DEVELOPED D
B
SWITCHING ZONE β A
C
RISK SOCIETY ECOLOGICALLY
MODERN SOCIETY
SWITCHING ZONE α
INSECURE SECURE
MODERN SOCIETY
PRE- MODERN SOCIETY
UNDERDEVELOPED
Figure 6. Technological-environmental risk and development (Cohen 1997, 110) Located in the lower left-hand quadrant of this typology are societies still in their pre-modern phase. Relatively low levels of economic development and high insecurity characterize these kinds of societies. This vulnerability is a function of pre-modern societies’ rudimentary technology that consigns them to exposure to the forces of the natural environment. Societies at this stage of social and economic development are intimately connected to nature, and the fate of individual lives is predicted on the benevolence of natural geophysical and meteorological forces (Cohen 1997). To contend with the unpredictability and inevitability of events such as hurricanes, earthquakes and floods, pre-modern societies have historically developed complex belief systems based on mysticism and superstition to impose a knowledge structure around these phenomena (Malinowsky 1984).
The diagram’s central cell represents the second major stage of the conventional development trajectory in which societies become modern. Social theorists for
whom distinctions between pre-modernity and modernity are important share no general agreement on the precise delineation between these two stages of development. For most social theorists, however, modernity is taken to be coterminous with the transcendence of feudal forms of social organization and the emergence of industrial production. Risk in modernity is characterized by a critical trade-off in which societies experience an increase in their proficiency for managing natural hazards, but are forced to confront acute and chronic threats arising from the widespread propagation of inadequately-controlled technology (Cohen 1997).
Ecological deterioration in modern society mounts as a byproduct of industrialization, but this is often considered an unavoidable cost in the process of material acquisition. This cycle of economic advancement and environmental degradation does not continue indefinitely. Once a society has attained a threshold level of economic progress in which marginal increases in material accumulation cease to bring commensurate returns, the transition from an acquisitive modernity to an era of ecological modernization is presumed to commence. As a modern society approaches this juncture, the environment begins to shift its status from an expendable resource to a valued amenity. This ethical transformation gives rise to the modification of existing technologies and institutions to better accommodate the protection of ecological assets and integrity (Cohen 1997).
Development theorists have typically posited that this route to a less environmentally destructive form of social organization is a linear extrapolation of the customary growth trajectory identified by Path A in Figure 6. This formulation is essentially a stage, or evolutionary-process, suggesting that over time a society will proceed from pre-modernity to modernity and finally ecological modernity. Usually, adherents of this deterministic approach fail to recognize that ecological modernization is neither pre-conditioned nor inevitable (Cohen 1997). Actually, it is a potential scenario of sustainable society.
To climb into the upper right-hand quadrant in Figure 6, a society must substantially modify its institutional structures, develop new policy tools, and adapt its life ways to accommodate environmental limits. Cohen (1997) notes that these adjustments require a society to disengage from its modern past and make the discontinuous leap to the trajectory represented by Path B. Once this
’jump’ has been successfully achieved, the newly ecologically modern society can assume a revised development path that will enable it to increase simultaneously both economic advancement and technological-environmental security. The opportunity for ecological modernization occurs when a society reaches switching zone α. This zone is marked by a period of indeterminacy during which a complex process of societal negotiation takes place to evaluate alternatives and assess political, economic, and cultural capabilities for this strenuous project (Cohen, 1997).
The transformation to ecological modernity is not assured and failure to make the necessary jump will cause a society to assume an alternative trajectory labeled as Path C. This is the route to the risk society characterized by erratic economic development and increasing lay insecurity arising from a preponderance of inadequately-managed hazardous technology. In risk societies, episodic environmental and technological crises expose the inadequacies of these political regimes and exacerbate insecurities among their publics. Risk societies are not consigned, however, to face a future of indefinite apprehension as there exist an opportunity for them to chart a development course that enables them to overcome their chronic anxiety. This scenario, referred to here as the trajectory of
’self-correcting risk society’, is depicted by the Path D which becomes accessible at switching zone β. This development trajectory, which is more evolutionary than discontinuous (as is the case of ecological modernization), involves the promotion of humanity over economic determinism and the creation of accountable administrative structures for making technological decisions with collective ramifications.
Conclusion
Sustainable development implies a commitment to quality in every sense of the world. In developing a coherent spatial sustainability strategy, we need more systematic and in-depth analyses of municipal and city environments and other spatial entities. One way to improve the quality of spatial planning and management is to utilise a scenario learning approach to futures oriented spatial planning and strategy processes. In this paper, I have discussed various topics, which all are connected to the challenging concept of scenario learning. The most problematic topics in the scenario learning process are processes and contents of scenarios. When we study processes, the key question is: "How is the spatial scenario exercise conducted?" On the other hand, when we analyze contents of alternative spatial scenarios, the key question is: "What should the spatial scenarios focus on?" This article provides some new and old ideas to answer to these critical questions and summarises some key issues in the field.
Scenario learning can help managers to develop strategic management and visionary leadership, when they plan sustainability policies in various spatial contexts. Sustainability of local communities is a long-run question and that is why scenario learning is needed. Once the learning scenarios are revised and accepted, they can then serve as decision support of spatial strategic processes.
However, scenario learning must be connected to sense making in spatial management and planning organizations, because there are many potential pitfalls of scenario learning. Some pitfalls are connected to processes and some are connected to the contents of scenarios. Following the guidelines presented in this paper, these obvious pitfalls can be avoided in the practice of spatial management and planning.
If we want to survive in the Bermuda triangle of vision, strategy and scenarios in spatial contexts, we should always connect these issues together. Often vision, scenarios and strategies are separated from each other. This is not the best practice for spatial management and planning. We have utilise the historical the historical leaning of strategic schools more consciously, if we want to connect scenarios and visions effectively to spatial strategies.
In the last section of this paper, an interesting scenario framework of sustainability politics was presented. This scenario framework is a good example of how scenario learning can be connected to scientific discussion. The message of Cohen´s (1997, 1998) scenario framework is that in Western societies, we have two basic orientations available in the spatial sustainability policy. One main scenario (and storyline) is connected to the scientific discourse of risk society; another is connected to the scientific discourse of ecological modernization. These kinds of scenario frameworks, which are based on scientific discussion and contributions, can also be used in the formations of spatial strategies and visions of sustainable development. The most important use of scenario learning is to devise new insights about the future decision environment. If these kind of new insights are not utilized effectively, there may be less hope concerning sustainability of spatial development processes.
REFERENCES
Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society. Toward a New Modernity. SAGE, London.
Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (1993). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. John Wiley
& Sons, Chichester.
Cohen, M.J. (1997). Risk Society and Ecological Modernisation. Alternative Visions for Post-Industrial Society. Futures 29: 2, 105-119.
Cohen, M.J. (1998). Science and the Environment: Assessing Cultural Capacity for Ecological Modernisation. Public Understanding of Science 7:2, 149-167.
Fahey, L. and Randall, R.M. (1998). What is Scenario Learning? In L. Fahley and R.M.
Randall (Eds.) Learning from the Scenarios. Competitive Foresight Scenarios.
John Wiley & Sons, New York, 3-21.
Fahley, L. and Randall, R.M. (Eds) (1998). Learning from the Scenarios. Competitive Foresight Scenarios. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Farnstein, S.S. and Farnstein, N. (1998). City Planning and Political Values: An Updated View. In: S. Cambell and S. Farnstein (Eds.) Readings in Planning Theory.
Blackwell Publishers, Maldem, Massachusetts, 265-287.
Frechtling, D.C. (1996). Practical Tourism Forecasting. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Godet, M. (1994). From Anticipation to Action. A Handbook of Strategic Prospective.
Unesco Publishing, Paris.
Greeuw, S.C.H., M. van Asselt, J. Grosskurth, C.A.M.H. Storms, N. Rijkens-Klomp, D.S. Rothman, and J. Rotmans (2000). Cloudy Crystal Balls: An Assessment of Recent European and Global Scenario Studies and Models. Experts´ Corner Report. Prospects and Scenarios No. 4. Environmental Issues Series 17. European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen: 2000.)
Heinonen, S., Jokinen, P. and Kaivo-oja, J. (2001). The Ecological Transparency of the Information Society. Futures 33: 3-4, 319-337
Huber, J. (1985). Die Regenbogengesellschaft: Ökologie und Sozialpolitik. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main.
Jokinen, P., Malaska, P. and Kaivo-oja, J. (1998). Environment in an Information Society Transition Stage Towards Sustainable Development? Futures 30:6, 485-498.
Jänicke, M. (1990). State Failure. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Kaivo-oja, J. (1996). Handbook of Environmental Decision Makers. Scenario Building Process in the Strategy Process of Local Communities. Workbook of Scenario Group and Planning Guidelines. (In Finnish). Suomen Kuntaliitto, Kuntaliiton painatuskeskus, Helsinki.
Kaivo-oja, J. (1999). Alternative Scenarios of Social Development: Is Analytical Sustainability Policy Analysis Possible? How? Sustainable Development 7:3, 140-150.
Laszlo, E. (1994). The Choice: Evolution or Extinction? A Thinking Person´s Guide to Global Issues. A Jeremy P. Tarcher, G.P. Putnam´s Sons, New York.
Luukkanen, J. and Kaivo-oja, J. (1999). The Frames of Global Environmental Policy in UNCED: No Alternatives to Construct Social Reality? World Futures. The Journal of General Evolution 54:2, 103-134.
Malaska, P. (2000). Knowledge and Information in Futurology.Foresight 2:2, 237-244.
Malaska, P. and Holstius, K. (1999). Visionary Management. Foresight 1:4, 309-317.
Malaska, P., Luukkanen, J. and Kaivo-oja, J. (2000). A New Sustainability Evaluation Framework and Alternative Analytical Scenarios of National Economies. A paper presented at ESEE 2000 Conference. Transitions Towards a Sustainable Europe Ecology - Economy - Policy. 3rd Biennial Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics. Vienna, 3-6. May 2000. Session Ib3. Theme: ”Ecological Economics Modeling and Material and Energy Flows.
Malinowsky, B. (1948). Magic, Science, and Religion. Beacon Press, Boston.
Mannermaa, M. (1991). Evolutionary Futures Studies. (In Finnish). Finnish Society for Futures Studies, Government Printing Center, Helsinki.
Meadows, D., D. Meadows, D., J. Randers, and W.W. Behrens (1972). The Limits to Growth. Universe Books, New York.
Meadows, D., D. Meadows, D., and J. Randers (1992). Beyond the Limits-Global Collapse or Sustainable Development. Earthscan, London.
Mintzberg, H. and Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy Safari. A Guided Tour Through the Wilds of Strategic Management. Prentice Hall, Hertfordshire, UK.
Nuefewld, W.P. (1985). Environmental Scanning: Its Use in Forecasting Emerging Trends and Issues in Organizations. Futures Research Quarterly 1:3, 39-52.
Ravetz. J. (2000). City Region 2020. Integrated Planning for a Sustainable Environment. Earthscan, London.
Ridely, M. and Low, B.S. (1998). Can Selfishness Save the Environment?, in S.
Cambell and S. Farnstein (eds.) Readings in Planning Theory. Blackwell Publishers, Maldem, Massachusetts, 198-212.
Rotmans, J. (1997). Integrated Visions for a Sustainable Europe: An Integrated Assessment Proposa. DG XII. Work Programme Environment and Climate, second phase, Brussels, Belgium.
Rotmans, J. (1999). Integrated Assessment. A Bird's-eye View. Introductionary Guide Prepared for the European Summerschool ‘Puzzle Solving for Policy: Tools and Methods for Integrated Assessment,’ August 30– September 17, 1999. ICIS, Maastricht University, Netherlands.
Rubin, A. and Kaivo-oja, J. (1999). Towards a Futures-oriented Sociology.
International Review of Sociology. Revue Internationale de Sociologie 9:3, 349-371 Schoemaker, P.H. (1998). Twenty Common Pitfalls in Scenario Planning. In: L. Fahley and R.M. Radall (Eds.) Learning from the Scenarios. Competitive Foresight Scenarios.
John Wiley & Sons, New York, 422-431.
Schwartz, P. (1992). The Art of the Long View. Century Business, New York.
Schwartz, P. and Ogilvy, J. (1998). Plotting Your Scenarios, in L. Fahley and R.M.
Randall (eds.) Learning from the Scenarios. Competitive Foresight Scenarios. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 57-80.
Simonis, U. (1988). Beyond Growth: Elements of Sustainable Development. Edition Sigma, Berlin.
Spaargaren, G. (1997). The Ecological Modernization of Production and Consumption.
Thesis. Landbow Universitet Wageningen, Wageningen.
van der Heijden, K. (1996). Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation. John Wiley
& Sons, Chichester.
Wack, P. (1985). Scenarios: Shooting the Rapids. Harvard Business Review 63: 6, 139-150.
Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. SAGE, Foundations for Organizational Science, London.
Wilson, I. (1992). Realizing the Power of Strategic Vision. Long Range Planning 25:5, 18-28.
Wilson, I. (1994). Strategic Planning isn´t Dead - It Changed. Long Range Planning 27:4, 12-24.
Wilson, I. (1995). Envisioning (and Inventing) The Future. On The Horizon 3:3, 1-2, 5.
Wilson, I. (1996). The Practical Power of Vision. On The Horizon 4:2, 1, 3-5.