60
up with “software” and “hardware” to define and characterize such functioning is
not only rightly attuned to divergence concerns, but is also attuned to bolster and
leverage that functioning through utilizing some sort of holistic viewpoint or, we
might rather say, a “systemness” perspective. This can be the case because disaster
prevention can never properly function as a societal system without either of the
two features. Also, it is more than significant that one can find such a systemness
perspective running throughout the other three key factors as well.
Furthermore, we argue that this systemness perspective may also be found in the
way in which both groups came up with their best visions. Each group’s participants
did not just pick one out of the four visions as the best. Instead, what each group did
was to merge these four into a single vision. Group A, for instance, named such
vision as “environmentally-advanced city that is also harmonious and coexists with
nature” because, while centering on vision 3, its members also took elements and
features (such as solving local matters via cooperation under the spirit of self-help,
mutual help, and public help and being harmonious with nature for expansion of
clean energy) from the three other visions. This took place simultaneously in both
groups and occurred without their being instructed to do so by the facilitators and
without their resorting to any types of majority decision.
As a consequence, we argue that their choosing the best vision apparently
entailed a rather holistic, systemness perspective, by which the participants brought
together aspects of societal functioning that they thought are needed for their version of the future desirable city to become more sustainable. If this is the case, we
can point out that by finding a way to reach consensus on their own, the participants
far exceeded our ex ante expectations in terms of going beyond the mere preference
aggregation type of decision-making (see Sect. 4.2.2.5).
4.4.2.2 Textual Structures Backed by Logical Consistency
Based on the 3S analyses, we found that the contents of both groups’ best scenarios
were aligned with the form of structure visually expressed by a set of means-end
chains linked among the nodes (Fig. 4.5). As mentioned in Sect. 4.3.2 above, this in
turn means that both scenarios equally entailed a degree of internally coherent, logical consistency in each of their structures. Considering the fact that the two scenarios significantly differed in their substance (as discussed in Sect. 4.4.1), we claim
that it is a worthy finding having some bearing on procedural legitimacy that might
prove the efficacy and implementability of the citizen participatory approach and its
processes toward BC scenario-making.
In terms of this internal logical consistency, what we also found from our 3S
analyses was congruent with our claim. As shown in Table 4.4, when compared, the
LI numbers for both best scenarios (19% for Group A, 10% for Group B) were as
good as the ones scored for the BC scenarios being made by three groups consisting
of experts only (20%, 15%, and 9%). This suggests that as far as the internal logical
consistency attached to the scenarios’ textual structure is concerned, the same
degree of credibility and/or robustness can be acquired by either experts’ or lay citizens’ participation in BC decision-making.
K. Aoki et al.
up with “software” and “hardware” to define and characterize such functioning is
not only rightly attuned to divergence concerns, but is also attuned to bolster and
leverage that functioning through utilizing some sort of holistic viewpoint or, we
might rather say, a “systemness” perspective. This can be the case because disaster
prevention can never properly function as a societal system without either of the
two features. Also, it is more than significant that one can find such a systemness
perspective running throughout the other three key factors as well.
Furthermore, we argue that this systemness perspective may also be found in the
way in which both groups came up with their best visions. Each group’s participants
did not just pick one out of the four visions as the best. Instead, what each group did
was to merge these four into a single vision. Group A, for instance, named such
vision as “environmentally-advanced city that is also harmonious and coexists with
nature” because, while centering on vision 3, its members also took elements and
features (such as solving local matters via cooperation under the spirit of self-help,
mutual help, and public help and being harmonious with nature for expansion of
clean energy) from the three other visions. This took place simultaneously in both
groups and occurred without their being instructed to do so by the facilitators and
without their resorting to any types of majority decision.
As a consequence, we argue that their choosing the best vision apparently
entailed a rather holistic, systemness perspective, by which the participants brought
together aspects of societal functioning that they thought are needed for their version of the future desirable city to become more sustainable. If this is the case, we
can point out that by finding a way to reach consensus on their own, the participants
far exceeded our ex ante expectations in terms of going beyond the mere preference
aggregation type of decision-making (see Sect. 4.2.2.5).
4.4.2.2 Textual Structures Backed by Logical Consistency
Based on the 3S analyses, we found that the contents of both groups’ best scenarios
were aligned with the form of structure visually expressed by a set of means-end
chains linked among the nodes (Fig. 4.5). As mentioned in Sect. 4.3.2 above, this in
turn means that both scenarios equally entailed a degree of internally coherent, logical consistency in each of their structures. Considering the fact that the two scenarios significantly differed in their substance (as discussed in Sect. 4.4.1), we claim
that it is a worthy finding having some bearing on procedural legitimacy that might
prove the efficacy and implementability of the citizen participatory approach and its
processes toward BC scenario-making.
In terms of this internal logical consistency, what we also found from our 3S
analyses was congruent with our claim. As shown in Table 4.4, when compared, the
LI numbers for both best scenarios (19% for Group A, 10% for Group B) were as
good as the ones scored for the BC scenarios being made by three groups consisting
of experts only (20%, 15%, and 9%). This suggests that as far as the internal logical
consistency attached to the scenarios’ textual structure is concerned, the same
degree of credibility and/or robustness can be acquired by either experts’ or lay citizens’ participation in BC decision-making.
K. Aoki et al.