‘Wicked’, ‘messy’ and ‘clumsy’: Long-term Frameworks for ......
Transcript of ‘Wicked’, ‘messy’ and ‘clumsy’: Long-term Frameworks for ......
1
‘Wicked’, ‘messy’ and ‘clumsy’: Long-term Frameworks for Sustainability
BOB FRAME Sustainability and Society, Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research, New Zealand
Correspondence Address: Bob Frame, Sustainability and Society, Landcare Research, PO Box 40, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand.
Email: [email protected]
Tel: +64-3-321-9673
Fax: +64-3-321-9996
ABSTRACT Society requires new forms of science and technology to productively accommodate the intrinsic value-laden judgments needed to manage the high uncertainties and considerable long-term impacts of sustainable urban planning. Responses include the development of post-normal science in the early 1990s by Funtowicz and Ravetz and in subsequent literature. More recently, various post-normal sustainability technologies taking multi-actor approaches to decision-making have emerged. This paper examines an example: the development in New Zealand of a 100-year vision: the Auckland Sustainability Framework. Developed over 15 months through ‘messy’ consultation across stakeholders, it has provided a ‘clumsy’ outcome, namely one where “all the ‘voices’ (are) heard and responded to by the others”. The process adopted offers evidence in support of the development of sustainability frameworks over much longer timescales than the current norm in local authorities and indications of how such processes may unfold.
2
‘Wicked’, ‘messy’ and ‘clumsy’: Long-term
Frameworks for Sustainability
ABSTRACT Society requires new forms of science and technology to
productively accommodate the intrinsic value-laden judgments needed to
manage the high uncertainties and considerable long-term impacts of
sustainable urban planning. Responses include the development of post-normal
science in the early 1990s by Funtowicz and Ravetz and in subsequent
literature. More recently, various post-normal sustainability technologies taking
multi-actor approaches to decision-making have emerged. This paper examines
an example: the development in New Zealand of a 100-year vision: the
Auckland Sustainability Framework. Developed over 15 months through
‘messy’ consultation across stakeholders, it has provided a ‘clumsy’ outcome,
namely one where “all the ‘voices’ (are) heard and responded to by the others”.
The process adopted offers evidence in support of the development of
sustainability frameworks over much longer timescales than the current norm in
local authorities and indications of how such processes may unfold.
Scope
A key element of sustainable development is the emphasis placed on, to quote
Brundtland (WCED, 1987), ‘future generations’, or, as Tonn (2007) puts it,
‘Sustainability and future studies should be intimately related’. As the pace of change
increases, planners must address the long-term implications of their policy decisions.
As a result there is increasing interest in using scenario techniques and ‘futures’
exercises to better inform policy development. The purpose of thinking about the
future is not to predict what will happen but rather to consider alternatives. Through a
range of alternative futures it is possible to make judgements about underlying
assumptions. Futures research provides a powerful framework and set of techniques
that allow us to test both the feasibility and desirability of possible futures.
3
In this paper the importance of long-term frameworks in terms of both content
and process is reviewed in the wider context of post-normal science as developed by
Jerry Ravetz and Silvio Funtowicz in the mid-1980s to mid-1990s (notably Ravetz,
1986; Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1990, 1993, 1994, and 1997) and in subsequent literature.
The long-term planning context in New Zealand is reviewed along with, more
specifically, development of the Auckland Sustainability Framework (ASF), which
took place over a 15-month period in 2006–07 involving many multi-actor
interactions. This kind of long-term visioning of futures can be seen as a technology
to tackle, using Rittel and Weber’s (1973) term, ‘wicked problems’ such as
sustainability. In turn, Rayner (2006) reduced Rittel and Webber’s characterisation to
unique aspects of wicked problems, that is, they are:
• symptomatic of deeper problems
• unique opportunities that cannot be easily reversed
• unable to offer a clear set of alternative solutions
• characterised by contradictory certitudes
• (contain) redistributive implications for entrenched interests
• persistent and insoluble
‘Clumsy’ solutions can be defined as one where “all the ‘voices’ (are) heard and
responded to by the others” (Verweij et al 2006, p.822) that are emerging as
contributions to tackling the wicked problems of a resource-constrained world. This
leads to comments on the development of new forms of civic epistemologies as
anticipated by Carolan (2006), Miller (2005) and Carlsson-Kanyama et al. (2007), and
opens up a research agenda to compare the development of long-term frameworks
around the world.
Long-term Frameworks, Foresight, and Futures as Post-normal Sustainability
Technologies
The notion of post-normal science was first developed in contrast with Kuhn's (1970)
conception of ‘normal science’. Normal science, underpinned by positivist
philosophy, sought ‘universal, objective and context-free knowledge’ (Haag &
Kaupenjohann, 2001, p. 53) and was characterized by a lack of reflection on the
4
standpoints of researchers and social actors in wider socio-political contexts. It
therefore struggled to deal with the uncertainties in real-world organizational and
public policy contexts. ‘Post-normal’ implies a qualitative change in the way science
and policy-making are approached. It draws attention to aspects of uncertainty and
values that are often downplayed (or ignored) in traditional research. It takes the
concepts of stakeholder input and democratic participation beyond notions of an
integrated, single and internally consistent framework to one which allows for the
coexistence of a diversity of perspectives and ways of understanding (e.g. O'Connor,
1999; Frame & Brown , 2007). It thereby opens up possibilities for more inclusive,
open and ongoing engagement processes. Post-normal science (Ravetz, 2006, p. 279),
involves managing complexities to do with questions of survival more than addressing
uncertainties to do with technological risks (ibid., p. 283). This requires institutions to
adopt new knowledge-making processes within risk-laden, uncertain environments
and develop a different set of technologies based on post-normal approaches to
science (Ravetz, 1986, 2006; Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993 Luks, 1999; O'Connor, 1999,
2000, 2006; Ravetz & Funtowicz, 1999; Gallopín et al., 2001; Haag & Kaupenjohann,
2001; Liberatore & Funtowicz, 2003; PCE, 2004; Funtowicz, 2006; Giampietro et al.,
2006; Mayumi & Giampietro 2006; and contributions in Guimarães Pereira et al.,
2006).
Post-normal sustainability technologies (PNSTs) require
• extended peer communities,
• agonistic processes and
• forms of citizenship that revitalise civic responsibility (Frame & Brown,
2007)
They take concepts of stakeholder input beyond simply broadening democratic
participation to new processes, open dialogue and ongoing engagement (Carlsson-
Kanyama et al., 2007) Being based on “assumptions of unpredictability, incomplete
control, and plurality of legitimate perspectives” (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993, p. 739)
they are necessarily transdisciplinary, committed to methodological pluralism,
participatory and context-specific (Luks, 1999).
The premise of futuring techniques is that through a better understanding of the
medium- to long-term future, society should be able to make better decisions in the
5
present. Future scenarios are not intended to predict the future; rather they are tools
for thinking about the future based on several assumptions. Firstly, the future is
shaped by human choice and action. Secondly, the future cannot be foreseen, but
exploring the future can inform present decisions. Thirdly, there are many possible
futures; scenarios therefore map a ‘possibility space’. Finally, scenario development
involves both rational analysis and subjective judgement.
There is a considerable body of work around futures with specific journals
(including, Foresight, Futures, Futures Research Quarterly, Futuribles, Journal of
Futures Studies, and Technological Forecasting and Social Change) and a burgeoning
literature in both technique (e.g. Delaney, 2003; Heijden et al., 2002; Aaltonen et al.,
2005) and in sectors of particular interest to understanding of sustainability issues (for
example, in Australia (BCA, 2004; Cork et al., 2005), in Britain (DTI, 2003), and
relating to Global Climate Change (IPCC, 2000)). Futuring has been described as ‘the
study of the present reality from the point of view of a special interest of knowledge
of the future; knowledge of the future considered characteristically as knowledge of
contingent events’ (Mannermaa, 1986). This ‘very fuzzy multi-field’ (Marien, 2002)
has been described by various typologies (predictive, explorative, and normative) of
the overall futuring field (see, for example, Inayatullah, 1990; van Asselt & Rijkens-
Klomp, 2002; Van Notten et al., 2003; Walz et al., 2007). Of these only the
explorative supports the need for pluralist interpretations of future occurrences as a
means of supporting decision-making processes in the present and, as such, can be
interpreted as post-normal (Frame & Brown, 2007). Such techniques permit open
discussion on contested and uncertain topics and are ideally suited to enabling
discussion around the long-term temporal issues relating to sustainability. Exploratory
techniques, therefore, include framings of multiple realities which expose the
underlying and potentially irresolvable trade-offs of capitals including the need for a
more dialogic approach (Frame et al., 2005) and as ‘opening up spaces for
deliberating desirable futures’ (Hoijer et al., 2006).
To engage then with these rich and inconclusive subtleties requires an essentially
‘thick’ interpretation of possible futures (Adger et al., 2003, citing Geertz, 1973)
where thick analysis implies the identification of connections and general patterns that
are characteristic of a certain context (Geertz, 1973, pp. 25–26). To achieve such an
analysis requires a distinctive post-normal form of futuring termed foresight
6
knowledge (Keenan et al., 2003; Von Schomberg et al., 2006; Guimarães Pereira et
al., 2007). The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
Conditions (Keenan et al., 2003, p. 21) described such a technology as an assemblage:
• Planning. Strategic approaches that involve qualitative as well as
quantitative data
• Networking. This includes new forms of democratization and legitimacy in
political processes, and
• Futures studies. This includes exploratory processes that include extensive
stakeholder involvement alongside expert-led approaches.
As with all PNSTs, the foresight approach specifically acknowledges that it is not
intended to displace existing decision-making and planning processes but is intended
to complement and inform them so as to increase their overall effectiveness as
described by Guimarães Pereira et al. (2007). There are few examples of the
development of long-term frameworks as PNSTs in the literature and so the Auckland
Sustainability Framework (ASF) provides an opportunity for insights into the
implementation of such ‘messy’ approaches. To understand this better, we first place
the ASF in the context of longer-term planning in New Zealand and then look at its
overall development.
Local authority long-term planning in New Zealand
Local authorities in New Zealand have become increasingly involved in various
aspects of long-term planning processes in recent years and in particular resource
management and local government planning (Bührs, 2002; Zöllner, 2004, Miller,
2006). This also needs to be seen in the context of various other public and private
local partnership initiatives on sustainability (Chapman & Milne, 2004: Frame, 2004;
Frame & Taylor, 2005; Stone, 2005 a,b; Milne et al, 2006; Tregida & Milne 2006;
Brown & Stone, 2007; Collins et al., 2007; Frame & Newton, 2007; Taylor & Allen).
The 1991 Resource Management Act (RMA) replaced more than 20 individual
major statutes. It heralded an integrated approach that considered the environment in
its totality and put a greater emphasis on the link between environment and people. It
set the stage for the development of planning, consent, and enforcement procedures
7
that were common to the majority of resource uses. Despite its many improvements
the RMA has not dealt well with accumulative effects of activities across the
landscape, nor has sufficient consideration and integration been given to long-term
environmental forces including climate change (MfE, 2004) and the uncertainty which
will arise from their impacts (Ericksen et al., 2003; Freeman & Thompson-Fawcett
2003; Miller, 2006).
The Local Government Act (2002) (LGA) reinforced the need for wider
consideration of four pillars of sustainability, social, economic, cultural and
environmental, with considerable consideration given to community consultation
through Long Term Council Community Plans (LTCCPs). A long-term plan must
cover a period of ten consecutive financial years though it is prepared every three
years. This allows a local authority to take a long-term view while enabling it to
adjust for constantly changing financial factors and keep its accounting and budgets
up to date. In addition to these legislative frameworks central and local government
have developed programmes that have considered the interrelatedness of the four
well-beings and have recognized that long-term planning frameworks will need to
develop a wide range of partnerships, new political processes, new ways of
integrating and analyzing information, and better methods for community engagement
to produce sound, well-supported decisions.
Of interest here, is the development of long-term futuring projects. In the late
1970s, a Commission for the Future was established with various futures initiatives
since 2000 often directly related to sustainability. These sit alongside other
contemporary medium- and long-term futuring projects at national, local and sectoral
levels in New Zealand (e.g. Frame et al., 2005, 2006,; MoRST, 2005; Miller, 2006;
Ministry of Transport, 2007; Taylor et al 2007 and in various other ministries and
local authorities). Of particular interest here is the development of the 100-year
Auckland Sustainability Framework, New Zealand’s first, and the way it addresses
institutional issues and long-term growth. A successful long-term framework will
guide future plans and policies for sustainable development. It will be robust in its
scenario setting, compelling and, critically, achieve support from the wider
community. The long-term planning process must, therefore, define and articulate the
vision, principles and goals of achieving a sustainable region which links the local to
the national scale.
8
Development of the Auckland Sustainability Framework
Purpose
Auckland is New Zealand’s largest (and only) medium-sized city. The region is home
to over 1.3 million people, about one-third of the national population, and the region's
population grew by 12.4% between the 2001 and 2006 censuses. Auckland is
characterised by ethnic diversity with just over one-third (37.0%) of the region’s
residents born overseas. In the region there are four cities and three districts, each
with their own council as well as an overarching regional council. Under the RMA,
each council develops its own plans and strategies, which resulted in areas of overlap.
Its trading success continues to attract new inhabitants but there have been drawbacks
in such significant growth, namely a lack of cohesive and effective approaches to
ongoing transport problems and concerns about the pattern and nature of urban
growth. As a result the Auckland Regional Growth Forum (RGF), established in 1996,
is a co-operative partnership between the Auckland Regional Council and the region's
territorial local authorities to develop and implement a strategy for managing the
effects of growth.
The interconnectedness of national and local Auckland issues, such as housing and
education, with growth and innovation and the major investment required, particularly
in land transport, clearly fits the bill as a wicked problem. Auckland’s importance to
the New Zealand economy and areas of common interest such as transport and energy
provision, surprisingly central government left regional and local government with a
free reign within the non-prescriptive confines of the RMA and the LGA in the
development of their regulatory documents. Concern emerged that without agreement
on a high level strategy and framework, decision making in the region could be ad hoc
and adversarial if each stakeholder tried to have their say from their own perspective,
without cognisance of the region as a whole. As a result there was a clear need for
coordinated strategic planning across the Auckland Region to ensure that Auckland
could compete as a twenty-first-century city. This was responded to by the preparation
of a Regional Growth Strategy (2001) which aimed to provide a vision for what
Auckland could be like in 50 years. More importantly, a Regional Growth Forum was
9
then established of all the Territorial Local Authorities in the Auckland region. In
parallel with this, the three-year Auckland Sustainable Cities Programme (ASCP),
2003 to 2006, was developed as part of the national Sustainable Development
Programme of Action with a strong community emphasis including promoting an
enhanced ability for communities to be involved in their own sustainable development
(DPMC, 2003; Frame & Marquardt, 2006). A key success of the ASCP was the
establishment, in 2006, of the multi-agency Government Urban and Economic
Development Office (GUEDO) to build understanding and ability to support the
challenge of making Auckland a world-class city.
In 2006, as a result of the ASCP, the eight local authorities (Auckland City,
Auckland Region, Franklin District, Manukau City, North Shore City, Papakura
District, Rodney District, and Waitakere City) in collaboration with central
government through GUEDO, at the instigation of their Chief Executives’ joint
forum, engaged with central government to develop a long-term sustainability
framework. Initially termed START (Sustaining the Auckland Region Together), it
attempted to evaluate ‘forces’ which might play a more significant role in the long-
term with a 100-year vision to align government effort and create strategic directions.
Drivers for START included the need for resilient systems able to respond to
persistent pressures over short and long time horizons with no obvious alternative
solutions and many vested interests with apparently irreconcilable implications.
Collectively these and other criteria provide an assemblage of factors which coincide
with those identified as typical of wicked problems.
Making a START: Gathering Information
The START working group developed a prototype framework with a cascading set of
deliverables including a vision, goals, initial foundation and process principles, initial
themes, some potential responses which included catalyst projects and long-term
sustainability goals, and development of indicators to measure progress. Critical to
that progressive development was consideration of the ‘forces’ which would shape
Auckland’s future and impact on its development (Sustainable Auckland, 2007a, c),
namely:
10
• Climate change and natural hazards. New Zealand is in a geologically
unstable environment, has young fragile soils, and occasionally suffers form
severe floods.
• Resource availability. In the global context New Zealand has good current
and future access to water and renewable energy though there are issues
concerning demand and supply. However, most supplies are outside the
Auckland Region and therefore create a large ecological footprint for the
region (McDonald & Paterson, 2003).
• Demographics. The ageing and more ethnically diverse New Zealand
population may become under pressure to accept a much higher number of
immigrants with climate change and resource scarcity,
• Worldviews. Auckland’s ethically diverse population is currently strongly
dependent on international trade and tourism
• Globalisation. Auckland is New Zealand’s largest business centre with
many local and internationally owned companies.
• Technological transformations. Auckland’s ability to innovate and embrace
new technologies is critical to its future success.
Significant to the development of the framework was the involvement of ‘expert
groups’ including academics and experts from the business and community sectors,
feeding into the development through facilitated workshops, to develop theme papers
for key issues identified in the prototype framework, namely: the built environment,
urban form and infrastructure, energy, economic transformation, social development,
cultural diversity and community cohesion, environmental quality. Each group
deliberated around four ‘sustainability principles’ – resilience, prosperity, liveability
and ecology – and considered how they would be influenced by the forces. Additional
processes were also held to ensure a strong voice from Māori.
In August 2006 a three-day START design workshop enabled 120 representatives
from local and central government, academics, and the community and business
sectors to contribute expertise and perspectives into further developing the draft 100-
year framework (Sustainable Auckland, 2007b). The methodology drew heavily on
the Vancouver ‘Cities Plus’ model (Sheltair Group, 2003), which moved from a high-
11
level vision to responses and indicators with an adaptive management approach to
developing a responsive, resilient urban planning framework to address future
challenges. The workshop used a ‘charrette’ format, a word derived from the French
for cart and referring to a process where ideas emerge and evolve quickly. It is an
interactive process that harnesses the talents of a range of parties to resolve planning
challenges (Lennertz, 2003). The charrette form is particularly successful for local
government to engage the community in planning processes and the product is usually
a tangible output for immediate implementation. In major international cities
including London, Melbourne, Mumbai, Shanghai, and Vancouver, long-term
sustainability frameworks have been developed through charrette processes. However
these have been based largely on spatial models of a city rather than on more abstract
concepts such as sustainability as in Auckland. The START workshop was, however,
an input into a further process, namely an overarching framework with
implementation being a couple of times removed.
Stakeholder Consultations and Inter-agency Coordination
As a result of feedback and wider strategic discussions following the START
workshop, the framework was to include:
• Addition of shifts from business as usual as a key component of the
framework
• Goals and key directions being collapsed together and the addition of
leadership and Māori goals
• Adoption of a revised version of a regional vision developed by a youth
contingent
• Development of a draft set of indicators
• Development of the process and tools for applying the framework
A governance and reporting structure was set up with the project being overseen by
the council officers’ Steering Committee, sponsored by the Chief Executives’ Forum
responsible for final sign-off of the framework, and reported to the RGF in December
2006 and again, following feedback from all councils, in April 2007. Consultation
with stakeholders and the public took place (February to May 2007) with 19
workshops and around 200 participants plus written submissions from several
12
individuals, four organisations and two regional councils (Sustainable Auckland,
2007e). A revised version, now termed the Auckland Sustainability Framework, was
endorsed in September 2007 by the RGF after being endorsed by all member local
authorities and government agencies (Figure 1). It also received high level support
from central government. The ASF’s goals and visions were consistent with central
government priorities especially in the substantive shifts needed from the present. In
turn it was seen that the ASF would provide a tool to review national policies as they
impact on Auckland. However it was also recognised that better understanding was
needed to understand how goals would be achieved and what indicators would be
needed to assess progress.
The ASF is also intended to guide regional strategies (e.g. Regional Growth
Strategy, Regional Land Transport Strategy, and Auckland Regional Economic
Development Strategy). It is also anticipated that Councils will apply the Framework
in the 2009 round of LTCCPs on complex issues such as developing a carbon-neutral
future and the balance between instigating change by policy intervention or market
forces.
The process of developing a framework was, therefore highly inclusive, with many
conversations feeding into the framework and emerging responses. The RGF, for
example, facilitated region-wide discussion and a councillors’ reference group to
provide direction and support. Similarly local authorities and central government
formed a working group to ensure representative influence; enable shared
responsibility for ASF funding; and ensured staff were actively involved. The process
was neither linear nor predictable and its ‘messiness’, can be seen as an inherent
quality of a positive outcome. As stated earlier, a key collaborative element was the
relationship between central and local government with common governance
elements, primarily through GUEDO, including a joint commitment to developing a
shared long-term view of a sustainable Auckland.
The ASF’s vision is to “improve Aucklanders’ quality of life by building upon the
region’s many unique and positive attributes. It will build further resilience and
strength to the important social and economic role that Auckland plays in New
Zealand and the Pacific, and it will establish the region as a world leader in
sustainable development’ (Sustainable Auckland 2007f, p. 2). It provides a 100 year
framework with eight interrelated and long term goals plus eight major shifts that
13
‘must occur in our social values and expectations, and systems and processes’. It will
provide direction so that our local authorities and central government agencies can
work together with a common purpose to embrace the opportunities and face the
challenges associated with developing a truly sustainable region’.
(Fig. 1 here)
In the New Zealand context it is important to acknowledge that the long-term view
is a deeply entrenched aspect of Māori culture (Loomis, 2000; Jollands &
Harmsworth, 2007) and that various iwi (tribes) have put together their own visions of
the future (e.g. Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Raukawa). The ASF acknowledges Mana Whenua
as the first peoples of the region and as an intimate part of the ecological and cultural
fabric of the region. In response, Mana Whenua developed their own sustainability
framework through a parallel process with linkage points developed between the two
frameworks, best described in their own words:
The Mana Whenua view of sustainability is anchored in a world view built on
a holistic philosophy that recognizes values and treasures everything’s and
everyone’s interconnectedness. Stories, traditions, philosophies and values
passed down from generation to generation underpin this world view. These
traditions have combined to shape the Mana Whenua world view and their
understandings and relationships with the natural world. They act to reinforce
the various relationships between the land and people and will continue to do so
for the present and future generations. Mana motuhake is the term that best
describes Mana Whenua’s concept of sustainability, as it focuses on the essence
of those relationships between the land, people and atua. It is about self-identity,
self-sustainability and self-determination at a whanau, hapu and iwi level. Mana
motuhake encompasses creation (mana atua), the land (mana whenua) and the
people past-present-future (mana tupuna/mana tangata). The quality and
effectiveness of how we care and give regard to these relationships will
etermine the quality and effectiveness of sustainable outcomes (Sustainable
Auckland, 2007d,, pp. 36–38).
14
It is not possible to provide any absolute claims on the development of the ASF or to
make predictions on its implementations. These are clearly part of the inherent
messiness of the process and there will be both internal and external future events that
will influence the extent to which the ASF remains current and the form that that will
take. Any assessment of the ASF is only therefore valid at the time of execution and,
for the purposes of this article; this is taken standing in a place just as the ASF has
gained endorsement. Other relevant processes include “Stronger Auckland”, a project
for strengthening governance and decision-making across the Auckland region to
improve the economic, social, cultural and environmental performance of Auckland;
and an over-arching regional strategic plan, 'One plan' to strengthen the region's
governance arrangements.
Assessment of the ASF Development Process as a Post-normal Sustainability
Technology
With increasing focus on sustainability, researchers (and citizens) must discriminate
between ‘greenwash’ policy and that which provides genuine long-term progress
towards more sustainable states. Assessment of any futures exercise in terms of both
process and content can provide a useful barometer for the integrity of such exercises.
In New Zealand, implementation of the ASF should, therefore, continue to be of
research interest. However, its impact will be enmeshed with any ensuing changes in
governance, and with other national developments on sustainability issues. This paper
restricts itself to assessing the ASF development process as a PNST through the
author’s participant-observer notes from various meetings; interviews with key
personnel in the weeks following adoption of the ASF; and analysis of key ASF
documents and websites. First the development of the ASF is reviewed on the criteria
developed by Frame and Brown (2007), who looked at an assemblage of
arrangements for the development of PNSTs. These built on Funtowicz and Ravetz’s
foundation of an extended peer community to demonstrate how these would look in
practice, the agonistic processes through which they can achieve agency, and the (in
this case limited) forms of environmental citizenship that must be enabled for these to
take place. The content of the ASF is then reviewed before assessing the extent to
15
which it operated as a PNST. Finally comments are provided on the ASF as a long-
term framework able to contribute to sustainability.
Extended Peer Communities
The overall process created considerable buy-in at both political and administrative
levels with the resulting framework being owned by all parties. It was also a
deliberate intent not to include public consultations until later. Given local politics,
this is seen as a considerable achievement. However, there appear to have been two
groups less well represented. There was concern about the low level of involvement
by business representatives and developers who would eventually implement
strategies and activities based on the framework. There were also concerns that there
were no obvious links with a tripartite (central and local government with business)
development process (‘Metro’), which had a strong focus on economic development.
Views on this varied with some believing that business was ‘not interested’ while
others believed it was a ‘lost opportunity’. Perhaps, the key to this wicked component
is in the pragmatic. In a messy consultation, it is only possible to work with what is
possible and to move forward as long as the learnings are identified and brought into
future processes.
Similarly, Auckland’s ethnic diversity appeared underrepresented, even though,
through the Mana Whenua process, Auckland-based Māori groups developed their
own 100-year sustainability framework which would link to the ASF. A regional
government attendee said that ‘in my view of Auckland’s future is as a vibrant Asian-
Pacific Megacity, I didn’t get the feeling that the future of Auckland is planned
around Asian/Pacific values and needs’. However, members of the ASF working and
steering groups believed that the prototype framework had been tested and shaped by
a broad range of stakeholders. In particular, the input of those with expertise not held
within participating councils; and input from community group representatives, was
singled out.
In this way, the ASF attempted to address Auckland’s current political impasse and
its future development as a wicked problem, which clearly complied with Rayner’s
characteristics of a wicked problem as listed earlier. As the above suggestion confirms
though, the overall process did not result in an ideal situation, the result was indeed
16
‘clumsy’. However, it is important to ascertain if the process was agonistic – that is,
did it permit tensions and contradictions and was it sensitive to the complex and
dynamic nature of social relations?
Agonistic Processes
The ASF was not intended to be about ‘business-as-usual’ but about doing things
differently. As an adaptive management process it was considered internally an
exemplar with, for example, one senior executive stating: ‘The Framework
encourages ongoing engagement and dialogue on the issues relating to the future
sustainability of the Auckland Region’ and that it set a standard for involvement by a
wide range of stakeholders in the development pathway of the city through an
inclusive, information-driven development process. However views varied
considerably among those closely involved with development of the ASF which
resulted in an ‘element of compromise’. For some the participatory process had diluted
some elements of, potentially radical, reform, while for others it was a heartening
example of being a party to a joint document. This is not too surprising as, in the
process of 15 months, there will be a dynamic towards a negotiated middle ground in
some instances and areas of agreed trade-offs in others. Or, as Verweij et al. (2006, p.
839) put it: ‘we have at one extreme an unresponsive monologue and at the other a
shouting match amongst the deaf. Between these extremes we occasionally find a
vibrant multivocality in which each voice formulates its view as persuasively as
possible, sensitive to the knowledge that others are likely to disagree, and
acknowledging a responsibility to listen to what others are saying’.
This highlights the need for balance between monologues and ‘talk fests’ that lead to
an anodyne middle ground of inconsequentiality. This is in keeping with Wallace’s
cautionary note on futuring when he remarks that, although this offers an idealised
form of ‘consulting’ widely for a preferred future, some processes can be ‘too socially
unitary’ (2007, pp. 31–32). He argues that, to generate meaningful futures, in a post-
normal sense, requires that those participating must be able to co-create through
awareness of possible trade-offs and the incomplete nature of any attempt to resolve
these. He emphasises that futuring in this integrative way ‘should be subordinated to
17
democratic discussion of ways of collectively orienting to the future’ and be a ‘tool of
democratic envisioning’ by focusing on the process of constructing these futures
rather than an approach that relies on quantitative data and (predominantly) economic
drivers (Wallace, 2007, pp. 31–32).
It is difficult to ascertain the extent to which the ASF encouraged agonistic
behaviour compared to a gravitation pull to a common consensus. Certainly opinions
ranged from moderate satisfaction to soft criticism and it is hard to divine this as a
position between apathy and ‘clumsiness’. This suggests that PNSTs cannot be
evaluated in a traditional sense using formal criteria and that success can only be
judged with hindsight from a distant point. If so, then the continued commitment of,
in this case, the local authorities and their ability to enlist growing participation in the
ASF will be a useful benchmark. The issue of capacity and capability is therefore a
crucial criterion for ongoing success.
Citizenship
In the case of the ASF, development of environmental citizenship is not especially
relevant as there has been no direct public consultation at the development stage.
However it is useful to look at the various expertises anticipated during the whole
process and the extent to which these are present in local government in New Zealand
given Bührs’ (2002) early critique of greening the New Zealand state services and,
perhaps, a more general example of Marquand’s ‘hollowing out of citizenship’
(2004).
One participant noted that ‘people get tired’ and that colleagues need ‘an ability to
crack it’ which, perhaps, gives an indication of the type of capability and resourcing
that is needed when embarking on such an exercise. More worrying is that, as the ASF
process continued, cross-cutting shifts were eroded as traditional silo-thinking crept
back in. This was compounded by a strong focus on ‘the first three pages’ of the
framework (i.e. the executive summary and its political implications) rather than a
pathway to implementation. In practical terms, resilience of those participating in
PNST-type approaches is a critical capacity issue along with development of
appropriate skills. In turn these frameworks will require practitioners who
demonstrate a wider, and quite different, skill set than that currently in many local
authorities. Carolan (2006) has described these as combining the traditional
18
contributory expertise (of which the papers in this journal are one example) with the
interactional expertise needed to facilitate enabling conversations in workshops and
other multi-stakeholder fora. To these, he adds the concept of public expertise – that is
‘the explicit incorporation of values into the decision-making process’ Carolan (2006,
p. 665). This requires going beyond possessing knowledge about certain issues to a
sense of what public sentiments and values are around the topic. Success in this can
be seen as an ability to straddle the boundary between the institutions of research and
politics – sometimes referred to as boundary organizations. What is not yet clear is
how such expertise is developed and given experience in PNSTs. It would seem that
more formal recognition and opportunity to experience directly need to become part
of the overall sustainability discourse. This assumes a reasonable level of reflexive
learning and adaptive management in organizations, though it is not yet clear the
extent to which this has been recognized in Auckland to date.
Content: Numbers or Narratives?
For some participants, the richest material produced during the ASF process was from
the theme papers and expert groups. Indeed, having some strong, controversial
viewpoints emerge was seen as a stimulus to the debates with a clear need for social
issues to have greater consideration. However some participants were disappointed
that these did not survive to the later versions of the ASF. Although researchers
developed theme papers for the charrette, subsequently, the lack of local expertise on
future behaviours underlined how difficult it was to make considered judgements
about developing long-term policy. Couple this with the lack of targets and indicators
(at the time of writing) in a conventional sense, and the ASF is open to criticism as a
high-level policy which lacks mechanisms of accountability. And it is in this area
where the ASF will be tested as an agent of genuine change. Existing datasets,
available through national, regional and local institutions, and reported through
existing mechanisms (e.g. national censuses, Statistics New Zealand), do not provide
data to measure progress against the ASF’s shifts. Indicators developed through a
Framework toolkit will provide a genuine insight into the region’s attempt to be truly
sustainable. They will also be an early barometer of the commitment to the ideals laid
out in the ASF.
While this will require new forms of partnership with data-gathering providers and
with research organizations, it also reveals another tension: that between those who
19
do, and those who do not, see the world as physical constructs. In the framework
(Figure 1), the overall landscape is seen through the framework goals (x-axis), yet the
means to achieve these is represented through the shifts (y-axis). As these are largely
values-based parameters, they are not easily amenable to quantification and so
understanding progress on these must rely on society accommodating more narrative
ways of representing progress, which is a key component for the ASF to be
considered as a PNST. Such processes require new forms of science, ones that ‘can
legitimately support... a range of competing, value-based political positions’
(Sarewitz, 2004, p. 386). This is likely to require new kinds of modelling and datasets
for planning purposes as these become much more exploratory and less extrapolatory
in nature. Miller (2005) anticipates these ‘new civic epistemologies of quantification’
will start to become part of the norm by which decisions get made and the ways in
which information will inform public debate. Again, at the time of writing, these
deeper aspects of the ASF had yet to emerge in the public discourse. This maintains a
consistent approach to clumsy solutions with that adopted by Verweij et al (2006)
who noted that ‘successful solutions to pressing social ills tend to consist of creative
and flexible combinations of …various ways of organizing, perceiving and justifying
social relations’ (2006, p. 818). It is the extent to which this has been achieved that we
now turn.
Of Messy Problems and Clumsy Solutions
As an indicator of genuine progress, the ASF is seen as having ‘great potential’ to
work as an ‘additional lever for integrated thinking’. As a ‘living document’ it
represents a paradigm shift in thinking and will, as noted above, be subject to the need
for ongoing renegotiation and development. It will be important for the Auckland
Region to not just monitor and review the ASF’s impact over time, but also to
establish processes for active learning and adaptive management. Indeed the
development of long-term ‘futures’ frameworks would begin to be seen as a critical
part of a pathway to a more sustainable future. Indeed the kinds of process used in the
development of the ASF confirm the added value of using futuring techniques as part
of transition management as described by Sondeijker et al. (2006), Wiek et al. (2006)
and Carlsson-Kanyama et al. (2007) on three quite separate research sites in Europe.
As such there appears to be growing momentum for futuring processes that exhibit
20
post-normal characteristics and, as such, there is likely to be considerable variance in
the way in which this is acted out locally. However, this is not without potential
downsides. In terms of the criteria by Keenan et al. (2003) for effective futuring
(planning, networking, and futures studies), the ASF can be seen to have taken a
balanced approach. Inevitably there are ways in which the overall process could be
improved but, given that futuring is an incomplete and inconclusive exercise, this is
not especially relevant. However a research agenda to compare and evaluate processes
in other large urban centres globally, such as though adopting the Vancouver 100-year
‘Cities Plus’ model (Sheltair Group, 2003) would be of considerable benefit to the
development of post-normal technologies. Techniques, such as those used in the ASF,
will involve highly ‘messy’ approaches to long-term planning that require lengthy
forms of engagement which may not result in convenient consensus-based results with
single lines of action but in far ‘clumsier’ solutions. Success is likely to mean changes
to underlying governance structures and failure will mean consignment to the
archives.
Concluding Comments
Long-term sustainability frameworks, such as that developed in Auckland, have a
growing place as PNSTs though the level of commitment in terms of time and energy
and the hazards of messy approaches should not be underestimated. Successful
frameworks are unlikely to develop behind closed doors or over a weekend retreat.
They will require extensive consultation in which conflicts need to be aired and
managed (not necessarily leading to resolution through consensus) and where simple
trade-offs may not be feasible. New partnerships need to be brokered and innovative
processes developed to counter current unsustainable practices. It is unlikely to be
quick or cheap and its quality may well be fickle and undetermined for much of the
process. Conversely it is difficult to conceive of successful transitions to more
sustainable practices without such a framework being developed (and frequently
redeveloped). As such there is an interesting research seam opening up for both
comparative and longitudinal studies to take place in a wide range of jurisdictions.
While building a constituency willing to think beyond the next generation or so is,
in itself, a challenge for politicians and councillors who are primarily engaged with a
21
populace for no more than one or two political terms, the challenge of sustainability
must, of course, go considerably beyond that. Tonn (2007) exhorts public policy to
consider ‘1000-year planning’ as a ‘foundation for futures sustainability policies’ that
would lead to much longer time horizons such that ‘the scope of sustainability needs
to be expanded to extend at least tens of thousand years into the future’. While this is
unlikely to become a practical reality in the near future, it is certainly enough to
encourage considerably more practice of and research into futuring techniques
globally.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to the START working group and the Auckland Long-Term
Sustainability Framework working group for the opportunity to be involved in their
work. Special thanks are due to Maggie Lawton for her contributions on the START
workshop; and to various interviewees for their insights on the ASF process. The
research was supported by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology
‘Building capacity for sustainable development: The enabling research’ project
(C09X0310) and the CRI Capability Fund administered by the Ministry of Research,
Science and Technology. Thanks also go to Mike Krausse and Penny Nelson and two
anonymous referees for comments on earlier versions. The opinions voiced are, of
course, the author’s alone.
References
Aaltonen, M., Barth, T., Casti, J. L., Mitleton-Kelly, E. & Sanders, T. I., 2005,
Complexity as a Sensemaking Framework (Finland Futures Research Centre).
Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Fairbrass, J., Jordan, A., Paavola, J., Rosendo, S. &
Seyfang, G. , 2003, Governance for sustainability: towards a ‘thick’ analysis of
environmental decision-making. Environment and Planning A, 35, pp. 1095–
1110.
BCA (Business Council of Australia), 2004, ASPIRE AUSTRALIA 2025: Change Is
Inevitable, Progress Is Not (www.bca.com.au).
22
Brown, G. & Stone, L., 2007, Cleaner production in New Zealand: taking stock.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, pp. 716–728.
Bührs, T., 2002, New Zealand’s capacity for green planning: A political-institutional
assessment and analysis, Political Science, 54, 27-46
Carlsson-Kanyama, A. K., Dreborg, H., Moll, H. & Padovan, D., 2007, Participative
Backcasting: A tool for involving stakeholders in local sustainability planning,
Futures, doi:10.1016/futures.2007.06.001
Carolan, M. S., 2006, Science, expertise, and the democratization of the decision-
making process. Society and Natural Resources, 19, pp. 661–668.
Chapman, R. & Milne, M., 2004, The triple bottom line: How New Zealand
companies measure up. International Journal for Sustainable Business, 11(2), pp.
37–50.
Collins, E., Lawrence, S., Pavlovich, K. & Ryan, C., 2007, Business networks and the
uptake of sustainability practices: the case of New Zealand. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 15, pp. 729–740
Cork, S., Delaney, K. & Salt, D., 2005, Futures Thinking…about Landscapes,
Lifestyles and Livelihoods in Australia (Canberra, Land and Water Australia).
Delaney, K., 2003, Decision corridors as a futuring technique. Taiwan Journal of
Futures Studies, 8(1), 53-60.
DPMC (Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet), 2003, Sustainable Development
for New Zealand: Programme of Action (Wellington, New Zealand, DPMC).
DTI (Department of Trade and Industry), 2003, Foresight Futures 2020: Revised
Scenarios and Guidance (London, DTI (www.foresight.gov.uk)).
Ericksen, N. J., Berke, P. R., Crawford, J. L. & Dixon, J. E., 2003, Planning for
Sustainability: New Zealand under the R M A (Hamilton, New Zealand,
International Change Institute, the University of Waikato).
Frame, B., 2004, The Big Clean Up: Social marketing for the Auckland Region. Local
Environment, 9, pp. 507–526.
Frame, B. & Marquardt, M., 2006, Implications of the Sustainable Development
Programme of Action. (Landcare Research Contract Report LC0607/015.
Available at
http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/publications/researchpubs/LCR_SDPOA_revi
ew_2006.pdf)
23
Frame, B. & Newton, B., 2007, Promoting sustainability through social marketing:
examples from New Zealand. International Journal of Consumer Studies, doi:
10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00600.x
Frame, B. & Brown, J., 2007, Developing post-normal sustainability technologies,
Landcare Research Working Paper. Accepted subject to minor revision at
Ecological Economics.
Frame, B. & Taylor, R., 2005, Partnerships for sustainability: effective practice?
Local Environment, 10, pp. 275–299.
Frame, R., Molisa, P., Taylor, R., Toia, H. & Wong, L-S., 2005, 100% pure
conjecture? Accounts of our future state(s), in: J. Liu, T. McCreanor, T. Teaiwa,
& T. McIntosh (Eds) New Zealand Identities: Departures and Destinations
(Wellington, New Zealand, VUW Press), pp. 255–290.
Frame, B., Allen, W., Delaney, K., Harris, G., McDermott, A., Lattimore, R., Newton,
B. & Wheatley C., 2006, Reshaping Asia: Sustainability, Resources and the
Environment (Wellington, New Zealand, Asia New Zealand Foundation.
Available at
http://www.asianz.org.nz/files/Reshaping%20Asia%20Summary.pdf).
Freeman, C. & Thompson-Fawcett, M., 2003, Living Space towards Sustainable
Settlements in New Zealand (Dunedin, New Zealand University of Otago Press).
Funtowicz, S. O., 2006, Why knowledge assessment?, in A. Guimarães Pereira, S. G.
Vaz & S. Tognetti (Eds) Interfaces between Science and Society (Sheffield, UK,
Greenleaf Press), pp. 138–145.
Funtowicz, S. O. & Ravetz, J. R., 1990, Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy
(Dordrecht, Kluwer).
Funtowicz, S. O. & Ravetz, J. R., 1993, Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25,
pp. 739–755.
Funtowicz, S. & Ravetz, J., 1994, The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a
post-normal science. Ecological Economics, (10), pp. 197–207.
Funtowicz, S. O. & Ravetz, J. R., 1997, The poetry of thermodynamics. Futures,
29(9), pp. 791–810.
Gallopín, G. C., Funtowicz, S., O'Connor, M. & Ravetz, J., 2001, Science for the
twenty-first century: from social contract to the scientific core. International
Social Science Journal, 53(168), pp. 219–229.
Geertz, C., 1973 The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books, New York.
24
Giampietro, M., Allen, T. F. H. & Mayumi, K., 2006, The epistemological
predicament associated with purposive quantitative analysis. Systems Research
and Behavioural Science, 23, pp. 307–327.
Guimarães Pereira, A., Vaz, S. G. & Tognetti, S., 2006 Interfaces between Science
and Society (Sheffield, UK, Greenleaf Press).
Guimarães Pereira, A., von Schomberg, R. & Funtowicz, S., 2007, Foresight
knowledge assessment. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation
Policy, 3(1), pp. 53–75.
Haag, D. & Kaupenjohann, M., 2001, Parameters, prediction, post-normal science and
the precautionary principle: a roadmap for modelling for decision-making.
Ecological Modelling, 144, pp. 45–60.
Heijden, K. van der, Bradfield, R., Burt, G., Cairns, G. & Wright, G., 2002 The Sixth
Sense: Accelerating Organisational Learning with Scenarios. (Chichester,
Wiley).
Hoijer, B., Lidskog, R. & Uggla, Y., 2006, Facing dilemmas: sense-making and
decision-making in late modernity. Futures, 38, pp. 350–366.
Inayatullah, S., 1990, Deconstructing and reconstructing the future: predictive,
cultural and critical epistemologies. Futures, 22(2), pp. 115–141.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2000 Emissions Scenarios: a
Special Report of IPCC Working Group III (Cambridge UK, Cambridge
University Press).
Jollands, N. & Harmsworth, G., 2007, Participation of indigenous groups in
sustainable development monitoring: Rationale and examples from New Zealand.
Ecological Economics, 62(3–4), pp. 716–726.
Keenan, M., Miles, I. & Kaivo-Ova, J., 2003 Handbook of Knowledge Society
Foresight (Dublin, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and
Working Conditions. Available at: http://www.eurofound.eu.int/transversal/
foresight.htm).
Kuhn, T.,1970 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago,.University of
Chicago Press).
Lennertz, B., 2003 The Charrette as an Agent for Change, New Urbanism:
Comprehensive Report and Best Practices Guide, 3rd edn (Ithaca, New Urban
Publications), pp. 12–28.
25
Liberatore, A. & Funtowicz, S., 2003, ‘Democratising’ expertise, expertising
democracy: what does this mean, and why bother? Science and Public Policy, 30,
pp. 146–150.
Loomis, T. M., 2000, Indigenous populations and sustainable development: building
on indigenous approaches to holistic, self-determined development. World
Development, 28, pp. 893–910.
Luks, F. , 1999, Post-normal science and the rhetoric of inquiry: deconstructing
normal science? Futures, 31, pp. 705–719.
Mannermaa, M., 1986, Futures research and social decision making: alternative
futures as a case study. Futures, 18(5), pp. 658–670.
Marien, M. (2002) Futures studies in the 21st Century: a reality based view. Futures,
34(3–4), pp. 261–281.
Marquand D., 2004 The Decline of the Public: The Hollowing Out of Citizenship,
Polity Press
Mayumi, K. & Giampietro, M., 2006, The epistemological challenge of self-
modifying systems: governance and sustainability in the post-normal science era.
Ecological Economics, 57, pp. 382–399.
McDonald, G. & Patterson, M., 2003 Ecological Footprint of New Zealand and its
Regions (Wellington, New Zealand, Ministry for the Environment).
Miller, C. M., 2005, New civic epistemologies of quantification: Making sense of
indicators of local and global sustainability. Science, Technology and Human
Values, 30, pp. 403–432
Miller, C., 2006, New directions in New Zealand’s urban planning and research.
Urban Policy and Research, 24(3), pp. 341–354.
Milne, M. J., Tregidga, H. M. & Walton, S., 2006, Actions Not Words: Companies
"Doing Sustainability" in New Zealand? (AFIS Discussion Papers, University of
Canterbury. Available at
http://www.afis.canterbury.ac.nz/publications/milne.shtml (Accessed 27 June
2006))
Ministry for the Environment and New Zealand Climate Change Office, 2004
Preparing for Climate Change. A Guide for Local Government in New Zealand.
(Wellington, New Zealand, MfE).
Ministry of Transport (in press) Future of Transport in New Zealand (Wellington,
New Zealand).
26
MoRST (Ministry of Research, Science and Technology), 2005 Biotechnology to
2025 (Wellington, New Zealand).
O'Connor, M., 1999, Dialogue and debate in a post-normal practice of science: a
reflexion. Futures, 31(7), pp. 671–687.
O'Connor, M., 2000, Pathways for environmental valuation: a walk in the (hanging)
gardens of Babylon. Ecological Economics, (34), pp. 175–194.
O’Connor, M., 2006, The “Four Spheres” framework for sustainability. Ecological
Complexity, 3, pp. 285-292
PCE (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment), 2004 Missing Links:
Connecting Science with Environmental Policy (Wellington, New Zealand, PCE).
Ravetz, J. R., 1986, Usable knowledge, usable ignorance: incomplete science with
policy implications, in W. C Clarke & R. E. Munns (Eds) Sustainable
Development of the Biosphere (Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University), pp.
415–434.
Ravetz, J. R., 2006, Post-normal science and the complexity of transitions towards
sustainability. Ecological Complexity, 3, pp. 275–284.
Ravetz, J. & Funtowicz, S., 1999, Post-normal science – an insight now maturing.
Futures, 31, pp. 641–646.
Rayner, S., 2006, Wicked Problems, Clumsy Solutions: Diagnoses and Prescriptions
for Environmental Ills (Available at
www.martininstitute.ox.ac.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C3EDD045-9E3B-4053-9229-
9CF76660AAC6/645/JackBealeLectureWickedproblems.pdf).
Rittel, H. & Webber, M., 1973, Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy
Sciences, 4, pp. 155–169.
Sarewitz, D.,2004, How science makes environmental controversies worse.
Environmental Science and Policy, 7, pp. 385–403.
Sheltair Group, 2003 A Sustainable Urban System, the Long-term Plan for Urban
Vancouver (www.sheltair.com/library_usp.html).
Sondeijker, S., Geurts, J., Rotmans, J. & Tukker, A., 2006, Imagining sustainability:
the added value of transition scenarios in transition management. Foresight, 8,
pp. 15–30.
Stone, L-J., 2005a, Limitations of cleaner production programmes for business I:
Achieving commitment and on-going improvement. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 14, pp. 1–14.
27
Stone, L.-J., 2005b, Limitations of cleaner production programmes for business II:
Leadership, support, communication, involvement and programme design.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, pp. 15–30.
Sustainable Auckland, 2007a, Eight Sustainability Goals in Full
(www.sustainingauckland.org.nz).
Sustainable Auckland, 2007b, Report on Design Workshop, August 2006
(www.sustainingauckland.org.nz).
Sustainable Auckland, 2007c, Expert Themes Papers
(www.sustainingauckland.org.nz).
Sustainable Auckland, 2007d, Long-Term Sustainability Framework for the Auckland
Region (www.sustainingauckland.org.nz).
Sustainable Auckland, 2007e, Summary Report on Stakeholder Engagement and
Public Consultation on the December 06 Draft Long Term Sustainability
Framework for the Auckland Region (LTSF) (www.sustainingauckland.org.nz).
Sustainable Auckland, 2007f, Draft Auckland Sustainability Framework: An agenda
for the future. (www.sustainingauckland.org.nz).
Taylor, R. & Allen, W. Changing household behaviours: learning for urban
sustainability, submitted to The Innovation Journal
Taylor, R., Frame, B., Delaney K. & Brignall-Theyer, M., 2007 Work in progress –
four future scenarios for New Zealand (Lincoln, New Zealand, Manaaki Whenua
Press).
Tregidga, H. M. & Milne, M. J., 2006, From sustainable management to sustainable
development: a longitudinal analysis of a leading New Zealand environmental
reporter. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(4), pp. 219–241.
Tonn, B. E., 2007, Futures sustainability. Futures, doi:10.1016/j.futures.2007.03.018
van Asselt M.B.A., Rijkens-Klomp, N., 2002, A look in the mirror: reflection on
participation in integrated assessment from a methodological perspective. Global
Environmental Change 12, 167-184.
van Notten, P. W. F., Rotmans, J., van Asselt, M. B. A. & Rothman, D. S., 2003, An
updated scenario typology. Futures, 35(5), pp. 423–443.
Verweij, M., Douglas, M., Ellis, R., Engel, C., Hendriks, F., Lohmann, S., Ney, S.,
Rayner S., Thompson, M., 2006, Clumsy solutions for a complex world: the case of
climate change. Public Administration 84 (4), 817-843.
28
von Schomberg, R., Guimarães Pereira Â., Funtowicz, S., 2006 Deliberating
foresight knowledge for policy and foresight knowledge assessment. In Guimarães
Pereira et al., 2006, 146-174.
Wallace, D., 2007, From future states to images of identity. Foresight, 9, pp. 26–36.
Walz, A., Lardelli, C., Behrendt, H., Grêt-Regamey, A., Lundström, C., Kytzia, S. &
Bebi, P., 2007, Participatory scenario analysis for integrated regional
modelling. Landscape and Urban Planning, in press.
WCED (The World Commission on Environment and Development), 1987, Our
Common Future (Oxford, Oxford University Press).
Wiek, A., Binder, C. & Scholz, R. W., 2006, Functions of scenarios in transition
process. Futures, 38, pp. 740–766.
Zöllner, E., 2004, Urban Policy in New Zealand – New Initiatives and Familiar
Barriers, Urban Policy and Research, 22(2), 221-230