Methods for assessing future scenarios from a sustainability perspective

Abstract

Future scenarios are often used to address long-term challenges characterised by uncertainty and complexity, as they can help explore different alternative future pathways. Scenarios can therefore be a useful tool to support policy and guide action towards sustainability. But what sustainability aspects are put forward in scenarios and how are they assessed? This paper aims to explore how to assess future scenarios, categorised according to Börjeson et al. (Futures 38:723-739, 2006) i.e. predictive, explorative and normative scenarios. By conducting a literature review and a document analysis, we map tools and methods that are currently used to assess environmental and social sustainability aspects in scenarios. We also draw on experiences from methods for impact assessments of Swedish municipal comprehensive plans, which can be considered as future scenarios. We identify whether some sustainability aspects are less recurrent than others in the reviewed assessments or even left out. We find that there is no single tool that can be used to assess scenarios. Some quantitative tools based on databases may be more suitable for assessing scenarios within a shorter time horizon, whereas qualitative assessment methods might better fit the purpose of long-term transformative scenarios. We also find that assessment frameworks may be useful to guide the assessment, as to what its intended purpose is and which sustainability aspects to include. Finally we discuss whether further assessment tools are needed in order to include a wider array of potential environmental or social consequences of the content of scenarios.

Envisioning carbon-free land use futures for Sweden: a scenario study on conflicts and synergies between environmental policy goals

“…Although scenarios, particularly backcasting scenarios, generate options for attaining mitigation targets, they do not typically account for potential conflicts between proposed measures and their impact on the fulfilment of multiple environmental goals (Fauré et al 2017). A goal conflict arises when efforts to achieve one goal (or set of goals) is at the expense of achieving another goal (or set of goals) (Edvardsson-Björnberg 2009b).…”

Scenario and strategy planning for transformative supply chains within a sustainable economy

“…An adequate approach for doing so is development and assessment of future scenarios utilizing both quantitative and qualitative approaches. The future scenarios should not only address uncertainty and risks of long-term changes, but also help exploring different alternative pathways (Fauré et al, 2017). Quantitative methods rely on both simple and complex models.…”

Integrative Scenario Assessment as a Tool to Support Decisions in Energy Transition

“…While no common or standardized methodology exists to date, sustainability assessments have been carried out frequently for many years, for various subjects, using different conceptual basics and analytical approaches [11][12][13][14][15], among others in the field of energy, focusing on systems or technology perspectives [16][17][18]. Scenarios, providing a particular analytical future perspective, have been used as a complementary tool in sustainability assessment for several years, as well [19,20], whereas scenario assessments, in particular scenario sustainability assessments, are not yet common practice and rarely discussed in methodological aspects, although their importance is acknowledged [21,22]. The scenario assessments so far are carried out for different subjects.…”

“…In the energy field, studies are often focused methodologically on lifecycle approaches [23][24][25][26], often also on criteria limited to the environmental dimension with few indicators, mainly CO 2 , and to techno-economic aspects such as cost indicators. In a few cases, social, socio-technical, or distributive indicators (which often have to be analyzed in a non-model-based way) are addressed [21,27,28]. Studies either use numeric calculation models for indicator analyses [20,[29][30][31] or qualitative, expert-, or stakeholder-based procedures [22,32,33], whereas combined approaches hardly exist.…”