate. processes. In the Netherlands, a series of projects have The latter helps to identify long-term risks and to specify adopted a participatory scenario approach to analyze sustainability conditions, while the former identifies the climate change response options. Initially, a project was bandwidth of initial trajectoriesand available actionsto implemented in which an integrated assessment model ‘‘bend the curve’’ (Raskin et al., 1998) toward long-term was used as the basis for a dialogue with negotiators of sustainability goals. the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (Klabberset al., 1996 ; van Daalen et al., 1999), from which various interactive tools addressing specific questions developed (e.g. Swart et al., 1998; Berk and Janssen, 1997). The Climate OptiOnsfor the Long-term 5 This does not imply that scenarios can be (‘‘single’’) forecasts, or represent ‘‘most likely’’ or ‘‘business-as-usual’’. Such terms mislead- (COOL) project followed-up thiswork linking three ingly suggest that the probability of particular futures is objectively spatial levels: national, European and global, and known. involving a variety of stakeholders such as national ARTICLE IN PRESS 142 R.J. Swart et al. / Global Environmental Change 14 (2004) 137–146 Svedin and Aniansson (1987) Scenariospromote communication between researchersand stakeholders, provide a structuredincorporating framework feedback for into iterativelaboratory analysis for and testing (and offer influencing)goals. a human perceptions and Scenario analysis is adistinct powerful future method images to and exploreeach. alternative normatively It pathways also for helpsreflect getting researchers on to and their users ownenrich of worldviews, the scenarios biases science alike and and to backcasting values, practice analyses and of of thus sustainability. theexamples. The COOL and the GBFPNarrative projects scenarios are capture qualitativeused features, in which conjunction can withfrom be quantitative the Global descriptions. Scenario The Groupthis work and integration. the IPCC Models are can examplesof qualitative also aspects of be scenario designed analysis,used to as in in capture the the QUEST GBFP. model Absent full scientific understanding‘‘what-if’’ of analysis cross-scale can linkages, exploreregional possible and linkages and global link perspectivesframework. local, in Examples a of common regionalglobal and scenarios scenarios consistent associated are with themain GBFP, text). GSG andThrough GEO backcasting, projects scenario (see analysisgoals can (e.g., link associated long-term withshorter a time sustainability horizon transition) ofthe to today’s tolerable the decision windows/safe makers. landing Exampleschange, are approaches the to GSGs‘‘bending climate theGBFP curve’’ scenarios. the scenariosand Participatory scenario development, involvingstakeholders, key is one ofhow the the ways world to works,envisaged address how and different a how views sustainability it on transitionwork could could are be be achieved. good The examples. Qualitative GBFP expert and knowledge IPCC appliedanalysis in can ‘‘what-if’’ help scenario chartingmultiple possible stresses, complex minimizing linkages inconsistencies. and The scientific research andsegregated policy into communities individual are disciplines, bothIntegrated subject highly scenario areas, analysis or provides themes. perspectives opportunities and to reveal broaden links.projectsare The examples(seemain GBFP, text). GSGSince and surprises, GEO critical thresholds anddramatic abrupt consequences changes for can nature have if’’ and society, scenarios creative, offers ‘‘what- theand possibility analyzing of the exploring consequences. theanalyzed possibilities some options. that sustainability science mustengagement address. allowsfor Stakeholder taking intodimensions account of the sustainability, normative widensenhancesmutual the learning. knowledge base, and Cultural, institutional and valuealthough aspects difficult of to sustainability, quantify,framework must with be those considered bio-physical,features in economic in a and which unified social quantitative analysis adds insight. collective human decisions atchoice all will scales. determine Human both behaviorsdevelopment the and and, goalsand hence, pathwaysof thetransition. prospects for a sustainability spatial resolution. Planetary, regionaldetermining, and but local the change are linkagesare co- not well understood. Processes play out atcharacterizes disparate both time natural scales. andsystem System socio-economic change inertia systems, is increasingly while indeterminateof as analysis the lengthens. time horizon Yet,long-term societal changes decisions must in be response made to in theSustainability short science term. cannot beshape divorced people’s from perspectives the andsustainable values preferences futures that with and respect onTraditional to ways scientific and research means issuch to poorly normative get equipped issues. there. toMultiple deal stresses with affect theand interdependent environmental functioning systems social atresilience. all Scientific scales explanation affecting ofislikely their these to complex remain interactions limited. Component aspects and featuresenvironmental of systems combined are human highlyinterventions and interdependent ripple while and cascade policy through the combined system. Conventional methodsare not well-equippeddiscontinuous to changes deal in with complex,Scientific non-linear uncertainties systems. in therelevant complex to socio-natural sustainability system issuesresolved. are It deep is and crucialmake may to them not understand explicit be their in importance research and output. to quantitative analysis and urgency outlooks and multiple stresses issues incorporating surprise, critical thresholds and abrupt change 8.9. Combining qualitative and Engaging stakeholders Human agents are an important internal feature of the system 2.3. Accounting for temporal inertia 4. Recognizing the wide range of 5. Reflecting functional complexity 6. Integrating across themes and 7. Reflecting uncertainties, Accounting for volition The dynamicsof change isinfluenced by individual and Table 1 How can scenario analysis contribute to theResearch methodological challenges challenges of sustainability science 1. Spanning spatial scales Key Socio-ecological aspects change must be studied at various levels of Contribution of scenario analysis ARTICLE IN PRESS R.J. Swart et al. / Global Environmental Change 14 (2004) 137–146 143 climate negotiators; sectoral policy-makers; representa- occur or thresholds be passed, and then to explore how tives of the private sector; representatives of environ- to take these into account in today’s decision-making mental NGOs, politicians and government policy processes. Forward-looking analysis is the appropriate makers; and scientists (Berk et al., 2002). The main methodology if we want to explore how different objective wasto develop a processin which the plausible socio-economic trends would work out in the implications of long-term sustainability goals related short-term future and how these might interact with to climate change and equity were tied to short-term changes in natural systems, taking into account all decision-making, using backcasting techniques. In the relevant scientific uncertainties. Narrative scenario Georgia Basin Futures Project (GBFP) sustainable analysis facilitates a debate about normative aspects of development scenarios in the Georgia Basin (on the sustainability, quantitative analysis can contribute to an west coast of the Canadian province of British adequate knowledge base and structural consistency. Colombia) are explored in a ‘‘second order’’ backcasting Two aspects of scenario analysis in the context of a framework (Robinson, 2003) by emphasizing commu- sustainability transition deserve special attention. First, nity engagement through participatory integrated as- scenario analysis for sustainability science as we see it sessment methods (Tansey et al., 2002; see also goesbeyond the traditional view on the relationship www.basinfutures.net). The project addresses the chal- between science and policy, which assumes that science lenges of linking between temporal and spatial scales, provides—sometimes on request, sometimes not—in- combining qualitative and quantitative scenario analy- formation to policy-makersin order to improve the sis, recognizing diverse outlooks and the influence of quality of the decision-making process. Because of the human choice, and linking with policy choicesthrough apparent objective nature of scenarios developed from stakeholder involvement. The Intergovernmental Panel this perspective, they can be used by policy makers as a on Climate Change (IPCC) hasdeveloped and used meansof legitimizing rather than informing policy emissions scenarios for all three of its major assessments decisions. to date (IPCC, 1990; Leggett et al., 1992; Nakicenovic Second, scenario analysis in the context of sustain- and Swart, 2000). The evolution of these scenario sets ability science has a potentially important role to play illustrates some of the challenges discussed in this paper. with regard to the increasing demand for more public One business-as-usual scenario with three policy scenar- and stakeholder involvement in the scientific activities, ioswasconceived by a very limited number of modelers driven by a complex mix of factors, including increased in relative isolation in the first assessment report (IPCC, public distrust of expert-driven decision making, grow- 1990). In the second assessment a broader set of future ing awareness of a diversity of opinions in the scientific scenarios were explored by the same small group, community, and increased sophistication of NGO, simply reflecting low, medium or high levels of devel- private sector and public involvement in regulatory opment (Leggett et al., 1992). For its 3rd assessment, and other decision-making fora. These evolving dimen- IPCC engaged a much wider set of experts and sions of the policy–science interface suggest that stakeholders to develop a much richer array of possible participatory formsof scenario analysiscouldbe future developments, quantifying these with the help of particularly effective in addressing the strategic and a multitude of different modeling techniquesand placing normative elements of the sustainability questions by greenhouse gas emissions in the much broader context incorporating valuesand preferencesinto the scenario of socio-economic futures (Nakicenovic and Swart, analysis process itself. The objectives and design of a 2000). participatory scenario development exercise would be While scenario analysis cannot provide, of course, all different for involvement of key stakeholders with the answers to the questions posed by sustainability advanced levels of scientific and technical expertise, as science, it has an important role to play in synthesis, compared to engagement of the general public. But in all thinking about the future, and linking to policy and cases, scenario analysis for sustainability science should stakeholder communities. This role is complementary to encompass mutual learning about the knowledge, the daunting amount of non-scenario work required for positions and preferences of those involved, hopefully a robust sustainability science. Each type of scenario leading to better informed decision-making.6 analysis can address different elements of the questions, and different challenges posed by the proposed research strategies. For example, backcasting approaches are useful when it comes to analyzing today’s implications of long-term risks or long-term sustainability objectives, 6 When combined in the exploration of desired futures, these two taking into account the inertia of natural and social factors can give rise to a ‘second order’ form of backcasting, in which the desired future is an emergent property of the (participatory) systems, and for exploring different strategies. ‘‘What- process of creating and evaluating scenarios (Robinson, 2003). Such if’’ analysis can be useful to evaluate under which processes can combine the descriptive and normative approaches conditions and when particular types of surprises could described earlier. ARTICLE IN PRESS 144 R.J. Swart et al. / Global Environmental Change 14 (2004) 137–146

5. Conclusions and future directions NGOscan find common ground through a scenario development process, since all these groups have In summary, the emergence of a globalized phase of usually had at least some exposure to scenarios, many development isbringing both new opportunitiesand even actively. Key stakeholders can be integrated new perils. In many regions technological advances directly into the problem definition, research design thrive, incomesincrease,and health conditionsimprove. and scenario generation components of the research. At the same time, poverty and hunger continue to For global scenario work, balanced representation plague hundredsof millionsof people, conflictsabound, from all regionsisimportant and, ideally, a wider and ecological resources are under continuous pressure community of experts and stakeholders should be around the globe. With the possibility of the world’s consulted, e.g., through consultations or review population doubling in thiscentury and economic processes. The process of scenario development output increasing significantly, these problems can be should be a process of mutual learning, and co- expected to become even more pronounced and urgent. production of knowledge by those involved. There isbroad international agreement that a transition * Adequate time for problem definition, knowledge base to sustainability is needed. But incomplete understand- development, iterative scenario analysis, review and ing of the problems, their causes and possible outreach: It isvital to devote sufficient time and effort solutions makes society poorly prepared for such a to build trust among team members and a shared transition. Moreover, the prospects for effective appreciation of critical questions, the research responses are complicated by contradictory philosophi- strategy, and the audience. Over a period of cal views underlying policy and scientific discussions, months, storylines, possibly supported by quantifica- viewsthat are rarely made explicit, on how natural and tion of key scenario elements, are best developed human systems operate and interact, or how they should through several iterations, with penultimate results be managed. reviewed by peersbeyond the core team. In many Science can contribute to the sustainability transition cases, the processes of interacting with stakeholders by providing knowledge and guidance for navigating the in the course of generating scenarios are as important journey from unsustainable contemporary patterns to a as the scenario analysis itself. Finally, effective sustainable future. We have argued that scenario communication with the external audience needs analysis offers one promising approach for operationa- careful attention, often requiring specialized lizing and enriching the required ‘‘sustainability skillsandcreative approachesbeyond conventional science’’. The process and product of scenario analysis scientific reports. are equally important. In many contexts, scenario * Full account of available scientific knowledge and rigor exercises will benefit by having both science and affected of methods: All relevant scientific knowledge about actors shape the analysis. Scientists bring knowledge of what isknown, and what isunknown about the relevant processes and their linkages to the discourse problem being considered, should be incorporated and stakeholders enrich scenarios by bringing the into the scenario process. Existing scenario analyses, perspectives of the human participants in the story of modeling exercises and databases can be useful the future. sources of information and, in some cases, pitfalls Scenario analysis can play a major role in addressing to be avoided. Thisincludespredetermined elements the challenges of sustainability science, especially the and critical uncertainties. Care should be taken when core question of how to scan the future in a structured, applying toolsdeveloped for one type of questionfor integrated and policy-relevant manner. Based on our addressing other questions. scenario experiences over the past 20 years, we offer the * An explicit discussion about normative scenario following principlesof good practice for thosewho elements: Scenario analysis is a means to address would like to pursue scenario analysis as a means of the inherently normative dimensions of sustainability addressing the vital questions of sustainability science. that takes sustainability science beyond the bound- While each scenario exercise should be tailored to the aries of the traditional scientific enterprise. The specific problems and context, the following broad normative aspect enters the scenario in two ways. aspects should be considered: First, the storylines make assumptions about future behaviorsand worldviewsof scenarioactors,invol- * A sufficiently large and diverse group of participants: ving assumptions on religion, spirituality, norms and The typical size of the core group developing the values,aswell associo-political and institutional scenarios in the examples cited earlier was between 10 design questions. Second, the worldviews of the and 40, usually involving experts from different people creating the scenarios shape the way the disciplinary backgrounds and stakeholders with story is told and what policy lessons are drawn. different interests. Interestingly, scientists, represen- Transparency and rigor require that each of these tativesfrom the private sector, governmentsand normative dimensions be made explicit in developing ARTICLE IN PRESS R.J. Swart et al. / Global Environmental Change 14 (2004) 137–146 145

and analyzing the scenarios. Through open internal References discussions and well-designed external communication, mental mapsof both participantsand audience Berk, M., Janssen, M., 1997. The interactive scenario scanner (ISS): a can be revealed, challenged and enriched. tool to support the dialogue between science and policy on scenario * development. National Institute for Public Health and the The development of coherent, engaging stories about Environment, Bilthoven, pp. 31. the future: While quantitative analysis can add insight Berk, M.M., van Minnen, J.G., Metz, B., Moomaw, W., den Elzen, and consistency, the power of scenarios lies in telling M.G.J., van Vuuren, D.P., Gupta, J., 2002. Climate OptiOnsfor compelling stories that capture the imagination, the Long term (COOL)—Global Dialogue Synthesis Report RIVM understanding, and beliefs, hopes and dreams of Report No. 490200003, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, pp. 75. participants. The stories should have a consistent Carter, T.R., Larovere, E.L., Jones, R.N., Leemans, R., Mearns, L.O., logic and take into account evolving positions and Nakicenovic, N., Pittock, A.B., Semenov, S.M., Skea, J., 2001. power balance of stakeholders. Developing and applying scenarios. In: Mccarthy, J.J., Canziani, O.F., Leary, N.A., Dokken, D.J., White, K.S. (Eds.), Climate Change 2001:Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Cambridge The narratives help reveal and address critical questions University Press, Cambridge, UK. that might otherwise be neglected and offer a powerful Cohen, S., Demeritt, J., Robinson, J., Rothman, D., 1998. Climate vehicle for effective communication with target audi- change and sustainable development: towards dialogue. Global ences. Environmental Change 8 (4), 341–371. van Daalen, E.C., Thissen, W.A.H., Berk, M.M., 1999. The Delft process: experiences with a dialogue between policy makers and * Explore the possibility of surprise events and address global modellers. In: Alcamo, J., Leemans, R., Kreileman, E. possible seeds of change: Many scenarios are quite (Eds.), Global Change Scenarios of the 21st Century: Results from narrow, restricting their analysis to dominant trends the IMAGE 2.1 Model. Elseviers Science Publishers, London, pp. 267–285 (ISBN 0-08-043447-9). and incremental variations. The future however, can Gallopin, G., Funtowicz, S., O’Connor, M., Ravetz, J., 2001. Science be influenced by surprise events and novel phenom- for the 21st century from social contract to the scientific core. ena. Explicitly considering such possibilities will International Journal of Social Science 168, 219–229. enrich the scenarios discussion and ultimate narra- Hafele,. W., 1981. Energy in a Finite World: A Global tives. Similarly, ‘‘seeds of change’’ should be probed, Systems Analysis. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, USA, 834pp (ISBN societal or natural developments with the potential to 0-88410-642-X). Herrera, A., Scolnik, H., Chichilnisky, G., Gallopin, G., Hardoy, J., significantly change society, and that are presently Mosovich, D., Oteiza, E., de Romero Brest, G., Suarez, C., dormant or in their early stages of evolution (van Talavera, L., 1976. Catastrophe or New Society? A Latin American Notten, 2002). World Model. International Development Research Centre, * Place the focal problem in a broader context: Often, Ottawa, Canada. scenario exercises focus on a single dimension of ICSU (International Council for Science), 2002. Report of the Scientific and Technological Community to the World Summit sustainability, such as climate change, biological on Sustainable Development (WSSD). Series on Science for diversity, poverty, International security, demo- Sustainable Development, No. 1, ICSU, pp. 20. graphics, water, agriculture and energy. These issues, IGBP/IHDP/WCRP/Diversitas (International Geosphere-Biosphere which become manifest at different spatial resolu- Programme/International Human Dimensions Programme/World tions and time scales, influence each other. A systemic Climate Research Programme/Biodiversitas international biodiver- and integrated perspective will help real key linkages sity research programme), 2001. The Amsterdam Declaration. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 1990. The IPCC that influence the focal problem. Response Strategies. Island Press, United States. Kahn, H., Wiener, A.J., 1967. The Year 2000: a Framework for The development of an effective science of sustain- Speculation on the Next Thirty-three Years. Macmillan, New York. ability isan urgent endeavor that requiresfurther Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R., Hall, J.M., Jaeger, C., Lowe, I., clarification of the contoursof itskey questionsand McCarthy, J.J., Schellnhuber, H.-J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N.M., research agenda. The character of the sustainability Facheux, S., Gallopin, G.C., Gruebler, A., Huntley, B., Jager,. J., problems compels a systemic exploration of the future, Jodha, N.S., Kasperson, R.E., Mabogunje, A., Matson, P., that is, sensitive to normative issues grounded in Mooney, H., Moore III, B., O’Riordan, T., Svedin, U., 2001. cultural, spiritual and philosophical attitudes of people, Sustainability Science. Science 27(292), 641–642 (extended version published by the Belfer Center for Science and International while incorporating methodological rigor. To succeed, Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard sustainability science will need to be a dynamic, evolving University, USA). field of inquiry and application, which seeks integration Klabbers, J.H.G., Swart, R.J., van Ulden, A.P., Vellinga, P., 1996. across disparate natural and social science perspectives. Climate science and climate policy: improving the science/policy Scenario analysis offers a powerful platform for evol- interface. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategiesfor Global Change 1, 73–93. ving an integrative, conceptually rich and inclusive Leggett, J., Pepper, W., Swart, R., 1992. Emissions Scenarios for process of relevant knowledge generation for a sustain- IPCC: an update. In: Houghton, J., Callander, B., Varney, S. able future. (Eds.), Climate Change. The Supplementary Report to the IPCC ARTICLE IN PRESS 146 R.J. Swart et al. / Global Environmental Change 14 (2004) 137–146

Scientiﬁc Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Kenneth Hammond Lectureson Environment, Energy and pp. 1–25. Resources—2001 Series, Faculty of Environmental Studies, Lovins, A., 1976. Energy Strategy: the road not taken? Foreign University of Guelph. Affairs, October 1976, 55 (1), pp. 186–217. Robinson, J., 2003. Future subjunctive: backcasting as social learning. Lovins, A., 1977. Soft Energy Paths. FOE/Ballinger, New York. Futures35, 839–856. Lubchenko, J., 1998. Entering the century of the environment: a new Robinson, J., Biggs, D., Francis, G., Legge, R., Lerner, S., Slocombe, social contract for science. Science 279, 491–497. S., Van Bers, C., 1996. Life in 2030: Exploring a Sustainable Future Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., Behrens III, W.W., in Canada. UBC Press, Vancouver. 1972. Limits to Growth. Universe Books, New York. Robinson, J., Tinker, J., 1998. Reconciling ecological, economic and Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., 1992. Beyond the social imperatives. In: Schnurr, J., Holtz, S. (Eds.), The Corner- Limits: Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning a Sustainable stone of Development: Integrating Environmental, Social and Future. Chelsea Green Publishing Company, Post Mills, VT. Economic Policies, International Development Research Centre, Mesarovic, M., Pestel, E., 1974. Mankind at the Turning Point: the Ottawa. Second Report to the Club of Rome. Dutton, New York. Rotmans, J., 1990. IMAGE: an Integrated Model to Assess the Morita, T., Robinson, J., Adegbulugbe, A., Alcamo, J., Herbert, D., Greenhouse Effect. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Lebre La Rovere, E., Nakicenovic, N., Pitcher, H., Raskin, P., Rotmans, J., Hulme, M., Downing, T.E., 1994. Climate change Riahi, K., Sankovski, A., Sokolov, V., de Vries, B., Zhou, D., 2001. implicationsfor Europe: an application of the escapemodel. Greenhouse gas emission mitigation scenarios and implications. In: Global Environmental Change 4, 97–124. Metz, B., Davidson, O., Swart, R., Pan, J. (Eds.), Climate Change Rotmans, J., de Vries, H.J.M., (Eds.), 1997. Towards Integrated 2001: Mitigation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Assessment of Global Change. Perspectives on Global Change: The Nakicenovic, N., Swart, R., (Eds.), 2000. IPCC Special Report on TARGETS approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Emissions Scenarios. Cambridge University Press, UK. UK. NAS (US National Academy of Sciences), 1999. Our Common Schellnhuber, J., Sahagian, D., 2002. The twenty-three GAIM Journey: a Transition toward Sustainability. A report of the Board Questions. IGBP Newsletter 49, 20–21. on Sustainable Development of the National Research Council. Schwartz, P., 1991. The Art of the Long View: Pathsto Strategic National Academy Press, United States. Insight for Yourself and Your Company. Doubleday. van Notten, P., 2002. Foresight in the face of scenario diversity. Paper Shell, 2002. People and Connections; Global Scenarios to 2020; presented at International Conference on Probing the Future: Public Summary. Global Business Environment, Shell Developing Organizational Foresight in the Knowledge Economy. International. Glasgow, United Kingdom. Svedin, Uno, Aniansson, B., 1987. Surprising Futures, Swedish Raskin, P., Chadwick, M., Jackson, T., Leach, G., 1996. The Council for Planning and Coordination of Research, Sweden. Sustainability Transition: Beyond Conventional Development. Swart, R., Berk, M.M., Janssen, M., Kreileman, E., Leemans, R., Stockholm, Stockholm Environment Institute. 1998. The safe landing analysis: risks and trade-offs in climate Raskin, P., Gallop!ın, G., Gutman, P., Hammond, A., Swart, R., 1998. change. In: Alcamo, J., Leemans, R., Kreileman, E. (Eds.), Global Bending the Curve: Toward Global Sustainability. PoleStar Series Change Scenarios of the 21st Century. Results from the IMAGE Report No. 8, Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, 2.1 Model. Elsevier, London, pp. 193–218. Sweden. Tansey, J., Carmichael, J., VanWijnsberghe, R., Robinson, J., 2002. Raskin, P., Banuri, T., Gallopin, G., Gutman, P., Hammon, A., Kates, The future isnot what it usedto be: participatory integrated R., Swart, R., 2002. Great Transition: the Promise and Lure of the assessment in the Georgia Basin. Global Environmental Change 12 Times Ahead. Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston, USA. (2), 97–104. Raven, P., 2002. Science, sustainability, and the human prospect. UNEP, 2002. Global Environment Outlook 3. Earthscan, London, Science 297, 954. United Kingdom. Rayner, S., Malone, E., 1998. The challenge of climate change to the UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), 2000. The Millennium social sciences. Human Choice and Climate Change. Battelle Press, Declaration. United Nations, New York, United States. Columbus, OH. Wack, P., 1985a. Scenarios: uncharted waters ahead. Harvard Business Robinson, J., 1982. Energy backcasting: a proposed method of policy Review 5 (Sept./Oct. 1985), 72–89. analysis. Energy Policy 10 (4), 337–344. Wack, P., 1985b. Scenarios: shooting the rapids. Harvard Business Robinson, J., 2002. Squaring the Circle: On the Very Idea of Review 6 (Nov./Dec. 1985), 139–150. Sustainable Development. In: Chesworth, W., Moss, M., Thomas, WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), V., (Eds.), Sustainable Development: Mandate or Mantra? The 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.