Island futures-Does a participatory scenario process capture the common view of local residents?

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy Futures 44 (2012) 328–337

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Futures journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/futures

Island futures—Does a participatory scenario process capture the common view of local residents? Bjørn P. Kaltenborn a,*, Jørn Thomassen b, John D.C. Linnell b a b

Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Fakkelga˚rden, Storhove, N-2624 Lillehammer, Norway Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Tungasletta 2, N-7482 Trondheim, Norway

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Available online 1 December 2011

Scenarios are often developed by small groups of motivated individuals, but how representative are they of community views of desirable futures? A scenario process in the coastal community of Vega in central Norway was complemented by a survey among 200 community residents in which respondents rated a preferred development option from a series of future choices and dilemmas. While the scenario process produced novelty and diversity in thinking about the future, the common community view reflects a more traditionalistic view of the future. Tourism was identified as a key economic opportunity in the scenario process, but the larger island community has little faith in tourism as a future cornerstone of economic development and would rather rely on traditional sectors like agriculture and fisheries. The scenarios brought out richness in future development options, highlighted place identity and support for heritage conservation based on wise use of natural resources. The scenarios were less suited for making decisions about economic investments, but produced salient information about opportunities, uncertainties and complexities of the future. Findings show the need to compliment scenario processes where a small group explores ‘‘possible futures’’ with surveys to explore the wider populations’ views about ‘‘preferred futures’’. ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Most rural communities currently face the challenge of defining and working toward a desirable future. A great many rural and coastal communities are fortunate in the sense that they are endowed with a rich cultural heritage and spectacular natural resources. Often are these intertwined in systems of traditional resource use and the development of cultural practices with a character unique to a particular environment or setting. Globally, there has been a phenomenal growth in tourism based on nature, culture and heritage tourism [1,2] at times leading to the perception that tourism can be a panacea for any rural community. This is not surprising considering the drivers that currently affect rural regions such as centralization and regionalization which seriously challenge the economic and social sustainability of smaller communities [3]. Centralization and regionalization tend to produce greater divisions of labor and specialization between urban and rural areas leaving less diversity in employment opportunities in the districts and ‘‘reducing’’ rural regions to resource providers in primary sectors like agriculture, forestry and fisheries, as well as in the amenity resources industry [4]. Concomitantly, communities and social conditions change as they struggle to maintain employment opportunities and public services like

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 93466707. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B.P. Kaltenborn), [email protected] (J. Thomassen), [email protected] (John D.C. Linnell). 0016-3287/$ – see front matter ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2011.11.001

Author's personal copy B.P. Kaltenborn et al. / Futures 44 (2012) 328–337

329

Fig. 1. Study area – the Vega municipality.

schools, health institutions, cultural arrangements and other factors of vital importance for maintaining a stable rural population. Paradoxically, rural regions tend to become more dependent on the state for support and subsidies through this process, as the distinction between central and local increases. Tourism often fits into this picture because it utilizes local resources and capitalizes on the particular context that also causes problems for smaller communities. While the history of co-evolution of human and natural systems in rural areas often has lead to unsustainable current conditions, or at least a poor adaptation to the present, this history is often appealing to tourism as authenticated story telling of the past. However, an uncritical view of the potential of tourism may be problematic for a number of reasons. Tourism is one of several potential futures for a community, and tourism may serve different purposes in the tensions between use and conservation of natural resources [2]. For a new enterprise to be successful over time it needs to be economically, environmentally and socially sustainable. The establishment of new enterprises and economies will always come into conflict with traditions and diverse local views on the appropriateness of innovation. A major challenge in working for sustainability is to explore the range of potential pathways to the future as combined social and environmental systems under conditions of uncertainty, human choice, and complexity [5]. Exploring futures can be done in many ways, but usually requires participatory and problem oriented approaches through some type of scenario analysis. In this paper we examine a scenario process carried out in the coastal municipality of Vega in central Norway (Fig. 1). Vega is a community rich in natural and cultural resources and a history of land use and management of local resources that has led to its designation as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2004. The Vega archipelago with the main islands and thousands of smaller islands and skerries are famous for a ten thousand year long history of human-nature habitation based on fishing and harvesting of natural resources. Nature and cultural heritage tourism is an obvious asset and what many look to for the future. But Vega municipality also struggles with structural problems like a small and slowly declining population, the demise of the historically important coastal fisheries, rationalization in agriculture, insufficient state financial support and the highest municipal per capita public debt in the country. Like any number of rural and coastal communities, Vega confronts the question of separating between the many plausible futures, and identifying suitable methods for eliciting these stories or concepts. Norwegian planning policy has for many years worked toward increased decentralization of responsibilities within a governance system that is already highly decentralized [6]. This emphasizes the need for compiling and integrating local and external knowledge and scanning the future in an organized way so that it can support planning and decision making at different institutional levels. In the case of Vega the overriding question is: how can the community strike a good balance between the use and conservation of its natural resources and how can a unique environment help build a sustainable future. 1.1. Scenario elements and typologies Scenarios are informed and structured ways of thinking about the future. The literature on scenario types, techniques and philosophies is large. According to Marien [7] the field of futures studies comprises an array of studies and approaches best labeled as a very fuzzy multi-field. The concept and term ‘scenario’ is used with diverse meanings and can encompass both descriptions of possible future states and descriptions of developments [8]. In natural resource and conservation terms, the

Author's personal copy 330

B.P. Kaltenborn et al. / Futures 44 (2012) 328–337

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment process [9] and UNEP’s GEO assessments [10,11] are well known large scale scenario processes and landmarks in environmental futures research. There is general agreement that scenarios denote some type of plausible picture of a possible reality that can inform the main issues in policy and decision making systems [12–19]. Various typologies of scenarios exist, but there is no real consensus on a typical or superior model. However, most typologies are based on a perspective that future studies explore possible, probably and/or preferable futures [8,20]. Scenarios can take an historical perspective or approach as well as a functional one [12]. In reviewing a number of typologies that have different philosophies and approaches to function, normative aspects, power relations and other social dynamics as well as different epistemologies, Bo¨rjeson and colleagues [8] distinguish between three main categories of scenario studies, framed around key questions for users: ‘‘What will happen?’’, ‘‘What can happen?’’, and ‘‘How can a specific target be reached?’’ They label these as predictive, explorative and normative types of scenarios [8]. Scenario analysis undoubtedly has a significant potential in the field of sustainable land use management and conservation planning. Scenario planning can offer a framework for developing more resilient policies in areas with high levels of uncertainty and low levels of control over a complex setting. The main benefits of using scenario planning are increased understanding of uncertainties, integration of alternative perspectives into planning and greater resilience of decisions to surprise [21,18] and make trade-offs visible. Other researchers also emphasize how scenarios can enable communities to become more adaptive by increasing the knowledge of landscape change and external forces, and improved ways of working with stakeholders at multiple scales, and hence develop more robust strategies [22–24,19]. The research on the effectiveness of scenarios is limited, but suggests that users generally find them useful [25,26], but the literature is not conclusive. da Costa et al. [27] found in a review that foresight studies had limited relevance for practical decision making in policy processes. Also decision makers may reject scenarios identifying threats for which there are no feasible solutions [28]. However, other studies have identified positive learning effects for individuals [29]. Yet, even if the scenarios themselves are not found to be viable, the process leading up to the development of scenarios usually entails positive impacts such as raising awareness of issues and learning about policy and policy assumptions [25]. As Clarck et al. [30] point out in the context of global environmental assessments, good process design and management is critical for improving saliency, legitimacy and credibility. In this study we followed up a scenario process in Vega with a survey to a larger sample of the islanders in order to assess the importance and ranking of the key issues that came out of the scenarios. The question we are asking here is: How well does a scenario process capture and describe the key dilemmas and choices facing a rural community in the future? 2. Methods 2.1. Study area The Vega municipality is a coastal community in central Norway comprising approximately 6500 islands within its 163 km2 area (Fig. 1). The three main islands are Vega, Ylvingen and Ingerøya, but a total of fifteen islands house a resident population which totaled 1288 people in 2010 [33]. The environment is rich in ecological and cultural heritage values. The islands have probably been the home of people for the past 10 000 years providing sustenance from the rich marine resources. The Stone Age settlements are the oldest ones identified in northern Norway. The present ecological values are largely dependent on different forms of extensive and traditional land use, and the Vega archipelago is a classic case of the concept of ‘‘conservation through use’’. During countless generations a particular way of life developed here as islanders learned to harvest their natural resources and gradually formed permanent settlements and developed the life of what has been termed the ‘‘fishing-farmer’’ [31], not to be confused with fish farming which is the principal form of aquaculture. An extensive social community was organized over time where people erected multiple small clusters of homes scattered throughout the islands and made a living from fishing and collecting eggs and down from the seabirds. The most special form of resource use involves an almost symbiotic relationship with wild eider ducks (Somateria molissima), where humans provide nesting houses and protection from predators, and in return they harvest the down from the nests. The product is considered by many to be the highest quality down available anywhere in the world. Small groups of islands of which some had human habitations and others not, made up social units and delimited work areas where people harvested fish in the sea and eggs and down from the seabirds nesting on the islands. Sheep and cattle were also grazed on the islands. Over time a rather unique cultural landscape and sustainable way of life developed. In 2004 the Vega islands were inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site [32] (www.unesco.org). In the nomination, emphasis was put on how hard working and versatile ‘‘fishing-farmers’’ had developed and maintained a sustainable way of life in a highly demanding environment. Collecting down from the eider ducks was considered important commerce as early as 800 AD, and this was largely carried out by women. Hence the World Heritage Status is regarded as a tribute to a unique nature–culture relationship and to the efforts of women to maintain an important economy [32]. Like a great many rural communities the modern reality is challenging for Vega. The resident population is small and has been declining for a long time. In 1950 Vega had around 3000 inhabitants, in 1995 approximately 1500, and the population base is projected to decrease to around 1100 in 2030. The population decline in the Vega municipality between 1996 and 2006 was almost 9.7% as opposed to an average of 2.8% for the surrounding Helgeland region [33]. The municipality’s economy is strained and boasts the highest public debt per capita in the country (Norwegian kroner 114 029/ca. Euro 12 700

Author's personal copy B.P. Kaltenborn et al. / Futures 44 (2012) 328–337

331

per head, and Norwegian kroner 29 649/ca. Euro 3160 per head national average). However, unemployment rates are slightly less than the national average (2.3% vs. 2.7%) and lower than the regional/county rates (2.9%). The mean income is significantly lower than the national average, and the percentage relying on social security income is significantly higher than the national average (18.7% vs. 8.9%) [33]. 2.2. Development of the Vega scenarios The scenario process was initiated and led by a small group of researchers experienced in scenario development, interactive participatory workshop techniques and natural resource management. A list of potential participants from the community representing a diversity of occupations in the private and public sector were suggested by contacts with the municipality administration. 14 persons engaged in agriculture, fishing, conservation and land use management, community administration, one representative from the state level Directorate for Nature Management, as well as two teenagers from the secondary school participated in two workshops that drafted the scenarios. The scenarios developed in the Vega community fall into the explorative category, i.e. probing of several alternative and plausible futures [12,8,18]. They were not predictive or normative in the sense that they did not try to ascertain what Vega will or should look like in 2025, although there are inevitably some normative and predictive elements that enter into the process when a group of local people think creatively about their future. The futures unfolded more or less within the overall framework used by several large scenario processes like the GEO concept [10] which target stakeholders, identify goals, issues and drivers, develop and test scenarios and communicate results to users. The actual scenarios were developed using a compressed version of the Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management (AEAM) methodology [34,35]. First, participants identify and agree on key resource elements. These are called ‘valued ecosystem components’, but could represent any environmental or socio-cultural resource or activity deemed to be of importance to the community or the environment. Essentially these are focal themes. These elements are then linked to drivers (forces, mechanisms) of change that are identified as being most likely to influence the valued ecosystem components. The scenario group further develops cause–effect charts that become simple conceptual models and the group’s representation of how drivers and valued resources and conditions (focal themes) are linked. The next step is to formulate multiple impact hypotheses about how the drivers will affect the valued ecosystem components in the system. At this stage the scenario group has converged on a consensus of the key values and elements of a system, in this case the Vega community and its environment, including certain and critical uncertain drivers that may affect and alter the system. From here the group proceeds to develop alternative futures based around the interacting impacts of these different drivers. In this particular case the scenario group developed four alternative scenarios constructed around the following themes: community/society, commerce, transportation, energy supply, landscape and tourism. In each scenario the group applied a particular selection of development paths and drivers. These were assumptions about population development, land use management, state subsidies, tourism management and regulation, climate change, research monitoring and documentation of changes. A cross-cutting issue in all of the scenarios is the balance between the conservation and use of natural and cultural heritage resources [35]. This represented a certain limitation in scope to issues that are on the minds of the local population partly in order to keep the process focused and also to avoid unmanageable levels of uncertainty in the visions of plausible futures. 2.3. Post scenario data collection Scenario development is a free and exploratory process, and does not imply a real ranking or commitment on behalf of the participants in the process, and there are always questions about how the workshop participants represent the views of the wider community. Hence we developed a survey structured around the main themes in the scenarios, i.e. community/ society, commerce, transportation, energy supply, landscape and tourism in which the respondents were asked to state how important these factors were for the development of a good future in Vega. The survey also asked questions about the perceived importance of external factors and more concrete choices and dilemmas relating to economic development, energy supply, tourism, access to the island and conservation practices. The survey was conducted as structured interviews by telephone with 200 randomly selected persons above 15 years of age living within the Vega municipality. The sample of respondents was evenly distributed between women (51.1%) and men (48.5%), and the mean age of the respondents was 49 years of age. Shortly after the survey eight of the participants in the scenario work were also interviewed about different aspects of the scenario development process. The objective here was to obtain additional information about how the participants perceived the actual process as a practical tool to elicit futures. The semi-structured interviews took place face to face on the island and focused on the participants’ perception of the articulation of ideas and issues, focus, key values, representation, the role of scientists as facilitators, choices and dilemmas. 3. Results The four Vega scenarios generated through the participatory workshops are described in full in [37]. Here we include an abbreviated version of these.

Author's personal copy 332

B.P. Kaltenborn et al. / Futures 44 (2012) 328–337

3.1. The Sunshine island – extensive conservation and extensive use This is the most optimistic scenario that was developed. It envisions a future with heavy emphasis on finding a careful balance between both the conservation and the extensive use of local natural resources. In fact the conservation of the most valued aspects of the natural and heritage resources is secured through the wise and sustainable use of the local environment. The management regime is fairly restrictive, but is well established since objectives and regulations are well understood and accepted locally and in line with community values. Conservation of local heritage and environments has also added new employment opportunities to the employment structure. Agriculture and coastal fisheries are the main economic pillars and modern aquaculture/fish farming is well controlled in terms of diseases and fish escaping from the nets. Tourism is well managed and presents no significant impact. Rather tourism is quite dependent on environmental and cultural heritage resources in line with the Geo-tourism concept [38]. The island population is increasing and state subsidies are perceived as adequate. The development paths and drivers chosen in this scenario include: increasing population, stable climate, high level of cooperation between local and state management agencies, controlled tourism, conservation through use as a guiding principle, maintenance of open cultural landscapes, strict regulations imposed on fish farming, high emphasis on data collection and documentation of local knowledge. 3.2. Tourism galore – strict conservation and limited use In this future national agencies have implemented a strict, top-down conservation regime for both Vega’s nature and its cultural heritage. However, local perceptions of appropriate conservation measures are in discord with national objectives and strategies, and the management of natural and cultural heritage resources is largely ineffective and dysfunctional. The ‘‘conservation through use’’ philosophy advocated by the local community is not seen as an acceptable approach by national agencies and the conditions for the maintenance of most small scale resource use activities are not present. This has led to their unintended replacement by large scale industrial activities. The old practice of collecting down from the eiders is only upheld through financial subsidies, but traditional small scale farming is history and agriculture consists of a few large industrial type farms. Coastal fisheries are more or less closed and marine resources are no longer received and refined at the island – rather the fish is harvested and processed by offshore factory ships. The economy survives on mass tourism concentrated to the summer season and tourism causes major impacts on cultural and environmental resources. The island more or less ‘‘shuts down’’ during the winter season. The development paths and drivers chosen in this scenario include: decreasing population, conflicts between local and central management philosophies, strict conservation, but vague plans and multiple dispensations, no limits on commercial tourism combined with a static approach to conservation, the former open landscape that was maintained through grazing becomes overgrown while the areas of cultivated land are more intensively used through draining and fertilization, there is little or no new scientific information gathered on local resources and local knowledge is ignored. 3.3. The Desolate island – limited conservation and limited use This is a future where the people increasingly leave the island and where most activities dwindle. There is little initiative to utilize and build upon the environmental and cultural resources. A few conservation measures are in place, but management is relatively passive and inconsistent. Multiple dispensations from management regulations are granted for commercial purposes. State subsidies are minimal, and conditions for land use management are poor. Traditional agriculture and land use is seriously declining leaving only a few large, industrial type farm units. There is virtually no recruitment among the younger generation to the coastal fisheries. The island no longer serves as a landing and processing center for marine resources. The frail local economy rests on a few fish farming units and a very modest level of summer tourism. This is an island where life is dwindling and the population decreases rapidly. The development paths and drivers chosen in this scenario include: declining human population, conflicts between state and local management strategies, passive and inconsistent management, static conservation philosophies, an overgrown cultural landscape, minimal state subsidies for agriculture, fisheries and public service, poor conditions for fish farming, no new data collection or information gathering, and loss of living historical sources. 3.4. The Chaos island – limited conservation and intensive use In this envisioned future there is an imbalance between several forces. While there is a high level of common intentions and understanding in the community regarding conservation issues, management of cultural and natural resources suffer due to lax regulations and a lack of funding and outside support. An inadequate capacity to implement plans and management actions results in numerous dispensations and a low level of goal attainment. Ultimately, land use and development are more or less out of control and are seriously impacting the coastal zone. This, in combination with a weak local economy, is threatening valuable heritage and natural resources. Agriculture is heavily rationalized and modernized into a few large scale units. Traditional, small scale fisheries are in serious decline. An unsustainable fish farming industry without adequate control measures is destroying the former fishing grounds of coastal fishermen. International tourism largely comprised of mobile recreational homes has more or less taken over the island during the summer months. The main

Author's personal copy B.P. Kaltenborn et al. / Futures 44 (2012) 328–337

333

tourism activity is recreational fishing for consumptive purposes. The growing island population is increasingly forced to find employment outside the community. The development paths and drivers chosen in this scenario include: increasing resident population, high level of understanding and cooperation between local and national management institutions, local and regional development plans that are well anchored in the community, but many dispensations and poorly managed and controlled tourism, overgrown cultural landscape, poor financial arrangements and limited state subsidies, ineffective control measures for the fish farming industry, continuous updates of information and documentation. 3.5. Four futures – sustainability is multifaceted The four scenarios outline different visions of what the future Vega island may look like. The stories are hypothetical in the sense that they make educated guesses about the development of key forces and societal trends. They are not potential futures modeled on specific assumptions or interactions between variables where the nature and strength of the relationships are defined more specifically. Nor did the participants in the scenario process specifically evaluate the likelihood or realism of the different futures. The Sunshine island scenario depicts a future with a high level of conservation combined with a high level of use. The Tourism galore future emphasizes a high level of conservation, but low level of resource use. It may be sustainable in ecological and conservation terms, but less so in terms of livelihoods and local economy. In the Desolate island future there is widespread pessimism and not much hope for the future. Both conservation and resource use/development efforts go at slow speed. This is an unsustainable future by any measure. The Chaos island scenario outlines a future with less emphasis and action toward conservation, but a high level of resource use and exploitation. It is probably not environmentally sustainable, and it is questionable whether it is economically and socially sustainable since work life and commercial enterprises are based partly on centralization of agriculture and industrialized fishing which means a major decline in local employment opportunities. 3.6. Evaluation of the scenario process In the post scenario interviews the views on the process were quite homogenous. The eight informants all found this to be a creative and novel process. In terms of the role outside researchers played in organizing the process, some informants found the external assistance helpful for articulating ideas and viewpoints, while others were indifferent. Everyone felt they could voice their opinions adequately and the process was largely perceived to capture the key issues the community needs to deal with in the future. Furthermore the process was seen to be strong on bringing new ideas and open discussions to the table, but not really addressing conflicts, priorities or dilemmas. There was some diversity on the issue of representativeness. While it was generally felt that the process covered all major themes of interest, and hence should cover the concerns of most islanders, a few of the people interviewed argued that there is always a portion of the population that is not interested in participating in any public process. It could also be that even though the key themes are covered, the diversity and distribution in attitudes may not be representative of the islanders in general. The stories about potential futures are an attempt to think creatively, but structured around a partly unknown and highly complex future. While it is entirely possible that Vega will look more or less like one of these four scenarios in 2025, it is more likely that it will be a compromise between the most optimistic and most pessimistic visions. The question then is to identify what the islanders rate as the key desirable elements for achieving environmental and economic sustainability, and which scenario comes closest to the priorities of the community. Essentially, this will enable them to identify which choices have to be taken on the way toward a desired 2025. 3.7. Survey findings – development alternatives The future of the island community will entail some hard choices for the island population. Some may be relatively concrete and relate to known factors. Others may appear more complex and abstract, where it may be more difficult to envision likely consequences. In the post scenario survey we wanted the respondents to make realistic assessments of the future by asking them to choose between alternatives by having to state their preference for one out of two options regarding a series of elements from different development paths (Table 1). The statements addressed the key dimensions of the four scenarios: tourism strategies, agriculture, fishing, cultural heritage protection, environmental management, energy, and transportation. For all of the issues almost everyone was able to choose one of the two alternatives, indicating that these are areas of interests or questions of relevance to most of the islanders. The filling of ‘‘do not know’’ categories for the seven issues ranged from 0 to 4%. There was near consensus in some areas and more divergence in others. In terms of the main direction of economic development in the island community a large majority (84.5%), indicated a preference to retain traditional resource uses like agriculture and coastal fisheries as the main pillar of economic development. There was overwhelming support for a conservation philosophy of the natural environment and cultural heritage that rests on active use and maintenance of old traditions, as opposed to a strict and museum/reserve style protection. Almost everyone in the sample (93%) would favor environmental conservation through traditional resource use instead of protection through strict limits on use. Furthermore, the vast majority (86.5%) favor a type of cultural heritage protection that permits modernizing and maintaining older buildings and farms for current housing needs instead of a regime with major restrictions on what people can do with their buildings.

Author's personal copy 334

B.P. Kaltenborn et al. / Futures 44 (2012) 328–337

Table 1 Alternatives and dilemmas (in %). Alternative 1 Tourism as the main economic pillar and income source for the island Highly controlled protection of older buildings with restrictions on upgrading and modernizing Protection of environmental values through strict limits on use Tourism founded on local traditions Speed boat connection to main land Electric power through alternative sources like wind- and wave technology Local business development guided by long term sustainable use of traditional culture and landscapes

Alternative 2 14.5 12.5

7.0 61.5 70.5 29.0 53.0

Don’t know

Agriculture, livestock and fisheries as the main commercial sectors Flexible cultural heritage protection through use and adaptation to current housing needs

84.5

1.0

86.5

1.0

Environmental protection through traditional resource use

93.0

0

Tourism guided by maximum economic profit in the short- and long term Main land connection by bridge Electric power through cable from the main land

35.0

3.5

29.0 69.5

0.5 1.5

43.0

4.0

Local economic development based on new businesses like industrialized agriculture and large scale fishing tourism

However, there was no real consensus on how the primary resource sector should be developed. A little more than onehalf of the respondents (53%) would prefer business and economic development guided by long term sustainable management of traditional culture and natural resources, while almost as many (43%) would like to see future economic development founded on industrial agriculture and large scale fishing tourism. However, only a small part of the population would like to see tourism as the economic backbone of the community. The view of how the tourism profile should be developed is not quite as uniform, and almost two-thirds of the respondents (61.5%) would prefer a type of tourism development that is built on local traditions, while approximately one-third (35%) of the respondents would like to see tourism development guided by maximum economic profit. In terms of access to the island a large majority (70.5%) would prefer to rely on a high speed boat and/ferry link with the mainland, rather than consider the costly development of a bridge/tunnel connection. When it comes to energy supply, more than two-thirds (69.5%) of the respondents would prefer to maintain the current situation, i.e. electric power supplied by cable from the mainland, rather than electricity from alternative sources like wave and wind energy generated on the island itself. The results show a relatively high level of agreement around key aspects of future development. While the scenarios appealed to creativity, diversity and novelty in thinking about the future, the survey elicited a fairly conservative outlook of the rural future. There is a high degree of consensus that the future local economy should rest on traditional sectors like agriculture and fishing rather than tourism. The conservation of natural and cultural heritage resources is supported, but the islanders indicated that this should largely be achieved through the wise use of resources and be under local control, and restrictions should not impede on the development of modern lifestyles. Access should not be greatly increased by a costly bridge connecting the island(s) to the mainland, and energy supply should remain stable and predictable through a mainland cable supply. There was more divergence on views concerning the foundations of local business life, where slightly more than one-half (53%) of the islanders think that local business development should be guided by sustainable use of natural and cultural heritage. In contrast, 43% would prefer to base local economic development on industrialized agriculture and large scale fishing tourism (Table 1). 3.8. Survey findings – the importance of external factors Global issues and external factors were not explicitly retained in the final scenario process, although in earlier discussions many factors like EU membership, the fate of WTO negotiations and climate change came up, and elements of them remained in some of the final scenarios. However, there was a conscious effort to ensure that the development of the four stories about the future mainly centered on the themes the local participants were concerned about and which they could assert some influence over. These were largely perceived as local issues, or at least issues that decide how life is and will be in the local community. However, factors like land use development, social life in the community, transport and communication, energy supply, and conservation strategies are nevertheless influenced by global forces and conditions. In the survey following the scenario process we also asked the respondents to what extent they believe various external factors will affect the development of the Vega community toward 2025. The islanders had little problems stating their opinions for the questions regarding various aspects of development. The ‘‘do not know’’ categories ranged from 1.5 to 6%. For all of the external forces we find quite a spread in opinions (Table 2). It is worth noting that the respondents view all the factors as somewhat or fairly important, in other words none of these are seen as irrelevant for the future of the island. The factor perceived as most important is the extent of state support for business and rural development. Almost everyone see this as being of some or great importance. Conversely, the development of wind power as an energy source is seen as moderately important.

Author's personal copy B.P. Kaltenborn et al. / Futures 44 (2012) 328–337

335

Table 2 The importance of external forces for the development of the Vega community (in %).

Wind power Oil and gas development International economic development Changes in tourism preferences The global food situation State support and subsidies for business and rural development Norway’s relationship with the European union Climate change and environmental disasters

Of no importance

Of some importance

Of great importance

Don’t know

45.5 26.5 20.5 10.5 20.5 3.5 34.5 22.0

37.5 38.0 52.5 58.5 45.0 29.0 35.0 34.5

15.5 33.0 25.5 25.0 33.0 66.0 29.0 42.0

1.5 2.5 1.5 6.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Table 3 Cluster analysis of development options (KMEANS, final cluster centers, 4 iterations). Option 1

Option 2

Cluster 1 N = 54

Cluster 2 N = 144

Tourism as the main economic pillar and income source for the island Highly controlled protection of older buildings with restrictions on upgrading and modernizing Protection of environmental values through strict limits on use Tourism founded on local traditions

Agriculture, livestock and fisheries as the main commercial sectors Flexible cultural heritage protection through use and adaptation to current housing needs Environmental protection through traditional resource use

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1 2

1 2

2

1

Speed boat connection to main land Electric power through alternative sources like wind- and wave technology Local business development guided by long term sustainable use of traditional culture and landscapes

Tourism guided by maximum economic profit in the short- and long term Main land connection by bridge Electric power through cable from the main land Local economic development based on new businesses like industrialized agriculture and large scale fishing tourism

The survey findings provide some indication of how representative the participatory scenario process is for the island’s population. Since the relatively small group of participants in the scenario process demonstrated considerable creativity and diversity, it is relevant to what extent this is reflected in the island community. A cluster analysis (K-cluster) performed on the responses to the seven main dilemmas discussed above split the islanders into two groups (Table 3). In terms of future development both groups prefer to base the local economy dominantly on agriculture and fisheries rather than tourism. Both groups also strongly advocate a pragmatic and flexible management and conservation through wise use of natural and cultural heritage, rather than strict conservation which limits use. They also agree on preferring boat access to the island, as well as traditional the power supply rather than new and alternative sources. However, what differentiates the two groups are attitudes toward the type of tourism and the preferred base of local economies. The smallest group (N = 56) is in favor of tourism development guided by maximum economic profit in the short and long term, as well as local economic development based on new sectors like industrialized agriculture and large scale fishing tourism. The largest group of islanders (N = 144) however, is more in favor of tourism founded on local traditions, and a type of business development guided by long term sustainable use of natural and cultural heritage. These differences reflect key dimensions in the Sunshine island, and Tourism galore scenarios, namely a type tourism strategies and products, and economic development based on wise use and conservation of local resources vs. economic development founded on new industries and extractive resource use. There is significantly more belief in and support for the type of development envisioned in the Sunshine island scenario than the Tourism galore path. Both of these scenarios are proactive and development oriented futures that in different ways may sustain the island population. The Desolate island and Chaos island scenarios depict more pessimistic views of the future with poor management of resources and more or less unsustainable livelihoods. They reflect complexity by acknowledging dysfunctional or at least inefficient management institutions, social unrest and a declining population, as well as the power of external forces. They also foresee the importance of more industrialized resource use and employment opportunities outside the island. Although they contain elements of the more positive scenarios, they are more difficult to relate directly to the survey findings. 4. Discussion In making good decisions about the future, small communities like Vega need to develop an understanding of how social and environmental systems interact. With the increasing focus during the past two decades on the concept of sustainability, thinking creatively about futures is also an exercise in understanding complexity, incorporating uncertainty, human choice and drawing out effective and feasible strategies. It also entails integrating information about forces on multiple scales from

Author's personal copy 336

B.P. Kaltenborn et al. / Futures 44 (2012) 328–337

the local to the global and assessing how these forces interact. Scenario techniques are increasingly used as a method in an emerging ‘‘sustainability science’’ where multiple agents need to agree on development and management goals [5,21]. On Vega we also used a participatory and problem oriented approach to develop four alternative futures, and we attempted to ascertain the plausibility of these. All of the four stories about the future show reflection and concern, as well as a substantial creativity on behalf of the participants in the process. They structured the potential future in four categories around a balance between conservation and development. At one end they are highly optimistic in terms of opportunities and positive belief in the local capacity of the community. At the other end they express pessimism and loss of control to external forces and actors. The two more pessimistic scenarios perhaps also acknowledge real life complexities and contradictions to a greater extent than the more idealized versions of the future. The scenarios developed here are exploratory and the aim was to stimulate creativity and diversity in thinking about the future. Yet, when it comes to planning and strategic and political decisions about private and public development and services, normative and predictive concerns immediately apply. Interestingly, the survey following the scenario process identifies a certain discrepancy in outlook. The enthusiasm and belief in tourism development in different forms that came out in the scenarios is not mirrored in the broader empirical base from the survey. Nor is the role of traditional agriculture equally highlighted in the scenarios. The survey data clearly show that a large majority prefers ‘‘business as usual’’, i.e. small scale agriculture and coastal fisheries as economic main paths. The survey also shows that the conservation of natural resources and cultural heritage should be based on, and allows, extensive use of local resources. The perceptions of the role of external and global factors underscore the complexity and uncertainty in assessing futures. The islanders are in much less agreement on these factors than the development alternatives. The scenarios may be plausible in the sense that they have sprung out of local perceptions, experiences and visions, i.e. they are locally generated and reflect conditions and opportunities the community can identify with one way or another. However, when forced to make some priorities and assessments of realities it is ‘‘business as usual’’ that dominates. A salient question in the scenario process at Vega is to what extent it encapsulates key aspects of social and environmental sustainability of the community. While all participants that were interviewed felt the focus was appropriate in terms of future development options, the method could still be inadequate or inefficient in terms of addressing structural problems. There is no doubt that the municipality has a good resource base with a potential for maintaining agriculture, fisheries and tourism, but the fact remains that the population is declining, many of the younger generation prefer better paid work outside the local community, and the local economy is strongly supported by state subsidies. With structural forces at play, a rural transition progresses which to a great extent is driven by external forces. These dynamics contribute greatly to the inherent uncertainty in the scenario process. But as many authors have pointed out [18,8,25,19] one of the key strengths of scenario work and planning is that it increases the understanding of key uncertainties, it helps to incorporate different perspectives on the future, and it builds greater resilience to surprise. In the Vega community, the scenario process clearly helped raise the awareness that some futures will be more sustainable and more desirable than others. It also highlighted the fact that there are options and alternatives to simply reacting to outside forces. Scenarios can play an important role in stimulating self confidence in a community and help people come to sound judgments on important issues. Perhaps most of all, the process a rich scoping exercise that can provide important input to conservation planning and economic development, as well as political processes around local public services. We did not specifically measure the efficacy of the scenario process, but a few points can be drawn from this exercise. It is a challenge to put together a small group of participants that are sufficiently representative for a community. Scenario processes inadvertently preselect and favor people who are active, interested and vocal. This particular group of people made up a strategic sample of islanders who technically represented most sectors, but we assume that there is more diversity in attitudes and interest than this group were spokespeople for. As the results show there is no real consensus among the islanders on what type of tourism development that should be prioritized or on the role of local heritage resources in economic development. These differences in the population need not lead to conflicts, but must be dealt with and balanced in future development. The survey findings suggest that the creativity and development optimism expressed by the scenario group may not be shared by the entire community. The Vega process clearly had a wide focus and an exploratory approach. Had the research team behind the process chosen a more normative or predictive approach, different methodological instructions would have been given at the start, and the outcome may have been different had the participants been asked to rank and prioritize issues. The method was largely qualitative and was not calibrated much with background statistics or modeling which would also have laid certain directional constraints on the discussions. Perhaps most importantly, scenarios are many different things, and their usefulness largely depends on knowing whether one asks what can, what will, or what should happen, as these are fundamentally different questions requiring different approaches. Uncovering complexity is not the same as prioritizing issues or creating consensus in conflicts. References [1] A. Balmford, J. Beresford, J. Green, M. Walpole, A. Manica, A global perspective on trends in nature-based tourism, PLoS Biology 7 (6) (2009) 1–6. [2] L.A.G. Moss (Ed.), The Amenity Migrants. Seeking and Sustaining Mountains and Their Cultures, CABI, Wallingford, 2006, p. 329. [3] A.E. Bujis, B. Pedroli, Y. Luginbu¨hl, From hiking through farmland to farming in a leisure landscape: changing social perceptions of the European landscape, Landscape Ecology 21 (2006) 375–389.

Author's personal copy B.P. Kaltenborn et al. / Futures 44 (2012) 328–337

337

[4] M. Perlik, The specifics of amenity migration in the European Alps, in: L.A.G. Moss (Ed.), The Amenity Migrants. Seeking and Sustaining Mountains and Their Cultures, CABI, Wallingford, 2006, pp. 215–231. [5] R.J. Swart, P. Raskin, J. Robinson, The problem of the future: sustainability science and scenario analysis, Global Environmental Change 14 (2004) 137–146. [6] S. Hovik, M. Reitan, National environmental goals in search of local institutions, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 22 (5) (2004) 687–699. [7] M. Marien, Futures studies in the 21st century: a reality based view, Futures 34 (3–4) (2002) 261–281. [8] L. Bo¨rjeson, M. Ho¨jer, K. Dreborg, T. Ekvall, G. Finnveden, Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide, Futures 38 (2006) 723–739. [9] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, Island Press, Washington, DC, 2005, 137 pp.. [10] UNEP, GEO Resource Book, A Training Manual on Integrated Environmental Assessment and Reporting, 2007 (accessed 16.10.10) www.unep.org/geo. [11] UNEP, GEO Resource Book. Training Module 6. Scenario Development and Analysis, 2007 (accessed 25.11.10) www.unep.org/dewa/Docs/geo. [12] European Environment Agency, Looking back on looking forward: a review of evaluative scenario literature, EEA Technical Report No. 3/2009, Copenhagen. [13] D.G. Groves, R.J. Lempert, A new analytic method for finding policy-relevant scenarios, Global Environmental Change 17 (2007) 73–85. [14] Canadian Sustainability Indicators Network (CSIN), Learning Event Nr. 25, CSIN Secretariat, 2007, www.csin-rcid.ca. [15] H.J. Westhoek, M.v. Berg, J.A. Bakkes, Scenario development to explore the future of Europe’s rural areas, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 114 (2006) 7–20. [16] P.H. Verburg, A. Veldkamp, Scenario-based studies of future land use in Europe, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 114 (2006) 1–6. [17] UNEP, Global Environment Outlook 3. Past, Present and Future Perspectives, Earthscan, London, 2002. [18] G.D. Peterson, G.S. Cumming, S.R. Carpenter, Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world, Conservation Biology 17 (2) (2002) 358–366. [19] E. Wollenberg, D. Edmunds, L. Buck, Using scenarios to make decisions about the future: anticipatory learning for the adaptive co-management of community forests, Landscape and Urban Planning 47 (2000) 65–77. [20] G. Busch, Scenario development to explore the future of Europe’s rural areas, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 114 (2006) 121–140. [21] M. Etienne, C. Le Page, M. Cohen, A step-by-step approach to building land management scenarios based on multiple viewpoints on multi-agent system simulations, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 6 (2) (2003) (accessed 10.09.10) http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/2.html. [22] R.J. Lempert, S.W. Popper, S.C. Banks, Shaping the next one hundred years: new methods for quantitative, longer-term policy analysis, Rand Corporation, MR1626-RPC, 2003. [23] J.A. Dewar, Assumption-Based Planning: A Tool for Reducing Avoidable Surprises, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York, 2002. [24] M.B.A. van Asselt, Perspectives on Uncertainty and Risk: The Prima Approach to Decision Support, Springer, Berlin, 2000. [25] R. Soliva, K. Rønningen, I. Bella, P. Bezak, T. Cooper, B.E. Flø, P. Marty, C. Potter, Envisioning upland futures: stakeholder responses to scenarios for Europe’s mountain landscapes, Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 56–71. [26] J.C. Glen, T.J. Gordon, Factors Required for Successful Implementation of Futures Research in Decisions Making, Millennium Project Publication, 2001 (accessed 10.09.10) www.millenium-project.org/millennium/applic-exsum.html. [27] O. da Costa, P. Warnke, C. Cagnin, F. Scapolo, The Impact of Foresight on Policy Making: Insights from the FORLEARN Mutual Learning Process, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre/European Commission, 2006. [28] G.P. Hodgkinson, G. Wright, Confronting strategic inertia in a top management team: learning from failure, Organisation Studies 23 (2002) 949–977. [29] T.J. Chermack, Studying scenario planning: theory, research suggestions, and hypothesis, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 72 (2005) 59–73. [30] W.C. Clarck, R.B. Mitchell, D.W. Cash, Evaluating the influence of global environmental assessments, in: R.B. Mitchel, W.C. Clarck, D.W. Cash, N.W. Dickson (Eds.), Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2006. [31] O. Wicken, Norsk fiskeriteknologi – politiske ma˚l I mote med regionale kulturer, STEP Rapport – 17, 1994, 30s (in Norwegian). [32] Vegaøyan – The Vega archipelago, Nomination File, http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1143 (accessed 25.08.10). [33] Statistics Norway, www.ssb.no/kommuner. [34] C.S. Holling, Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management, Wiley, Chichester/New York/Brisbane/Toronto, 1998. [35] R. Hansson, P. Prestrud, N.A. Øritsland, Assessment system for the environment and industrial activities at Svalbard, Norwegian Polar Research Institute, Report No. 68, 1990, 267 pp. [37] J. Thomassen, J. Linnell, B. Skar, T. Risan, A. Follestad, C. Næss, P.A. Aarrestad, K. Larsen, G. Jerpa˚sen, K. Harvold, I. Kelman, I.E. Bruteig, H. Svarstad, K. Fageraas, Øyfolkets fortellinger – 2025 scenarioer fra Smøla, Frøya og Vega, NINA Rapport 653, 2011, 80 pp. (in Norwegian). [38] Travel Industry Association of America, The Geotourism Study: Phase I Executive Summary, National Geographic Traveler/TIA, 2002 22 pp..