evaluating a complex future

8/3/2019 Evaluating a Complex Future

1/19

Rapid #: -4251647Ariel

IP: 130.65.109.170

TYPE:

JOU RNAL TITLE:

USER JOURNALTITLE:

FTU CATALOGTITLE:

ARTICLE TITLE:

ARTICLE AUTHOR:

VOLUME:

ISSUE:MONTH:

YEAR:

PAGES:

ISSN:

OCLC #:

CROSS REFERENCE [TN :426218][ODYSSEY: 130.65.109.148/ILL]

ID:

CALL #:

LOCATION:

VERIFIED:

BORROWER :PATRON:PATRON ID:

PATRON ADDRESS:

PATRON PHONE:

PATRON FAX:

PATRON E-MAIL:

PATRON DEPT:

PATRON STATUS:

PATRON NOTES:

http://sfx.fcla.edu/ucf?url ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx ver=Z39.88-2 ...

FTU :: Electronic:: informaworld Taylor & FrancisJournals Complete: Full TextArticle CC:CCG

World futures

World futures

World futures

Evaluating a Complex and Uncertain Future.

Becker, Joanna

67

1

2011

30-46

0260-4027

CSJ :: Main LibraryJeffrey Danesejdanese

This material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17 U.S. Code)System Date/Time: 3/17/2011 10:45: 10 AM MST
http://sfx.fcla.edu/ucf?urlhttp://sfx.fcla.edu/ucf?url


2/19

This article was downloaded by: [University oiCentral Florida}On: 17 March 2011Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 784375776}Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London WIT 3JH, UK

World Fu tu re sPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.informaworld.com!srnpp/title-conten t=t713393663

Evalu atin g a Complex an d Uncertain F utu reJoanna Becker

Online publication date: 10 January 2011

To c ite t his A r ti cl eBecker, ]oanna(2011) 'Evaluating a Complex and Uncertain Future', World Futures, 67: 1,30 - 46To l ink to this Art ic le : DOl :10.1080/02604027.2010.532755URL: http://dx.doi.org/lO.l080/0260!027 .2010.532755

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http:/ .pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com%21srnpp/title-contenhttp://www.informaworld.com%21srnpp/title-conten


3/19

World Futures, 67: 30-46,2011

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0260-4027 print 1 1556-1844 online

DOl: 10.1080102604027.2010.532755

~~ Routledge~ ~ Taylor & Francis Group

EVALUATING A COMPLEX AND UNCERTAIN FUTURE

JOANNA BECKER

Fort Bragg, California, USA

Social systems are emergent complex systems that are prone to uncertainty andchange. Complexity and uncertainty increase the difficulty of evaluating for sus-tainability. However, backcasting from visions of sustainability using indicatorsthat are positively correlated to principles of sustainability allows for congru-ence and complexity in achieving the vision. This article presents a model ofhow this can be done using Causal Layered Analysis and the Ecological Frame-work. Reiterating the evaluation and visioning process allows for indicators toaccommodate change while remaining relevant to sustainability principles .

KEYWORDS: Backcasting, CLA, complexity, emergent, fitness, hierarchical, re-iteration,resilience, sustainability, uncertainty.

The continuing debate over global warming demonstrates how uncertainty in-creases with complex variables that are difficult to measure and whose combi-nation can alter significantly the extent and timing of the impacts. One of thedifficulties in addressing global warming is the lack of consensus on scientificopinion in developing clear solutions as to how to address it. To date there hasbeen no definitive answer to the two basic questions of what is the safety limit andhow much emissions must be reduced to remain below this safety limit.

Sustainable development is another complex issue that is in many ways an opensignifier without a common definition as to how it is to be achieved. Although thereis broad agreement with the Bruntland Commission's (WCED 1987) definition ofsustainable development (UN 2008; Meadows 1998), differences and discussionscontinue as to specific interpretations. Representatives of 48 countries in theUNECE/OECD/Eurotstat Working Group onMeasuring Sustainable Developmentdiffered in whether the focus should be on only inter-generational equity or alsoinclude intra-generational equity (UN 2008). There was general agreement in thisgroup that sustainable development involves increasing consumption and well-being over time with the Report noting that "Development has been defined asan increase in well-being across members of a society and well-being has beenseen to be a function of consumption broadly defined" (UN 2008,20). However, itcould be debated whether development cannot more simply be defined as change.

Address correspondence to Joanna Becker, 31271 Country Road, Fort Bragg, CA 95437,USA. E-mail: [email protected]

30
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


4/19


5/19

32 JOANNA BECKER

discouragingly, the natural resource assessment failed to address either of the twoprimary issues that these professionals identified.

Evaluations must be clear, meaningful, and responsive if they are to identifyhow a social group progresses to the desired vision of sustainability (Becker 2004),and global sustainability requires that the paths of each group complement eachother. While sustainable development itself may always be open to interpretation,it is possible to develop a vision for an issue consistent with enduring sustain-ability principles. A framework of such principles can help ensure that indicatorsselected for achieving these visions are meaningful and congruent while limitingthe number of indicators to those most relevant to the desired outcome.

This article outlines issues of complexity and uncertainty involved in a systemsanalysis of sustainability. It presents an analysis of the issue of population growthusing Causal Layered Analysis (Inayutallah 2004) to develop a vision and usesthe Ecological Framework (Becker 2005) to relate the preferred vision and theindicators selected to achieve it to sustainability principles. The article concludeswith an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of this approach. Evaluationscan help identify the path to sustainability as well as our progress and, howeverimperfect, represent the best way to share that information with others .

COMPLEXITY

Complex systems may be defined as "the need to use two or more irreducibleperspectives or descriptions in order to characterize the system" (Gallopin et al.2001, 7). In addition to having multiple perspectives, Gallopin et al. (2001) list thecharacteristics of complex systems as nonlinearity, emergence, self-organization,multiplicity of scales, and irreducible uncertainty. They differentiate complexsystems from complicated systems that can be defined by only one perspective.

Emergent complex systems, which include human systems, possess firstly in-dividuality including intentionality, consciousness, foresight, purpose, symbolicrepresentations, and morality and secondly novelty (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1994).Funtowicz and Ravetz (1994) point out that while most behavior is ordinary com-plexity, emergent complexity contains hegemony that leads to fragmentation. Theycite the example of modern agricultural systems that are unstable to its ecosystemcontext and lead to lack of resilience. Such instability, if pushed to the edge ofequilibrium, is likely to cause a collapse and reformation of the system.

All emergent complex systems contain contradictions that Funtowicz andRavetz (1994) classify as complementary, destructive conflict, or creative ten-sion. They note that contradictions in emergent complex systems in our modernsociety are individualism and novelty that lead to risks and pollution, respec-tively. Diversity is a condition of such complexity and offers a resource base foradaptation and reorganization (Rammel and Van den Bergh 2003). Diversity isnecessary to maintain the dynamic stability of the system so as to create resilience(Holling 1986; Capra 1996; Becker 2002). Resilience of business enterprises en-ables the system to survive, adapt, and grow in the face of turbulent change (Fiksel2006). Management theorists recognize the need for resilience in dynamic andunpredictable business environments (Hamel and Velikangas 2003).


6/19

EVALUATING A COMPLEX AND UNCERTAIN FUTURE 33

In these systems sudden change is inevitable as shown by Hollings (1986) in hisFigure 8 ecosystem model, which demonstrates the uneven cycle of succession,maturity, collapse, and re-organization. While life flourishes "at the edge of chaos"(Lewin 1994) and to a degree increases its ability to organize and adapt in responseto changes in the system (Schneider and Kay 1994), it will lose its "windowof vitality" (Ulancowicz 1996) if the system moves too far from equilibrium.Fragmentation will lead to chaos. Industrial systems are complex systems that"operate far from equilibrium and demonstrate non-linear and sometimes chaoticbehavior" (Fikse12006, 16). The diversity and contradictions implicit in emergentcomplex systems are important for stability if the system is to be maintained inequilibrium.

UNCERTAINTY

Such complexity increases uncertainty, which also has several categories. Wynne's(1993) taxonomy of uncertainty ranges from risks, through uncertainty and igno-rant indeterminacy. Allen (1994) distinguishes between everyday uncertainty andcatastrophic uncertainty. Kay and Regier (2000) note that there is an elementof irreducible uncertainty about how self-organizing systems will respond, withmore than one response possible. Synergistic effects and emergence are normalin self-organizing systems (Kay 1994), which increase uncertainty. Complex sys-tems theory postulate such systems as dynamic and indeterministic with changeas inevitable and unpredictable. And not only does uncertainty increase with com-plexity, but there is more opportunity, indeed likelihood, of large perturbationsthat cannot be predicted according to chaos theory (Gleick 1988), also known ascatastrophe theory.

Catastrophe theory predicts that complex systems exhibiting emergent dynamicbehaviors will undergo dramatic, sudden, and discontinuous changes with severalpossible outcomes (Huseyin 1977). Allen (1994) found that the trajectory ofvariables in complex systems, particularly market systems, is likely to be chaotic,sensitive, and unpredictable, with the only certainty being change. However, hehas shown through 3D models of systems with "error making" explorations ofbehavior that competition in successful free markets has synergistic behavior thatevolves toward complementarities expressing cooperative structures (1994).

Uncertainty affects both the outcome of results and the information itself forwhich quantitative data can be inadequate and misleading. Qualitative data canproduce useful information about quantitative data and where data cannot bereduced to real numbers. It is also helpful in providing narrative that can describesubjective perceptions. Although qualitative data is by its nature subjective, it hasbeen found not to be more unreliable than quantitative data according to Spenceret al. (2003), whose Framework for Qualitative Evaluations based on a literaturereview found that the distinction between qualitative and quantitative researchis artificial and unhelpful. Ravetz (2006) defines knowledge as being qualitativerather than absolute and both of these being systems attributes. As an example hecites the question "How safe is safe enough?" as being systemic, possessing nodefinitive answer.


7/19


8/19


produce hard numbers and makes no claim to scientific objectivity. However, indealing with a future in which change is the only constant, such an approach allowsfor analyzing those aspects that are relevant to various communities and scenariosover time.

Relevant tools to facilitate a systems approach to evaluating sustainabilityare those of: futures visioning by stakeholders to determine the desired futureusing Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) and four-quadrant mapping; multidimen-sional analysis that considers both hierarchical and heterarchical relationships; andbackcasting from the goal of sustainability to analyze the vision and its indicatorsusing the Ecological Framework to determine the relevance and congruence ofthese to sustainability principles. Each of these tools are discussed below. Figure1illustrates the application of these tools for the selection and analysis of a visionand its indicators by an individual group so as to relate these to the overall goalof sustainability. While this figure illustrates the process for only one group andvision, these would be linked to other groups and their visions for sustainabilityproviding for heterarchicallinkage .

,.~l'~

IBackcasting:Ecological

CLA Framework

~~ J~

Figure 1. Process of selecting visions of sustainability and their indicators.

Extended Peer Participation

Sustainable development will always incorporate normative values that onlybecome verified through social interaction (Voss and Kemp 2006). Brand andKarvonen (2007) use the term "ecosystem of expertise" to define the combination


9/19

36 JOANNA BECKER

of experts required to address sustainability issues. One of these is the civic expert.Ravetz (2006) points out that the "extended peer community" can sometimes bet-ter perceive the overall picture than the specialists. He provides several exampleswhere educated lay members of the community were able to successfully chal-lenge the "scientific facts" by some educated knowledge combined with commonsense (2006).

When such analysis is complex and qualitative, local experts can have boththe knowledge and commitment to make informed management decisions abouttheir environment. Dumanski and Pieri (2001) reference two studies that showthat farmers in different ecosystems and production systems selected indicatorswith more similarities than differences based on their own knowledge and experi-ence. Farmers in both studies were found to be concerned about maintaining thequality of their land and were making knowledgeable and innovative choices onmanagement practices using responsive and flexible management styles within thecontext of their region. Most of the indicators for these evaluations were presentedin qualitative and observational terms.

An important contribution of the stakeholders is to develop a vision for a se-lected issue. Smith, Stirling, and Berkhout (2005) identify visions as having severalpurposes including guiding problem-solving and identifying possible alternatives.However, Kemp and Martens (2007) remind us that visions can also promote spe-cial interests and change that can have negative results. They caution that visionsthemselves should be continuously assessed and refined with multiple visions be-ing preferable. These should be explored with reflexive management modes ratherthan rigid adherence to achieving a particular outcome (Voss and Kemp 2006).Such reflexive techniques can facilitate learning processes and modify decisionroles and mental models (Hjorth and Bagheri 2006).

An example of a reflexive, iterative process is Transition Management, whichhas been used in several Dutch government agencies (Kemp and Martens 2007)with some achievements in CO 2 reduction, although an integrated analysis wasnot undertaken and there was limited citizen participation. Such a process ispart of what Gibbons et al. (1994) termed mode-2 science, which is inter- andtrans disciplinary with knowledge co-produced and provisional. No single set ofknowledge or viewpoint is privileged (Wiek et al. 2005). Behavior changes arelinked to informative tools being integrated with participation in managementprocesses and discussions (Rydin, Holman, and Wolff 2003).

Futures Analysis

Futures analysis is important to the very concept of sustainable development andits long-term horizon. Futures analysis "seeks to help individuals and organizationsbetter understand the processes of change so that wiser preferred futures can becreated" (Inayatullah 2008 5). Sohail Inayatullah (1999) recommends using post-structuralism to deconstruct the history of a paradigm to provide a distance so asto consider alternative scenarios. Different versions of the future ranging from the"disowned future" to "alternative future" can be explored via functional analysisand scenario building (see Inayutallah 2008 for a fuller description). Such an


10/19


Table 1Example of CLA Analysis for Population Increase

CLA Level Problem Solution

Litany Overcrowding, lack of resources

Systemic Teenage pregnancies, immigration

Migration

Regulate family size, immigration

controls

Education

Responsible parenting

World view Illiteracy

Myth Reproduction rights regardless of environmental

costs

exercise enables participants to consider both the historical and cultural contextsthat generate preconceived worldviews so that they can create a vision of the futureconsistent with current conditions.

CLA, developed by Inayatullah (2004), is a method of exploring an issue fromthe litany to the mythical level (see Table 1) to produce more holistic policies(Inayatullah 1999). CLA can help identify the vertical layers of meaning forcomplex issues. Solutions are explored for each level and can then be analyzedthrough four-quadrant mapping developed by Ken Wilber (1995) and applied toCLA by Richard Slaughter (2005) as shown in Table 2. The value of doing this isthat it relates the meaning of the issue to each participant and their responses andenables them to see how these responses contribute to the whole.

This exercise enables various visions to be produced for an issue using any ofseveral methods of scenario building outlined by Inayutallah (2008). This is aniterative and qualitative process that requires a framework robust enough to analyzeboth the components and the indicators used to measure them, yet transparent andsimple enough to be easily understood and applied.

Table 2Four-Quadrant Mapping Example for Population Increase

Inner Outer

Self Parenting as life roleContinuation of one's life work

Care in old age

Part of the family ancestry

Community expectationsRole model

Children as necessary to the economy

Religious mandate to reproduce

Collective

Backcasting

Backcasting is a means to relate the relevance of the vision to sustainable devel-opment by applying sustainability principles to it. Backcasting was first proposedby Lovins (1976) as an alternative planning technique for electricity supply anddemand issues. Robinson (1982) coined the term "energy backcasting." Backcast-ing is applicable when the desired future is far away from forecasts of an expected


11/19

38 JOANNA BECKER

future (Robert 2005). It is particularly useful when long-range scenarios are de-sired which go beyond the scope of forecasts (Wegener 1996). It can be used as atool to explore paths toward sustainable development (Becker 2010) and has beenapplied to many other applications.

Filtering Framework

These visions (which will likely differ according to the CLA level of analysis) caneach be analyzed for their suitability and sustainability by a framework such as theEcological Framework (Becker 2005) which is summarized in Figure 2. Principlesof sustainability were developed for this Framework based on the sustainability ofliving systems (Capra 1996) and applied to two well-known evaluation methodsto demonstrate its effectiveness (Becker 2007).

No matter the complexity of the system, research has shown that all living

systems share common properties (Varela, Maturana, and Uribe 1974). There areseveral sustainable principles representative of these properties that are defined

COLLABORATIONInclusivity

CompatabilityContribution

RESILIENCEDiversity

AdaptabilityStability

AUTO-SUFFICIENCYIntegrated systems

Low entropyCarrying capacity

FUTURITYRepetitionHolism

Responsivity

SustainableDevelopment

progress

DataPerformance

Events

Key

Do

o

Components

Constraints

Results

Figure 2. Principles and components of the ecological framework.


12/19


in the Ecological Framework as auto-sufficiency, resilience, and collaboration(Becker 2005). Collaboration considers positive or negative impacts to the largersystem, auto-sufficiency the ability of the system to provide for itself, and re-silience its ability to adapt to changing conditions. These three principles and theirassociated components representing the means of achieving them can be used toanalyze both the relevance of visions to sustainability and the indicators that bestrepresent all the principles.

Multidimensional Analysis

Any system is multidimensional, dynamic, and interconnected. In analyzing sus-tainable development we must consider both the hierarchical "nested" systemsof social structures with what Bossel (1998) terms the "heterarchical" relation-ship of the visions and their indicators to the sustainability principles and to eachother. Currently we are limited to presenting such concepts in a two-dimensionalspace. Any example presented in a paper will therefore necessarily be a poorrepresentation of system analysis. However, computers can function spatially andinteractively and provide such multidimensional analysis. The Internet is a goodexample of system multidimensionality and interconnectivity with the limitationsbeing the inputs and the computing capacity. It is now technologically feasibleto see in real time the results of decision interactions. A similar application canbe made to backcast from sustainability by relating the desired vision and itsindicators to each principle of sustainability and its components.

Multidimension phase space theoretically provides the ability to incorporateboth "hard" quantitative data for the ordinary complex attributes of function andstructure with the "soft" qualitative attributes of technical, economic, sociolog-ical, personal, and moral consideration by creating a "fitness" possibility spaceto demonstrate the degree of "fit" of each variable under consideration (Allen1994). The analysis of the hierarchical relationship of various groups to each otherand sustainability can be addressed by each vision relating to the principles ofsustainability.

Table 3List of Factors and Their Relationship to the Sustainability Principles

Social Economic Environment

education jobs pollution

health housing waste

safety market water

Community transportation Open spacepopulation food


13/19

40 JOANNA BECKER

THE PROCESS OF SELECTING A VISION AND ITS INDICATORS

Table 3 provides a list of relevant factors affecting sustainability. Any of them maybe an issue of concern to a community and any issue may relate to all factors. The

list is not exhaustive and the factors are not mutually exclusive to each of the threesustainability "pillars." The importance of each factor will change according tothe specific circumstances and the focus of analysis.

A community might select several issues and develop visions for each of them.The visions should all relate to improving the sustainability of the whole system.In this example the issue of population with its relevance to carrying capacity andquality of life is selected. In considering population from a futures perspective forCLA analysis, Sohail Inayatullah (1999) raises the question of why populationis more important than community or people, or growth rates more importantthan levels of consumption. In considering how population as enumeration has

affected concepts of time and relations with self and others he suggests thatnew possibilities, ideas, and structures can emerge. Table 1 shows some of thecomplexities of this issue with reproduction being largely a personal choice havingboth moral and religious considerations and therefore will differ according to theindividual as well as their social group .

Once the selected issue has been explored at each level of CLA, the groupcan develop alternative solutions for each level to form the basis of the selectedvisions. They should evaluate these solutions for their compatibility with eachother and also the personal/community and internal/external contexts using four-quadrant mapping. The solution that best addresses all of these contexts can then

be selected as the preferred vision. By backcasting from the goal of sustainabilityusing the Ecological Framework, it is possible to see how this vision contributesto sustainability. For the example of population, it would generally be preferableto maintain or reduce population levels to address carrying capacity, and collab-oration, but that might not address resilience positively if that meant an ageingpopulation and decreasing workforce. The following conditions would mitigatepopulation increases:

Accepting immigration to meet labor demands Reducing carbon footprint to accommodate additional population Providing migration to sparsely populated or inhospitable areas

In these situations one or more of the sustainability principles would be addressedpositively.

Backcasting can then also be used to determine the indicators chosen to repre-sent the relevant factors. These can be phrased so that they address one or moreprinciples positively as shown in Table 4. The preferred indicators would be thosethat addressed all the components of sustainability positively. For instance, theindicator of increasing re-use of water to accommodate population growth wouldimprove all three components of sustainability while that of increasing food pro-duction would improve auto-sufficiency but might conflict with diversity of landuses for jobs or housing or collaboration with imports from elsewhere. Table 4


14/19

rJJ


15/19

42 JOANNA BECKER

illustrates what indicators might be selected for a community that has identified avision of moderate population growth.

Table 4 provides a selection of indicators for key factors related to population.This table does not represent all possible factors or indicators for each factor. Theseindicators are expressed in terms that provide targets for individual sustainabilityprinciples. Ideally the indicator should relate positively or neutrally to all thesustainability principles.

Any number of other factors related to sustainability could be selected but eachwould be likely to have relevance to population. For instance, selecting pollutionas a greenhouse warming issue for carbon would include population as a factor.More than one vision relevant to sustainable development can be selected butshould be compared to each other to determine conflicts and tradeoffs.

The purpose of this exercise is to develop a shared vision and seek consen-sus in the tradeoffs and compromises necessary to achieve the vision congruentwith sustainability principles. While each part of the system contributes only in-finitesimally to the whole, success will not be achieved without collaboration andadaptability by each part in achieving a sustainable future. Both the selected fac-tors and their indicators can be tailored to the specific group and the issue. Theadvantages with stakeholders relating their goals and means of achieving themto sustainability criteria is the ownership of this process and the considerationof the impacts on the larger system. Technological innovations can help improveour performance towards sustainability but education remains a primary tool tomodify personal behavior. Putting the issues into the public arena enables eachplayer to take a part and can result in new ideas and a consensus of opinion thatwill affect future sustainability.

CONCLUSION

This article has presented a theoretical example for evaluating sustainability ina complex and uncertain future using several tools that can be applied to informand guide behavior in achieving visions that contribute to sustainability. Whilethere are many visions possible and ways to achieve these, a systems approachrequires that there is both vertical and horizontal consideration of the variousactors and factors. Horizontal integration is facilitated by all sub-groups sharinga common definition of sustainable development such as that of the BruntlandCommission (WCED 1987). Vertical integration is facilitated through futures-thinking systems such as CLA that enables the participants to consider the issue atall levels and from various perspectives to produce new ideas and understandingfor a shared vision. Backcasting from sustainability to the vision using principlesof the Ecological Framework helps ensure congruence, while backcasting fromthe vision with the Ecological Framework facilitates the selection of the mostappropriate indicators to fulfill the vision that are heterarchically linked positivelyto sustainable development principles.

The primary advantage with such an approach is that it does not require anexact definition of what comprises sustainable development but uses principlesof sustainability to analyze visions that are appropriate for the time and location.


16/19


This process links visions from different groups since all the visions relate tosustainability. It also helps ensure the relevance of indicators to sustainability anddetermines the phrasing to help achieve the desired vision. A further advantage isthat there are only three principles, which simplifies the analysis and the re-iterationprocess. The primary disadvantage with this method is the qualitative subjectivityinvolved throughout the process, both in analyzing the issue and in selecting theindicators. However, what is important is that the vision and indicators are relevantto a group and offer a path to achieve sustainability. Since both complexity anduncertainty exist in any analysis of this kind, it is preferable to empower a groupto make its own subjective judgments so that they may have a common road mapto follow that relates to principles of sustainability and considers the impacts onother groups. Another disadvantage is also a time-consuming process that mustbe re-iterated to adapt to changing conditions and visions, but that is part of theeducational process of determining the best course of action.

In dealing with complex systems and uncertain futures we need to have acommon denominator between all parts of the systems and over time. This providesstability while allowing for the adaptability and diversity that is necessary forresilience of the various parts. Exploring solutions to issues as they relate to boththe individual and the wider community through CLA and four-quadrant mappinghelps provide relevance and consensus. This hierarchical approach is applicable toany group and can be used to explore any issue relevant to sustainable development.Reiterations of the analysis can help to deal with future unknowns by ensuringthe continued relevance of the vision and its indicators as goals are achieved andconditions change.

The process itself requires only a common goal of sustainability and indica-tors that are congruent with enduring principles of sustainability. Since this is ahierarchical process with each sub-system considering its impacts at all levels, itis implicit that if the conditions of collaboration, resilience and auto-sufficiencyare met, then negative impacts to other sub-systems are minimized. Each groupcan thus focus on refining its vision congruent with sustainability and reiteratingthe evaluation process to incorporate change and measure progress. By backcast-ing from the vision and the goal of sustainability using sustainability principles,the indicators can incorporate actual changes and innovations and maintain theflexibility and adaptability necessary for survival.

We are entering the age, with the widespread use of computers and the Internet,of horizontal knowledge networks in which not only information but also ideascan be rapidly exchanged and reformulated. Iterations can be almost instant andworking groups can be as small as a handful of people in a local community oras large as a multinational corporation in several countries. Huge data sets arereadily available and updated, and can be applied to illustrate the current or paststate of the system. What indicators cannot do is present information on futurestates, although one can make reasonable extrapolations from past trends. It is nolonger a question of having the data, but of how to use it appropriately, and forthis qualitative decisions need to be made along with an analysis of the source andaccuracy of the data itself.


17/19

44 JOANNA BECKER

With increasing complexity and change comes an increase of uncertainty bothas to where change will occur and how it will affect the intricate interconnectionsof the overall system. As the recent sub-prime mortgage crisis in the United Stateshas demonstrated, it may not be just one sector or country that becomes affectedbut the near collapse of the global system. It is therefore more important than everthat we look to the principles of sustainability to direct and link up our paths tothe future. We now have at least a concept of what is sustainable. While we cannotknow the results of future inputs, and increased complexity and interconnectivitywill produce larger and unforeseen changes, we can use this to our advantage inplanning the future we want based on the necessary tradeoffs and the principles ofsustainability. If we do not do this, we risk following an unsustainable path untilcatastrophic changes occur and the only uncertainty is when.

REFERENCES

Allen, P. M. 1994. Coherence, chaos ad evolution in the social context. Futures 26(6):583-597 .

Becker, J. 2010. Use of backcasting to integrate indicators with principles of sustainability .International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 17(3): 189-197.

---. 2007. How frameworks can help operationalize sustainable development indica-tors. World Futures 63(2): 137-150.

---. 2005. Measuring progress towards sustainable development: An ecological frame-work for selecting indicators. Local Environment 10(1): 87-101.

---. 2002. Modification of evaluation method for auto-assessment and electronic sub-mission by businesses. International Journal of Development and World Ecology 9(1):23-32.

---. 2004. Making sustainable development evaluations work. Sustainable Develop-ment 12: 200-211.

Bossel, H. 1998. Earth at a crossroads: Paths to a sustainable future. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Brand, R. and A. Karvonen. 2007. The ecosystem of expertise: Complementary knowledgesfor sustainable development. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 3(10): 21-31.http://ejournal.nbii.org/archives/vo13iss 1/060 1-004. brand.html

Capra, F. 1996. The web of life: A new synthesis of mind and matter. London: HarperCollins.

Dumanski, J. and C. Pieri. 2001. Monitoring progress towards sustainable development. InSustaining the globalfarm, ed. D. E. Stott, R. H. Mohtar, and G. E. Steinhardt, 523-528.West Lafayette: International Soil Conservation OrganizationlUSDARS/Natinal SoilErosion Research Laboratory and Purdue University.

Fiksel, J. 2006. Sustainability and resilience: Towards a systems approach. Sustainability:Science, Practice and Policy 2(2): 523-528. http://ejournal.nbii.org

Funtowicz, S. and J. Ravetz. 1994. Emergent complex systems. Futures 26(6): 568-582.---. 1993. Science for the PostNormal age. Futures 25(7): 739-755.---. 1990.Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Aca-

demic Publishers.Gallopin, G. c., S. Funtowicz, M. O'Connor, and R. Ravetz. 2001. Science for the twenty-

first century: From social contract to the scientific core. International Journal SocialScience 168: 219-229.
http://ejournal.nbii.org/archives/vo13isshttp://ejournal.nbii.org/http://ejournal.nbii.org/http://ejournal.nbii.org/archives/vo13iss


18/19


Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. Thenew production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary

science. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Gleick, J. 1988. Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Penguin Books U.S.A. Ltd.

Green Business. 2006. EPA Sustainability Chief Details Broad Transitional Details.http://insidegreenbusiness.comlindex.php/igb/publicI1121.

Hjorth, P. and A. Bagheri. 2006. Navigating towards sustainable development: A systemdynamics approach. Futures 38(1): 74-92.

Hamel, G. and L. Velikangas. 2003. The quest for resilience. Harvard Business Review81(9): 52-57.

Holling, C. S. 1986. The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: Local surprise and globalchange. In Sustainable development in the biosphere, ed. W. M. Clark and R. E.Munn, 292-320. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Huseyin, K. 1977. The multiple-parameter stability theory and its relation to catastrophetheory. In Problem analysis in science and engineering, eds. F. H. Branin and K.Huseyin, 229-255. New York: New York Academic Press.

Inayatullah, S. 2008. Six pillars: futures thinking for transforming. Foresight 10(1): 4-21.---. ed. 2004. The causal layered analysis reader. Tamsui, Taiwan: Tamkang University

Press.---. 1999. Foresight, the Journal of Futures Studies, Strategic Thinking and Policy

1(5).Kay, J. J. 1994. The ecosystem approach: Ecosystems as complex systems and state of the

environment reporting. Prepared for North American Commission for EnvironmentalCooperation, State of the North American Ecosystem meeting, Montreal, Canada.December 8-10, 1994.

Kay, J. J. and H. Regier. 2000. Uncertainty complexity and ecological integrity: Insightsfrom an ecosystem approach. In Implementing ecological integrity: Restoring regionaland global environmental and human health, ed. P.Crabbe, A. Holland, L. Ryszkowski,and L. Westra, 121-156. Kluwer NATO Science Series: Environmental Security.

Kemp, R. and P. Martens. 2007. Sustainable development: How to manage something thatis subjective and never can be achieved. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy3(2): 5-14.

Lewin, R. 1994. Complexity: Life on the edge of chaos. New York: MacMillan Publishing.Lovins, A. 1976. Energy strategy: the road not taken? Foreign Affairs 55: 63-96.Meadows, D. H. 1998. Indicators and information systems for sustainable development.

Hartland Four Corners, Vermont: The Sustainability Institute.O'Connor, M. 2006. Post-normal science in the context of transitions towards sustainability,

Prepared for the International Workshop Series-Workshop No.1, Transitions tosustainable development: complexity, co-evolution and governance. November 20-24,2006.

---. 1994. Is sustainable capitalism possible? In Is sustainable capitalism possible],ed. Martin O'Conner, 152-175. New York: Guilford Press.

Olsson, J. A, C. Bockstaller, L. M. Stapleton, F. Ewert, R. Knapen, O. Therond, G. Geniaux,S. Bellon, T. P.Correira, N. Turpin, and I. Bezlepkina. 2009. A goal oriented indicatorframework to support integrated assessment of new policies for agri-environmentalsystems. Environmental Science & Policy 12(5): 562-572.

Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2004. Measuring sus-tainable development: Integrated environmental, social and economic frameworks.

Paris: OECD.Rammel, C. and J. VanDen Bergh. 2003. Evolutionary policies for sustainable development:

Adaptive flexibility and risk minimising. Ecological Economics 47(2-3): 121-133.
http://insidegreenbusiness.comlindex.php/igb/publicI1121.http://insidegreenbusiness.comlindex.php/igb/publicI1121.


19/19

46 JOANNA BECKER

Ravetz, J. 2006. Post-normal science in the context of transitions towards sustainability,Prepared for the International Workshop Series-Workshop No.1, Transitions tosustainable development: complexity, co-evolution and governance, November 20-24,2006.

Robert, M. 2005. Backcasting and econometrics for sustainable planning informationtechnology and individual preferences of travel. Journal of Cleaner Production 13 :

841-851.Robinson, J. 2004. Squaring the circle: On the very idea of sustainable development.

Ecological Economics 48(4): 369-384.Robinson, J. B. 1982. Energy backcasting: A proposed method of policy analysis. Energy

Policy 10: 337-344.Roe, E. 1988. Taking complexity seriously. Policy analysis, triangulation and sustainable

development. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Rydin, Y, N. Holman, and E. Wolff. 2003. Local sustainability indicators. Local Environ-

ment 8(6): 581-589.

Schneider, E. D. and J. J. Kay. 1994. Complexity and thermodynamics: Towards a newecology. Futures 24(6): 626-647.

Slaughter, R. 2005. Futures beyond Dystopia. London: Routledge .Smith, A., A. Stirling and F. Berkhout. 2005. The governance of sustainable socio-technical

institutions. Research Policy 34(8): 1491-1510 .Spencer, L., J. Ritchie, J. Lewis, and L. Dillon. 2003. Quality in qualitative evaluation: A

frameworkfor assessing research evidence. London: Cabinet Office.Transport Canada. 2004. Sustainable development strategy 2004-2006. http://www.tc.gc.

ca/programs/environmentisd/sds0406/menu.htmUlancowicz, R. E. 1996. The propensities of evolving systems. In Evolution, order and

complexity, ed. E. L. Khalil and K. E. Boulding, 217-233. London: Routledge.United Nations (UN). 2008. Measuring sustainable development. Report of the Joint UN-

ECE/OECDlEurostat Working Group on Statistics for Sustainable Development. NewYork and Geneva: United Nations.

Varela, F., H. Maturana, and R. Uribe. 1974. Autopoiesis: The organization of livingsystems, its characterization and a model. Biosystems 5: 187-196.

Voss, J. and R. Kemp. 2006. Sustainable governance and reflexivity: Introduction. InReflexive governance for sustainable development, ed. J. Voss, D. Bauknecht, andR. Kemp, 3-28. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Wegener, M. 1996. Reduction of CO 2 emissions of transport by re-organisation of urbanactivities. In Transport, land-use and the environment, ed. I. Y Hayashi and J. Roy,103-124. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Wiek, A., D. Lang, A. Walter, and R. Schloz. 2005. Transdisciplinary case study researchfor sustainable development. Proceedings of a Symposium at the 11th Annual Inter-national Sustainable Development Research Conference, Helsinki.

Wilber, K. 1995. Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of evolution. Boulder, CO: Shambhala.World Bank. 1997. From rural development: From vision to action: A sector strategy. En-

vironmentally Sustainable Development Studies and Monographs. Series 12. Wash-ington, DC: World Bank.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our commonfuture.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wynne, B. 1993. Uncertainty and environmental learning. In Cleaner production strategies:Developing preventive environmental management in the industrial economy, ed. T.Jackson, 63-84. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.

Yli-Viikari, A. 2009. Confusing messages of sustainability indicators. Local Environment14(10): 891-903.
http://www.tc.gc./http://www.tc.gc./

evaluating a complex future

Documents