50 Chapter 2 changing climate conditions (Boyd et al., 2015; Dougill et al., 2010; Fazey et al., 2015; Nicholls et al., 2008; Rogers, 2011; Wardekker et al., 2010). Methods that are prioritized here include those designed to transfer knowledge from experts to local knowledge holders and facilitate bottom-up community involvement in decision-making. Thus, similar methods as used in approach 1 are used in approach 2 as well but are intended to strengthen the anticipatory capacity of governing stakeholders and the agency of vulnerable groups (Boyd et al., 2015; Nuttall, 2010; Tschakert & Dietrich, 2010). Vulnerable groups in developing countries are of particular concern here, given that access to information, knowledge networks and learning tools is perceived to be scarce at the community level. Thus, in approach 2, participatory methods—including participatory vulnerability mapping, participatory modelling, and participatory scenario explorations — are seen as pivotal to facilitating knowledge transfer from experts to lay groups and for adapting livelihoods, institutions, and ecosystems to uncertain futures (Dougill et al., 2010; Ostrom, 2010; Tschakert & Dietrich, 2010; Voinov & Bousquet, 2010). Equally important for the use of such methods is the balancing and combining of scientific knowledge with citizen knowledge by engaging a variety of stakeholders, such as local governments, scientists, corporations, community networks and governmental organizations (Boyd et al., 2015; Dougill et al., 2010; Nuttall, 2010). The focus is on building anticipatory capacities in a deliberative fashion (Wiek et al., 2013). Finally, consensus conferences, citizens’ juries, deliberative mapping, and deliberative polling and focus groups are also used to explore plausible futures (Bellamy et al., 2012; Chilvers, 2010; Stilgoe et al., 2013). These tools can stimulate expert-driven interaction between scientists and engineers (Harvey & Salter, 2012; Sadowski & Guston, 2016) but also bring in the public through “upstream public engagement” (Conca, 2019; Guston, 2014; Macnaghten, 2009). Such methods can also improve interaction between scientists and publics, which is seen as crucial for a better mutual understanding of values and goals (Guston, 2010) and the sharing of positive lessons, securing legitimacy, and realizing socially robust technologies (Anderson, 2007; Macnaghten, 2009; Stilgoe et al., 2013). Similar methods are also proposed in the more constructivist futures studies and critical social science literatures that underpin approaches 3 and 4 (as discussed further below). There, they might be deployed to mobilize diverse actors, thus aligning with the third approach, or to critically interrogate frames of the future, thus aligning with the fourth approach.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw