Advancing a toolkit of diverse futures approaches for global environmental assessments

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of how different methods might offer unique and complementary contributions to multi-scale scenarios, based on different aims

Main outcome		Risk reduction *surprise *scale	Preparedness *surprise *diversity	Action mobilisation *diversity *imagination
Approach	Method	Aim 1: To assess risk of probable futures	Aim 2: To explore multiple possible futures	Aim 3: To co-create desirable futures
Top-down contributions (deductive)	IAMs^a	project probable futures using existing data	quantify scenarios of diverse futures	quantify different solution-oriented pathways to achieve the same goal
	Expert-driven scenarios^b,c		draws on expert knowledge to generate a wide diversity of ideas about what futures could happen based on present drivers	produces a range of what desirable goals for what the future could be, using available knowledge
	Scenario archetypes^d,e	generates a set of potential futures based on specific known drivers	offers a range of plausible global scenario logics with clear assumptions
Bottom-up contributions (inductive)	Agent-based modelling; Multi-agent simulation^f,g	using basic rules, can generate complex, emergent patterns based on individual agent choices	can be developed with diverse participants informing agent choices rather than model assumptions in order to open up a more diverse potential futures based on actual decision-making behaviours
	Gaming; Virtual Reality; Augmented reality; Experiential futuring^h	helps bring discounted or underestimated future risks to life	allows users to pre-experience and practice for complex changes, challenge limited conceptualizations of futures experientially	helps users embody and interact in desirable futures, bringing them closer to present day realities through performance.
	Participatory scenarios^i	scenarios can be developed and tested for likelihood.	represents highly diverse futures from different perspectives and sectors	co-creates desirable futures based on the perceptions of participants and what needs to be done to get there
Methods that can be adapted across multiple scales	Visioning^j	generates a desired end state for a plan that can be tested for feasibility	generates possible futures from diverse perspectives that are not necessarily based in present concerns	includes diverse actors in creating visions of the plurality of desirable futures
	Science fiction prototyping^k,l		produces a diversity of challenging futures based on science fiction concepts.	describes a diversity of radical science fiction inspired futures based on different notions of desirability

Illustrative references: ^a(Van Vuuren et al. 2012b), ^b(Cork et al. 2005), ^c(O’Neill et al. 2017), ^d(Hunt et al. 2012), ^e(Sitas et al. 2019), ^f(Helbing and Balietti 2013), ^g(Lindkvist et al. 2020), ^h(Vervoort 2019), ⁱ(Oteros-Rozas et al. 2015), ^j(Wiek and Iwaniec 2014), ^k(Milkoreit 2016), ^l(Merrie et al. 2018).

Van Vuuren DP, Kok MTJ, Girod B, Lucas PL, De Vries B. 2012b. Scenarios in global environmental assessments: key characteristics and lessons for future use. Glob Environ Change. 22:884–895. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.06.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cork S, Peterson G, Petschel-Held G. 2005. Four scenarios. In: Carpenter SR, Folke C, Scheffer M, Westley F., et al., editors. Ecosystems and human well-being: scenarios, volume 2. Findings of the scenarios working group, millennium ecosystem assessment. Washington (DC, USA): Island Press; p. 223–294.

 Google Scholar

O’Neill BC, Kriegler E, Ebi KL, Kemp-Benedict E, Riahi K, Rothman DS, Van Ruijven BJ, Van Vuuren DP, Birkmann J, Kok K, et al. 2017. The roads ahead: narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob Environ Change. 42:169–180. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.004.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hunt DVL, Lombardi DR, Atkinson S, Barber ARG, Barnes M, Boyko CT, Brown J, Bryson J, Butler D, Caputo S, et al. 2012. Scenario archetypes: converging rather than diverging themes. Sustainability. 4:740–772. doi:10.3390/su4040740.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sitas N, Harmáčková ZV, Anticamara JA, Arneth A, Badola R, Biggs R, Blanchard R, Brotons L, Cantele M, Coetzer K, et al. 2019. Exploring the usefulness of scenario archetypes in science-policy processes: experience across IPBES assessments. Ecol Soc. 24. doi:10.5751/ES-11039-240335.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Helbing D, Balietti S. 2013. How to do agent-based simulations in the future: from modeling social mechanisms to emergent phenomena and interactive systems. In: Helbing D, editor. Social self-organization. Berlin (Germany): Springer; p. 25–70.

 Google Scholar

Lindkvist E, Wijermans N, Daw TM, Gonzalez-Mon B, Giron-Nava A, Johnson AF, Van Putten I, Basurto X, Schlüter M. 2020. Navigating complexities: agent-based modeling to support research, governance, and management in small-scale fisheries. Front Mar Sci. 6:733. doi:10.3389/fmars.2019.00733.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vervoort JM. 2019. New frontiers in futures games: leveraging game sector developments. Futures. 105:174–186. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2018.10.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Oteros-Rozas E, Martín-López B, Daw TM, Bohensky EL, Butler JRA, Hill R, Martin-Ortega J, Quinlan A, Ravera F, Ruiz-Mallén I, et al. 2015. Participatory scenario planning in place-based social-ecological research: insights and experiences from 23 case studies. Ecol Soc. 20. doi:10.5751/ES-07985-200432.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wiek A, Iwaniec D. 2014. Quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science. Sustain Sci. 9:497–512. doi:10.1007/s11625-013-0208-6.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Milkoreit M. 2016. The promise of climate fiction - imagination, storytelling and the politics of the future. In: Wapner P, Elver H, editors. Reimagining climate change. Oxford (UK): Routledge; p. 171–191.

 Google Scholar

Merrie A, Keys P, Metian M, Österblom H. 2018. Radical ocean futures-scenario development using science fiction prototyping. Futures. 95:22–32. doi:10.1016/J.FUTURES.2017.09.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar