56
described with a structure connected through a set of “causality” and “equal” links,
rather than of “compare” and “paradox” links.
At the same time, however, it is important to understand that a “logical jump”
link does not necessarily refer to a linkage that is logically inconsistent or false. It
indicates a prospective inclusion of a breakthrough or innovative leap made within
a boundary of limited “causality” that is yet to be of cause and effect and/or meansend relation. This loosened conceptualization of causality as a “logical jump” is
required by the fundamental orientation of the BC method because the BC methodology is founded upon the rationale that a greater leap from the status quo and path
dependency is needed to address the issues of sustainability transformation and its
related structural changes (Kishita et al. 2009; Loorbach et al. 2016).
Furthermore, based on the above-mentioned methodology, we also turned to a
numerical index system that quantifies the degree of such logical consistency. The
index used is called the “logicality index” (hereafter LI) and is defined as the portion
of arguments which are only constructed upon “causality” and “equal” links as
compared to all other arguments. A formula used for our judgment hereby is that
higher LI means better credibility of a scenario. In our concern for the efficacy and
implementability of the BC scenarios as policy instruments, the degree of credibility can be an important indicator because it affects the extent to which BC scenarios
can be accepted in society by embedding and incorporating them into the ongoing
practical policy processes (Alcamo et al. 2008; Kishita et al. 2009).
In this study, therefore, we relied on LI to examine how credible the best scenarios generated by Groups A and B were. At the same time, we also turned to the
3S simulator to gauge LI in the existing scenarios of future sustainability. Note that
all of such scenarios were made only by relevant professionals and experts and
include ones that were made by following not only the BC but also FC methods and
a combination of both. From our analytic perspective, whether or not the LIs of
these future sustainability scenarios scored better than those of the best scenarios
made during the WS, can be an important verification indicator.
4.4 Results, Analyses, and Discussion
4.4.1 Divergent Opinions Reflected in the Scenarios
Table 4.2 shows the lists of ten key words chosen by each group. One can see that:
(1) notwithstanding the fact that many key words were chosen from the list of the
“key items” (see Sect. 4.2.2.2) given to each group by the facilitators, the participants’ came up with their own choices, (2) choices for the ten “key words” differ a
great deal between the two groups.
In addition, as shown in Fig. 4.4, each group made very different choices on the
key factors as well. One can also find that the important aspects the WS participants
placed their visions are not similar to one another in the sense that each of the four
visions has its own characteristics, and that these do not overlap in terms of direction and content.
K. Aoki et al.
described with a structure connected through a set of “causality” and “equal” links,
rather than of “compare” and “paradox” links.
At the same time, however, it is important to understand that a “logical jump”
link does not necessarily refer to a linkage that is logically inconsistent or false. It
indicates a prospective inclusion of a breakthrough or innovative leap made within
a boundary of limited “causality” that is yet to be of cause and effect and/or meansend relation. This loosened conceptualization of causality as a “logical jump” is
required by the fundamental orientation of the BC method because the BC methodology is founded upon the rationale that a greater leap from the status quo and path
dependency is needed to address the issues of sustainability transformation and its
related structural changes (Kishita et al. 2009; Loorbach et al. 2016).
Furthermore, based on the above-mentioned methodology, we also turned to a
numerical index system that quantifies the degree of such logical consistency. The
index used is called the “logicality index” (hereafter LI) and is defined as the portion
of arguments which are only constructed upon “causality” and “equal” links as
compared to all other arguments. A formula used for our judgment hereby is that
higher LI means better credibility of a scenario. In our concern for the efficacy and
implementability of the BC scenarios as policy instruments, the degree of credibility can be an important indicator because it affects the extent to which BC scenarios
can be accepted in society by embedding and incorporating them into the ongoing
practical policy processes (Alcamo et al. 2008; Kishita et al. 2009).
In this study, therefore, we relied on LI to examine how credible the best scenarios generated by Groups A and B were. At the same time, we also turned to the
3S simulator to gauge LI in the existing scenarios of future sustainability. Note that
all of such scenarios were made only by relevant professionals and experts and
include ones that were made by following not only the BC but also FC methods and
a combination of both. From our analytic perspective, whether or not the LIs of
these future sustainability scenarios scored better than those of the best scenarios
made during the WS, can be an important verification indicator.
4.4 Results, Analyses, and Discussion
4.4.1 Divergent Opinions Reflected in the Scenarios
Table 4.2 shows the lists of ten key words chosen by each group. One can see that:
(1) notwithstanding the fact that many key words were chosen from the list of the
“key items” (see Sect. 4.2.2.2) given to each group by the facilitators, the participants’ came up with their own choices, (2) choices for the ten “key words” differ a
great deal between the two groups.
In addition, as shown in Fig. 4.4, each group made very different choices on the
key factors as well. One can also find that the important aspects the WS participants
placed their visions are not similar to one another in the sense that each of the four
visions has its own characteristics, and that these do not overlap in terms of direction and content.
K. Aoki et al.