1
Using strategic foresight to assess conservation opportunity
2
3
Carly N. Cooka,b*, Brendan A. Wintlea, Stephen C. Aldrichc, Bonnie C. Wintlea
4
5
a School
of Botany, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010 Australia
6
b School
of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800 Australia
7
c
8
* Corresponding author: carly.cook@monash.edu
Bio-Era, 621 River Road, Stockbridge, VT 05772 United States of America
9
10
1
11
Abstract
12
The nature of conservation challenges can foster a reactive, rather than proactive approach
13
to decision-making. Failing to anticipate problems before they escalate results in the need
14
for more costly and time consuming solutions. Proactive conservation requires forward-
15
looking approaches to decision-making that consider possible futures without being overly
16
constrained by the past. Strategic foresight provides a structured process for considering
17
the most desirable future, and mapping the most efficient and effective approaches to
18
promoting that future. Strategic foresight is an ideal process for seeking, recognizing and
19
realizing conservation opportunities because it explicitly encourages a broad-minded,
20
forward-looking perspective on an issue. Despite its potential value, the foresight process is
21
rarely used to address conservation issues, and previous attempts have generally failed to
22
influence policy. We present the strategic foresight process as it can be used for proactive
23
conservation planning, describing some of the key tools in the foresight tool-kit and how
24
they can be used to identify and exploit different types of conservation opportunities. We
25
emphasize the value of the process using a case study that employed foresight to deliver a
26
strategic plan for climate change adaptation in New York State. The benefits of strategic
27
foresight for identifying conservation opportunities are the focus of the examples we
28
present here, which along with a better understanding of the foresight process and tools,
29
we hope will encourage decision-makers to explore strategic foresight as a way to support
30
more proactive conservation policy, planning and management.
31
2
32
Introduction
33
Policy-making around conservation tends to be reactive, responding only after a problem
34
has occurred, rather than proactive, where problems are anticipated and averted
35
(Sutherland et al. 2011). Proactive policies, such as using environmental flows to prevent
36
tree mortality on flood plains, avoid the need for time consuming and costly reactive
37
responses, such as restoration (Palmer et al. 2008). The often complex and unpredictable
38
nature of many conservation problems can foster this reactive approach because it can be
39
difficult to anticipate problems before they escalate. Despite this uncertainty,
40
environmental decision-makers draw heavily on forecasting probable futures, which
41
involves extrapolating from the past to estimate future conditions (Armstrong 2001), rather
42
than preparing for a range of possible futures. This limits the opportunity to respond quickly
43
to changes in the environment (Dortmans 2005). Moreover, it is a serious impediment to
44
conservation planning in the familiar situation where past conditions are not representative
45
of those yet to come (Carpenter 2002), leading to inaccurate forecasts, because inputs or
46
assumptions were inappropriate. .
47
While past lessons can be informative, they may limit a more creative consideration of
48
future possibilities over longer-term planning horizons (>25 years)(Glenn & Gordon 2009).
49
Strategic foresight aims to promote thinking about possible futures without being overly
50
influenced by the past. A desirable future is first envisaged, and possible pathways and
51
obstacles between there and the present are explored. While forecasting is a tool that can
52
be used within a foresight process, it is the forward thinking approach that considers
53
multiple possible futures and how to achieve the most desirable of those futures that
54
distinguishes strategic foresight from forecasting.
55
Better conservation outcomes are more likely when a structured process is used to consider
56
the likely outcomes of alternative interventions, their consequences for biodiversity, and to
57
identify options that are robust to uncertain futures. Strategic foresight is a method for
58
long-term strategic planning that is a natural fit with addressing conservation problems. It
59
systematically considers a range of possible, probable, or desirable futures, their potential
60
consequences for current and future decisions, and how to promote the most desirable
61
future while avoiding the less desirable (Inayatullah 2007; Cook et al. in press). This
3
62
approach promotes proactive policy-making because it is designed to create a longer-term
63
perspective, explore key uncertainties and potential surprises, decrease reaction time to
64
rapid changes, anticipate unintended consequences, encourage big-picture thinking and
65
shape a preferred future (Cook et al. in press).
66
The broader perspective offered by strategic foresight is useful for realizing ‘conservation
67
opportunity’, defined as circumstances under which conservation goals can be achieved that
68
may not have been previously recognized (Moon et al. this issue). The concept of
69
‘conservation opportunity’ emerged from the generally poor translation of science into
70
action (Knight et al. 2008) and the understanding that conservation requires an opening for
71
action (Moon et al. this issue). There are three different types of conservation opportunities:
72
potential opportunities, where barrier(s) must be removed to facilitate actions that will
73
generate desirable conservation outcomes; traction opportunities, where a window of
74
opportunity is created by a change in a system that can be exploited to achieve desirable
75
outcomes; and existing opportunities, where everything is in place to take an action that will
76
achieve change (Moon et al. this issue). To maximize the benefits associated with an
77
opportunity, it is important to have tools to recognize potential problems early, identify
78
creative solutions quickly, and consider the consequences of alternative interventions
79
before they are implemented.
80
The aim of this paper is to evaluate the potential of strategic foresight for recognizing and
81
realizing conservation opportunity. First, we briefly outline the foresight process, to
82
illustrate the basic steps involved. Next, we introduce some of the tools that can be used to
83
achieve the different steps. We focus on their suitability for different kinds of conservation
84
opportunities, as characterized by Moon et al (this issue), and provide examples throughout
85
to illustrate the practice and benefits of employing a foresight process.
86
87
What is strategic foresight?
88
Strategic foresight is a versatile process that has been widely adopted in business, the
89
military and economics, and has been used to guide policy development in health,
90
education, biosecurity, transport and policing. The diversity of foresight tools gives the
91
process enormous flexibility, including exploring future market conditions (Wack 1985),
4
92
anticipating unexpected or novel threats (Amanatidou et al. 2012), considering unintended
93
consequences of existing policies (Leigh 2003), and developing new policies that will be
94
robust to a range of future conditions (Van Rij 2010). Broadly, the strategic foresight process
95
involves six steps (Cook et al. in press): 1) setting the scope; 2) collecting inputs; 3) analyzing
96
signals; 4) interpreting the information; 5) determining how to act; and 6) implementing the
97
outcomes. To achieve maximum benefit, it is important that the objectives of the exercise
98
are clear at the outset and that all the steps are completed.
99
Setting the scope of an exercise requires understanding the system of interest, including its
100
geographic, ecological, social and economic limits, and the critical issues and actors in the
101
system (Fig. 1). For example, the Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) large-scale conservation
102
initiative (www.y2y.net) involves a geographically defined system crossing five US states,
103
two Canadian provinces, and two territories, with a range of land tenures and levels of
104
protected area status. Critical issues for the Y2Y initiative include human-wildlife
105
interactions, the fragmenting impact of roads, economic costs and engaging a broad range
106
of stakeholders. The ‘actors’ in this system comprise community groups, government
107
agencies, funders, Native American and First Nations communities, scientists and
108
businesses.
109
Once the limits of the system are defined, the next task is to understand the dynamics and
110
drivers of the system to recognize problems and identify solutions. By collecting and
111
synthesizing a wide range of inputs on past and current trends, participants can explore the
112
system’s dynamics, identify drivers and search for signals of change (Fig. 1). The potential
113
impact of trends and drivers in the system can be explored using driver analysis and trend
114
impact analysis, and cross impact analysis can be used to consider how the system can be
115
manipulated to create opportunities (Table 1). In the Y2Y example, a key driver is population
116
growth in the region, which is increasing pressure for additional infrastructure, such as a
117
proposed new dam that could have significant implications for the Y2Y initiative.
118
One of the main elements of interpreting the wealth of information collected during the
119
foresight process is to consider key uncertainties and their interactions with a range of likely
120
futures. Scenario planning is one approach that offers a useful framework for this (discussed
121
below). It is also important to reveal assumptions and unacknowledged sources of bias in
5
122
how important actors perceive the system and what kinds of futures might unfold. The
123
interpretation stage also involves deciding on a desirable future, using tools such as
124
visioning (Peterson et al. 2003), which can then be used to consider how the possible and
125
probable futures differ from present conditions and from the desired future.
126
Realizing a vision may involve multiple actions. ‘Determining how to act’ (Fig. 1) usually
127
involves devising a strategic plan that clearly identifies who should be involved, the
128
resources required, and the most efficient and effective pathway to overcoming barriers.
129
Backcasting is one approach to identifying multiple pathways to a desired endpoint
130
(discussed below). It is particularly well-suited to large-scale, complex problems
131
characterized by high uncertainty, which makes it ideally suited to conservation problems
132
(Manning et al. 2006).
133
The final step in the foresight process is ‘Implementing the outcomes’ (Fig. 1).
134
Unfortunately, this step is often neglected, particularly in conservation examples (Cook et al.
135
in press). However, the focus of strategic foresight on pre-empting social, political and
136
economic barriers should facilitate effective implementation.
137
138
Key foresight tools for recognizing and realizing conservation opportunity
139
There are good examples of how strategic foresight can be applied to conservation
140
problems, particularly using horizon scanning (Sutherland et al. 2014) and scenario planning
141
(WCS and Bio-Era 2007). However, at present, conservation science is underutilizing
142
strategic foresight, and often failing to capitalize on the strengths of the process by using
143
single tools rather than the complete foresight process (Cook et al. in press). The foresight
144
tool-kit (Table 1) is well-suited to identifying conservation opportunities, and mapping out a
145
path to realize them. The choice of which foresight tools to use depends on the purpose of
146
the exercise. Here we introduce three tools particularly useful for identifying different kinds
147
of conservation opportunity described by Moon et al. (this issue).
148
6
149
Scanning
150
Scanning involves collecting and organizing diverse streams of information (Amanatidou et
151
al. 2012). It forms the basis of most foresight exercises (Glenn & Gordon 2009), and involves
152
desktop searches, surveillance software, and/or expert workshops. In general, scans can
153
identify novel issues (horizon scanning), they can explore and provide surveillance of issues
154
that have already been identified (issue-centred scanning), and the two types of scans can
155
be used in concert to generate hypotheses then explore and monitor those issues
156
(Amanatidou et al. 2012). This flexibility makes scanning well-suited to seeking
157
opportunities across many contexts.
158
At a global scale, annual horizon scanning is used to identify emerging conservation issues
159
(e.g., Sutherland et al. 2014). Early detection enables decision-makers to act strategically
160
and in a timely manner to minimize the negative consequences of threats or maximize the
161
benefits associated with new opportunities. These annual scans extend the traditional view
162
of horizon scanning, conducting the first three steps in the foresight process (Sutherland et
163
al. 2011; Fig. 1). The scans start with literature searches and active consultation with large
164
numbers of people to identify relevant issues, then experts are gathered in workshops to
165
select the most important issues, both threats and opportunities (Sutherland et al. 2011).
166
‘Issues’ are drawn from a wide range of disciplines, some scientific or technical (e.g.
167
‘nanotechnologies’), and some political, economic or social (e.g. ‘decline in engagement
168
with nature’). In many cases, participants also identify new opportunities, such as using
169
environmental DNA (a molecular technique to amplify small quantities of genetic material)
170
to detect the presence of species.
171
Scanning can also be automated using software to identify relevant information from the
172
huge volume of online content, including research papers, grey literature, news media, and
173
social media (e.g., Twitter) (Amanatidou et al. 2012). These tools often form the basis of
174
issue-centred scans, providing constant surveillance of important issues (Amanatidou et al.
175
2012), such as tracking infectious diseases in real time (Chan et al. 2010) by combining
176
surveillance with knowledge about the drivers of disease (e.g., population growth or
177
encounters with wildlife) to act as early warning systems (Lyon et al. 2013).
178
7
179
Scenario planning
180
Scenario planning explores current trends, drivers of change, key uncertainties, the
181
relationships among these different elements and how they might influence the future
182
(Schoemaker 1993). This requires detailed information about a system, which can be as
183
broad as the global climate or as narrow as the business environment for a particular
184
company. Generally, multiple scenarios are created by participants (often called scenario
185
development or scenario analysis) and can be based on empirical evidence (e.g., long-term
186
datasets (WCS & Bio-Era 2007), spatially explicit data (Santelmann et al. 2004), or qualitative
187
data (perceptions of experts and stakeholders (Schoemaker 1993)). Scenarios can be
188
expressed as stories to help illustrate the quantitative scenarios. For example, providing
189
details such as, major, unexpected environmental disasters create unprecedented demand
190
for environmental action to illustrate a scenario of sudden environmental change and strong
191
support for conservation action (WCS & Bio Era 2007). By exploring the dynamics of a
192
system, scenario planning helps participants think about possible futures that may arise
193
under different conditions (Peterson et al. 2003), and what those different futures might
194
mean for current decisions (Schoemaker 1995)(the planning aspect of scenario planning). By
195
identifying and challenging assumptions about how the system operates, scenario planning
196
promotes broad and creative thinking, and can lead to previously unseen perspectives
197
(Schoemaker 1993).
198
In the conservation literature, what are described as scenario planning exercises sometimes
199
contain many of the steps in the complete foresight process. These exercises may include
200
setting the scope, collecting inputs, analysing this information and interpreting this
201
information in relation to what it means about possible, probable and desirable futures
202
(e.g., WCS & Bio-Era 2007). This suggests that the conservation community could benefit
203
from a deeper understanding of the foresight process to ensure all steps are conducted and
204
the full benefits of the process are realized by implementing the outcomes of the process.
205
206
Backcasting
207
Backcasting helps to map a logical series of actions to a goal (Dreborg 1996). Some obstacles
208
can appear so large that it is challenging to see a clear way forward. However, starting with
209
a goal and working backwards breaks down a large problem into smaller, achievable actions
8
210
(Manning et al. 2006). Like scenario planning, backcasting can also help participants to think
211
creatively by shifting the focus from present conditions to a situation sufficiently far off in
212
the future to envisage radical change (Cinq-Mars & Wiken 2002). Participants are not limited
213
to seeking solutions to present problems.
214
The systematic process of backcasting makes it ideally suited to assessing the feasibility of
215
solutions to complex problems, particularly where major changes are required over long
216
timeframes (Dreborg 1996). In the Netherlands, backcasting has been used to map a path to
217
achieve sustainable urban development (Dassen et al. 2013), envisaging a desirable future
218
city that articulates the goal of sustainable development, and identifying a set of actions to
219
promote each of these goals. Importantly, explicit consideration was given to the
220
contribution different actors could make in achieving these goals to make the importance of
221
their participation more tangible.
222
223
Using strategic foresight to recognize opportunity
224
Strategic foresight can be useful for identifying all three types of conservation opportunity.
225
The different strengths of individual foresight tools make them better suited to identifying
226
particular kinds of opportunities. A well-designed foresight process is capable of analyzing a
227
system for current and emerging barriers to potential opportunities, monitoring a system for
228
traction opportunities, and mapping a path to realizing existing opportunities. We highlight
229
some foresight tools that are particularly well-suited to recognizing conservation
230
opportunities; however, we note that there are many other tools in the foresight tool-kit
231
that may be more relevant for some situations.
232
233
Potential opportunities
234
Recognizing potential opportunities involves first imagining possible futures, and then
235
identifying and prioritizing removal of the barriers preventing the most desirable outcomes.
236
Considering possible and probable future scenarios – as is done in scenario planning
237
(Peterson et al. 2003) – can be a useful way to identify the barriers associated with potential
238
opportunities that prevent them becoming existing opportunities (Knight et al. 2006).
239
Examining the properties of the system and how they vary under different scenarios can
9
240
reveal whether the same opportunities will be present across all or only some scenarios.
241
Consider these different scenarios: 1) catastrophic weather events generate public support
242
for addressing climate change, or 2) poor economic growth leads to polluting industries
243
being prioritized over environmental protection. The first scenario creates an opportunity
244
for action on climate change, while this is unlikely under the second scenario. ‘Landscape
245
futures’ is a tool that can identify opportunities that may only arise under some
246
circumstances (Bryan et al. 2011). It combines scenario planning with conservation planning,
247
and underpinned by spatial and other data sources, it has been used to inform landscape-
248
scale decisions by explicitly considering the impact of different policy options and assessing
249
where in the landscape opportunities may arise in the future (Bryan et al. 2011).
250
Where opportunities vary across scenarios it can be helpful to keep track of which scenario
251
is emerging by monitoring indicators of change. Indicators relevant to conservation
252
opportunity may include increases in extreme weather events and changes in public
253
attitudes (WSC & Bio-Era 2007). Tracking changes in these signposts can provide advanced
254
warning that a particular course of action may be necessary to avert an undesirable future.
255
Issue-centred scanning is an ideal tool for such a task. It can also be used to identify shifts in
256
systems that remove barriers preventing potential opportunities from becoming traction or
257
existing opportunities.
258
259
Traction opportunities
260
Recognizing traction opportunities relies on a sound understanding of a system and regular
261
monitoring; two things that foresight exercises can deliver. By scanning open source content
262
on the Internet (e.g., Twitter and other social media), scanning tools can be used to track
263
public opinion (Amanatidou et al. 2012) and predict how people will act (e.g., how they
264
might vote in an election or their intention to boycott a company). Up-to-date and
265
comprehensive surveillance of an issue through issue-centred scanning is particularly
266
important when the traction opportunity may only appear locally or for a short time (Moon
267
et al. this issue). For example, recognizing a shift in public opinion can create a temporary
268
opening to advance a conservation objective. This might include guiding companies towards
269
environmentally responsible practices, or seizing an opportunity to advance sustainable
270
industries through increased demand for ‘green’ products or services.
10
271
Increased discussion of conservation issues or number of people attending demonstrations
272
might also indicate a change in public attitudes, presenting an opportunity to make a policy
273
change. For example, the west coast of New Zealand quickly transitioned from a timber to a
274
tourism industry in 1999 in response to a rapid shift in public support for conservation
275
(Swarbrick 2012). Nature-based tourism continues to be a major industry, providing ongoing
276
opportunities to advance a conservation agenda. The foresight process provides all the
277
ingredients for addressing a case like this. First, a desirable future (moving towards a more
278
sustainable industry) can be agreed through visioning, a shift in public support can be
279
recognized through scanning, and the magnitude of barriers to this transition (loss of jobs
280
and income from the timber industry) could be explored through scenario planning.
281
282
Existing opportunities
283
Backcasting is particularly useful when an existing opportunity has been recognized to map
284
out a feasible multi-stage strategy for potentially complex implementation (Robinson 2003).
285
Manning et al. (2006) identified large-scale ecological restoration as an issue that could
286
benefit from backcasting. Restoration is complex and resource intensive over large areas, so
287
the scale of the problem can overwhelm decision-makers because they cannot visualize the
288
proposed changes. This has impeded large-scale restoration in the past, and backcasting
289
provides a method to deconstruct the problem into tractable steps that decision-makers can
290
implement.
291
Some conservation opportunities may already exist but are unknown or poorly understood.
292
Horizon scanning is capable of identifying existing opportunities not previously identified
293
(e.g., genetic control of invasive species; Sutherland et al. 2014). Opportunities may also
294
exist in other disciplines, or in new technologies that could benefit conservation research or
295
practice. Technology is revolutionizing invasive species monitoring and control methods.
296
Invasive predators can now be recognized from a paw print when the animal walks through
297
a tunnel-like structure. Detecting an unwanted individual triggers the instant delivery of a
298
fatal toxin and sends a signal to alert managers to the event (Provisional patent number:
299
615797; Helen Blackie personal communication). Likewise, the Internet has facilitated online
300
citizen science initiatives (e.g., www.zooniverse.org; CSA 2014), engaging the public in
301
science and sharing biological challenges with hundreds of thousands of Internet users.
11
302
Complex problems, such as refining the crystal structure of proteins that have long alluded
303
scientists have been solved leading to the design of new drugs to treat diseases (Schrope
304
2013). Scanning tools provide a method to detect these opportunities much sooner.
305
Given uncertain futures, we should favour actions that are likely to deliver the benefits of an
306
opportunity over the long-term (Schoemaker 1995). Scenario planning is useful for assessing
307
the flexibility of existing opportunities and the different strategies for realizing these
308
opportunities. The scenario planning process can consider any realistic period in the future
309
and the best strategy for realizing conservation opportunities can depend on whether the
310
goal is short-term or long-term gain. There may be positive conservation outcomes from
311
exploiting an existing opportunity now, but those benefits may not remain constant over
312
time and may not exist at all under some scenarios. For example, opportunities for large-
313
scale restoration may rely on acquiring land in the short-term because increases in land
314
values and land use change may put those areas out of reach in the future. The scenario
315
process provides a powerful way to explicitly consider uncertainty about the future and
316
factor it into current decisions.
317
318
319
Rising Waters case study: Using foresight to identify opportunities for climate change
adaptation
320
In 2008, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) undertook a foresight exercise to consider how
321
communities within the Hudson River Estuary Watershed (HREW) in New York state, USA,
322
could adapt to the impacts of climate change (TNC 2009). Major changes have been
323
predicted for this area, which could have serious implications for the four million people
324
living within the HREW, and the forestry and agricultural industries present. The watershed
325
serves as a system with easily definable geographic and functional limits, providing a clear
326
scope for the exercise, along with a 20 year timeframe. The foresight process was designed
327
and facilitated by an experienced, professional futurist and included a diverse group of over
328
160 stakeholders from government, industry, emergency services, health care, local
329
communities and environmental groups.
330
The complexity of many conservation problems means that solutions may be multifaceted
331
(Arlettaz et al. 2010) and rely on the cooperation of a range of different stakeholders.
332
Participatory foresight processes such as this ensure a range of perspectives and different
12
333
dimensions of the problem are captured (Bengston et al. 2012) and can facilitate more
334
effective and lasting solutions by giving stakeholders ownership over the potential actions
335
developed (Iversen 2005). This level of stakeholder input into the process far exceeds
336
traditional planning approaches, providing a more detailed view of the social, economic and
337
political issues likely to define potential and traction opportunities.
338
The whole scenario planning process took 18 months and was divided into three broad
339
phases (learning, creating, and applying) designed around a series of workshops and
340
working group meetings (Fig. 2). While no formal scanning process was conducted, inputs
341
were collected through extensive literature reviews and included scientific predictions for
342
environmental changes in the region under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
343
Change’s predictions. This first phase also involved a workshop with a range of stakeholders
344
to discuss and supplement the information collected, identify important issues and analyse
345
signals (Fig. 2). In association with working groups, this process selected important existing
346
issues (e.g., climate change, aging infrastructure), drivers (e.g., land use decisions, oil prices),
347
actors (e.g., government, media), and key uncertainties (e.g., will adaptation be sensitive to
348
natural processes?). The issues were barriers that indicated the presence of potential
349
opportunities, while drivers highlighted factors that could lead to traction opportunities. The
350
careful consideration of the actors and uncertainties was critical to determining how to
351
convert potential opportunities to existing opportunities, and a step generally neglected in
352
traditional planning approaches.
353
In a second phase, four alternative scenarios were created and refined (Fig. 2). These
354
scenarios centred on the key uncertainties described above, varying trends in the important
355
drivers and the responses of actors. Scenarios were described using evocative titles (e.g.,
356
procrastination blues) and illustrative details: government officials and the public do little to
357
prepare for climate change until extreme weather events cause severe local damage and
358
catalyse demands for action. The initial procrastination limits available response options. For
359
each scenario, indicators for the different drivers (e.g., price of key commodities) were
360
selected to act as signposts that could be monitored to indicate the trajectory of future
361
conditions. This step allows groups to be responsive to changes that indicate traction
362
opportunities. This adds a dynamic element to the planning process that is also not part of
363
traditional planning processes.
13
364
A third workshop was conducted to select actions and strategies for converting potential to
365
existing opportunities to achieve the most favourable outcomes across each scenario.
366
Working groups considered the feasibility of these actions in terms of the probable costs
367
and value of proposed solutions to consider which options were most robust to different
368
futures and highly implementable. Helping communities to develop emergency action plans
369
scored highly across all scenarios developed. Some actions that were most effective under
370
one scenario proved least effective under another. Considering how robust actions are to
371
possible future scenarios is a major advance on traditional planning approaches and
372
essential to developing strategies with a high probability of converting potential to existing
373
opportunities.
374
While the report developed detailed and appropriate actions, no measures of success were
375
created to determine whether the process actually changed behaviour. At the completion of
376
the Rising Waters project several regional working groups were developed. However, it is
377
unclear the extent to which the strategies developed on the basis of these scenarios were
378
implemented or the degree to which the exercise met its objectives. This is a criticism often
379
levelled at traditional planning approaches, where implementation and evaluation are rarely
380
built into the process. However, had the Rising Waters project followed all the steps in the
381
foresight process the project would not have been completed before the agreed actions
382
were implemented. To this end, including a backcasting exercise may have assisted in
383
providing a more detailed plan for action. This highlights the importance of completing all
384
the steps in the foresight process to achieve the best outcomes.
385
386
Discussion
387
Our review has largely focused on the potential benefits of foresight for recognizing
388
different types of conservation opportunity. The advantages of the foresight process include
389
a move away from reactive decision-making to a more proactive and responsive approach
390
to conservation planning. Despite these benefits being realized in other disciplines (e.g.,
391
business, public health and biosecurity) and the growing use of foresight tools for
392
environmental management, to date, examples of strategic foresight actually influencing
393
conservation policy and action are rare. This is in part due to the relative infancy of
394
environmental applications of foresight, and the tendency for exercises to focus on the use
14
395
of a single tool rather than a comprehensive process. However, we speculate that the poor
396
uptake of foresight in conservation planning is also driven by short-term political cycles,
397
which leads to reactive decision-making with a focus on existing opportunities rather than
398
developing a more considered and longer-term plan to realize potential opportunities. The
399
foresight process fosters a more strategic approach but requires following a strategy from
400
conception through to implementation.
401
While growing in profile, the foresight process is largely unfamiliar to conservation planning,
402
and previous foresight applications in conservation have been so broad that they may
403
become too abstract and divorced from fine-scale decision-making. For example, the
404
‘Millennium Ecosystem Assessment’ suggested significant changes to policies, institutions,
405
and practices, but lacked a clear plan to achieve the necessary changes at policy-relevant
406
scales (Tallis & Kareiva 2006). Widespread adoption of strategic foresight in conservation is
407
unlikely until some tractable examples of its successful application become more widely
408
known. However, there are very few publicly available examples of foresight exercises that
409
employ all the steps in the foresight process, as illustrated by the Rising Waters case study
410
presented above. Often key steps are neglected and it is challenging or impossible to assess
411
the outcomes of the exercises, which would require clear measures of success to be
412
articulated. For example, scanning applications for disease risk can measure success in
413
terms of preventing disease in a particular country, with the associated environmental
414
benefits and financial savings to industry (Lyon et al. 2013). At least in the short-term, using
415
strategic foresight to recognize conservation opportunities may require engaging specialists
416
in strategic foresight that can guide and focus the process to ensure all the steps are
417
conducted and the potential benefits are realized.
418
Documenting successful examples of foresight processes that realize conservation
419
opportunity will make the approach more appealing to decision-makers and illustrate the
420
advantages over more traditional planning approaches. We encourage conservation
421
scientists and decision-makers, in conjunction with specialist facilitators, to roadtest and
422
refine the foresight process, with particular emphasis on implementation.
423
Strategic foresight is well-suited to identifying conservation opportunities but has been
424
underutilized in conservation relative to other disciplines (Cook et al. in press). While there
15
425
is increasing recognition that forward looking approaches are needed in conservation to
426
recognize emerging issues (e.g., horizon scanning) and consider a how the future might
427
influence the choices we make in the present (e.g., scenario planning), generally these tools
428
are used in isolation rather than as part of a foresight process. The stages of the foresight
429
process, from setting the scope to taking action, have direct parallels with the steps for
430
recognizing and realizing conservation opportunity (Moon et al. this issue). The foresight
431
tool-kit offers many tools to structure and guide the process of seeking opportunity. This
432
approach has been used successfully for many years in other disciplines and will add value
433
to our attempts to create a more desirable future for global biodiversity.
434
435
Cited Literature
436
Amanatidou, E., M. Butter, V. Carabias, T. Könnölä, M. Leis, et al. 2012. On concepts and methods in
437
horizon scanning: Lessons from initiating policy dialogues on emerging issues. Science and Public
438
Policy 39:208-221.
439
440
441
Andrews, J., H. Cameron, and M. Harris. 2008. All change? Managers’ experience of organizational
change in theory and practice. Journal of Organizational Change Management 21:300-314.
Arlettaz, R., M. Schaub, J. Fournier, T. S. Reichlin, A. Sierro, et al. 2010. From publications to public
442
actions: When conservation biologists bridge the gap between research and implementation.
443
Bioscience 60:835-842.
444
445
446
447
448
Armstrong, J. S. 2001. Principles of forecasting: A handbook for researchers and practitioners.
Kluwer Academic, Boston, U.S.; Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Bengston, D. N., G. H. Kubik, and P. C. Bishop. 2012. Strengthening environmental foresight:
Potential contributions of futures research. Ecology and Society 17.
Bryan, B. A., N. D. Crossman, D. King, and W. S. Meyer. 2011. Landscape futures analysis: Assessing
449
the impacts of environmental targets under alternative spatial policy options and future scenarios.
450
Environmental Modelling & Software 26:83-91.
451
452
Burgman, M. A. 2001. Flaws in subjective assessments of ecological risks and means for correcting
them. Australian Journal of Environmental Management 8:219-226.
453
Carpenter, S. R. 2002. Ecological futures: Building an ecology of the long now. Ecology 83:2069-2083.
454
Chan, E. H., T. F. Brewer, L. C. Madoff, M. P. Pollack, A. L. Sonricker, et al. 2010. Global capacity for
455
emerging infectious disease detection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
456
United States of America 107:21701-21706.
16
457
458
Cinq-Mars, J., and E. Wiken. 2002. Using science, technology and innovation in support of conserving
Canada’s ecosystems and habitats. Forestry Chronicle 78.
459
Citizen Science Alliance (CSA). 2014. Zooniverse: Real science online.
460
Cook, C. N., S. Inayatullah, M. A. Burgman, W. J. Sutherland, and B. A. Wintle. in press. Strategic
461
foresight: Planning for the unpredictable in environmental decision-making. Trends in Ecology &
462
Evolution.
463
Dassen, T., E. Kunseler, and L. M. van Kessenich. 2013. The sustainable city: An analytical-
464
deliberative approach to assess policy in the context of sustainable urban development.
465
Sustainable Development 21:193-205.
466
467
Dortmans, P. J. 2005. Forecasting, backcasting, migration landscapes and strategic planning maps.
Futures 37:273-285.
468
Dreborg, K. H. 1996. Essense of backcasting. Futures 28:813-828.
469
Foresights' Horizon Scanning Centre (HSC). 2014. Exploring the future: Tools for strategic thinking.
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
The Government Office for Science, London.
Glenn, J. C., and J. T. Gordon, editors. 2009. Futures research methodology - version 3.0. The
Millennium Project, Washington, D. C.
Inayatullah, S. 2007. Questioning the future: Methods and tools for organizational and societal
transformation. Tamkang University Press, Taipei, Taiwan
Iversen, J. S. 2005. Futures thinking methodologies - Options relevant for "Schooling for Tomorrow"
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
Knight, A. T., R. M. Cowling, and B. M. Campbell. 2006. An operational model for implementing
conservation action. Conservation Biology 20:408-419.
Knight, A. T., R. M. Cowling, M. Rouget, A. Balmford, A. T. Lombard, et al. 2008. Knowing but not
480
doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research-implementation gap. Conservation
481
Biology 22:610-617.
482
483
484
Leigh, A. 2003. Thinking ahead: Strategic foresight and government. Australian Journal of Public
Administration 62:3-10.
Lyon, A., G. Grossel, M. Burgman, and M. Nunn. 2013. Using internet intelligence to manage
485
biosecurity risks: a case study for aquatic animal health. Diversity and Distributions 19:640-650.
486
Manning, A. D., D. B. Lindenmayer, and J. Fischer. 2006. Stretch goals and backcasting: Approaches
487
488
489
for overcoming barriers to large-scale ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology 14:487-492.
McNiff, J., and J. Whitehead 2003. Action research: principles and practice. Routledge Falmer,
London.
17
490
Palmer, M. A., C. A. R. Liermann, C. Nilsson, M. Florke, J. Alcamo, et al. 2008. Climate change and the
491
world's river basins: anticipating management options. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
492
6:81-89.
493
494
495
Peterson, G. D., G. S. Cumming, and S. R. Carpenter. 2003. Scenario planning: A tool for conservation
in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology 17:358-366.
Reed, M. S., A. Graves, N. Dandy, H. Posthumus, K. Hubacek, et al. 2009. Who's in and why? A
496
typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of
497
Environmental Management 90:1933-1949.
498
Robinson, J. 2003. Future subjunctive: Backcasting as social learning. Futures 35:839-856.
499
Santelmann, M. V., D. White, K. Freemark, J. I. Nassauer, J. M. Eilers, et al. 2004. Assessing
500
501
502
503
504
alternative futures for agriculture in Iowa, USA. Landscape Ecology 19:357–374.
Schoemaker, P. J. H. 1993. Multiple scenario development: Its conceptual and behavioral
foundation. Strategic Management Journal 14:193-213.
Schoemaker, P. J. H. 1995. Scenario planning - A tool for strategic thinking. Sloan Management
Review 36:25-40.
505
Schrope, M. 2013. Solving tough problems with games: Online communities are using the power of
506
play to solve complex research problems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
507
United States of America 110:7104-7106.
508
509
510
Sutherland, W. J., R. Aveling, T. Brooks, M. Clout, L. V. Dicks, et al. 2014. Horizon scan of global
conservation issues for 2014. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 29:15-22.
Sutherland, W. J., E. Fleishman, M. B. Mascia, J. Pretty, and M. A. Rudd. 2011. Methods for
511
collaboratively identifying research priorities and emerging issues in science and policy. Methods in
512
Ecology and Evolution 2:238-247.
513
514
515
516
517
Swarbrick, N. 2012. Logging native forests - Conflicting views. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New
Zealand.
Tallis, H. M., and P. Kareiva. 2006. Shaping global environmental decisions using socio-ecological
models. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21:562-568.
The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2009. Rising Waters: Helping Hudson River communities adapt to
518
climate change scenario planning 2010 – 2030 final report. The Nature Conservancy Eastern New
519
York Chapter, New York, USA.
520
521
522
Van Rij, V. 2010. Joint horizon scanning: identifying common strategic choices and questions for
knowledge. Science and Public Policy 37:7-18.
Wack, P. 1985. Scenarios: uncharted waters ahead. Harvard Business Review 63:72-89.
18
523
524
525
526
Walters, C. J., and C. S. Holling. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing.
Ecology 71:2060-2068.
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), and Bio-Era. 2007. Futures of the wild. A project of the Wildlife
Conservation Society’s Futures Group. Wildlife Conservation Society and Bio-Era, New York.
527
19
Table 1. Some of the many strategic foresight tools available to structure a foresight exercise. Some tools can be used in more than one step
depending on the purpose of the exercise. (Adapted from Cook et al. in press)
Steps
Setting the scope
Collecting inputs
Analyzing signals
Interpreting
information
Determining how to
act
Implementing the
outcomes
Issues trees: used to
identify the key
elements of an issue
that need to be
considered (HSC 2014)
Horizon scanning: used
to collect and organize
a wide array of
information to identify
emerging issues (Glenn
& Gordon 2009)
Driver analysis: a
process to identify and
group trends,
determine the drivers
of these trends, and
the relationships
between drivers (HSC
2014)
Scenario planning: a
tool to explore
alternative visions of
the future based on
key uncertainties and
trends (Peterson et al.
2003)
Backcasting: used to
visualize barriers to
achieving a goal and
the steps needed to
overcome those
obstacles (Dreborg
1996)
Action research: an
iterative process for
improving action
designed around
planning, acting,
learning and reflecting
(McNiff & Whitehead
2003)
Stakeholder analysis: a
process to identify
stakeholders with an
interest in an issue
(Reed et al. 2009)
Literature review:
summary of relevant
published information
Statistical modelling
and analysis: using
mathematical concepts
to describe a system,
study the effects of
different components,
and make predictions
about system behavior
and the effects of
alternative actions
(Glenn & Gordon 2009)
Causal layered analysis:
a tool to expose hidden
assumptions and help
create a new narrative
to promote a desired
change (Glenn &
Gordon 2009)
Roadmaps: for
identifying the
actions required to
overcome any
barriers (HSC 2014)
Adaptive management:
a process for learning
about the effectiveness
of management by
monitoring outcomes
(Walters & Holling
1990)
System maps:
conceptual
representation of a
system, with a set of
elements and the
relationships between
Workshops: assembles
expert to identify the
most significant
emerging issues via an
iterative scoring
process (Sutherland et
Trend impact analysis:
projection based on
past trends to infer the
consequences of
similar or different
trajectories in key
Visioning: Participants
describe the ideal
scenario in detail. They
share and refine the
vision, often exploring
barriers and key actors,
Decision modelling:
alternatives are scored
against multiple,
weighted criteria or
objectives to
determine which
Change management:
an approach to
transitioning
individuals or groups to
a desired state
(Andrews et al. 2008).
20
them (HSC 2014)
al. 2011)
variables (Glenn &
Gordon 2009)
the resources required
and the steps involved
in achieving the vision
(Glenn & Gordon 2009)
alternative performs
best across all
objectives (Glenn &
Gordon 2009)
Cross impact analysis:
structures thinking
about how one event
impacts the likelihood
of other events.
Probabilities are
assigned subjectively
or are underpinned by
mathematical
relationships. (Glenn &
Gordon 2009)
Futures wheel: a
structure
brainstorming tool
exploring the primary,
secondary and tertiary
impacts of a trend or
event
(Glenn & Gordon 2009)
Risk analysis: a process
for assessing and
dealing with hazards
(Burgman 2001)
21
Figure captions:
Figure 1. The stages of the strategic foresight process and some of the many tools that can
be used to assist at each stage. Definitions of each of these tools can be found in Table 1.
22
Figure 2. The three phases of the Rising Waters foresight project (learning, creating and
applying) and the different steps in this process, centred around a series of workshops with
stakeholders (W1, W2, W3), smaller working group meetings and scenario team meeting
(T1, T2, T3, T4), which further developed and analysed the issues that emerged from the
workshops with stakeholders.
23