Reimagining Climate Futures Using Critical Futures Studies to Explore Scenarios for Ljungby Municipality in Sweden

Stockholm Resilience Centre Sustainability Science for Biosphere Stewardship

Master’s Thesis, 60 ECTS Social-ecological Resilience for Sustainable Development Master’s programme 2019/2021, 120 ECTS

Reimagining climate futures Using critical futures studies to explore scenarios for Ljungby municipality in Sweden

Linna Fredström

Table of Contents

Table of Contents 1 Figures, tables and boxes 3 Abstract 4 1. Intro 5 1.1 Setting the scene 5 1.2 Research questions and contribution of study 7 1.3 Structure 7 2. Theory 8 2.1 Transformations toward sustainability – a need for critical perspectives 8 2.2 Futures methods in transformation research 9 2.3 Critical social theory and poststructuralism 10 2.4 Poststructuralism as a futures method - causal layered analysis 11 3. Case study - Ljungby municipality 14 4. Method 15 4.1 Research approach 15 4.2 Data collection: infusing collaborative workshop approach with criticality 15 4.3 Data analysis: Causal layered analysis – challenging barriers to transformation 17 4.3.1 Coding workshop notes into themes 18 4.3.2 Uncovering layer of understanding in each theme 18 4.3.3 Challenging the worldview 18 4.3.4 Re-envisioning the myth – reimagining the issue 18 4.4 Dissemination of results – connecting back to the local context through stories 19 4.5 Limitations of method 20 5. Results 22 5.1 Overview of causal layered analysis 23 5.2 Scenarios – introducing the final stories 24 5.2.1 Scenario A – A new story 25 5.2.2 Scenario B – The only way 26 5.2.3 Scenario C – Something unimaginable 27 5.3. Responses and reflections from participants 28 6. Discussion 29

6.1 What climate change narratives do Ljungby residents use when creating future scenarios for their hometown? 29 6.1.1 Myths as barriers to imagination 29 6.1.2 Imagination - framing, contesting and bringing the future into being 30 6.2 What happens when dominant narratives are reimagined? 32 6.3 How can methods from critical futures studies enable more transformative scenario processes? 34 7. Conclusion 36 8. Bibliography 37 Appendix 1– Workshop design 47 Participant selection 47 Workshop overview 47 Workshop design – step by step 48 Before workshops – preparing the participants 48 Workshop schedule 48 After workshops - reflecting on the workshop 50 After reading the final scenarios - reflecting on the overall process 50 Appendix 2 – Survey questions after workshop 51 Appendix 3 – Survey questions after reading the scenarios 54 Scenario 1 – A new story 54 Scenario 2 – The only way 54 Scenario 3 – Something unthinkable 55 Appendix 4 – Causal layered analysis results 56 Homo economicus 56 Deep ecology 59 Political subjects and objects 61 Children are the future 63 Individualism and a tragedy of the commons 65 Urban rural divide 67 Western-centric sustainability 69 Digitalisation and social relations 71 Appendix 5 Ethical review – final review 73

Figures, tables and boxes

Figure 1 – Causal layered analysis, adapted from Inayatullah 2009 ...... 12 Figure 2 - Map of Sweden, Ljungby municipality marked...... 14 Figure 3 - Overview of research design ...... 15 Figure 4 - The Manoa method shows the non-linear, unexpected ways the future evolves...... 16 Figure 5 - CLA frames the future as vertical and layered...... 16 Figure 6 - Overview of workshop process ...... 16 Figure 7 - Causal layered analysis, step by step instructions (adapted from De Simone, 2015) ...... 17 Figure 8 – Scenario A, nature and storytelling enable sharing ...... 25 Figure 9 – Scenario B explores a technocentric “sustainability” ...... 26 Figure 10 - Scenario C shows a “worst case scenario”...... 27 Figure 11 - The two different orders the workshop activities were done in ...... 49

Table 1 - Information about participants in each workshop ...... 15 Table 2 - Example of CLA: questions to guide the analysis (adapted from De Simone) and examples of answers from my own analysis...... 19 Table 3 - Themes identified in workshops analysed using CLA ...... 23 Table 4 - CLA results that informed scenario A ...... 25 Table 5 - CLA results that informed scenario B ...... 26 Table 6 - CLA results that informed scenario C ...... 27 Table 7 - Descriptions of documents sent to participants in preparation for the workshop ...... 48 Table 8 - CLA layers "Homo economicus" ...... 58 Table 9 - CLA layers "Deep ecology" ...... 60 Table 10 - CLA layers "Political subjects and objects” ...... 62 Table 11 - CLA layers "Children are the future" ...... 64 Table 12 - CLA layers "Tragedy of the commons" ...... 66 Table 13 - CLA layers "Urban rural divide" ...... 68 Table 14 - CLA layers "Western-centric sustainability" ...... 70 Table 15 - CLA layers for “Digitalisation and social relations” ...... 72

Box 1. Futures methods used in workshop………………………………………………………………………………………17 Box 2. Excerpt from scenario A………………………………………………………………………………………………………25 Box 3. Excerpt from scenario B………………………………………………………………………………………………………26 Box 4. Excerpt from scenario C………………………………………………………………………………………………………27

Abstract

A growing body of research is calling for radical transformation of society to avoid catastrophic levels of climate change and create a more sustainable and just future. To make this possible, climate researcher will need new approaches and methods that help envision and enable transformations. In this thesis I explore how transformative scenario studies can incorporate critical social theory to enable more reflexive and actionable results. I develop climate change scenarios for a Swedish municipality and adopt a novel combination of the Manoa method and causal layered analysis. This methodological contribution, combining the creativity of the Manoa method and critical perspective of causal layered analysis, is coupled with a transdisciplinary approach. Through collaboration with local actors, including political, private, and civil society representatives, the study maximizes the relevance of the results to the local community. Building on the area’s cultural heritage of oral storytelling, the final scenarios are developed in collaboration with local storytellers and presented back to the community as a set of short stories.

The study makes two noteworthy contributions. First, by allowing local context and culture to guide the creation and dissemination of results the study shows the power of a transdisciplinary approach. Second, by applying a critical theory lens, the study unveils how underlying assumptions limit our capacity to imagine different futures and that challenging these assumptions can increase the transformative potential of scenario research.

1. Intro

1.1 Setting the scene

“The most critical question for climate research is no longer about the problem, but about how to facilitate the transformative changes necessary to avoid catastrophic climate-induced change” (Fazey, et al. 2018:55) In 2015 world leaders agreed to lower greenhouse gas emissions to keep climate change well below 2 degrees. As incremental climate change mitigation policies so far have failed to deliver the results needed to reach the Paris agreement (UNFCCC 2021) a growing number of researchers are calling for radical transformation of society to limit further emissions and adapt to new conditions on Earth (Adger et al. 2009; Fazey, et al. 2018; Westley et al. 2011; Kates, Travis, and Wilbanks 2012; Patterson et al. 2017). To make this transformation possible, climate research must become more actionable and researchers must shoulder a new role: intervening in, rather than merely observing the world (Cornell et al. 2013; Scoones et al. 2020; Fazey et al. 2020). This new role requires new skills and it has been suggested that climate researchers must learn from social sciences, particularly critical social theory, to better account for the pitfalls and possibilities of scientific societal intervention (Delanty 2020; West et al. 2020; Shove 2010; Stirling 2015; Lövbrand et al. 2015). In this thesis I delve into the changing role of sustainability research and explore the potential of using critical social theory in research on sustainability transformations, operationalizing this through a scenario study.

Scenarios have become a frequently used approach to explore radically different futures and identify transformative potential in the present. As a tool, scenario development is versatile and allows for transdisciplinary exploration, combining scientific, local, practical, and emotional insights (Oteros-Rozas et al. 2015; Wangel et al. 2019). To mention a few examples, Pereira and colleagues (2018) use participatory methods and art based practices to develop positive visions for southern Africa, Merrie and colleagues (2018) use science fiction prototyping to explore radical ocean futures and Sweeney (2018) uses games to develop geoengineering scenarios. Building on these studies, I set out to develop climate change scenarios for Ljungby municipality in Sweden. The project was initiated by the municipality as part of their climate change adaptation work, but I was free to design the study according to my own research interests. I chose a collaborative approach to incorporate local knowledge and experiences, as previous studies suggest transformation research needs to connect to the context, culture and

5 needs of the community (Leach, Scoones, and Stirling 2010; Mehta and Srivastava 2020; Fazey et al. 2020; Caniglia et al. 2021).

“Researchers engaged in co-production of knowledge will become partners in value-laden and contested societal change processes” (Norström et al. 2020:118). However, many scenario studies have been criticised for not accounting for these value-laden and political dimensions, and instead becoming a tool for powerful actors to draw the boundaries for what futures are possible and plausible (Cooper 2010). As this project is done in collaboration with the municipality, there was a risk that the scenarios would end up simply reflecting political status quo and cementing the current line of local climate (in)action. Ahlqvist and Rhisiart (2015) have suggested that scenario studies must be re-politicized by using critical social theory, echoing Norström and colleagues’ suggestion that “normative and political dimensions should not be brushed under the carpet, but rather addressed transparently and head on (2020:118). Inspired by this, I here use causal layered analysis (CLA) a critical futures method.

Using a critical social theory framing helps me remain reflexive throughout the project. The key idea of critical social theory is that our understanding of the world (and of the future) is limited by existing narratives, worldviews and myths about “how the world works”. There is potential, seeds of transformation, to be found outside of these limiting worldviews (Delanty 2020) and by identifying and challenging these constraining myths, we can imagine a broader set of possible futures, and consequently see new ways of action in the present. The role of the researcher, using this critical approach, lies in “undermining the totalizing ambition of traditional universal history” and instead giving a voice to “local points of resistance at the sidelines” (Flodin and Johansson 2019:3). With this approach, I can include local knowledge but account for and challenge the larger, limiting myths that local actors will give voice to. The ambition of the study becomes to “question the limiting assumptions about what futures are possible, to open up dialogue for exploring novel and alternative pathways, and to interrogate the political implications of future visions and pathways for the present” (Selin, 2008 in Muiderman et al. 2020).

Finally, this thesis will explore how scenarios can be disseminated in a way that makes them accessible and engaging for the larger community of Ljungby (Marschütz et al. 2020; Burnam- Fink 2015) I have chosen to collaborate with local storytellers to present the results of the study, the scenarios, as short stories. With this, I aim to increase the “‘readability’ of the study for non-experts”, which is vital to create impact (Rhisiart, Störmer, and Daheim 2017:2012; see also Paschen and Ison 2014)

1.2 Research questions and contribution of study The research questions for this study are:

RQ1. a. What climate change narratives do Ljungby residents use when creating future scenarios for their hometown?

b. What happens when these narratives are reimagined?

RQ2. How can methods from critical futures studies enable more transformative scenario processes?

With these research questions, I aim to make the following contributions:

A theoretical contribution, showing the relevance of critical social theory in research on sustainability transformations. I link the emerging principles and objectives of sustainability transformation research to critical social theory and apply this to scenario studies.

A methodological contribution, by piloting a new approach to transformative scenario studies. Building on my theoretical argument, I apply a critical analytical framework, CLA, to a previously successful workshop design introduced by Pereira and colleagues (2018). This new combination of methods helps advance understanding on developing transformative scenarios.

A transdisciplinary contribution, by furthering the knowledge on collaborating with local communities and including local knowledge and culture in a more reflexive way. 1.3 Structure This section provides an outline of the thesis. In chapter 2 I present the theoretical background which motivates the study and introduce the analytical framework CLA. In chapter 3 I present the case, Ljungby municipality and the project of developing scenarios for them.

In chapter 4 I introduce the methods of data collection and analysis. In chapter 5 I present the results: an overview of what the analysis showed, excerpts from the final scenarios and reflections from workshop participants. In the discussion, chapter 6, I connect the results to the research questions. In chapter 7 I provide a conclusion of what the study showed, linking to the contributions of this study.

2. Theory

In this chapter I introduce the rationale and the theoretical framework for the study. I argue that research on sustainability transformations can benefit from incorporating critical social theory. I go on to describe how research on transformations toward sustainability has used futures thinking and scenario studies in the past. I then introduce critical social theory and operationalize this through a critical futures method: causal layered analysis.

2.1 Transformations toward sustainability – a need for critical perspectives I define a sustainability transformation as a “fundamental, radical, and possibly rapid change toward sustainability” (Feola 2015:376) which includes changing “norms, values, and beliefs; rules and practices, such as laws, procedures, and customs; and the distribution and flow of power, authority, and resources” (Moore et al. 2014:54). Transformation is furthermore understood as an alternative to more incremental types of change categorized as adaptation (Fazey, Moug, et al. 2018; Pereira et al. 2019; Westley et al. 2011; Pelling, O’Brien, and Matyas 2015).

Many researchers studying transformations are beginning to acknowledge that their own role must also change: rather than producing knowledge, they consider it necessary to actively participate in making knowledge actionable, with the explicit goal of enabling radical change (Fazey et al. 2020; Sala and Torchio 2019). This new, active participation in societal change requires researchers to develop new skills and consider new challenges, especially in adopting a reflexive approach to the normative and political aspects of their research (Wittmayer and Schäpke 2014; Miller and Wyborn 2020; Woroniecki et al. 2019). Reflexivity is understood here as “the critical exploration of how perceptual, cognitive, theoretical, linguistic, political and cultural circumstances influence interpretations” (Fazey, et al. 2018:66). To achieve this, many have suggested that social science can offer valuable insights (Fazey, Moug, et al. 2018; Scoones et al. 2020; West et al. 2020; Vervoort and Gupta 2018).

This thesis explores how critical social theory can guide this change in the role of the researcher and of sustainability science (see section 2.3 for a description of critical social theory). A call for critical perspectives has been expressed by many researchers. Lövbrand and colleagues write “critical social inquiry may both help diagnose and destabilize dominant social-ecological arrangements (e.g. ecological modernization, green growth, ecosystem services) and to open up

8 conversations on political alternatives” (2015:215). Stirling (2015) and Blythe and colleagues (2018) have suggested that without critical perspectives, research on transformations can become a tool for powerful actors that by creating a sense of urgency and inevitability can overrule democratic processes and impose policy that sustains the current order of power. In contrast to this, Death have suggested that “‘critical theory can be a guide to strategic action for bringing about an alternative order “(Cox 1981: 130 in Death 2014:3, emphasis added).

2.2 Futures methods in transformation research Research on sustainability transformations is done in many different ways, one being through foresight or “futures methods”, in which researchers “systematically investigate the future” (Hebinck et al. 2018:15) to ultimately enable transformative change. One futures method is scenario development, where multiple possible trajectories for the future are explored (Wiebe et al. 2018). The use of scenarios in all types of research on environmental issues has increased rapidly in the last years (Wodak and Neale 2015) likely due to its ability to account for uncertainty and complexity - key features of for example climate change (Wiebe et al. 2018). While there is a variety of scenario practices, some scholars have expressed concern regarding the disproportionate focus on “utility-driven predictive models” (Ahlqvist and Rhisiart 2015:92; see also Wilkinson 2009; Rickards et al. 2014). Turnbull writes that by focusing on prediction and extrapolating current trends and development, we are left “unconscious of, or remain unskilled in, critically examining the ways in which society is shaped by the predictive methodologies developed by economy/science” (Turnbull 2004:163). Dunn Cavelty (2020) and Okereke & Charlesworth (2014) have pointed out that predictive approaches, while they appear certain and low risk, actually only hide the uncertainties and political aspects of imagining the future, thus offering a false sense of controllability while limiting the futures imaginable. Linking back to the overall call for critical perspectives, these predictive scenario approaches fail to incorporate political and normative aspects of the future, which limits their ability to enable transformative change.

There is however a number of researchers who use scenarios to explore radically different futures and through these unveil transformative potential in the now (Hebinck et al. 2018). These projects foster imagination and a capability to think about the future in unexpected ways, something which has been identified as key in enabling sustainability transformations (Moore and Milkoreit 2020). This thesis is inspired by scenario studies that use such an approach (Pereira et al. 2018; Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2020; Falardeau, Raudsepp-Hearne, and Bennett

2019). I aim to further develop the insights on transformative scenario studies by complementing their approach with CLA, a method from critical futures studies, which draws on critical social theory (Inayatullah, 2013) and is occupied with “evolving diagnosis of systemic defects in Western culture and an evolving view of what this means for the future” (Slaughter 1998:4) Through this I attempt to add a critical dimension to futures methods and expand the notion of imagination to also include what Milkoreit and Moore describe as “sociological imagination —the ability to see the social structures that are continuously recreating and reinforcing our current environmental conditions (Mills, 1959; Norgaard, 2017 in 2020)

2.3 Critical social theory and poststructuralism Critical social theory is a field of research and philosophy which derives from critical theory, developed by the Frankfurt school around 1940 (van Gelder 2007). Critical theorists challenged what they called “traditional theory” (Horkheimer 1972) i.e., the dominant positivist scientific paradigm, which the Frankfurt school described as the myth which controls how we see (or fail to see) the system that exploits us (Death 2014). These ideas have inspired the broader field of critical social theory, which includes postmodern, feminist, post-colonial and poststructuralist work (Alvesson 2003). All these disciplines reject a strictly positivist, “problem-solving” approach to knowledge that frames the world as “natural”, and instead understand it as a result of certain historical development (Agger 1991). Through critical examination - critique - one could see “that social reality was contradictory and that the seeds of future possibility were contained within the struggles of the present” (Delanty 2020:15).

This thesis uses the strand of critical social theory called poststructuralism. Poststructuralism is defined by Agger as a “theory of knowledge and language” (1991:112) and some noteworthy scholars are Derrida, Deleuze, Butler and Foucault (Olssen 2003). Poststructuralism aims to unveil the contradictions and hidden assumptions in language, communication and knowledge. It seeks to problematize the categories and knowledge systems we use, showing that our understanding of a phenomenon depends on the categories, assumptions and worldview we understand it “through” (Alvesson and Sandberg 2011; Inayatullah 1998). This “unsettling conventional ways of seeing and doing things; casting things in a new light; making quick judgements and small violence’s more problematic […] and disrupting the status quo” (Death 2014:6) I argue is key in enabling sustainability transformations.

Many researchers within the field of transformations toward sustainability are coming to the same conclusion critical theorists did 80 years ago: to enable transformation to a more sustainable and just society, we must be willing to challenge not political and economic systems, but also the value and knowledge systems that brought us here (Stirling 2019; Fazey et al. 2020; Stirling 2015; Gottschlich and Bellina 2017). As Death describes it, “the environmental consequences of modernity have been a major spur in fermenting critical thinking, and the field of environmental politics is particularly suited to and in need of critical tools of analysis” (Death 2014:6). Based on this theoretical connection, I will in this study apply a post-structural analytical framework to a scenario process.

2.4 Poststructuralism as a futures method - causal layered analysis This study utilizes causal layered analysis as an analytical framework. CLA is developed by political scientist and futures studies researcher Sohail Inayatullah, who calls it both a theory and a method, writing “as a theory it seeks to integrate empiricist, interpretive, critical, and action learning modes of knowing. As a method, its utility is not in predicting the future but in creating transformative spaces for the creation of alternative futures” (Inayatullah 2004:8) This connects to how “critical theory seeks to illuminate the hold of the past over the present in order for future possibilities to be realized” (Delanty 2020:234).

Inayatullah calls CLA “poststructuralism as method” (2004). The epistemological implication of a poststructural approach is that interpretation and problematization of language and knowledge production become central to the study. It redirects focus from the future itself and instead homes in on the discussion of the future – how do we talk about it? (Bacchi 2015) Furthermore, actors in a system are not understood as sovereign agents, instead they are both able to affect and constitute problems and framings of issues, but they are also affected and constituted by these problem representations, meaning that any description of the world is limited by worldview and larger narratives (Ibid 2015). My role as a researcher given this approach is to unveil what is taken for granted, and in unpacking these assumptions, understand how they shape what futures can be imagined (Alvesson, 2003).

With this understanding of poststructuralism, we can better understand CLA. Inayatullah describes this framework of analysis as a vertical approach to the future, breaking it into four layers of meaning (Inayatullah 2002). The first layer is the litany. This refers to the “everyday understanding” of an issue – how it is described in the news, what type of data is used to talk

11 about it. At this level, understanding is often over-simplified and disconnected. The second layer is the systems perspective – here the causal links between issues are uncovered. Connections between different spheres, social, economic, technological, and ecological are made. The third layer is the worldview – what values and ideologies are part of creating this understanding of an issue. Here assumptions that are implicit in the above levels are unveiled. Inayatullah suggests multiple entry points for analysis on this level: ideological, epistemic, civilisational, as well as looking into who speaks of this issue. Unveiling the worldview will oftentimes mean unveiling contradictions - it becomes clear that our understanding of an issue is likely fragmented or inconsistent. The fourth and final layer is the myth – what deeply held beliefs, grand narratives and archetypes do we use to understand the issue? (Inayatullah, 2004).

Figure 1 – Causal layered analysis, adapted from Inayatullah 2009 This process helps us distance ourselves from the issue of focus and gives us a chance to “reimagine” the issue. In the next part of CLA, one challenges or changes the assumptions made in the third layer and explores alternative understandings of the situation. In this lies the transformative potential of the tool: once we can see the often arbitrary or contradicting assumptions of the current representation of the issue, we can more easily allow ourselves to imagine alternative representations. Inayatullah also speaks of “used futures”, ideas about the future that build on stale ideals or myths. He exemplifies this with how mobility policy might be limited to car-centred ideals, measuring progress in expansion of roads. Through CLA, new ideas about mobility can compete with the car-centric one, and new futures open up ( Inayatullah 1998) Connecting this to critical theory in general, CLA can be understood as a tool

12 of critique, in that “more than opposition to oppression or the pursuit of emancipation; it is about the identification of alternatives within the present in order to transform the present” (Delanty 2020:15).

Linking back to this study, I want to especially explore what new insights emerge when the two deepest layers of understanding are unveiled. As Inayatullah writes “normal academic analysis tends to stay in the second layer, with occasional forays into the third, seldom using the fourth layer (myth and metaphor)” (Inayatullah 2004:18). The studies that inspire this thesis (Pereira et al. 2018; Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2020; Falardeau, Raudsepp-Hearne, and Bennett 2019) all explore litany and system-level change but indeed leave worldview and myth level unexplored. Especially when attempting to enable deeper transformations, Inayatullah has argued that the deeper layers are important (Inayatullah 2008).

This project is done as part of Ljungby municipality’s climate change adaptation work and I have chosen a collaborative approach. Co-production of knowledge that accounts for the local context can help produce usable or actionable results (Meadow et al. 2015). However, proponents of critical social theory would warn that simply including local actors in the process is not enough to counter the dominance of a modernist, western-centric perspective (Agger 1991) and collaborative processes that aren’t also reflexive and critical, risk being merely symbolic or hijacked by powerful actors (Scoones and Stirling 2020). So while the local actors will have valuable insights on context-specific issues and dynamics, they are also embedded in a larger “socio-cultural world of meanings and motivations” (Lövbrand et al. 2015:214) that upholds the current order of society. Here, CLA can be vital in identifying how participants in the study “have been shaped by the perspectives they hold, often without their knowledge, and belief systems and assumptions (i.e. ideologies) that justify and maintain the status quo” (Wang, Torrisi-Steele, and Hansman 2019:238).

By adopting a critical frame, I am able to incorporate local knowledge without romanticizing it, which helps me “recognize the strengths and weaknesses both of local knowledge systems and systems based on scientific knowledge – so that a meaningful and constructive hybridization can result (Lebel, 2013 in Morchain 2018:58)

3. Case study - Ljungby municipality

Ljungby municipality is located in southern Sweden (see figure 2) in a district characterized by lakes and forests (Ljungby Kommun n.d.)

The municipality has 28 000 inhabitants, about half of them living in Ljungby central locality and the municipality’s vision is 35 000 inhabitants by 2035 (Ljungby Kommun n.d.) The highway European route E4 runs through central Ljungby but the municipality has no railway or train connections (Albinson, Rönnqvist, and Bergfors 2017). Ljungby municipality has a large industrial sector, with companies focused on trucks, machines and composites. The number of inhabitants with a college degree is lower than the national average (Ibid, 2017).

Historically, Ljungby is known for its rich oral storytelling tradition, something they’ve received a UNESCO intangible cultural heritage status for (UNESCO n.d.). The non-profit organization Berättarnätet Kronoberg, the Kronoberg Storytelling network, safeguards this heritage and runs Sagomuséet, the Museum of Legends, located in central Ljungby (‘Berättarnätet Kronoberg’ n.d.) The cultural heritage of storytelling is incorporated in this study: the final scenarios are presented as short stories, making the results accessible and engaging to a larger audience. Figure 2 - Map of Sweden, Ljungby The study was initiated by the municipality as part of their municipality marked. climate adaptation policy work, with the general idea to create a product that could guide policy discussions and decisions.

4. Method

4.1 Research approach This study combines two futures methods to test a novel approach to scenario development, combining criticality and creativity. An overview of the process is seen in figure 3.

Convertion of Data collection Communication Data analysis analysis into through of results back using CLA short stories - workshops to participants scenarios

Figure 3 - Overview of research design 4.2 Data collection: infusing collaborative workshop approach with criticality This project was initiated by the municipality as part of their climate change adaptation work, and I was recruited to conduct the study through an online advertisement. I developed the idea for the project in dialogue with the municipality and decided on a collaborative study. Data was collected through a series of workshops held in December 2020 where representatives from politics, local businesses and civil society were selected and invited by the municipality (see table 1 for details on the participants). The sessions took place digitally, using Zoom for a video meeting, and the program Miro, which works as a digital white board, where participants can write notes and make connections between statements. Box 1 presents the two methods used during the workshop in more detail. A full description of the workshop design can be found in appendix 1. Figure 6 gives an overview of the interactions with participants, including a workshop schedule.

Table 1 - Information about participants in each workshop

Day Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday

Number of participants 30 3 5 6

Representatives from: High school Civil society Civil society Social innovation class Public sector Politics projects Cultural sector Local industry Politics Agriculture Civil society Cultural sector Forestry Social innovation projects Public sector

Box 1. Futures methods used in workshop

The Manoa method was developed by Wendy Schultz (1992) and sets out to create scenarios that “maximise difference and to explore the impact of emerging issues” (Schultz, 2015:4). Starting with three emerging issues, here called “future seeds”, participants are asked to consider what each seed would look like if it was fully developed. I had prepared future seeds for participants to choose from, and in the preparatory phone interviews participants were asked to provide their own suggestions (which some did). Primary and secondary impacts and implications of these seeds are mapped out and then combined, which often creates unexpected results (Curry & Schultz, 2009). To maximize creativity, the STEEP categories are used, meaning one should consider social, technological, economic, ecological and political impacts. While results sometimes seem implausible, Schultz argues this can be seen as a strength Figure 4 - The Manoa method shows the rather than a weakness as it “exposes our blind spots, the dangerous limitations of non-linear, unexpected ways the future our assumptions” (Schultz, 2015B:2). A version of the Manoa approach has evolves. previously been employed in similar studies, (see Pereira et al. 2018; Raudsepp- Hearne et al. 2020; Falardeau, Raudsepp-Hearne, and Bennett 2019) and is suitable as it builds projections of the future grounded in niche-alternatives in the present rather than rely on large trends and predictions.

Causal layered analysis can be used both as a tool of analysis and as a workshop Litany method. In a comparative study testing multiple scenario methods, Curry and System Schultz found that running a scenario process using CLA opens up “lines of conversation which [are] more likely to draw on historical perspectives, Worldview

philosophical constructs, or cultural (and cross-cultural) references” (2009:54) and Myth “dug into and uncovered deep cultural structures while they were in mid-process: Figure 5 - CLA frames the future as vertical it was immediately apparent” (2009:56). and layered.

Workshop Before workshop Introductions Presentation of exercises, brief discussion on how A plain language statement and change can be non-linear. a consent form was sent out by email two weeks before the After workshop workshops. Causal layered analysis Writing news headlines from 2050, using the four layers of CLA to deepen the understanding of the Survey sent out a week A brief phone interview to after the workshops introduce the idea of future future seeds was held about a week before the workshop Manoa exercise Picking three "future seeds", developing future Scenario drafts sent out Two documents were sent out wheels, connecting these and discussing the three months later, with a by email a week before impacts. chance to provide describing some future trends as anonymous feedback well as a list of future seeds to through a survey or direct prepare participants for the *If time allowed* feedback by email or phone exercises. Participants were Individual time to write "a day in a life" in the asked to at least skim these and imagined future the majority said they did. Reflection Reconnecting the presented ideas about the future to present day Figure 6 - Overview of workshop process

4.3 Data analysis: Causal layered analysis – challenging barriers to transformation Scenario studies often simply compile and present workshop results without additional structured analysis (Schultz 2015; De Simone 2015). This means that statements participants make go unquestioned. This project applies a critical lens to scenario methods, and analysis of the discussions in workshops is a key part of the contribution. The analysis has the purpose of challenging and reimagining themes in discussions that the workshops revolve around.

The basic idea of CLA, how it frames our understanding of an issue as vertical, was introduced in the theory chapter. Here I present how this analytical framework is used in practice.

Figure 7 - Causal layered analysis, step by step instructions (adapted from De Simone, 2015)

All workshops (except the one with high school students) were recorded and I transcribed relevant parts of recordings (excluding introductions, technical instructions and off-topic “chit- chat”). The transcripts, along with workshop notes from Miro were used as the data for this analysis (for the workshop with high school students I only used the Miro notes). CLA can be done on both complete scenarios but also on specific issues or themes that emerge in a futures

17 workshop (Spencer & Salvatico, 2015). In this case I chose thematic analysis to better capture all ideas that were recurring and seemed important for participants. My analytical approach follows the recommended procedure of De Simone (2015) and uses inspiration from other pieces in the anthology CLA 2.0 – Transformative research in theory and practice (Inayatullah and Milojević 2015)

4.3.1 Coding workshop notes into themes The first step in the analysis is to identify themes that are recurring in discussions, and code statements made by participants from transcripts/workshop notes into these themes. I used an open thematic coding approach and refined the themes along the way. There are two parallel categorization processes, deciding which theme a statement refers to, and deciding which layer of understanding the statement falls under. “For example, the use of a metaphor would be coded as relevant to the myth/metaphor layer, a reference to social structures such as family, the local community or government would have relevance to the social causes [system] layer” (Bishop, Dzidic, and Breen 2015:164)

4.3.2 Uncovering layer of understanding in each theme The coding unveils categories of interest, themes or ideas participants keep referring to. The full analysis of these required me as a researcher to interpret statements to unveil the layers to these themes. For this I used De Simone’s probing questions (2015:487-489). This process of interpretation was reliant on my own assumptions and understanding. The reasoning behind each theme can be found in appendix 4.

4.3.3 Challenging the worldview After this I went on to challenge and develop alternatives to the identified themes. I used De Simone’s “Navigation questions to uncover alternate ways of knowing” (2015:489). This starts by challenging the worldview and assumption an issue relies on. De Simone suggests a range of possible worldviews/discourses that can be used as an alternative.

4.3.4 Re-envisioning the myth – reimagining the issue The next step is to reimagine the myth. Once the myth has been transformed, the other layers can be reimagined, and a contrasting layered understanding has been created. These reimagined themes are results in themselves, but they are also key when developing the final scenarios. An example of an identified and reimagined theme is seen on the next page, in table 2.

Table 2 - Example of CLA: questions to guide the analysis (adapted from De Simone) and examples of answers from my own analysis.

Layer Example of questions Example of original theme Example of reimagined theme

Litany What are “off the cuff There are not enough young There are not enough remarks”? politicians. political spaces and opportunities for young people. What are disconnected People do not care about statements with simplified politics; we need to make it solutions? more attractive to be politically involved.

System What are the underlying Lacking incentives to get The system does not allow causes for this issue, how did involved in politics, a negative for broad engagement or it supposably come about? feedback loop: the wrong representation. Change the people are there for the wrong system, not just the reasons, making it harder for incentives. Create multiple the right people to do good. ways to be involved in politics. Worldview What is assumed or seen as Some people are more suited Democracy is about letting obvious? What is taken for for political positions, people everyone be heard, not about granted or not mentioned? need political representatives convincing “born leaders” to to make decisions for them. take on the responsibility.

What worldview does this Elitist Radically democratic reflect?

Myth What larger narrative does Some people are “born to All people can be politically this issue fit into? lead”. active, political engagement as a renewable resource. What idioms or metaphors are used to talk about it? Political engagement is a finite “Let the political bloom”. resource.

4.4 Dissemination of results – connecting back to the local context through stories Rhisiart and colleagues suggest scenarios “need to be solidly-based but also attractive for communication – for both technical experts and non-technical audiences” (Rhisiart, Störmer, and Daheim 2017:212) and Vervoort and Gupta write “questions of scenario circulation and reception, have not received adequate attention or resources” (2018:105) To make the scenarios accessible I collaborated with the local storytelling network Berättarnätet Kronoberg, I converted the results from the analysis into scenarios framed as short stories (Spencer and Salvatico 2015:80) The story-format is highly suitable as it connects the project to the tradition of oral storytelling in and around Ljungby.

The collaboration was done through shared online documents and video calls where we discussed and processed the form and content of the scenarios to fit the context. The storytellers were not only helpful in translating concepts to story elements, they also responded to suggestions and information as “non-experts'', helping to identify what details or causal links were difficult to understand.

4.5 Limitations of method This project pilots a new combination of methods built on a theoretical contribution to the emerging field of transformation research. It is also a transdisciplinary project which interacts with local knowledge, culture and needs. There are however several limitations to address.

Some practical adjustments could have improved the overall results. Scheduling more time for the workshops could have provided more detailed, in-depth data. Having sessions scheduled over multiple days allowed previous projects to build trust and shared understanding (Pereira et al. 2018; Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2020; Falardeau, Raudsepp-Hearne, and Bennett 2019). Especially as using CLA in workshop settings has been recognized as quite advanced (Minkkinen, Heinonen, and Parkkinen 2019) the process would have benefitted from additional time. The online format likely also had a big impact on creativity and overall engagement.

Another parameter to consider is the participants. In a previous, similar study, Raudsepp- Hearne and colleagues write that their participants appeared to have similar ideas and value systems and suggest that “it would be useful to test how the process responds to a greater variety of value systems that might be in conflict” (Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2020:614) Based on this, I wanted to include people with diverse perspectives and different levels of interest in sustainability issues. This diversity is especially relevant given the use of CLA, as this method has been more effective when used in a group with diverse value systems, to maximize reflexivity and contrast between different worldviews and assumptions (Inayatullah 2004; Curry and Schultz 2009)

Despite the ambition to invite actors with different perspectives, many participants, even those who were invited as representatives from civil society or a private business, had affiliations with mainstream political parties and were familiar to each other. This could explain why the workshops generally lacked real conflict and contrasting ideas. In future research, more attention must be given to who is represented in these processes. Here I was also dependent on the networks of my contacts at the municipality. That said, no matter how inclusive the invitation list is, not everyone is able or willing to take a full day to participate in such a process,

20 so there is an inherent trade-off when scheduling such an event. More time allows for deeper learning, but less time makes attending the workshop attainable for a bigger audience. Finally, it could be worth considering that Ljungby as a Swedish rural municipality might be quite homogenous in terms of value systems and worldview. Applying this approach in another, more diverse community, might yield different results.

Another limitation comes from doing research in an emerging field – research on sustainability transformations – that in turn uses methods from a highly transdisciplinary field, futures studies. Futures methods such as scenarios were first developed by practitioners, not in academia, and when using these methods researchers sometimes end up “reinventing the wheel” (Wilkinson 2009). The CLA framework bears similarities to The Iceberg Model, which was developed by Goodman (1997) and is already used in sustainability science (see for example Reyers, Moore, and Merrie (2017). CLA could be seen as a framework that connects the practical futures method iceberg model with (critical) theory. Another research strand this thesis’ could have better incorporated is anticipatory climate governance (Muiderman et al. 2020), which shares similar objectives and problem formulations. The issue of a fragmentation within scenario research has been acknowledged before (Oteros-Rozas et al. 2015) but there are promising initiatives that compile scenario studies and facilitate learning across and beyond disciplines (‘Biosphere Futures’ n.d.).

Finally, there are ethical aspects to consider. CLA is designed to unveil and reimagine deeply held beliefs. While it does not set out to criticize people it could be experienced as uncomfortable for participants that I, as an outsider, critically examine their comments and ideas. I have considered this throughout the process and included multiple opportunities for participants to react and reflect on the process to enable a sort of dialogue (see figure 6). Drawing on previous CLA studies, I would also argue a certain level of discomfort is a necessary part when being confronted with contradictions in one's deeply held beliefs, so there is no way of fully mitigating this risk (see for example Inayatullah 2004; Lowe 2015).

5. Results

The results consist of three components – the causal layered analysis, the final scenarios and the reactions and reflections from participants. On the next page, table 3 gives an overview of the CLA: the original understanding of each theme and the reimagined version. Detailed description of analysis and each analysed theme can be found in appendix 4. In section 5.2 I present the final scenarios and explain how these incorporate the analysis. Section 5.3 describes the responses from participants, both to the workshops and the final scenarios.

5.1 Overview of causal layered analysis Table 3 - Themes identified in workshops analysed using CLA

Theme Original framing of theme Reimagined framing of theme Used in

Deep ecology We must reconnect to our roots We must be prepared to adapt to new soil

Political subjects Political participation is seen as a scarce resource Political engagement is seen as a renewable resource and objects Scenario A

Digitalization leaves some groups behind Digitalisation and Automatization and digitalisation have potential to free up time social relations and energy Social media and digitalisation create shallow social relations

Homo economicus The citizen is framed as a rational, self-interested, actor, a consumer The citizen can be a heterogenous actor

Urban rural divide Ljungby must work to remain viable in an ever more competitive Ljungby needs to go its own way into a sustainable future Scenario B world

Tragedy of the Individual responsibility is both highlighted and believed to be Emergent properties and feedback loops, collective action has commons insufficient potential The next generation has the tools and will to mitigate and adapt to This generation has the knowledge and capacity to spare the next Scenario C Children are the climate change generation from a losing battle future

Scenario A Western-centric The west must enable sustainable growth globally The west must critically assess their motives and merits to lead Scenario B sustainability Scenario C

2329

5.2 Scenarios – introducing the final stories The following sections present excerpts from the final scenarios and give a summary of each story. A central question that emerged in the workshops is: what could Ljungby be in the future? And consequently, what is Ljungby today? The participants present different ideas: one person says “a good municipality to live in, maybe we are 35,000 in 2035 and 70,000 in 2050! We need to be many and have revenue” (workshop 2, from now on referred to as W2) but there is simultaneously an idea “that we want to live less crowded” (W3) and “On a small scale, small things can have a huge effect. Small-scale feels very hopeful” (W3). These conflicting visions illustrate how the myths we hold are often contradicting. Staying small is what makes Ljungby the friendly, attractive municipality it is, but growing bigger is perceived as the ultimate sign of success.

The scenarios explore radically different trajectories for the municipality. They all incorporate themes from the CLA and are designed to urge readers to confront their assumptions about what is possible and desirable.

5.2.1 Scenario A – A new story

Box 2 – Excerpt from scenario A

We gather at twilight, even with a light drizzle falling. My smart, water-repellent pants make the moss feel soft, not cold and wet. Dusk falls quickly in November, but solar-powered lanterns in the canopy give off a dim light, enough to illuminate the clearing without disturbing other creatures in the forest. Friya sits on my lap, Frej is here with a group of friends, but waves at us when he thinks the others aren’t looking. Aaranyak begins, even if we can’t see him from where we are sitting, his voice softly reverberates through my earpiece.

"We gathered at this place 11 years ago. We started a conversation that one night in June. Tonight it continues."

Then he hands over. Every storytelling session starts like this. I wasn’t there, 11 years ago, but I know the story. It was at its worst, the municipal politicians had given up, the global market was in a deep crisis and food supply was under threat. I remember how I tried to grow potatoes in our garden to prepare the family for empty store shelves. How the delicate leaves shrivelled in the heat...

The first scenario builds on the storytelling tradition of the municipality. In this scenario climate refugees from Bangladesh are given asylum in Ljungby around 2035. The local institutions are strained and unstable flows of goods, including food, create even more conflict and crisis in Ljungby. The turning point is a meeting between native storytellers and refugees in a local nature reserve. Through stories the groups can find common ground. Once the new Ljungby residents are finally heard, things take a turn for the better. The changing climate resembles parts of “old Bangladesh”, so through memories and stories new ecosystem Figure 8 – In scenario A, nature and management and agricultural practices can emerge. storytelling enable memories and knowledge to be shared

Table 4 - CLA results that informed scenario A

Theme Reimagined theme How the theme is expressed in the scenario Political subjects Let the political bloom The scenario portrays an “unrealistic” level of political and objects engagement, with deliberative processes that everyone can participate in, challenging the notion that political engagement is a scarce, finite resource. Deep ecology Reconnect to the The scenario revolves around nature changing to the point that biosphere traditional knowledge from Ljungby no longer applies. This aims to show the social-ecological system as complex and adaptive.

Western-centric Solidarity out of The scenario describes the integration of different cultures, and sustainability vulnerability the dissolvement of geography adhering to culture and the end of Ljungby as a homogenous community. It shows the vulnerability of all in the face of climate change and the need for solidarity. Digitalization and Automatization Through highlighting technological development that does not social relations without alienation drive us to move our lives online, but rather facilitate more balanced work/leisure arrangements, the scenario challenges the idea that digitalization must be unnatural or unhealthy.

5.2.2 Scenario B – The only way

Box 3 – Excerpt from scenario B I have a degree in bio-production and work at a plantation in Southern Sweden. It was called Ljungby back in the day, but it’s like any other place. We have great connections to Copenhagen and good air quality thanks to the plantations. Oh, and if you’re a nature person you’ll love the Postnord facility. Postnordic experience, 4000 square meters of tropical forest. I have a yearly subscription, it’s such a great place for getting out of the city for a while and get a “tonic of wildness”. I think you can never have enough of nature!

The second scenario is designed as a type of generic capitalist utopia, which Milojevic describes as “unlimited consumption, limitless choices, and ever-increasing growth and progress […] where new wealth and products are constantly being created. This is being done both through technological and economic innovations, as well as through the colonization of nature, lands, peoples, and space” (Milojević 2004:265) The scenario embodies this colonisation and exploitation by assuming the EU in this future has closed its borders and focused only on national climate change adaptation and self-sufficiency. In a top- down transformation both local identities and human nature relations are wiped out. The story is presented as a dating profile and aims to capture the ambiguous feelings the young protagonist has toward society. This is set out to reflect the combination of a lack of enthusiasm yet a sense of inevitability many of the participants express when talking about a highly technologically, technocratically developed world. Figure 9 – Scenario B explores a technocentric, top-down transition into “sustainability” Table 5 - CLA results that informed scenario B

Theme Reimagined issue How the issue is expressed in the scenario

Homo Human – the only The scenario incorporates high-status future technologies but goes economicus animal with on to ask whether this type of development increases wellbeing. imagination

Western-centric Solidarity out of The scenario doesn’t go into detail, but the reader is given a hint sustainability vulnerability that this transition has not been just, and that this western “sustainable” wellbeing has come at the expense of others.

Urban rural Suburban degrowth The scenario explores how political boundaries can be rearranged divide so that the rural no longer struggles to remain viable, but instead ceases to be.

5.2.3 Scenario C – Something unimaginable

Box 4 – Excerpt from scenario C

After years of mild winters and dry summers, a spark has set the spruce It started years ago, with the idea to challenge everything we've taken and larch forests on fire. It spreads from Vittaryd down to Markaryd. for granted […] After Covid-19, we realized how much we need each Holiday homes along Bolmen beach are swallowed by flames, residents other. The big obstacle to change was coordination. Many of us had are evacuated in boats. 600 people die. The rest see family farms, wanted this change for a long time, but when you did it yourself, it preschools and life savings go up in smoke. Fire rage all across Europe became overpowering. this summer. We knew that climate change would make certain places on Earth uninhabitable. [...]

We didn't think Ljungby would be one of them. And so, we created the future together. Fire rage in Småland this summer, but the extinguishing work is underway. We are prepared.

Finally, the third scenario depicts a forest fire, set already in 2033 (80 years after a big fire in Ljungby 1953). The scenario presents two versions of the same fire, showing the effects of two different approaches, one where the municipality waits for coordinated action and one where they lead the change. Without local climate action the whole area is burnt to the ground and inhabitants must seek refuge in other parts of the country. In the second version, the community has prepared, a “sharing central” has allowed for smart planning. Coordinated investments in climate adaptation, focused on water management has allowed for a resilient social-ecological system, so the fire is kept manageable. The scenario is constructed to show the cost of not acting and also bring Figure 10 - Scenario C emphasises the need for local climate action, showing a abstract concepts like “extreme weather events” closer to home. kind of “worst case scenario”.

Table 6 - CLA results that informed scenario C

Theme Reimagined issue How the issue is expressed in the scenario

Tragedy of the Mighty oaks from little The scenario rejects the idea that climate action requires large commons acorns grow scale coordination and “everyone must be willing to change” and instead explores the cost of not acting, even in a world with climate change surpassing 2 degrees.

Children are the Ignorance is bliss The scenario highlights how waiting for the next generation to future act will have disastrous consequences.

Western-centric Solidarity out of The scenario takes the issues participants see globally and places sustainability vulnerability them closer to home. By emphasizing the vulnerability of Ljungby the idea is to accentuate that climate change is a national and local threat, not just something that happens somewhere else.

5.3. Responses and reflections from participants Participants had two opportunities to provide feedback, after the workshop and after reading the final scenarios. Right after the workshops (n=38, see survey in appendix 2) a vast majority answered that they learnt something new during the workshop and that they found the exercises thought-provoking and interesting. However, a majority answered no to the question “did you reconsider or change your opinion on any issue?”. With this feedback I was motivated to fully embrace CLA to make the final scenarios more challenging.

Once the stories were presented to participants, they were again asked to provide feedback. This time not as many people replied (n=10, see survey in appendix 3). The reactions were quite diverse, especially illustrated by comments on scenario B. While some described it as “lonely” and “cold and egocentric”, others welcomed the technological development and said the “changing norms feels like a success factor”. Regardless of desirability, quite a few respondents expressed that this future seemed likely. “Unfortunately, I think the most realistic future is scenario B, “the only way” and “there’s a big risk this happens given the current political climate”.

The responses suggest the final scenarios were surprising and thought-provoking, one person wrote “even if I’m used to thinking outside the box these scenarios open up thought directions and ideas that I don’t usually have”. The responses also suggested that the scenarios “hit close to home” and that the story format helped in making the results more accessible and immersive. One said “It’s striking to read in these rather dystopian texts words such as Marsjö and Markaryd. It strikes a chord. That this is us and it’s happening here”.

One response captured the essence of the project, hinting that the study indeed opened up the future and enabled a sense of agency:

“[The scenarios] actually feel largely "unrealistic", but this in turn highlights the idea that even the most unrealistic things can happen. Who would have thought that a pandemic could cripple the whole world? Who would have thought that Sweden would have to ask for international help to put out forest fires? The unexpected happens - together we can face it!

6. Discussion

In this chapter I connect the results to the research questions. In 6.1, building on the overview of CLA in section 5.1, I answer RQ1a by discussing some of the identified themes and how they can be understood as limiting imagination. In 6.2 I discuss how the participants affected and were affected by the process, answering RQ1b. In 6.3, I connect this case study back to the larger field of research on sustainability transformations and suggest that the critical approach used here can benefit future research with transformative ambitions, answering RQ2.

RQ1. a. What climate change narratives do Ljungby residents use when creating future scenarios for their hometown? b. What happens when these narratives are reimagined?

RQ2. How can methods from critical futures studies enable more transformative scenario processes?

6.1 What climate change narratives do Ljungby residents use when creating future scenarios for their hometown? I will here highlight some themes from the analysis that could be seen as barriers to change – deeply held beliefs that made certain futures seem impossible. I also describe how these were challenged.

6.1.1 Myths as barriers to imagination

“The challenge [of CLA] is to reveal how the deeply held beliefs within each of these worldviews valorise certain approaches over others and how their language and ways of processing information privilege and reinforce current practices in unconscious ways. Conversely the alternate worldviews provide the ‘space’ for considering different approaches and achieving real transformation”

(De Simone 2015:489).

A central myth which reverberates through the workshops is that of the rational, self-interested human, the homo economicus. It is presented in statements as: “We won't want to do it ourselves, we're too comfortable and lazy for it” (W2) and “people work that way, what you don't know you are naturally afraid of” (W3), and “We are not as developed as we think, as humans, I mean you think about yourself (W3). Using De Simones logic, when we assume humans are naturally and irreparably self-interested and incurious, we are limited to solutions that account for this. When someone suggests collaborative solutions, this myth makes such an idea seem naïve. When a participant says, “we are all part of the municipality, it is only individuals, as with a company, there is no anonymous company, it is only individuals” (W3) she exemplifies what Blühdorn describes as replacing the “idea of collective reason and reasoning with the articulation and aggregation of individualistic interests, emotions, and fears” (2020:51). This change, Blühdorn argues, undermines democratic systems capacities. This resonates with how in the workshops, most suggestions for how the political process can be improved revolve around making it quicker and easier “You send out a text quickly and easily” (W3) and “there should be other, shorter, more efficient political processes” (W3).

It can be contrasted with Lövbrand and colleagues call: “to re-politicize the Anthropocene” by “fostering a vibrant public space where manifold and divergent socio-ecological relations and nature concepts can be exposed and debated” (Lövbrand et al. 2015:216) When reimagining the myth, I thus suggest political engagement could be like an organism, that if given the right nourishment and time can grow much larger and include a larger portion of the population. When imagining the issue this way, the challenge is no longer to find quick, effective ways to govern to take as little time as possible from rational, self-interested people, but rather to create engaging, attentive platforms for political discussions and foster political engagement. In reimagining it this way, new opportunities for action emerge and the future opens up.

6.1.2 Imagination - framing, contesting and bringing the future into being

[Our imagination is] a site of interplay between material and perceptual worlds, where concepts cohere, forces pull and attract, and things, discourses, subjects, and objects are framed, contested, and brought into being. (Yusoff and Gabrys 2011:517)

The interplay Yusoff and Gabrys describe is unveiled in the CLA, as the identified myths often contradict each other. An example of this is the “western-centric” worldview some participants seem to hold which multiple times collides with the notion of climate change. It is captured in this comment “[we need to] share our level of technology, which we still have in the West, if we can use it to help these countries that have not come so far to develop in a different way than what we have done. Without this part of destroying the environment along the way” (W2). In the same sentence the participant admits that “the western” development trajectory has been unsustainable, but still argues future development should be led by “the west”. Climate change can here be understood as a disruption of well-established truths: international trade is good, rational individuals being free to decide for themselves is good, children can solve tomorrow’s problems, growth can be green. Climate change seems incompatible with these deeply held beliefs, and there are moments in the workshops where participants reflect on this collision of myths, in statements like “The reason it gets warmer is... Consumerism” (W2) and “I've found myself thinking that maybe it should be higher taxes and taxes, and it's totally the opposite of what I normally think” (W2). It is in these moments, where participants distance themselves from their assumptions, that imagination can be widened, and transformations become possible.

Another example of such a contradictory myth is the “children are the future” narrative that is common in discussions (notably in all workshops except the one for high school students). The contradiction between the expressed belief in the capacity and promise of young people and the lack of suggestions for how to actually allocate more power to youth could be seen as an example of what Delanty calls “a false consciousness” (2020:15). Delanty writes that “the Frankfurt School theorists held that social reality was contradictory and that the seeds of future possibility were contained within the struggles of the present. These ideas […] represent both future potential and a false consciousness in that they do not appear to members of society as having a transformative potential, and consequently they take only an ideological form in that they end up affirming the status quo” (Ibid 2020:15) Some participants actually highlight this false consciousness, these contradictions. One says “[people say] "of course we will send the young people forward" but at the same time it should be done in the same way as it has always done” (W3) and another “We are going to invest in children and young people, we have that as a goal, but Kulturskolan1 doesn’t get more money. So there's a lot that's not right and a lot of things that are weird. It rhymes very poorly and we need to get our act together” (W1).

1 Kulturskolan is a public institution (available in most municipalities) that offers subsidized courses in music, dance, theater etc. for children.

The task for me has been to not only question the dominant, uncontested myths, but also to pick up on the “local points of resistance” (Flodin and Johansson 2019:3) found in the moments when participants acknowledge the contradictions in their myths. One example is when the group in workshop 2 agree that non-commercially organized collective housing is unrealistic, but one participant disagrees and says, “In Denmark you have a lot of collectives, there you get it to work in some way and there they have perhaps come further in their thinking in some way”. (W2). The same person also says “we have different conditions and thoughts. Initially with the leisure bank2, it was first those who had less money who got there, but then more people could realize that they can also borrow and that it can be lovely” (W2). In these statements she rejects the dominant narrative and dares to imagine an alternative. Lövbrand and colleagues might say that imaginaries like these “help us to reposition ‘the human’ as a heterogeneous social and political subject and hereby re-connect the Anthropocene to ‘the realm of immediacy where meaningful action is possible and most likely to be effective’ (Litfin 1997 in Lövbrand et al. 2015:216).

6.2 What happens when dominant narratives are reimagined? The workshops gave space for participants to consider, compare and combine their visions and predictions for the future of Ljungby. The analysis I conducted challenged a lot of these visions and predictions. The final scenarios capture a kind of dialogue between me and the participants. A relevant question to ask is: what did the participants think of this? Were they really interested in changing their ideas to enable transformative change?

Like I discussed in the previous section, there were underlying assumptions and myths that limit imagination. It might be worth considering who among participants express these ideas most. Here I quote some participating politicians, people who hold power within the community and likely want to uphold the status quo. A lack of interest in more radical change is reflected in statements that normalize and promote the status quo, like these “We already do quite a lot today, for example, I share lawn mowers with the neighbour. And then I feel like we're already doing this kind of thing a lot, maybe we can live the way we do, but we have virtual systems for renting and borrowing.” (W2) and “It’s so easy to sit around and say, [to politicians] “why don’t you do this or that” but that has consequences” (W3). Collaborative scenario processes

2 “Fritidsbanken” is a concept of setting up a collection of toys, clothes, etc. that people can borrow for free. Ljungby municipality used to have such a collection.

32 focusing on local issues have the potential of empowering communities and enabling climate action (Enfors et al. 2008) but I argue the comments cited above show that it might also uphold the current system. This shows the importance of a critical and reflexive framing that can de- romanticize and recontextualise local understanding.

CLA helps show how many participants seem to build their understanding of certain issues around myths or with a worldview that limits their own agency and responsibility while downplaying the cost of not acting. One participant expresses this by saying “there is plenty of information, but we somehow need common stories about the future, and that is a point of this workshop as well, to get people involved in this, somehow to want to be part of a new world. One which we cannot yet imagine.” (W2). The CLA was used to unveil and reimagine the underlying myths which informed the scenarios, so that these, in different ways, encourage readers to “rethink their assumptions and […] embrace their roles as change agents and engage in critical reflection” (Wang, Torrisi-Steele, and Hansman 2019) The reactions to the scenarios suggest that the scenarios evoked questions and ideas, but also emotional responses. Here the impact of the format, presenting the scenarios as immersive stories, should be acknowledged. The power of storytelling in futures studies has been highlighted many times (Milojević and Izgarjan 2014; Burnam-Fink 2015; Cornell et al. 2013; Merrie et al. 2018; Wangel et al. 2019), and in Ljungby storytelling is also part of the community’s identity.

With this said, a lot of the survey responses further perpetuated the ideas that the scenarios had set out to challenge, showing that these dominant myths are deeply rooted. As an example, one participant rejects the alternative governance structure in scenario A, calling it “fragmented and difficult to govern”, perhaps again reflecting the worldview that political processes should be effective and top-down.

This leads back to the question: do participants actually want transformative change? The CLA shows the inconsistencies and contradictions in the discussions, suggesting that there is likely no coherent, consistent idea of what participants want or believe the future will be like. An interesting addition to the study would have been to hold another, reflexive session with the participants, where they could compare and discuss their reactions to the final scenarios, perhaps even through another round of CLA.

6.3 How can methods from critical futures studies enable more transformative scenario processes? In this section I reconnect the study to the bigger question of research on sustainability transformations, suggesting that CLA in particular but also critical perspectives in general, can add new insights and enable more imaginative, transformative spaces for thinking about the future.

Scenario studies are about plurality, seeing the many possibilities and trajectories rather than assuming one single future is set. This study showed how in a scenario workshop, even when participants are urged to think radically and creatively, they are constrained by myths about “how the world works”. Even when responding to the final scenarios many participants said they preferred scenario A and C but believed scenario B was more realistic, showing that these ideas about the rational, self-interested human are deeply rooted. This could maybe be seen as what some have called the “imaginary crisis” (Mulgan 2020) where we have surrendered to a story about ourselves that we admit is disappointing, and where “we are caught in a trap of small visions, and a disappearance of hope” (Pollock 2017) Inayatullah would say we are hung up on “used futures”, narratives of the future that no longer serve us (Inayatullah 1998).

Applying CLA helped unveil assumptions and enabled me to create stories that explicitly challenged the myths participants expressed. I see potential for using the tool as a heuristic to incorporate critical reflection in scenario processes of all kinds. Connecting back to the studies that inspired this one (Pereira et al. 2018; Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2020; Falardeau, Raudsepp- Hearne, and Bennett 2019) a recurring problem is that the different scenarios end up too similar, which Raudsepp-Hearne and colleagues write may be because participants often share values and worldviews. CLA could, just like it did in this study, help avoid this, by forcing researchers and participants alike to challenge their assumptions and reimagine their myths to enable truly diverse visions of the future.

Vervoort and Gupta have, similarly to here, used a critical social theory lens on futures methods and suggest “the design of more democratic foresight processes also comes to the fore as a key challenge” (Vervoort and Gupta 2018:106). As discussed earlier, the workshops in this study mostly included actors who in one way or another have influence and power within the current system and who can be expected to defend and uphold the status quo. An area for future research is how the overall population of Ljungby reacts to the scenarios. Connecting this to imagination, Moore and Milkoreit write the “capacity to imagine the present or the future might be

34 distributed unevenly [...] this type of unevenness may or may not follow the well-known patterns of inequality present in societies.” (Moore and Milkoreit 2020:11) I would argue this shows the importance of disseminating the scenarios to a larger audience, inviting more people to partake in the discussion, which is why the stories will be developed into performances and presented at the local Storytelling Festival in Ljungby in August 2021.

This project has produced scenarios that attempt to open up the future. It can be seen as a reaction to the tendency “to ‘‘close down’’ too rapidly to a small set of decision alternatives by reconfiguring uncertainty into more manageable, but inappropriately narrow, calculations of risk and cost-benefit equations” (Stirling 2006:376). The final scenarios highlight the uncertainties of the future rather than establish clear alternatives or policy options, which could create some frustration. At the same time Stirling and Scoones have suggested that, “uncertainties can also generate hope, creativity, curiosity, entrepreneurship, discovery, innovation and epistemic humility – and so possibilities for emancipatory democratic transformation" (Scoones and Stirling 2020:20). Applying a critical perspective can help keep researchers and policy makers alike reflexive and aware of the intrinsically uncertain and political nature of the future. By building capacity to think creatively and critically, we can imagine, and when needed, reimagine what future we want.

7. Conclusion

This study suggests research on sustainability transformations should further engage with critical social theory. Through a literature review I linked emerging principles and approaches in research on sustainability transformations to the field of critical social theory, showing how the latter can offer valuable perspectives in the former. I then situated this study in the context of futures studies that aim to enable transformations toward sustainability, using a case study of local climate change scenarios in Ljungby municipality, Sweden. I piloted a novel scenario workshop approach, which incorporated a critical futures method, CLA. Including CLA in the process was shown to increase the transformative potential of the study. I coupled this theoretical and methodological exploration with a transdisciplinary contribution, as the study incorporated local knowledge and culture to produce context-relevant results – the final scenarios are a set of short stories, inspired by the rich storytelling tradition of the area.

Results showed multiple underlying assumptions and myths about “how the world works” that could be expected to limit participants' ability to think openly about different futures. Furthermore, the reactions to the final scenarios, where these underlying ideas had been subverted or reimagined, showed that participants’ ability to imagine new futures had expanded. The study therefore concludes critical perspectives could help increase reflexivity and imaginative capacity, and thus enable more transformative scenario processes.

8. Bibliography

Adger, W. Neil, Suraje Dessai, Marisa Goulden, Mike Hulme, Irene Lorenzoni, Donald R. Nelson, Lars Otto Naess, Johanna Wolf, and Anita Wreford. 2009. ‘Are There Social Limits to Adaptation to Climate Change?’ Climatic Change 93 (3–4): 335–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z. Agger, Ben. 1991. ‘Critical Theory, Poststructuralism, Postmodernism: Their Sociological Relevance’. Annual Review of Sociology 17 (1): 105–31. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.17.080191.000541. Ahlqvist, Toni, and Martin Rhisiart. 2015. ‘Emerging Pathways for Critical Futures Research: Changing Contexts and Impacts of Social Theory’. Futures 71 (August): 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.07.012. Albinson, Peter, Sofia Rönnqvist, and Erik Bergfors. 2017. ‘OMVÄRLDSBEVAKNING FÖR LJUNGBY KOMMUN 2017-10-04’. Alexander, Samuel, and Brendan Gleeson. 2019. Degrowth in the Suburbs: A Radical Urban Imaginary. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2131-3. Alvesson, Mats, and Jörgen Sandberg. 2011. ‘Generating Research Questions through Problematization’. Academy of Management Review 36 (2): 247–71. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.59330882. Alvesson, Mats, and Sven-Erik Torhell. 2003. Postmodernism Och Samhällsforskning. Malmö: Liber ekonomi. Bacchi, Carol. 2015. ‘The Turn to Problematization: Political Implications of Contrasting Interpretive and Poststructural Adaptations’. Open Journal of Political Science 05 (01): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojps.2015.51001. ‘Berättarnätet Kronoberg’. n.d. Sagobygden (blog). Accessed 18 May 2021. https://sagobygden.se/sv/berattarnatet-kronoberg/. Bishop, Brian John, Peta Dzidic, and Lauren Breen. 2015. ‘Causal Layered Analysis as a Tool for Policy: The Case Study of Australian Agricultural Policy’. CLA 2.0: Transformative Research in Theory and Practice, 163–71. Blühdorn, Ingolfur. 2020. ‘The Legitimation Crisis of Democracy: Emancipatory Politics, the Environmental State and the Glass Ceiling to Socio-Ecological Transformation’. Environmental Politics 29 (1): 38–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1681867.

Blythe, Jessica, Jennifer Silver, Louisa Evans, Derek Armitage, Nathan J. Bennett, Michele- Lee Moore, Tiffany H. Morrison, and Katrina Brown. 2018. ‘The Dark Side of Transformation: Latent Risks in Contemporary Sustainability Discourse’. Antipode 50 (5): 1206–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12405. Burnam-Fink, Michael. 2015. ‘Creating Narrative Scenarios: Science Fiction Prototyping at Emerge’. Futures 70 (June): 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.12.005. Caniglia, Guido, C. Luederitz, T. von Wirth, I. Fazey, B. Martín-López, K. Hondrila, A. König, et al. 2021. ‘A Pluralistic and Integrated Approach to Action-Oriented Knowledge for Sustainability’. Nature Sustainability 4 (2): 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00616-z. Cooper, Melinda. 2010. ‘Turbulent Worlds’. Theory, Culture & Society 27 (2–3): 167–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409358727. Cornell, Sarah, Frans Berkhout, Willemijn Tuinstra, J. David Tàbara, Jill Jäger, Ilan Chabay, Bert de Wit, et al. 2013. ‘Opening up Knowledge Systems for Better Responses to Global Environmental Change’. Environmental Science & Policy 28 (April): 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.008. Curry, A., and W. Schultz. 2009. ‘Roads Less Travelled: Different Methods, Different Futures’. Undefined. /paper/Roads-Less-Travelled%3A-Different-Methods%2C- Different-Curry-Schultz/fc73132a09cb7be8051427c7dd1db74aa8fb6607. Daffara, Phillip. 2004. ‘Sustainable City Futures’. In The Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) Reader: Theory and Case Studies of an Integrative and Transformative Methodology, 424–38. De Simone, S. 2015. ‘Causal Layered Analysis: A “Cookbook” Approach’. CLA 2.0: Transformative Research in Theory and Practice, 484–95. Death, Carl, ed. 2014. Critical Environmental Politics. Interventions. London ; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Delanty, Gerard. 2020. Critical Theory and Social Transformation: Crises of the Present and Future Possibilities. 1st ed. Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2020.: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429297045. Dunn Cavelty, Myriam. 2020. ‘From Predicting to Forecasting: Uncertainties, Scenarios, and Their (Un-)Intended Side Effects’. Application/pdf. In , 15 p. ETH Zurich. https://doi.org/10.3929/ETHZ-B-000424200. Enfors, Elin, Line Gordon, Garry Peterson, and Deborah Bossio. 2008. ‘Making Investments in Dryland Development Work: Participatory Scenario Planning in the Makanya

Catchment, Tanzania’. Ecology and Society 13 (2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02649- 130242. Falardeau, Marianne, Ciara Raudsepp-Hearne, and Elena M. Bennett. 2019. ‘A Novel Approach for Co-Producing Positive Scenarios That Explore Agency: Case Study from the Canadian Arctic’. Sustainability Science 14 (1): 205–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0620-z. Fazey, Ioan, Peter Moug, Simon Allen, Kate Beckmann, David Blackwood, Mike Bonaventura, Kathryn Burnett, et al. 2018. ‘Transformation in a Changing Climate: A Research Agenda’. Climate and Development 10 (3): 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2017.1301864. Fazey, Ioan, Niko Schäpke, Guido Caniglia, Anthony Hodgson, Ian Kendrick, Christopher Lyon, Glenn Page, et al. 2020. ‘Transforming Knowledge Systems for Life on Earth: Visions of Future Systems and How to Get There’. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (December): 101724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101724. Fazey, Ioan, Niko Schäpke, Guido Caniglia, James Patterson, Johan Hultman, Barbara van Mierlo, Filippa Säwe, et al. 2018. ‘Ten Essentials for Action-Oriented and Second Order Energy Transitions, Transformations and Climate Change Research’. Energy Research & Social Science 40 (June): 54–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.026. Feola, Giuseppe. 2015. ‘Societal Transformation in Response to Global Environmental Change: A Review of Emerging Concepts’. Ambio 44 (5): 376–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0582-z. Flodin, Camilla, and Sven Anders Johansson. 2019. ‘Introduction to Special Issue : Adorno and the Anthropocene’. Adorno Studies 3 (1): i–iv. Folke, Carl, Åsa Jansson, Johan Rockström, Per Olsson, Stephen R. Carpenter, F. Stuart Chapin, Anne-Sophie Crépin, et al. 2011. ‘Reconnecting to the Biosphere’. AMBIO 40 (7): 719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0184-y. Gelder, Frederik van. 2007. Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment. Goodman, Michael. 1997. ‘SYSTEMS THINKING: WHAT,WHY,WHEN,WHERE, AND HOW?’ The Systems Thinker 8 (2). Gottschlich, Daniela, and Leonie Bellina. 2017. ‘Environmental Justice and Care: Critical Emancipatory Contributions to Sustainability Discourse’. Agriculture and Human Values 34 (4): 941–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9761-9. Hebinck, Aniek, Joost M. Vervoort, Paul Hebinck, Lucas Rutting, and Francesca Galli. 2018. ‘Imagining Transformative Futures: Participatory Foresight for Food Systems

Change’. Ecology and Society 23 (2): art16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10054- 230216. ‘Home’. n.d. Biosphere Futures. Accessed 19 May 2021. https://www.biospherefutures.net. Horkheimer, Max. 1972. Critical Theory: Selected Essays. A&C Black. Inayatullah. 2013. ‘Futures Studies: Theories and Methods’. In There’s a Future: Visions for a Better World. Vol. 2013. Fernando Gutierrez Junquera. ———. 2004. The Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) Reader: Theory and Case Studies of an Integrative and Transformative Methodology. ———. 1998. ‘Causal Layered Analysis’. Futures 30 (8): 815–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(98)00086-X. ———. 2002. ‘Reductionism or Layered Complexity? The Futures of Futures Studies’. Futures 34 (3–4): 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(01)00045-3. ———. 2008. ‘Six Pillars: Futures Thinking for Transforming’. Foresight 10 (1): 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680810855991. ———. 2009. ‘Causal Layered Analysis: An Integrative and Transformative Theory and Method’, January. Inayatullah, Sohail, and Ivana Milojević. 2015. CLA 2.0: Transformative Research in Theory and Practice. Kates, Robert W., William R. Travis, and Thomas J. Wilbanks. 2012. ‘Transformational Adaptation When Incremental Adaptations to Climate Change Are Insufficient’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (19): 7156–61. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1115521109. Lam, David P. M., Berta Martín-López, Arnim Wiek, Elena M. Bennett, Niki Frantzeskaki, Andra I. Horcea-Milcu, and Daniel J. Lang. 2020. ‘Scaling the Impact of Sustainability Initiatives: A Typology of Amplification Processes’. Urban Transformations 2 (1): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42854-020-00007-9. Leach, Melissa, Ian Scoones, and Andy Stirling. 2010. Dynamic Sustainabilities : Technology, Environment, Social Justice. London ; Earthscan. Lessenich, Stephan. 2019. Living Well at Others’ Expense: The Hidden Costs of Western Prosperity. Medford, MA: polity. ‘Ljungby Kommun’. n.d. Accessed 18 May 2021. https://www.ljungby.se/sv/om-kommunen/. Lövbrand, Eva, Silke Beck, Jason Chilvers, Tim Forsyth, Johan Hedrén, Mike Hulme, Rolf Lidskog, and Eleftheria Vasileiadou. 2015. ‘Who Speaks for the Future of Earth? How Critical Social Science Can Extend the Conversation on the Anthropocene’. Global

Environmental Change 32 (May): 211–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.012. Lowe, Ian. 2015. ‘Causal Layered Analysis, Climate Change and Limits to Growth’. In CLA 2.0: Transformative Research in Theory and Practice, 2015:109–21. Tamkang University Press. Marschütz, Benedikt, Scott Bremer, Hens Runhaar, Dries Hegger, Heleen Mees, Joost Vervoort, and Arjan Wardekker. 2020. ‘Local Narratives of Change as an Entry Point for Building Urban Climate Resilience’. Climate Risk Management 28 (January): 100223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2020.100223. Meadow, Alison M., Daniel B. Ferguson, Zack Guido, Alexandra Horangic, Gigi Owen, and Tamara Wall. 2015. ‘Moving toward the Deliberate Coproduction of Climate Science Knowledge’. Weather, Climate, and Society 7 (2): 179–91. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-14-00050.1. Mehta, Lyla, and Shilpi Srivastava. 2020. ‘Uncertainty in Modelling Climate Change’. In , 99–112. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003023845-7. Merrie, Andrew, Patrick Keys, Marc Metian, and Henrik Österblom. 2018. ‘Radical Ocean Futures-Scenario Development Using Science Fiction Prototyping’. Futures 95 (January): 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.09.005. Miller, Clark A., and Carina Wyborn. 2020. ‘Co-Production in Global Sustainability: Histories and Theories’. Environmental Science & Policy 113 (November): 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.016. Milojević, Ivana. 2004. ‘Analysing Poverty: From Abundance and Contentment to Relative Poverty and Back’. In The Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) Reader: Theory and Case Studies of an Integrative and Transformative Methodology, 259–66. Milojević, Ivana, and Aleksandra Izgarjan. 2014. ‘Creating Alternative Futures through Storytelling: A Case Study from Serbia’. Futures 57 (March): 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.12.001. Minkkinen, Matti, Sirkka Heinonen, and Marjukka Parkkinen. 2019. ‘Drilling and Blasting to Learn Scenario Construction: Experimenting with Causal Layered Analysis as a Disruption of Scenario Work’. World Futures Review 11 (2): 110–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1946756718774940. Moore, Michele-Lee, and Manjana Milkoreit. 2020. ‘Imagination and Transformations to Sustainable and Just Futures’. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 8 (1): 081. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2020.081.

Moore, Michele-Lee, Ola Tjornbo, Elin Enfors, Corrie Knapp, Jennifer Hodbod, Jacopo A. Baggio, Albert Norström, Per Olsson, and Duan Biggs. 2014. ‘Studying the Complexity of Change: Toward an Analytical Framework for Understanding Deliberate Social-Ecological Transformations’. Ecology and Society 19 (4): art54. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06966-190454. Morchain, Daniel. 2018. ‘Chapter 3 Rethinking the Framing of Climate Change Adaptation : Knowledge, Power, and Politics’. A Critical Approach to Climate Change Adaptation. https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/27355. Muiderman, Karlijn, Aarti Gupta, Joost Vervoort, and Frank Biermann. 2020. ‘Four Approaches to Anticipatory Climate Governance: Different Conceptions of the Future and Implications for the Present’. WIREs Climate Change 11 (6). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.673. Mulgan, Geoff. 2020. ‘The Imaginary Crisis (and How We Might Quicken Social and Public Imagination)’. STEaPP Working Papers. https://demoshelsinki.fi/julkaisut/the- imaginary-crisis-and-how-we-might-quicken-social-and-public-imagination/. Norström, Albert V., Christopher Cvitanovic, Marie F. Löf, Simon West, Carina Wyborn, Patricia Balvanera, Angela T. Bednarek, et al. 2020. ‘Principles for Knowledge Co- Production in Sustainability Research’. Nature Sustainability 3 (3): 182–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2. Okereke, Chukwumerije, and Mark Charlesworth. n.d. ‘Climate Change’. In Critical Environmental Politics, 2014:41–52. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Olssen, Mark. 2003. ‘Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, Neo-Liberalism: Assessing Foucault’s Legacy’. Journal of Education Policy 18 (2): 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043047. Oteros-Rozas, Elisa, Berta Martín-López, Tim Daw, Erin Bohensky, James Butler, Rosemary Hill, Julia Martin-Ortega, et al. 2015. ‘Participatory Scenario Planning in Place-Based Social-Ecological Research: Insights and Experiences from 23 Case Studies’. Ecology and Society 20 (4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07985-200432. Paschen, Jana-Axinja, and Ray Ison. 2014. ‘Narrative Research in Climate Change Adaptation—Exploring a Complementary Paradigm for Research and Governance’. Research Policy 43 (6): 1083–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.12.006. Patterson, James, Karsten Schulz, Joost Vervoort, Sandra van der Hel, Oscar Widerberg, Carolina Adler, Margot Hurlbert, Karen Anderton, Mahendra Sethi, and Aliyu Barau. 2017. ‘Exploring the Governance and Politics of Transformations towards

Sustainability’. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 24 (September): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001. Pelling, Mark, Karen O’Brien, and David Matyas. 2015. ‘Adaptation and Transformation’. Climatic Change 133 (1): 113–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1303-0. Pereira, Laura M., Tanja Hichert, Maike Hamann, Rika Preiser, and Reinette Biggs. 2018. ‘Using Futures Methods to Create Transformative Spaces: Visions of a Good Anthropocene in Southern Africa’. Ecology and Society 23 (1): art19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09907-230119. Pereira, Laura, Nadia Sitas, Federica Ravera, Amanda Jimenez-Aceituno, and Andrew Merrie. 2019. ‘Building Capacities for Transformative Change towards Sustainability: Imagination in Intergovernmental Science-Policy Scenario Processes’. Edited by Anne R. Kapuscinski, Kim A. Locke, and Michele-Lee Moore. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 7 (January): 35. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.374. Pollock, Rufus. 2017. ‘Pragmatic Utopians’. Life Itself (blog). October 2017. https://lifeitself.us/2017/10/20/pragmatic-utopians/. Raudsepp-Hearne, C., G. D. Peterson, E. M. Bennett, R. Biggs, A. V. Norström, L. Pereira, J. Vervoort, et al. 2020. ‘Seeds of Good Anthropocenes: Developing Sustainability Scenarios for Northern Europe’. Sustainability Science 15 (2): 605–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00714-8. Reyers, Belinda, Michele-Lee Moore, and Andrew Merrie. n.d. ‘A Resilience Perspective on Complexity and Development – Guidance for Resilience in the Anthropocene (GRAID)’. In . Vol. 2017/2. Stockholm: GRAID. Accessed 21 May 2021. https://graid.earth/briefs/a-resilience-perspective-on-complexity-and-development/. Rhisiart, Martin, Eckhard Störmer, and Cornelia Daheim. 2017. ‘From Foresight to Impact? The 2030 Future of Work Scenarios’. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 124 (November): 203–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.020. Rickards, Lauren, John Wiseman, Taegen Edwards, and Che Biggs. 2014. ‘The Problem of Fit: Scenario Planning and Climate Change Adaptation in the Public Sector’. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 32 (August): 000–000. https://doi.org/10.1068/c12106. Sala, Juan Emilio, and Gabriela Torchio. 2019. ‘Moving towards Public Policy-Ready Science: Philosophical Insights on the Social-Ecological Systems Perspective for Conservation Science’. Ecosystems and People 15 (1): 232–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2019.1657502. Schultz, Wendy. 2015. ‘Manoa: The Future Is Not Binary’. APF Compass, April.

Scoones, Ian, Andrew Stirling, Dinesh Abrol, Joanes Atela, Lakshmi Charli-Joseph, Hallie Eakin, Adrian Ely, et al. 2020. ‘Transformations to Sustainability: Combining Structural, Systemic and Enabling Approaches’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 42 (February): 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.004. Scoones, Ian, and Andy Stirling. 2020. The Politics of Uncertainty: Challenges of Transformation. Edited by Ian Scoones and Andy Stirling. 1st ed. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge, 2020. | Series: Pathways to sustainability: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003023845. Shove, Elizabeth. 2010. ‘Social Theory and Climate Change’. Theory, Culture & Society 27 (2–3): 277–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276410361498. Slaughter, Richard A. 1998. ‘Futures Studies as an Intellectual and Applied Discipline’. American Behavioral Scientist 42 (3): 372–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764298042003008. Spencer, Frank, and Yvette Salvatico. 2015. ‘Creating Stories of Change: Reframing Causal Layered Analysis as Narrative Transformation’. In CLA 2.0: Transformative Research in Theory and Practice, 2015:78–89. Tamkang University Press. Stirling, Andrew. 2006. ‘Analysis, Participation and Power: Justification and Closure in Participatory Multi-Criteria Analysis’. Land Use Policy 23 (1): 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.08.010. ———. 2015. ‘Emancipating Transformation: From Controlling “the Transition” to Culturing Plural Radical Progress’. In The Politics of Green Transformations, edited by Ian Scoones, Melissa Leach, and Peter Newell, 54–67. London: Routledge. http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/64945/. ———. 2019. ‘Engineering and Sustainability: Control and Care in Unfoldings of Modernity’. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3336826. Sweeney, John. 2018. ‘Playing with Geoengineered Futures: Excogitations on Scenarios, Politics, and Postnormal Potentialities’. Thunberg, Greta. 2019. ‘“Our House Is on Fire”: Greta Thunberg, 16, Urges Leaders to Act on Climate’. The Guardian. 25 January 2019. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/25/our-house-is-on-fire-greta- thunberg16-urges-leaders-to-act-on-climate. Turnbull, Henry. 2004. ‘Moral Space Futures and Deep Dialogue: Integrating Hermeneutics and Poststructural Critical Research’. In The Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) Reader: Theory and Case Studies of an Integrative and Transformative Methodology, 162–82.

UNESCO. n.d. ‘UNESCO - Decision of the Intergovernmental Committee: 13.COM 10.C.2’. Accessed 18 May 2021. https://ich.unesco.org/en/decisions. UNFCCC. 2021. ‘Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement. Synthesis Report by the Secretariat | UNFCCC’. Glasgow Climate Change Conference-2021. https://unfccc.int/documents/268571. Vervoort, Joost, and Aarti Gupta. 2018. ‘Anticipating Climate Futures in a 1.5 °C Era: The Link between Foresight and Governance’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 31 (April): 104–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.01.004. Wagenaar, Hendrik. 2007. ‘Governance, Complexity, and Democratic Participation: How Citizens and Public Officials Harness the Complexities of Neighborhood Decline’. The American Review of Public Administration 37 (1): 17–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074006296208. Wang, Victor X, Geraldine Torrisi-Steele, and Catherine A Hansman. 2019. ‘Critical Theory and Transformative Learning: Some Insights’. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education 25 (2): 234–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477971419850837. Wangel, Josefin, Mia Hesselgren, Elina Eriksson, Loove Broms, Gabriel Kanulf, and Andrejs Ljunggren. 2019. ‘Vitiden : Transforming a Policy-Orienting Scenario to a Practice- Oriented Energy Fiction’. Futures: The Journal of Policy, Planning and Futures Studies 112. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-257688. West, Simon, L. Jamila Haider, Sanna Stålhammar, and Stephen Woroniecki. 2020. ‘A Relational Turn for Sustainability Science? Relational Thinking, Leverage Points and Transformations’. Ecosystems and People 16 (1): 304–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1814417. Westley, Frances, Per Olsson, Carl Folke, Thomas Homer-Dixon, Harrie Vredenburg, Derk Loorbach, John Thompson, et al. 2011. ‘Tipping Toward Sustainability: Emerging Pathways of Transformation’. AMBIO 40 (7): 762–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280- 011-0186-9. ‘What Is Miro?’ n.d. Miro Support & Help Center. Accessed 24 May 2021. https://help.miro.com/hc/en-us/articles/360017730533-What-Is-Miro-. Wiebe, Keith, Monika Zurek, Steven Lord, Natalia Brzezina, Gnel Gabrielyan, Jessica Libertini, Adam Loch, Resham Thapa-Parajuli, Joost Vervoort, and Henk Westhoek. 2018. ‘Scenario Development and Foresight Analysis: Exploring Options to Inform Choices’. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 43 (1): 545–70. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-030109.

Wilkinson, Angela. 2009. ‘Scenarios Practices: In Search of Theory’. Journal of Futures Studies 13 (February): 107–14. Wittmayer, Julia M., and Niko Schäpke. 2014. ‘Action, Research and Participation: Roles of Researchers in Sustainability Transitions’. Sustainability Science 9 (4): 483–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0258-4. Wodak, Josh, and Timothy Neale. 2015. ‘A Critical Review of the Application of Environmental Scenario Exercises’. Futures 73 (October): 176–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.09.002. Woroniecki, Stephen, Ruth Krüger, Anna‐Lena Rau, Maren Stefanie Preuss, Nora Baumgartner, Sanne Raggers, Laura Niessen, et al. 2019. ‘The Framing of Power in Climate Change Adaptation Research’. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 10 (6). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.617. Yusoff, Kathryn, and Jennifer Gabrys. 2011. ‘Climate Change and the Imagination’. WIREs Climate Change 2 (4): 516–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.117.

Appendix 1– Workshop design

The key data for this study was collected during a series of workshops held in December 2020. It was held online, through the video meeting program Zoom and the online “whiteboard” Miro (‘What Is Miro?’ n.d.). The workshop combined the Manoa method and Causal Layered Analysis. Using both these methods creates a novel combination of creativity and criticality. The Manoa method is suitable for “creative and effective at producing vivid, provocative detail and generating difference” (Curry and Schultz 2009:56) while the CLA has been shown to deepen discussions and enrich the criticality of scenarios (Minkkinen, Heinonen, and Parkkinen 2019)

Participant selection I set out to include a diverse group of actors with different experiences and perspectives on Ljungby. In dialogue with my contacts at the municipality, we agreed on a list of approximately 20 people. They were chosen to represent different categories; politicians, municipality employees, representatives from local business and industry, civil society representatives, artists and/or people involved in culture, and youth. Participants were invited through mail, with a short description of the workshop idea. As some of the originally chosen participants declined, we extended invitations to a larger group.

Workshop overview The initial plan was to hold a one-day workshop with all participants. With the help of facilitators, I planned to divide participants into 4-5 groups. Covid restrictions made it impossible to arrange such a meeting, and instead the workshops were re-scheduled to four online workshops, all facilitated by me.

Workshops were held over six hours including breaks. The meeting was held through Zoom and all sessions except the one with a high school class were recorded. The exercises were done in Miro, an online program simulating a whiteboard. The groups who participated were different ages and expressed different levels of comfort with computers and online meetings. Some exercises were scheduled in the first hour to let everyone familiarize themselves with the tool. Because the groups were small, I was able to give assistance when individual participants had technical difficulties. A majority answered that they found the tool helpful even if some said it was difficult and said they would have liked more time to practice using it before the exercise.

Workshop design – step by step

Before workshops – preparing the participants After sending out the invitations, I conducted short phone interviews with most participants. The interviews allowed me to connect to participants (something which is generally harder when not meeting in person) and introduce futures thinking. Here I also described the concept of futures seeds. I also asked if participants had suggestions for future seeds that could be relevant to the Ljungby context. Some had suggestions right away, while others emailed me after the call with suggestions.

The participants were sent two documents ahead of the workshop and asked to at least skim through these. While some admitted to not having done this, others read the texts and expressed it to be helpful to “set the scene”.

Table 7 - Descriptions of documents sent to participants in preparation for the workshop

Document Description of content

Horizon scanning - Provided information on some large-scale projections for the future in future trends five categories, social, technological, economic, ecological/environmental and political trends.

Future seeds Provided brief descriptions of a few emerging phenomena that are described as future seeds. Future seeds can be business ideas, living arrangements, social norms, organisations or technologies. The key feature of a future seed is that it is currently marginal or in a pilot phase, but that it could, if it became mainstream, have significant impact on society. The seeds described were chosen by me based on previous studies (see Pereira et al, 2018 and Schultz, 2015) but also included suggestions from participants.

Workshop schedule During the workshop itself, a short presentation was held, mainly presenting ideas about how change can occur, specifically focusing on the idea of “future seeds”. By describing historical examples of change that started as small experiments or initiatives, the intent was to inspire participants to consider how change can happen in non-linear ways.

After this, the participants were guided through picking future seeds, developing these and exploring their effects and impacts. They were asked to consider the STEEP categories, social, technological, economic, ecologic and political types of implications, to ensure the group explored the complexity and width of the future. In the second exercise, participants

48 were asked to write headlines for news from 2050. The purpose was to allow each participant to home in on an issue they found especially interesting, exciting or frightening. These headlines were then used to conduct a brief version of a causal layered analysis. Participants were asked to consider what issue or problem their headline targeted. They were then urged to discuss what causes this “problem” had, the assumptions and values they assumed when formulating the issue like this, and if they could think of a proverb, fable or expression that captured the core of the issue. When time allowed, they were also asked to reconsider their answers, for example by coming up with a new proverb that “turned the issue on its head”.

The aim of the workshops was partly to explore how CLA could affect the overall process. To get as interesting results as possible the exercises were conducted in different order, the two first ones started with the Manoa exercise to then “deepen” the discussion using CLA, and the second two workshops started with the CLA, deepening and challenging participants’ perception of the future, and followed this with the Manoa session, when participants were already warmed up to thinking critically. There was no obvious difference in the results from these two versions, and to fully explore the potential of these methods in tandem, it might be necessary to schedule more time, as all workshops ended up feeling slightly rushed.

Figure 11 - The two different orders the workshop activities were done in Finally, all workshops were wrapped up with a session focused on reconnecting the future scenarios to present. Participants were given time to reflect on the plausibility and desirability of the scenario skeletons they’d developed. This part of the workshop also gave further insights in what key obstacles and opportunities the participants saw in terms of achieving a sustainable future.

After workshops - reflecting on the workshop A week after the workshops a survey was distributed where participants could reflect on the exercises and overall workshop experience, see appendix 2.

After reading the final scenarios - reflecting on the overall process A few months after the workshops the final scenarios were sent to participants. The scenarios were presented as short stories, but the text had references to a list of further readings and a section where I described the reasoning behind the stories. There were also photos and figures to capture some of the ideas and emotions I hoped to evoke. With this, participants were urged to read and reflect on the stories, and provide feedback to me. This could be done through email, a phone call or through an anonymous survey with a set of questions but also space for participants to voice their own reflections. See the survey questions in appendix 3.

Appendix 2 – Survey questions after workshop

In this survey you get the chance to reflect on and evaluate the workshop you participated in last week.

1. Have you thought about the workshop after your participation?

No not at all 1------2------3------4------5 Yes, every day

2. Do you feel more or less hopeful about the future after participating in the workshop?

• More hopeful • Less hopeful • No difference

3. Did you learn anything new during the workshop?

• Yes • No

4. If you learned something new, what did you learn?

5.Did the workshop make you change your mind on any issue?

• Yes • No

6.If yes, what?

7.What did you think of the Miro tool?

Difficult and distracting 1------2------3------4------5 Fun and useful

8.What do you find most exciting during the workshop? (Select all that apply)

• To come up with consequences for the "seeds of the future" • Figuring out how the consequences of each seed affect each other

• Working with the “iceberg model” • Using Miro • Writing news headlines from 2050 • Collaborating with other participants • Something else

9. What did you find most difficult during the workshop? (Select all that apply)

• To come up with consequences for the "seeds of the future" • Figuring out how the consequences of each seed affect each other • Working with the “iceberg model” • Using Miro • Writing news headlines from 2050 • Collaborating with other participants • Something else

10 Was any of the proposed seeds for the future especially exciting? (Select only one)

• Co-living • Remote working • “Auto-mat” self service grocery stores • Hydrogen energy storage • Food made from sun and air • Agroforestry • Permaculture • Leisure Bank/Sharing Economy • Local currency • Wind cooperatives/Energy communities • Citizens' Councils • Basic income • No, I think they’re equally interesting

11. Please explain, what do you find exciting about this seed?

12. Was there any of the proposed seed of the future that made you uncomfortable or that you think would negatively affect the future? (Select only one)

• Co-living

• Remote working • “Auto-mat” self service grocery stores • Hydrogen energy storage • Food made from sun and air • Agroforestry • Permaculture • Leisure Bank/Sharing Economy • Local currency • Wind cooperatives/Energy communities • Citizens' Councils • Basic income • No, I think they’re all good ideas

13. Please explain, what do you think is negative about the chosen seed of the future?

14.Do you have any other comment/reflection or feedback?

Appendix 3 – Survey questions after reading the scenarios

Some questions about how you interpreted the future scenarios that have been developed. You get to evaluate each individual scenario and at the end there are also two questions about the scenarios as a whole.

Scenario 1 – A new story 1. How desirable do you think the "A New Story" scenario is?

• Desirable

• Undesirable

2. Do you want to explain, is there anything special that feels desirable or less desirable?

3. How likely do you think "A New Story" is?

Very likely 1------2------3------4------5 Impossible!

4. Do you want to explain, is there anything special you react to?

Scenario 2 – The only way

5. How desirable do you think the "The only way" scenario is?

• Desirable

• Undesirable

6. Do you want to explain, is there anything special that feels desirable or less desirable?

7. How likely do you think "The only way" is?

Very likely 1------2------3------4------5 Impossible!

8. Do you want to explain, is there anything special you react to?

Scenario 3 – Something unthinkable 9. How desirable do you think the "Something unthinkable" scenario is?

• Desirable

• Undesirable

10. Do you want to explain, is there anything special that feels desirable or less desirable?

11. How likely do you think "Something unthinkable" is?

Very likely 1------2------3------4------5 Impossible!

12. Do you want to explain, is there anything special you react to?

13. Do you have any other reflections or feedback?

Appendix 4 – Causal layered analysis results

Here I compile the throughout analysis of each theme. Homo economicus A frequent concern in the workshops is the matter of incentive. Most participants agree that we need to reduce consumption of resources and emissions of greenhouse gas, but say the big problem is how we convince people to commit to these reductions.

One participant says “there has to be something that can nudge us to it, so that there is some gain in wanting to change, so that there is value for one as an individual as well” (Workshop 2) and another “you want compensation too, of course you want to be nice to the environment, but that doesn't mean you want to lend to everyone” (W2). The system could be illustrated as a market of lifestyles, products and policy options, all presented to individuals who decide based on what they think will generate the most value.

This uses an economist worldview, building on the myth of humans as homo economicus, the rational and narrowly self-interested individual (Milojević 2004). One participant when discussing shared housing explains “I don't think we humans have developed much psychologically or emotionally since the 1970s, when they also had an idea to share a lot. I think it is very important that it is companies that go in and that the sharing becomes more anonymous, that it is not with my friends that you should share, but that there are a lot of rules about how to share”(W2). This further highlights the belief that human beings are self- interested and unable to cooperate without the help from the market.

Milojevic states that “the belief that humans are inherently competitive and selfish, create a worldview that informs discussions that in turn formulate policies that determine actions (or the lack thereof)” (Milojević 2004:264). Using De Simone's (2015) probing questions, I explore what isn’t being said in these discussions about human’s natural self-interest and rationality. Some participants attempt to nuance this consumer “what’s in it for me”-mentality as a habit rather than something in our DNA. One participant says “But isn't that a bit of a social thing too? We here are a bit like "I build a pool and then I use it myself and no one else is allowed to use it" but in other countries if someone builds a pool, all the children in the neighborhood gather in that pool. It's kind of an attitude we, well we might be raised that way. But... if collective housing becomes more common and that attitude takes hold, then these things may also become less... that you don't have this “mine and yours”-thinking that we have now.” (W2). Another participant admits that it is not necessarily inherent human

56 nature that complicate a transition to more sustainable society, but rather the current economic system.

“What might worry me in this is how the economy can cope with this. Because we have so many gadgets today, that we could really get by with what's there, and just patch and fix, or run out of everything, because we don't either. […] to change the economy from a buy- and- throw society to a purchase and then fix and fix until it's not possible to fix society... transition there, it worries me. Like, we see it's green there on the other side, but how the hell are we going to get there? Without the economic system collapsing, because then I think it's easy for us to crawl back and give a, the environment, for example”.

Lowe has suggested the myth around the “notion that we are not citizens but consumers” (Lowe 2015:111) a central barrier not only to climate change adaptation but change as a whole. In the discussions participants express a sense of responsibility, that is, a responsibility as consumers to keep the economic system going by making rational, self-serving decisions. One person expresses this responsibility, saying “Well the problem is how to make money... but it may not be our job to figure out today?” (W2)

When challenging this understanding of humans, and presenting alternative worldviews, one could include pluralistic, diverse human drivers, experiences, cultures, and societies that are possible, both by looking at other cultures but also trying to imagine completely new ways of organizing human societies. Lövbrand and colleagues would say “this is an important analytical task if we are to understand the many, and often conflicting, social divers, impacts, risks of and responses to environmental change” ((Lövbrand et al. 2015:216) which in turn “may help us to reposition ‘the human’ as a heterogeneous social and political subject and hereby re-connect the Anthropocene to ‘the realm of immediacy where meaningful action is possible and most likely to be effective’”.

Table 8 - CLA layers "Homo economicus"

Original framing of theme Reimagined framing of theme

Problem Not enough incentives to transition, Not enough experimentation, critical people aren’t interested thinking, imagination to find new ways to live meaningful lives “We don’t want to live like in Africa” – Workshop 2

System The system is the market – the most The market is only one part of the attractive solutions will be favoured; system¸ economic theory can’t sustainability needs to be profitable and account for innovation? attractive

Worldview Economism - A set of given human Pluralism – Humans have diverse desires, interests make up demand for and dynamic needs, desires and which the supply must match. interests.

Myth The invisible hand Human – the only animal with imagination Our responsibility to shop

Deep ecology Another central discussion is fundamentally different than the previous. Participants kept coming back to the idea that there is a more natural, healthy, and balanced way to live in harmony with nature. One person says “the system error is the lack of knowledge about nature, about how food naturally occurs without us interfering. If we hadn't grown food, we could have eaten anyway, but we've forgotten that” (W1). The idea is not fully one of “nature as pristine”, but there is an idea of “natural” eco-systems, as another participant says “spruce is not natural here, it is heather moors, we have planted spruce, that is why it has become so dark” (W3). There’s also a level of agency or agenda prescribed to nature, with participants saying “But this is all sanitizing itself today. The spruce bark beetle, they take out the spruce. […] Nature takes care of itself many times, but sometimes in an unfortunate way” (W3) and “also that nature has found a clever way to make sure that we do not have so many children” (W1).

If the problem is formulated as “we’ve lost touch with nature” and the system being a social- ecologically connected system, where nature responds to human action with countermoves, the worldview is ecological or green, drawing on ideas of contemporary society is unnatural, and that humans belong in nature, be it “That's where the forest is fantastic. The brain is adapted to walk in the forest” or “these carrots are grown out on that island and I know who has grown them". You want to respect that person in some way, compared to going to Ica and taking a plastic bag of carrots” (W3). In discussions there’s also suggestions of using more traditional ecosystem management and transitioning to slower paced lifestyles. “I live in a rural environment, there have been cattle here since the 16th century, but now for the first time there are no cattle grazing here” (W3).

There is a nostalgic nature ideal in these descriptions, and so when searching for an alternative for this worldview, one could challenge this, as suggested by Lövbrand and colleagues who write “A radical post-natural scholarship will by necessity challenge the modern concept of Nature as a pure, singular and stable domain that can be accounted for through systemic observation (Lövbrand et al. 2015:215). As one participant mention, the landscape has changed, the “natural” heathlands reflected as Ljung in Ljungby could likely not be restored as the climate and soil has changed. An alternative worldview could approach this nostalgia a little more carefully, looking for a solution that can draw on both traditional and modern value/management systems. The re-imagine problem description becomes more useful as it enables action toward something new, rather than only remembering the past. Drawing on Folke and colleagues (Folke et al. 2011) the myth can be reconnect to the

59 biosphere, an approach that seeks to understand and work with the ecosystems around us, but acknowledge that these systems are complex adaptive and thus changing over time.

Table 9 - CLA layers "Deep ecology"

Original framing of theme Reimagined framing of theme

Problem We don’t understand nature like we used to We could find a new relationship with nature We have lost touch with what is important

System Insufficient knowledge leads to poor The system is adaptive, management, nature will strike back knowledge must keep updated

Worldview Ecological – deep ecology Systems thinking – Nature and There is a more natural/healthy way for us to humans as a complex-adaptive interact with nature system, we can’t go back to old practices Myth Nature as pure Reconnect to the biosphere

Political subjects and objects A concern in workshops was the political sphere in the municipality, especially the lack of politically active young people. Some causes mentioned for this was the lack of actual influence (especially young) politicians could have in political parties with set agendas “In a mainstream political party a lot of things are already set in stone, and then your opinions might not account for anything” (W3). Some mentioned that because the job is thankless, with many responsibilities but few benefits, it attracts the kind of wrong people, who might not actually have the political interest to be there. One person said being a politician is like “being on a stormy sea, it's only just when you're up on the top of the wave that you see where you're going” (W2) and another said “it has to be based on engagement and that people who want to are in charge, you can’t have those who don’t want to be involved as deciders” (W3).

Despite wanting more public engagement in politics, participants were hesitant to fully challenge the idea of representative democracy in favour of direct democracy. One person said, “those who are driven and involved should be allowed to decide, those who did not get involved in the first place should keep their fingers out of the jam jar” (W1). Influence, it is assumed, should be derived from involvement. This fails to acknowledge unequal opportunities and barriers for certain groups to get involved in politics. One participant recognizes this, saying some politicians are currently elected “because you know the right person” (W3). Still participants do not believe the whole population of Ljungby is suited to partake in the political processes. One person says:

The good thing about politics and politicians is that several perspectives are taken into consideration, strategic decisions may have to take many aspects into consideration. Here, [with citizens assemblies] of course, there is a risk that there will be specific issues that take up a lot of energy and time, rather than the big picture. Prioritizing requires knowledgeable people who can see the big picture.

(W3)

There is an elitist tendency in these ideas about who should govern. When challenging this, I emphasize democracy as an intrinsically valuable process which empowers all citizens. I also draw on research by Wagenaar (2007) which suggest deliberative, inclusive political processes enable better results when working within complex systems. One participant is thinking along these lines and says:

I think about this with democracy, and who it is that... sometimes we are such a comfortable middle class and comfortable middle-aged group who have the time and energy and live on in their commitment. But then there are the others who would have completely different ways of looking at what we are going to do and how to solve problems.

(W3)

When reimagining the issue, I also emphasize that many barriers and limits to a more directly democratic society are overcome in today’s society. Taking into account the high levels of automatization and technological possibilities in terms of sharing information, more people could be involved in political decision making. Perhaps the myth can change from seeing political engagement as a scarce resource, to one where it is a renewable resource, a plant or full garden in need of nurturing. With such a perspective the political can be a reinforcing system, including more people, more diverse interests, perspectives and experiences which can create further inclusion.

Table 10 - CLA layers "Political subjects and objects”

Original framing of theme Reimagined framing of theme

Problem Young people aren’t getting into Politics has become too niche; politics, difficult to build sustainable technology allows for more active political engagement participants

System Incentives to be a politician are The system doesn’t allow for broad lacking, the wrong people are there engagement/representation. Change the for the wrong reasons system, not just the incentives

Worldview Technocratic or elitist Radically democratic

Some people are more suited to be Democracy is about letting everyone be politicians than others, some people heard, not about convincing “born need to be represented by someone leaders” to take on the responsibility else

Myth Born to lead Let the political bloom

Children are the future

The idea that young people offer new perspectives and can lead change is discussed by several groups. Many suggest that young people have a more positive attitude towards the future and/or new technology, while also being more interested in sustainability. The underlying causes are understood as a system in transition, where older citizens might see themselves as “too old to keep up” but still believe that the system is well-suited for the next generation, saying “children are so environmentally conscious!” (W2) and “compared to ten years ago a lot has happened” (W1).

The worldview underpinning this suggests inevitable, constant evolution and development: young people will adapt to this new ecosystem of smartphones and fake news much better than their parents “In 2050 it will be all right, the generation that will be raised with this” (W3). They will also have new ideas for how to solve problems like climate change “Greta's been educating the whole world now” (W3).

This perspective, however, helps draw attention away from the fact that the next generation will live with the consequences of this generation’s conscious decision to exploit resources and postpone climate action. It also assumes climate change to be a “new” issue, an emerging trend, rather than an issue which 30 years ago was globally acknowledged as something urgent (Thunberg 2019). The optimism doesn’t acknowledge that young people aren’t environmentally conscious as a hobby, it’s an “interest” they have because of fear. There is also a hesitancy to actually let young people lead change. One participant says “I think it's the young people's time ahead. And we have to let them work and come in slowly, they can't take all the responsibility at once” (W2) and another more critically states “You keep saying ‘we are going to invest in children and young people’, we have that as a goal, but the school of art doesn’t get more money still. […] It rhymes very poorly, and we need to get our act together” (W1)

An alternative worldview instead acknowledges that children in fact have poor chances of “fixing” climate change, and that change should happen for them rather than be driven by them. In contrast, Greta Thunberg said:

“Adults keep saying, “We owe it to young people to give them hope.” But I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day, and then I want you to act. I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is.”

(Thunberg 2019)

Table 11 - CLA layers "Children are the future"

Originally framing of theme Reimagined framing of theme

Problem Young people are leading change Young people have limited power, both Young people are better equipped for political, economic. handling new technology

System Changed perceptions and stronger The system is mismatched, those with incentives can mean the next the strongest incentives to act have the generation are the ones to take action least influence

Worldview Unrealistic given current knowledge.

Evolution – humans are evolving and Compare “the lost generation” of young adapting to changing conditions people sacrificed by irresponsible belief in modernity in early 1900’s

Myth Children are the future Ignorance is bliss, what you don’t know can’t hurt you

Individualism and a tragedy of the commons Multiple times during the workshops, participants expressed ideas related to the vulnerability of the individual action in a hard reality of environmental issues. For change to happen, participants suggest “everyone needs to be willing to change” (W4) and “the broad majority/society will have to embrace change” (W4). One participant says “you realize how little you as an individual can influence. You can do a little bit, but there have to be quite a few of us to actually do something for it to happen” (W2). Many participants also ascribe to an idea that society is a only a collection of individuals, “municipalities are individuals, same as with companies, it is also not its own organism, it is the result of human activity in combination with each other” (W3) and “It starts with individuals, with perceptions in the brain” (W3). The focus on the individual and the idea that individuals can’t change things on their own is a contradiction, and one participant suggests;

“Unfortunately this spiral is going downhill now, so that in 10 years it will probably be worse than it is today, we are more individualistic and we may try to take care of ourselves, be more self-sufficient simply, i.e. we will go into a crisis state and everyone stands by themselves”

(W1)

I interpret these contradicting feelings of individual responsibility and lacking agency as an individual as connected to the long-lived myth: the tragedy of the commons. This idea is influenced by the homo economicus understanding of self-interested individuals, but it also assumes that climate change mitigation is a cost. It thus becomes a matter of sacrifice, which somehow also is believed to be meaningless. When individuals are presented as lone actors in a rigged game it “frames the challenges as one of encouraging people to try harder to be nicer and better rather than coming together in solidarity to either undermine or overthrow a system that demands we participate in environmental degradation” (Bendell, 2018:15

When presenting an alternative worldview, I build on Anthony Patt’s critique, which says “The tragedy of the commons framing made sense at a time when we believed that people needed to adjust the energy system at the margins, and believed that the cost of doing so would be high. We no longer believe these things” (Patt, 2017:3). One could instead build on more nuanced theories of change, for example using the concept of “future seeds” ). (Pereira et al. 2018; Lam et al. 2020) The myth could be that oak trees grow from acorns, pinpointing that change doesn’t happen in giant, coordinated leaps, but rather that small actions accelerate into different types of change. This idea could also be coupled with the idea that “early bird

65 gets the worm” meaning that those who are early in transitioning into more sustainable practices will have economic (or other) benefits of this.

Table 12 - CLA layers "Tragedy of the commons"

Original framing of theme Reimagined framing of theme

Problem Everyone needs to commit to change for Building trust and sustainable solutions it to work become easier as you go

System If Ljungby/Sweden commits to changing Niche initiatives can connect and their practices, and no one else does, our amplify, investments in new technology investment becomes pointless can reduce prices of green solutions

Worldview The commons are vulnerable, unstable There are formal and informal types of agreement between rational, self-serving sanctioning and regulations that can all individuals (nations/municipalities) affect behavior

Myth Tragedy of the commons From acorns grow oak trees

Early bird gets the worm

Urban rural divide

A dominant theme the rural/urban divide, which is applicable both in how the municipality relates to other cities and areas, but also how resources are allocated within the municipality. Many discussions revolve around a possible return of the status of rural lifestyles as a consequence of Covid-19. There are many ways to frame the relationship between the urban and rural, one being the periphery and vulnerability of the rural, saying public transport is “Lagan or a village outside Lagan where the bus runs twice a day” (W3). The issue is present in the municipality’s slogan, “35 000 inhabitants by 2035”. The municipality strives to grow, to reach a sustainable population size, one that allows the local government to cover the cost of public services through sufficient tax revenues.

A central idea is that of viability – what is a reasonably sized community? This is also influenced by a neoliberal growth perspective; the municipality should grow and be competitive or expect to be left behind. These ideas of course aren’t without empirical backing; there are plenty of small towns in Sweden experiencing rural exodus.

With this dominant framing, Ljungby first needs to grow into a “viable” size, and hopefully from there be able to provide the services inhabitants will want while also becoming a sustainable urban region. One participant says “If we had been able to solve [electricity] storage, we could have been self-sufficient in Ljungby. And this creates revenue and a good municipality to live in, maybe we are 35,000 in 2035 and 70,000 in 2050! We need to be many and have revenue” (W2). The quote illustrates a typical green growth narrative, in so that the green quickly becomes overshadowed by the growth goal. In Daffarra’s work on urban development through a CLA lens the urban as both goal and nightmare is driven by what Daffarra calls “modernist’s industrial mindset [which] believes that ‘growth’ equates to ‘prosperity’ or ‘development’”(Daffara, 2004:424). This mindset doesn’t recognize that while there’s plenty of ambition to be sustainable in urban dwellings, none have so far achieved a this goal.

A radically different approach could be suburban degrowth imaginary (Alexander and Gleeson 2019). Building on a degrowth critique of a neoliberal ideal of eternal growth this approach explores the potential of suburban societies to contract into a sufficiency paradigm and striving toward a more inclusive, nurturing municipality. Not because this is a way to attract new inhabitants and not once the town has grown into a viable size. One participant puts it this way:

This applies to the cultural budget but also to society as a whole, we must see the good, we are very rich and we must start to appreciate it. Make the most of it and get into a new society and not constant growth before your eyes but... I don't have a good wording. Start appreciating what we have.

(W3)

Table 13 - CLA layers "Urban rural divide"

Original framing of theme Reimagined framing of theme

Problem The rural is left behind The rural must answer to its own specific challenges rather than follow a Can we compete in an urbanized world? blueprint set by larger cities.

System Resources and human capital end up in The system will likely shift into a new attractive areas, rural exodus is a constant state, the leverage points and flows of threat this new configuration are yet to be discovered.

Worldview Municipalities and cities are competitors Ecological perspective – large and on a market driving innovation and small municipalities complement each improvement. Keeping up and staying other, we don’t know the challenges relevant is key and opportunities of the future, response diversity creates resilient

societies

Myth Adapt or die Go your own way

Sustainable growth

Western-centric sustainability

Along with the clear divide between rural and urban, there are other perceptions of the outside world worth unpacking. The discussions are generally very local, and the descriptions of other countries are not very nuanced. In general, the outside world is seen as having lower standards: “you buy organic from Brazil. How can you think along these lines, when we know that Sweden has the best animal husbandry in the world?” (W3) and “We don’t want to live like in Africa” (W2).

There are more self-critical versions of this too, as many participants mention how consumerism and high emission rates are part of Swedish lifestyles and that this is unjust and morally reprehensible. Most discussion however use a liberal perspective on international relations, highlighting the benefits of trade and collaboration “If we in the West can reach out and share the resources we have, then we can remain global, because, as you say, you do not want to lower your standards” (W2). Even when discussing the problems of “race to the bottom”-trade, participants come back to the idea that it almost is our responsibility to maintain the current global trade system “because a lot is made in China, and with questionable quality, at least when it comes to technology and stuff. But it employs a lot of people there, you have to completely take it out of the system, yes it's very, well that's a big concern, just the economic collapse”. (W2) this relates back to the previous discussion on a perceived “responsibility to shop”.

This framing of Ljungby and Sweden in a global context is full of contradictions. While at least some groups acknowledge the ecological cost of material and emissions-intensive lifestyles, the “white man’s burden” ideal of Europe saving the rest of the world (by doing what we’ve always done) remains. This worldview disregards the obvious failures of western societies to build sustainable wellbeing and reproduces a narrative that Sweden as more competent actor. An alternative worldview that helps challenge this myth could be a post- colonial perspective, that more clearly explores how Ljungby lifestyles and institutions rely on offshoring emissions and importing products. If we use Lessenich’s mapping of global north south dynamics (Lessenich 2019) we can see how our prosperity is dependent on others paying the price, which could allow for a more honest discussion.

Table 14 - CLA layers "Western-centric sustainability"

Original framing of theme Reimagined framing of theme

Problem Ljungby is powerful on a global market Ljungby is dependent on the global system We must support the global economy

System The flow of knowledge and The system is unstable, and technological innovation from Sweden consequences can’t be predicted. To to poorer countries is highlighted, as well as the flow of “unsustainable products” from other countries to Sweden.

Worldview Clear western perspective, transferring Climate change destabilizes political historical stability of for example and economic institutions, forces us to Sweden onto the future, climate change acknowledge the interconnectedness becomes a moral issue, framed as of our global system of trade. charity Post-colonial perspective, Ljungby Western or Eurocentric and Sweden have built economic stability and growth at the expense of other countries (Sealy-Huggins, 2017)

Myth White man’s burden Solidarity out of vulnerability

Our responsibility to shop

Digitalisation and social relations Concerns are raised in some groups about the nature of digitalization and technological development. High-paced, constantly connected lifestyles are deemed stressful and unnatural, and people’s need for meaningful social interactions aren’t being met. I argue there are two parallel streams in this. First, there is a narrative about vulnerability. One participant suggests digitalization constitute a risk, especially for certain people, saying “I think we're going to have a big problem with brain fatigue and people hitting a wall or having a breakdown. For people who are sensitive to impressions, this is an extremely dangerous (deadly) development” (W3) The cause for the problem is a mismatch between ambition and potential of technological development, and the capacity of humans to enjoy this. The myth could be the story of Icarus or the Tower of Babel. Human ambition can easily become over-ambition, doing more harm than good.

The second idea connected to technology is more focused on the social functions it has. It revolves around the problem “we are too connected” which mainly seems to refer to the number of connections we have to other people each day. This, participants express, is rooted in a focus on a quantity of social interactions rather than quality. The worldview is nostalgic, one participant says we need to find “a social balance, maybe that we will go back to doing things more like before, that you do not meet so many people” and goes on to reflect on their own statement, “that was Småland talking, I heard it myself” (W3) This likely refers to an idea that people from this region of Sweden are somewhat unpretentious. The underlying myth is possibly connected to this, an idea that we belong in village-sized communities. Digitalization and technology are seen as unnatural, and so is the number of social contacts we have today.

When reimagining these stories, I consider the ways technology and human interactions are framed. An alternative understanding would perhaps cast light on the fact that the digital platforms we use are specifically designed to generate revenue. They are not designed to promote stabile, balanced relationships. This could nuance the idea that we are too socially available and help us not throw the baby out with the bath water – while social media as it might not be healthy for everyone, this doesn’t mean having many social contacts is intrinsically bad. When we discuss how technology affects us, it could be valuable to distinguish between technology as it is now, and what it could be if designed according to other goals. Through this we take back control over technology, so that it is not something we must adapt to, but rather something we can adapt for our own wellbeing.

Table 15 - CLA layers for “Digitalisation and social relations”

Original framing of Original framing of the Reimagined (combined) the theme theme framing of the themes Problem We are too socially Technology hurts us Technology, digitalization available and automatization can be We aren’t designed to spend so in line with human much time in front of a screen instincts and wellbeing

System Social relations have Automatization, efficiency, and Social wellbeing and become shallow long workdays take up most of human freedom should our days, natural human guide development of instincts are suppressed technology

Worldview Romantic portrayal of An idea of evolution and Technological history, we are meant adaption, older generations development must benefit to live in smaller can’t keep up society, automatization is settings, with fewer an opportunity but the goal people should be increased wellbeing

Myth The dream of the Survival of the fittest Take back control over village technology Icarus myth?

Appendix 5 Ethical review – final review

Here I describe the ethical concerns of the study and how these were mitigated. The study took place in Ljungby municipality and through interaction with a set of local actors, mainly through a digital workshop, I have developed so called climate change scenarios.

The interaction with the participants in the workshops is my key ethical concern. To ensure participants gave informed consent, I provided a written PLS and had all sign a consent form. In this consent form participants agreed to let the workshop be recorded and sound from the workshop to be transcribed and used in the final thesis. A few participants did not sign the form in time, but said they had read the PSL and gave verbal consent to participating and being recorded in the beginning of the workshop. The exception from this was the workshop which was held with a group of high school students. The participants were minors and to avoid having to seek consent from their parents, this workshop was not recorded and no personal information about the students was collected.

This process aimed at analysing and challenging the ways these actors understand and talk about the future, especially focused on climate change. It is actively targeting the ideas and deeply held beliefs these participants express in the workshops. As this could be seen as an invasive process, I have throughout the process tried to find ways to let participants express discomfort and reflect on their experience. Through anonymous surveys, one right after the workshops and one after participants were shown the final scenarios, concerns or criticism could be aired. In the end, none of the participants expressed any distress or serious discomfort, and the measures taken must be seen as having been sufficient to avoid harm.

No unexpected ethical dilemmas were encountered.