Guest editorial FTA break new ground in response to grand challenges Vicente Carabias, Peter De Smedt and Thomas Teichler Abstract Purpose This Guest Editorial aims
to demonstrate the diversity of application fields in which FTA METHODS are being used and to offer a glimpse into possible consequences that grand challenges may imply for the development of FTA.
Design/methodology/approach This introductory paper provides an overview of selected FTA 2011 Conference contributions for this Special issue.
Research limitations/implications From a large set of excellent papers presented at the FTA 2011 Conference, only a restricted number of papers could be included in this Special issue highlighting the broad diversity of FTA application fields in response to grand challenges.
The 4th International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA) held in May 2011 illustrated the existing variety of FTA APPROACHES to address structural
In this context, this introductory paper provides an overview of selected FTA 2011 conference contributions and the diversity of application fields in
Thus, the following articles explore not only the opportunities and limitations of DOI 10.1108/14636681211256062 VOL. 14 NO. 4 2012, pp. 279-281, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited,
Four scenarios were constructed by looking back to the present from the future state of 2050 The main purpose in using the scenario approach was not to predict
and anticipate the various possible futures that will guide PAGE 280 jforesight jvol. 14 NO. 4 2012 society.
and offer a glimpse onto possible consequences that grand challenges may imply for the development of FTA in the coming years.
About the authors Vicente Carabias, who has a MSC in Environmental sciences from ETHZ in 1996,
Delphi survey, SWOT analysis and scenario development methods in various contexts over the last ten years. He is a Board member of The swiss Academic Association for Environmental Research and Ecology (SAGUF
VOL. 14 NO. 4 2012 jforesight jpage 281 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.
see Scapolo and Porter (2008) for an overview). In Cagnin and Keenan (2008, p. 4) it is emphasised that FTA is based on principles such as future orientation, evidence, multiplicity of perspectives,
multidisciplinary coordination but also on a strong action orientation by supporting actors in actively shaping the future.
which led to unintended effects that had been‘‘proven''in ex post analyses (see TSU Oxford et al. 2010).
PAGE 282 jforesight j VOL. 14 NO. 4 2012, pp. 282-293, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1463-6689 DOI
2003) that in most Megaprojects costs are underestimated, revenues are overestimated and the environmental effects are undervalued. In part, at least, these unintended effects and theses controversies are rooted in the complex nature of the transport system.
see for example Klu ver et al. 2000, Renn et al. 1995. Whereas the intention of quantifications using numerical models
and scientific debate (see for example Renn 2008) for a long time. VOL. 14 NO. 4 2012 jforesight jpage 283 Risk, uncertainties and unintended effects are obviously a problem for transport planning.
Generally speaking, the scholarly literature shows consistently that all decision making takes place under conditions of uncertainty
2010) reveals, that differentiating between different levels of uncertainty appears to be a promising approach. Positions differ on such typologies of uncertainties and the relationship between knowledge types and uncertainty.
An overview of the historical development of the latter is given in van Asselt and Rotmans (2002.
and‘‘uncertainty'',referring to a more genuine lack of systematic understanding of causal relations (Knight 1921, see also Runde 1998).
or even conceive (see TSU Oxford et al. 2010). In a similar way and by referring to von Schomberg (2005), Armin Grunwald (2007,
p. 246) argues: While risk is a quantifiable parameter where there is both significant scientific knowledge about the probabilities of the occurrence of certain effects and reliable knowledge about the nature and extent of possible harm,
Kleindorfer (2008, p. 7) distinguishes between‘‘epistemic risks, ''which arise from a lack of knowledge about the appropriate model
van Asselt and Rotmans (2002) provide a categorisation of the sources of uncertainty, whereas a general differentiation is made between uncertainty due to variability and uncertainty due to limited knowledge of the system.
2010) argue that, in order to manage uncertainty, one must be aware that different levels of knowledge exist.
''The latter ones are similar to the third category that Sven Ove Hansson (1996) has added to the discussion of uncertainty.‘‘
PAGE 284 jforesight jvol. 14 NO. 4 2012 2. Known unknowns. These are the uncertainties in the Knightian sense
and their quantification Reduce exposure to the hazardous agent Strategy type Precaution Precautionary prevention Prevention Examples Car friendly urban policy in the 1960's leading to congestion several years
Car friendly urban policy in the 1960's leading to urban sprawl. From a 1970's perspective:
heavy growth rates in freight transport in the EU on roads from and to eastern European countries Effect of a bypass road on kilometres driven in an area (additional traffic might be attracted.
Building on the work of the German Risk Commission (Risk Commission 2003), in the context of this paper risk is understood, in its economic/toxicological/engineering sciences definition,
as a quantitative characterization of adverse effects in terms of the probability of its occurrence and the level of its impacts VOL. 14 NO. 4 2012 jforesight jpage 285 nodes that are interlinked.
Notwithstanding these reservations, Table II illustrates that it is possible to define clear characteristics for both of them (see DLR and KIT, 2010;
2010). ) This categorisation has considerable overlaps with the distinction between qualitative and quantitative approaches. One of the main criterions to distinguish between tools
which they seek to PAGE 286 jforesight jvol. 14 NO. 4 2012 integrate knowledge of experts, stakeholders and also of laypeople in the process of policy making.
mandatory step (see for example Mishan and Quah 2007). CBA is about comparing the gains and losses of undertaking a new project or a policy.
Brainstorming Quantitative models Open space Cost-benefit analysis Expert workshops Multi-criteria analysis Focus groups pta methods Explorative (qualitative) scenarios VOL. 14 NO. 4 2012 jforesight jpage
The typical unit of measurement is money (Hanley and Barbier, 2009. The overall intention of CBA is the assessment of projects, planning or programmes.
1999). ) It is considered often as an alternative or an extension to pure CBA in cases where important effects cannot be monetised MCA allows decision makers to include a full range of social, environmental, technical, economic,
Scenarios are defined by many authors as a coherent illustration of possible future situations together with pathways that might lead to these situations (Kosow and Gaßner 2008.
and Figure 1 Appropriate FTA METHODS for addressing different types of knowledge PAGE 288 jforesight jvol. 14 NO. 4 2012 help to turn such unknowns into knowns.
In particular for SEA, participatory or consultative methods are used also frequently (see Rauschmayer and Risse, 2005.
thus, is able to deal with unknowns (see Therivel 2004). 4. Illustrative exemplification of the approach The main intention of the differentiation between structurally open
The latter case was somewhat characteristic for the 1950 and 60'ties. In this period, a highly optimistic view on the predictability of developments in the transport sector was dominating.
based on Evans and Mackinder, 1980) illustrates that many of these forecasts turned out to be wrong in the UK.
Banister (2002 p. 134) stipulates: Two crucial issues in all TPMS have been the assumption of stability in model coefficients over time
and even beyond (see S21, 2010). It is not possible to illustrate the long and complex discussion process which accompanied the planning.
since the modelling had been based on VOL. 14 NO. 4 2012 jforesight jpage 289 assumptions which they considered as being wrong.
In a study on inaccuracies in travel forecasts in the USA, Parthasarati and Levinson (2010) conducted interviews with experts.
A positive example for a careful application and integration of results of different FTA METHODS is the development of the European commissions (Commission of the European communities, 2008)‘‘Action Plan for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems''(ITS.
which are connected with specific target dates, ranging from 2009 to 2014. Although this timeframe constitutes a short to medium time perspective,
the action plans aims at building a long-term vision, defining the role ITS will play in the future road transport system in Europe.
A PAGE 290 jforesight jvol. 14 NO. 4 2012 broad range of tools and methods exists that are used for assessing the impact of transport policy decision-making by trying to anticipate such effects.
Grunwald (2009, p. 1129) argues in relation to quantitative tools:‘‘‘‘quantitative''is equated often with‘‘objective''.''Subjective questioning of evaluation should be‘‘objectivised''.
only selective knowledge can be gained on social phenomena through quantification due to the fact that the models normally only consider a reduced amount of variables that describe social realities (Grunwald, 2009).
2005, p. 1066) emphasise that, instead of forecasting methods to produce single-value deterministic images of the future,
VOL. 14 NO. 4 2012 jforesight jpage 291 Further research will be needed to elaborate on how the categorisation can be used most effectively for designing planning processes in the transport sector and beyond.
dealing with problem-oriented transdisciplinary research (see for Hessels and van Lente, 2008 for a critical review) in greater depth.
1994). ) The structurally open/structurally closed approach (see chapter 3) could be discussed within this context
References Banister, D. 2002), Transport Planning, 2nd ed.,Routledge, London. Cagnin, C. and Keenan, M. 2008),‘Positioning future-oriented technology analysis'',in Cagnin, C.,Keenan, M.,Johnston, R.,Scapolo, F. and Barre',R. Eds), Future-oriented technology analyses.
Strategic intelligence for an Innovative economy, Springer, Berlin, pp. 1-13. Commission of the European communities (2008), Action Plan for the Deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in Europe.
Communication for the Commission of the European communities COM (2008) 886 Final 16 december, Commission of the European communities, Brussels. DLR and KIT (2010), OPTIC Deliverable 2:
inventory of tools and methods for early detection of adverse effects, available at: http://optic. toi. no Evans, S. H. and Mackinder,
I. H. 1980),‘Predictive accuracy of British transport studies'',paper presented at the PTRC Annual Conference, University of Warwick, Coventry.
Flyvbjerg, B.,Bruzelius, N. and Rothengatter, W. 2003), Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition, Cambridge university Press, Cambridge.
Gibbons, M.,Limoges, C.,Nowotny, H.,Schwartzman, S.,Scott, P. and Trow, M. 1994), The New Production of Knowledge:
Gordon, T. J.,Glenn, J. C. and Jakil, A. 2005),‘Frontiers of future research: what's next?''
''Technological forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 72, pp. 1064-9. Grunwald, A. 2007),‘Working towards sustainable development in the face of uncertainty and incomplete knowledge'',Journal of Environmental policy and Planning, Vol. 9
Grunwald, A. 2009),‘Technology assessment: concepts and methods'',Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Volume 9:
Hanley, N. and Barbier, E. B. 2009), Pricing Nature. Cost-benefit analysis and Environmental policy-Making, Edward Elgar, London.
Hansson, S. O. 1996),‘Decision making under great uncertainty'',Philosophy of Science, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 369-86.
Hessels, L. K. and van Lente, H. 2008),‘Rethinking knowledge production: a literature review and a research agenda'',Research policy, Vol. 37, pp. 740-60.
Justen, A.,Schippl, J.,Ho lt, A. and Fleischer, T. 2010),‘Expect the unexpected: qualitative and quantitative tools and methods to detect unintended effects of transport policies,
''paper presented at the European Transport Conference, Glasgow, 12 october. Kleindorfer, P. R. 2008),‘Reflections on the decision making under uncertainties'',Faculty and Research Working Paper, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, available at:
http://ssrn. com/abstract 1310239 Klu ver, L.,Nentwich, M.,Peissl, W.,Torgersen, H.,Gloede, F.,Hennen, L.,van Eijndhoven
, J.,van Est, R.,Joss, S.,Bellucci, S. and Bu tschi, D. 2000), EUROPTA, The Danish Board of Technology, Copenhagen, available at:
PAGE 292 jforesight jvol. 14 NO. 4 2012 Kosow, H. and Gaßner, R. 2008),‘Methods of future and scenario analysis:
Mendoza, G. A.,Macoun, P.,Prabhu, R.,Sukadri, D.,Purnomo, H. and Hartanto, H. 1999), Guidelines for Applying Multi-Criteria Analysis to the Assessment of Criteria
Mishan, E. J. and Quah, E. 2007), Cost Benefit Analysis, 5th ed.,Routledge, London and New york, NY.
Parthasarati, P. and Levinson, D. 2010),‘Post-construction evaluation of traffic forecast studies'',Transport Policy, Vol. 17, pp. 428-43.
Rauschmayer, F. and Risse, N. 2005),‘A framework for the selection of participatory approaches for SEA''
Renn, O. 2008), Risk governance. Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World, Earthscan, London. Renn, O.,Webler, T. and Wiedemann, P. Eds)( 1995), Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation:
Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, Risk governance and Society, Vol. 10, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht. Risk Commission (2003), Ad hoc Commission on‘‘Revision of Risk analysis Procedures and Structures as well as of Standard Setting in the field of Environmental Health in the Federal republic of germany'',Final Report, Salzgitter Federal Radiological
Protection Agency, Berlin. Runde, J. 1998),‘Clarifying Frank Knight's discussion of the meaning of risk and uncertainty'',Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 22, pp. 539-46.
S21 (2010), Wortprotokoll der Schlichtung. Protokoll 1 vom 22.10.2010 (Transscript of the mediation. Protocol from 22.10.2010
available at: www-schlichtung. s21. de (accessed 2 august 2011. Scapolo, F. and Porter, A l. 2008),‘New methodological developments in FTA'',in Cagnin, C.,Keenan, M.,Johnston, R.,Scapolo, F. and Barre',R. Eds), Future-oriented technology analyses:
Strategic intelligence for an Innovative economy, Springer, Berlin, pp. 149-62. Therivel, R. 2004), Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action, Earthscan, London.
TSU Oxford et al. 2010), OPTIC Deliverable 1: inventory of measures, typology of non-intentional effects and a framework for policy packaging, available at:
http://optic. toi. no van Asselt, M. B. A. and Rotmans, J. 2002),‘Uncertainty in integrated assessment modelling'',Climate change, Vol. 54, pp. 75
-105. von Schomberg, R. 2005),‘The precautionary principle and its normative challenges'',in Fisher, E.,Jones, J. and von Schomberg, R. Eds), The Precautionary principle and Public policy Decision making, Edward
Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 141-65. Walker, E w.,Marchau, V. and Swanson, D. 2010),‘Addressing deep uncertainty using adaptive policies:
introduction to section 2'',Technological forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 77, pp. 917-23. About the authors Jens Schippl is a Senior researcher at the Institute for Technology assessment and Systems analysis (ITAS), Karlsruhe Institute of technology.
Jens Schippl is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: jens. schippl@kit. edu Torsten Fleischer is a Senior researcher at the Institute for Technology assessment and Systems analysis (ITAS), Karlsruhe Institute of technology.
VOL. 14 NO. 4 2012 jforesight jpage 293 To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
applications and case studies) have developed out of need (see www. andyhinesight. com/category/foresight-2/(accessed August 2011) re practitioner usage);
2008) and Miller (2011. In many ways, foresight techniques also originally arose out of the need to deal with unexpected events in the technology and political arenas, for example the classic Shell scenarios.
has focussed on adapting scenario techniques, Rami'rez and Van der Heijden (2008) or on wild card management, for example that based on weak signal methodologies, Mendonc¸a et al.
2004). ) As complexity theory itself has developed, Mitchell (2009), so has limited some work in the foresight field, Ringland (2010) and Miller and Poli (2010),
but there has been little specific consideration of how foresight techniques need to PAGE 294 jforesight j VOL. 14 NO. 4 2012, pp. 294-303, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited,
ISSN 1463-6689 DOI 10.1108/14636681211256080 Averil Horton is a Visiting Fellow at Brunel University Business school, Uxbridge,
UK. be developed more generally to accommodate complexity theory and its specific implications for disruptive events. In addition, there has been published little work
Foresight may be either an art or a science, Bell (2003), and may or may not be, a discipline,
including Prigogine and Stengers (1984), Byrne (1998) Mitchell (2009), Goodwin (1994), Strogatz (2003), and Waldrop (1992),
but like any developing area there are many common themes. This paper will explore some selected elements of complexity theory and their implications for foresight techniques,
VOL. 14 NO. 4 2012 jforesight jpage 295 Systems can also be unexpectedly very stable highly resistant to change by policy intervention-or very unstable such as where a policy intervention leads to stream of unexpected changes
2000). ) Equally, there can be long periods of (apparent) stability, (called‘‘attractors''as they are states to which the system is attracted)
a driver's entire day may be determined by the first turn, left or right, made out of the parking space.
a difference in the 7th decimal place will determine which of two possible tracks it goes down Mitchell (2009:
(and will never‘‘settle down'')a peak may become worthless compared to others and the taxi driver may go out of business (selection).
PAGE 296 jforesight jvol. 14 NO. 4 2012 Agents need to be able to see the adjacent deep valley a potential future peak,
Glouberman and Zimmerman (2002) A complex system is made up of many individual, self-organizing elements capable of responding to others and to their environment.
Mikulecky (2001) Complexity is the property of a real world system that is manifest in the inability of any one formalism being adequate to capture all its properties.
Axelrod and Cohen (2001) A complex system is a body of causal processes and agents whose interactions lead to outcomes that are unpredictable.
From a foresight perspective however, Axelrod's (1985) is the most useful: Agents, of a variety of types, use their strategies, in patterned interaction, with each other and with artefacts.
a flock of birds flying is another, Reynolds (1987. In summary the implications of complexity theory for foresight techniques are that they must:
VOL. 14 NO. 4 2012 jforesight jpage 297 B Enable practitioners to visualise systems from very different perspectives,
i e. being a description of perception rather than a description of reality (Schwartz, 1991), or more simply as reframing the future landscape and potential strategies, options,
An example of Reframing from Battram (2000: After much searching in many different areas of the city, you have finally found a possible flat to buy
angry birds PAGE 298 jforesight jvol. 14 NO. 4 2012 You realise, keep quiet and start to walk out of the shop;
Axelrod and Cohen (2001) call it the‘‘shadow of the future''.''From the perspective of applying foresight the benefits of reframing are:
''Some foresight techniques do use Reframing, for example in causal layered analysis, Inayatullah (1990), employs reframing at the deep myth/metaphor level. 4. Results policy making implications We all have our favourite story of a failed
Axelrod and Cohen (2001) VOL. 14 NO. 4 2012 jforesight jpage 299 describe the idea of harnessing complexity to deliberately change the structure of the system,
Battram (2000) and Swanson and Bhadwal (2009), have considered how complexity-based foresight can be applied to policy making.
Table II adapted from Bhimji (2009)- direction, design, and delivery to explore one example of a complexity-based technique to deal with disruptive events in policy-making Promoting variation.
Adapted from Bhimji (2009) PAGE 300 jforesight jvol. 14 NO. 4 2012 bring the benefits of realising that there are more variations than originally thought of
There are at least three key ideas, Battram (2000) and Swanson and Bhadwal (2009), which can help policy makers to promote variation:
and strengthen those policies VOL. 14 NO. 4 2012 jforesight jpage 301 Foresight methodology Foresight techniques need to be developed to embrace emergence to harness the self-organised behaviour that results from interactions between the parts of a complex system rather than
References Axelrod, R. 1985), The Evolution of Cooperation, reprinted ed.,Basic books, New york, NY. Axelrod, R. and Cohen, M. 2001), Harnessing Complexity:
Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier, The Free Press, New york, NY. Battram, A. 2000), Navigating Complexity:
The Essential Guide to Complexity theory in Business and Management, Spiro Press, London. Bell, W. 2003), Foundations of Futures studies:
History, Purposes, and Knowledge, Volume 1: Human Science for a New Era, Transaction Publishers, Piscataway, NJ.
Bhimji, W. 2009), Guidance on the Use of Strategic foresight Analysis for Policy development in Government, UK Government office for Science, London, available at:
www. bis. gov. uk/assets/foresight/docs/horizonscanning-centre/futuresinpolicyguidance. pdf (accessed 6 june 2012. Byrne, D. 1998), Complexity theory and the Social sciences:
An Introduction, Routledge, New york, NY. Gheorghiou, L.,Cassingena Harper, J.,Keenan, M. and Miles, I. 2008), The Handbook of Technology foresight:
Concepts and Practice, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 3-23. Glouberman, S. and Zimmerman, B. 2002), Complicated and Complex systems:
What Would Successful Reform of Medicare Look like? Commission on the Future of Healthcare in Canada, Ottawa.
Goodwin, B. 1994), How the Leopard Changed Its Spots, Phoenix, London. Inayatullah, S. 1990),‘Deconstructing
and reconstructing the future: predictive, cultural and critical epistemologies'',Futures, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 115-41.
PAGE 302 jforesight jvol. 14 NO. 4 2012 Mendonc¸A s.,Pine Cunha, M.,Kaivo-oja, J. and Ruff, F. 2004), Futures, Vol
Mikulecky, C. 2001),‘The emergence of complexity: science coming of age or science growing old?''''Computers and Chemistry, Vol. 25, pp. 341-8. Miller, M. 2011),‘Being without existing:
the futures community at a turning point? A comment on Jay Ogilvy's‘Facing the fold'''Foresight, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 24-34.
Miller, R. and Poli, R. 2010),‘Introduction to a Special issue on anticipatory systems and the philosophical foundations of future studies'',Foresight, Vol. 12 No. 3. Mitchell, M. 2009), Complexity:
I. 1984), Order Out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue with Nature, Heinemann, London. Rami'rez, R. and Van der Heijden, K. Eds)( 2008), Business Planning for Turbulent Times:
New methods for Applying Scenarios, Earthscan, London. Reynolds, C. 1987),‘Flocks, herds, and schools, a distributed behavioural model 1'',Computer graphics, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 25-34.
Ridgeway, J.,Zawojewski, J. S. and Hoover, M. N. 2000),‘Problematising evidence-based policy and practice'',Evaluation and Research in Education, Vol. 14 Nos
3/4. Ringland, G. 2010),‘Frameworks for coping with post-normal times: a response to Ziauddin Sardar'',Futures, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 633-9. Schwartz, P. 1991), The Art of the Long View:
Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World, Bantam Doubleday Dell, New york, NY. Strogatz, S. 2003), Sync:
The Emerging science of Spontaneous Order, Hyperion, New york, NY. Swanson, D. and Bhadwal, S. 2009), Creating Adaptive Policies:
A Guide for Policymaking in an Uncertain World, Sage Publications, Ottowa. Waldrop, M. 1992), Complexity, The Emerging science at the Edge of Order and Chaos, Simon & Schuster, New york, NY.
Corresponding author Averil Horton can be contacted at: averil@alpha2omega. co. uk VOL. 14 NO. 4 2012 jforesight jpage 303 To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
reprints@emeraldinsight. com Or visit our web site for further details: www. emeraldinsight. com/reprints Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.
Further reproduction prohibited without permission
Backcasting scenarios for Finland 2050 of low emissions Sirkka Heinonen and Ville Lauttama ki Abstract Purpose The objective of this paper is to present an example on how futures studies methodologies,
especially backcasting, can be used to assist public policy formulation. Backcasting is particularly interesting method in this context,
Keywords Delphi method, Environmental politics, Government policy, Scenario planning, Sustainable development, Strategic planning, Forecasting Paper type Case study Introduction Since the 1990s each new Finnish government has prepared a comprehensive foresight report
In 2008-2009 The Finnish Prime minister's Office coordinated the construction of the government foresight report on climate and energy policy (Prime minister's Office, 2009.
and paths that would lead Finland to PAGE 304 jforesight j VOL. 14 NO. 4 2012,
and Ville Lauttama ki is a Researcher, both at the Finland futures research centre, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. low-carbon society by the year 2050.
The scenario process was facilitated by the Finland futures research centre (FFRC) of the University of Turku in late 2008.
and energy strategy for Finland 1. The time horizon in the climate and energy strategy was 2020,
whereas in the foresight report work it was set up for 2050. These two works (foresight report and strategy) supported
the Prime minister's Office had identified already the desired goal for the year 2050: development that will contribute to limiting the rise in the global average temperature to two degrees Celsius at the most,
as well as reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases by at least 80 per cent from 1990 levels.
The reduction of at least 80 per cent is at the lower end of the range (80-95 per cent) estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC, 2007) for industrialised countries in accordance with the two-degree target.
B Population of Finland is assumed to grow from the current 5. 3 million to 5. 7 million by 2050.
B Finnish economy will grow markedly by 2050, but the structure of the economy can change.
B Low-carbon technology will improve significantly in all sectors by 2050. B Prices of fossil fuels will rise
B Climate change will alter the conditions in Finland by 2050: the need for heating energy will diminish
The Delphi process was adopted to VOL. 14 NO. 4 2012 jforesight jpage 305 provide a basis for a group communication process,
Gordon, 2010; Linstone and Turoff, 2011. All stages were conducted within a compelling timeframe of four months.
Together these four elements formed an integral process where each stage produced a deeper understanding of different socio-technical interconnections that affect the way the future unfolds,
and where a more precise formulation of possible paths toward sustainable futures emerged. Table I presents the progress of the process in a concise form.
2006) rightly point out. Scenarios cover a whole array of various types of scenarios. Mannermaa (1991) even distinguishes a scenario paradigm.
The main purpose in using the scenario approach is not to predict but to construct several different futures
I Progress of the scenario process Phase Time Method Goal Material gathering and final design of the study September 2008 Literary review,
designing the first questionnaire Defining the expert group involved in the futures workshops together with the Prime minister's Office's scenario team 1st Delphi round October 2008 Delphi:
which climate and energy policy should focus Futures workshop October 2008 Futures workshop, ACTVOD futures process Building alternative scenarios that all fulfil the two-degree target 2nd Delphi round November 2008 Delphi:
online survey targeted for expert group (with Webropol survey software) Testing and specifying the development paths constructed in the first futures workshop:
four distinctive scenarios, are constructed Futures workshop November 2008 Futures workshop, ACTVOD futures process Analysing and specifying the four designed scenarios Final report December 2008 Final report in electronic format Report gathering together the results of the process:
four different paths for the desired end state PAGE 306 jforesight jvol. 14 NO. 4 2012 book Looking Backward 2000-1887.
Backcasting is considered as an opposite to forecasting, which is a process of predicting the future on the basis of current trend analysis,
it sets a preferred goal (Ho jer et al. 2011, p. 11. As opposite to traditional forecasting, backasting suits well in the study and solving of highly complex,
they call for creative and radical solutions (Hickman and Banister, 2007, p. 378. As today's conditions and thinking patterns often narrow possible solutions
''Ho jer et al. 2011, pp. 11-12. Instead of continuities they build on possible discontinuities to reach the solution desired
Backcasting scenarios are usually relatively long-term (20-100 years)( Robinson, 1990, p. 820), which in itself helps thinking outside current trends
in formulating the path from the future to present external factors need to be taken account (Robinson, 1990, pp. 830-831).
value-laden issues, increase social learning and in themselves advance social change (Robinson et al. 2011, p. 757).
i e. they are adopted in search for prerequisites for preferred futures (Robinson, 1982); and 2. growing interest towards backcasting scenarios had been shown in Finland,
Dunlop, 2009), and Sweden (e g. A°kerman 2011. Backcasting has been applied especially for climate, energy and transport scenarios (see, e g.
Bo rjeson et al. 2006. First round of Delphi questionnaire The process was kicked off with the first round of a Delphi questionnaire.
The first questionnaire was aimed at collecting views of the expert group to provide a basis for the scenario work.
VOL. 14 NO. 4 2012 jforesight jpage 307 First futures workshop The goal of the first futures workshop soon following the first Delphi round was to collect views
the imaginary phase (futures wheel), systematic phase (futures table) and explanatory phase (drafting an array of scenarios for sustainable Finland 2050.
This sequence of three main phases in the workshop was a modification of Jungk's (1987) workshop formula,
Results and policy implications The final results of the foresight process were four scenarios that all fulfil the targets of reducing GHG emissions by at least 80 per cent from the 1990's levels
PAGE 308 jforesight jvol. 14 NO. 4 2012 1. Efficiency revolution (concentration on diminishing energy consumption.
industry (50 per cent), heating of buildings (21 per cent), transport (17 per cent) and miscellaneous uses (13 per cent)( Statistics Finland, 2009.
During the scenario process no significant new energy uses outside these sectors were thought to emerge by 2050.
The results of these calculations are presented in the Government Foresight report (Prime minister's Office, 2009, pp. 160-184.
and the staff of the Prime minister's Office on whether or not attaching numerical values to scenarios stretching all the way to year 2050 is advisable.
Further refinement in the changes in the operational environment that affect the possibilities to reach the emission goals of 2050 would have been needed to make the foundation for attaching numerical information more solid.
the VOL. 14 NO. 4 2012 jforesight jpage 309 Table II Attributes of the constructed scenarios Scenario/variable A Efficiency revolution B Sustainable daily mile C
both passenger and freight traffic increased Energy consumption Consumption halved from 2008 level. Dramatic improvements in energy efficiency and elastic price system the main reasons behind decreased consumption Decreased by 14 from 2008 level.
Transportation and buildings require significantly less energy than in 2008 Decreased by 1/3 from 2008 level.
New houses and buildings in rural areas either passive or plus-energy houses and/or relying on renewables At the 2008 level
or slightly higher Energy production All energy produced with renewable sources 50 per cent renewable, 50 per cent nuclear energy (use of nuclear power has increased slightly from 2008) 75 per cent renewable,
rest with nuclear energy Share of renewables less than 50 per cent, use of nuclear energy has increased clearly,
CCS technologies in use (continued) PAGE 310 jforesight jvol. 14 NO. 4 2012 Table II Scenario/variable A Efficiency revolution B Sustainable daily
and improve the state of the environment VOL. 14 NO. 4 2012 jforesight jpage 311 numbers can also easily be considered as neutral
and approved in the government and by Parliament in October 2009. A year after that, the government commissioned an evaluation on the effectiveness of the preparation process that would comment on the general progress of the process as well as the usability of this kind of foresight work in policy planning.
This internal evaluation was conducted by the Prime minister's office. One has to bear in mind that the evaluation concerned the whole foresight report,
2010), since a lot of public interest was directed towards it and the full scenarios were published only as attachments in the completed foresight report.
and two external evaluations one being the official statement given by the Committee for the Future in Parliament (2011),
and another one by an expert (Wilenius, 2011). The Committee for the Future (2011) supported the government foresight report.
The Committee had its own analyses of the Finnish climate policy made on three aspects:
In the evaluation of government foresight report by Wilenius (2011), attention was drawn to the fact that the government foresight report could have dug deeper into the economic implications of climate and energy policy
Wilenius (2011) recommends the application of scenarios in the future as well, and proposes that the focus in developing foresight reports should be,
In the evaluation, especially the scenario work is PAGE 312 jforesight jvol. 14 NO. 4 2012 acknowledged for bringing forward genuinely varied possibilities to achieve the emission targets.
Prime minister's Office organised a gathering on March 29, 2011 for those involved in the foresight report work to discuss retrospectively the process
and reflect on the impacts of the foresight report. Government Climate Policy Specialist Oras Tynkkynen who was responsible for the preparation of the report in the Prime minister's Office 3,
remarked on that occasion that it was a major breakthrough achievement to have committed Finland to reducing its emissions to a sustainable level by at least 80 per cent from the 1990 level by 2050.
Finland of low emissions 2050. The measures and steps for reaching that goal will continue to be under debate.
Especially participatory methods where views of various different VOL. 14 NO. 4 2012 jforesight jpage 313 experts are considered are recommended highly.
l en&s 2658 (accessed 20 december 2011. 2. The scenario titles are here in the form that they are presented in Government Foresight report (Prime minister's Office, 2009.
In the original scenario work the titles were rather similar, except for the scenario D. Its tentative title‘‘Power from Decentralisation''was transformed into‘‘Technology is the Key''.
References A°kerman, J. 2011),‘Transport systems meeting climate targets. A backcasting approach including international aviation'',doctoral thesis, Royal Institute of technology, Stockholm.
Bellamy, E. 1951), Looking Backward 2000-1887. With an introduction by Robert L. Shurter, Modern Library, New york, NY,(first published 1887.
Bo rjeson, L.,Ho jer, M.,Dreborg, K.-H.,Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G. 2006),‘Scenario types and techniques.
Committee for the Future (2011), Tulevaisuusvaliokunnan mietinto 1/2010 vp. Valtioneuvoston tulevaisuusselonteko ilmasto-ja energiapolitiikasta:
Dunlop, I. 2009), Club of Rome activities of Australian members, Club of Rome General assembly, 24 october, Amsterdam.
Gordon, T. J. 2010),‘The Delphi method'',in Gordon, T. J. and Glenn, J. Eds), Futures research methodology CD Version 3. 0, Ch. 4, Millennium Project, WASHINGTON DC.
Hickman, R. and Banister, D. 2007),‘Looking over the horizon: transport and reduced CO2 emissions in the UK by 2030'',Transport Policy, Vol. 14, pp. 377-87.
Ho jer, M.,Gullberg, A. and Petterson, R. 2011), Images of the Future City. Time and Space for Sustainable development, Springer, Dordrecht.
IPCC (2007), IPCC AR4 WGIII, Climate change 2007: Mitigation of Climate change, WGIII Contribution to the IPCC AR4, Cambridge university Press, Cambridge and New york, NY, chapter 13, Box 13.7, p. 776, available at:
www. ipcc. ch/publications and data/publications ipcc fourth assessment report wg3 report mitigation of climate change. htm (accessed 20 december 2011. Jungk, R. 1987), Futures Workshops:
How to Create Desirable futures, Institute for Social Invention, London. Lauttama ki, V. and Heinonen, S. 2010), Va ha isten pa a sto jen Suomi 2050.
Raportti ilmasto-ja energiapoliittisen tulevaisuusselonteon skenaariotyo sta. Tulevaisuuden tutkimuskeskus, Turun yliopisto, TUTU-e-julkaisuja 8/2010 (in Finnish with an English abstract), available at:
http://ffrc. utu. fi/julkaisut/ejulkaaisujaetutu 2010-8. pdf (accessed 20 december 2011. Linstone, H. A. and Turoff, M. Eds)( 1975), The Delphi method:
Techniques and Applications, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Linstone, H. A. and Turoff, M. 2011),‘Delphi:
A brief look backward and forward'',Technological forecasting & Social Change, Vol. 78 No. 9, pp. 1712-9. PAGE 314 jforesight jvol. 14 NO. 4 2012 Mannermaa, M
. 1991),‘In search of an evolutionary paradigm for futures research'',Futures, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 349-72.
Prime minister's Office (2009), Government Foresight report on Long-term Climate and Energy Policy: Towards a Low-carbon Finland, Prime minister's Office Publication 30/2009, available at:
www. vnk. fi/julkaisukansio/2009/j28-ilmasto-selonteko-j29-klimat-framtidsredogoerelse-j30-climate /pdf/en. pdf (accessed 20 december 2011.
Robinson, J. 1982),‘Energy backcasting: a proposed method of policy analysis'',Energy Policy, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 337-44.
Robinson, J. 1990),‘Futures under glass: a recipe for people who hate to predict'',Futures, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 820-42.
Robinson, J.,Burch, S.,Talwar, S.,O'Shea, M. and Walsh, M. 2011),‘Envisioning sustainability:
recent progress in the use of participatory backcasting approaches for sustainability research'',Technological forecasting & Social Change, Vol. 78, pp. 756-68.
Statistics Finland (2009),‘Final energy consumption by sector 2008'',available at: www. stat. fi/til/ehkh/2008/04/ehkh 2008 04 2009-03-24 kuv 017 en. html (accessed 20 december 2011.
Wilenius, M. 2011),‘Towards a pioneering status? Assessment of the Foresight report on Long-term Climate and Energy Policy'',Prime minister's Office, Helsinki, Prime minister's Office Publications 3/2011, available at:
www. vnk. fi/julkaisukansio/2011/j01-02-03-kohti-edellakavijyytta/PDF/en. pdf (accessed 20 december 2011.
Further reading Committee for the Future (2011), Valtioneuvoston tulevaisuusselonteko ilmasto-ja energiapolitiikasta: suosituksia ja yhteenveto kokemuksista.
Valtioneuvoston kanslian raporttisarja 4/2011 (in Finnish), available at: www. vnk. fi/julkaisukansio/2011/r04-05-06-tulevaisuusselonteko-suosituksia/PDF/fi. pdf (accessed 20 december 2011.
About the authors Sirkka Heinonen holds a Doctor's degree in Philosophy from Helsinki University. She is Professor of Futures research at the Finland futures research centre, University of Turku.
Previously she was a Chief Research scientist at the Technical research Centre of Finland (VTT. Her expertise is concerned with futures research, sustainable development, technology foresight, energy and environment,
and the future of communities. On these topics she has conducted several research projects and written research reports.
Sirkka Heinonen is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: sirkka. heinonen@utu. fi Ville Lauttama ki holds a Master's degree in Economics
and Business administration from the Turku School of economics and is currently preparing his Phd in Economic Sociology at the University of Turku.
VOL. 14 NO. 4 2012 jforesight jpage 315 To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011