IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v4y2012i4p740-772d17324.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scenario Archetypes: Converging Rather than Diverging Themes

Author

Listed:
  • Dexter V. L. Hunt

    (Civil Engineering/College of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B152TT, UK)

  • D. Rachel Lombardi

    (Civil Engineering/College of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B152TT, UK)

  • Stuart Atkinson

    (Center for Water Systems/College of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QF, UK)

  • Austin R. G. Barber

    (The Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B152TT, UK)

  • Matthew Barnes

    (The Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA14YQ, UK)

  • Christopher T. Boyko

    (Faculty of Arts and Social Science/Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YD, UK)

  • Julie Brown

    (The Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B152TT, UK)

  • John Bryson

    (School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B152TT, UK)

  • David Butler

    (Center for Water Systems/College of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QF, UK)

  • Silvio Caputo

    (Department of Sustainable Construction, Coventry University Technology Park, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK)

  • Maria Caserio

    (Birmingham Institute of Art and Design (BIAD), Birmingham City University, Birmingham B4 7DX, UK)

  • Richard Coles

    (Birmingham Institute of Art and Design (BIAD), Birmingham City University, Birmingham B4 7DX, UK)

  • Rachel F. D. Cooper

    (Faculty of Arts and Social Science/Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YD, UK)

  • Raziyeh Farmani

    (Center for Water Systems/College of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QF, UK)

  • Mark Gaterell

    (Department of Sustainable Construction, Coventry University Technology Park, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK)

  • James Hale

    (School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B152TT, UK)

  • Chantal Hales

    (School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B152TT, UK)

  • C. Nicholas Hewitt

    (The Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA14YQ, UK)

  • Lubo Jankovic

    (Birmingham Institute of Art and Design (BIAD), Birmingham City University, Birmingham B4 7DX, UK)

  • I. Jefferson

    (Civil Engineering/College of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B152TT, UK)

  • J. Leach

    (Faculty of Arts and Social Science/Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YD, UK)

  • A. Rob MacKenzie

    (School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B152TT, UK)

  • Fayyaz Ali Memon

    (Center for Water Systems/College of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QF, UK)

  • Jon P. Sadler

    (School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B152TT, UK)

  • Carina Weingaertner

    (The Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B152TT, UK)

  • J. Duncan Whyatt

    (The Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA14YQ, UK)

  • Christopher D. F. Rogers

    (Civil Engineering/College of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B152TT, UK)

Abstract

Future scenarios provide challenging, plausible and relevant stories about how the future could unfold. Urban Futures (UF) research has identified a substantial set (>450) of seemingly disparate scenarios published over the period 1997–2011 and within this research, a sub-set of >160 scenarios has been identified (and categorized) based on their narratives according to the structure first proposed by the Global Scenario Group (GSG) in 1997; three world types (Business as Usual, Barbarization, and Great Transitions) and six scenarios, two for each world type (Policy Reform—PR, Market Forces—MF, Breakdown—B, Fortress World—FW, Eco-Communalism—EC and New Sustainability Paradigm—NSP). It is suggested that four of these scenario archetypes (MF, PR, NSP and FW) are sufficiently distinct to facilitate active stakeholder engagement in futures thinking. Moreover they are accompanied by a well-established, internally consistent set of narratives that provide a deeper understanding of the key fundamental drivers (e.g., STEEP—Social, Technological, Economic, Environmental and Political) that could bring about realistic world changes through a push or a pull effect. This is testament to the original concept of the GSG scenarios and their development and refinement over a 16 year period.

Suggested Citation

  • Dexter V. L. Hunt & D. Rachel Lombardi & Stuart Atkinson & Austin R. G. Barber & Matthew Barnes & Christopher T. Boyko & Julie Brown & John Bryson & David Butler & Silvio Caputo & Maria Caserio & Rich, 2012. "Scenario Archetypes: Converging Rather than Diverging Themes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-33, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:4:y:2012:i:4:p:740-772:d:17324
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/4/4/740/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/4/4/740/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Duchin, Faye & Lange, Glenn-Marie, 1995. "The Future of the Environment: Ecological Economics and Technological Change," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195085747.
    2. Ruud de Mooij & Paul Tang, 2003. "Four futures of Europe," CPB Special Publication 49, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    3. Raskin, Paul D., 2008. "World lines: A framework for exploring global pathways," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 461-470, April.
    4. Ruud de Mooij & Paul Tang, 2003. "Four futures of Europe," CPB Special Publication 49.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    5. Paul D. Raskin & Christi Electris & Richard A. Rosen, 2010. "The Century Ahead: Searching for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(8), pages 1-26, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Partho Protim Mondal & Yili Zhang, 2018. "Research Progress on Changes in Land Use and Land Cover in the Western Himalayas (India) and Effects on Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-14, November.
    2. Griewald, Yuliana & Clemens, Gerhard & Kamp, Johannes & Gladun, Elena & Hölzel, Norbert & von Dressler, Hubertus, 2017. "Developing land use scenarios for stakeholder participation in Russia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 264-276.
    3. Bryony M. Bowman & Dexter V. L. Hunt & Chris D. F. Rogers, 2022. "Gazing into the Crystal Ball: A Review of Futures Analysis to Promote Environmental Justice in the UK Water Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Crawford, Megan M., 2019. "A comprehensive scenario intervention typology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    5. P. Giovani Palafox-Alcantar & Dexter V. L. Hunt & Chris D. F. Rogers, 2020. "A Hybrid Methodology to Study Stakeholder Cooperation in Circular Economy Waste Management of Cities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-30, April.
    6. Minkkinen, Matti, 2019. "The anatomy of plausible futures in policy processes: Comparing the cases of data protection and comprehensive security," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 172-180.
    7. Hewitt, Richard J & Compagnucci, Andrea Baggio & Castellazzi, Marie & Dunford, Rob W. & Harrison, Paula A. & Pedde, Simona & Gimona, Alessandro, 2020. "Impacts and trade-offs of future land use and land cover change in Scotland: spatial simulation modelling of shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) at regional scales," SocArXiv fc6he, Center for Open Science.
    8. Boschetti, Fabio & Walker, Iain & Price, Jennifer, 2016. "Modelling and attitudes towards the future," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 322(C), pages 71-81.
    9. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Smart, James & Mackey, Brendan & Ware, Daniel & Hallgren, Willow & Sahin, Oz & Nalau, Johanna, 2018. "Valuing aggregated ecosystem services at a national and regional scale for Vanuatu using a remotely operable, rapid assessment methodology," 2018 Conference (62nd), February 7-9, 2018, Adelaide, Australia 273524, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    10. Sander Jacobs & Fernando Santos-Martín & Eeva Primmer & Fanny Boeraeve & Alejandra Morán-Ordóñez & Vânia Proença & Martin Schlaepfer & Lluis Brotons & Robert Dunford & Sandra Lavorel & Antoine Guisan , 2022. "Transformative Change Needs Direction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-9, November.
    11. Mohammad S. M. Almulhim & Dexter V. L. Hunt & Chris D. F. Rogers, 2020. "A Resilience and Environmentally Sustainable Assessment Framework (RESAF) for Domestic Building Materials in Saudi Arabia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-24, April.
    12. Guillaume Rohat, 2018. "Projecting Drivers of Human Vulnerability under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-23, March.
    13. Dale S. Rothman & Paul Raskin & Kasper Kok & John Robinson & Jill Jäger & Barry Hughes & Paul C. Sutton, 2023. "Global Discontinuity: Time for a Paradigm Shift in Global Scenario Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-12, August.
    14. James D. Hale & Thomas A. M. Pugh & Jon P. Sadler & Christopher T. Boyko & Julie Brown & Silvio Caputo & Maria Caserio & Richard Coles & Raziyeh Farmani & Chantal Hales & Russell Horsey & Dexter V. L., 2015. "Delivering a Multi-Functional and Resilient Urban Forest," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-25, April.
    15. Alessandro Fergnani & Mike Jackson, 2019. "Extracting scenario archetypes: A quantitative text analysis of documents about the future," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(2), June.
    16. Fabio Boschetti & Elizabeth A. Fulton & Nicola J. Grigg, 2014. "Citizens’ Views of Australia’s Future to 2050," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-26, December.
    17. Kubiszewski, Ida & Costanza, Robert & Anderson, Sharolyn & Sutton, Paul, 2017. "The future value of ecosystem services: Global scenarios and national implications," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 289-301.
    18. HarmÃ¡Ä ková, Zuzana V. & VaÄ kář, David, 2018. "Future uncertainty in scenarios of ecosystem services provision: Linking differences among narratives and outcomes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PB), pages 134-145.
    19. Guillaume Rohat & Johannes Flacke & Hy Dao & Martin Maarseveen, 2018. "Co-use of existing scenario sets to extend and quantify the shared socioeconomic pathways," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 619-636, December.
    20. Vasilii Erokhin & Tianming Gao & Anna Ivolga, 2020. "Structural Variations in the Composition of Land Funds at Regional Scales across Russia," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-39, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. George Gelauff & Herman Stolwijk & Paul Veenendaal, 2005. "Europe's financial perspectives in perspective," CPB Document 101.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    2. Ruud de Mooij, 2004. "Towards efficient unemployment insurance in the Netherlands," CPB Memorandum 100, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    3. Sjef Ederveen & George Gelauff & Jacques Pelkmans, 2008. "Assessing Subsidiarity," Springer Books, in: George Gelauff & Isabel Grilo & Arjan Lejour (ed.), Subsidiarity and Economic Reform in Europe, chapter 2, pages 19-40, Springer.
    4. Henri L.F. de Groot & Richard Nahuis & Paul J.G. Tang & John Fitz Gerald, 2006. "Is the American Model Miss World? Choosing Between the Anglo-Saxon Model and a European-Style Alternative," Chapters, in: Susanne Mundschenk & Michael H. Stierle & Ulrike Stierle-von Schütz & Iulia Traistaru-Siedschlag (ed.), Competitiveness and Growth in Europe, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Carel Eijgenraam, 2006. "Optimal safety standards for dike-ring areas," CPB Discussion Paper 62, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    6. Rashed, Yasmine & Meersman, Hilde & Sys, Christa & Van de Voorde, Eddy & Vanelslander, Thierry, 2018. "A combined approach to forecast container throughput demand: Scenarios for the Hamburg-Le Havre range of ports," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 127-141.
    7. Paul Tang & Gerard Verweij, 2004. "Reducing the administrative burden in the European Union," CPB Memorandum 93.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    8. de Bruijn, Roland & Kox, Henk & Lejour, Arjan, 2008. "Economic benefits of an Integrated European Market for Services," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 301-319.
    9. Gelauff, George & Lejour, Arjan, 2006. "The new Lisbon Strategy: An estiamtion of the impact of reaching 5 Lisbon targets," MPRA Paper 16168, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Jansen, Jaap C. & Seebregts, Ad J., 2010. "Long-term energy services security: What is it and how can it be measured and valued?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1654-1664, April.
    11. Arjan Lejour & Ruud de Mooij & Clem Capel, 2004. "Assessing the economic implications of Turkish accession to the EU," CPB Document 56, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    12. George Gelauff & Arjan Lejour, 2006. "Five Lisbon highlights; the economic impact of reaching these targets," CPB Document 104.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    13. Nijkamp, Peter & van Hemert, Patricia, 2007. "Going for Growth; a Theoretical and Policy Framework," Papers DYNREG14, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    14. Frits Bos & Rudy Douven & Esther Mot, 2004. "Four scenarios for the future of the public sector and healthcare," CPB Document 72, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    15. Arjan M. Lejour & Ruud A. de Mooij, 2005. "Turkish Delight: Does Turkey's Accession to the EU Bring Economic Benefits?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(1), pages 87-120, February.
    16. Wim Suyker & P. Buitelaar & Henri de Groot, 2007. "India and the Dutch economy; stylised facts and prospects," CPB Document 155, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    17. Wim Suyker & Henri de Groot, 2006. "China and the Dutch economy," CPB Document 127, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    18. Kuhlman, Tom & van Tongeren, Frank W. & Helming, John F.M. & Tabeau, Andrzej A. & Gaaff, Aris & Groeneveld, Rolf A. & Koole, Boudewijn & Verhoog, A. David & Dekkers, Jasper, 2006. "Future land-use change in the Netherlands: an analysis based on a chain of models," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 55(05-06), pages 1-10.
    19. Ruud de Mooij, 2004. "Towards efficient unemployment insurance in the Netherlands," CPB Memorandum 100.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    20. Arjan Lejour & Henk Kox & Roland de Bruijn, 2006. "The trade-induced effects of the Services Directive and the country of origin principle," CPB Document 108, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:4:y:2012:i:4:p:740-772:d:17324. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.