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

Abstract

Futures thinking is a key competency in sustainability studies, and the field is currently experiencing a strong surge in participatory scenario development and visioning approaches. Sub-Saharan Africa has a particularly long history of participatory approaches to development; however, the same participatory approaches have often faced critique for lacking the potential to stimulate empowerment and social change. To explore these contradictions, I systematically review the use of participatory scenario development and visioning in sustainability and socio-environmental change research in the region between 2011 and 2021. The analysis is structured around three key questions: Who participates, in what, and for whose benefit? Of the 23 reviewed studies, most focused on exploratory scenarios and aimed to understand trade-offs and future risks to identify sustainable pathways to alternative futures. Fewer scenarios were normative and aimed to imagine futures beyond current societal structures and values, and thereby radically challenge the status quo (e.g., business as usual, current socioeconomic systems) by including solutions to power imbalances and injustice. Most scenario development processes engaged a wide range of participants (in terms of power and agency) because this strategy was meant to facilitate knowledge co-production and understanding between (sometimes) conflicting stakeholders. In the end, most scenario development processes strived for consensus and compromise regarding which futures were wanted and which futures were to be avoided. Based on this review, I challenge what is often considered "best practice" in sustainability discussions by raising some limitations of mixing a wide range of stakeholders in the futures thinking process. Although such mixing is considered to enhance mutual understanding and conflict resolution, it might also limit the potential to stimulate radically different futures that would benefit the vulnerable and marginalized through challenging the status quo. My findings provide guidance for researchers and other actors who intend to use or develop methods for exploring innovative solutions for more just and sustainable futures in different areas and contexts of sustainable development.

Bridging scenario planning and backcasting: A Q‐analysis of divergent stakeholder priorities for future landscapes

“…The observed conflicts in the prioritized strategies are not likely to be limited to our particular case study (Baylan, 2018; Lübker et al, 2021; Milcu et al, 2014), and understanding such consensus and conflicts regarding landscape change is crucial for proper and proactive landscape planning in a way that reconciles conflicting aspirations, and generates socially and ecologically sustainable landscapes (Drimie et al, 2018). In particular, harmonizing the divergence and bridging the gaps between conflicting priority strategies for the future appear crucial for landscape planning and sustainability (Drimie et al, 2018; Johansson, 2021). This could potentially be achieved, for example, through multi‐stakeholder and multi‐sector dialogue around the potential gains and impacts of the different pathways and priorities and collective landscape visioning and planning so that the future landscape maximizes both social and ecological sustainability.…”

“…This knowledge, in turn, can be invaluable to carefully plan collective group exercises in the next step towards developing a shared vision for any given landscape—following an exercise such as the one presented here, researchers and facilitators will be acutely aware of some of the key stumbling blocks that need to be resolved in future workshops involving heterogeneous groups of stakeholders. The approach we used in this study, therefore should not be seen as a replacement to collective backcasting, which is a necessary next step to envision a widely agreed landscape trajectory and identify robust strategies to achieve such a shared vision (Johansson, 2021; Robinson, 2003). Rather, we believe that the method we applied in this study is best seen as a method to fill the gap in the transition from exploratory scenario planning to normative backcasting through adding deep insights into potentially divergent stakeholder priorities.…”

Development of Systems and Futures Thinking Skills by Primary Pre-service Teachers for Addressing Epidemics

“…Research into FT and its importance in science education is still scant, with few available studies on education for sustainable development (ESD) (Johanson, 2021;Rieckmann, 2012). FT is a key competence in ESD that can be developed through students' participation in scenarios that involve decision-making on socio-environmental issues (Johanson, 2021). Jones et al, (2012) proposed a conceptual framework for the design and implementation of FT-oriented lessons in science classrooms when dealing with SSI.…”

“…However, students’ ability to make predictions about their own future states is underexplored. Research into FT and its importance in science education is still scant, with few available studies on education for sustainable development (ESD) (Johanson, 2021 ; Rieckmann, 2012 ). FT is a key competence in ESD that can be developed through students’ participation in scenarios that involve decision-making on socio-environmental issues (Johanson, 2021 ).…”

Beyond Sustainability: Positioning Regenerative Futures in a Philippine State University

“…In the parlance of environmental health, futures thinking entails an exhaustive baseline knowledge of environmental status to define possible futures or outcomes. Through this, policymakers and implementers may redirect the courses of action to mitigate or prevent underdevelopment possibilities (Johansson, 2021;Sheate et al, 2012).…”