ime traveling for a sustainable future · the methodology during the masterclass future food...

6th International Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA) – Future in the Making Brussels, 4-5 June 2018

SESSION SYSTEM DYNAMICS, MODELLING AND GAMING

- 1 -

TIME TRAVELING FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE

Linda Hofman M.A. B. Sc., Drs. Christianne Heselmans Fontys Academy for Creative Industries, Prof. Goossenslaan 1-04, building P3, PO box 90909, 5000GL Tilburg, the

Netherlands. [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract

From November 2017 till February 2018 Fontys Academy for Creative Industries and HAS University of Applied Sciences have joined forces in the Masterclass Future Food Systems to design concepts for sustainable food systems in co-creation with several organisations and businesses. This collaboration of the creative industry and agricultural science and businesses dove into the future to find innovative solutions for valuable and resilient food systems.

Feeding the world is an example of a wicked problem. The so called wicked problemsi are huge, very

complex, highly connected and there are a lot of factors and stakeholders involved in it. To tackle the wicked problems in the current food system a holistic view is necessary.

The backbone of the masterclass was the methodology of 'Prototyping for Sustainable Futures with value’ii

developed by Hofman & Heselman of Fontys Academy for Creative Industries and practised and adjusted for several years within this institute. The methodology combines futures thinking (back casting) with design thinking and system thinking with creating values on multiple levels and multiple stakeholders. In this research methodology we explore the preferable future. It’s a normative, holistic, human-centered and iterative approach. This foresight method was designed based on the ‘prototyping for a sustainable future’-model (Illstad and Wangel, 2015)

iii and the value framework-model (Den Ouden, 2015)

iv

From our observational research we could find the struggling of the participant within this design-thinking approach. Changing the mind-set to holistic, human-centred, system & design thinking seems to be the hardest part of the methodology. This switching mind-set takes a lot of time and effort in the groups. Overall conclusion of the masterclass Future Food Systems was that although the masterclass was a very time compressed intervention, it indicates that working with anticipatory and system thinking in interdisciplinary teams helps to set more sustainable goals to create more sustainable food systems and develop accordingly policies around this sustainable food system.

This methodology can be a powerful tool for policymaking. It helps to get insights in that shifts in perceptions and values have transformative effects on society by envision a preferable future on multiple levels. It helps people to understand that innovation is driven both by technology and societal developments.

Keywords: #backcasting, #designthinking, #Systemthinking, #wickedproblems, #Futureconsciousness, #timeperspective, #transitions, #holistic, #human centred, #foodsystem.

Introduction

From November 2017 till February 2018 Fontys Academy for Creative Industries (ACI) and HAS University of Applied Sciences joined forces in a Masterclass Future Food Systems. Students of both programmes were encouraged to design concepts for sustainable food systems in co-creation with several organizations and businesses. The results of this collaboration was presented during the Symposium Future Food Systems.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



- 2 -

During the Masterclasses students and lecturers worked in multidisciplinary on different projects for a contributor from the food system. The collaboration of the creative industry and agricultural science and businesses led to some innovative solutions towards valuable food systems.

In six classes participants got insight from innovative thinkers of the current global and local food system. We offered workshops on the methodology of Sustainable Futures. We developed this specific methodology to focus on the future in a positive way to develop strategies, policies and (business)concepts to tackle those wicked problems in society.

According to us (Hofman, 2018)v you have to become future consciousness to plan a journey to a more sustainable and liveable society, or -so to say- a time traveller. As a time traveller you need tools, you need a certain attitude and you need competences and a way of working, a methodology. if you are ready to take-of you need to be sure it is working so we did research on the methodology during the masterclass Future Food systems.

The aim of this paper is dual. The first aim is to show that design thinking combined with future consciousness is helpful to coop with wicked problems. The second aim is to introduce the methodology of ‘prototyping for sustainable futures with value’ used in the Future Food System masterclass. This methodology helps to set norms for a preferable future and creates multiple values in a holistic and human-centred approach, by using an iterative- and design methodology. In this paper is included some early results derived from the Future Food Masterclass.

Wicked problems

There are a lot of injustice and other problems in the food system. We want to feed all the citizens of the world with healthy nutritious food. We still haven’t managed to do that. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United nations (FAO, 2017)vi stated that more than enough food is produces worldwide. We even throw away about a third of all produced food. But of the seven billion people who live on this planet, about 815 million people still suffering from hunger. Another 600 million adults are suffering from obesities. Both groups in this spectrum travail from malnutrition. Both of this groups are the poor people of this society. Feeding the world: that’s an example of a wicked problem.

Wicked problems are huge (Ritter, 1973)vii. Like the adaptively of agriculture to Climate Change. We try to find solution by using solar panels to get electricity instead of burning coal. But for the production of solar panels we need metals. How sustainable is the production of those panels? What will happen to all those people who work at the old-fashion energy companies? This wicked problems are highly connected and there are a lot of factors and stakeholders involved in it. If you have found a solution for one part of the problem, something else can collapse.

Trying to solve these wicked problems can give a feeling of hopelessness. Negativity does something with your brain. You know the reptilian-part of the brain?(Kazlev et al. 2003)viii. When negativity shows up, this part of the brain takes over from the more rational parts of the brain. Negativity triggers fear and fear triggers the survival modus. You are up to flight, fight or freeze. At least a bit.

That is not the best status of mind to solve wicked problems. Problems you have to think about, discuss about and come with a creative solution for more than one concerted party. Negativity will not help us to solve the biggest problems of our time.

Negativity though is what we mostly use if we talk about the future. Negativity is what we teach our children about the future, by showing them all kind of action movies, games or series were



- 3 -

the world is collapsing.(Anguera & Santisteban. 2016)ix. Our brain is developed to focus on problems and negativity. To change the food system to a more sustainable one, we have to act in hope. We have to believe in a better, positive future. We have to teach our youth that they can influence the future. By creating their own (Bishop & Hines. 2012).x

UNESCO wrote in their Global Action Program on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD, 2014)xi that one of their five priority action areas is: ‘Empowering and mobilizing youth’. Changing mind-sets, changing values. These are things what people in the creative industry can do, what our youth can do.

Grand societal Challenges

The European Union also indicated vast problems for Europe. They call it the Grand Societal Challenges and came up with a program for innovation. ‘Horizon 2020’ an European funding programxii

“Horizon 2020 reflects the policy priorities of the Europe 2020 strategy and addresses major concerns shared by citizens in Europe and elsewhere” Horizon 2020 is A challenge-based approach will bring together resources and knowledge across different fields, technologies and disciplines, including social sciences and the humanities”

Horizon 2020 is a program with nearly €80 billion of funding available over 7 years (2014 to 2020). For getting funding you have to apply to calls set up by a commission of experts on a certain area. But by peruse the calls, none of them was holistic or human-approached and almost none of them was about changing human values. Alas, the great funding pot of the European Union was not available for creatives. Yet…

Methodological approach

A different approach on the Grand Societal Challenges was needed. We came with ‘Prototyping for Sustainable futures with values’.

The reasoning behind the method 'Prototyping for Sustainable Futures with value’ is: "A clear view of a sustainable future has an influence on acting in the present and ensures that an individual and / or society can and dares to take responsibility for the future. This means finding a balance between having a pleasant life in the present (short-term) understanding of past choices and working on a happy, sustainably liveable society (quality of life) also for next generations in the future1 "

The methodology combines futures thinking (back casting) with design thinking and system thinking with creating values on multiple levels and multiple stakeholders.

With this in mind we formulated overall objectives:

Students gain more insight into value creation in networks

Students gain more consciousness about their role in the future (future consciousness2 )

1 (2016) Heselmans & Hofman about method Sustainable Futures

2 “The total integrative set of psychological abilities, processes and experiences humans use in understanding and

dealing with the future. Future consciousness is absolutely necessary for normal



- 4 -

Students will learn the method ‘prototyping sustainable futures with value’

Prototyping for Sustainable futures with values combines all the five key competences for sustainable development (Wiek et al., 2011):

Anticipatory Thinking: the ability to collectively analyse, evaluate, and craft a holistic

‘‘pictures’’ of the future related to sustainability issues and sustainability problem-solving

frameworks. It has to be an imaginary picture of the future with a holistic human centred

story. The story includes qualitative information, quantitative information, narratives,

imagery, etc. Anticipatory thinking is related to future thinking. One of the results of using

the methodology, is learning to tell the story about a preferable future.

Systems-thinking: the ability to collectively analyse complex systems related to the GSC.

The system can include different domains (society, environment, economy, etc.) and

different scales (local to global). Grand Societal Challenged are so-called wicked

problems, which has a lot of systems around them.

Normative thinking: Normative competence is the ability to collectively map, specify,

apply, reconcile, and negotiate sustainability values, principles, goals, and targets. In the

method a preferable future is defined. When sharing this preferable future, it is possible

that not for everyone it is their preferable future.

Strategic Thinking: is the ability to collectively design and implement interventions,

transitions, and transformative governance strategies toward sustainability. The output of

the method is the design of a first stepping stone used to realize the first steps towards

this preferable future.

Interpersonal communication: is the ability use communication skills and knowledge to

achieve your goals in a manner that it is best suited for all parties who are involved.

During the method, there will be a lot of discussion about the direction of this preferable

future.

Exploring futures

This research methodology is not about predicting the future. It’s about explore futures. There is not just one future to explore, there are many futures. Usually what people do when they try to understand the future, is looking at the past, see what is happening today and then extrapolate that to the future. This is called the probable future: a future related to the past and the current. You can also use developments in the present translate to new developments in the future. This is called the plausible future: future related to the new developments. Then the future shows some more possibilities. If you use your imagination and you are going to think more in a science fiction style, then you create the possible future: a future determent by new combinations and ideas. (Voros. 2003)xiii. There are many futures to explore. If there are so many futures to explore, why don’t we just create our own preferable future?(Bishop & Hines.

human psychological functioning. Without the psychological capacity of anticipation, hope, goal setting and planning we would be aimless, lost, mentally deficient, passive and reactive. We would not see intelligent or for that matter even human without future consciousness. The capacity of future consciousness comes in degrees. As we mature in life our awareness of both time and the future grows.” (Lombardo, 2008)



- 5 -

2012)xiv. The preferable future is the one explored in the methodology ‘Prototyping for sustainable futures with values’. This is a normative approach.

A way to look at the future is ‘back casting’. It begins with imagining of the future. Within this envisioned future, plausible transition paths will be identified for getting there. Back casts are very useful to sustainable development studies. With back casts we can ask: Where do we want to go? And: How do we get there? For example; Panels on climate change are using back casting. Mostly formulated like: ‘the mean temperature on earth may not rise more than 2 degrees or else…’ This norm is not positively formulated. What makes it more difficult to encourage people to join the change. To see hope in the future. Ilstedt & Wangel (2013) describe two problems with back casting. First problem is that: “Back casting scenarios are often too macro-scaled, quantitative and abstract to communicate with people who are not policy-makers or planners.” The other problem mentioned is that “the images of the future are often represented in rather technocratic and scientific ways only and are typically (mainly) disseminated as scientific publications”.

Ilstedt and Wangel (2013) came up with the solution to combine back casting with design methodologies and thereby abate these two problems. To get a broad engagement, and understanding of the implications of a preferable future in which sustainable life-styles has become the norm, the envision of this future must be concrete, accessible and micro-levelled representations. Within their approach is there isn’t any attention for value creation in different perspectives (economical, ecological, psychological and sociological) and on different levels (user, organisation, eco-system and society), needed to solve those wicked problems mentioned before. (Den Ouden, 2012). To develop a system change you also need insights in the whole system around the objective of this future.

Future consciousness

One of the main ingredients needed to be able to envision an as realistic as possible preferable futures is future consciousness. Lombardo (2008) defines future consciousness: “Future consciousness is part of our perception of time, our temporal consciousness of past, present and future…Future consciousness is the total integrative set of psychological abilities, processes and experiences humans use in understanding and dealing with the future.” According to Lombardo Future consciousness is absolutely necessary for human being, while we are part of society and we need planning and organisation to survive.xv

Future consciousness is part of our perception of time. This perception of time is partial conscious. Zimbardo and Boyd studies this phenomenon of Time perspective: “the often nonconscious personal attitude that each of us holds toward time and the process whereby the continual flow of existence is bundled into time categories that help to give order, coherence and meaning to our lives.” (Zimbardo & Boyd, 2008, p. 51).xvi

Time perspective shows you your attitude, convictions and values related to time. In what perspective do you mostly live? Past (culture), present (identity) or future (developments and goal setting)? All time perspectives are independent but they need to be in balance.xvii Time perspective is conditioned behaviour. You learn how to look at the past, present and future from the ones who has raised you. It is possible to change your timeperspective to a more positive and future oriented one. But…Just be future oriented is not enough for acting sustainable.).

To be able to make sustainable choices we need an holistic view on the world, insight in values which influences behaviour (Stebbing. 2015)xviii. Theoretic models about Quality of Life can help to find those values. What makes us happy on short term but also in long term. To be able to act



- 6 -

sustainable: You need future consciousness, sense of responsibility, self-control, ambition and structure.

To develop future consciousness we have to become time travellers. We need a balanced and flexible time perspective. We have to develop interested in the past (culture), the present (identity) and future (developments and goal setting). We not only we need the future, but we also need the past. Not to extrapolate but to be not afraid for the future. We have to be empathic to look holistic to society. We have to see a positive future and act from hope. And we can use future methods and technics for analysing and design the future.

Methodology of ‘prototyping for sustainable futures with value’

The methodology ‘Prototyping for Sustainable futures with values’ combines back casting with design thinking to find solutions on wicked problems. To get a broad engagement, and understanding of the implications of a preferable future in which sustainable lifestyles has become the norm, the envision of this future must be concrete and holistic, accessible and as well micro-levelled as macro levelled representations. To be capable to do that, you need future consciousness and be able to switch between past, today and the future. In this part of the paper we will explain the different steps of the methodology prototyping for a sustainable futures with value (Heselmans, 2018)xix. Step 1: Determine context, scope and status quo

The first step that must be taken is to determine the context and the focus. During this first step, we look at the scope from which the problem is approached and a demarcation is made. In order to maintain the 'human centred point of view' principle, the scope is deployed from a human perspective. This can be for example from the end user, the citizen or a participant. Finally, a timeframe is set to where the preferable future goes. Once the

scope has been determined, research is sought through research to deepen the status quo and problem formulation.

Step 2: Determining relevant stakeholders

The various stakeholders who move around the problem are mapped on the basis of the stakeholder framework. There are primary and secondary stakeholders. The primary stakeholders are the stakeholders whose continuous participation is necessary in relation to the end user. The secondary stakeholders are involved but are further away from the end user. The stakeholders are plotted on the framework in the level where they are relevant. The different stakeholders

have been visualized to help the student in the process. The various stakeholders indicate who it is, what motivation he or she has to be a stakeholder and what his or her goal is (Den Ouden, 2012).

Step 3: Defining the inhibitory and stimulating factors

If the context is well mapped with the stakeholders. is the next step to see which inhibitory and stimulating factors influence



- 7 -

the context? The 'Signals for Change' (SfC) that have been mapped in the Horizon Scan 2050 of the Foundation for the Future View of Technology (STT, 2014) are used as an aid. These SfCs can, expected or unexpectedly, quickly or slowly, in combination with each other or individually, determine the future of the Grand Societal Challenges. Where the GSC is the starting point of the method, the SfCs are the possible positive or negative forces that can contribute to a future in which the challenge has developed in a utopia or a dystopia. They do not only respond to the challenges, but also to society as a whole. Insight into this SfC provides the student with tools to outline a holistic and sustainable vision of the future. These SfCs are organized on the basis of the STEEP classification developments and come from an extensive desk research and an online survey among 110 experts. Based on these 150 SfCs found, the experts applied a ranking based on the expected impact of the signal. This eventually resulted in 57 signals. Criteria for whether an SfC is an inhibitory or a stimulating signal is the extent to which it contributes to the preferable future.

Step 4: Formulate the preferable future in an ‘image’

If all SfCs have been screened by the participant as an inhibited or stimulating force, they are ranked as most likely and most desirable. The next step is to include the most stimulating factors within the formulation of the future vision, taking into account the certainties that lie ahead for the future (including the inhibiting factors that are very certain). A preferable future can never be a future-perfect in which there are only good developments. A

future or life has both good and bad aspects. The preferable future also has to deal with a number of less desirable developments. The point is that the student is able to reverse or neutralize these developments together with the stimulating forces that have been formulated. Based on the chosen signals of change, a standard is established about what the future might look like. This vision is visualized in a story from the environment of the end user and how it lives.

Step 5 Choice of the transition path

In order to arrive at the desired future, there are various transition paths. Think, for example, of education, media, education, politics, business and the like. The different transition paths are mapped. This is also where the stakeholders from step 2 come up for discussion. It is important that the visualized vision of the future is taken as the starting point for identifying possible new transition paths.

Step 6: Back to the now

Once the various transition paths have been appointed, one transition path will be selected where the student will continue to shape the design process. The choice of the transition path depends among other things on the impact that the transition path has on the desired image of the future and on the background of the student. . Starting from 2050, it will be



- 8 -

reasoning back to the present where milestones are set for each period to be met by the change that has been made to eventually reach the desired future in the chosen time frame.

Step 7: Formulation of the first stepping stone

If it is clear what the desired future is and by which transition path this has to be realized, it is possible to take the first step towards that desired future. After all, the current situation has already been mapped out and the standard for the coming period is clear. The creative session can start. This is done on the basis of start-up questions that are based on the milestone that is closest to it (a maximum of two years later in time). The

divergence and convergence on ideation can be started.

Step 8: Enriching by searching for possible alliances

From the idea that we need each other to come to changes, the ideas will be enriched by looking carefully at which stakeholders can be added (strategically) in the elaborated stepping stone. In the value flow model, the participant indicates per stakeholder where the value creation is. This may be in the area of physical goods and services, money, intangible goods or information (Den Ouden, 2012).

Step 9: Testing for value creation

The last step in the method is to test the first stepping stone on value creation. To what extent is there economic value for the different levels: the user, organization ecosystem and society? But there is also psychological, social or ecological value for all these parties? Testing these value perspectives at the different levels provides insight into the extent to which this first 'stepping stone' involves a 'meaningful innovation' (Den Ouden, 2012).

As I explained the methodology is built on different process steps. But those steps are not as linear as it seems in the methodology. It’s very iterative. First your start in the present, then you go to the future and then back to the present or even to the past. Then you are questioning your assignment. And rewrite the objectives or the norms. And then back to the future, or first back to the present, or… This knots, this uncertainty is part of the Design Thinking process. It is not at all straight forwards. But finally al pieces come together and you will find a proper solution, or at least a first stepping stone for your challenge and a start to unknot the Great Big Wicked Problem or Grand Societal Challenge. As our participants did when they applied for their assignment on a Future Food System for one of our commissioning parties.

3. Effect of the masterclass

The last part of this paper is about the effect of the masterclass Future Food Systems on future consciousness and rebuilding a more sustainable food system.



- 9 -

We had 84 participant. This group was a mixture of students, lecturers and professionals in the Food Work field. The youngest student was 19 year young and the oldest retiree lecturer was 63 years old. two third of all people was female. The educational background of the participants started with almost graduates to a doctoral degree. We can say a high educated bunch of people. All kind of educational programs from HAS University of applied (life)science and the Fontys Academy for Creative Industries were involved. From International Lifestyle Studies to Animal Husbandry/animal care. Most people had a Dutch cultural background, just a few came from abroad. All those people we divided in seven mixed project groups. No professional role was given, the groups could decide for themselves what structure of working together they choose. The groups choice was based on common interest in the project assignments.

We used different methods to measuring change in time perspective and future consciousness of the participants. Before the masterclass started we send them a questionnaire. In this questionnaire we asked them a couple of quantitative questions, but we also asked them to write their future story and also draw it. Moreover we asked them to fill in a short version of the Zimbardo The Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI) and The Transcendental future Time Perspective Inventory (TFTPI).This baseline measurement was filled in by 45 (FFSO, N=45) participants.

During the masterclass we did observational research. We had also ask a student assistants to do anonym participated field research. She was one of the team members of one of the project groups.

At the end of the masterclass we asked the participants to fill in the same questionnaire, but without the ZTPI and the TFTP. Because we did not do psycho-therapy we thought it was not useful to apply this again. Next time we recommend to this anyways to see if there is a change in time perspective. In this last questionnaire we also asked them quantitative and qualitative feedback on the masterclass itself. This time we had a response of 22 participants (FFS1, N=22).

Results, discussion and implications

According to their own view on the most extant time perspective they see in their own live (past, present, short term future, future) all times perspectives were almost evenly presented. Just a bit more people found themselves more future focussed. A quarter uses short term goals, an even part follows the moto ‘seize the day’ and the last part ‘learns mostly from the past’. The group that sees themselves futures focussed 80% describes theme selves as a good planner. In the other time groups ‘planning’ or ‘not able to’ was 50-50. The majority of all participants 85% has a flexible mind-set dealing with problems. So to say, it was a good group to start with to look at futures.



- 10 -

After the course a bigger part 50% of the participant found themselves future focussed also 97% fills in to have a flexible mind-set. People think they have gained more future thinking. In their stories and drawing this is also noticeable because they see themselves more actively as a part of a different future. You could say there is an indication that this short intervention helps people think more future conscious, and perhaps this could indicate a more balanced time perspective. Also it indicated that

From our observational research we could find the struggling of the participant within this design-thinking approach. Changing the mind-set to holistic, human-centred, system & design thinking seems to be the hardest part of the methodology besides the switching between time perspectives. And this switching mind-set takes a lot of time and effort in the groups.

What helps for process guidance is to monitor if there is enough fun in a group. Having fun is very important: it shows that there is no fear in the group. It stimulates creativity and thinking beyond the boundaries of just extrapolation of developments in the past or the present to the future, instead of thinking what could be possible. In a group with too many ego’s, it is much harder to listen to each other or to speak up if you are not one of those ego’s. What we also saw in one of the groups was seeking for too much consensus. Perhaps that is due to a need for collectivism. Finding structural consensus takes very much time. Also the members of that group gave themselves a filter in sharing their ideas. Nothing to funny or to strange can be dropped.

The masterclass was extracurricular and also for the lecturers and professionals it was a course besides their daily practices. The group had little time to work on the methodology. Just two hours maximum per session. That brings it to a total of proximally nine hours to work on the project. Most groups worked besides the workshop to finish the weekly assignments. The participants experienced a lot of time pressure. Sometimes this helps to speed up the process. However the participants stated that this time pressure was a bit too much.

The methodology was bright new for the participants, therefore they asked for clarity, examples and predictability. They specified that it would help them to make a sort of infographic to support



- 11 -

the method: an easy overview. Because of the complexity but also because the shift in mind-set participants would have liked some more guidance during the process.

General, the participant stated this was the best of the masterclass FFS … Learning how to use a Design method applied to the Food system. The participants mentioned the benefits from multidisciplinary teamwork. by mixing students, lecturers and experts. Combination of juniors and seniors experience plus all group members were co-owners of the project. As well the participants cherished meeting a lot of passionate people who wanted to change the food system. The mixed approach of expert guest lecturers and practice in a workshop was appreciated.

Conclusions

Overall conclusion of the masterclass Future Food Systems was although the masterclass was a very time compressed intervention, it indicates that working with anticipatory and system thinking in interdisciplinary teams helps to set more sustainable goals to create more sustainable food systems. Also there are some indications that the methodology helped participant to gain an more flexible time perspective and more-over more future consciousness.

Multidisciplinary teams can be helpful to establish a more holistic view. To think about solutions that haven’t been seen yet. As example: one group took in religion in a nutritional diet and invented part-time veganism, a solution over looked in other interventions. And at least. The methodology helps to create a sustainable liveable society by rethinking values. If you want a future for humanity, then think holistic and human-centred. One of the groups found out that of all possible ways of change of the system most of them are about social change and not so much about technological change as they believed before the masterclass.

As always, more research is recommended.

Be future conscious.

References

i Problems of which the solutions are characterised, e.g., not being true-or-false, by being understood only after its formulation, and by having a ‘no stop’-rule (Rittel and Weber, 1973) ii “A clear view of a sustainable future has an influence on acting in the present and ensures that an individual and / or

society can and dares to take responsibility for the future. This means finding a balance between having a pleasant life in the present (short-term) understanding of past choices and working on a happy, sustainably liveable society (quality of life) also for next generations in the future” (Hofman & Heselman, 2018). This is the reasoning behind the method 'Prototyping for Sustainable Futures with value’ is:

iii Illsted. S. & Wangel. J. (2013). ‘Designing sustainable futures’, Nordic Design Research Conference 2013,

Copenhagen-Malmö, www.nordes.org Available at: http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:744794/FULLTEXT01.pdf. iv Ouden den E. (2012). Innovation Design, Creating Value for People, Organizations and Society, London: Springer.

v Hofman (2018) Toekomstbewustzijn voor een duurzame toekomst’. In ‘Perspectieven op de toekomst. Toekomst

verkennen door Fontys ACI’ edited by Duin, P. ‘ Will be published May 2018.

http://www.nordes.org/



- 12 -

vi FAO, ‘Are we to #ZeroHunger? The state of food security and nitrition in the world 2017. Retrieved from:

http://www.fao.org/state-of-food-security-nutrition/en/

vii Rittel, Horst; (1973) "Second Generation Design Methods," Interview in Design Methods Group, 5th Anniversary

Report, DMG Occasional Paper 1, 1973, pp. 5–10

viii ^ Kazlev, M. Alan; et al. (2003-10-19). "The Triune Brain". KHEPER.

ix Anguera, C. Santisteban. A. (2016)’ Images of the Future: Perspectives of Students from

Barcelona’. in the Journal of Futures Studies, September 2016, 21(1): 1–18. x P. Bishop, P. A. Hines (2012). Teaching about the future. Houndmills. Palmgrave.

xi UNESCO (2014). Roadmap for Implementing the Global Action Programme on Education for Sustainable

Development. Retrieved from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002305/230514e.pdf xii

https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/ xiii

Voros J 2003, ‘A generic foresight process framework’, Foresight, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 10-21.

doi:10.1108/14636680310698379

xiv

P. Bishop, P. A. Hines (2012). Teaching about the future. Houndmills. Palmgrave. xv Lombardo, T. (2008) The Evolution of Future Consciousness. United States, Bloomington. AuthorHouse.

xvi

Zimbardo, P., Boyd, J. (2008) The Time Paradox. The new Psychology of time that will change your life. Reclaim Yesterday, enjoy today and master tomorrow. New York. Free Press. xvii

Zimbardo & Boyd (2008) created an Inventory to measure time perspective: The Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI) and The Transcendental future Time Perspective Inventory (TFTPI) xviiiStebbing, P. (2015) Raison d’etre. Changing Paradigms: Designing for a Sustainable Future. Cumulus Think Tank. Finland. Aalto. Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture. xix

Heselmans (2018) ‘Tackling the Grand Societal Challenges’. In ‘Perspectieven op de toekomst. Toekomst verkennen door Fontys ACI’ edited by Duin, P. ‘ Will be published May 2018.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain#cite_ref-KHEPER_1-0

http://www.kheper.net/topics/intelligence/MacLean.htm

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002305/230514e.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/

ime traveling for a sustainable future · the methodology during the masterclass future food...

Documents