[[topics:transition_pathways]];

[[merge_into_other_topics:foresight]]

====== Pathways=====

===== Core conceptions of pathways (1) biophysical, (2) techno-economic, and (3) socio-technical=====

In the context of low-carbon transitions, three core conceptions of pathways can be differentiated: (1) biophysical, (2) techno-economic, and (3) socio-technical

the follwing table outlines key attributes of the core conceptions of pathways in the context of low-carbon transitions.
{{:rosenbloom_2017_3types.jpg?900|}}

[Rosenbloom, D., 2017. Pathways: An emerging concept for the theory and governance of low-carbon transitions. Global Environmental Change 43, 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.12.011]
 ======Socio-economic Pathways [IMPRESSIONS project]=====

Pathways (how do we get there?): The pathways include short-, medium- and long-term actions clustered in strategies that respond to specific vision elements. Pathways include sectoral or cross-sectoral and multi-actor strategies that demonstrate how to achieve the vision (or specific vision elements) in the context of high-end scenarios.

[Source: Hölscher, K. et al. ‘Adaptation and Mitigation Pathways, and Synergy Mechanisms between Them, for the Case Studies’. Project Deliverable D4.2. European Commission Contract N° 603416 Collaborative Project FP7 Environment. IMPRESSIONS, 20 October 2017.]

====== Pathways approaches [Sharpe et al 2016] ======

"Increasingly, however, a new set of approaches, known as **pathways approaches**, attempt both to deal with complexity and provide agency (Fig. 1). There are many different interpretations of pathways approaches (Leach 2008, Haasnoot et al. 2012, Wise et al. 2014b, Fazey et al. 2015), but essentially they aim to help work toward new futures in a semiexploratory way (e.g., by identifying different routes and paths) but without the specificity of a single roadmap that assumes the ability to control all the sources of complexity. Many of the existing pathways approaches are, however, highly technical, and work on identifying key decision points and critical junctures in ways that do not easily translate well into the messy and subjective world of complexity in practice. Such pathways approaches are often more similar to roadmap techniques, and have an underlying assumption of well-understood systemic causality and an intention to identify linear directions for establishing new futures."

[source: Sharpe, Bill, Anthony Hodgson, Graham Leicester, Andrew Lyon, and Ioan Fazey. ‘Three Horizons: A Pathways Practice for Transformation’. Ecology and Society 21, no. 2 (2016): art47. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08388-210247.]


====== Scenario frameworks for global change - shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) [UN 2023] ======

"Scenarios have been a key component of global change research for several decades and are used to explore how the future may evolve under different conditions and how to achieve more desirable outcomes. (1)  The **shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs)** and representative **concentration pathway (RCP)** framework combines alternative socioeconomic developments and atmospheric concentrations and associated climate change outcomes. The five SSPs include different **assumptions for societal factors** such as demographics, human development, economic growth, inequality, governance, technological change and policy orientations. 
They are designed to span a range of outcomes for two key characteristics: the challenges that the underlying 
factors present to adapting to climate change, and the challenges they present to mitigating climate change. 
These factors are described in the pathway narratives developed for each SSP. 

**SSP1 - Sustainability** – The world shifts gradually, but pervasively, toward a more sustainable path, emphasising more inclusive development that respects perceived environmental boundaries. Management of the global commons slowly improves, educational and health investments accelerate a demographic transition, and a shift from economic growth toward a broader emphasis on human wellbeing. Driven by an increasing commitment to achieving development Goals, inequality is reduced both across and within countries. Consumption is oriented toward low material growth and lower intensity use of resources and energy. 

**SSP2 - Middle of the Road** – A business-as-usual scenario. The world follows a path in which social, economic, and technological trends do not shift markedly from historical patterns. 

**SSP3 - Regional Rivalry** – A resurgent nationalism, concerns about competitiveness and security, and regional conflicts push countries to increasingly focus on domestic or, at most, regional issues. 

**SSP4 - Inequality** – Highly unequal investments in human capital, combined with increasing disparities in economic opportunity and political power, lead to increasing inequalities and stratification both across and within countries. 

**SSP5 - Fossil-fuelled Development** – This world places increasing faith in competitive markets, innovation and 2080 participatory societies to produce rapid technological progress and development of human capital as the path 2081 to sustainable development."

[Source: United Nations, 2023. Global Sustainable Development Report GSDR 2023 (Advance, Unedited Version 10 14 June 2023). UN. https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/Advance%20unedited%20GSDR%2014June2023.pdf ]

Footnote: (1) Riahi, K., et al. 2017. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Global Environmental Change 42, 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009

====== Innovation Pathways as element of Roadmapping [Miedzinski et al. 2019; Miedzinski et al. 2022] ======
[[merge_into_other_topics:foresight]]

"While all roadmapping processes tend to include a minimum level of baseline analysis, the focus of the resulting roadmap is typically on the three future-oriented elements: the vision, the pathways, and the action plan. Determining the appropriate relative emphasis on each of these is a key decision in shaping the policy roadmapping process." Miedzinski et al. 2019

Figure: Mapping policy roadmaps: blending visions, pathways and planning

{{:miedzinski_et_al_2022.jpg?600|}}

Note: 
Future vision .... An expression of narrative vision as statement(s) or image(s).
Innovation pathways .... Narrative of change (e.g. scenarios describing transition pathways and plausible causal mechanisms of change).
Action plans .... A set of short- and medium-term actions to make progress on identified pathways.
Miedzinski et al. 2022

The authors understand Pathways as describing "causal mechanisms of change expected to be triggered by various innovations overtime, and consider the role of policy instruments in enabling the desired changes." Miedzinski et al. 2019


[Miedzinski, M., McDowall, W., Fahnestock, J., Rataj, O., Papachristos, G., 2022. Paving the pathways towards sustainable future? A critical assessment of STI policy roadmaps as policy instruments for sustainability transitions. Futures 142, 103015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.103015]

[Miedzinski, M., McDowall, W., Fahnestock, J., Muller, G., Lopez, F., 2019. Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Roadmaps for the SDGs: A Guide for Design and Implementation.]


====== Pathways vs. Scenarions vs. Roadmaps - Working with the Future [Sharpe et al 2016] ======
[[topics:uncertainty]], [[merge_into_other_topics:foresight]]


"//Working with the future//

A second challenge [besides complexity] is the need to work effectively with an “incompletely known and uncertain future” (Wilkinson 2008:274 in Ramirez et al. 2008). Futures practices in general support ways of taking decisions in the present that are as well-informed about the future as we can make them, while recognizing ignorance and uncertainty. If there is no uncertainty, then plans and decisions can be made about how to act to achieve the desired outcome. Futures methods therefore connect agency (human decisions, choices, actions, and capacities) (Câmpeanu and Fazey 2014) and intent to irreducible uncertainty about the future context and the effect of our actions. There are many tools and approaches for working with the future (Van der Heijden 2005, Miller 2011, Hodgson 2012, Mahony 2014, Milojević and Izgarjan 2014, Videira et al. 2014). They can broadly be **classified according to how they deal with agency and uncertainty** (Fig. 1). 


----
{{:sharpe_et_al_2016_4_quadrants.jpg?400|}}

**Fig. 1.** The different kinds of **tools for working with the future**. The horizontal axis represents the degree of uncertainty about the future; the vertical axis represents the extent to which the tools enhance a degree of agency. Four domains indicate the relative strengths of different tools and approaches. For example, scenarios are generally most useful when the future is highly uncertain, but often on their own have limited capacity to identify strategies for achieving different futures. Roadmaps tend to be most useful in circumstances where there is greater certainty, where they provide clearer directions for change. New pathways approaches are emerging, which aim to enhance agency in situations of high uncertainty. The arrows indicate that some scenario approaches, depending on how they are applied, also can work well in the high uncertainty and high agency domain, and that many existing pathways approaches are aligned more closely with roadmaps.

----


First, there are **traditional forecasting and planning approaches**, such as weather and economic forecasting, that work with low social and generative complexity (bottom left quadrant). In these approaches, the future is generally conceived of as being an extension of the past and is predictable within a set of known sources of variation, even though such changes may be very hard to model or understand.

Second, there are approaches that generate high agency but which work best in situations where the uncertainty can be managed by bringing it fully within the scope of the actors involved to collectively assert their agency (top left quadrant). This includes **roadmaps**, which are a strategic planning exercise focused around a complex issue that involves step-by-step progress and learning. Roadmaps usually involve bringing together expertise to assemble paths toward the future in relation to intermediate goals, and aligning intent among many parties to direct resources and activity toward shared goals (Saritas and Aylen 2010). In technology, the classic case is the semiconductor industry roadmap, which was based on the premise that computing power would increase exponentially (Moore 1965). Through continued resourcing and shared effort, the roadmap helped ensure the future was realized. The roadmap orientation to the future is therefore about creating a strong sense of shared agency while also reducing uncertainty in more manageable ways through shared research and development. The outcome is usually a single roadmap that characterizes the path of action and learning the participants intend to pursue. This provides the agency but does not allow significant space for the emergence of new and uncertain future conditions that might require going down new paths.


Third, there are approaches that work well with uncertainty but do not necessarily result in high degrees of agency in the same way that roadmaps do (bottom right quadrant). This includes **scenarios**. These are perceptual tools for exploring uncertainties in an unknown future; they are usually developed as a small set (two to four) of plausible and structurally different futures (Peterson et al. 2003, Van der Heijden 2005). Although scenario approaches can generate agency (see next paragraph), scenarios do not by themselves reveal strategies, and are instead part of an input to a strategy process (Ramirez and Van der Heijden 2007). Scenario planning therefore actively seeks out sources of uncertainty and keeps them visible in ways that challenge the assumptions on which current activities are based. The output of a scenario planning project is a set of different scenarios that highlight critical uncertainties by using distinct stories or visual representations of alternative futures. 

**Roadmaps** are concerned mostly with coordinating social complexity, whereas **scenarios** are theorized as exploring and reperceiving the dynamic complexity and uncertainty of the future (Ramirez et al. 2008) (Fig. 1). This leaves an important space for approaches that bring agency into the full domain of future uncertainty (top right quadrant, Fig. 1). A variety of **scenario planning approaches** are used for this, such as normative, transformative, and participatory approaches, those which combine exploratory and normative scenarios, and those that use backcasting to develop normative strategies within a scenario framework (Ogilvy 2002, Bell 2003, van Notten et al. 2003, Voß et al. 2007, Kok et al. 2011, Kahane 2012). Privileging agency of participants is a critical aspect of such futures work (Ogilvy 2002, Bell 2003, Weisbord and Jasanoff 2010)."

[source: Sharpe, Bill, Anthony Hodgson, Graham Leicester, Andrew Lyon, and Ioan Fazey. ‘Three Horizons: A Pathways Practice for Transformation’. Ecology and Society 21, no. 2 (2016): art47. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08388-210247.]


~~DISCUSSION|Discussion Section - PAGE OWNER: Klaus Kubeczko~~