STRATEGIC FORESIGHT FOR SUSTAINABLE URBANISATION

R. Kelly 1, J. S. Ratcliffe 2
The Futures Academy, Faculty of the Built Environment, Dublin Institute of Technology,
Bolton Street, Dublin 1, Ireland.
E-mail: [Link]@[Link], [Link]@[Link]
1

ABSTRACT: In recent decades, cities have undergone significant spatial transformation

functioning in an environment of growing complexity and heightened uncertainty. Today,
cities face a common set of challenges relating to such forces as globalisation and economic
restructuring, social change and rising exclusion, pressure on the environment, fiscal stress
and changes in institutional relationships. Demographic factors and the perceived
attractiveness of suburban living have precipitated the outward expansion of cities into
surrounding hinterland. A key challenge for urban planners and thought provocateurs today is
to anticipate the characteristics of the city of the future and to determine how cities might
optimally respond to the challenge of sustainable urban development. This paper examines
foresight through scenario development as a supplementary planning tool for tackling the
inherent short-termism of traditional policy-making frameworks which often impede
communities in their efforts to conceptualise and formulate long-term strategies for more
sustained urban growth.

Keywords: Urban sprawl, sustainable urban development, foresight, scenario development,

strategic thinking.

1. INTRODUCTION

Probably one of the greatest challenges facing humanity today is the creation of a shared
vision of a sustainable society, one that harmonises environmental protection with economic
development and nurtures the greater inclusion and empowerment of society in a way that is
fair and equitable to all of humanity, other species and future generations. However, given
the biophysical constraints of the ‘real world’ such as the increase in environmental and
ecological degradation, a rapidly growing human population, the widening gap between
developed and developing nations and the persistent threat of global terrorism, such a vision
seems illusory if not grossly misleading. In fact, the only certainty in today’s world is
uncertainty. The evolution and transformation of society and the planet in general is
exceedingly complex and attempts to predict its course or to offer one-dimensional or
simplistic solutions should be viewed with great scepticism (Hammond, 1999). It could be
argued that today’s and especially future generations are endangered to an unknown degree
by the all too linear and short-term optimisation of technical, social and economic structures.
It is clear that innovative and revolutionary approaches are necessary if the life support
systems upon which we depend are to be sustained into the future. Consequently, the need to
develop new mechanisms to envision and prepare for the future is gaining greater impetus.
Cities will play a vital role in this process. By recognising and acknowledging uncertainty,
conventional planning approaches are beginning to give way to, or at least be supplemented
by alternative methods which encourage vision, creativity, strategy, partnership, integration
and democracy. The foresight approach through scenario development identifies key forces
of change which drive the development of the urban environment. These drivers help
planners to understand the wide range of issues and trends which ultimately contribute to
tackling problems within suburban regions and understanding the complex forces, their
heterogeneity and interactions, which will shape the global city of tomorrow.

1
1.1 The Urban Challenge

Cities are the main living, production, consumption, innovation and service points of
industrial society and both the commercial and cultural world increasingly is characterised by
cities rather than by countries. The urban fabric and built environment are major resources in
a country’s economic development. However, global urban environments are undergoing
unprecedented spatial change and structural transformation. In addition to the migration of
people from rural to urban areas, the centres of cities and towns have been subject to
depopulation resulting in decay of the urban fabric (Irish EPA, 2000). The 19th and early
20th centuries saw a gradual increase in suburbanisation attributed mainly to advances in the
transportation system such as commuter trains, the innovations of early real estate developers,
and the desire to live in rural tranquillity rather than in urban squalor. As car ownership
became widespread starting in the 1920s, suburban sprawl continued, a trend that accelerated
greatly during the second half of the 20th century (Frumkin, 2002). According to Munoz
(2003), this rapid process of urbanisation has been reflected in the appearance of new urban
centres, in zones once considered as being on the periphery of the urbanisation process. Often
used to describe non-compact features of urban land use patterns, urban sprawl is a regional-
level phenomenon driven by individual choices over location and land use that are influenced
by a range of factors, including land features, infrastructure, policies, and individual
characteristics (Irwin and Bockstael, 2004). Such sustained urban growth gives rise to serious
forces of change: social, demographic, economic, environmental, technological and
governmental. Because of this, cities and their sprawling environs are often the focal point
for many present day problems. The deleterious effects of urbanisation on society and the
environment have been well documented and range from climate change, ecological
imbalance, traffic congestion, unaffordable housing, wildlife habitat destruction, and water
and air pollution. Consequently, urban sprawl has gained in impetus and gravity and is
frequently a key policy issue among community leaders and national politicians alike.
As systems subject to significant change and considerable uncertainty, the critical question
therefore, is how might cities evolve and adapt in such a way that optimises participation in
economic, technological and social progress, while encouraging cultural diversity,
environmental protection and democratic expression in shaping the way we live? (Hall and
Pfeiffer, 2000). In other words, how might cities optimally respond to the challenge of
achieving what is termed ‘sustainable urban development’? The possible answer lies in how
we anticipate, recognise, measure and interpret urban challenges and how we effectively
respond to them (UNCHS, 1997). The major challenges facing cities today are shown in
Table 1.

2
 Table 1. Key Challenges facing the urban environment
The Global Understanding the long-range global outlook lies in mapping
Economy out the driving forces that have produced the new global
economy and their interactions including inter alia:
globalisation, politics, societal change and universal
connectivity.
The Green Well documented environmental problems associated with
Evolution cities include loss of open space, air pollution, depletion of
water resources, concentration of inner-city poor and
disadvantaged and urban decay.
Technology This relates to the scope, pace and direction of technological
change, the nature and function of the interactive society, the
impact of information technology and advances in
communications upon urban structure.
Demographics This relates to the influence of economic migration, social
change and population trends on urban development.
The Liveability The growth of cities has brought a wave of cultural
Factor modernisation, where education, urbanisation and institutional
order are transforming social structures and diversity. A key
challenge is understanding the effects of urban settings on
cultural pluralism, crime, employment and other urban issues.
Civic Leadership This addresses changing power structures throughout the
world, the polarisation and fragmentation of governance, the
emergence of city states, the transformation of the role of the
public sector and the challenges offered by the emerging
virtual world of cyberspace.
Urban Design How will the urban design of the future create a physical
environment that meets the social needs, functions,
environment, economic and aesthetic objectives of the people
who live there?
Uncertainty Strategic thinking before strategic planning would enhance the
capacities of local communities to tackle the complexity,
uncertainty and change that face them, and also determine a
shared view of the desired future.

2. INTEGRATION FOR SUSTAINABLE URBANISATION

“Achieving sustainable development and alleviating poverty require the integration of
economic, social and political objectives into a coherent overall framework. As the world
becomes increasingly urban, it is essential that policy-makers understand the power of the
city as an organizing agent for national development” (UN Habitat Strategic Vision, 2003).
Sustainable development is the watchword for the new millennium, and a guiding theme
for all human activity. Looking to harmonise socio-economic activities with environmental
protection, the idea of sustainable urbanisation is gaining momentum, and playing an
increasingly important role in the pursuit of global objectives, particularly in connection with
Millennium Development Goals. Though cities differ significantly, they share one particular
key ambition in the context of sustainable urbanisation – that of enhancing their economic
competitiveness while at the same time reducing both social exclusion and environmental

3
degradation.
According to Vonkeman (2000) the ‘sustainable city’ cannot be defined in any feasible
way and should therefore be understood as a metaphor. The city is an embedded subsystem of
the bigger regional system. Therefore, the sustainable development of a city is not possible
without taking the whole region into account, both the city and its hinterland. The debate is
ongoing as to which form of development is in fact more sustainable: the high density
compact city model or the low density network city. Some researchers champion current
suburban-type urbanisation or the network city, stressing its unique capacity to provide large
lots at an affordable price, an option negated by more compact urban forms (Berry and Kim,
1993). However, most studies are highly critical of such spatial organisation. They denounce
environmental consequences, in particular, air pollution, voracious fuel consumption and loss
of agricultural land and natural areas (Filion et al, 1999). The outcome of much research into
settlement planning has been a general advocacy of the high density, mixed-use settlement
and this form has increasingly been translated into land-use policy across Europe (Williams,
1999). In recent years, the ‘smart growth’ movement (coordinated by the USEPA) has
attempted to encourage sustainable urban development through the efficient use of
jurisdictional resources, while preserving open space and environmental quality and
improving social cohesion (Preuss and Vemuri, 2004). The smart growth movement is
driven by inter alia, demographic shifts, a strong environmental ethic, increased fiscal
concerns, and more imaginative visions of urban growth and development. Smart growth
contains all the seeds of the sustainability paradigm. Clearly, it is not smart to design urban
systems that cannot be sustained by future generations, so sustainability is implicit in many of
the smart growth principles.
One of the most problematic aspects of sustainable urbanisation is its breadth,
compounded by the abstract and ill-defined nature of the concept. Policy makers and
planners continue to be frustrated by the tenuous nature of sustainable urbanisation, which
has led to a variety of interpretations and explanations. In general, however, sustainable
urbanisation refers to a well-maintained physical environment (townscape, landscape,
neighbourhood, public space), a clean, healthy and safe environment, one that allows
residents freedom of choice (mobility, living conditions and amenities) (Van der Valk, 2002).
Sustainable urbanisation demands an integrated, holistic and co-ordinated approach that fully
incorporates economy, environment and society. A number of European spatial planning
policy documents, such as the 1990 Green Paper on the Urban Environment and the 1996
report of the Expert Group on the Urban Environment highlight the importance of an
integrated approach to planning.
Key challenges to achieving integrated sustainable urbanisation include:
a) lack of effective and productive partnerships between government institutions, civil
society and the voluntary sector;
b) lack of will or ability of key urban stakeholders to develop strategic long-term
planning;
c) lack of will of central governments to face the consequences of long-term urban
growth in view of a changing global economy, a growing world population and over
exploitation of natural and non-renewable resources;
d) lack of will or ability to establish sustainability as a significant factor in the decision
process in neighbourhoods, businesses, schools, natural environment and civic life;
e) failure to measure, monitor and report on progress towards sustainability by way of
agreed indicators for the urban environment;
f) failure to recognise that sustainable urbanisation is not a fixed state of harmony, but
rather a process of change in which driving forces such as, economic conditions, the

4
 exploitation of resources, political forces, technological development and institutional
change are made consistent with future as well as present needs.
Overcoming these obstacles requires effective and long-term strategic thinking which
embraces integrated community-based visioning, advocates democratic expression and active
participation, and encourages the adaptation of sustainability to a community’s unique
political, environmental and socio-economic climate. However, the potential to link
visioning and foresight to debates about the urban environment is still in its infancy.

2.1 Strategic Thinking

In order to mobilise political, business and popular support towards sustainable urbanisation,
it is necessary to strategically assess the range of options available, so that programme
development and policy making is potentially wiser. Consequently, strategic thinking is
evolving as a dynamic and robust approach to understanding the inherent complexities
underpinning the sustainability paradigm. Strategic thinking is a process of intuitive
synthesis, where the outcome is an integrated perspective of all key participants (Hendon,
2004). The rationale behind strategic thinking is to develop the skill to be sensitive to small
initial events and ask how they might evolve to affect the future (Soule, 2002). In recent
years, foresight has emerged as a novel and imaginative approach to strategic thinking which
recognises the need for integrated and interdisciplinary approaches to understanding complex
and uncertain issues driving the urban environment. Foresight (as strategic thinking) is
concerned with exploration (based on limited and patchy information) and options, not with
the steps needed for the implementation of actions, which is the realm of strategic planning
(Burke et al, 2004). Strategic planners know that the future of the urban environment cannot
be predicted, but it can be prepared for. In the context of strategic foresight, the construction
of scenarios may facilitate strategy formulation and evaluation, by developing an
understanding of the uncertainty inherent in the external environment, and testing the
robustness of any strategies against a set of possible futures (O’Brien, 2004). In this way,
policies or plans based on this type of approach can help bring desired and likely future
circumstances into closer alignment. Consequently, scenario development is rapidly
emerging as a powerful planning tool which provides an effective framework for
communicating critically uncertain conditions and options, which ultimately may help policy
makers move towards more effective strategies and policies in the pursuit of sustainable
urban development. Essentially, scenario planning harmonises prescriptions about how to
proceed optimally from the present state to some preferred future state, with descriptions of
the present circumstances and the historical trends that led to them (Bruun et al, 2002). In the
context of sustainable urbanisation, foresight through scenario development may help
stakeholders to understand the complex forces shaping the urban environment, to think
imaginatively through what this means for their communities and then finally to encourage a
readiness to act upon this new knowledge.

3. FORESIGHT THROUGH SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT

As a planning tool, foresight provides planners and stakeholders with an opportunity to think,
talk, plan and act creatively and ultimately in concert (Ratcliffe, 2003). In essence, foresight
is the process of attempting to broaden the boundaries of perception by carefully scanning the
future and clarifying emerging situations. Foresight pushes these boundaries forward by:
a) assessing the implications of present actions and decisions;

5
b) detecting and avoiding problems before they occur;
c) considering the present implications of possible future events; and
d) envisaging aspects of desired futures.
Foresight, by its very nature is dynamic, complex and often conflicting. Although
participation by a multiplicity of actors is essential to the success of the process,
disagreements arise as a consequence of participation by different stakeholders in different
disciplines with various visions, goals and expectations (Saritas and Oner, 2004). When
contrasting general public representations with the visions of key actors (planners and local
authority representatives for example), scenario planning no longer appears to be only
challenging future visions. Instead, it becomes a process enabling the group to construct
representations, which, if not unanimous, are at least a platform for discussion and
deliberation (Roubelat, 2000).
Foresight through scenario development enables the participants to identify possible
positive and negative consequences for a particular field of reference and to recommend
strategic action in an attempt to maximise opportunities and avoid or minimise risks
(Niewöhner et al, 2004). Consequently, when scenario planning, it is recommended that a
range of possible and plausible futures is developed which reflect different perspectives and
interpretations on past, present, and future developments (Van Notten et al, 2003), giving
participants the opportunity to consider, comprehend and construct the scenarios collectively.
Scenario thinking as a tool to support strategic management and as a methodology for
improving foresight recognises that in dynamic environments the future cannot be known, but
it can be understood. Scenario planning, increasingly referred to as scenario thinking,
acknowledges the importance of cognition, imagination and the role of individual reasoning
techniques in interpreting the past, considering the present and perceiving the future
(MacKay and McKiernan, 2004). Scenarios generally come in two forms: exploratory and
normative. Exploratory scenarios depict self-consistent future worlds that would emerge from
the present through credible, cause, effect and feedback developments and reach an end-point
that seems credible. Normative scenarios, on the other hand, represent desirable future
worlds (Kelly et al, 2004). They define strategic choices, in other words, choices that are
possible and desirable in order to keep on course (Godet, 2000). The scenario development
process favoured by the authors generally follows the approach adopted by Schwartz (1991).
However, most approaches recognise the need to understand the system under study and to
identify the trends, issues and events that are critical to the system (Enserink, 2000).

3.1 The Process

The initial step is to set the strategic question, which might be a general examination of the
urban environment as a complex adaptive system and its interrelationship and
interconnectedness with a larger regional or national network. Key to this stage is the
holding of strategic conversations with stakeholders which again emphasises the important
role of developing genuine partnerships, opening communication channels and consensus-
building throughout the entire process. Strategic conversations provide for a range of
different worldviews to be shared and negotiated in order to theorise and understand the
future and more importantly, to help create it (Stevenson, 2002).
The next stage is to identify key driving forces of change arising from sustained urban
growth and to examine trends of the recent past and their interrelation. The scenario-building
process involves initial investigation through surfacing the major driving forces that will
influence the development and outcome of critical uncertainties and of the predetermined
trends that are considered to be largely predictable and thus, a part of all futures (Cairns et al,

6
2002). Driving forces are identified by continuous monitoring through ‘horizon’ or
‘environmental’ scanning; in-depth interviews with acknowledged experts; targeted
questionnaire surveys; and brainstorming workshops. Consequently, effective participation is
also crucial to this stage. Having identified key issues and trends it is important to categorise
those which have the highest degree of uncertainty and the highest level of impact on the
strategic question. Comprehending uncertainty and bringing multi-faceted expertise and
knowledge to identify and analyse difficult problems and issues is crucial to understanding
and preparing for the future and providing the best possible solutions (Cinquegrani, 2002).
Often when identifying the issues and trends most relevant to the strategic question, it is
found that even the most radical of forecasts are usually too conservative in the long-term. It
is important to avoid inadvertently fostering tunnel vision by paying too much attention to
current trends, projecting the past forwards, and ignoring the unexpected (Shoemaker, 1998).
Identifying key issues and trends and classifying them according to the level of impact
and degree of uncertainty forms the basis for scenario logics or scenario skeletons upon
which the scenarios are structured. Scenario logics are central to the scenario development
process. They give the set of scenarios a framework and foundation and they provide each
scenario with coherent, consistent, and sound underpinning. They are the organising
principles around which the scenarios are structured and focus on the critical or pivotal
uncertainties. Scenario logics lead to novel insights, identify signals of change and generate
strategic options for the scenarios. These logics can be articulated and elaborated in a number
of different ways. Most usually, by either laying-out in simple narrative form or by depicting
the logics and their interactions or relationships diagrammatically showing causal
connections.
The penultimate step in the process is to develop the actual scenarios themselves. There
is no universally agreed method or single approach to drawing up scenarios. A scenario is
basically a descriptive account or narrative of a range of possible and plausible futures. By
their very nature, scenarios are inherently qualitative and descriptive and aim to supplement
more traditional quantitative research methods. It is highly desirable that the information
portrayed in the scenarios is as informative and broad as possible, yet balanced enough to
avoid an unconscious bias in the direction of some futures rather than others (Jenkins, 1997).
Scenarios, therefore, should account for participant consensus and dissension and should also
accommodate possible arbitrary futures, ‘wild cards’ or low possibility futures. As a means
of conceptualising and moving towards strategic planning, scenarios may be viewed as an
iterative and proactive form of understanding what the future might hold, and facilitate the
identification of what strategies should be pursued in the light of this understanding (Cairns et
al, 2002).
The final stage is the move to strategic planning. By basing decisions on alternative
futures stakeholders are better equipped to strategically plan for uncertainty, and to ensure
that these strategies are as resilient and flexible as possible.

4. LESSONS FROM ABROAD

Incorporating foresight into building scenarios or a vision for the urban environment is
arguably an under exploited but not entirely unexplored phenomenon. The Creative City
(Landry, 2000), for example, provides a clarion for imaginative action in developing and
running urban life and aims to change the mindset of decision makers and offer a mental
toolkit to influence policies, strategies and actions undertaken in cities. In the United States,
scenario development exercises have been used to provide a multiplicity of perspectives on,
and robust approaches to, urban planning and development. Freeman (2000) illustrates

7
through creative use of divergent hypothetical scenarios how very different America could
look from one metropolitan area to another, depending on the strategies each region chooses
to address sprawl. He uses scenario planning to illustrate the housing development
implications of four development scenarios: continuation of current practices and policies
regarding both sprawl and social equity; adoption of smart growth initiatives to combat
sprawl without any consideration of the equity implications; an equity-driven approach
without any attempt to combat sprawl through smart growth; and smart growth initiatives that
are tempered by a concern for social equity.
In Montgomery County, Maryland, dynamic modelling provides the capacity to examine
various initiatives and their effects on improving quality of life over the long term, while
protecting ecological systems and the potential for future development (Preuss and Vemuri,
2004). Visioning exercises have been employed by Menlo Park (California) and Helena
(Montana) to solicit advice from citizens about how they want their community to grow, thus
facilitating the development of incentives and regulations that would help achieve the desired
type of community (Reichert, 1999).
In a combined effort by a delegated task force including representatives from local
government, business, and environmental groups, a number of scenarios was created for
Denver, Colordo, defined in its future development preference Metro Vision 2020. Key
facets of this regional vision are the designation of the extent of urban development within a
specified area, the creation of a balanced multi-modal transportation system, the
establishment of a hierarchy of mixed use, pedestrian and transit oriented urban centres, the
preservation of the physical identity of the four free-standing communities of Boulder,
Brighton, Castle Rock, and Longmont and the protection of the region’s natural environment
(Murray, 2002).
The secret of Chattanooga, Tennessee’s success lies in the commitment and integrated
effort of the city’s local government officials, local population, civic leaders and financial
investors willing to fund a range of environmental innovations. This resulted in a visioning
process, Vision 2000, which brought together stakeholders from all sectors of society to
identify and address the city’s economic, social and environmental problems.
In Europe, most notably France, foresight in the form of ‘la prospective’ has been
rigorously applied for almost fifty years in a formalised approach towards regional and city
planning and development. Most recently, the regional government of Grand Lyon in France
has used regional foresight to elicit greater democratic participation by its citizens in urban
planning policy debates (Cariola and Rolfo, 2004). Similarly, efforts in metropolitan Tunis
confirm that participatory scenarios can be prepared even where political and social
restrictions are considerable. By utilising future workshops participants felt “closer to their
future visions” and were able to think more creatively and effectively about development
strategies (Barbanente et al, 2002). A recent study in the North West region of England
explored attitudes to foresight and existing capacities amongst public, private and voluntary
organisations and key urban and regional development stakeholders. A key objective of the
study was to ascertain best practices in different sectors, and to investigate potential gaps,
constraints and needs in terms of futures thinking for urban and regional development
(Puglisi and Marvin, 2002).
In Ireland, foresight was employed to create a suite of scenarios for Dublin. Given
Dublin’s prominence as Ireland’s premier city, the scenarios incorporate key aspects of
Ireland’s cultural, political and economic climates. The scenarios aim to illuminate plausible
and possible future outcomes for key stakeholders engaged in testing and monitoring present
policies so that they are proofed, so far as possible, against the vagaries of future changes
(Ratcliffe et al, 2003).

8
 Although the above examples employ various approaches to examine the long-term
implications of present day urban planning policies and strategies, they all recognise the need
to adopt longer perspectives than those commonly afforded by traditional planning
approaches. This growing trend in cities throughout the world reflects the rapidly
transforming characteristics of the urban environment and the need to anticipate and prepare
for inevitable change against a dynamic global backcloth.

5. CONCLUSION

Foresighting is essentially a participatory process which fosters a further understanding of

forces shaping the long-term future which should be taken into account in policy formation,
planning and implementation. However, for all the interest in ‘territorial foresight’ at
European and national levels, the potential for linking the future to debates about sustainable
urban and regional development is still in its infancy. The urban environment is increasingly
being recognised as a complex system subject to dynamic and unpredictable transformation.
Until recently, urban development was coterminous with urban expansion. This proliferation
outwards was accompanied by critical spatial, social and environmental problems which
sparked the urgent necessity for urban planners to pinpoint survival strategies for the city of
the future (Xuan Thinh et al, 2002).
Conventional planning approaches have been criticised for their tendency to reinforce the
present, thus rendering it difficult for towns and cities to contemplate, design and build
alternative visions of the future more suited to their specific needs and desires.
Consequently, foresight through scenario development is rapidly emerging as an alternative
which accommodates longer perspectives, embraces critical uncertainties and long term
visions, as well as mechanisms for conflict avoidance and resolution. Scenario planning
derives from the observation that, given the impossibility of knowing precisely how the
future will play out, a good decision or strategy to adopt, is one that plays out well across
several possible futures. Scenario development identifies key forces of change which drive
the development of the urban environment. These drivers help planners to understand
migration and allocation patterns, and consequently settlement and traffic patterns related to
polycentric dynamics which ultimately contributes to tacking problems within suburban
regions (Loibl and Toetzer, 2003). Used in public planning discussions, scenarios have the
potential to translate expert opinion into a format comprehensible also to non-experts and so
to stimulate the debate between the expert community and the general public (Wegener,
1993). The establishment of a sense of social ethos is crucial in working towards sustainable
urban development. More important still is the need to encourage community resolve to
adopt sustainable development as the basis for living and community planning and to
persevere with the implementation of consequent action plans (Thomas and Furuseth, 1997).
Innovative ideas and solutions are required to provide fertile ground for improvements and
creativity (Mega, 2000).
Foresight through scenario development challenges many contemporary perceptions of
urban planning and invites decision makers and members of the public alike to think
imaginatively and cognitively in the pursuit of integrated and holistic planning for the future
of the global city.

9
6. REFERENCES

Barbanente, A., Khakee, A. and Puglisi, M. (2002) Scenario building for Metropolitan Tunis,
Futures, 34, 7, pp583–596.
Berry, B. and Kim, H. (1993) Challenges to the monocentric model, Geographical Analysis,
25, pp1–4.
Bruun, H., Hukkinen, J. and Eklund, E. (2002) Scenarios for coping with contingency: the
case of aquaculture in the Finnish Archipelago Sea, Technological Forecasting & Social
Change, 69, 2, pp107–127.
Burke, T., Slaughter, R. and Voros, J. (2004) Long-term housing futures for Australia: using
‘foresight’ to explore alternative visions and choices, A report prepared for the
Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Swinburne-Monash Research Centre,
Melbourne.
Cairns, G., Wright, G., Bradfield, R., Van der Heijden, K. and Burt, G. (2002) Exploring e-
government futures through the application of scenario planning, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 71, 3, pp217-238.
Cariola, M. and Rolfo, S. (2004) Evolution in the rationales of foresight in Europe, Futures,
In Press, Corrected Proof.
Cinquegrani, R. (2002) Futurist networks: cases of epistemic community? Futures, 34, 8,
pp779–783.
Enserink, B. (2000) Building scenarios for the University, International Transactions in
Operational Research, 7, 6, pp569-583.
Filion P., Bunting, T. and Warriner, K. (1999) The entrenchment of urban dispersion:
residential preferences and location patterns in the dispersed city, Urban Studies, 36, 8,
pp1317–1347
Freeman, L. (2000) Fair Growth 2020: a tale of four futures, Fannie Mae Foundation,
Washington.
Frumkin, H., 2002, Urban sprawl and public health, Public Health Reports, 117, 3, pp201-
217
Godet, M. (2000) The art of scenarios and strategic planning: tools and pitfalls,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 65, 1, pp3–22.
Hall, P. and Pfeiffer, U. (2000) Urban future 21: a global agenda for twenty-first century
cities 2000, Routledge, London.
Hammond, A. (1999) 3 Global Scenarios: choosing the world we want, The Futurist, April
Hendon, G., 2004, Intuition and its Role in Strategic Thinking, BI Norwegian School of
Management, Department of Strategy and Logistics, Sandvika, Norway.
Irish E. P A. (2000) Ireland’s Environment: a millennium report, Environmental Protection
Agency, Wexford.
Irwin, E. G. and Bockstael, N. E. (2004) Land use externalities, open space preservation, and
urban sprawl, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34, 6, pp705-725
Jenkins, L., (1997) Selecting a variety of futures for scenario development,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 55, 1, pp15-20.
Kelly, R., Sirr, L. and Ratcliffe, J. (2004) Futures thinking to achieve sustainable
development at local level in Ireland, Foresight, 6, 2, pp80-90.
Landry, C. (2000) The Creative City: a toolkit for urban innovators, Earthscan, London.
Loibl, W. and Toetzer, T. (2003) Modeling growth and densification processes in suburban
regions—simulation of landscape transition with spatial agents, Environmental
Modelling & Software, 18, 6, pp553–563.
MacKay, R.B. and McKiernan, P. (2004) The role of hindsight in foresight: refining strategic
reasoning, Futures, 36, 2, pp161–179.

10
Mega, V. (2000) Cities inventing the civilisation of sustainability: an odyssey in the urban
archipelago f the European Union, Cities, 1, 3, pp227-236.
Munoz, F. (2003) Lock living: urban sprawl in Mediterranean cities, Cities, 20, 6, pp381-385
Murray, M., 2002, City profile: Denver, Cities, 19, 4, pp283–294.
Niewöhner, J., Wiedemann, P., Karger, C., Schicktanz, S. and Tannert, C. (2004)
Participatory prognostics in Germany: developing citizen scenarios for the relationship
between biomedicine and the economy in 2014, Technological Forecasting & Social
Change, In Press, Corrected Proof.
O’Brien, F. A. (2004) Scenario planning: lessons for practice from teaching and learning,
European Journal of Operational Research, 152, 3, pp709–722.
Preuss, I. and Vemuri, A.W. (2004) Smart growth and dynamic modeling: implications for
quality of life in Montgomery County, Maryland, Ecological Modelling, 1, 71, pp415–
432.
Puglisi, M. and Marvin, S. (2002) Developing Urban and Regional Foresight: exploring
capacities and identifying needs in the North West, Futures, 34, 8, pp761-777
Ratcliffe, J., 2003, Imagineering for Construction, Futures Academy, Dublin Institute of
Technology, Dublin.
Ratcliffe, J., Murray, P. and Branagh, S. (2003) Dublin City Foresight: a scenario approach,
Futures Academy. Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin.
Reichert, P. (1999) A New Community Vision: Montana’s empowerment project (Alternative
Energy Resources Organisation), Federal Transit Administration. Washington, DC.
([Link]
Roubelat, F. (2000) Scenario planning as a networking process, Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 65, 1, pp99–112.
Saritas, O. and Oner, M. A. (2004) Systemic analysis of UK foresight results: joint
application of integrated management model and roadmapping, Technological
Forecasting & Social Change, 71, 1, pp27–65.
Schwartz, P. (1991) The Art of the Long View: planning for the future in an uncertain world,
Doubleday, New York.
Shoemaker, P. (1998) Twenty Common Pitfalls in Scenario Planning, In: Fahey, L. and
Randal, R. (Eds.) Learning from the Future, John Wiley, Toronto.
Soule, B. M. (2002) From vision to reality: strategic agility in complex times, American
Journal of Infection Control, 30, 2, pp107-119.
Stevenson, T. (2002) Anticipatory action learning: conversations about the future, Futures,
34, 5, pp417–425.
Thomas, D. S. and Furuseth, O. J. (1997) The realities of incorporating sustainable
development into local level planning: a case study of Davidson, North Carolina, Cities,
14, 4, pp219-226.
Van der Valk, A. (2002) The Dutch planning experience, Landscape and Urban Planning, 58,
pp201–210.
Van Notten, Ph. W. F., Rotmans, J., Van Asselt, M. B. A. and Rothman, D. S. (2003) An
updated scenario typology: an attempt at synthesis, Futures, 35, 5, pp423–443.
Vonkeman, G. H., (Ed.) (2000) Sustainable Development of European Cities and Regions,
Kluwer Academic Publications, Dordrecht.
Wegener, M. (1993) How useful are scenarios? A new (old) approach in transport planning,
The Dutch Transportation Planning Research Colloquium, Limits to Transportation
Planning, Rotterdam.
Williams, K. (1999) Urban intensification policies in England: problems and contradictions,
Land Use Policy, 16, 3, pp167–178.

11
UNCHS (1997) Monitoring Human Settlements with Urban Indicators, Global Urban
Observatory, United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), Nairobi, Kenya.
Xuan Thinh, N., Arlt, G., Heber, B., Hennersdorf, J. and Lehmann, I. (2002) Evaluation of
urban land-use structures with a view to sustainable development, Applied Geography,
22, 5, pp331–350.

12