167 Conclusions 6 The figure helps to explain that approaches 1 (brown circle) and 2 (green circle) overlap by seeing change as emergent from larger societal processes. Nevertheless, the hybrid conflicts as approach 1 sees that the likelihood of such change can be predicted to some degree while approach 2 does not. Combining the approaches on this point thus means that this hybrid does not fully embrace deep irreducible uncertainty but proposes more conventional governance action. In addition, the integrated framework also illustrates that approaches 1 (brown circle) and 3 (orange circle) overlap in terms of seeing transformations as a deliberate process. However, the literature on anticipation helps explain that while approach 1 sees futures as something that can be partially controlled or managed, it does not focus on the political nature of deliberate change as approach 3 does. And thus, it can be concluded that the hybrid of approaches 1 and 3 also does not fully embrace the politics of anticipation and transformation. Indeed, the examples in this thesis (chapters 2 and 4 in particular) demonstrate a tendency to depoliticize futures by revealing scientific and normative contestations of governing sustainability transformations (Patterson et al., 2017). In sum, the integrated framework demonstrates that the hybrids of approaches 1, 2, and 3 may seemmutually reinforcing but a strong presence of approach 1 thinking may hinder the engagement with deep uncertainty and deliberate change towards transformations, and as such result in incremental tendencies, path dependencies, pragmatism, and lock-ins (Frantzeskaki et al., 2012; Sarkki et al., 2017). Examples in Senegal and Ghana illustrate how participatory scenarios informed participants (policymakers) with precooked scenarios about how climate change is likely to happen. However, farmers mostly sat at the table to discuss possible impacts given these scenarios, not to engage in an agentic co-creational process. Such closed-down anticipatory governance processes are unlikely to create radically transformative or ambitious trajectories but stay within the boundaries of current regimes. A strong reliance on approach 1 may thus hinder the transformative potential of anticipatory governance by aligning too much with and reenforcing the status quo rather than opening up to radically transformative future possibilities for action (chapters 4 and 5). 6.2.4. Research question 4: How do different approaches to anticipatory governance open up or close down future possibilities? In trying to further understand what these dynamics mean for the opening up of anticipatory governance to future possibilities for action, I connected the framework to the notion of opening up and closing down (Stirling, 2008, chapter 5). Stirling explains that anticipation processes are often closed down by predetermined policy agendas that push for clear, authoritative and policy descriptive recommendations, whereas opening up means to interrogate whether future visions are created to justify or critique findings, alternative futures are taken into consideration, and marginalized perspectives
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw