Metropolitan vision making – using backcasting as a strategic learning process to shape metropolitan futures

Abstract

The need for new forward looking tools in urban planning is immense: The new functional relations and structures are stretching beyond our capacity to 'rationally' capture modern metropolitan spaces (Neuman & Hull 2009). At the same time cities struggle to find tools to help manage a long-term transition towards a low-carbon, resource smart economy.In 2006-2007 municipalities in the Helsinki metropolitan region organised an international ideas competition called Greater Helsinki Vision 2050. The competition aimed at being "a visionary adventure […] [t]he chance to dream afresh, to accept current realities, not as negative restraints but as spurs to the imagination." The competition drew a good number of entries and triggered a subsequent analysis process to harvest the most fruitful ideas of the competition, which brought together awarded participants of the competitions, local planning professionals and citizens. (Ache 2011) This paper explores the role of (normative) visions on the future of metropolitan spaces as a tool for facilitating transition. This is done through a 'thick description' (Geertz 1973) of one example case, namely the Greater Helsinki Vision 2050 ideas competition and subsequent vision process. This thick description is based on a backdrop and an elaboration of a literature-based mapping of tools for managing long-term transformation in metropolitan spaces.The focus of this paper is the question of strategic learning by the actors involved in an urban transition process. How can different tools of the imagination (long-term goal on GHG emissions reductions, backcasting scenarios, participatory visioning exercises) bring something un-manageable like metropolitan spaces and the wicked problems they face within the domain of managing? How can different actors experience strategic learning on renewed perspectives of different opportunities that alternative futures could provide? What would a new integrated 'incrementalism with perspective' (Ganser, Siebel & Sieverts 1993) approach to managing metropolitan transitions look like? This paper extends the idea of 'emancipatory backcasting' as a generic tool for engaging stakeholders in transition processes to cover metropolitan futures (Neuvonen et al. 2014).

Automated vehicles and the city of tomorrow: A backcasting approach

“…By considering plausible alternative paths, forecasting approaches obtain dystopian, desired or business-as-usual scenarios. Conversely, backcasting develops an ideal scenario, and looks to the present with the aim of identifying the critical decisions and steps to achieve this desirable future (Banister et al, 2007;Broman & Robèrt, 2017;Carlsson-Kanyama et al, 2003;Neuvonen & Ache, 2017;Phdungsilp, 2011). Backcasting emerged in the 1970s as a new method to search for development paths that overcome the limitations and failures of forecasting predictions due to transitions in technology and society (Vergragt & Quist, 2011).…”

“…Meanwhile, the newer participatory backcasting approaches involve stakeholder and public participation in the process, which is intended to achieve stakeholders and citizens' buyin (i.e. to engage them to adopt) to help achieve a particular vision (Neuvonen & Ache, 2017;Vergragt & Quist, 2011).…”

“…Another frequently used backcasting approach is the targeted method which involves the analysis and identification of core features associated with a future vision and the definition of policy goals to accomplish the vision. This is a frequently used approach, along with path-oriented ones which focus on the development of policy measures and paths (Neuvonen & Ache, 2017;Wangel, 2011).…”

“…These include a greener environment, more compact development with denser structures, high levels of accessibility to public spaces, efficient use of natural and energy resources, an extensive network of public transport and infrastructure for non-motorized modes. A range of goals for future urban development has also been developed for various cities (see for example Joffe & Smith, 2016;Neuvonen & Ache, 2017;Ortegón-Sánchez & Tyler, 2016).…”

“…Future studies, especially ones involving backcasting, are useful when dealing with complex, uncertain and long-term developments such as the introduction of AVs (Banister, Hickman, & Stead, 2007;Broman & Robèrt, 2017;Neuvonen & Ache, 2017;Phdungsilp, 2011). In contrast with more commonly used forecasting approaches, backcasting provides a way of imagining a desirable future and identifying a set of core goals on which key decisions can be made.…”