Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Inventing the future: scenarios, imagination, mastery and control

  • Special Feature: Original Article
  • Policy sciences for sustainable development
  • Published:
Sustainability Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The complexity of mixed social, behavioral, and natural systems—such as those encountered while analyzing, understanding, and trying to manage aspects of climate change and sustainability, requires more common theoretical frameworks and technical tools than either can bear. How does human activity relate to greenhouse gas emissions, changes in the atmosphere, climate variability, and multiple impacts, outcomes, and effects? Some of the connections can be observed and measured, many cannot. Uncertainties of every conceivable sort can occur. As the time frame into the future extends, uncertainties essentially dominate conventional theories, tools, experiences, habits, processes, and so forth. The scientific consensus linking human activity to climate change is now all but settled according to The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The consensus says little, however, about who should be doing what and for what reasons under this singular, even unique circumstance. There are no data about the future on which to rely. We are challenged to imagine many different and possible “futures” as humankind seeks to exert its mastery and control. This essay considers and then weaves together several basic issues, ideas, and topics: complexity, the concept of human intentionality, several means used to exert control in organizations and social systems, and different methods being used to imagine, invent, and communicate the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AGI (2007) http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/neea106.html (accessed 21/1/2007)

  • Araújo MB, Rahbek C (2006) How does climate change affect biodiversity. Science 313:1396–1397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ascher W (1978) Forecasting. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Ascher W (2004) Scientific information and uncertainty. Sci Eng Ethics 10(3):437–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett W (1978) The illusion of technique. Doubleday/Anchor, Garden City

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck MB (2007) How best to look forward. Science 316:202–203

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bell D (1967) Twelve modes of prediction: a preliminary sorting of approaches in the social sciences. Daedalus 93:865–878

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell W, Olick JK (1989) An epistemology for the futures field: problems and possibilities of prediction. Futures 115–135

  • Berry J et al (1998) Closing the gap between ecosystem management and ecosystem research. Policy Sci 31:55–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobbitt P (2003) Seeing the futures. NY Times, Dec 8: A-29

  • Brewer GD (1986) Methods for synthesis: policy exercises. In: Clark WC, Munn RE (eds) Sustainable development of the biosphere, Chap 17. Cambridge University Press, New York

  • Brewer GD (1990) Discovery is not prediction. In: Goldberg AC, van Opstal D, Barkely JH (eds) Avoiding the brink: theory and practice in crisis management, Chap 6. Brassey’s, London

  • Brewer GD (1999) The challenges of interdisciplinary work. Policy Sci 32:315–317, 319–321

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer GD, Shubik M (1979) The war game. Harvard University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Brezina DW (1974) Congress in action: the environmental education act. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown S (1968) Scenarios in systems analysis. In: Quade ES, Boucher WI (eds) Systems analysis and policy planning. Elsevier, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunner RD, Kathlene L (1989) Data utilization through case-wise analysis: some key interactions. Knowl Soc 2:16–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunner RD, Byerly R Jr (1990) The space station programme: defining the problem. Space Policy 6:131–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busenberg G (1999) Collaborative and adversarial analysis in environmental policy. Policy Sci 32(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chess C, Purcell K (1999) Public participation and the environment: do we know what works? Environ Sci Technol 33:2685–2691

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clark TW (1996) The Greater Yellowstone policy debate: what is the policy problem? Policy Sci 29(2):137–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark WC, Munn RE (1986) Sustainable development of the biosphere. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Coontz R (2007) Wedging sustainability into public consciousness. Science 315:1068–1069

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Covello VT et al (1997) The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communications: an empirical study. Risk Analysis 17(1):43–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig PA et al (2002) What can history teach us? a retrospective examination of long-term energy forecasts for the United States. Annu Rev Energy Environ 27:83–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahinden U et al (2000) Exploring the use of computer models in participatory integrated assessments: experiences and recommendations for further steps. Int Assess 1:253–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dery D (1985) Problem definition in policy analysis. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence

    Google Scholar 

  • DeWeerd H (1967) Political military scenarios. The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, P-3535

  • DeWeerd H (1974) A contextual approach to scenario construction. Simul Games 5:403–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dilworth C (1997) Sustainable development and decision making. Uppsala University, Uppsala

    Google Scholar 

  • Doniger DD et al (2006) An ambitious centrist approach to global warming legislation. Science 314:764–765

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dowie M (2005) Nuclear fallout. California Monthly, pp 25–29

  • Dowlatabadi H, Morgan MG (1993) Integrated assessment of climate change. Science 259:1813, 1932

    Google Scholar 

  • Edidin P (2007) There’s money in global warming. NY Times, Jan 20: A-16

  • EMF (2007a) http://www.stanford.edu/group/EMF (accessed 21/1/07)

  • EMF (2007b) http://www.corporate.stanford.edu/research/programs/energy.html (accessed 21/1/2007)

  • EETAP (2007) http://www.eetap.org/html/history.php (accessed 21/1/07)

  • Fialka JJ (2006) California plots greenhouse-gas strategy. Wall St J, Nov 17: A-4

  • Fischoff B (1985) Managing risk perceptions. issues in science and technology Fall:83–96

  • Freudenberg W (1988) Perceived risk, real risk, social science, and the art of probability risk assessment. Science 242:44–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freudenberg WR, Gramling R (2002) Scientific expertise and natural resource decisions: social science participation on interdisciplinary scientific committees. Soc Sci Q 83(1):120–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallopin G, Hammond A, Raskin P, Swart R (1997) Branch points: global scenarios and human choice. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Garvin T (2001) Analytical paradigms: the epistemological distances between scientists, policy makers, and the public. Risk Anal 21(3):443–455

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grubler A et al (2007) Integrated assessment of uncertainties in greenhouse gas emissions and their mitigation. Technol Forecast Soc Change (in press)

  • Ham B (2007) Project 2061 offers climate change teaching guide. Science 315:1091

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman AJ (2005) Business decisions and the environment: significance, challenges, and momentum of an emerging research field. In: National Research Council (2005) Decision making for the environment. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, pp 200–229

  • Holliday CO Jr, Schmidheiny S, Watts P (2002) Walking the talk: the business case for sustainable development. Greenleaf, London

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2001) Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Climate Change 2001. Cambridge University Press, New York

  • IPCC (2007) The IPCC 4th assessment report. http://www.ipcc.ch (accessed 5/5/07)

  • Kates RW et al (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292:641–642

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr RA (2007) Global warming is changing the world. Science 316:188–189

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger J, Pizer W (2005) Regional greenhouse gas initiative: prelude to a national program. Resources 156:4–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkey PD (2002) Ask a simple question: a retrospective on Herbert Alexander Simon. Policy Sci 35(3):239–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasch C (1991) The true and only heaven: progress and its critics. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell HD (1971) Problem orientation: the intellectual tasks. In: a pre-view of policy sciences, Chap 3. Elsevier, New York

  • Lee KN (1993) Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the environment. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Leshner AI (2007) Outreach training needed. Science 315:161

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lubbers M, Ruggie JG, Holdren JP (2004) Sustainability and risk: climate change and fiduciary duty for the twenty-first century trustee. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Maccracken MC et al (2003) Climate change scenarios for the US. Natl Assess Bull Am Meteorol Soc 84(12):1711–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLean R (2006) Environmental politics and strategy. Environ Protect 12–14

  • Mills E, Roth RJ Jr, Lecomte E (2005) Availability and affordability of insurance under climate change. Ceres, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan MG, Keith DW (1995) Subjective judgments by climate experts. Environ Sci Technol 29:468–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morioka T, Saito O, Yabar H (2006) The pathway to a sustainable industrial society. Sustain Sci 1(1):65–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss RH, Schneider SH (2000) Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR: recommendations to lead authors for more consistent assessment and reporting. In: Pachauri R et al (eds) Guidance papers in the cross-cutting issues of the third assessment report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Munn RE (1991) A new approach to environmental policy making: the European futures study. Sci Total Environ 108:163–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakicenovic N et al (1995) Integrated assessment of mitigation, impacts, and adaptation to climate change. Energy Policy 23:251–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1992) Global environmental change: understanding the human dimensions. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1993) Improving risk communication. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1994) Science priorities for the human dimensions of global change. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1996) Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1999) Our common journey: a transition toward sustainability. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2002) The drama of the commons. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2005) Decision making for the environment. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson S (1992) Sustainable forestry: a European case study. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet MC, Mooney C (2007) Framing science. Science 316:56

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nordlund AM, Garvill J (2002) Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior. Environ Behav 34:740–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill B, Oppenheimer M, Petsonk A (2005) Interim targets and the climate treaty regime. Clim Policy 5:639–645

    Google Scholar 

  • OTS (2007) http://www.ots.duke.edu

  • Pacala S, Socolow RH (2004) Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305:968–979

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Parson EA (1994) Searching for integrated assessment. NASA, #NAGW-2901, Washington, DC

  • Parson EA, Fisher-Vanden K (1995) Integrated assessment models of global climate change. Annu Rev Energy Environ 22:589–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pielke RA Jr (2000) The role of models in prediction for decision. In: Sarewitz D et al (eds) Prediction: science, decision-making and the future of nature, Chap 7. Island Press, Washington, DC

  • Pielke RA Jr (2001) Room for doubt. Nature 410:151

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pilkey OH, Pilkey-Jarvis L (2007) Useless arithmetic: why environmental scientists can’t predict the future. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pleven L (2006) Insurers bask in sun and profits as hurricane season nears end. Wall St J, Oct 19: C-3

  • Rainforest Alliance (2004) Certification programs worldwide. http://www.ra.org (Accessed 17/11/04)

  • Rainforest Alliance (2006) Sustainable tourism http://www.ra.org (accessed 17/10/06)

  • Rondinelli D, London T (2003) How corporations and environmental groups cooperate: assessing cross-sector alliances and collaborations. Acad Manage Exe 17(1):61–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Roome N (1998) Implications for management practice, education, and research. In: Roome N (ed) Sustainability strategies for industry. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 259–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Revkin AC (2007) Study strengthens tie between greenhouse gases and climate. NY Times, Jan 20: A-7

  • Schiesel S (2007) O brave new world that has such gamers in it. NY Times, Jan 19: B-4

  • Schlesinger WH (2006) Carbon trading. Science 314:1217

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger AM Jr (2007) Folly’s antidote. NY Times, Jan 1: A-23

  • Schoemaker PJH (1993) Multiple scenario development: its conceptual and behavioral foundation. Strat Manage J 14(3):193–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schon DA (1979) Generative metaphor: a perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In: Ortony A (ed) Metaphysical thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 254–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz P (1992) Composing a plot for your scenario. Plan Rev 20:4–8

    Google Scholar 

  • SEJ (2007) http://www.sej.org; http://www.sej.org/about/index2.htm

  • Shermer MB (2000) Why people believe weird things: pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time. Holt, New York

  • Shell (2003a) Scenarios: an explorer’s guide. Shell international, Global Business Environment, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Shell (2003b) Shell global scenarios to 2025: the future business environment: trends, trade-offs, and choices. Global Business Environment, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1965) The architecture of complexity. General Systems Yearbook, vol 10

  • Simon HA (1985) Human nature in politics. Am Polit Sci Rev 79(2):293–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinsheimer RL (1971) The brain of pooh. Am Sci 59(1):20–28

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern PC (1986) Blind spots in policy analysis: what economics doesn’t say about energy use. J Policy Anal Manage 5:200–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern PC et al (1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmental concern. Human Ecol Rev 6:81–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone DA (1988) Policy paradox and policy reason. Scott Foresman, Glenview

    Google Scholar 

  • Swart R, Raskin P, Robinson J (2002) Critical challenges for sustainability science. Science 297:1994

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Teitenberg T (2002) The tradeable permits approach to protecting the commons: what have we learned? In: National Research Council (2002) The drama of the commons. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, pp 197–232

  • Toth F (1988) Policy exercises. Simul Games 19:235–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toth F et al (1989) Scenarios of socio-economic development for studies of global environmental change: a critical review. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Foundation (2005) Institutional investor summit on climate risk: final report. UNF, New York

  • US climate change science program (2007) Global-change scenarios: their development and use Washington USCCSP (Draft for public comment, editorial update, 14 July 2006

  • Van der Heijden K (1996) Scenarios: the art of strategic conversation. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters C (1986) Adaptive management. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner F, Riahi K, Obersteiner M (2006) Dealing with uncertainties. Options (Winter): 12–15

  • Wargo J (2002) Children’s exposure to diesel exhaust on school buses. Environment and Human Health, Inc., North Haven. http://www.ehhi.org/reports/diesel (accessed 21/1/07)

  • Watson R et al (2001) Climate change 2001: synthesis report. Third assessment report, working group iii of the intergovernmental panel on climate change IPCC (Geneva). http://www.ipcc.ch

  • Webster’s (1999) Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. Springfield, 10th edn. vol 55

  • Weiss C (2002) Scientific uncertainty in advising and advocacy. Technol Soc 24(4):375–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World business council on sustainable development (1997) Exploring sustainable development: WBCSD Global Scenario. WBCSD, London

  • World Wildlife Fund (2006) Steps in the process of adaptive management. http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/aam112/Steps.pdf (Accessed 30/8/06)

  • Wunsch C (2007) Misuse of models. Am Sci 95(2):171–172

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I wish to acknowledge and thank William Ascher, Philip Johnson, Arvid Nelson, Paul Stern, and anonymous reviewers for critical and helpful comments. Despite this help, I remain responsible for the ideas and views here reported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Yale School of Management, PO Box 208200, New Haven, CT, 06520-8200, USA

    Garry D. Brewer

Authors
  1. Garry D. Brewer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Garry D. Brewer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brewer, G.D. Inventing the future: scenarios, imagination, mastery and control. Sustain Sci 2, 159–177 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-007-0028-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-007-0028-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation