1. Introduction

This deliverable provides an in-depth description of the activities conducted in Task 3.1 of the CLIMAS project focusing on "Development of a Citizen-collaborative Future Scenario Building Methodology for a Climate Resilient Society." The deliverable provides a comprehensive overview of the methodology developed to guide the organization of future participatory workshops. The purpose of the workshops is to gather different stakeholders to generate future scenarios depicting a climate-resilient society. The methodology has been developed by leveraging the Future Studies approach (Bell, 2009; Valciukas, 2017), and it has been designed to engage diverse societal groups in envisioning the future and co-creating scenarios and pathways.

The deliverable directly supports the CLIMAS project's overarching goals, aiming to improve climate resilience through problem-oriented approaches and by extensively involving citizens in decision- making. The participatory nature of the scenario-building process aligns with the project's ambition to transform climate adaptation measures by engaging citizens in deliberative democracy and co- designing tools with stakeholders. Effectively engaging citizens is expected to enhance the acceptance and effectiveness of climate policies and align them with societal values.

The insights gained from this task will significantly contribute to the other tasks of the CLIMAS project, including developing the tool in Task 3.4, which aims to provide an analytical framework for the systematic prioritization of scenarios based on citizen and expert values.

Furthermore, this deliverable is closely related to other tasks in WP4 and 5 within the CLIMAS project. The developed methodology and the scenario prioritization tool will be tested in Task 4.3 (Testing phase 2), and the final toolbox will be further calibrated and adapted to Climate Assemblies’ (CAs) needs in Tasks 4.4 (Toolbox calibration and adaption to CAs) and Task 4.5 (Toolbox evaluation and validation). The iterative evaluation process, involving qualitative and quantitative methods, will validate and refine the developed scenarios and toolbox, ensuring they accurately reflect and address the values and priorities identified in this deliverable. Finally, for Task 5.3 (Recommendations for Policymakers and Definition of Strategies), the findings and methodologies from this deliverable will contribute to developing practical recommendations and strategies for policymakers. These will include guidelines and new tools to enhance the acceptance of citizen-led decisions.

The deliverable begins with an introduction to the project, including the fundamental concepts of climate resilience, the importance of citizen participation, and the research field of future studies. Next, a detailed description of a methodology for future scenario-building is provided, describing each phase from preparation to evaluation. This methodology was designed explicitly by VUB based on good practices found in the literature and adapted to the context of the CLIMAS project. The practical application of this methodology is demonstrated through case studies of two future co- creation workshops held in Vilnius and Chios, followed by a thorough analysis of the generated scenarios and identified evaluation criteria. Additionally, the document includes insights from the expert workshop on scenario refinement, offering an in-depth review of scenarios developed during the workshops. Finally, the deliverable concludes with a summary of lessons learned, recommendations, and future steps, ensuring a holistic understanding of the project's outcomes and providing guidance for further work.

2. Background

Climate change is a reality that affects everyone, and human actions are the leading cause of its rapid acceleration. No matter how much we try to reduce the sources of global warming, we have to face serious consequences—such as more frequent and intense weather events (heatwaves, wildfires, storms, floods), more extended periods of drought and heat, and other adverse effects of climate change. Our primary contribution is to co-creating and analyzing alternative visions for the future of climate resilience by integrating diverse perspectives, with the ultimate goal of contributing to a more resilient society capable of withstanding the uncertainties of climate change. This collaborative process involves stakeholders from various sectors envisioning and evaluating scenarios that address climate change's challenges and opportunities. To this end, a future scenario- building methodology is designed, and guidelines are provided in the deliverable to implement the scenario-building workshops effectively. Before we dive into more details, one may wonder: What is the definition of climate resilience? What does a scenario-building workshop involve, and how does it help collectively envision the future and improve public participation in decision-making?

2.1 What is climate resilience? – resilience versus adaptation.

Climate resilience is the term that describes how well we can cope with, bounce back from, and adjust to the effects of climate change (Bahadur et al., 2013). Climate resilience is a key aspect of any effective climate action plan, and it is essential for reducing the risks and costs of climate change and enhancing our well-being and sustainability. The ability to work with uncertainty and change is a key characteristic of resilience. Bahadur et al. (2013) identified ten principal attributes of resilient systems, including high diversity, effective governance and institutions, the ability to work with uncertainty and change, community involvement and the inclusion of local knowledge, readiness and strategic planning for disturbances, high social and economic fairness, robust social values and structures, acknowledging non-equilibrium dynamics, continual and practical learning, and the adoption of a cross-scalar perspective.

Climate change is a global challenge that requires both international and local solutions. To cope with this complex and urgent issue and build a climate-resilient society, a collaborative and coordinated approach that involves multiple stakeholders and sectors is needed. This unprecedented effort demands a high level of professionalism and commitment.

Adaptation and resilience are two distinct but interconnected concepts in the context of climate change. Adaptation responses can both help to build resilience and undermine resilience. The amount of change may sometimes be beyond our ability to adapt, impacting the maintenance of system resilience. A timely focus on the interplay between adaptation and resilience will yield more efficient strategies for preparing and reacting to present and forthcoming changes (Nelson, 2011). While adaptation involves adjusting to change, resilience encompasses the ability to withstand and recover from it. Aspects of resilience that can be operationalised should be integrated into existing climate change adaptation concepts such as vulnerability and adaptive capacity. The most significant potential of resilience in climate adaptation is its capacity to shape a hopeful vision for the future, highlighting the significance of employing collaborative tools to encourage learning and innovation (Abeling, 2018).

2.2 Future studies and participatory future workshops

As an interdisciplinary field, future studies explore the trajectories of possible futures, anticipating and preparing for potential developments in various domains. It focuses on organized and clear thinking about different possible futures. Its goal is to help us understand what could happen and give us more control over future possibilities (Bell, 2009; Valciukas, 2017). Future studies have its foundations in understanding the dynamics of change and uncertainty. The work of futurists like Kahn & Aron (1962) and Toffler (2022) emphasized the need for systematic approaches to envision and prepare for plausible futures. As Kuhnt & Troxler (2007) discussed, future workshops are a method for developing a shared vision of the future, particularly among marginalized groups. This approach emphasizes the equal status of participants, regardless of their background.

In recent years, integrating participatory future workshops has gained prominence as a method to engage diverse stakeholders in envisioning and shaping future scenarios. Future studies, a field that has evolved from utopianism to empirical predictions, are now characterized by a critical perspective that seeks to address the gaps in current visions of the future. Future studies in government and business are dominated by strategic planning, technology impact assessment, and risk analysis. In academia, there is a move towards a more analytical viewpoint. This involves concentrating on the gaps in specific ideas about the future and striving for a more balanced approach to future studies, considering diverse cultural issues. There is also a significant shift toward future studies as a framework for social emancipation (Milojevic, 2021).

Futures studies have mainly been adopted in different domains. Gabrielli and Zoels (2003) explore how human-centred design strategies can be used as a foresight tool. They claim that design can support planners in finding and mapping potential opportunities for future product or service development by enriching future scenarios with visual, spatial, and experiential aspects. Future studies have been eagerly adopted by planning departments in organisations and nations, seeking to open up the future and move from the 'likely' future to alternative futures. Inayatullah (2005) discussed that combining future studies and action learning, known as anticipatory action learning, can transform organisations. Godet (2006) introduced Future Scenario Planning as a strategic management tool and highlighted that people can learn how to create futures with the right tools and attitudes. The future depends on individual and collective decisions rather than prevailing trends. Vidal (2006) provides practical guidelines for conducting future workshops, emphasising the importance of facilitation and creative tools. These studies collectively underscore the potential of future workshops in creating desirable futures, particularly in promoting inclusivity and democratic problem-solving. Alminde (2020) extends the role of future workshops in democratic and inclusive research, particularly with vulnerable groups. Raider-Roth (2021) further explores the potential of future workshops in an online setting, highlighting the need for both synchronous and asynchronous processes.

The future workshop method engages small groups in envisioning and realizing innovative ideas for addressing social issues. It has been applied in various domains, such as management, research, and citizen involvement. In the context of action research, the future workshop method has been adapted to facilitate collaborative research that empowers participants to create positive change in their communities (Alminde & Warming, 2020; Bell, 2009).

Future scenario building via participatory future workshops can be deployed as a deliberation tool in the ‘pre-assembly preparation’ and ‘assembly agenda setting’ phases (Gibb & Isack, 2003) (Zhang, 2022), helping organizers and facilitators -- of climate assemblies, living labs, or anybody who wants to organize a workshop -- to design and plan the process in a participatory way. Organizations and facilitators can use future scenario building to involve citizens/stakeholders’ perspectives in imagining and exploring possible climate action futures. This can foster a sense of ownership, engagement, and inclusion among the participants and generate diverse and creative ideas for addressing the climate crisis.

2.3 What are scenarios? - Scenario types and techniques

Scenarios are a way of imagining different futures. They answer the question of “What might happen in the future under different conditions?” and with what measures could we be better prepared to address future difficulties. Scenarios can offer alternative “what-if” stories of the future that can be used for strategic planning. By imagining the future, they can help cope with the inherent uncertainty that marks our societies. Scenario results in diverse future narratives that help understand risks, opportunities, and strategic options to find solutions. Scenarios are outcomes of a mix of experimental methods that are exploratory in nature. Therefore, they do not represent certain future events and are not the only possible future events. Scenarios help overcome mental biases by creating multiple futures, and they process possible, likely, and desirable visions of the future and focus on what could be. Scenario development enhances the capacity of organizations and institutions to deal with their unpredictable environments (Meinert, 2014). Scenarios should be novel, multifaceted, believable, comprehensive, and never right or wrong.

Ducot (1980) offers a three-dimensional classification of scenarios and the practical application of each type to a problem. The author first defines the scenarios and then classifies them along three axes: exploratory-mixed-anticipatory, descriptive-dynamic-normative, and trend-compound- peripheral. This detailed three-dimensional categorization is depicted through a cube-shaped diagram that displays 27 distinct scenario types. Every type is exemplified by its application to a real- world problem. Alexander (2004) extends the scenario method to system design, emphasizing the importance of user stories. Börjeson (2006) and Bishop (2007) comprehensively overview scenario types and techniques. Börjeson's typology is based on the user's need for knowledge, while Bishop's review categorizes techniques into eight groups. Börjeson (2006) discusses various typologies and approaches to future studies. It distinguishes between predictive scenarios, explorative scenarios, and what-if scenarios. The classification is based on the principal questions a user may want to pose about the future. These are “What will happen?”, “What can happen?” and “How can a specific target be reached?”.

Predictive scenarios aim to predict “what will happen?” based on current trends. It distinguishes between two types of predictive scenarios: “forecasts” and “what-if “scenarios. “Forecasts” predict what will happen under the assumption that the likely development unfolds, often using probability and likelihood concepts. They are useful for planning and adapting to expected situations, providing valuable information for decision-makers, planners, and investors. On the other hand, “what-if” scenarios explore future developments based on specific, significant events. These events can be external, internal, or a combination of both. What-if scenarios can be seen as a group of forecasts, differing not just in degree but also in terms of various exogenous variables.

Explorative scenarios are focused on understanding and negotiating different possible futures. These are characterised by their response to the question "What can happen?" Two types of explorative scenarios are identified: external scenarios, which examine potential developments in external factors, and strategic scenarios, which investigate the outcomes of specific actions. Policies are not part of the scenarios but are developed and assessed based on the framework provided by the external scenarios. External scenarios aim to assist users in developing robust strategies that can withstand various external developments. Also, these external scenarios can have a broad target group and may cover general topics such as global energy or climate scenarios.

On the other hand, strategic scenarios are particularly relevant in strategic contexts, helping to address uncertainties and plan for a variety of potential futures. Strategic scenarios incorporate policy measures defined by the intended user to address the issue. These scenarios describe possible consequences of strategic decisions, focusing on both internal factors that can be influenced and external aspects. They consider how decision consequences may vary depending on future developments. Strategic scenarios involve defining target variables and testing different policies to study their impact on these variables. Overall, the primary goal of explorative scenarios is to explore situations or developments considered possible from various perspectives.

Normative scenarios address the question of “how a specific target can be reached?”. Normative scenarios can be of two types: “preserving scenarios” and “transforming scenarios”. Preserving scenarios focus on achieving the target by adjusting the current situation while transforming scenarios explore how the target can be reached when the existing system structure impedes necessary changes. In normative scenarios, explicit normative starting points guide the study, emphasizing realizing future situations or objectives. Preserving scenarios are suitable when the goal can be achieved within the current system structure. In contrast, transforming scenarios are used when a shift to a structurally different system is deemed necessary for goal attainment. The transforming scenario approach often rejects modelling the existing system structure, perceiving trends and the current structure as part of the problem.

Normative-preserving scenarios aim to efficiently meet a specific target, typically in a cost-effective manner. This can involve optimizing modelling using tools like the MARKAL energy model or qualitative methods. In regional planning, for example, experts or planners assess various environmental, social, economic, and cultural factors to determine the most efficient path to reach specific targets (Börjeson et al., 2006).

Figure 1. Scenario typology has three categories and types (Börjeson et al., 2006).

2.4 Why citizen participation? – the significance of citizen engagement in the scenario building

The future workshop aims to identify the vision of a desired climate-resilient future for people in their local neighborhoods, cities, or regions and the steps needed to achieve it. In particular, organizers are keen to understand the people’s demand for new climate services that can enhance their knowledge and capacity. Therefore, citizens should also be involved in the policy development process, considering their hopes and fears for the future.

Furthermore, to develop a national strategy that reflects the needs of the whole society, the national government needs to take broader participation very seriously. This requires an integrated approach that involves people from different sectors, levels and backgrounds. Governments are willing to listen to and learn from different perspectives that may challenge their assumptions and plans. This is a rare opportunity for constructive dialogue and collaboration on a crucial issue for a country's future (Alminde & Warming, 2020; Van den Ende et al., 2022).

Citizen participation is crucial in scenario building, as it enhances communication and fosters a sense of community (Lawrence, 1993). It is particularly important in local governance, where it can strengthen democracy and improve service delivery. The active involvement of citizens in local government matters will lead to the creation of development programs that directly engage the community and inspire them to be proactive and creative. Participatory mechanisms are essential for delivering the services that citizens demand. To foster citizen participation, local governments need a robust democratic structure that allows for meaningful engagement and accountability. Therefore, the government should design development programs responsive to the needs and preferences of the people at all levels (Zanna, 2015).

Head (2007) states that the shift towards community engagement should be viewed critically, as government agendas may drive it and have limitations. The importance of building effective capacity for citizens and all non-government organizations to participate should be emphasized. Citizen engagement is also a valuable learning experience, helping citizens and local government employees develop the skills to address challenges. True engagement involves reinforcing the sense of community and building up citizenship in a participatory process. Forums and methods used for community involvement have a strong learning aspect in developing the competencies of local government employees and citizens to cope with changing expectations and challenges in times of shrinking financial resources (Dobos, 2013).

3. Development of a Methodology for Participatory Future Scenario-building

This section elaborates on the methodological tool designed for future scenario building for the CLIMAS project. The tool builds upon existing literature on future scenario building, as discussed in the introduction. It draws inspiration from mature and recent contributions in the field, including the work by Kollosche & Florian (2021). While the best practices of the existing methodologies are adopted in the context of scenario-building for climate resilience to develop the methodology, there are fundamental differences from the existing works. Specifically, the developed tool proposes defining context-specific evaluation criteria in each workshop for assessing scenarios rather than relying on predefined and generic criteria. This approach facilitates a precise and meaningful evaluation of the generated scenarios, considering the most relevant criteria defined by users. Additionally, a comprehensive procedure is outlined to identify key drivers in scenario construction. Moreover, an extensive scenario prioritization strategy is formulated to gather participant’s opinions on the most critical scenarios using survey tools and implement a data-driven decision- making tool to systematically priorities scenarios using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Lastly, we organized an expert workshop as a structured and collaborative process where experts from various fields come together to develop, critique, and improve scenarios.

Figure 2 depicts a generic structure of the future scenario-building workshop (FSW) from preparation to the evaluation phase. The workshop consists of four main phases, described in detail in this document.

Figure 2. Structure of the future scenario-building workshop

3.1 Phase One: Preparation and Planning

The preparation phase of an FSW is crucial for ensuring its success and achieving the desired outcomes. Paying careful attention to the following steps of the preparation phase, a solid foundation for a successful future workshop, maximizing participant engagement, and achieving the desired outcomes can be reached. Here are some key aspects to consider during the preparation:

(a) Define the workshop objectives: Clearly articulate the purpose and goals of the future workshop. What specific outcomes do you hope to achieve? This will guide the entire planning and execution process. For example, if you are identifying strategies for building a climate-resilient society, you should specify the specific outcomes you hope to achieve.

Defining a broader theme, such as “how to create a society that can be resilient to climate change” or “identifying strategies for building a climate-resilient society,” might be a better way to guide the workshop. This would allow us to explore different strategies for dealing with various challenges and opportunities related to climate resilience. General scenarios that are applicable to European society could be more valuable, and these can be later customized based on the needs of different European countries and regions.

(b) Identify stakeholders/participants: To ensure a successful and inclusive workshop, it is essential to identify the relevant stakeholders and participants who should be involved in the process. These could include experts, community members, decision-makers, representatives from various sectors related to the workshop's theme, and citizens (students, vulnerable groups, migrants, etc.).

Some criteria for selecting participants are:

-What function do they have? Think about what role they play in the issue. Are they decision-makers, planners, implementers, or beneficiaries? Do they have relevant knowledge, experience, or resources?

-What scale are they interested in? Think about their level of concern and influence. Are they local, regional, national, or international actors? Do they care about the short-term or long-term impacts of the issue?

-Which group do they belong to? Think about their affiliation and network. Are they part of a specific theme or political orientation? Do they have common interests or goals with other stakeholders?

These criteria can help to ensure a balanced and diverse representation of perspectives and interests in the workshop.

(c) Conduct background research: Collect and analyze relevant information and data related to the workshop topic. By doing so, you can facilitate informed discussions and explore future possibilities.

(d)Design the agenda: Develop a comprehensive agenda that outlines the flow of activities, discussion topics, and exercises for the workshop. Ensure the agenda balances information sharing, collaborative activities, and participant engagement. Developing a clear plan and timeline for the scenario-building process is also essential.

(e) Prepare materials and resources: Prepare any necessary materials, resources, or visual aids during the workshop. A presentation slide, handout, flip chart, or digital tool could be used. To facilitate the group work, appropriate venues and rooms should be secured. The space should be customised to the group's needs and preferences, creating a comfortable, casual, and stimulating environment. Refreshments such as fruits, cakes, soft drinks, tea, and coffee should be provided during the breaks.

Arrange for a tape recorder and microphones to capture the entire session when necessary. You will, of course, need to let the participants know about the recording setup. Other considerations include:

• Defining the duration of the workshop (Min half a day to one day - Max 3 Days)

•Defining the number of participants (Min 12 - Max 20).

•Defining the number of facilitators (two facilitators) and one note-taker

•Ensuring gender equality and diversity

•Plan a simple warm-up exercise for all the participants

(f) Communicate with participants: Contact workshop participants well in advance to inform them about the workshop's purpose, agenda, and pre-workshop tasks or readings. Be clear and concise in your instructions, and invite them to ask questions.

(g) Scoping: Defining the scope of the scenario-building exercise, including the geographic and temporal boundaries and time horizon. The scope also includes identifying the key focus areas relevant to the exercise, such as urban planning, agriculture, energy systems, etc. These focus areas should reflect the main challenges and opportunities the exercise aims to explore.

(h) Articulating critical questions for each phase: Define critical questions for each workshop phase. This also depends on who will participate and their backgrounds and motivations.

(i)Assign roles and responsibilities: Determine the roles and responsibilities of facilitators, note- takers, timekeepers, and any other supporting staff or volunteers. Clarify their tasks and ensure everyone is prepared for their respective roles.

(j) Test technology and tools: If technology or specific tools will be used during the workshop, test them in advance to ensure they work smoothly. This includes audio-visual equipment, presentation software, online collaboration platforms, or other technological solutions.

(k)Rehearse and fine-tune: Perform a run-through of the workshop's activities to identify potential problems or gaps. Provide participants with an engaging and seamless experience by making necessary adjustments (Kollosche & Florian, 2021; Lauttamäki, 2016; Troxler & Kuhnt, 2007).

3.2 Phase Two: Identification of Key Drivers (Critique phase)

This phase is known as the warm-up phase of the workshops and is designed to help participants ease into the scenario-building process and foster a broad and active involvement. A key – and the most challenging – step in envisioning the future of the scenario topic is to identify the main factors that will influence it. What are the most relevant and uncertain factors that will affect the future of the scenario topic? What will be the main drivers of change? Moreover, what factors can we assume are more or less fixed for the time horizon we are considering?

Key drivers are the factors that influence the success or failure of a decision or a key question. For example, to create a climate-resilient society, we must consider the key drivers affecting its feasibility and impact. The drivers will shape our scenarios and stories to explore different possibilities and outcomes. They help us understand the challenges and opportunities that we may face in the future.

A guiding question can be: “For a society to be resilient to climate change, what factors are crucial?”

Alternatively, “What are the characteristics of a climate-resilient society?”

Goals of the critique phase:

a) Networking (opening of discourse and involvement of participants)

b) Explorative (analysis of the target of study: resilient society against climate change)

c) Defining key factors/drivers

d) Reaching the standard narrative of discovered drivers/factors

Outcomes of the critique phase:

a) A shared understanding of problem and scenario method

b) Identification of key drivers/factors and uncertainties

c) A list of documented and evaluated factors/drivers

d) consensus on key factors/drivers (10-12 drivers)

3.2.1 Techniques of the critique phase

Several techniques can be potentially used in the critique phase that are summarized as follows:

a) Brainstorming/group discussion

Brainstorming is the primary technique used in this phase. The group discussion can begin with some ice-breaking questions. Since our planet is facing a climate change crisis that impacts all of us, as a way to get the workshop started, we can ask the following climate-resilient society icebreakers:

What extreme weather events have made you consider the importance of building a climate- resilient society? What can we do in the future to better prepare for such events?
What actions can we take to promote resilience and achieve a more sustainable future in the face of climate change?
How can individuals contribute to creating a climate-resilient society? What can we do to encourage more people to get involved in building resilience?
How could our society be more climate-resilient? If you had to choose one aspect, what would it be? What would you do to make it happen?

b) STEEP technique

The STEEP framework is a standard tool for strategic planning and scenario building, which helps analyse the external factors affecting an organisation, project, or industry. The STEEP stands for five main clusters: Social, Technological, Economic, Environmental, and Political factors (Fisher et al. (2020)) These themes cover the different areas of application:

Social: factors including values, lifestyles, demographic influences, income distribution, education, health, population growth, migration, security

Technology: research, new technologies and trends, assessment of technology

Economics: economic growth, exchange rates, taxation, unemployment rate, business cycles, resource availability

Environment: climate change, pollution levels, quality of life

Politics: legislation, political stability, taxation, safety regulations, and subsidies.

3.2.2 Toward determination of critical drivers

The workshop participants are divided into smaller groups according to their preferred topics. Each group is assigned a separate room to work on their topic. The main objective of the group work is to identify and collect all the relevant factors that influence the climate resilience of their region or Europe as a whole. The groups are expected to work autonomously without any external guidance. They need to choose a moderator to facilitate the discussion and ensure that the outcomes are recorded (using flipcharts or boards).

A suggested method for group work is to start with a brainstorming session and then organize and categories the factors. After completing the group work, the groups will reconvene in the plenary and present their findings. The facilitator will then cluster the factors from different groups and create a preliminary list of the key factors for climate resilience.

Considering the complexity of the problem and the large number of defined factors, a subset of the most relevant factors should be selected. To do this, a point allocation method could be used, where each participant will assign points to the factors that they consider most important. The question is, “Which factors are most significant in creating a resilient society versus climate change across Europe or their local neighbourhood/city/region?” This means how much a factor impacts the region and how much it is affected by other factors.

The workshop participants would agree on a set of 10 to 12 main influencing factors. These factors will be documented and finalized collaboratively. The final list of factors has clear definitions and descriptions for each item. These factors are interrelated and need to be considered together to promote climate resilience in societies. Moreover, different factors may be more or less relevant depending on the context, culture, and characteristics of each society (Kollosche & Florian, 2021; Vidal, 2005; Lauttamäki, 2016).

3.2.3 Assessing key drivers

The drivers/factors can be selected by assessing them based on their direct and indirect impacts as well as the uncertainty (Kollosche & Florian, 2021):

A) Effect on the system: This criterion assesses the degree to which a factor/driver significantly influences the overall procedure. For example, what are the most relevant factors for planning a climate-resilient society? Variables with a significant impact can highly change the system's behaviour. For instance, in the context of climate resilience, reducing greenhouse gas emissions directly impacts the climate system by mitigating global warming and its associated effects on weather patterns, sea levels, and extreme events. This factor has a high impact on the system.

B) Effect through the system: This criterion assesses that if some factors do not directly touch the core of the system, they can still strongly impact the system’s behavior by affecting other connected elements. This way, they can significantly change how the entire system works. For example, while education and awareness may not directly impact the climate system, they can indirectly influence individual and community behavior, reducing energy consumption and lowering emissions.

c) Uncertainty: This criterion assesses the degree of uncertainty; in other words, some factors are more uncertain or unpredictable than others. This means they have less data available, depend on outside or random factors, or are hard to estimate. Knowing how uncertain a factor is is important because it helps assess the reliability and robustness of strategies or decisions based on it. For example, various economic and political factors can influence carbon markets and pricing mechanisms, making it challenging to predict the future price of carbon credits with certainty.

In general, these criteria can help us prioritise factors to be examined more closely based on their direct or indirect impact on a system and their level of uncertainty. Please note that the evaluation criteria for scenario assessment should be distinct from these three criteria.

3.3 Phase Three: Scenario generation or envisioning

The envisioning phase of an FSW is a collaborative and creative process that aims to collectively imagine and design possible future scenarios, usually related to a specific topic or challenge. This phase is crucial for stimulating innovation, facilitating dialogue, and building a shared future vision. This phase focuses on creating various forecasts for the future of a society that can adapt to climate change. This step aims to brainstorm different scenarios for the future of the focus areas based on the key drivers we identified before. In total, 4 to 5 raw basic scenarios might be developed considering the specified duration of the workshop. The key drivers will be shown again, as they are the basis for this and the following phases, where the scenarios and projections will be built on them.

Goals of the phase:

Using the key drivers defined in the previous phase to identify a set of future scenarios. These scenarios should be manageable and realistic but, instead, reflect the uncertainty and complexity of the future. The scenarios should also be consistent, comprehensive, and logical.

Outcomes of the phase:

List of 4 to 5 future scenarios/projections.

3.3.1 Techniques of Scenario Envisioning

3.3.1.1 Brainstorming

This step aims to create multiple developments/projections for each key driver in small groups. The materials needed for this task are index cards, pens, and a handout with the key drivers in the columns and enough blank spaces in the rows.

The small groups will explore different developments/projections for the key factors. Each group will focus on 3 key drivers and come up with at least 2 different developments for each one. These scenarios should reflect the possible variations of the key factors in the specified time frame and be distinct from each other.

The guiding question for the group work is:

What are the potential future developments or specifications associated with the key factors we have chosen?

The facilitator instructs the participants to write down each suggestion for each development/projection scenario on a card, along with a keyword. The facilitator then asks the participants to share their cards with the group and attach them to the corresponding key factor on the whiteboard. The facilitator then arranges the cards on the pinboard in a matrix format, creating a morphological box. Using the developments, the participant may develop possible scenarios via brainstorming. The leading question is:

Which possible scenarios are thinkable?

Alternatively, the scenarios can be generated more systematically via a morphological box, as explained in the following subsection.

3.3.1.2 Morphological Box

The morphological box, also known as the morphological matrix, is a method for scenario building that explores and generates different factor or driver combinations. It allows for creating a range of scenarios by considering various possible element combinations.

Figure 3. Example of a morphological box

Several projections/developments (not scenarios) for each key driver should be defined to generate scenarios using the morphological box approach. After generating key drivers in the previous phase, we develop related developments for each driver, incorporating significant characteristics of that respective driver. These projections will be inserted in the table to be considered in conjunction with other projections of other key factors as components of possible scenarios. Each suggestion for development/projection should be recorded on a card with a keyword. Each key driver's corresponding cards should be displayed during the plenary session. Examples of the developments/projections can be found later in the following text.

The next step is to create a morphological box in the plenary by collecting and placing key drivers at the head of each column and their respective developments/projections in the subset rows (See Figure 3). A completed version of the morphological box with key factors and their corresponding predictions/developments is available.

Next, the task is to combine and generate coherent and practical combinations from the projections/developments into the most relevant scenarios (4 to 5) based on the participants' consensus. This step aims to integrate matching developments/projections of the key factors into scenarios. The primary tool for this step is the pinboard. Developments that do not fit should be set aside.

These raw scenarios form the basis for the scenarios. The guiding questions to the participants are (Kollosche & Florian, 2021):

Is there a relationship between the specifications of various key elements and their future estimates?
In what ways do these relationships affect the climate resilience of society?

The facilitator will then draw lines to connect corresponding specifications within the morphological box displayed on the pin board. As the final step, each scenario should be narrated clearly via consensus among the participants (Troxler & Kuhnt, 2007; Van den Ende et al., 2021; van den Ende et al., 2022; Vidal, 2005).

For further clarification, please refer to the following basic examples of key drivers and their possible developments:

Key Driver 1: Renewable Energy Transition

A transition to renewable energy sources with:

Development 1: moving away from fossil fuels.

Development 2: a clear focus on sustainability and social inclusivity.

Key Driver 2: Education and Awareness

Development 1: focusing on NGOs to increase awareness.

Development 2: designing specific courses for students on climate change. Development 3: community workshops and training.

Development 3: community workshops and training.

For example, Development 1 from Key Driver 1 and Development 2 from Key Driver 2 can be connected in the morphological box to create a scenario: designing specific courses for students to increase awareness of how to move away from fossil fuels. These can also be connected to several other developments from other key factors. Finally, this gives a raw scenario that can be further discussed to achieve a final scenario.

Please note that you might use brainstorming and strategies (other than the morphological box) to define the scenarios. This approach is a systematic method for scenario generation.

3.4 Phase Four: Identification of Evaluation Criteria

Once the scenarios are generated, they should be reviewed, analysed and prioritised. This requires determining a number of key criteria that are crucial in evaluating the scenarios. These criteria are essential for assessing the scenarios in any situation, even if your goals, strategies, work, or management change. The criteria should match your goals, objectives, and context of the scenario- building exercise. They can help you and your stakeholders see the pros and cons of a scenario for your community. Having a list of essential criteria for ranking the scenarios will give you a clear and objective way to evaluate and compare them. It helps ensure that your analysis and decision-making process are based on relevant factors and considerations.

Each scenario should be evaluated for its feasibility, desirability and potential implications. This evaluation helps identify the most promising scenarios and understand each scenario's possible risks and opportunities.

Goals of this phase:

Identification and definition of the criteria. Criteria are a list of crucial key factors in evaluating the scenarios. These factors should be aligned with the goals, objectives, and specific context of the scenario-building exercise.

Outcomes of this phase:

A list of criteria for evaluating the scenarios.

The main techniques used in this phase are brainstorming and group discussions. When defining criteria for evaluation by brainstorming, you shift your focus to evaluating and comparing the scenarios you have developed. The criteria help you measure and rank the scenarios according to the objectives, goals, and strategic priorities of the scenario-building exercise. The criteria should cover aspects such as feasibility, desirability, alignment with goals, potential impacts, risks, resource requirements, stakeholder acceptance, or any other relevant factors for decision-making.

Therefore, the scenarios must meet the following essential criteria (Van den Ende et al., 2022; Wiek et al., 2014):

Plausibility—the scenario team must find the projection plausible.
Dissimilarity—the projections must be different from each other.
Completeness—the projections within a descriptor must cover all possible outcomes.
Relevance—the projection must be necessary for the future.
Information content—the projection must add value to the projections within a descriptor.

4. Executing Participatory Future Scenario-building Method in Practice

Living Labs implements the future scenario-building methodology described in section 2 to organize participatory workshops for future scenario-building. The implementation details and outcomes of the workshops are summarised in the following subsections.

4.1 A Participatory Future Scenario-building Workshop in Vilnius Aukštamiestis LL

VILNIUS TECH, in cooperation with Vilniaus Planas, applied the guidelines to implement a workshop on October 8, 2023, in Vilnius Aukštamiestis Living Lab. VUB provided online support for the preparation steps with specific guidelines and by answering questions from the organizers. The questions (from organizers) and answers (by VUB) are provided in Annex A.

4.1.1 Preparation steps for the workshop

Step 1: Discussions amongst the team on how to approach the task

With the guidelines thoroughly reviewed and clarifications in hand, the subsequent phase was marked by internal team discussions. These deliberations focused on strategizing our approach, ensuring that the workshop would adhere to the guidelines and be tailored to the unique dynamics of our audience and setting.

1. Kick-off meeting: A dedicated kick-off meeting was organised to bring together all team members involved in the workshop. The primary objective of this meeting was to share the insights obtained from the clarification process and set the tone for subsequent discussions. It also included defining workshop objectives.

2. Delineating responsibilities: One of the foremost tasks was to assign specific roles and responsibilities. By ensuring that every team member had a defined role—be it facilitator, note-taker, or logistical support—smooth execution could be anticipated. Clear responsibilities also meant that each member could delve deeper into their specific areas, becoming experts who could guide the process seamlessly.

3. Pinpointing stakeholders and participants. We pinpointed stakeholders and participants in our Living Lab that were pertinent to the workshop. The spectrum spanned from experts, community figures, and policymakers to various sector representatives and citizens, encompassing students and vulnerable groups. Selection Criteria:

a. Functionality: We considered their role in the overarching issue, gauging their relevance and involvement.

b. Interest scale: We evaluated their influence and concerns, whether local, regional, or global.

c. Group affiliation: We identified their specific affiliations and networks, which informed their role in the workshop.

4. Agenda design. We charted a comprehensive agenda detailing the workshop's flow, balancing information dissemination, interactive activities, and audience engagement. The agenda template provided by VUB was used as the ground for this. The agenda is placed in Annex 1.

5. Addressing potential challenges: The team brainstormed potential challenges that could arise during the workshop using the insights from the guidelines and the clarifications received. Whether it was the possibility of veering off-topic, managing a diverse group of participants, or ensuring that every voice was heard, proactive solutions were discussed and noted.

Step 2: Develop supplementary material

Upon receiving the guidelines, the importance of bolstering our main workshop content with supplementary material became evident. Such material was envisioned as informative support and an enhancer for participant engagement and comprehension. Here is a detailed account of our approach and the materials developed:

1. Handouts: Our primary mode of content delivery revolved around handouts for participants. These were concise, print-ready materials, offering attendees a tangible reference to key workshop data. Designed for easy comprehension, the handouts encompassed visual data representation, bite-sized info chunks, and a straightforward layout.

a. Supplementary Material 1: The Dangers of a Changing Climate in Europe. Based on insights from the European Environment Agency, this material explored Europe's vulnerability to climate change. Given its regional relevance, the content was transcribed into Lithuanian, ensuring linguistic familiarity for the participants.

b. Supplementary Material 2: Worksheet of the Workshop. This comprehensive guide elucidated the key stages of the workshop and their underlying rationale. It acted as a roadmap for participants, clarifying the sequence of activities, expectations, and the ultimate objectives.

2. Strategy for scenario-building: The team convened multiple brainstorming sessions to chart out the most efficacious approach for scenario-building. Our considerations included:

a. Tool Selection: Deciding on the right blend of tools to foster discussions and visualise future scenarios.

b. Engagement Flow: Strategizing a workshop rhythm oscillating between information delivery and participant interaction, ensuring sustained engagement.

c. Prompting Discussions: The team set up a series of prompts and questions designed to spark thought-provoking and productive discourse among participants.

3. Customizing to the audience: The Vilnius Aukštamiestis Living Lab mandated a nuanced approach with its distinctive participant profile. Activities and discussions were adapted to anticipate the participants' knowledge background, expectations, and cultural moorings.

Step 3: Setting up the scene

Understanding that the ambience and environment of the workshop can profoundly impact the outcomes, we were meticulous in our preparation. Here is a detailed breakdown of how we set the scene:

1. Venue selection: We chose a location accessible to our participants and conducive to focused discussions. The room we booked was spacious, well-lit, and insulated from external disturbances, ensuring participants could concentrate without distractions.

2. Seating arrangement: Considering collaboration, we opted for a semi-circular seating arrangement. This ensured every participant had a clear line of sight to the presenter and fellow attendees, promoting engagement and active participation.

3. Technical setup: We created a designated presentation space with a projector, screen, and reliable audio equipment. We tested all equipment beforehand to prevent any technical glitches during the workshop.

4. Resource stations: Dedicated areas were set up where participants could access stationery and workshop handouts. This enabled participants to quickly grab what they needed without disrupting the flow of the workshop.

5. Refreshment zone: We set up a designated area for refreshments with various snacks, fruits, teas, and coffee. Regular breaks were scheduled to allow participants to stretch, refuel, and engage in casual networking.

Setting up the scene was not just about logistics; it was about creating an atmosphere where participants felt valued, comfortable, and inspired. By paying attention to the most minor details, we aimed to provide an environment where creativity and collaboration could flourish.

Step 4: Recruiting/inviting participants

Understanding that the success of our workshop hinged significantly on the participation and engagement of a diverse and relevant group, we put considerable thought into the recruitment and invitation process. Here is an in-depth look at our approach:

Identification of potential participants: Our primary step was to draft a list of potential participants. We focused on identifying individuals and groups offering varied perspectives, be it experts in the field, community leaders, or stakeholders directly affected by the workshop's theme.
Personalized outreach: We believed in a personalized approach instead of a generic invitation. Each potential participant received a tailored invitation, highlighting why their presence would be invaluable. This conveyed our genuine interest and emphasized the participant's potential contribution.
Preliminary tasks communication: We shared preliminary tasks or readings for those who confirmed attendance. This step was crucial to ensure that all participants came prepared, allowing for more informed and meaningful discussions during the workshop.

Our recruiting and invitation strategy was designed to gather a group and curate a cohort that was informed, engaged, and excited about the workshop.

Our Future scenario-building workshop was attended by 12 individuals, 7 females and 5 males. Below is the anonymized list of participants and their affiliations.

Table 1. List of the participants in the future scenario-building workshop of the Vilnius Aukštamiestis LL.

During our Future scenario-building workshop, we intentionally incorporated participants from a broad spectrum of backgrounds to guarantee a comprehensive perspective. This diverse selection was rooted in our commitment to capturing various viewpoints and insights from multiple stakeholder groups. Each participant's unique affiliation brought forth a distinct dimension to the workshop's discussions, ensuring the outcomes were well-rounded and holistic.

The group also included 4 facilitators from VILNIUS TECH and Vilniaus Planas.

4.1.2 Welcome and Warm-Up

Kicking off the session, the facilitators provided a comprehensive overview of the day's agenda (Annex 1), ensuring that all participants had clarity on the sequence of events, topics of discussion, and the objectives they aimed to achieve by the end of the workshop.

Step 1: Introduction to CLIMAS

Project coordinator VILNIUS TECH representative Dr Aelita Skaržauskienė presented the key goals

and approaches of the CLIMAS project.

Step 2: Presenting the future scenario-building approach

G. Gulevičiūtė (VILNIUS TECH) introduced the future scenario workshop method. Recognised as a powerful mechanism, this tool seeks to engage participants in crafting a vision for a resilient future and discerning the avenues to realise it. It is about envisioning and understanding what citizens demand regarding climate services, innovations, and policies. This is where scenarios play, enabling participants to hypothesise various future outcomes.

Step 3: Introduction of participants and getting to know each other

We used an activating question: “Have you ever experienced extreme weather events that made you consider the importance of building a climate-resilient society? How do you think we can better prepare for such events in the future?” to ignite discussions and get to know each other. Each participant (including facilitators) spent 3-5 minutes presenting themselves and answering the activating question.

4.1.3 Identified key drivers

First, the facilitators explained that each group had to present 10-12 drivers at the end of the session. Then, the facilitators presented the key methods for this phase as defined in the guidelines: STEEP and brainstorming.

After the introductions, the two groups worked independently to identify the main factors influencing the guiding question. Each group chose a moderator who facilitated the discussion and ensured that the outcomes were recorded (using distributed flipcharts or notepads).

Note: During the group discussions, the participants were free to choose or combine the method. Both groups used a combination of the two in their work. The process was compiled of vivid discussions in the groups, and each team came up with the following lists of drivers.

Reaching the standard narrative of discovered drivers

After the group work was done, the groups presented their findings in the plenary session with the help of facilitators. The facilitator (A.Skažauskienė) then clustered the factors from the two groups and created a preliminary list of the key factors for climate resilience.

Considering the complexity of the problem and a large number of defined factors, a subset of the most relevant factors needed to be selected. We used the criteria (based on the guidelines) summarised in section 3.2.3.

Based on the criteria, the workshop participants agreed on 12 main factors that influence implementing a climate-resilient society. These factors were documented and finalized collaboratively.

The final list of influencing factors on climate-resilient societies (with clear definitions and descriptions) is provided below:

1. Public education on climate change in general, clarification of the vocabulary, and standardization of definitions between institutions and society are needed.

2. Education of target groups—more transparent communication to target groups in public institutions is needed. The example of green procurement was given, which is subject to confusion within institutions. New tools and workshops should be organized between the institutions to clarify all aspects.

3. Improving youth education – focusing on young people who are still growing up and do not have an established attitude towards climate change. According to research studies, young people have a different attitude and a more significant concern about climate change.

4. Improving urban infrastructure: managing sewers to absorb more water, purification systems, and wastewater systems adapted to urban levels and climate change.

5. A changing insurance market—There should be insurance coverage for unusual events, such as flooded houses, rain-damaged roofs, and other events caused by climate change.

6. Renewable energy—Renewable energy is very important because the most significant changes in climate change are due to the use of fossil fuels, with coal and oil refining generating the most CO2. Renewable energy must be used in the transport and heating sectors.

7. Pollution control – to limit pollution, regulation and a tax system must be established in the transport, manufacturing, and heating sectors.

8. Digitizing risks—More online tools should be available for finding information on climate events, such as when storms are coming.

9. Citizen engagement – involving citizens in climate change decision-making.

10. Policy decisions – mainly on mandatory afforestation, landscaping and other climate-friendly solutions.

11. Identity “Green Lithuania” – positioning Lithuania as a green and environmentally friendly country, starting with the resorts and moving towards the major cities.

12. Community initiatives – setting up transport systems in communities, for example, transporting children together to school. Municipal subsidies should be given to encourage such initiatives.

4.1.4 Generated scenarios

Step 1. Facilitators explained the goal of the task for each group

Explanation of the task: work on 3 key drivers per group and develop at least 2 projections per crucial driver.

Step 2. Facilitators explained how to develop foresight for each group

Brainstorming and morphological box, a method for scenario building that explores and generates different factor or driver combinations is the morphological box, was employed. It allowed the creation of various scenarios by considering multiple possible element combinations.

Step 3. Group work

The groups chose to develop 3 key drivers per group and develop at least 2 by combining the specifications in the morphological box.