Do participatory scenario exercises promote systems thinking and build consensus?

Abstract

Participatory scenario processes are associated with positive social learning outcomes, including consensusbuilding and shifts toward more systemic thinking. However, these claims have not been assessed quantitatively in diverse cultural and socio-ecological settings. We convened three stakeholder workshops around the future of agricultural development and rural livelihoods in Burkina Faso, Nigeria, and Malawi, using a participatory scenario generation process to examine proposed research and action priorities under conditions of uncertainty. We administered pre-and post-workshop surveys, and used a paired t-test to assess how stakeholders' rankings of research priorities changed after participating in the scenario visioning exercise. Workshop participants also listed their own priorities for research and implementation on both the pre-and post-survey forms. We found indications that the workshops promoted consensus-building around the research priorities, including a reduction in standard deviation of priority rankings post-workshop compared to pre-workshop; and a higher incidence of identical volunteered responses. We did not find evidence to support shifts in thinking to more systemic views of agricultural development. However, participants viewed themselves as having learned throughout the process. We conclude that scenario visioning does have the potential to foster consensusbuilding (one element of social learning) among diverse stakeholder groups. We urge researchers to continue to monitor and measure systems thinking outcomes from scenario visioning so that these processes may be designed to be more effective. 'game-changing' events which could alter the future state of a system (Swart et al., 2004). Scenarios which are generated by stakeholders themselves rather than by scientists or quantitative models are uniquely wellsuited to participatory planning and group exploration of the future of a complex system (Kok et al., 2011). Recent scenario planning exercises around agriculture in Africa include planning and development strategies in Tanzania (Enfors et al., 2008); and the Climate Change, Adaptation and Food Security scenario planning activities conducted by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Future Scenarios research team in East and West Africa (Vervoort et al., 2014).

Scenario Planning for Climate Adaptation in Agricultural Systems

“…Given that effective climate adaptation will require coordination across multiple scales of governance [1], processes for eliciting community priorities and perceptions around the impacts of climate change and potential adaptation strategies will be important tools for promoting this coordination. Participatory scenario processes have been shown to generate consensus and to prompt systemic, future-oriented, and adaptive thinking [7,10,24]. Scenarios can serve as a means of communicating priorities and opportunities across scales, such that state and federal governments can intervene and support communities in a targeted, effective manner.…”

“…Qualitative scenarios have been used for agricultural planning and development strategies in Tanzania [6], Burkina Faso, Nigeria, and Malawi [7]. They allow for a participatory approach in planning and responding to uncertainty, and for grappling with the best course of action in the context of an uncertain future [2,8,9].…”

Participatory futures thinking in the African context of sustainability challenges and socio-environmental change

“…"Understanding," in this context, was mentioned in different ways, for instance, as insights into future integration of food security and biodiversity conservation aims (Jiren et al Another major motivation of four of the reviewed articles was to develop "adaptive capacity" with different forms of capacity building to anticipate potential impacts or assess future impacts (Faysse et al 2018, Muhati et al 2018, Capitani et al 2019, Jiren et al 2020. Different forms of "assessments" were the motivation for a few papers, to assess if futures thinking contributes to consensus building and systems thinking (Schmitt Olabisi et al 2016) or to assess alternative development strategies (Capitani et al 2016) or impacts (König 2020). "Creative thinking" was also a motivation for a few papers (Muhati et al 2018.…”

“…Few researchers followed up on the research process to see how the participants "benefitted" from participating in the study, except for Faysse et al (2018), who described what happened after the action plan had been developed. Some studies evaluated the outcomes of participatory process using a questionnaire (McCloskey et al 2011, Schmitt Olabisi et al 2016, Jiren et al 2020. Schmitt Olabisi et al ( 2016) evaluated the participants' view of three scenario development initiatives (in Burkina Faso, Nigeria, and Malawi) and mentioned that the participants saw the diversity of stakeholders and the opportunity to share views and perspectives as main strengths of the workshops.…”

“…It was not unusual that different types of participants were included at some stages and not at others. Sometimes the participatory processes did not purely follow one category of Pretty's and White's typologies, and therefore, some were categorized twice or as closer to one category than the other (e.g., Lemenih et al 2014 andSchmitt Olabisi et al 2016; Fig. 2).…”