dates

ART2.pdf

Frontiers of futures research: What's next? Theodore J. Gordon, Jerome C. Glenn*,Ana Jakil American Council for the United nations University, 4421 Garrison Street N w.,WASHINGTON DC 20016, United states Received

13 may 2004; received in revised form 24 october 2004; accepted 1 november 2004 Abstract This paper describes some important frontiers of futures research with the aim of identifying new opportunities for improving the value and utility of the field.

These frontiers include the exploration and/or the reexamination of (a) Potential for integrating new technology with futures research methods,

(b) Ways to reduce the domain of the unknowable, (c) Ways to account for uncertainty in decision making,(d) Strategies for planning and management of nonlinear systems operating in the chaotic regime,

there is no assurance that the evolution of such methods 0040-1625/$-see front matter D 2005 American Council for the United nations University.

Technological forecasting & Social Change 72 (2005) 1064 1069 will lead to a more organized bscience-likeq field with a theoretical basis. Not only are there many diverse techniques for theorizing,

Just forty years ago, computers were not much of a factor in futures research. The Delphi method was accomplished with pencil and paper in 1963,

forty years from now nearly all futures methods will be conducted in software, through networks, with diverse and changing sets of people, continually cross-referencing data,

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 72 (2005) 1064 1069 1065 So, given these circumstances, how can the domain of the unknowable be reduced?

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 72 (2005) 1064 1069 1066 nonlinear (that is, input and output are related not in a one-to-one fashion) and, through excessive feedback or bgain,

In the old days validity was tested by building models with data through some date in the past

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 72 (2005) 1064 1069 1067 6. Judgment heuristics People often make irrational decisions.

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 72 (2005) 1064 1069 1068 9. Conclusions This paper has identified several frontiers

and challenges that may give new vitality to futures research. Certainly as they and other directions are explored the field will gain new thinking

Thus, these frontiers will serve as important orientation in the elaboration of the second edition of Futures research methodology 2. 1 (CD-ROM) to be published by American Council for the United nations University early in 2005.

Futures research methodology Version 2. 0 (CD-ROM), American Council for the United nations University, 2002. For further information see:

http://www. acunu. org/millennium/FRM-v2. html. 2 Robert J. Lempert, Popper Steven, Steven C. Bankes, Shaping The next One hundred Years:

Change 42 (1992) 1 15.5 Daniel Kahneman, Slovic Paul, Tversky Amos (Eds. Judgment Under Uncertainty:

Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge university Press, 1982. Theodore J. Gordon is Senior Fellow and cofounder of the Millennium Project of the American Council for the United nations University.

He is the founder and Board member of The Futures Group International and member of the Board of the Institute for Global Ethics, UK.

Jerome C. Glenn is the director of the Millennium Project bwww. acunu. orgn for the American Council for the United nations University

and has 35 years experience in futures research with governments, UN organizations, corporations, universities, and nonprofit organizations.

He can be contacted at jglenn@igc. org. Ana Jakil is interning with Millennium Project for the American Council for the United nations University.

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 72 (2005) 1064 1069 1069

ART20.pdf

The role of the technology barometer in assessing the performance of the national innovation system Torsti Loikkanen a,,

Received 10 november 2008 Received in revised form 11 june 2009 Accepted 15 july 2009 Along with increasing significance of innovation in socioeconomic development grows the need to utilize future-oriented knowledge in innovation policy-making.

since the late 1990s and reached leading nations in early 2000s. This attainment raised national interest and critical debate of the reliability of the data basis and methodologies used in comparisons.

The barometer has been undertaken in 2004 2005 and 2007, and a wide interest and emerged discussion of barometer proves that a social interest

and order exists for the barometer. The article presents the background, methodology and results of technology barometer, discusses its impacts on national discussion,

and gives perspectives for the future development of barometer. 2009 Published by Elsevier Inc. Keywords: Innovation policy Science and Technology indicators Barometer Future-oriented knowledge 1. Introduction A growing number of different international comparison systems of the economic and innovation performance of nations have emerged within a decade 2

and sometimes even elusive issues and they often seem easier to interpret by the Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 Corresponding author.

0040-1625/$ see front matter 2009 Published by Elsevier Inc. doi: 10.1016/j. techfore. 2009.07.011 Contents lists available at Sciencedirect Technological forecasting & Social Change general public than finding a common trend among many separate indicators.

2. Finland has improved her positionamong developed nations according to several internationalperformance comparisons since the latter part of 1990s,

and soon in early 2000s reached a position among leading nations for example according to competitiveness reports of IMDANDWORLD Economic Forum (WEF).

The Finnish association of graduate engineers developed a technology barometer in collaboration with VTT Innovation studies during 2002 2003. The first technology barometer was published in 2004

and since then that barometer has been repeated twice in 2005 and 2007 3 7. The plan is to publish a barometer once in every two to three years.

The content of the technology barometer will be developed further in appropriate ways, however, without jeopardizing its comparative nature

so that the comparison of indicators of latest exercise to those of previous barometers remains possible. 2. Theoretical framework

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 The theoretical framework of technology barometer is based on various economic development stages since the first barometer exercise in 2004.

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 composite indicators to avoid datamanipulation andmisrepresentation 1. OECD publications 1,

According to this index figure Finland rates as second after Sweden in Technology barometer 2007. In the same way other combined composite indicators determine Finland's proportional rating compared to the reference group countries in different areas of technology barometer (the content of Technology barometer 2007 is presented in Appendix B

). Besides the indicator-based comparative analysis the technology barometer includes a forward-looking survey of future expectations of relevant target groups.

The first barometer was published in 2004. Having reached its 3rd round of implementation it is now possible to see what type of development trends are currently in progress in addition to the key numbers of each individual study.

Fig. 3 below is a synthesizing presentation of Finland's position according to the 2007 barometer

and related change of position as compared to the barometer of 2005 6, 7. The synthesis paints a picture of the country's progress in each indicator of two recent technology barometers.

Compared to the previous indicator studies (Technology barometer 2004 and 2005 positive development was observed in entrepreneurship and openness to internationalism. 1180 T. Loikkanen et al./

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 3. 2. Survey study of future visions In addition to indicator-based comparison the technology barometer instrument includes a survey about people's expectations regarding the future development trends.

altogether Fig. 3. Positioning Finland in technology barometer 2007: Figure sets out Finland's above-average or below-average rating in comparison to the reference group (the y axis),

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 272, were 2nd year students sitting for their matriculation examination.

and results of indicator study obtained in 2005 and 2007. Standard statistical practices such as the Mann Whitney U test, were applied to analyze the results.

The 2007 survey had, among others, the following results. According to the results, the Finnish politicians are consistently more optimistic than professional engineers or company executives about the country's techno-economic development.

Accordingly technology barometer 2007 accentuated the following three crosscutting themes: the changing role of knowledge-intensive work, innovations and business,

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 most notably in terms of social needs and innovation policy interest, for the kinds of insights that the technology barometer exercise can deliver.

and publish technology barometer at appropriate intervals of two or three years. The precise timing of barometer procedure depends

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 indicators. Moreover, the process of developing Finnish national strategic centres for science, technology and innovation is underway in the technology fields with future importance for businesses and the society.

JRC (2002) and compilation by OECD. Area/name of composite indicator Economy Composite of Leading indicators (OECD) OECD International Regulation Database (OECD) Economic Freedom of the World

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 Appendix B. Technology barometer 2007 Technology instrument for measuring citizens'attitudes and the nation's orientation towards a knowledge-based

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 References 1 M. Nardo, M. Saisana, A. Saltelli, S. Tarantola, A. Hoffman, E. Giovannini, Handbook

, Tekbaro 2005 Teknologiabarometri kansalaisten asenteista ja kansakunnan suuntautumisesta tietoon perustuvaan yhteiskuntaan, Tekniikan Akateemisten Liitto TEK, Tikkurilan Paino Oy Ab, Vantaa

, 2005.6 O. Lehtoranta, P. Pesonen, T. Ahlqvist, E. Mononen, T. Loikkanen, Tekbaro 2007 Teknologiabarometri kansalaisten asenteista ja kansakunnan suuntautumisesta tietoon

Tekniikan Akateemisten Liitto TEK, Painotalo Miktor, Helsinki, 2007.7 O. Lehtoranta, P. Pesonen, T. Ahlqvist, E. Mononen, T. Loikkanen, Technology barometer 2007

Revolution or a History of the Future, 1991 New york, XXXX. 11 M. Castells, The Rise of Network Society, The Information age:

Economy, Society and Culture, vol. II, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, 1997.13 M. Castells, The End of the Millennium, The Information age:

Economy, Society and Culture, vol. III, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, 1998. Torsti Loikkanen is a Senior Research scientist

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186

ART21.pdf

The methodology combination of a national foresight process in Germany Kerstin Cuhls a,, Amina Beyer-Kutzner b, Walter Ganz c, Philine Warnke d a Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research (ISI), Breslauer Str. 48,76139 Karlsruhe, Germany

Received 17 november 2008 Received in revised form 11 june 2009 Accepted 15 july 2009 In September 2007,

All of them are specifically knowledge dynamic fields. 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Foresight process Fully fledged foresight Bibliometrics Strategic partnerships Research alliances 1. Introduction In September 2007, the Federal German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) launched a new foresight process

in order to sustainably safeguard Germany's status as a research and education location. The process started with four objectives

Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1187 1197 Corresponding author. E-mail address: kerstin. cuhls@isi. fraunhofer. de (K. Cuhls.

and technology and was broadened to look into the future of the next 10 to 15 years and even further.

In a second wave nearly 1 year later, they were interviewed once more to consolidate their opinions

and interviewed in order to find the most promising topics in research and technology for the next 10 to 15 years or even further in the future.

Topics that will already be in the implementation phase during the next years, or are transferred already to innovations in 10 years'time were excluded from the lists of topics to be considered.

For first selections a set of criteria was developed together with BMBF. Fig. 1. Combination of different methods. 1188 K. Cuhls et al./

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1187 1197 The topics were handled, internally assessed and reassessed several times via an internal database and scientific papers.

As an input to the first workshop in November 2007, a first set of scientific papers describing the developments in the fields were written

An online survey among experts from the German innovation landscape was performed in September 2008 in order to get broader assessment on the topics,

in order to identify candidates for potential strategic partnerships which are proposed in 2009 at the end of the whole process (Objectives 3 and 4). In the last phase of the process,

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1187 1197 The topic fields were: 1. Life sciences and biotechnology 2. Information and communication technology 3. Materials and their production processes 4. Nanotechnology 5. Optics/photonics/optoelectronics 6. Industrial production processes

Services Science In a first workshop with 110 participants in November 2007, these 14 thematic fields were discussed with respect to emerging topics

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1187 1197 3. 2. Search phase of the process The second phase of the foresight process encompassed a further national and international search, interviews with Monitoring Panel participants,

a nationwide online survey was carried out in September 2008. The results from this survey, expert interviews and a set of criteria were supposed to be inputs to select interesting candidates for BMBF relating to the targets 1) and 2) of the process. 3. 3. The online survey Intentionally

when do you expect the highest research intensity (in 1 to 5 years, in 6 to 10 years, in 11 to 15 years or in 16 to 20 years.

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1187 1197 For the survey, in September 2008 altogether 19.365 persons from German companies, academia, associations and single persons (consultants or persons

A reminder was sent at the end of September 2008 and the survey was finished on October 22, 2008. The survey was accessed via the code we sent to the participants.

If someone else wanted to participate, it was necessary to contact the project office to receive a new code. 2659 persons filled in one of the questionnaires,

As an incentive, all participants who included their e-mail received the summarised results (beginning of 2009.

On the basis of the survey, topics that will no longer be on the research agenda in 10 years'time,

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1187 1197 3. 4. Some results In the end, eight new future fields (broader fields) with a different perspective as well as single future topics in all 20

and implementation phase An international workshop at the beginning of October 2008 marked the link to generate ideas for recommendations concerning policies

and research alliances (objectives 3) and 4)) to be elaborated in 2009 9, 10. The workshop took place in Hamburg

and topics with a time horizon of 10 to 15 years and longer be rapidly

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1187 1197 How are organisations or companies in other countries dealing with crosscutting issues and future topics with a time horizon of 10 to 15 years and beyond?

In five parallel working groups, different aspects of research and innovation policy around novel topics will be discussed: Organisation of scientific communities Establishment of research alliances Research programmes and initiatives Innovation policy instruments Ideation A round-table discussion enhanced this discussion

The challenge for the BMBF Foresight process from 2009 onwards was the design of concrete strategies to address some of the topics identified.

These talks and first workshops took place in spring 2009. All of them were tailor-made adapted to the needs of the BMBF departments (as a kind of service)

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1187 1197 Reconfiguring the policy system: in a way that makes it more apt to address long-term challenges.

The workshop in autumn 2008 is supposed to directly contribute to the theoretical and case study discussion for the translation of outcomes from the collective process into specific options for policy definition and implementation.

In the integration phase of the process in 2009, the embedding is realised step by step. But it is definitely too early in the process to exhaustively evaluate the impacts according to these five dimensions.

but was promoted by the coming year 2000 and the demand for knowledge about the future.

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1187 1197 divisions (Abteilungen and Referate) and experts in BMBF were organised very cautiously

The information and topics gained in these processes may also be interesting for other actors in the innovation system.

in 2009, general elections will be held in Germany. Until now, all German foresight processes ran into election times 19 which made it difficult to continue with the implementation preparations as intended.

and from foresight studies 22 27 and took into account knowledge from 15 years of foresight in Germany and internationally 4, 5, 6, 17,21, 28 31.

even if the large process is acknowledged not after the next general elections in 2009, there is already an impact on some of the ministerial departments.

, 2000, pp. 78 92.8 Horizon scan Report, Towards a Future Oriented Policy and Knowledge Agenda, COS, The hague, 2007, www. horizonscan. nl. 9 K. Cuhls

, Seminar Paper Prague 2003, UNIDO, Wien, 2003.12 T. Buzan, B. Buzan, The Mindmap Book, BBC Books, London, 1993.13 H. Banthien, K

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1187 1197 22 P. Warnke, G. Heimeriks, Technology foresight as innovation policy instrument:

Future-oriented technology analysis, Strategic intelligence for an Innovative economy, Springer, Berlin, 2008, pp. 71 87.23 F. Scapolo, A l. Porter, New methodological developments in FTA, in:

Future-oriented technology analysis, Strategic intelligence for an Innovative economy, Springer, Berlin, 2008, pp. 149 162.24 S. Kuhlmann, R. Smits, The rise of Systemic Instruments in Innovation policy, Int. Journal of Foresight

and Innovation policy, vol. 1, 2004, pp. 4 32,2/3. 25 C. Cagnin, M. Keenan, R. Johnston, F. Scapolo, R. Barré, Future-oriented technology analysis

. 3, 2007, pp. 53 75,1. 27 K. Ducatel A. Tübke, J. Gavigan, P. Moncada-Paterna-Castello, Strategic policy Intelligence:

L. Georghiou (Ed.),The Handbook of Technology foresight, Concepts and Practice, PRIME Series on Research and Innovation policy, 2008, pp. 131 152.29 K. Cuhls, K. Blind, Knut

Improving distributed intelligence in complex innovation systems, Final Report of the Advanced Science & Technology policy Planning Network (ASTPP), Karlsruhe, 1999.

She is a jurist since 2003 in BMBF, and since 2004 in the Department of Research Analysis, Research Communication and Science Coordination.

Walter Ganz is director and member of the Leading Circle of the Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering (IAO) in Stuttgart, Germany.

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1187 1197

ART22.pdf

Scenario planning in public policy: Understanding use, impacts and the role of institutional context factors Axel Volkery, Teresa Ribeiro European Environment Agency, Strategic Futures Group, Kongens Nytorv 6, DK 1050

Received 24 november 2008 Received in revised form 15 july 2009 Accepted 27 july 2009 Scenario planning has formed a growing area of interest on the interface of academia and public and private sector policy-making.

and international organisations 1. Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1198 1207 This article does not represent any official opinion of the European Environment Agency,

We would also like to thank the participants of the April 2008 BLOSSOM workshop in Copenhagen

and the participants of the 3rd International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis which took place in October 2008 for useful discussions and comments.

and vice versa 13.1199 A. Volkery, T. Ribeiro/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1198 1207 The limitations of the policy cycle concept have been discussed widely.

& Social Change 76 (2009) 1198 1207 and organisational performance. To identify relevant literature a number of experts were asked for suggestions.

As part of this analysis we organised a two-day international workshop gathering thirty environmental scenario practitioners from governments

There are also data available on the types of businesses that use scenarios most often large firms in capital-intensive industries with long (greater than 10 years) planning horizons.

The value in close collaboration between scenario 1201 A. Volkery, T. Ribeiro/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1198 1207 developers and users, particularly at the beginning and ending stages of a scenario exercise,

which warned of the dangers of a 9-11-scale terrorist attack, examined 20 scenario studies of U s. national security

T. Ribeiro/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1198 1207 4. Reviewing practitioners'perspectives 4. 1. Relevance

The process of doing so may persuade key decision makers of the need for further action.

A. Volkery, T. Ribeiro/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1198 1207 UK government's strategy on flood and coastal erosion risk management,

T. Ribeiro/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1198 1207 made, however, towards getting scenario planning more fully incorporated into processes of policy design, choice and implementation.

where the practice and literature has been flourishing in recent years, but there will also never be a standard approach.

From this point of view, some general rules of 1205 A. Volkery, T. Ribeiro/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1198 1207 conduct can be agreed on,

as in the case of global environmental assessments such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment or the IPCC, work on the systematization of methods

report of the February FAN Club meeting, Prepared for the Horizon scanning Centre, 2008, available at:

http://www. foresight. gov. uk/Horizon%20%Scanning%20centre/Fanclubnews/Feb2008. asp (accessed 7th july 2008.

A Review Of Evaluative Scenario literature, Technical Report 3/2009, Copenhagen, EEA, 2009.3 R. J. Lempert, S. Hoorens, M. Hallsworth, T. Ling, Looking

A Review Of Evaluative Scenario literature, RAND WR-564-EEA, 2008.4 D. Mercer, Robust strategies in a day, Manage.

Decis. 35 (1997) 219 223.5 P. Wack, Scenarios: shooting the rapids, Harvard Bus. Rev. 63 (6 nov./

/Dec.,1985) 139 150.6 T. Henrichs, M. Zurek, B. Eickhout, K. Kok, C. Raudsepp-Hearne, T. Ribeiro, D. van Vuuren

, A. Volkery (in prep. Scenario development and Analysis for Forward-looking Ecosystem Assessments. In: MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (in prep.

Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Manual for Assessment Practitioners, forthcoming. 7 B o'Neil, S. Pulver, S. Vandeveer, Y. Garb, Where next with global environmental scenarios?

Lett. 3 (2008) 045012.8 P. Bishop, A. Hines, T. Collins, The current states of scenario development:

an overview of techniques, Foresight 9 (1)( 2007) 5 25.9 R. Bradfield, G. Wright, G. Burt, G. Cairns, K. Van der Heijden, The origins

and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning, Futures 37 (8)( 2005) 795 812.10 R. J. Lempert, S w. Popper, S. C

. Bankes, Shaping The next One hundred Years: New methods for Quantitative, Longer-Term Policy analysis, 2003, RAND MR-1626-RPC. 11 C. Selin, Trust and illusive force of scenarios, Futures 38 (1

)( 2006) 1 14.12 E. A. Eriksson, M. Weber, Adaptive foresight: navigating the complex landscape of policy strategies, Technol.

Forecast. Soc. Change 75 (4)( 2008) 462 482.13 A. Volkery, T. Ribeiro, T. Henrichs, Y. Hoogeveen, Your vision or my model?

Lessons from developing participatory land use scenarios on a European scale, Syst. Pract. Action Res. 21 (6)( 2008) 459 477.14 M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, Studying public policy, Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems, Oxford university Press, Oxford

, 2005.15 T. R. Dye, Understanding Public policy, Prentice hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984.1206 A. Volkery, T. Ribeiro/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1198

1207 16 P. Sabatier, H. J. Jenkins-Smith, The advocacy-coalition-framework. an assessment, in:

P. Sabatier (Ed.),Theories of the Policy Process, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.,1999, pp. 117 166.17 E. A. Parson, V. R. Burkett

J. 14 (1993) 193 213.20 T. J. Chermack, et al. Exploring the relationship between scenario planning and perceptions of learning organization characteristics, Futures 38 (7)( 2006) 767 777.21 Y. Garb, S. Pulver, S. Vandeveer, Scenarios in society

, society in scenarios: towards a social scientific analysis of storyline-driven environmental modeling, Environ. Res.

Lett. 3 (2008) 045015.22 W c. Clark, R. B. Mitchell, D. W. Cash, Evaluating the influence of global environmental assessments, in:

lessons from regional projects, Development 47 (4)( 2004) 62 72.24 M. B. A. van Asselt, Perspectives on Uncertainty and Risk:

The Prima Approach to Decision support, Springer, Berlin, 2000.25 United states Commission on National Security in the 21st century, New world Coming:

American Security in the 21st century, Study Addendum, 1999.26 S. A. Van't Klooster, M. B. A. van Asselt, Practicing the scenario axis technique, Futures 38 (1)( 2006) 15 30.27 D. Groves, D. Knopman, R. Lempert, S. Berry,

L. Wainfan, Presenting Uncertainty About Climate change to Water Resource Managers, 2008, RAND Corporation, TR-505-NSF. 28 R c.

C. Phelps, S. C. Kapsalis, Does scenario planning affect performance? Two exploratory studies, J. Bus. Res. 51 (2001) 223 232.29 J. C. Glenn, T. J. Gordon, Factors Required for Successful Implementation of Futures research

in Decision making, Millennium Project publication, 2001, download at: www. millennium-project. org/millennium/applic-exsum. html (accessed 10/02/09). 30 P. C. Light, The Four Pillars Of high Performance:

How Robust Organisations Achieve Extraordinary Results, Mcgraw-hill, New york, 2005.31 O. da Costa, et al. The Impact of foresight on Policy-making:

Insights from the FORLEARN Mutual learning Process, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, 2006, Joint research Centre/European commission. 32 G. P. Hodgkinson, G. Wright, Confronting strategic

inertia in a top management team: learning from failure, Organ. Stud. 23 (2002) 949 977.33 B. White, Will policy makers use long range forecasts?

Paper prepared at the invitation of the Woodrow wilson International Center for Scholars Foresight and Governance Project, 2002.34 L. Fuerth, Strategic Myopia, the Case for Forward Engagement, The National Interest, Spring

, 2006, pp. 57 62.35 P. Van Notten, A m. Sleegers, M. B. A. van Asselt, The future shocks:

on discontinuity and scenario development, Futures 35 (5)( 2003) 423 443.36 Theo J. B. M. Postma, Franz Liebl, How to improve scenario analysis as a strategic management tool?

Change 72 (2005) 161 173.37 R. Lempert, Can scenarios help policymakers be both bold and careful?

Change 17 (2007) 73 85.40 J. A. Dewar, Assumption-based Planning: A Tool for Reducing Avoidable Surprises, Cambridge university Press, Cambridge, 2002,

and New york. 41 J. Hertin, K. Jacob, A. Volkery, Policy appraisal, in: A. Jordan, A. Lenschow (Eds.

Integrating the Environment for Sustainability, Edgar Elgar Publishing, London, 2008, pp. 114 133.42 Scottish government, National Planning Framework 2 SEA Annex to the Environmental Report:

Futures 36 (2)( 2004) 145 159. Axel Volkery, Phd, is a project manager for policy and scenario analysis at the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Teresa has worked in environmental policy issues for over 20 years in various countries and for European union Institutions.

She is a member of the Global Agenda Council on Strategic foresight of the World Economic Forum. 1207 A. Volkery, T. Ribeiro/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1198 1207

< Back - Next >