Multi-scale interaction in local scenario-building:A methodological framework

Begum Ozkaynak a,*, Beatriz Rodrıguez-Labajos b

a Department of Economics, Bogazici University, 34342 Istanbul, Turkeyb Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Autonomous University of Barcelona, Bellaterra 08193, Spain

1. Introduction

Recently, interest in scenario analysis has grown as the role of uncertainty and the need for interdisciplinarity inpolicy making became increasingly better understood. The scenario approach is now widely seen as a valuableanalytical device for integrated analyses of sustainability and a key aid in decision- and policy-making processes [1–3].While many scenario studies have been published over the years, global scenarios [e.g. 4–7] and scenarios addressingparticular issues in isolation, such as energy, climate change, water or European Union (EU) enlargement [e.g. 8–11] arethe most popular. Scenarios concentrating on a particular local geographical area have also become progressively moreimportant [12,13].

Despite its current popularity, a review of the scenario literature reveals missing elements regarding multi-scaleinteraction in local-scale scenario development. Local areas are not independent entities isolated from the larger economicand social forces acting on them. Kok et al. [13] rightly note that localities are influenced by a web of global (globalisation),regional (e.g. EU policies, EU enlargement), national (e.g. trade policy, agricultural policy) and local (e.g. power relations)forces that involve a multitude of feedbacks and interactions. Yet, as Van Asselt et al. [14] and Greeuw et al. [15] claim, in thescenario literature, scenarios built at the local level that take national and global developments into account, have so far beenlimited. Today, there is growing interest in linking scenarios at various geographical scales, and new contributions includethe VISIONS project [16,17], sub-global scenarios linked to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) [18], the MedAction

Futures 42 (2010) 995–1006

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Available online 19 August 2010

A B S T R A C T

Despite the recent popularity of multi-scale scenario exercises, a review of the literature

reveals missing elements regarding local-scale scenario-building. Scenarios built at the

local level are often downscaled from higher-scale scenarios or developed within the

boundary conditions of global and national scales without taking local circumstances

thoroughly into account. On this background, this paper discusses the issue of scale in local

scenario development and develops a formal methodological approach for local-scale

scenario-building in general. The paper underlines in particular the role of local agency in

coupling the larger scale and the local scale. To better illustrate how the proposed

approach helps in designing local scenarios, lessons drawn from two local scenario

development practices are also employed. Hence, the paper contributes to the

formalisation of local scenario-building, which is believed to enhance the validity and

credibility of local scenario outputs in the policy sphere.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 212 359 7630; fax: +90 212 287 2453.

E-mail address: begum.ozkaynak@boun.edu.tr (B. Ozkaynak).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Futures

journal homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / fu tures

0016-3287/$ – see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.futures.2010.08.022

project [19] and the SCENES project [20]. However, constructing local-scale scenarios that integrate global and nationalinfluences with local factors and actors’ choices still remains a challenge.

A recent and remarkable effort and a key contribution to linking scenarios developed at various geographical scales is thatof Zurek and Henrichs [21], who systematically describe concepts for scenario development processes and discuss howscenarios can be coupled (or not) across geographical scales. However, the authors do not provide a detailed account of whento use each process: ‘‘which process is best suited and how much interconnectedness is needed, will depend both on the focalissue and the primary purpose of the scenario exercise’’ [21, p. 1282].

On this background, this paper attempts to clarify the means of dealing with the issue of multi-scale interaction byproposing a formal methodological framework. A key contribution of the paper is to offer an account of the conditions underwhich each interaction method can be used to this end. Accordingly, attention is drawn to the role of local agency and theexploration of the agency capabilities of multiple constituencies at the local level in particular, which is argued, can only beunderstood through detailed fieldwork using different complementary research methods, participatory processes andcoalition formation analysis.

To better show how the proposed framework will help design local scenarios, lessons drawn from two local scenariodevelopment practices based on two separate cases will be briefly outlined and employed as well. The first case aimed toconduct an integrated assessment of four possible scenarios for the city of Yalova, Turkey, in 2020, given local driving forcesand external factors (at the regional, national and global levels). The second addressed the governance of two ongoingaquatic biological invasions (Dreissena polymorpha and Silurus glanis) in the Ebro River, Spain. Both studies made intensiveuse of institutional analysis and participation and considered the interaction between different scales based on the conceptof local agency [for details, see 22,24,25].

The paper is split into seven sections. Section 2 introduces local scenario development as a useful tool for framing localpolicies, and explains why local scenario-building is a challenge. Section 3 proposes a general methodological framework withkey aspects that should be taken into account when designing local scenarios. Given this framework, Section 4 underlines andclarifies the role of local agency in coupling the larger scale and the local scale. Section 5 specifically considers alternativestrategies to integrate structural influences at the global and national levels with local driving forces. Section 6 gives examplesfrom the two case studies to show how the model can help design local scenarios. Section 7 offers a conclusion.

2. Local-scale scenarios

Scenarios have been used as planning tools for over five decades in various areas [26,27]. Recently, they have beenemployed to analyse the impact of different policies on global or regional sustainability, such as energy policies, climatechange or EU enlargement [1,5,16,28,29]. On the global scale, for instance, the IPCC developed a set of scenariosillustrating the impact of specific developments in population growth, energy use and technology, and associated climatechange patterns [11,30,31,32]. Other examples of global scenarios include the Global Scenario Group (GSG) scenarios [4],World Water Vision scenarios [10], and the MA global scenarios [7]. In Europe, the European Commission promoted anumber of studies, including Vision 2020 [33], European Energy to 2020 [34], Scenarios Europe 2010 [8] and Four Futures of

Europe [9].In an attempt to summarise similar views, Berkhout and Hertin [35, p. 45] indicate that the benefits of scenario analysis

and planning are twofold. First, the scenario approach expands the range of outcomes considered in strategic decision-making. It encourages new ways of thinking about the future and linking the different components and actors of a complexproblem in the policy design process. Second, the process of scenario-making and elaboration is itself seen as a contributionto preparing the grounds for change, as scenarios challenge conventional wisdom and encourage debate. It is argued thatjuxtaposing scenarios provides a means to think about the relationships between choices, dynamics, and alternative futures[4,36,37]. Their flexibility and the fact that they promote links between science and social actors in complex issues makescenarios a part of the methodological toolkit of science-governance-policy interfaces in environmental matters, such associal multi-criteria evaluation [38] and integrated assessment [39].

There is now a growing body of work that views multi-scale scenario-building as a valuable approach in addressinglocal development and planning issues. Local policy cuts across a multitude of interests and strategies. It must be formedand reformed, based on the logic of macro-level factors as to what is feasible and what is not. Moreover, local actors’responses and political judgements about what values and interests they really wish to promote, also play a role [40]. Inthis context, it is believed that a focus on scenario analysis at the local level provides everyone with an opportunity toexamine both the pros and many cons—what is wrong, has gone wrong and can go wrong—of different developmentpaths.

However, while discussing the multi-tiered structures and the interaction of multiple forces, Biggs et al. [41] argue thatformal approaches to linking local scenarios across different scales are currently not yet very well developed. The work byZurek and Henrich [21], mentioned above, classifies ways of coupling (or not) the scenarios. However, in this classification,scenario exercises usually focus on processes at a specific location and are built independently across scales. As a result,while comparable across scales and useful for engaging people in decision-making processes, they omit relevant dynamics ofinteraction and outcomes. For instance, as noted by Greeuw et al. [15], the POSSUM team [42], in formulating sustainabletransport goals for the year 2020, seems to have treated Europe as an isolated continent. Similarly, World Water Vision study[10] includes both a set of global scenarios and a variety of substantially different regional scenarios developed in

B. Ozkaynak, B. Rodrıguez-Labajos / Futures 42 (2010) 995–1006996

independent scenario exercises. Such attempts are fine, obviously, if one considers these issues solely regional; in otherwords, as decoupled from global-scale issues.

Alternatively, there are some more tightly coupled multi-scale scenario exercises; but these are primarily either top-down (namely, equivalent across scales), with an emphasis on downscaling higher level processes, or hierarchical (namely,consistent across scales), setting the more aggregated level as a boundary condition for any lower level of aggregation[13,21,41]. According to Esteva and Prakash [43, p. 410], this is mainly because in an increasingly global capitalist economyand given the rise of supranational states, the significance of the nation-state is declining and localities navigate in a sea ofglobally generated constraints and imperatives: ‘‘more and more voices are raising alarms about their growing sense ofpowerlessness, tugged and pulled by ‘global forces’’’. Similarly, Noronha et al. [44] argue that global forces are becoming sopowerful, the main constraints on sustainable futures at the local level—and sometimes at the national level—seem toemerge from the ‘room to manoeuvre’ available in making choices.

In this context, Kok et al. [45] argue that adopting a strict downscaling methodology while maintaining consistencyacross scales to allow for scenario comparison, potentially limits scenario variability and stakeholders’ creativity, and omitspower relationships among stakeholders at different scales. For instance, in the MedAction project [19] that focused on landdegradation and desertification in Europe and in the Mediterranean region, local scenarios ended up being largely similar tothe three Mediterranean-level scenarios. Here, the problem was that information on general attitudes, such as ‘‘Europe ismore environmentally friendly,’’ was directly translated into local scenarios in a creative manner—‘‘ecotourism will bloom,’’‘‘small-scale agriculture will prevail,’’ ‘‘windmill parks will be built’’—without questioning local conditions, i.e. theprobability of growing tourist numbers in the specific region. Another example of top-down scenario methodology was theCentral Plan Bureau effort to develop scenarios for the Netherlands [46]. In their 1997 study, global driving forces were firstassessed and then used to design scenarios at the European level, which in turn determined the context of the nationalscenarios. However, as Greeuw et al. [15] also note, although this is an attempt to address multiple scales, it is just ‘one-way-integration’ where local scenarios basically lose their relevance to decision-makers at the lower scale.

Needless to say, while external forces can be particularly strong, they are not the sole influence on localities. Localdriving forces, and social actors and coalitions in the local environment also play crucial roles in the future of a region.Although global forces have become increasingly important, Onis and Senses [47] argue that for these forces to be effectivein terms of accomplishing the implementation of policy, the parallel development of a supportive domestic coalition isrequired. This is also consistent with Mollenkopf’s [48] argument that a structural analysis—an analysis at the macro-level—cannot be deemed adequate until it specifies the political process through which systematic imperatives aretranslated into lower-level policies. In this context, as Esteva and Prakash [43] note, global powers are built on shakyfoundations, and given the right conditions they may be effectively opposed through local action. In that regard, there isextensive literature which stresses that it is the intentions and (re)actions of local agents that determine the viability of apolicy regime [27,47,49]; this has yet to be thoroughly explored in local scenario methodology. Local scenarios thus farappear to underplay the importance of local politics and the potential for community action, since these have not been partof the analytical picture in general.

This paper closes that gap. It does so particularly by using the concept of local agency in the context of scenariodevelopment, and clarifying its role in interactive local scenario-building. The following section proposes a local-scalescenario-building framework and highlights the main steps to be followed.

3. A methodological framework for multi-scale scenario-building

Since one of the challenges in constructing local-scale scenarios resides in the need to integrate structural influences atthe global and national levels with local factors and social actors’ choices, this section proposes a general methodologicalframework that can be adopted in designing local scenarios. Fig. 1 provides a schematic representation of the proposedmulti-scale scenario-building process, with alternative interaction methods to be considered. The conditions under whicheach interaction method can be used will be described in further detail in the subsequent sections.

[(Fig._1)TD$FIG]

Fig. 1. Schematic process for the multi-scale scenario approach.

B. Ozkaynak, B. Rodrıguez-Labajos / Futures 42 (2010) 995–1006 997

The procedure depicted in Fig. 1 includes the following steps:

(i) Identifying the problem—the selection of key themes and indicators that define the borders of the study. This is importantin determining what the focused scenarios will cover. In deciding the relevant themes/issues for the scenario study, it isvital to ensure that the ones selected reflect what is important for different social actors, their values and interests, aswell as what is pertinent to the representation of the problem at hand. In this context, participation is valuable inunderstanding the future economic, social and environmental needs and expectations of various groups, and thusnecessary in the selection of local concerns. Naturally, it would be unrealistic to expect all indicators to be equallyrelevant to all stakeholders. Recognising the diversity of interests, stakeholders may place different levels of emphasis onany given theme, or specific indicator.

(ii) Analysing local responses to driving forces—determination of external and local driving forces prevailing in the study area,consisting of the analysis of structural influences at global/national scales (larger forces exogenous to the system) andlocal factors (what is happening on the ground) together with the choices of social actors.

The insights for external driving forces can be obtained directly through desktop research and by examining the existinggeneric (at global and national scales) scenarios already developed and tested. Information on local factors, such asdemographic dynamics, migration patterns, dominant economic activities, and growing and declining industries can beobtained through desktop research. However, fieldwork that involves interaction with the community is essential in order tograsp the political and economic atmosphere, the values and positions of multiple actors in the community vis-a-visdifferent alternative development paths, their perceptions and priorities regarding socio-economic and social issues, thepossible conflicts and/or convergence of interests among various actors, and coalition formations at the local level.

Fieldwork is also crucial in understanding power relations among local constituencies, and the capability of local actors topursue their own objectives and influence a given situation; namely, local agency. Already employed in the fields ofpsychology, sociology, political science, economics, and biology [50–54], the term agency has not been thoroughlyintroduced in scenario studies yet, although it comes embedded in the analysis of some local conflicts (see, for instance, [55]).As Bandura [56,57] and Colomy [58] note, agency usually manifests itself through intentional, innovative and purposivetransformations, and requires the direct involvement of social actors in shaping or influencing the decision-making processby reacting, if necessary, to external influences. In fact, as also noted by Dolfsma and Verburg [59], the tension between(social) order and change, the so-called structure-agency relation, has a long history in social sciences (see, for instance, [60]).

Bandura [51,57] distinguishes among three forms of agency—personal, proxy and collective—depending on the way it isexerted; either individually, delegated to others or cooperatively. Collective agency relies on the conscious belief in theefficacy of collective action to attain desired outcomes, and is understood as an emergent group-level property beyond theaddition of individual capabilities. A clear manifestation of agency is forethought, as it allows actors to anticipate the likelyconsequences of their aims, set goals and plan their courses of action [56]. Ray [61] rightly points out that stakeholders differin their agency capability given local conditions. While some stakeholders may have considerable lobbying power, be well-versed in interactive action and significantly oppose the system, others may be more easily affected by external influences.

Overall, outlining these driving forces and taking a closer look at local agency capability through fieldwork enable aclearer understanding of the possible local-level processes of change. In scenario development exercises, the question thenbecomes ‘Which of these local and external forces will leave their mark at the local level?’ In fact, the answer to this questionis the subject matter of the third step.

(iii) Integrating scenarios at different scales—in other words, combining structural influences at the global and national levelswith local factors and social actors’ choices. Given the differing views and tendencies among local groups and theiragency capability, two issues are critical in shaping local environment and politics: first, the global and local politicalcontexts within which strategic decisions are made; and second, the distribution of wealth, power relations, and socialmobilisation among these groups.

Overall, Keyder [49] notes that larger forces provide the framework conditions to which local actors can both benefit fromand react to; and local actors (e.g. individuals, local government, private sector, social groups, politicians, planners) in turn dosomething about these conditions: they resist, cooperate, form alliances, adapt and/or accept bargains. The actual outcome is aresult of the dialectic of structural change and the actors’ responses, and naturally, local scenarios have to take into accountsuch strategic interactions by considering the agentic capabilities of social actors. In other words, as a formal approach, it isargued that local-scale agency capability determines the strategy for inter-scale interaction, which is either accommodation orreaction.

Here, an accommodation strategy refers to building local scenarios by directly downscaling from higher-scale scenariosand/or developing them within the boundary conditions of global and national scales. In fact, until now, the accommodationstrategy was greatly emphasised since the focus was more on the way top-down institutional and economic drivers affectregions and localities, rather than the impact of bottom-up factors.

In contrast, a reaction strategy considers the scope of events that include bottom-up influences as well, and mainly entailsfacing external pressures that are perceived as threats to local development. Naturally, the plausibility or success of localreactions relies on the stakes at hand and the social actors’ capability to counterbalance pressures from the larger context. On

B. Ozkaynak, B. Rodrıguez-Labajos / Futures 42 (2010) 995–1006998

this basis, the next section deals with constituency interests, coalition formations and the role of agency at the local level inmore detail.

4. Understanding interests, coalitions and the role of agency at the local level

Agency entails the direct involvement of social actors in shaping or influencing the decision-making process bysupporting or reacting to external influences, if necessary. On several occasions, globally, local groups have shownthemselves to be effective in raising awareness and exerting pressure to enforce—or even expand—existing normativeboundaries [62]. There is also a wealth of literature stressing the fact that grassroots mobilisation is a crucial factor in shapinglocalities [43,48]. Certainly, local coalitions (i.e. joint action taken by stakeholders in pursuit of diverse but overlappinginterests) differ in their agentic capabilities due to local and external conditions. Consequently, as already mentioned, whilesome alliances are strong and may significantly affect the system, others are weak and influenced by the conditions inquestion. Clearly, it is not possible to appreciate how coalition formation, negotiation and group conflicts impact societaladjustment to changes induced by external driving forces, without assessing local agency. Ray’s [61] evaluation ofendogenous development in the LEADER Community Initiative, and Taylor’s [63] efforts in linking the idea of agency todemocratic culture are a few, yet excellent examples in this regard. The link between different interests, and the roles actorsplay at different scales must also be understood for multi-level governance, a common underlying purpose of scenariodevelopment and analysis [27].

Therefore, understanding local collective agency seems to be a prerequisite in coherently combining structural influencesat the global and national levels with potential local-level developments. Although the existing literature on agencyemphasises the importance of capability for collective agency, it does not provide a clear framework to evaluate such agencyat the local level. Table 1 proposes a set of attributes that may be identified as the constituents of local agency capability, i.e.the key aspects that make positive contributions to good performance by the local collective effectiveness. There is noevidence that ascertains a hierarchical relation among these factors, but instead there are positive feedbacks. These factorssupport capabilities that, based on pre-existing values and interests, trigger selective associations and drive bigger andenduring (more stable) changes. Thus, they in a way determine the local power to generate effective, non-polarizedcoalitions, and hence, denote to what extent the local level can respond to larger-scale influences.

Here, access to information refers to the possibility of exchanging up-to-date information inside and outside local borders,thus raising awareness about issues that are of interest. Given the importance of ‘information politics’ in shaping localenvironmental agendas, for instance, in environmental struggles against the damage caused by oil extraction, gold mining ordam construction, local groups’ access to information provided by NGOs or other civil society groups armed with greaterinformation become crucial in creating pressure on powerful actors and pushing more effectively for social change.

As a second element, wealth and resource management refers to the control of material and intangible resources to enableautonomous choices. This control is related either to the direct ownership of assets or access to them through external allieswhose interests converge with those at the local level. This factor not only denotes affluence, but also the availability ofintangible resources, outstandingly legal, scientific and technological ones. Beyond resource availability, resourcedistribution may also be a relevant factor in explaining power asymmetries. An example of this can be found in the origins ofLa Via Campesina, an international movement supporting traditional villagers in areas were food sovereignty and agro-biodiversity are pressured by agricultural modernisation. Worldwide, groups of farmers affiliated with this movement arecalling for a permanent ban on the cultivation and importation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) [64]. Such protestshave in fact resulted in the limitation of GMO cultivation in several parts of Europe (see, www.gmo-free-regions.org). Giventhe contending pro-GMO agro-environment discourses in Europe [65], this may be seen as proof of strengthened regionalself-determination that is inspiring similar processes in other parts of the world.

Third, the history of local social mobilisation reinforces motivation and learning. If past social conflicts were successful in thepursuit of local interests, the ‘‘yes-we-can’’ motto can be substituted by ‘‘remember-we-already-could’’. This applies likewise tofailed attempts against external pressures. Past failures could generate a negative background that may erode the potential forlocal agency (e.g. mistrust between local groups). However, the relevance of this attribute resides not only in the recognition ofpast effectiveness, but also the emergent legitimacy of local coalitions. For instance, according to Guha [66, p. 107], Gandhi has

Table 1

Evaluation of local agency.

Constituents of local agency Enhanced capability Candidate indicators

Access to information Awareness Number of local media (press, radio); on-line platforms

Wealth and resource management Autonomy Level and distribution of income; legal, scientific and

technological support

Social mobilisation history Motivation

Learning

Legitimacy

Public expressions of social conflict, demonstrations,

manifestos, letters to parliament

Social networking,

coordination and lobbying

Operative

Self-validation

Richness, abundance, and structure of formal social networks

Citizenship rights Formal protection Legal recognition of minorities

B. Ozkaynak, B. Rodrıguez-Labajos / Futures 42 (2010) 995–1006 999

given Indian environmentalists their most favoured technique of protest and moral vocabulary to oppose external pressures. Anexample here would be the Chipko movement of the 1970s. Inspired by Gandhian activists, mountain villagers in the Himalayasthreatened and stopped loggers by hugging trees. They were nourished by an oral tradition that evoked the actions and leadersof previous protest movements in defence of the forests in the same region during colonial times.

Fourth, social networking, coordination skills and lobbying possibilities provide social movements with operativecapabilities. The variety and abundance of social networks, whatever their aim, are indicators of activism and provide fertilegrounds for collaborative efforts, overall if the structure of such networks allows better exploitation of other factors(information, resources and lessons from the past). Self-validation (ergo self-consciousness) is a significant outcome of localorganisations and networks, and thus also underpins the legitimacy of local coalitions. As Kadirbeyoglu [67] notes, one suchexample is the armed struggle of the Zapatistas that was launched symbolically on the day the NAFTA was ratified.Accordingly, the Zapatista movement not only includes demonstrations at the national level, such as the ‘march of the ants’—when 400 Chol Indians marched to Mexico City in 1992—but also has transnational contacts strengthened by internationalmeetings [68].

A final overarching aspect to emphasise is the reliance on citizenship rights. The normative and institutional frameworkmust not deprive local actors (or some of them) of equitable access to the benefits of state protection. Only then can localconcerns and claims be a part of social debate, on a solid and stable foundation. This aspect is in fact often referred to inepisodes of intense local conflict. For instance, in early 2009, the Presidency of Peru managed to promote regulatory changesthat enabled oil exploitation in indigenous territories of the Peruvian Amazon, which intensified the ongoing indigenousresistance. Among other matters, the protesters argued a perceived incompliance to the International Labour OrganisationConvention 169, ratified by Peru in 1993, which seeks the informed consent of indigenous communities in such cases. Afterdramatic clashes between the indigenous population and security forces in June 2009, the controversial decrees weresuspended. At that time, an indigenous leader reflected on the case by appealing to the language of citizenship rights, andpublicly said: ‘‘We are as Peruvians as you are, brothers. The country is not only the capital city Lima, but is also the coast, therainforest and the highlands’’ [69].1

All in all, each of the above aspects can be evaluated on either a qualitative or quantitative basis by looking at theproposed indicators or at others better suited to the case under analysis. Such appraisal allows for distinguishing thesituations where capability for collective agency is weak (low) from those where it is strong (high).

In fact, the fieldwork—apart from interests and coalition formation analysis—provides insight into the agency of eachcoalition at the local level as well. At this point, it is also possible to argue that the interaction with the local level itself can(intentionally) change agentic capability, so the levels ex ante and ex post of the process should be distinguished whenexploring possible futures by means of scenarios. In fact, this is why participatory scenario-building is very useful anddesirable, for it is an exercise in the exploration of possible outcome scenarios; a subjective yet systematic mind-walk whichfosters inquiry, creates awareness and spreads political responsibility, engagement and action at the local level.

5. The local scale and the larger scale: strategies for interaction

The existence of multiple forces operating at various spatial scales poses empirical and theoretical problems, and over thepast decades numerous theorists have addressed this problem of interaction [70,71]. Flyvbjerg [72], for instance, notes thedifficulties of attempting to simultaneously account for the structural influences that shape the development of a givenphenomenon and still craft a clear, penetrating narrative or microanalysis of that phenomenon. The author also highlightsthat research linking macro-level factors and actors’ choices in a specific social and political context, has so far only beenaddressed by disconnected projects. Yet, following Bandura [51, p. 77], a full understanding of human adaptation and changerequires an integrative assembly of external influences and self-influence, since human agency operates generatively andproactively on social systems.

In this context, this section explains in more detail how scenario development constitutes an integrative framework foranalysing inter-scale interactions, and proposes a procedure to account simultaneously for global influences and local factorsin scenario development. Specifically, this procedure consists of first, overlapping driving forces considered at differentscales, and then checking to see whether they are consistent across scales. Here, any consistency across driving forces atdifferent scales would lead to positive feedback loops. In case of inconsistencies, the plausibility of possible local-levelreactions would be subject to the varied agency capabilities of actors/coalitions. In other words, given the different agencycapabilities of actors/coalitions, it is also plausible for scenarios to be inconsistent across scales.

Hence, based on agency capability at the local level—as described in the previous section—two strategies of local scenariodevelopment are explored: accommodation and reaction.

5.1. A strategy of accommodation

Taking the city-region case as an example, Ravetz [40] argues that many elements of local-level scenarios are necessarilylinked explicitly or implicitly to a national scenario, which in turn, is governed by a European or a global scenario. When local

1 Original in Spanish: ‘‘Somos peruanos como ustedes hermanos. La patria no es solo la capital de Lima, es costa, selva y sierra’’ (Lidia Rengifo).

B. Ozkaynak, B. Rodrıguez-Labajos / Futures 42 (2010) 995–10061000

areas are not complete masters of their own destinies, a number of economic, demographic, social, political, technologicaland natural factors have varying degrees of influence on urban patterns, as well as on one another. In places where localagency capability has been qualified as low, reaction scenarios are seen as implausible. In such cases, external driving forcesare considered paramount in shaping the future of the local area; they boast the greatest potential to motivate fundamentalchanges and deviation from current trends, and make the difference between the possible trajectories. Consequently,scenarios are generated and developed from the start with the boundary conditions of the larger scale.

Certainly, when accommodation is the assumed strategy, the seeming compliance of the local context does notnecessarily imply a lack of reaction. At times, the accommodation strategy is also a sign of local efficacy. Some local-scalecoalitions may deem that their interest is a conduit of the external influences at the local level, and hence decide to adopt theexternal configuration of a problem as a rational strategy. With high agency capability, such coalitions may also play keyroles in the parallel development of supportive domestic circumstances. In this context, Onis and Senses [47] argue thatglobal drivers and local forces/coalitions moving in the direction of these global drivers usually strengthen the impact of oneanother, and facilitate the process through which systematic imperatives are translated into local policies.

Needless to say, the costs and benefits of the accommodation strategy are not equally distributed. The pre-eminence ofthe larger-scale scenario usually benefits the particular interests and values of the supportive coalition dominating the locallevel. And since opportunities for influencing the local setting are not evenly distributed either, those that could be in favourof resistance become merely a weak opposition and take part in the institutionalisation of the context they aimed to resist, iftheir agency capabilities are low (see, for instance, [58]).

5.2. A strategy of reaction

The previous section emphasised how larger-scale scenarios set the boundary conditions for local scenarios. Certainly, giventhe right circumstances, the scope of events can also include bottom-up influences [49]. The plausibility of such interactionsrelies on the capability of the local context to counterbalance pressures from the larger scale, and thus requires a high degree ofagency performance. Here, internal and external driving forces interact without the particular dominance of the larger scale,and inconsistency across scales becomes a valuable asset in understanding the plausible dynamics of the scenarios.

As already mentioned, if external and internal driving forces for future developments are in accord, the local scale willconsent to operate within the structural influences. The intensity of external development will even be accentuated bypositive feedback from the assenting local context. Yet, any potential discord across structural influences and dominant localdrivers and/or coalitions with high agency capability, is likely to produce discrepancy and resistance from the local context.Here, resistance entails persistently facing those external pressures that are perceived as threats to local development, andinvolves a deliberate or spontaneous desire to control the possible adverse outcomes of the external influences. Unless thelarger scale has a specific vested interest in the changes produced at the local scale, such as the use of local resources,resistance by local coalitions are likely to succeed. Due to the enhanced properties of high agency capabilities, the strength oflocal coalitions with a higher sense of attachment and belonging is likely to enable local interests and values to prevail.

6. Real world examples: the cases of Yalova and Ebro River

In this section, insights drawn from two scenario-building exercises—the Yalova city and Ebro River cases—are presentedand discussed step by step to illustrate how the proposed framework will help build local scenarios.

The Yalova city scenario-planning exercise was carried out in 2005 and aimed to portray alternative urban developmenttrajectories for the year 2020 (for details, see [22]). Yalova is one of the greenest provinces in the region and possesses fertileagricultural land and mineral-spring resources; yet it has also been home to a series of investments in industrial chemicals,textiles and energy, including the world’s largest acrylic fibre company. However, recent trends and circumstances (heavymigration, severe earthquakes, underdeveloped social and environmental policies, unplanned industrialisation andurbanisation) have brought the city’s development to a turning point and raised questions as to whether or not furtherindustrialisation is needed in the region. Those against further industrialisation stress the need for a long-term view, andfocus on alternative industries such as IT services, mineral-springs and weekend tourism and agriculture.

The Ebro River scenario study conducted in 2006 addressed governance issues dealing with two ongoing aquaticbiological invasions in the Ebro River, Spain, which drains the largest Iberian watershed (for details, see [25]). The study areacomprised three successive reservoirs located in the lower section of the river. This also constitutes a border area betweentwo administrative regions, Aragon and Catalonia, traditionally excluded from the dynamics of their respective centres.Nowadays, agricultural activities and recreational aquatic sports, above all angling, form the basis of local economies, alsohighly affected by the presence of power plants and dangerous industrial facilities.

In both studies, multiple inter-scale interactions had to be considered in defining the problem at hand (Step 1 in Fig. 1).Although urban development in Yalova is understood as a local issue, the local context is influenced by the larger scale. At thesame time, the relationship between urban development and local environment will have global impacts (i.e. the globalurban network, CO2 emissions). In the Ebro River case, bioinvasions put pressure on global biodiversity and the quality ofaquatic ecosystems, and as such have become a target of policy action under the guidelines of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity [73] and the Water Framework Directive of the European Union [74]. However, consequences and managementoptions for invasive aquatic species must be discussed at the local level. Genovesi [75] argues that limited social awareness,

B. Ozkaynak, B. Rodrıguez-Labajos / Futures 42 (2010) 995–1006 1001

ethical issues or mixed weighting of the costs and benefits of biological invasions may result in muted responsiveness by thelocal public.

As a result, the driving forces and the actors with the power to shape policy were analysed for both cases at multiple levels(global, regional, national and local) (Step 2 in Fig. 1). The global and national external driving forces at Yalova were revieweddistinguishing the key uncertainties for Turkey’s future through desktop research and various global scenarios and Turkey-EUscenarios existing in the literature were examined; specifically, Great Transitions by the Global Scenario Group [6], ScenariosEurope 2010 [8] and Four Futures of Europe by Centraal Planbureau [9]. For local driving forces, an empirical study wasconducted in the province of Yalova during 2003, and the role and potential of local actors to shape the future of Yalova wereassessed. Stakeholder interests, power relations, potential coalition formations and their respective agency capabilities wereanalysed. This consisted of 36 in-depth interviews, three focus groups, three workshops, and a survey administered to a total of1,196 respondents representative of the urban and rural population. The fieldwork revealed that the agriculture–tourismcoalition group had limited power at the local level against the industrialists, and Yalova residents generally felt they had littleinfluence in the governance of the city. The province has no record of a resistance movement or organised protests to protect theenvironment. This may be related to the tradition of highly centralised government in Turkey and long-term suppression of civilrights by the state. Moreover, information gathered in relation to governance revealed a lack of trust in public workers andwidespread perception of serious corruption in the city. Consequently, it was difficult to observe an actor-based counterbalanceto the coalition around the industry alternative at the local level, and therefore local agency capability was defined as low.

In the Ebro River scenarios, a literature review helped identify the socio-economic driving forces of biological invasions.Accordingly, the European Union was taken as the unit of analysis for generating precise assumptions regarding theevolution of these drivers, and three alternative policy scenarios from the ALARM project [25] were included in the analysisfocusing on the main drivers of biological invasions.

While paying attention to the ways in which international and European policies can impact the region, it was crucial tounderstand the level of agency at the regional/local scale as well. This was made possible via fieldwork which includedparticipatory scenario-building workshops and several years of participant observation [24,25]. Certain key socio-economic,political, and cultural attributes of the region helped characterise the level of agency in the case of Ebro as high. In terms ofaccess to information, for instance, the region is characterised by myriad local and regional newspapers and radio stationsthat address topics directly related to the experiences of the local population. The media is especially active in offering a‘‘not-in-my-backyard’ vision of the region as an entity with its own social and cultural profile. Any news about externalpressures easily finds a prominent place in the headlines. Many journalists/newspapers have effectively taken advantage ofinstitutional support (funds for regional development) to adopt new technologies (e.g. on-line platforms), or join consortia oflocal media from different parts of the state. Moreover, the defence of a specific dialect of the Catalan language has beentraditionally used to define the idea of territory beyond administrative boundaries. This also enhanced the relationshipbetween local residents, and the locals were found to have a high sense of belonging to the region in general. It can also beargued that past resistance movements provided fertile ground for the birth of social movements. In the early 2000s, forinstance, a social network successfully opposed the hydraulic infrastructure mega-project of the Spanish NationalHydrological Plan, and ‘awoke’ to reject new perceived menaces to their political interests in 2008. Through this experience,the local level has not only proven to be strong, but also learned to recognise itself as such.

Table 2 briefly summarises the attributes and level of local agency for the case studies under consideration.Overall, lessons drawn from scenario development exercises involving Yalova and the Ebro River gave rise to the

following table and the three steps in the inter-scale interaction of scenarios (Step 3 in Fig. 1) (Table 3).Accordingly, building scenarios for Yalova in 2020 benefited from the larger-scale scenarios already developed and tested.

External driving forces were considered to be most important in shaping the future of Yalova, with the greatest potential tomotivate fundamental changes and deviations from current trends, and to make the difference between the possibleversions. Thus an accommodation strategy was adopted and the Yalova 2020 scenarios were generated and developed fromthe outset with the boundary condition of the larger scale (see, Fig. 2).

The first scenario represented Yalova within Triumphant Markets, in which Turkey was part of a Europe where US-stylederegulation and privatisation prevailed with reduced social protection systems and environmental regulations. In thesecond scenario, Yalova within Social Europe, Turkey was part of a Europe where social and environmental concernsremained important. Business-as-Usual in Yalova was a scenario where the EU was unable to agree on a common stanceregarding Turkey’s membership, but kept the door open, and uncertain political and economic conditions in Turkeycontinued. In the fourth scenario, Inward-Looking Yalova, the EU rejected Turkey but offered special membership.

Table 2

Evaluation of local agency in the Yalova and Ebro River cases.

Constituents of local agency capability Yalova Ebro River

Access to information Low–medium Medium–high

Wealth and resource management Low Low–medium

Social mobilisation history Low High

Social networking, coordination and lobbying Low Medium–high

Citizenship rights Low High

B. Ozkaynak, B. Rodrıguez-Labajos / Futures 42 (2010) 995–10061002

In the case of the Ebro, the research team relied on narratives about risks to biodiversity at the EU scale, based on ALARMscenarios: (1) BAMBU (business as might be usual), extrapolating the expected trends in EU decision-making and assessingtheir sustainability and biodiversity impacts; (2) GRAS (growth applied strategy), liberal, free-trade, globalisation andderegulation scenario; and (3) SEDG (sustainable European development goal), integrated environmental, social, institutionaland economic sustainability scenario [76]. The researchers expanded on the narratives for the specific issue of biologicalinvasions at the EU level. However, in the Ebro, where local agency capability was identified as being high, employing larger-scale scenarios just as boundary conditions (accommodation strategy) was deemed an inappropriate methodologicaldecision. Likely bottom-up influences were acknowledged and a reaction strategy was therefore used as the basic approachto build the local scenarios (see, Fig. 3).

Accordingly, four local scenarios were developed in the Ebro case, taking key uncertainties deriving from local contextinto account. In the first scenario, Every Man for Himself, there was a strong utilitarian focus on water use management in theEbro. The second scenario, Politically Correct Business, depicted river management centred on recreational market-basedactivities developing in a coordinated administrative context. Administrative Chaos with Good Intentions described an Ebrowhere an environment-friendly normative was implemented without cooperation between administrations and otherstakeholders. In the fourth scenario, Shangri-La, an ecosystem management of the river was attempted together with effortstoward integrated action between stakeholders.

[(Fig._3)TD$FIG]

Fig. 3. The strategy of reaction in the case of Ebro River.

Table 3

Interaction of scenarios based on consistency and agency with examples from the Yalova and Ebro River cases.

Local agency capability

Tends to be low Tends to be high

Consistency between

the large scale and

the smaller scale

Tends to

be high

Large-scale scenarios are employed

as boundary conditions

e.g. All the inter-scale interactions

in the case of Yalova

Speed and/or intensity of developments increases

Vicious/virtuous feedbacks

e.g. Interaction between the ‘‘GRAS’’ and the ‘‘Every man for

himself’’ scenarios in the Ebro case

Tends to

be low

Intersection does not take place.

Local scenarios are subordinated

to larger-scale influences

because of low agency capacity.

Tensions, resistance

Social concern promotes local alliances

Power games define alternative developments

e.g. interaction between the ‘‘GRAS’’ and the ‘‘Shangri-La’’

scenarios in the Ebro case

[(Fig._2)TD$FIG]

Fig. 2. The strategy of accommodation in the case of Yalova.

B. Ozkaynak, B. Rodrıguez-Labajos / Futures 42 (2010) 995–1006 1003

Next, a hypothetical overlapping of scenario levels was tested to check whether the local scenarios were consistent withthe narratives of the larger-scale scenarios. Apart from a number of clear positive or negative answers to this question,situations where larger-scale trends or policies were embraced only by some actors or sectors at the local level, e.g. economicactors or regional administrations, also appeared. Second, sources of possible inconsistency in negative or partially positiveanswers were identified. Did the inconsistency disclose any specific kind of tension between scales? Here, the analysisrevealed aspects such as tensions between administrative levels, divergent economic interests, cohesion gaps, citizens’leadership, or lacking operative capabilities. Finally, trends that could be expected from these tensions were assessed. Theconceivable dynamics highlighted likely top-down and bottom-up effects. The scope of possibilities covered extremes fromthe positive feedback and reinforcement of the described trends at both levels, to strong resistance taking the form ofregional alliances against large-scale tendency. Other options between these extremes included social concern, protest, andpartial support to policies, demands for increased local competence or effective subsidiarity, and outcomes determined bythe power game between the main local or regional actors, among others.

7. Conclusion

The objective of this paper was to take a closer look at local-scale scenarios. Although the field of local development andplanning contains many existing advanced mechanisms and tools—general plans, specific plans, forecasting techniques, GISand so forth—that are essential to sustainable planning practices, local scenarios have a particular role to play in thisanalytical schema, in the sense that they help society see and reflect. Local scenarios can be used as a decision support tool,since they give a feeling for the range of possible future outcomes, and provide policy makers with an early warning systemof particular bottlenecks. However, this paper argued that from a methodological point of view, the scenario literaturerevealed missing elements regarding an important pillar of local scenario development: multi-scale interaction.

More specifically, the paper pointed out that one of the challenges in constructing local-scale scenarios resides in the needto integrate structural influences at the global and national levels, with local factors and social actors’ choices.

In this context, the paper clarified the conditions under which different interaction methods can be used for local scenariodevelopment. Overall, it was recognised that larger forces create framework conditions on a smaller scale that local actorscan both benefit from and react to, and local actors in turn respond to these conditions: they resist, cooperate, form alliances,adapt and/or accept bargains. The actual outcome is a result of the dialectic of structural change and the actors’ responses,and local scenarios have to take these interactions into account. At this point, attention is drawn to the role of local agency,and in particular, the exploration of agency capabilities of multiple constituencies at the local level. In fact, a formal approachto linking scenario exercises consists of exploring inconsistencies and given the local agency capability, choice of theappropriate interaction strategy, as accommodation or reaction.

The paper also indicated that fieldwork using different complementary research methods, participatory processes andcoalition formation analysis is valuable both for specifying key themes and indicators to be addressed within local scenarios,and gaining insight into local driving forces and the external factors that prevail in the study area. However, moreimportantly, detailed fieldwork was claimed as being crucial in understanding the interests and coalition formations at thelocal level, the power relations among local constituencies, and the capability of these actors to pursue their own objectives;namely, their local agency.

Overall, local scenario-building is an exercise in the exploration of possible future outcomes. The lessons learntcollectively, both during the process of scenario-making and from its outcomes, can provide a useful starting point forcreating awareness and securing commitment from local stakeholders, and enable resistance and change whenevernecessary. Although the external environment may impose some limitations, localities should still try to build up their owndevelopment strategies; strategies in which local agents occupy a more central and pivotal role.

Acknowledgements

Begum Ozkaynak gratefully acknowledges funding from the Open Society Institute, Bogazici University, and the IGSOCscholarship. Beatriz Rodriguez-Labajos’ work was funded by the FP 6 Integrated Project ALARM (GOCE-CT-2003-506675)and the Marie Curie Fellowship (EVK2-GH-00-57122-16). The authors thank Fikret Adaman, Rosa Binimelis, Pat Devine,Yahya Madra, Joan Martınez-Alier, Iliana Monterroso, Sigrid Stagl and Ceren Soylu for their suggestions. Of course, the usualdisclaimer applies.

References

[1] A. Clayton, W. Wehrmeyer, B. Ngubane, Foresighting for Development, Earthscan, London, 2003.[2] A. Wiek, C. Binder, R.W. Scholz, Functions of scenarios in transition processes, Futures 38 (2006) 740–766.[3] European Environmental Agency, Looking Back on Looking Forward: A Review of Evaluative Scenario Literature, EEA Technical Report 3, 2009.[4] G. Gallopin, A. Hammond, P. Raskin, R. Swart, Branch Points: Global Scenarios and Human Choice, Global Scenario Group, Boston, 1997.[5] P. Raskin, G. Gallopin, P. Gutman, A. Hammond, R. Swart, Bending the Curve: Toward Global Sustainability, PoleStar Report 8, Stockholm Environment

Institute, Stockholm, 1998.[6] P. Raskin, T. Banuri, G. Gallopin, P. Gutman, A. Hammond, R. Kates, R. Swart, Great Transition: The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead, Global Scenario

Group, Boston, 2002.[7] S.R. Carpenter, E.M. Bennett, G.D. Peterson, Scenarios for ecosystem services: an overview, Ecology and Society 11 (2006) 29.

B. Ozkaynak, B. Rodrıguez-Labajos / Futures 42 (2010) 995–10061004

[8] G. Bertrand, A. Michalski, L.R. Pench, Scenarios Europe 2010: Five Possible Futures for Europe, European Commission Forward Studies Unit, Brussels, 1999.[9] R. de Mooij, P. Tang, Four Futures of Europe, Den Haag, Centraal Planbureau, The Netherlands, 2003.

[10] G. Gallopin, F. Rijsberman, Three global water scenarios, International Journal of Water 1 (2000) 16–40.[11] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007.[12] C. Anastasi, On the art of scenario development, in: B. Kasemir, J. Jager, C.C. Jaeger, M.T. Gardner (Eds.), Public Participation in Sustainability Science: A

Handbook, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003, pp. 201–212.[13] K. Kok, D.S. Rothman, M. Patel, Multi-scale narratives from an IA perspective: Part I. European and Mediterranean scenario development, Futures 38 (2006)

261–284.[14] M.B.A. van Asselt, C.A.M.H. Storms, N. Rijkens-Klomp, J. Rothmans, Towards Visions for a Sustainable Europe: An Overview and Assessment of the Last

Decade in European Scenario Studies, ICIS, Maastricht, 1998.[15] S.C.H. Greeuw, M.B.A. van Asselt, J. Grosskurth, C.A.M.H. Storms, N. Rijkens-Klomp, D. Rothman, J. Rotmans, Cloudy Crystal Balls: An Assessment of Recent

European and Global Scenario Studies and Models, Environmental Issues Series 17, European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen, 2000.[16] J. Rothmans, M. van Asselt, C. Anastasi, S.C.H. Greeuw, J. Mellors, S. Peters, D.S. Rothman, N. Rijkens, Visions for a sustainable Europe, Futures 32 (2000) 809–

831.[17] J. Rothmans, M. Van Asselt, C. Anastasi, D. Rothman, S. Greeuw, C. van Bers, Integrated Visions for a Sustainable Europe, Final Report, ICIS, Maastricht, 2001.[18] L. Lebel, P. Thongbai, K. Kok, J.B.R. Agard, E.M. Bennett, R. Biggs, M. Ferreira, C. Filer, Y. Gokhale, W. Mala, C. Rumsey, S.J. Velarde, M. Zurek, H. Blanco, T. Lynam,

Y. Tianxiang, Sub-global scenarios, in: D. Capistrano, M. Lee, C. Raudsepp-Hearne, C. Samper (Eds.), Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: MultiscaleAssessments, Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, 2005, pp. 229–259.

[19] K. Kok, D.S. Rothman, M. Patel, Multi-scale narratives from an IA perspective: Part II. Participatory local scenario development, Futures 38 (2006) 285–311.[20] M. van Vliet, K. Kok, New concepts for development of integrated multi-scale scenarios within the SCENES project, in: CAIWA, Proceedings of the

International Conference on Adaptive & Integrated Water Management, Coping with Complexity and Uncertainty, Basel, Switzerland, 2007.[21] M.B. Zurek, T. Henrichs, Linking scenarios across geographical scales in international environmental assessments, Technological Forecasting and Social

Change 74 (2007) 1282–1295.[22] B. Ozkaynak, Globalisation and local resistance: alternative city developmental scenarios on capital’s global frontier—the case of Yalova, Turkey, Progress in

Planning 70 (2008) 45–97.[24] B. Rodrıguez-Labajos, Interlinked biological invasions in the Ebro River: a multi-scale scenario approach, Master Thesis, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona,

Bellaterra, 2006.[25] B. Rodriguez-Labajos, R. Binimelis, I. Monterroso, J. Martınez-Alier, The arrival of Dreissena polymorpha and Silurus glanis in the Ebro River: socio-economics

of interlinked aquatic bioinvasions, in: B. Rodriguez-Labajos, J.H. Spangenberg, L. Maxim, J. Martinez-Alier, R. Binimelis, N. Gallai, P. Kuldna, I. Monterroso, K.Peterson, M. Uustal (Eds.), Assessing Biodiversity Risks with Socio-economic Methods: The ALARM Experience, Pensoft, 2009, pp. 69–112.

[26] P.W.F. van Notten, J. Rotmans, M.B.A. van Asselt, D.S. Rothman, An updated scenario typology, Futures 35 (2003) 423–443.[27] W. Wehrmeyer, A. Clayton, K. Lum, Foresighting for Development, GMI Theme Issue, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, 2003.[28] A. Hammond, Which World? Scenarios for the 21st Century, Island Press, Washington, DC, 1998.[29] G.R. Ghanadan, Choices Ahead: Three Alternative Development Scenarios for California, The Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development,

Berkeley, 2002.[30] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.[31] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change: The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment, Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, 1992.[32] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Emission Scenarios, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.[33] European Commission (EC-DGXI), Vision 2020: Scenarios for a Sustainable Europe, General Consultative Forum, European Commission, Directorate General

XI, Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection, Brussels, 1996.[34] European Commission (EC-DGXVII), Energy in Europe: European Energy to 2020: A Scenario Approach, European Commission, Luxembourg, 1996.[35] F. Berkhout, J. Hertin, Foresight Future Scenarios: Developing and Applying a Participative Strategic Planning Tool, Greenleaf Publishing, 2002.[36] J. Ravetz, Integrated assessment for sustainability appraisal in cities and regions, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20 (2000) 31–64.[37] P. Næss, Urban planning and sustainable development, European Planning Studies 9 (2001) 503–524.[38] G. Munda, Social multi-criteria evaluation: methodological foundations and operational consequences, European Journal of Operational Research 158 (2004)

662–677.[39] B. Kasemir, J. Jager, C.C. Jaeger, M.T. Gardner, Public Participation in Sustainability Science: A Handbook, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.[40] P. Healey, S. Cameron, S. Davoudi, S. Graham, A. Madani-Pour (Eds.), Managing Cities: The New Urban Context, Wiley, London, 1995.[41] R. Biggs, C. Raudsepp-Hearne, C. Atkinson-Palombo, E. Bohensky, E. Boyd, G. Cundill, H. Fox, S. Ingram, K. Kok, S. Spehar, M. Tengo, D. Timmer, M. Zurek,

Linking futures across scales: a dialog on multi-scale scenarios, Ecology and Society 12 (2007) 17.[42] Possum, Policy Scenarios for Sustainable Mobility, Final Report ST-96-SC.107, 1998.[43] G. Esteva, M.S. Prakash, From global to local: beyond neoliberalism to the international hope, in: F.J. Lechner, J. Boli (Eds.), The Globalisation Reader, Blackwell

Publishing, Oxford, 2004, pp. 410–416.[44] L. Noronha, N. Lourenco, J. Lobo-Ferreira, A. Lleopart, Coastal Tourism, Environment and Sustainable Development, TERI Publications, New Delhi, 2002.[45] K. Kok, R. Biggs, M. Zurek, Methods for developing multiscale participatory scenarios: insights from Southern Africa and Europe, Ecology and Society 13

(2007) 8.[46] CPB, Economy and Physical Environment (in Dutch), Sdu Uitgevers, The Hague, The Netherlands, 1997.[47] Z. Onis, F. Senses, Global dynamics, domestic coalitions and a reactive state: major policy shifts in post-war Turkish economic development, METU Studies in

Development 34 (2007) 251–286.[48] J. Mollenkopf, How to study urban political power, in: R. LeGates, F. Stout (Eds.), The City Reader, Routledge, London/New York, 2003, pp. 235–244.[49] C. Keyder, Istanbul: Between the Global and the Local, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD, 1999.[50] G.H. Elder Jr., Time, human agency, and social change: perspectives on the life course, Social Psychology Quarterly 57 (1994) 4–15.[51] A. Bandura, Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy, Current Directions in Psychological Science 9 (2000) 75–78.[52] M. Hernandez, S.S. Iyengar, What drives whom? A cultural perspective on human agency, Social Cognition 19 (2001) 269–294.[53] G. Hodgson, The Evolution of Institutional Economics: Agency, Structure and Darwinism in American Institutionalism, Routledge, London/New York, 2004.[54] I. Kowarik, Human agency in biological invasions: secondary releases foster naturalization and population expansion of alien plant species, Biological

Invasions 5 (2003) 293–312.[55] L. Urkidi, Movimientos anti-mineros: el caso de Pascua-Lama en Chile, Revista Iberoamericana de Economıa Ecologica 8 (2008) 63–77.[56] A. Bandura, Human agency in social cognitive theory, American Psychologist 44 (1989) 1175–1184.[57] A. Bandura, Social cognitive theory in cultural context, Applied Psychology: An International Review 51 (2002) 269–290.[58] P. Colomy, Neofunctionalism and neoinstituionalism: human agency and interests in institutional change, Sociological Forum 13 (1998) 265–300.[59] W. Dolfsma, R. Verburg, Bridging Structure and Agency: Processes of Institutional Change, ERIM Report Series ERS-2005-064-ORG, 2005.[60] E. Fullbrook, Intersubjectivity in Economics: Agents and Structures, Routledge, London/New York, 2002.[61] C. Ray, Towards a meta-framework of endogenous development: repertoires, paths, democracy and rights, Sociologia Ruralis 39 (1999) 522–537.[62] Walter, Martinez Alier, J., How to be heard when nobody wants to listen: communities preventing mining activities in Argentina, Canadian Journal of

Development Studies, in press.[63] C. Taylor, Cultures of democracy and citizen efficacy, Public Culture 19 (2007) 117–150.[64] A.A. Desmarais, La Via Campesina. Globalization and the Power of Peasant, Fernwood Publishing, Halifa, 2007.

B. Ozkaynak, B. Rodrıguez-Labajos / Futures 42 (2010) 995–1006 1005

[65] R. Binimelis, I. Monterroso, B. Rodrıguez-Labajos, Catalan agriculture and genetically modified organisms (GMOs): an application of DPSIR model, EcologicalEconomics 69 (1) (2009) 55–62.

[66] R. Guha, Environmentalism. A Global History, OUP, Delhi, 2000.[67] Z. Kadirbeyoglu, The transnational dimension of the Bergama campaign against Eurogold, in: T. Faist, E. Ozveren (Eds.), Transnational Social Spaces: Agents,

Networks and Institutions, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2004.[68] A.D. Morton, La Resurreccion del Maız’: globalisation, resistance and the Zapatistas, Millennium-Journal of International Studies 31 (1) (2002) 27–54.[69] El Mundo, Victoria Parcial de los pueblos indıgenas de Peru, 19/06/2009.[70] R.A. Beauregard, Theorizing the global-local connection, in: L. Knox, P.J. Taylor (Eds.), World Cities in a World System, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, 1995, pp. 233–248.[71] C.C. Gibson, E. Ostrom, T.K. Ahn, The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: a survey, Ecological Economics 32 (2000) 217–239.[72] B. Flyvbjerg, Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001.[73] CBD, The Convention on Biological Diversity, 2000.[74] The Water Framework Directive of the EU Parliament, 2000/60/EC, 23 October 2000.[75] P. Genovesi, Eradications of invasive alien species in Europe: a review, Biological Invasions 7 (2005) 127–133.[76] J. Spangenberg, Integrating scenarios for assessing biodiversity risk, Sustainable Development 15 (2007).

B. Ozkaynak, B. Rodrıguez-Labajos / Futures 42 (2010) 995–10061006