3/2023 Tulevaisuuden tutkimuksen seura ry. 3/ 20 23 3/ 20 23 AVOIN TEEMANUMERO AVOIN TEEMANUMERO – TULEVAISUUSTIEDON – TULEVAISUUSTIEDON LAAJENEVA KENTTÄ LAAJENEVA KENTTÄ
Taitto ja kansi Johanna Viherä Painopaikka Waasa Graphics Oy ISSN 0785–5494 Tulevaisuuden tutkimuksen seura ry. Tilaukset ja osoitteenmuutokset Hazel Salminen, toimisto@tutuseura.?, Puh 040 502 8672 Toimitusneuvosto Minna Halonen, Sirkka Heinonen, Sami Holopainen, Sanna Ketonen-Oksi, Osmo Kuusi, Matti Minkkinen, Marileena Mäkelä Laura Pouru-Mikkola, Minna Pura, Juho Ruotsalainen, Hazel Salminen, Petri Tapio, Johanna Viherä, Marja-Liisa Viherä, Tero Villman Julkais?a Tulevaisuuden tutkimuksen seura ry./Futura-lehti PL 378, 00101 Helsinki 040 5028672, toimisto@tutuseura.. vuosikerta 3/2023 Tilaushinnat Jäsenille jäsenmaksuun sisältyvä Vuosikerta kotimaassa 53€, Vuosikerta ulkomaille 63 €, Irtonumero jäsenille 8 €, muille 14,30 €. 42. Jos olet kiinnostunut kirjoittamaan Futuraan, otathan yhteyttä toimisto@tutuseura.?! Vastaava päätoimittaja Matti Minkkinen, matti.minkkinen@utu.. tutuseura.. Suomen tiedekustantajien liitolta on saatu avustusta lehden taittokoneen ja oheislaitteiden hankintaan.. on saanut TSV:n kautta Futura-lehden julkaisutoimintaan valtionavustusta, jota opetusja kulttuuriministeriö myöntää Veikkauksen tuotoista. Tämän numeron päätoimittaja Juho Ruotsalainen, juho.ruotsalainen@utu.. tutuseura.?/julkaisut/futura Futuran tulevat teemat Futura 4/23 Tulevaisuustietoisuus ja tulevaisuudentutkimuksen ?loso?a Futura 1/24 Monipaikkaisuuden moninaisuus Futura 2/24 Transformatiivinen tulevaisuustyö Futura 3/24 Tulevaisuuden sivistys Futura 4/24 Visionäärinen johtaminen Futuran kirjoittajaksi
Review of scenario elements in Finnish, European and Global studies Roope Tuovila Yksityiset tiedustelutoim?at tulevaisuustiedon tuottajina Olli Hasu Marsin ja Chilen talous Lari Lohikoski Siunauksen signaalit Kirkko etsimässä hengellisyyden heikkoja signaaleita Anne Mecklin Ennakointi työelämäläheisessä opetussuunnitelmatyössä ammattikorkeakoulussa Mauri Kantola, Mervi Friman, Pentti Rauhala, Hannu Kotila ja Tapio Kalevi Huttula Ammatillisen korkeakoulutuksen mahdollisia tulevaisuuskuvia vuoteen 2030 Osmo Rauhala Kommentti Kantola et al. 1 3/23 F Juho Ruotsalainen Tulevaisuustiedon laajeneva kenttä Kalle Aro, Karoliina Rimhanen, Pasi Rikkonen and Titta Tapiola What is a food system scenario made of. artikkeliin: Korkeakouluvisiot kohtaavat haasteellisen tulevaisuuden SISÄLLYS P S A R F 3/2023 2 5 18 29 34 44 51 63 65 66 MUISTOKIRJOITUS: MATTI LESKINEN 1941–2023
3/23 2 Futura PÄÄKIRJOITUS Futuran numerot on pääsääntöisesti koottu rajatun teeman ympärille. Tulevaisuudentutk?oiden ja futuristien lisäksi tulevaisuustietoa tuottavat konsulttiyritykset, poliittis-hallinnolliset toim?at (esimerkiksi valtiovarainministeriö, jonka kestävyysvajelaskelmat ulottuvat vuosisadan lopulle), ilmastomallintajat, uutismedia (esimerkiksi “Mitä odottaa vuodelta 2024?” -juttutyypit), akateeminen tutkimus, mainonta ja markkinointiviestintä, yritysten ennakointiyksiköt, ja lukuisat muut tahot. Käsillä oleva numero on sen s?aan teemaltaan avoin. Toisaalta esimerkiksi sosiologit ovat havahtuneet tulevaisuusperspektiiviensä ja tulevaa käsittelevien teoretisointiensa kapeuteen. Sikäli kuin yksi numero voi edustaa laajempaa ennakoinnin kenttää, artikkelit kuvastavat yhä monipuolisempaa ja moninaisempaa ennakointia ja tulevaisuuksien tutkimusta. Numeron artikkelit edustavatkin ennakoinnin ja tulevaisuuksien tutkimuksen laajenevaa kenttää: ne ulottuvat evankelis-luterilaisen kirkon heikkojen signaalien analyysistä ja ammattikorkeakoulujen ennakointityöstä yksityisen tiedustelun tulevaisuuteen sekä spekulatiivisiin ja “utooppisiin” ekologis-yhteiskunnallisiin hallintamekanismeihin. Ketkä tulevaisuustietoa tuottavat, millaisia vaihtoehtoisia tulevaisuuksia nämä nostavat keskusteluun, mitä intressejä tulevaisuustieto palvelee, ja miten tulevaisuustieto suhteutuu nykyhetken yhteiskunnalliseen tilanteeseen ja sen sosio-materiaalisiin olosuhteisiin. Samalla se avaa tilaa aiheille ja äänille, jotka jäävät helposti teemavalintojen katveeseen. Heidän kirjallisuuskatsauksensa mukaan ruokajärjestelmäskenaariot perustuvat usein kvantitatiivisesti mitattaviin muuttujiin, kuten maankäyttöön ja satomääriin. Avoin kirjoittajakutsu mahdollistaa kiinnostavien tulevaisuusaiheisten tekstien kokoamisen ilman määrätyn aihealueen rajoituksia. Ennakoinnista ja tulevaisuustiedosta on tullut keskeinen osa yhteiskunnallisen hallinnan ja keskustelun prosesseja. Kalle Aro, Karoliina Rimhanen, Pasi Rikkonen ja Titta Tapiola käsittelevät artikkelissaan suomalaisia, eurooppalaisia ja globaaleja ruokajärjestelmäskenaarioita. Yhä useammin sosiologien katse kuitenkin suuntautuu yhteiskunnallisiin epäjatkuvuuksiin, vaihtoehtoisiin tulevaisuuksiin ja niille merkitystä antaviin sosioteknologisiin imaginääreihin, sekä luovaan (poliittiseen) toim?uuteen (Urry 2016). Kun ennakointi ja sen tuottama tulevaisuustieto kasvattavat merkitystään poliittisen, ekologisen ja taloudellisen hallinnan sekä päätöksenteon välineenä ja myös yhteiskunnallisen keskustelun materiaalina, niiden kriittisestä tarkastelusta tulee entistäkin tärkeämpää. Numeron artikkelit Numerossa on kaksi vertaisarvioitua artikkelia. Ruokajärjestelmien skenaarioita on tuotettu runsaasti ja erilaisista teoreettisista ja metodologisista lähtökohdista. Aiheiltaan laaja artikkelikirjo he?astaa tilannetta, jossa tulevaisuustietoa tuotetaan yhä enemmän ja sen tuottamiseen osallistuu laaja joukko eri taustoja sekä intressejä edustavia toim?oita. Aron ja kumppanien artikkeli tarjoaa viitekehikon ruokajärjestemäskenaarioiden systemaattiseen vertailuun. Sosiologin silmin tulevaisuus on perinteisesti hahmottunut yhteiskunnallisten trendien, rakenteiden, sekä rutiinien suorana ja toisteisena jatkumona (Bell & Mau 1971). Tulevaisuudentutkimuksessa yhteiskuntatieteellisesti orientoituneet, kriittis-analyyttiset lähestymistavat ovatkin yleistyneet alaa perinteisesti hallinneen realistis-pragmaattisen, päätöksentekoa tukevan otteen rinnalla (Ahlqvist & Rhisiart 2015; Minkkinen 2020). Perinteisestä tulevaisuudentutkimuksesta poiketen tulevaisuussuuntautunut sosiaaliteoria korostaa tulevaisuustiedon ja toim?uuden relationaalista, materiaalista, ja sosiaalista muovautumista metodologisen individualismin ja pragmatististen, hyötynäkökohtia palvelevien otteiden s?aan (Tutton 2017). Tämä johtaa usein konservatiivisiin skenaarioihin, joissa Tulevaisuustiedon laajeneva kenttä. Numeron artikkelit edustavat sekä tulevaisuustietoa tuottavia että sitä (kriittisesti) arvioivia lähestymistapoja
Koska tällainen tiedusteluapparaatti vaatisi merkittäviä taloudellisia resursseja, yksityinen tiedustelu voi vahvistaa globaalien suuryritysten valtaa entisestään. Hakalan mukaan ennakointi on ammattikorkeaopetuksen ydintä, sillä se ei valmista opiskel?oita ainoastaan tämän hetken vaan nopeasti muuttuvan, tulevaisuuden työelämän tarpeisiin. Näin ne ovat heikkoja signaaleja paitsi hengellisyyden, mahdollisesti myös laajemmasta evankelis-luterilaisen kirkon muutoksesta. Artikkelin tulosten näkökulmasta ruokajärjestelmien radikaali uudistaminen edellyttääkin poliittista ohjausta ja poliittista visiointia markkinakysynnän mukaan tapahtuvan ohjauksen ohella. Näin ennakointi näyttäytyy jokapäiväisenä sosiaalisena käytäntönä yhtä lailla kuin erillisenä ennakointityönä. Ei-vertaisarvioiduista artikkeleista ensimmäisessä Olli Hasu avaa vaihtoehtoja nykyisille “vihreän kapitalismin” skenaarioille, joissa ekologinen hallinta ilmastonmuutoksen ja luontokadon hillitsemiseksi annetaan tyypillisesti ?nanssimarkkinoiden ja markkinakilpailun tehtäväksi. Työpajoissa käsitellyt heikot signaalit ennakoivat hengellisyyden maallistumista ja moninaistumista. Toisessa artikkelissa Lari Lohikoski esittelee evankelis-luterilaisen kirkon Kirkkohallituksen tuoreimman tulevaisuusselonteon tuloksia. 3 3/23 F Juho Ruotsalainen ruokajärjestelmät ja niiden toim?at pysyvät pääpiirteissään nykyisen kaltaisina. Artikkeli ammentaa vaihtoehtoisen ekologisen hallintajärjestelmän aineksia poliittisesta historiasta ja spekulatiivisesta tulevaisuudesta. Kolmannessa artikkelissa Anne Hakala pureutuu käytännön ennakointiin eli ammattikorkeakoulujen ennakointiprosesseihin osana opetussuunnitelmatyötä. Kyberneetikko Sta?ord Beerin luoma ja Chilen Salvador Allenden hallinnon 1970-luvulla soveltama kyberneettinen talouden koordinaatiojärjestelmä tarjoaa esimerkin niin markkinaohjauksen kuin keskusjohtoisen hallinnan ulkopuolella tapahtuvasta hajautetusta päätöksenteosta ja sosioekologisen informaation käsittelystä. Tuovila korostaakin yksityisen tiedustelun kehitysnäkymien arviointia paitsi kansallisen turvallisuuden ja liiketoiminnan, myös kansalaisyhteiskunnan näkökulmasta. Kirkon aiemmista, asiantunt?a-arvioihin perustuvista ennakointiprosesseista poiketen tulevaisuusselonteko rakennettiin tulevaisuustyöpajamuotoisen heikkojen signaalien keräämisen ja analysoinnin pohjalle. Lohikosken mukaan heikot signaalit osoittavat ristiriitaan kirkon jäsenten hengellisyyskäsitysten ja vakiintuneen kirkollisen valtavirran välillä. Robinsonin trilogiassa Marsin talousjärjestelmä perustuu planetaaristen systeemien reaaliaikaiselle mallinnukselle ja sen asettamille ekologis-taloudellisille reunaehdoille. Myös neljäs artikkeli käsittelee ammattikorkeakoulujen ennakointia. Tuloksissa korostuvat tämänpuoleisen elämän merkityksellisyys, luonto henkisyyden ja transsendenssin lähteenä, elämänmuotojen ekologinen kestävyys, kokeileva hengellisyys, inhimillisen monimuotoisuuden hyväksyminen, sekä entistä kuuntelevampi ja avoimempi kirkko. Systemaattisen kirjallisuuskatsauksen kautta Tuovila luo kokonaiskuvan alasta ja sen toim?oista. Analyysin perusteella Tuovila ennakoi yksityisen tiedustelun kasvattavan merkitystään tulevaisuudessa. Toisessa vertaisarvioidussa artikkelissa Roope Tuovila käsittelee nousevaa tulevaisuustiedon muotoa, yksityistä tiedustelua. Henkilöstöä, opiskel?oita ja sidosryhmiä mukaan ottavat ennakointiprosessit eivät Hakalan mukaan ainoastaan auta tunnistamaan nousevia osaamistarpeita, vaan kehittävät osallistujien yleistä tulevaisuustietoisuutta ja -orientaatiota. Kehitys herättää kysymyksiä, sillä Tuovilan mukaan yksityisten tiedustelutoim?oiden kyvykkyydet vastaavat pitkälti valtiollisen tiedustelun kyvykkyyksiä toimintatapojen sekä tiedon keräysja analyysiteknologioiden suhteen. Tieteiskirjail?a Kim Stanley Robinson puolestaan kuvaa Mars-trilogiassaan 2020-luvulta 2200-luvulle ulottuvaa Mars-planeetan asuttamista ja sosioekologista hallintaa. Tuovila hahmottelee skenaariota, jossa yksityinen tiedustelutaho kykenee hyödyntämään tiedustelumenetelmien ja -teknologioiden koko kirjoa, saaden näin merkittävän informaatioylivoiman suhteessa ympäristöönsä. Sen s?aan transformatiivisia skenaarioita tuottavat teknologiseen innovaatioon ja järjestelmämuutokseen keskittyvät sekä tulevaisuuskuvia luovat skenaarioprosessit. Mauri Kantola, Mervi Friman, Pentti Rauhala, Hannu Kotila ja Tapio Kalevi Huttula esittelevät neljä ammattikorkeakoulutuksen tulevaisuuskuvaa, jotka ovat
syntyneet kirjoittajien keskinäisen työpajatyöskentelyn tuloksena. Russell Sage Foundation, New York. Teoksessa Bell, Wendell & James A. Väitöskirja. Toim?oiden kokonaisuudesta muodostuvassa kansallisessa ennakoint?ärjestelmässä korostuvat käytännön tarpeet. Ensimmäisessä, kestävän kehityksen tulevaisuuskuvassa ammattikorkeakoulut keskittyvät ratkomaan globaaleja ympäristöongelmia. Neljännessä tulevaisuuskuvassa nopeasti muuttuva maailma on johtanut perinteisen koulutuksen ja osaamisen arvostuksen laskuun, ja ammattikorkeakoulut vastaavat kehitykseen tarjoamalla lyhyitä täsmäkoulutuksia. Koska tulevaisuusajattelulla on niin keskeinen rooli suomalaisessa päätöksenteossa, tuotetun tulevaisuustiedon uskottavuus ja relevanssi hyötyisivät aiempaa kriittisimmistä otteista. Mau (1971): Images of the Future: Theory and Research Strategies. 3/23 4 Futura Vieraileva päätoimittaja Juho Ruotsalainen, YTM Turun yliopisto, Tulevaisuuden tutkimuskeskus Väitöskirjatutk?a juho.ruotsalainen@utu.. Toisessa tulevaisuuskuvassa ammattikorkeakoulutus sulautuu entistä vahvemmin työelämään ja keskittyy palvelemaan elinikäistä (työelämä)oppimista. Useat myös tämän numeron artikkeleista vastaavat päätöksenteon käytännön tarpeisiin, mutta pitävät sisällään myös kriittistä re?ektointia ja instituutioiden kyseenalaistamista. Mau (toim.): The Sociology of the Future: Theory, Cases, and Annotated Bibliography (6– 44). Numeron tekstit he?astavat ennakoinnin, tulevaisuudentutkimuksen ja tulevaisuusajattelun keskeistä asemaa suomalaisessa päätöksenteossa ja tutkimuksessa. 91–104. Lähteet Ahlqvist, Toni & Martin Rhisiart (2015): Emerging pathways for critical futures research: Changing contexts and impacts of social theory, Futures 71, s. Urry, John (2016): What is the Future. Bell, Wendell & James A. 478–492. Tulevaisuustiedon laajeneva kenttä. Turun yliopisto. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. Minkkinen, Matti (2020): A breathless race for breathing space: Critical-analytical futures studies and the contested co-evolution of privacy imaginaries and institutions. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis, sarja E: 55. Kansalliseen ennakointiin osallistuvat erilaiset tahot ministeriöistä ja opetushallituksesta yliopistojen ja maakuntien liiton kaltaisiin toim?oihin. Kolmannessa tulevaisuuskuvassa alueiden välinen kiristynyt kilpailu resursseista ja osaajista on johtanut paikallisuuden korostumiseen ja alueiden välisen yhteistyön hapertumiseen. Publications of Russell Sage Foundation. Tutton, Richard (2017): Wicked futures: meaning, matter and the sociology of the future, The Sociological Review 65(3), s
We also propose a set of four scenario types, which represent scenarios in the food system foresight literature, and discuss their use with stakeholders. The results provide tools to students and scholars to make sense of and evaluate the di?erent methodological elements and scenario types commonly encountered in the food system foresight literature. Scenarios are a powerful tool for imagining the futures of food systems. Tässä tutkimuksessa tarkastelimme 19 ruokajärjestelmään keskittyvää skenaariotyötä ja tarkastelimme, millaisia skenaarioita viimeaikaisessa kirjallisuudessa esiintyy. Skenaarioita luodaan monilla eri tavoilla, jotka eroavat toisistaan tarkastelukehyksen, aineiston keräämisen ja analyysimenetelmän osalta. Tutkimus tarjoaa työkaluja ruokajärjestelmäskenaarioiden tulkitsemiseen ja vertailuun.. 5 3/23 F PEER-REVIEW ARTICLE What is a food system scenario made of. We found six prominent dichotomies, which a?ect the scenario design in the food system context and are partially applicable to a wider range of scenario studies. Our work provides an overview of di?erent methodological elements present in the recent food system scenario literature with examples from contemporary studies. Titta Tapiola MSc, MBA, MA, Doctoral Researcher, Natural Resources Institute Finland titta.tapiola@luke.. Agroecology, Research Scientist, Natural Resources Institute Finland karoliina.rimhanen@luke.. Keywords: food system; foresight; scenario methodology; review K u va : L u ke K u va : E rk ki O ks a n en /L u ke K u va : L u ke K u va : To m m i S a ss i Abstrakti Skenaarioita voidaan käyttää tehokkaasti ruokajärjestelmien tulevaisuuksien tarkasteluun. A variety of methodologies exists to construct such scenarios, with di?erences in the selected frameworks, data collection techniques, and analysis approaches, all of which a?ect the resulting scenarios. (Econ. Tutkimuksemme tarjoaa katsauksen viimeaikaisiin ruokajärjestelmän skenaariotyössä tehtyihin menetelmällisiin vaihtoehtoihin ja antaa näihin esimerkkejä kirjallisuudesta. Pasi Rikkonen D.Sc. Näillä valinnoilla on vaikutusta siihen, millaiseksi skenaariot voivat muodostua. We reviewed 19 scenario studies pertaining to food systems to establish a set of dichotomies, which highlight the variety of di?erent methodological approaches and scenario elements. Tarkastelumme pohjalta loimme kuusi dikotomiaa, jotka jäsentävät ruokajärjestelmäskenaarioissa käytettyjä menetelmällisiä valintoja ja skenaarioiden ominaisuuksia. Karoliina Rimhanen Ph.D. Rakennamme myös neljä erilaista skenaariotyyppiä, jotka pyrkivät edustamaan ruokajärjestelmäskenaarioiden menetelmällistä kirjoa. and Bus.Adm.), Research Professor, Natural Resources Institute Finland pasi.rikkonen@luke.. Keskustelemme näiden skenaariotyyppien ominaisuuksista, eroavaisuuksista ja käytöstä sidosryhmien kanssa. Review of scenario elements in Finnish, European and Global studies Kalle Aro Master in Environment, Energy and Society, Doctoral Researcher, Natural Resources Institute Finland kalle.aro@luke.
2005; Wack 1985). fertilisers); primary production; processing; packaging; distribution; retail; and consumption (Ericksen 2008). 2. preserving or transforming scenarios (Börjeson et al. What kind of scenario elements are present in food system studies. et al. What types of scenarios are present in the food system scenario literature. We reviewed food system scenarios with three spatial scales (Finland, Europe, and global), which contain di?erent methodological and thematic elements that a?ect the scenario construction in food system foresight. Our comparative literature review on food system scenarios answers the following research questions: 1. 2020; Kishita et al. Backcasting is especially utilised when a great change is envisioned and required, i.e. Food systems can be de?ned as consisting of the activities and infrastructure needed to produce food: input industries (e.g. 2019). 2017; van Me. There are scenario studies on emerging novel food systems, but descriptive for those are that the studies are very focused on certain novel products or technology (see e.g. Backcasting scenarios are inherently normative and can be constructed by either using participatory methods or desk research. While globalisation has generated an increasing degree of interconnectedness in food systems, the national and regional contexts of geography, weather conditions, political institutions, and societal norms greatly a?ect the food system dynamics. Exploratory scenarios are also often participatory and involve quantitative and qualWhat is a food system scenario made of?. energy studies, with a multitude of proven scienti?c solutions (e.g. Pippinato et al. 2016; Kalt et al. A food system can be de?ned by geography, but it often has many connections and interdependencies with other spatial scales (e.g. 3/23 6 Futura Introduction Food systems are facing pressures in both the national and the global domains. The aim of this article is to explore the variety of scenario elements present in contemporary food system scenarios. 2006). 2017; Rikkonen & Tapio 2009; Tapio et al. All processes have social, cultural, economic, environmental, and political aspects, including governance. Predictive scenarios present probable futures, i.e. Heinonen et al. 2018; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). As a result, scenarios are widely used by organisations and communities for strategic planning (e.g. They can also include quantitative aspects, i.e. 2003). In addition to the requirement that there should usually be more than one scenario, scenarios need to be relevant, coherent, transparent, and plausible (Durance & Godet 2010; Godet & Roubelat 1996). conventional and modern agriculture. they contain forecasting. 2017), the role of food system scenarios has become important in the face of ecological drivers, such as climate change and biodiversity loss, and as the global phenomena of population growth and food security gained increased attention on the global political agenda (e.g. FAO 2018; Holman et al. Food systems are complex systems, and scenarios are powerful tools to imagine futures in such systems. 2022), and of course, researchers in di?erent contexts. a mixed methods approach (van Notten et al. Brad?eld et al. Transforming scenarios such as backcasting scenarios have their starting point in the future as a prioritised target or vision (Börjeson et al. 2005; Godet 2000), governments for political decision making (e.g. 2020; Dick et al. external or strategic (internal) scenarios. Ehlers et al. inputs, or the import and export of products). While the use of scenarios is well established in many ?elds of science, e.g. It is also notable that a majority of food system scenario studies consists of traditional farming, i.e. predictive, explorative, and normative, based on probable, possible, or preferable futures (Amara 1991). 2006). While there exists a variety of food system scenarios constructed with a wide range of methodological approaches, the literature on how to compare these approaches is limited. Various scenario typologies have previously been identi?ed, e.g. Explorative scenarios present possible futures, i.e. Finally, normative scenarios present preferable futures, i.e. when current developments are leading to unwanted futures (Höjer & Mattsson 2000). Scenarios in brief The scenario technique migrated to the business world via the RAND Corporation and Royal Dutch Shell, after scenario planning had ?rst been initiated in the military context (US Department of Defense) (Bell 2003; Brad?eld et al
The studies were reviewed and selected to portray the widest methodological range possible. In the broadest sense, scenarios can be understood as “qualitative storylines, quanti?ed descriptions of alternative futures, or anything in between” which “can be used to describe, explore and communicate how the future may unfold” (Mitter et al. The queries from WoS resulted in 221 unique entries in total. The ?nal set comprises both qualitative and quantitative scenarios with a variety of scenario methodologies applied. Based on the titles, abstracts, and methodology sections, we excluded articles that had the wrong spatial scope, generally meaning national case studies outside of Finland or with a sub-national emphasis, or studies that did not include scenario creation. Additional keywords, future, transition, transformation, food*, and Finnish were used for a second query targeting articles pertaining to the Finnish food system. Web of Science (WoS) was used as the primary database, where we used keywords scenario, foresight, “food system”, Europe*, Finland, and global to ?nd academic literature published between 2014–2021. The search in Google Scholar was treated as secondary and was conducted for the purpose of enriching the sample, especially at the Finnish and European spatial levels. 2011). (2006), Reilly & Willenbockel (2010), and Benton (2019) were re?ected upon during the analysis. After the ?rst round of coding, the methodological elements appeared to be the most fruitful point of departure for further analysis. Even if the de?nitions of scenarios and scenario techniques have quite long traditions in futures studies, it must be noted that scenarios are used quite ?exibly. The selected studies were analysed using qualitative content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon 2005). Moreover, we extended the search to Google Scholar and considered a few studies based on personal recommendations. Hence, the term scenario also remains contested. (For the framework for the data collection and the analysis, see Figure 1.) The studies contain both academic articles and grey literature highlighting food system futures. Therefore, a more nuanced coding was Aro, Rimhanen, Rikkonen & Tapiola. The content analysis approach was chosen to give primacy to the data, but existing scenario literature and typologies such as Börjeson et al. Initially, we coded the data for a thematic, spatial, and temporal focus together with the methodological elements used in the scenario building. On the one hand, in a policy-oriented scenario analysis, a scenario can be considered more like a de?ned policy option that changes the future development. Moreover, we excluded studies pertaining primarily to energy, general land use, soil nutrients, or single food commodities. Materials and methods For our analysis, we concentrated on studies that described and evaluated alternative futures for food systems in Finland, Europe, and on the global scale. The scenario process itself can also produce deep insights and knowledge, which may not be the main goal but a valuable aspect of scenario thinking (Godet 2000; He?den 2005; Schwartz 2012). The main themes in the sample include climate change, land use, food security, food trade, dietary change, and the structure of agriculture, with time dimensions of the scenarios varying between the years 2030 and 2050. Finally, we selected a sample of 19 studies by reviewing the pool of articles we had collected. 2011). food system change more broadly, a scenario can be seen as a holistic description or storyline of how the future evolves step by step from the present to the future. 7 3/23 F itative aspects (van Notten et al. Exploratory scenarios aim to raise awareness, ?exibility, and preparedness, stimulate creative thinking, and even change mental models (Hiltunen 2009; Wack 1985), or gain an understanding of how di?erent drivers in?uence each other (Kok et al. The exclusion process resulted in a set of 25 studies, which were considered suitable for further evaluation. 2020, 2). The search was supplemented by three papers from the Google Search engine to re?ect scenario analysis conducted outside of academia. For the sake of analysis, we decided to target scenario studies pertaining to agricultural food production, thus excluding studies discussing, for example, aquaculture. In comparison, backcasting scenarios are used to explore paths to futures that vary in their desirability (Kok et al. 2003). On the other hand, when anticipating e.g. The studies were chosen based on database searches using a variety of resources
The dichotomies are presented in the results section and summarised in Table 1. Framework for the data collection and the analysis. Dichotomies of methodological elements in food system scenarios. Figure 1. The ?nal categories were then assessed to distinguish di?erences and commonalities within the coded material. Table 1. Altogether, the coding can be described as inductive and iterative, where new categories were created throughout the analysis and the coding matrix was adjusted accordingly. 3/23 8 Futura conducted to gain more insight into the di?erences that these methodological approaches contained. We chose to present the results of the coding process as dichotomies, as they are clear and practical means to present the extremes in the methodological choices and scenario elements encountered. What is a food system scenario made of?. After the coding process, the categories were reviewed, condensed, and combined to form entities that would best represent the range of literature we reviewed
Such developments include many socio-political developments: changes in consumer values, the feasibility of di?erent policies and technical solutions, and the cultural aspects related to food. Other scenarios focus more on envisioning and uncovering new possible future scenarios to further expand the horizon of the possible food system futures. in Rikkonen 2017; Mora et al. While the di?erentiation between qualitative and quantitative approaches sits tight in many scienti?c ?elds, drawing the line between qualitative and quantitative scenario methods is less de?nitive. Frameworks, such as multilevel perspective on socio-technical transitions (e.g. Huan-Niemi et al. Lehtonen et al. 2020) are used to guide the systematic assessment of food system variables and dynamics. Type of foresight Variety exists in the focus and expected outcome of the scenarios. weighting the opinions and probabilities of experts (Popper 2008). Some scenarios aim to accurately portray the interactions within the food system and analyse the e?ects resulting from these dynamics. 2020), and integrated assessment models (e.g Van Vuuren et al. 2017), and assess food security under di?erent product portfolios (Van Vuuren et al. phenomena deemed important for the food system interaction, which can be measured or otherwise reliably portrayed as numerical values to allow the model to function. In contrast to quantitative scenario approaches, qualitative scenarios are more capable of addressing future developments, which are di?cult to accurately quantify, and where interactions of di?erent variables cannot be generalised. 2020; Lehtonen et al. in Kuhmonen & Kuhmonen 2019), background narratives such as shared socio-economic pathways (e.g. Projection scenarios are formulated with the aim of anticipating the most prominent developments a?ecting and alAro, Rimhanen, Rikkonen & Tapiola. 2021) or morphological tables (e.g. Qualitative scenario processes can take a variety of forms, which vary in their relation to the existing knowledge and theory, as well as data collection practices and the subsequent results that the analysis may yield. Quantitative food system scenarios tend to evolve around estimating structural change in agricultural production (Lehtonen et al. 2015). When using qualitative scenario methods, quantifying the created scenarios in the foresight process may make them more approachable to larger audiences by aligning them with scenarios created using modelling tools. Quantitative methods measure variables and apply statistical analyses, employing or generating data using modelling or simulation. 9 3/23 F Results Qualitative and quantitative scenarios One main way to describe a methodology used in a food system scenario study (and generally in any research) is the division between qualitative and qualitative approaches (Amer et al 2013; Popper 2008). Three main modelling approaches in food system modelling comprise balance models (e.g. The term model itself includes a wide variety of applications with varied scope and level of complexity. 2015). Quantitative scenarios are therefore often associated with the use of models, which apply numerical values to portray variables within the food system, as well as the interactions and exchanges between them. The scenario process aims to identify, collect, condense, categorise, and restructure the data to make sense of the variables and interactions within the food system against a selected framework. The literature also recognises semi-quantitative methods, which apply mathematics to quantify subjectivity, i.e. Furthermore, every quantitative scenario requires a qualitative analysis to make sense of the numerical results generated by the model in the selected context. 2020), economic equilibrium models (e.g. The variables that can be used in a model are economic, demographic, technical, geographical, etc. Whereas quantitative approaches are powerful when system variables can be measured, qualitative methods allow more nuanced interpretations of di?erent events and can build on personal views and knowledge. Hence, qualitative scenarios expand the scenario horizon to cover aspects that quantitative models generally cannot. in Mitter et al. Almost every scenario study involves both qualitative and quantitative aspects: modelling approaches include qualitatively created scenario setups, which are further populated or transformed into numerical equivalents for modelling purposes. 2020), analyse land-use e?ects (Röös et al
Mitter et al. Special attention was paid to the developments and interventions that would have to occur in the agricultural and food policies to make the transition feasible. (2020) studied the Finnish food system under ?ve di?erent future diets as the starting point, analysing the changes these dietary shifts would imply for the Finnish food production. For example, Röös et al. Kuhmonen 2017; Rubin 2013) are often more explorative than scenarios presented as projections, and while they pay attention to dynamics that formulate and enable the given future state, they are more focused in exploring the various future states generated. For example, the interest of Odegard & van der Voet (2014) was in assessing global land, water, and fertiliser use in 2050 for a complete diet in the global population. Hence, the analysis leant towards the projections side of the dichotomy. On the other hand, Mathjis et al. (2020) and Lehtonen et al. According to the authors, their selected approach aimed to improve the “understanding of future developments and the forces likely to shape them” rather than “predicting the future” (ibid. Stakeholders can be engaged in participatory data collection both to validate quantitative data sets and to more qualitatively anticipate future trends and their interaction. Mora et al. (2020) used morphological analysis to create multiple combinations of external and internal drivers in global food systems. In Kuhmonen & Kuhmonen (2019), the interviewees described their views on the future of Finnish agriculture, What is a food system scenario made of?. Their analysis was conducted with the aim of accurately quantifying future resource use and discussing the implications of the results. Huan-Niemi et al. Hence, backcasting is more focused on the developments, drivers, and measures required to achieve the chosen future, and often more concerned with accuracy in its analysis. Their analysis aimed not to speci?cally quantify or evaluate probabilities, but to explore the possible future operating conditions for European agriculture based on the analysis. (2018, 3) aimed to “develop mediumto long-term explorative scenarios describing possible futures for the external environment that EU farming systems face”. Somewhere between frontcasting and backcasting are scenarios in which the general conditions of alternative futures are de?ned, but their more accurate end state is left ambiguous. 3/23 10 Futura tering the food system in the future. The quantitative models often utilise databases or numerical values based on the existing literature. Hence, the scenarios would mostly be created in a frontcasting manner, but still describe the food system’s future in the conditions set prior to the scenario construction. (2017) collected data for their model using primarily publications by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, supplemented by the relevant research and grey literature. Direction of the analysis Frontcasting scenarios take the current system as a starting point, without giving the scenarios set end states. The themes and general direction of the scenario exercise may be implied, but the scenarios are generally more interested in the e?ects that the individual developments have on the scenario outcome. (2021) utilised shared socioeconomic pathways (SSP) as background descriptions to study the futures of the European food system and Finnish agriculture respectively. p. Projections pay attention to analysis, especially to the formal logics by which the scenario elements interact with one another, making projections very common within quantitative, model-based scenario construction that aims at producing multiple projections based on altering the key assumptions in simulation runs. In contrast, when scenarios pay more attention to the end state of the developments, we refer to them as future images. Future images (see e.g. The role of background descriptions, or storylines, was to deliberately create different system conditions in which the scenarios would be developed. The backcasting approach is chosen to uncover new pathways to system outcomes that have been set prior to the analysis. Frontcasting scenarios can thus be best used to assess sensitivities between di?erent economic and environmental developments, or to uncover the new futures which form through the cross-e?ects of di?erent developments. Statistical and participatory data collection The data for the scenario study can be collected in various ways, in which our dichotomy di?erentiates between statistical and participatory data collection. 4)
The main actors capable of initiating the change are actors in food production (farmers, the food industry), consumers through dietary change, or politicians directly or indirectly by a?ecting the economic, normative, or legislative conditions in which the food system operates. 11 3/23 F as well as the drivers and outcomes these futures contained. Production-push occurs when the food system change is mainly initiated through actions from the production side. Additionally, throughout the scenario process, Mitter et al. (2016), where 29 stakeholders participated in a Delphi panel via a questionnaire and face-to-face interviews to evaluate the outcomes and e?ects of alternative climate change mitigation policy scenarios to Finnish farms. (2014), the consumption of animal-derived food is assumed to reduce, which is found to have positive e?ects on the land use and the GHG emissions in European agriculture, due to the production response in agricultural production. (2020) reviewed the existing SSP literature to establish major topics and storyline elements for their scenarios before engaging with more than 100 European stakeholders to create their EUR-Agri narratives. In Lehtonen (2020), food demand is expected to undergo only minimal changes until 2035, and the agency is given to agricultural producers who change their farming techniques and land use patterns. Odegard & van der Voet 2014). In contrast, diversi?cation relies on a regionally adjusted and self-su?cient production with agroecological farming practices and nutrient cycles (e.g Mora et al 2020). Similarly, the rapid Aro, Rimhanen, Rikkonen & Tapiola. Novel production system scenarios rely on technological advancements as a key driver in food production transformation. In Röös et al. Intensi?cation aims for global and economically e?cient food production, which is achieved through more e?cient use of production inputs and land use (e.g. Food production system foci Food system scenarios seem to generally favour quantitative changes in food production characteristics such as land-use, crop yields, and product portfolios, which easily result in traditional production system scenarios. Traditional production system scenarios expect farming-based food production and contemporary actors to remain central for food production in the future. The policy change expected in the scenarios is a combination of carrot and stick, as the economic conditions for sustainable farming are improved with targeted subsidies, and undesired farming activities result in lower subsidy levels. This e?ect may be a result of either necessity or an opportunity, which causes farmers and the food industry to act proactively. The majority of the scenarios we reviewed expected the food system to undergo either intensi?cation or diversi?cation processes, where food production maintains its contemporary characteristics, yet transforms into di?erent forms. Demand-pull occurs when the change is more demand oriented, usually as result of a policy intervention or a change in consumer dietary preferences due to economic or ideological reasons. The locus of food system change Changes in food systems are often a result of an action taken by an actor that directly or indirectly a?ects the food system. The food system structure undergoes signi?cant changes when new actors enter the system, and the food production systems are signi?cantly altered. (2017), the introduction of arti?cial meat and other novel protein sources is expected to replace traditional livestock systems completely, thus e?ectively removing the need for arable land in protein production. The stakeholder input data were collected through over 50 interviews, re?ned with a research group, and validated with causal loop diagrams by Mathjis et al. Demand-pull oriented scenarios often show rather conservative changes in technological development, focusing mostly on quantitative changes in agricultural production areas and product portfolios under traditional farming techniques. Mitter et al. In Westhoek et al. (2018). Similarly, according to Huan-Niemi et al. Stakeholders were also involved in a study by Rintamäki et al. (2021) Finnish food consumption is changing towards more plantand ?sh-based diets, creating a demand-pull e?ect in the Finnish food system. Multiple data sources can be combined to achieve a more comprehensive set of materials for the scenarios. (2020) arranged a series of workshops, where the stakeholders participated in the scenario creation, evaluation, and validation
We emphasise that the scenario types presented here are not an exhaustive list of all the available scenario types, but rather a compilation based on the results of this article (Table 2). Four di?erent types of food system scenarios To illustrate how di?erent scenario elements can be combined in food system foresight, we propose a set of four di?erent scenario types based on our dichotomies of scenario elements. The Finnish food system scenarios also appear rather agriculture and policy centric, which highlights the prominence that EU-level decisions have on the Finnish food system (Rikkonen 2017). 2006). Moreover, the synergies between quantitative modelling, projections, and statistical data collection are apparent in our sample of scenario studies. 2020), have emerged to challenge the purely quantitative models and their epistemological choices on a global level. However, it is rather safe to say that some scenario elements complement each other better than others. Workshop exercises (Mitter et al. In our analysis, the three spatial scales had surprisingly limited in?uence on the scenario elements. (2006), we ?nd similarities when combining di?erent foresight types and di?erent directions of the analysis. 2016), and interviews (Kuhmonen & Kuhmonen 2019) all resulted in scenarios that are more di?erent from one another compared to the scenarios created with modelling tools. Re?ecting on the scenario typology proposed by Börjesson et al. 2020; Hamilton et al. 2020), the Delphi method (Rintamäki et al. Computer simulation models have historically had a great foothold on global agrifood foresight, yet they have also encountered increasing critique due to their in-built economic axioms and tendency to standardise food system realities (Dorin & Joly 2020). Novel production system scenarios are often accompanied with a production-push e?ect, as the scenarios are generally envisioned to be a result of an economic and technological opportunity. Novel production systems scenarios are described to be less probable compared to traditional production systems, due to the high requirements in technological development as well as economic feasibility. (2014). Policy targets and nuanced policy e?ects were arguably better included in Finnish and European studies, whereas the global scenarios relied more on general descriptions of global political development. Quantitative scenarios seem to work well with frontcasting practices and participatory data collection. Both qualitative and quantitative scenarios were found at all spatial levels, as well as future images and projections. We believe our dichotomies of food system scenario elements can support these typologies and allow rather innovative combinations of di?erent scenario elements. However, scenarios that aim for future images are generally more inclined to be created in a frontcasting manner, resembling explorative scenarios. We did ?nd a tendency to favour quantitative approaches in global and European level studies compared to the Finnish level, which is in line with Bourgeois’ (2017) observation. The projection foresight type seems to be applicable to both frontcasting and backcasting, resulting in scenario studies that are highly similar to forecasts and normative scenarios, respectively. Recently, more foresight tools, such as Agrimonde-Terra (Mora et al. A combination of future images and backcasting appears an unlikely combination, but could resemble the pluralist backcasting approach applied by Järvi et al. Similarly, the production push-e?ect was more common in the Finnish studies compared to the European and global level studies, which often held demand-pull from dietary change as the dominant e?ect that shapes food production. Discussion There are multiple scenario typologies, which aim to categorise intent, probability, and logical ?ow in scenario studies (Amara 1991; Börjesson et al. 3/23 12 Futura technical development in Hamilton et al. They have a narrow thematic scope which, in our case, focused mainly on analysing the means to reduce the climate e?ects What is a food system scenario made of?. ‘Policy scenarios for policy planners and decision-makers’ are quantitative and modelled scenarios that are generally constructed in conjunction with policy analysis or other strategic planning activities. (2020) results in a signi?cantly decreasing number of food producers and suppliers, making farming systems largely reliant on information technology and automation
Visioning scenarios are generally frontcast scenarios, where the interest is on the future visions and the combination of developments that enable those futures to occur. Generally, data scenarios are e?ective in portraying the cross-e?ects of a few selected variables that can be modelled in multiple iterations to generate a large number of scenarios. As a result, policy scenarios can e?ectively be used to generate quanti?ed targets for policymakers and stakeholders, useful as a basis for further policy planning. However, the tendency to favour only a few variables of interest may simplify the food system dynamic within the modelling. A major strength of the data scenarios is the rather transparent description of the model, as a detailed description of the model and its operating logic is often found in conjunction with the scenarios. Table 2. Finally, ‘visioning scenarios for new futures’ utilise qualitative scenario construction to explore possible future images with a high degree of ?exibility in the framework and materials. Dominant elements in di?erent scenario types. This contrasts with the mostly techno-economic variables driving the modelling in the previous scenario types. The scenarios also pay more attention to the agency of groups and individuals, whereas other scenario types may easily treat them as variables whose actions are merely reactive to other system variables. The thematic and spatial scope of the analysis may vary greatly, but visioning scenarios are generally used on the national or subnational level, as the data processing requires rather detailed knowledge of the selected system(s). Within this thematic scope, policy scenarios provide a detailed analysis of di?erent endogenous and exogenous elements a?ecting the structure of the food system. 13 3/23 F of food production. They also aim to accurately model and project the effects that di?erent policy actions could generate through the food system. As a result, the scenarios often pinpoint future states and are presented as narrative descriptions, lacking accurate quantitative estimations or illustrations. The trends scenarios can be either frontcasting or backcasting scenarios, yet they are rather independent and thus hard to compare because of the complex interactions within the holistic and qualitative system portrayal. The modelling and spatial scales of the analysis may vary depending on the given theme and variables selected. Aro, Rimhanen, Rikkonen & Tapiola. ‘Trends for exploring and constructing macro-level scenarios’ are qualitative scenarios which emphasise the identi?cation and exploration of the trajectory changes that a?ect the food systems. In general, trends scenarios utilise a combination of literature reviews and participatory stakeholder methods in their data generation, with the emphasis often on the latter. Visioning scenarios can be generated solely based on the literature by collecting and combining identi?ed system developments in di?erent futures, but participatory data collection methods, such as interviews and workshops, are also common. These scenarios take a more holistic approach to the food system dynamics by including social, cultural, and political variables in the scenario construction as more independent variables. Similarly, ‘Detailed data scenarios for aiming on accuracy’ use quantitative modelling to construct either backcast or frontcast scenarios
Due to the more speci?c knowledge required to fully engage with quantitative scenario approaches and modelling frameworks, stakeholder engagement in data and policy scenarios often tends to be more exclusive. Therefore, trends scenarios may prove useful in engaging stakeholders in the early phase of the process to pitch in and deliberate their views, thus inviting a more explorative discussion of di?erent futures. Data scenarios can be used e?ectively to visualise and address the sensitivities between Table 3. When the focus of a study is to explore speci?c stakeholders’ perception of di?erent futures, visioning scenarios allow nuanced and tailored tools for the analysis. 3/23 14 Futura Involving stakeholders with di?erent types of scenarios In relation to the four proposed scenario types, next we discuss how (based on their strengths and weaknesses, see Table 3) di?erent scenario types can be e?ectively used with stakeholders. What is a food system scenario made of?. Common strengths and weaknesses of di?erent scenario types. Moreover, stakeholder participation is central when building legitimacy for policy decisions that emerge from a scenario analysis (Wright et al. According to Hebinck et al. 2015). (2018), stakeholder participation in foresight can serve three purposes when addressing transformative change in food systems: 1) the pre-conceptualisation of change; 2) creating an avenue for new actor networks; 3) creating tangible strategies with a high chance of implementation. Furthermore, visioning scenarios may be suited for stakeholder engagement for the purpose of transforming identi?ed macro-trends into more detailed drivers regarding their nuanced spatial and thematic scopes. Trends scenarios may be used to form an important starting point to understand the holistic and interconnected nature of the food system by identifying trends, drivers, and challenges of food system futures. 2021; Oteros-Rozas et al. Visioning scenarios are also ?tting for stakeholder engagement due to their ?exible nature. 2020). Stakeholder engagement is often considered bene?cial for a scenario process, because it exposes the process to a wider range of practical issues and often introduces a larger variety of societal perceptions to the scenario planning process, by promoting active discussion between researchers and other actors in the society (Andersen et al. They are also capable of promoting an inclusive discussion between different segments of the society due to the holistic nature of their approach. However, when it comes to communicating scenario results and using scenarios as tools for strategic planning, quantitative scenario approaches are often considered more robust in their methodology (Tetart 2020). Both visioning and trends scenarios enable addressing complex socio-political interactions, thus allowing more freedom in the scenario discussion compared to the more limited framework of quantitative modelling. A larger number of scenarios can thus be established for deliberation about their possibility, desirability, and probability
Based on our analysis of the food system scenario reviewed, we propose a checklist to be considered in a scenario process. Through this kind of a checklist, it is possible to follow and enrich the guidelines that have been de?ned as part of a successful scenario planning. E.g. Moreover, expert stakeholders may be engaged to construct and validify any data sets used for a data scenario analysis. • Who is the end user of the scenarios. Is the scenario construction based on desk research or is it participatory. • What are the system boundaries. political decision makers, food companies, researchers, or a group of various stakeholders. Conclusion and recommendations In this paper, we investigated the food system scenario literature and the methodological elements found in contemporary studies. What are the spatial, temporal, and thematic frames of interest. data from workshops, Delphi surveys or statistics. • Are scenarios intended to be based on accuracy or of a holistic nature. Visioning scenarios use qualitative tools to explore new futures with a higher degree of ?exibility in the methodological applications, as well as thematic and spatial framing. Van der He?den (1996) pinpoints the following Aro, Rimhanen, Rikkonen & Tapiola. We reviewed scenarios at the global, European, and Finnish national levels to establish dichotomies that portrayed the variety in the scenario elements present. Because policy scenarios are generally created in conjunction with a strategic decision-making process where the stakeholder interaction is generally expert based, the complexity of quantitative modelling may not be such a signi?cant issue compared to more inclusive scenario processes. 15 3/23 F selected variables, thus being particularly useful in exploring and validating prominent macro development identi?ed by stakeholders. The selection can be based on the four types of scenarios, i.e. Policy scenarios aim for high quantitative projection accuracy with a narrow thematic scope, often in conjunction with strategic planning. The direction of a scenario analysis can be either forward-looking frontcasting (where are we headed?) or back-tracking backcasting (how did we get there?). E.g. For communication purposes, policy scenarios are strong tools to visualise a small number of future pathways for wider audiences, due to the small number of scenarios presented. If participatory, who will is involved and how. We found that food system scenarios vary between quantitative and qualitative approaches, which still appears to be the major dividing point in the scenario ?eld. • What is/are the method/s for constructing scenarios. The type of foresight contained in the food system scenario literature varies from projections aiming for accuracy to futures images that emphasise envisioning and discovering new futures. Quantitative or qualitative. • How are scenarios discussed or co-designed with key stakeholders. How are the scenarios discussed and distributed after the process. Policy, Data, Trend, or Visioning scenarios. Trends scenarios explore and identify macro-level trajectories a?ecting the food system more qualitatively. • What are the data used in scenarios. In addition, they allow high usability of the scenarios for executive purposes, because the comparison between baseline and alternative scenarios is presented in a straightforward manner. Data scenarios use a large number of scenarios to e?ectively explore or portray sensitivities between a limited number of variables. To illustrate the di?erent combinations of these scenario elements, we proposed four types of scenarios to give a more tangible portrayal of the variety of scenarios with di?erent methodological elements. This list is also a concluding summary of the scenario elements discussed in this paper. E.g. • What is the goal and purpose of the scenarios. Data for the scenario analysis can be collected from literature or pre-existing datasets, which often suit more quantitative scenarios, or through interviews, workshops, and surveys, which are more common when constructing qualitative scenarios. Similarly, novel production systems and production-oriented developments were less common in the scenarios we reviewed. A majority of the food system scenarios appear to favour futures with rather conventional agriculture and express food system transformation through the demand-pull e?ect. • What is the theoretical framework for scenario analysis. modelling or participatory, or both
613–34. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2020.102601. Ehlers, Melf-Hinrich, Robert Finger, Nadja El Benni, Alexander Gocht, Claus Aage Grøn Sørensen et al. 372–82. Hsieh, Hsiu-Fang & Sarah E. Amara, Roy (1991): Views on futures research methodology, Futures 23(6), p. What is a food system scenario made of?. 723–39. Vervoort, Paul Hebinck, Lucas Rutting & Francesca Galli (2018): Imagining Transformative Futures: Participatory Foresight for Food Systems Change, Ecology and Society 23(2). 126–35. Benton, Tim (2019): Using scenario analyses to address the future of food, EFSA JOURNAL 17. 3–22. doi: 10.23986/afsci.95282. Brad?eld, Ron, George Wright, George Burt, George Cairns & Kees Van Der He?den (2005): The Origins and Evolution of Scenario Techniques in Long Range Business Planning, Futures 37(8), 795–812. Bell, Wendell (2003): Foundations of Futures Studies, Volume 1: Human Science for a New Era. These kinds of checklists can improve the quality of scenarios and prepare the responsible group to think of critical aspects before and during the actual scenario construction process. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. doi: 10.1016/00163287(91)90085-G. doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2015.12.016. Transaction Publishers. doi: 10.1016/S0016-3287(00)00012-4. Godet, Michel & Fabrice Roubelat (1996): Creating the Future: The Use and Misuse of Scenarios, Long Range Planning 29(2), p. References Amer, Muhammad, Tugrul U. Dick, Arianna, Bhesh Bhandari & Sangeeta Prakash (2019): Review 3D printing of meat, Meat Science Vol. Hamilton, Hannah, Roslyn Henry, Mark Rounsevell, Dominic Moran, Frances Cossar, Kathleen Allen et al. (2020): Exploring global food system shocks, scenarios and outcomes, Futures, 123, 102601. 1277–88. utupub.?/handle/10024/158355>. A Multi-Scenario, Integrated-Assessment Analysis, Agricultural Systems 151, p. efsa.2019.e170703. 2nd Ed. (2020): Greenhouse Gas Implications of Mobilizing Agricultural Biomass for Energy: A Reassessment of Global Potentials in 2050 under Di?erent Food-System Pathways, Environmental Research Letters 15(3). Finland Futures Research Centre FFRC, Turku. doi: 10.1016/ S0040-1625(99)00120-1. 234–45. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab6c2e. Theurl, Katrin Kaltenegger, Wilfried Winiwarter et al. doi: 2048/10.1016/00246301(96)00004-0. 1488–92, doi: 10.1016/j. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. 151–52. (2008): Conceptualizing Food Systems for Global Environmental Change Research, Global Environmental Change 18(1), p. 23–40. 645–649. Godet, Michel (2000): The Art of Scenarios and Strategic Planning: Tools and Pitfalls, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 65(1), p. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.03.005. 164–71. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.002. Heinonen, Sirkka, Joni Karjalainen & Juho Ruotsalainen (2016): Radical Transformation in a Distributed Society – Neo-Carbon Energy Scenarios 2050. techfore.2010.06.007. FAO (2018): The Future of Food and Agriculture – Alternative Pathways to 2050. Hebinck, Aniek, Joost M. Holman, Ian P., Calum Brown, Victoria Janes & Daniel Sandars (2017): Can We Be Certain about Future Land Use Change in Europe. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2016.12.001. 3/23 16 Futura criteria for scenario planning and for scenarios itself: 1) each of the scenarios must be plausible, 2) scenarios must grow logically in a cause-e?ect way from the past and from the present, 3) they must be internally consistent (the events within a scenario must be related through cause-e?ect lines of argument, which cannot be ?awed), 4) the scenarios must also be relevant to the issues under scrutiny, 5) they must provide useful and comprehensive idea generators, and 6) they must test conditions against which the plans and strategies can be considered. (2022): Scenarios for European Agricultural Policymaking in the Era of Digitalisation, Agricultural Systems 196. Börjeson, Lena, Mattias Höjer, Karl-Henrik Dreborg, Tomas Ekvall & Göran Finnveden (2006): Scenario Types and Techniques: Towards a User’s Guide, Futures 38(7), p. Kalt, Gerald, Christian Lauk, Andreas Mayer, Michaela C. Huan-Niemi, Ellen, Minna Kaljonen, Marja Knuuttila, Jyrki Niemi & Merja Saarinen (2020): The Impacts of Dietary Change in Finland: Food System Approach, Agricultural and Food Science 29(4), p. Shannon (2005): Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis, Qualitative Health Research,15(9), p. 153, July 2019, p. Andersen, Per Dannemand, Meiken Hansen & Cynthia Selin (2021): Stakeholder Inclusion in Scenario Planning—A Review of European Projects, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 169, 120802. <https://www. Järvi, Tuuli, Anu Tuominen, Petri Tapio & Vilja Varho (2015): A Transport Policy Tool for Reduction of Co2 Emissions in Finland – Visions, Scenarios and Pathways using Pluralistic Backcasting Method, Transportation Research Procedia 11, p. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120802. doi: 2048/10.1016/j.futures.2012.10.003. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103318. Neo-Carbon Energy WP1 Working Paper 1/2016. doi: 2048/10.1016/j.futures.2005.12.002. Ericksen, Polly J. 6th Ed.. doi: 10.5751/ES-10054-230216. doi: 10.2903/j. 185–198. doi: 2048/10.1016/j.futures.2005.01.003. <https:// www.fao.org/3/I8429EN/i8429en.pdf>. Durance, Philippe & Michel Godet (2010): Scenario Building: Uses and Abuses, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 77(9), p. Van der He?den, Kees (2005): Scenarios The Art of Strategic Conversation. Daim & Antonie Jetter (2013): A Review of Scenario Planning, Futures 46(0), p. Hiltunen, Elina (2009): Scenarios: Process and Outcome, Journal of Futures Studies 13(3), p. 35-44. Höjer, Mattias & Lars-Göran Mattsson (2000): Determinism and Backcasting in Future Studies, Futures 32(7), p
(2014): Food Choices, Health & Environment: E?ects of Cutting Europe’s Meat and Dairy Intake, Global Environmental Change 26, p. Tapio, Petri, Heidi Rintamäki, Pasi Rikkonen & Juho Ruotsalainen (2017): Pump, Boiler, Cell or Turbine. (2020): Exploring the Future of Land Use and Food Security: A New Set of Global Scenarios, PLOS ONE 15(7). 17 3/23 F Kishita, Yusuke, Benjamin C. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: (2005): Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102159. Odegard, Ingrid Y. Oteros-Rozas, Elisa, Berta Martín-López, Tim M. 62–89. 64–74. Luonnonvaraja biotalouden tutkimus 55/2017. (2020): Shared Socio-Economic Pathways for European Agriculture and Food Systems: The Eur-AgriSSPs, Global Environmental Change 65, 102159. doi: 10.1371/journal. <https://www.utupub.?/handle/10024/147943>. doi: 10.5751/ES-07985-200432. Schwartz, Peter (2012): The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World. F., Jan Rotmans, Marjolein B. Lehtonen, Heikki, Jyrki Aakkula, Stefan Fronzek, Janne Helin, Mikael Hilden, Suvi Huttunen, Minna Kaljonen et al. Bohensky, James R. <https:// www.surefarmproject.eu/wordpress/wp-content/ uploads/2018/02/SURE-Farm_Deliverable-1.2-Scenarios-for-EU-farming.pdf>. Techen, Franz Sinabell, Katharina Helming, Erwin Schmid, Benjamin L. 38–44. (2020): Maatalouden Ilmastotiekartta – Tiekartta Kasvihuonekaasupäästöjen Vähentämiseen Suomen Maataloudessa. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2017.03.003. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2012.11.011. 423–43. Mitter, Hermine, Anja-K. Tetart, Gilles (2020): Debating Global Food Security Through Models The Agrimonde Foresight Study (2008-2010) and Criticism of Economic Models and of Their `Productionist’ Translations, Science Technology and Society 25(1, SI), p. Daw, Erin L. SURE-Farm project deliverable 1.2. A version of this text is available at <https://hbr. Van Vuuren, Detlef P., Marcel Kok, Paul L. Butler, Rosemary Hill et al. Westhoek, Henk, Jan Peter Lesschen, Trudy Rood, Susanne Wagner, Alessandra De Marco, Donal Murphy-Bokern et al. doi: 10.1007/s10113020-01734-2. Lehtonen, Heikki, Sanna Saarnio, Jukka Rantala, Sari Luostarinen, Liisa Maanavilja, Jaakko Heikkinen et al. A. Land Use and Climate Impacts of Food in 2050 under Di?erent Livestock Futures, Global Environmental Change 47, p. doi: 10.3920/JIFF2020.0008 Popper, Rafael (2008): How Are Foresight Methods Selected?, Foresight 10(6), p. (2018): Comparing Impacts of Climate Change and Mitigation on Global Agriculture by 2050, Environmental Research Letters 13(6). McLellan, Damien Giurco, Kazumasu Aoki, Go Yoshizawa & Itsuki C. (2015): Participatory Scenario Planning in PlaceBased Social-Ecological Research: Insights and Experiences from 23 Case Studies, Ecology and Society 20(4). doi: 2048/10.1016/S0016-3287(02)00090-3. How Medium-Term Analysis Illuminated the Power of Scenarios for Shell Management, Harvard Business Review November-December 2016, p. (2015): Pathways to Achieve a Set of Ambitious Global Sustainability Objectives by 2050: Explorations Using the IMAGE Integrated Assessment Model, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 98, p. pone.0235597. 196–205. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.02.004. Wright, David, Bernd Stahl & Tally Hatzakis (2020): Policy Scenarios as an Instrument for Policymakers, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 154, 119972. 139-150. doi: 10.1016/j. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.02.001. 67–85. Rikkonen, Pasi & Petri Tapio (2009): Future Prospects of Alternative Agro-Based Bioenergy Use in Finland-Constructing Scenarios with Quantitative and Qualitative Delphi Data, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76(7), 978–90. Aro, Rimhanen, Rikkonen & Tapiola. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.01.004. 3049–3063. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.09.001. doi: 10.1108/14636680810918586. Six Mixed Scenarios of Energy Futures in Farms, Futures 88, p. Luonnonvarakeskus (Luke). Reilly, Michael & Dirk Willenbockel (2010): Managing Uncertainty: A Review of Food System Scenario Analysis and Modelling, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365(1554), p. 214-225. Kok, Kasper, Math?s van Vliet, Ilona Bärlund, Anna Dubel & Jan Sendzimir (2011): Combining Participative Backcasting and Exploratory Scenario Development: Experiences from the SCENES Project, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 78(5), p. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.01 Kuhmonen, Tuomas & Irene Kuhmonen (2019): Suomen kotieläintuotannon tulevaisuuskuvat. Van Me?, Hans, Petr Havlik, Hermann Lotze-Campen, Elke Stehfest, Peter Witzke, Ignacio Perez Dominguez et al. 303–323. Maaja metsätaloustuottajain Keskusliitto MTK ry, Helsinki. Kuhmonen, Tuomas (2017): Exposing the attractors of evolving complex adaptive systems by utilising futures images, Milestones of the food sustainability journey Technological Forecasting and Social Change 114, p. Rintamäki, Heidi, Pasi Rikkonen & Petri Tapio (2016): Carrot or Stick: Impacts of Alternative Climate and Energy Policy Scenarios on Agriculture, Futures 83, p. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0141. Rothman (2003): An Updated Scenario Typology, Futures 35(5), p. ecolecon.2013.10.005. 371–381. TUTU eJulkaisuja 7/2019. Island Press, Washington, DC. Math?s, Erik, Jo Deckers, Birgit Kopainsky, Sina Nitzko & Achim Spiller (2018): Scenarios for EU Farming. & Ester van der Voet (2014): The Future of Food — Scenarios and the E?ect on Natural Resource Use in Agriculture in 2050, Ecological Economics 97, p. Tulevaisuuden tutkimuskeskus, Turun yliopisto. 835–51. Crown Currency, New York, NY. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.03.005. Rikkonen, Pasi (2017): Vaihtoehtoisia Skenaarioita Maataloudesta Vuoteen 2030. 51–59. <http://urn.?/URN:ISBN:978-952-326-457-1>. Röös, Elin, Bojana Bajželj, Pete Smith, Mikaela Patel, David Little & Tara Garnett (2017): Greedy or Needy. Mora, Oliver, Chantal Le Mouel, Marie de Lattre-Gasquet, Catherine Donnars, Patrice Dumas, Olivier Réchauchère et al. A. techfore.2008.12.001. Bodirsky et al. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119972. Rubin, Anita (2013): Hidden, inconsistent, and in?uential: Images of the future in changing times, Futures 45, p. van Asselt & Dale S. Van Notten, Philip W. (2021): Shared Socioeconomic Pathways for Climate Change Research in Finland: Co-Developing Extended SSP Narratives for Agriculture, Regional Environmental Change 21(1). doi: 10.1177/0971721819889919. 30–42. doi: 10.1016/j. org/1985/11/scenarios-shooting-the-rapids>. doi: 10.1088/17489326/aabdc4. 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2016.03.004. R. Pippinato, Liam, Laura Gasco, Giuseppe Di Vita & Teresina Mancuso (2020): Current scenario in the European edible-insect industry: a preliminary study, Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 6(4), p. Wack, Pierre (1985): Scenarios: Shooting the Rapids. Handoh (2017): Designing Backcasting Scenarios for Resilient Energy Futures, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 124, p.114–25. Lucas, Anne Gerdien Prins, Rob Alkemade, Maurits van den Berg et al
Tähän toimintaan ne käyttävät yhä enemmän yksityisen sektorin tuottamia tiedustelupalveluja. 3/23 18 Futura Yksityiset tiedustelutoim?at tulevaisuustiedon tuottajina Roope Tuovila FM, väitöskirjatutk?a Jyväskylän yliopisto Toimitusjohtaja, Patrocon Oy roope.tuovila@patrocon.. Viime vuosikymmenen aikana yksityisestä tiedustelutoiminnasta on kehittynyt tuottoisaa liiketoimintaa, joka antaa tehokkaat valvontaja tiedustelumahdollisuudet monien yksityisten toim?oiden käsiin. Tiedustelua harjoitetaan laajasti kahdellakymmenelläviidellä tunnistetulla liiketoiminnan alueella ja yksityiset tiedusteluyhtiöt käyttävät toiminnassaan edistynyttä keräysja analyysiteknologiaa. REFEREE-ARTIKKELI. Tiedusteluyhtiöiden tarjoamia palveluita ovat tiedon hankinta, analyysi, o?ensiiviset palvelut, konsultointi sekä teknologiatuotanto. Systemaattisen kirjallisuuskatsauksen luoma parempi kokonaiskuva alasta ja sen toim?oista mahdollistaa tulevan tutkimuksen tarkemman fokusoitumisen. Yksityisen sektorin tiedusteluprosessit ja menetelmät noudattelevat pääsääntöisesti valtiollisten tiedusteluorganisaatioiden käytössä olevia toimintatapoja. Yksityisen sektorin tiedustelutoim?at jakautuvat kolmeen pääkategoriaan: 1) Yritysten omat tiedusteluyksiköt, 2) Tiedusteluun erikoistuneet yhtiöt, 3) Valtiollisten tiedustelupalveluiden urakoits?at (Intelligence contractors). K u va : K ir si K el lo ka n g a s Niin yritykset kuin kansallisvaltiot tarvitsevat tulevaisuustietoa päätöksentekonsa tueksi. Asiasanat: Yksityinen tiedustelu; Yksityisen sektorin tiedustelu; Tiedustelu-urakoits?at; Yritystiedustelu; Liiketoimintatiedustelu; Tiedusteluyhtiöt. Artikkelissa tarkastellaan yksityisellä sektorilla tapahtuvaa tiedustelutoimintaa. Yksityinen tiedustelu on kehittyvä toimiala, jonka tutkimus ja kokonaisymmärrys on vielä rajoittunutta. Systemaattisen kirjallisuuskatsauksen tuloksena saatiin yleiskatsaus alan toim?oista, palvelutarjonnasta, menetelmistä, tehtävätyypeistä, tavoitteista, toiminnan laajuudesta, sekä alalla vallitsevista käsitteistä. Yksityinen tiedustelu palvelee niin kaupallisia toimijoita kuin kansallisesta turvallisuudesta vastaavia organisaatioita. Tulevaisuudessa yksityisen tiedustelun merkitys todennäköisesti kasvaa entisestään ja alan kehitystä on siksi tärkeää seurata. Alan tulevaisuuden kehityksellä on siis laajoja yhteiskunnallisia ulottuvuuksia