52
management. We also added to the list four broad elements: well-being, nature,
economy, and society. These elements are equivalent to the ones proposed via a
concept called a “sustainability compass” (AtKisson and Lee Hatcher 2001). Each
broad element was divided into three subcategories respectively. For example,
“well- being” consisted of “learning,” “health,” and “safety.” Each subcategory then
indicated a number of its own key items. For example, the key items listed for
“learning” were “home education,” “school education,” and “life-long education.”
During their dialogues, the participants were told to refer to the list while deliberating on the matter, but at the same time they were strongly advised not to be
restrained by it as well. The reason for showing the list was founded on a procedural
methodological perspective. It was meant to make sure that the multifaceted, pluralistic characteristics of urban sustainability issues were well contemplated by the
participants and properly reflected the outcomes of the scenarios with the minimum
necessary level and amount of dialogue.
4.2.2.3 Use of Logic Tree
As shown in Fig. 4.1, we employed an analytical instrument called a logic tree.
Logic tree is a schematization tool used to visualize the dialogues’ internal logics
and underlying structures using a digraph method (Holcombe and Stein 1996; Wada
et al. 2013). In its creation process, a top node represents a primary goal (greencolored node, top of Fig. 4.1) pursued in a vision of the scenario (e.g., a sustainable
city). Under the primary goal, a series of secondary goals (red-colored nodes) (e.g.,
increased use of renewable energy, steady supply of resources and food, and extension of citizens’ health expectancy) and means to achieve them (pink nodes) are put
in a sequential manner so that a set of causal connections constituting the contents
of the dialogues can be visually captured.
In accordance with the BC method, the WS participants were asked to set their
goals first and then draw the means from such goals, not vice versa. In so doing, a
Fig. 4.1 Alignment of
nodes and links of Logic
tree
K. Aoki et al.
management. We also added to the list four broad elements: well-being, nature,
economy, and society. These elements are equivalent to the ones proposed via a
concept called a “sustainability compass” (AtKisson and Lee Hatcher 2001). Each
broad element was divided into three subcategories respectively. For example,
“well- being” consisted of “learning,” “health,” and “safety.” Each subcategory then
indicated a number of its own key items. For example, the key items listed for
“learning” were “home education,” “school education,” and “life-long education.”
During their dialogues, the participants were told to refer to the list while deliberating on the matter, but at the same time they were strongly advised not to be
restrained by it as well. The reason for showing the list was founded on a procedural
methodological perspective. It was meant to make sure that the multifaceted, pluralistic characteristics of urban sustainability issues were well contemplated by the
participants and properly reflected the outcomes of the scenarios with the minimum
necessary level and amount of dialogue.
4.2.2.3 Use of Logic Tree
As shown in Fig. 4.1, we employed an analytical instrument called a logic tree.
Logic tree is a schematization tool used to visualize the dialogues’ internal logics
and underlying structures using a digraph method (Holcombe and Stein 1996; Wada
et al. 2013). In its creation process, a top node represents a primary goal (greencolored node, top of Fig. 4.1) pursued in a vision of the scenario (e.g., a sustainable
city). Under the primary goal, a series of secondary goals (red-colored nodes) (e.g.,
increased use of renewable energy, steady supply of resources and food, and extension of citizens’ health expectancy) and means to achieve them (pink nodes) are put
in a sequential manner so that a set of causal connections constituting the contents
of the dialogues can be visually captured.
In accordance with the BC method, the WS participants were asked to set their
goals first and then draw the means from such goals, not vice versa. In so doing, a
Fig. 4.1 Alignment of
nodes and links of Logic
tree
K. Aoki et al.