53
chronologically backward way of thinking, a defining characteristic of BC, was
maintained. During the WS, we the facilitators recorded the entire dialogues and
used audio recordings as sources while constructing logic trees. Simultaneously, we
also turned to documented outputs of the dialogues. Logic trees made after the first
of the WS sessions were presented to the participants and utilized at the second and
third WS sessions to induce and organize participants’ ideas and thoughts. After the
final WS (the third), we produced the final versions of the logic trees. Thus, the two
groups’ dialogues resulted in two logic trees.
4.2.2.4 Creating Multiple Scenarios
With regard to the concept of urban sustainability transition, we presupposed (as
mentioned in Sect. 4.1) that when the participants’ interests, preferences, and
knowledge are expressed in a more pluralistically divergent fashion, it is more likely
that some will be mutually exclusive and contestable. From our perspectives, it is
vital that the scenario-making process reflects these as such because they too contribute to important, indispensable aspects of the concept of sustainability that is
complex, inclusive, and comprehensive in its nature and because plurality of citizens’ interests and preferences on urban sustainability should not be completely
diminished in light of democratic collective decision-making (Kishita et al. 2018).
In that regard, we employed at the WS a method (Mizuno et al. 2012, 2013) that
enables drawing multiple, not one, visions as a result of one set of dialogues. Such
a method basically utilizes “key factors” that are prioritized by the participants in
the process of crafting their visions. In more concrete terms, we turned to the method
in which the participants first pick ten most important “key words” with reference
to the output of the logic tree resulting from their dialogue. During this process, it
was suggested that they refer to the list (see Sect 4.2.2.2), and again were advised
not to be constrained by it when making their top ten choices.
They then selected the top two of the ten key words by scoring both the degree
of importance and the degree of mismatch between the current actual conditions and
an ideal state in the future. These top two are then named as “key factors.” With
regard to each of the top two key factors, the participants were led to discuss and
define two contrasting, contestable conditions and functions of their desirability for
a future sustainable city. By crossing these two key factors just like two axes bisecting each other at right angles, this method enables generating four different visions
(see Fig. 4.2). Thus, at the WS, the two groups generated eight visions in total (four
each, see also Fig. 4.4 below).
4.2.2.5 Choosing the Best Scenario
During the final phase, each group deliberated on which one to choose as the best
from those four visions. It was important that they did not have to turn to a majority
decision if they did not want to. Rather, they were advised by the facilitators to
4 The Use of Backcasting to Promote Urban Transformation to Sustainability…
chronologically backward way of thinking, a defining characteristic of BC, was
maintained. During the WS, we the facilitators recorded the entire dialogues and
used audio recordings as sources while constructing logic trees. Simultaneously, we
also turned to documented outputs of the dialogues. Logic trees made after the first
of the WS sessions were presented to the participants and utilized at the second and
third WS sessions to induce and organize participants’ ideas and thoughts. After the
final WS (the third), we produced the final versions of the logic trees. Thus, the two
groups’ dialogues resulted in two logic trees.
4.2.2.4 Creating Multiple Scenarios
With regard to the concept of urban sustainability transition, we presupposed (as
mentioned in Sect. 4.1) that when the participants’ interests, preferences, and
knowledge are expressed in a more pluralistically divergent fashion, it is more likely
that some will be mutually exclusive and contestable. From our perspectives, it is
vital that the scenario-making process reflects these as such because they too contribute to important, indispensable aspects of the concept of sustainability that is
complex, inclusive, and comprehensive in its nature and because plurality of citizens’ interests and preferences on urban sustainability should not be completely
diminished in light of democratic collective decision-making (Kishita et al. 2018).
In that regard, we employed at the WS a method (Mizuno et al. 2012, 2013) that
enables drawing multiple, not one, visions as a result of one set of dialogues. Such
a method basically utilizes “key factors” that are prioritized by the participants in
the process of crafting their visions. In more concrete terms, we turned to the method
in which the participants first pick ten most important “key words” with reference
to the output of the logic tree resulting from their dialogue. During this process, it
was suggested that they refer to the list (see Sect 4.2.2.2), and again were advised
not to be constrained by it when making their top ten choices.
They then selected the top two of the ten key words by scoring both the degree
of importance and the degree of mismatch between the current actual conditions and
an ideal state in the future. These top two are then named as “key factors.” With
regard to each of the top two key factors, the participants were led to discuss and
define two contrasting, contestable conditions and functions of their desirability for
a future sustainable city. By crossing these two key factors just like two axes bisecting each other at right angles, this method enables generating four different visions
(see Fig. 4.2). Thus, at the WS, the two groups generated eight visions in total (four
each, see also Fig. 4.4 below).
4.2.2.5 Choosing the Best Scenario
During the final phase, each group deliberated on which one to choose as the best
from those four visions. It was important that they did not have to turn to a majority
decision if they did not want to. Rather, they were advised by the facilitators to
4 The Use of Backcasting to Promote Urban Transformation to Sustainability…