Priorities for Social-Ecological Scenario Research |
WELCOME PAGE
Scenarios are plausible descriptions of how the future may develop based on a coherent and internally consistent set of assumptions about key driving forces and relationships. By envisioning how alternative futures unfold, scenarios can help to better understand complex systems, identify policies and actions that will be robust across a range of potential future outcomes, and promote desired outcomes. Participatory scenarios are increasingly used in sustainability research and planning contexts to explore the interdependencies between humans and ecosystems in alternative futures. We are conducting a horizon scan to identify key research priorities to enhance the use of such participatory social-ecological scenarios. We would like you to contribute your expertise and opinion by rating the priority of 32 research questions.
The purpose of this horizon scan is to contribute to building the community of researchers and practitioners emerging around the development and application of participatory social-ecological scenarios. We are interested in assessing what people within this community think are priorities for research, to identify knowledge gaps and help organize and focus this community. The results of this work will be presented in an open-access paper.
We started the process by crowdsourcing research questions using an online form. The submitted questions were expected to address issues that are novel, pressing, missing, addressable, and have global implications. We used existing Email lists and the Resilience 2017 conference to contact researchers and practitioners. Additionally, we advertised the call for questions on the Future Earth Open Network and on Twitter. We received over 60 different suggestions from over 40 contributors engaged in social-ecological research and contributing to IPBES, Future Earth, and The Natural Capital Project. We organized, combined and edited these diverse contributions to produce a list of 28 priority questions. Next, we asked researchers and practitioners to rate each of these questions and suggest missing questions. A total of 76 persons contributed to this stage. We used the results to sharpen questions, discard low-ranking questions, and add new questions to the list. A summary of the results can be found here.
The updated list of 32 questions forms the basis for the next iteration (this survey). We ask you to rate the priority of each question on a scale of 1 to 7. A score of 1 means that the question has no priority, that is, the topic is not novel or pressing and unlikely to have a significant effect on the development of scenario planning. A score of 7 means that the question is of utmost importance. Answering the question would make a substantial difference to harnessing the power of participatory social-ecological scenarios for sustainable development. Please consider using the full range, even if you consider all items to be of high (or low) priority.
The 32 research questions are organized into 4 separate sections (Methods, Content, Process, Impact). The questions and sections are presented to you in random order. At the end of the survey it is possible to leave comments and suggest key missing questions that should have been in the list according to you. Responding to the survey should take about 12 minutes of your time. A glossary of key terms can be found here.
The purpose of this horizon scan is to contribute to building the community of researchers and practitioners emerging around the development and application of participatory social-ecological scenarios. We are interested in assessing what people within this community think are priorities for research, to identify knowledge gaps and help organize and focus this community. The results of this work will be presented in an open-access paper.
We started the process by crowdsourcing research questions using an online form. The submitted questions were expected to address issues that are novel, pressing, missing, addressable, and have global implications. We used existing Email lists and the Resilience 2017 conference to contact researchers and practitioners. Additionally, we advertised the call for questions on the Future Earth Open Network and on Twitter. We received over 60 different suggestions from over 40 contributors engaged in social-ecological research and contributing to IPBES, Future Earth, and The Natural Capital Project. We organized, combined and edited these diverse contributions to produce a list of 28 priority questions. Next, we asked researchers and practitioners to rate each of these questions and suggest missing questions. A total of 76 persons contributed to this stage. We used the results to sharpen questions, discard low-ranking questions, and add new questions to the list. A summary of the results can be found here.
The updated list of 32 questions forms the basis for the next iteration (this survey). We ask you to rate the priority of each question on a scale of 1 to 7. A score of 1 means that the question has no priority, that is, the topic is not novel or pressing and unlikely to have a significant effect on the development of scenario planning. A score of 7 means that the question is of utmost importance. Answering the question would make a substantial difference to harnessing the power of participatory social-ecological scenarios for sustainable development. Please consider using the full range, even if you consider all items to be of high (or low) priority.
The 32 research questions are organized into 4 separate sections (Methods, Content, Process, Impact). The questions and sections are presented to you in random order. At the end of the survey it is possible to leave comments and suggest key missing questions that should have been in the list according to you. Responding to the survey should take about 12 minutes of your time. A glossary of key terms can be found here.
This project is part of a research collaboration between the Stockholm Resilience Centre and Stanford University (Natural Capital Project) and funded by the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation.