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).

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.

Figure 4. Example of the morphological boxes generated in the workshop

A list of scenarios is provided here:

Groups in plenary presented the scenarios.

4.1.5 Identified Evaluation Criteria

The process:

• The facilitators presented the objectives;
• Groups worked on identifying evaluation criteria
• Presentation of decided criteria by each group.
• Weight and finalised the evaluation criteria (max 10)

A list of standard evaluation criteria is provided here:

1. Relevant – reflecting objectives that fit the local context and reflecting the future needs.

2. Adaptive – reflecting the possibility of adapting to changing situations, resources, systems, infrastructures, and other conditions.

3. Engaging – reflecting the engagement of institutions, local authorities, small communities and citizens.

4. Inclusive – reflecting on ensuring all members, especially vulnerable populations, benefit.

5. Sustainable – reflecting elements of transformations toward sustainability.

6. Tangible – reflecting clearly described objectives.

7. Motivational – reflecting the inspiration for change.

8. Shared – reflecting agreement by key stakeholders and community.

4.2 A Participatory Future Scenario-building Workshop in Chios LL as a co-creation session

The University of the Aegean has organised the second workshop in Chios Living Lab (LL) on November 29, 2023, with the same aims and methodology.

The second future scenario-building workshop was conducted in Chios Living Lab on November 29, 2023, by the University of the Aegean. VUB provided online support for the preparation steps with specific guidelines and answered questions from the organisers. The questions (from Chios organisers) and answers (by VUB) are provided in Annex B.

4.2.1 Preparation steps for the workshop

A crucial step in the realisation of a workshop is its preparation. In the case of the pilot activity in Chios Living Lab, a devoted and enthusiastic internal team was formed at the University of the Aegean, and the preparations were started one month before the workshop. The realisation of the workshop was based on the well-structured guidelines prepared by VUB that aimed to foster citizen- collaborative future scenario-building. The procedure was further clarified following the minutes and experiences of the co-creation workshop held by the Vilnius Aukštamiestis Living Lab on October 8, 2023. The preparation steps in Chios LL are outlined below:

Step 1: Guidelines received, reviewed and clarified

The first preparation step was to receive the guidelines from VUB and thoroughly review them. These guidelines served as a guide for Chios LL workshop preparation, ensuring that the process was approached with clarity and direction. Special attention was given to understanding the purpose of the future scenario-building methodology and identifying the steps and possible related challenges. The purpose was not to leave room for ambiguity in understanding the process. As a result, a list of queries was compiled and sent to VUB, and further clarifications were provided in response to these queries.

Step 2: Discussions amongst the internal team on how to approach the task

A devoted and enthusiastic internal team comprising three members of the faculty, one technical and one supporting staff member and four students at the University of the Aegean was formed to discuss the guidelines and achieve a common understanding and shared purpose. The different steps of the Living Lab were envisioned to identify challenges and propose solutions that will minimise the risks. Ideas for customising the content and the meeting flow according to the needs and capabilities of the specific audience were discussed, which were in line with the guidelines developed by VUB.

Step 3: Development of supporting material

Providing baseline information to potential participants before the workshop was crucial to attracting their interest, inviting them to reflect on the issue in advance, and facilitating a seamless workshop flow. The material was developed in Greek and sent by e-mail or handed as hard copies to the potential participants with information about:

• The climate crisis,
• The specific challenges that the insular North Aegean region will face within a time horizon of 30 and 70 years,
• The general scope and specific purposes of the CLIMAS project,
• The objectives and methodology of the workshop.

A detailed list of the material developed and sent by e-mail or handed to the participants to invite them to the event follows:

1. Invitation to the workshop: The invitation provided summary information on the CLIMAS project, including its time horizon and an outline of the future scenario-building methodology that would be used in the first meeting of the LL.

2. The workshop agenda: The detailed agenda, including the venue, the phases of the workshop, and the timeline, was provided to the participants.

3. Leaflet on climate change: This two-page leaflet provides information on the drivers of climate change, the EU goals, and general strategies for mitigation and adaptation.

4. North Aegean Adaptation Plan: A seven-page document summarising the findings of the North Aegean Adaptation Plan (issued by the North Aegean Region in 2018 after deliberation with the local stakeholders) was prepared.

In addition, roll-ups and posters were printed and pinned at the venue entrance and inside the venue hall to guide and inform the participants of the event. DEEP BLUE prepared the material at the WP6 – Communication, Dissemination and Legacy of the project:

1. Two roll-ups (in English),

2. Two posters (translated into Greek).

Finally, forms and templates were prepared for the internal team to register the participants, ask for their consent to participate in CLIMAS actions, including the event, and take effective notes. The forms were based on the available documents prepared by DEEP BLUE at the WP6 – Communication, Dissemination and Legacy of the project and were translated into Greek:

1. Registration form,

2. Consent form,

3. Note-taking form.

Step 4: Setting up the scene

A workshop's ambience and environment can profoundly impact the outcomes; therefore, detailed preparation is needed. A space was set up where the participants felt free, comfortable, and inspired to express their opinions and collaborate with their fellow participants in plenary sessions or working in groups. The scene was set according to the recommendations and similar to what is explained in section 3.1.1.

Step 4: Recruiting/inviting participants

Care was taken to invite participants from a broad spectrum of backgrounds and affiliations to guarantee a comprehensive perspective during the future scenario-building workshop. This diverse selection aimed to capture multiple viewpoints and insights from various stakeholder groups. With their unique affiliation, each participant brought forth a distinct dimension to the workshop's discussions, ensuring the outcomes were well-rounded and holistic. For stakeholder engagement to be effective, there are some requirements: willingness and motivation of stakeholders to participate, inclusivity of all possible interests, and equal access to information and knowledge. Understanding that the success of the workshop hinged significantly on the participation and engagement of a diverse and relevant group, considerable effort was put into the recruitment and invitation process. Here is an in-depth look at the approach:

• Identification of potential participants: A preliminary list was drafted based on the Quadruple Helix model (representatives from citizens, business, academia, and public authorities). The list was built on the contacts of people who have already participated in Chios LL activities. It was further enriched with additional criteria such as gender and age balance and inclusion of members of vulnerable groups.
• Invitation and informative material. After ensuring an inclusive and balanced list of participants, the invitation, accompanied by information material, was sent to them by e- mail. As presented in detail in Step 3, the material included information on:

a. The climate change,

b. The North Aegean Region adaptation plan,

c. The CLIMAS project,

d. The agenda of the workshop,

e. The future scenario-building methodology

• Personalized outreach: In addition to the invitation sent to the potential participants, all of them were reached by phone or in person to effectively communicate the purpose of the workshop and the main phases of the future scenario-building methodology. Time was dedicated to discussing their questions and clarifying vague points regarding the workshop's purpose, methodology, and input based on their experience and background. The value and meaning of their involvement in the process were conveyed, and they were engaged in reflection before the workshop. At the end of this step, a final list of stakeholders committed and interested in participating in the workshop was built.

Table 2. List of the participants in the future scenario-building workshop of the Chios LL.

18 individuals attended the future scenario-building workshop: 8 females (44%) and 10 males (56%). Table 2 presents an anonymised list of participants with their affiliations and the respective quadruple helix model stakeholder group. Figure 5 displays the participants' stakeholder groups.

Figure 5. The participants' stakeholder groups in the future scenario-building co-creation workshop of Chios LL.

4.2.2 Identified ey drivers

Step 1. Networking and explorative

The participants were divided into 3 groups of 6 participants. Diversity in terms of gender, age, occupation, and stakeholder group was ensured in each group. Their work was supported by 3 facilitators (1 per each group) from the University of the Aegean. Each group chose a moderator who facilitated the discussion. One note-keeper of the outcomes of each session (University of the Aegean) was also responsible for tape-recording the session.

The guiding question was, “What factors are crucial for a society to be resilient to climate change?”

Step 2. Defining key drivers

First, the facilitators explained that each group must present the factors or drivers they have selected at the end of the session. Then, the facilitators presented the key methods for this phase as defined in the guidelines: STEEP and brainstorming.

Step 3. 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 facilitators (Amalia Polydoropoulou, Anna Maria Kotrikla, and Sandy Fameli) then clustered the factors from the three groups and created a preliminary list of the key factors for climate resilience.

Considering the complexity of the problem and the large number of defined factors, we needed to select a subset of the most relevant factors. To do this, we used the criteria detailed in section 2.2.3. Based on the criteria, the workshop participants agreed on 10 main factors that influence implementing a climate-resilient society.

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

• Water preservation and forest resilience. These two factors depend on each other, so they were combined. Forests' resilience to forest fires (a typical threat for pine forests) is critical to water retention and the enrichment of the aquifer. On the other hand, water availability affects forests since very dry conditions are essential for forest growth.
• Sea-level rise. A significant proportion of the human population lives in coastal areas. Sea-level rise will influence the coastal ecosystems and human infrastructure (cities, factories, ports, hotels). The insular areas are particularly vulnerable to sea-level rise.
• Increase in temperature. Temperature increases are critical for ecosystem resilience, agriculture, and human welfare (e.g., temperature discomfort and the spread of diseases).
• Population patterns. The increase in population may exert pressure on the natural resources and the ecosystem. On the other hand, the young population is more dynamic and more likely to seek and find innovative solutions to society's problems.
• Policies and regulatory framework. Politicians must be able to look ahead and lead societies to a more sustainable future, irrespective of the political cost. The policies, informed by scientific findings and the needs of the society, must go beyond the time horizon of their governance. On the other hand, the regulatory framework must be enforced to have an effect.
• People’s values and way of living. Citizens need to be raised aware of climate change. This could be achieved through extensive campaigns and education and training on climate change at all educational levels (primary and secondary schools, universities, lifelong learning) and in all fields (natural science and engineering, social science, business studies, ICT, medicine, etc.).
• Innovation in transport. Transport is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Using new, environmentally friendly technologies and fuels and changes in people’s transport behaviour will enhance climate mitigation.
• Climate change highly affects new technologies and innovations in critical economic sectors (such as tourism and agriculture). In economies oriented to either the primary sector (agriculture) or the tertiary sector (tourism), it is essential to employ innovative technologies and operations to reduce their vulnerability, increase their resilience to future climatic conditions and reduce their climatic footprint.
• Energy footprint. To achieve climate mitigation and neutrality, there is an urgent need to change the energy paradigm currently based on fossil fuel consumption in all economic sectors. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. The leading solutions are the production of electricity by renewable energy sources, the production of sustainable biofuels, and the research on innovative fuels such as hydrogen.
• Resource consumption and circular economy. Our economies are based on overconsumption, which results in resource depletion and pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions. There is an urgent need for reduced resource consumption and circular economy solutions.

4.2.3 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 key driver.

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

Brainstorming & 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 a range of scenarios by considering various possible element combinations.

Step 3. Group work

The groups chose 3 key drivers per group, assigned at least 2 projections per key driver, and developed at least 2 scenarios by combining the specifications in the morphological box. The results of each group, i.e., morphological boxes, are presented below:

Figure 6. Example of the morphological boxes generated in the workshop in Chios LL.

A list of scenarios is provided here:

4.2.4 Identified evaluation criteria

A list of standard evaluation criteria is provided here:

•Cost-benefit ratio. The most important criterion is the ultimate cost of the future scenario that the society would have to pay (sum of economic, environmental, and social costs) divided (normalised) by its probable/potential benefit.

•Environmental effect. Since the environment is the outer limit or the carrying capacity within which society and the economy operate, the environmental impact of a scenario is probably more important than the social and economic effects.

•Plausibility. The scenarios that are more reasonable and likely to become future reality must be given priority.

•Comprehensiveness. Excellent and valuable scenarios must consider all the relevant factors and projections.