Pathways and scenarios
Provide short introduction here
General introduction to approach
The cluster is about envisioning future scenarios/action plans of certain themes/topics at different scales (worldwide/regional/city). The basic idea of the cluster is to help city planners/makers envision different types of future scenarios for their own city. The scenarios/action plans in this cluster do not necessarily lead to more sustainable or just cities “per se” as the themes/topics of the cluster are rather diverse and range from climate action plans over mobility scenarios to economic development concepts. They are supposed to be a guideline/inspiration how it may be possible to develop long-term plans or possible scenarios for your own city and what advantages of that might be. Those plans ideally should then lead to more sustainable and just cities.
To shortly explain the diverse approaches inside of the cluster:
- Policy scenarios innovation that foster social cohesion:
The approach is about developing trajectories for growth, innovation and competitiveness in the context of fostering social cohesion in Central and Eastern Europe.
- Envisioning & Pathways (co-creative) for low-carbon and resilient cities:
The approach focuses on developing visions and innovation pathways for thriving Australian cities that are low-carbon and resilient, adaptable in the context of change and robust under the physical and social challenges predicted with a changing climate.
- Future mobility scenarios for older people:
The goal was the development of an action plan that wants to find innovative solutions for transport needs of older people in the near future (in the European Community) through giving advice for future research in the field. The action plan is based on a thorough review of existing knowledge, its coherent understanding and interpretation, future scenario assessment taking into account societal, technological and other developments, stakeholder consultation, and the identification of research needs.
- Climate Justice Pathway:
The goal was the further development of the “contraction and convergence” framework which is a route that wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions worldwide in order to combat climate change.
- Finger Prints/Scenario building methodology:
The “finger prints” approach is part of a project (SECOA)which wants to understand and deal with the complex and dynamic problems that coastal city environments face. “Finger prints” is a tool which explains the interrelationships between components of the conflicts in relation to time (the evolution of the process of conflict), and to space (the hierarchy of the geographic dimension). The modelling has been carried out in continuity with the previous phase of data organization, taxonomy, and through the use of Feed-Forward Neural Networks (FFNN).
- Knowledge integration for climate mitigation:
The methodological idea is that the advantage of integrative research is that it deals with uncertainties, risks, system-flips, innovations and patterns of interaction between purposeful neighbours in a physical neighbourhood. It involves practitioners from many scientific disciplines who must work with each other and with external stakeholders.
Test reference[1]
Shapes, sizes and applications
Just in general concerning the maturity of developing future scenarios/pathways:
“The development of modern scenario and futures thinking has sometimes been described as passing through three generations (List, 2005; Sondeijker, 2009). The first generation concentrated on predicting the future as accurately as possible, typically by extrapolating trends using quantitative or econometric methods. The second generation accepted that making point predictions of the future is often a foolish endeavour and shifted the focus from “will something happen?” to the question “what will we do if something happens?”. Scenario planning, as pioneered by Shell in the 1970s (Wilkinson & Kupers 2013), is representative of this approach. The third generation focuses on longer time spans and preferred societal systems which are normative and explorative in nature and reflect the structural and societal changes required to pursue sustainability. This scenario process is intended to produce pictures of the future that we collectively may want. The question then becomes: “what do we actually want the future to look like?”.[2]
As the "Climate Justice pathway" is a promising approach with regards to its transformative potential it will be explained in more detail here:
The “Climate justice pathway” is about bringing the field of environment and development together. This ultimately shall lead to equity across and within all nations and generations, while remaining within the capacity of the planet.
To cite the Cordis Page: “The project suggests an alternative approach, which is to motivate and advocate for convergence principles across the world in transactions and values. We recommend decision making processes guided by convergence which can help to generate emergent outcomes for sustainability and equity.”
- The Contraction & Convergence framework exists since the early 1990s and was central to the Kyoto protocol. The basic idea is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally (contraction) through every country in the world agreeing to a certain per capita level of emissions that is equal for all countries (Convergence). The project itself uses the word convergence with multiple meanings and at multiple scopes/scales as it wants to further develop the original meaning of convergence: In the new definition convergent can mean “convergent globalisation”, it can mean convergence at a community/social movement level or on a policy making level. On a content level it means bringing “limits” (e.g. planetary boundaries) and “equity” (e.g social justice) together while envisioning all kinds of actions (e.g policy recommendations). It also means not only converging greenhouse gas emissions but all kinds of commonly shared/produced resources. The ultimate goal is “to motivate and advocate for convergence principles across the world in transactions and values”
The focus lies more on the more general principle of “convergence” as the project claims that the existing “Contraction & Convergence” framework has not been successful in reaching its goals and the principles themselves are more transferable to other instances/scales:
- “Global governance has failed to work fully with the concept of convergence for this resource [greenhouse gas emission]– in the sense of basing international agreements on the principle of C&C” The Kyoto Protocol only weakly implemented the C&C framework and the framework most likely will only be relevant in the next treaty “on paper”
- The basic problem is that all states firstly have to agree on common goals and then secondly actually make national policies which align with the international treaties (that mostly do not punish Non-compliance). The second step happens not often enough as it often times directly concurs with the national economy.
- The “new” convergence framework wants to work on different levels: “Over the course of the project we have written recommendations for convergence, these were made to the EU and national and global governance – but also relevant for social movements.”
Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice
Connection to cities
This differs very much from approach to approach; but in general envisioning pathways/development plans of whatever kind is perfectly applicable to urban contexts (it is maybe even easier than on a regional/national/global level)
Connection to sustainability
With “Envisioning & pathways (co-creative)” and “knowledge integration for climate mitigation” it depends how one distinguishes the methodological part from the substance part: If a city generally envisions/finds pathways for the future (e.g an economic development plan/a mobility concept …) the “envisioning” itself has no connection to sustainability issues, it obviously depends what you “envision”. The instances within the funded projects, however, have aimed to to envision e.g. low-carbon resilient cities (in Australia). Therefore the instances aimed at sustainable outcomes.
For “knowledge integration for climate mitigation” it is the same issue. “Finger prints” is just a tool in general, it has no inherent sustainability/justice dimension.
Connection to justice
The “Climate Justice pathway” and “Transport for elderly people” are inherently linked to justice aspects. “Transport for elderly people” pays respect to “interactional equity or justice as recognition” whereas “Climate Justice” is an own type of justice that links countries that emit lots of greenhouse gases with countries that suffer the most from those emissions. “Envisioning & Pathways (co-creative)” has a participatory/procedural justice dimension.
The other approaches are themselves not inherently linked to justice aspects