Stratigea A., Regional Science Inquiry Journal, Vol. V, (1), 2013, pp.

145-161 145

PARTICIPATORY POLICY MAKING IN FORESIGHT STUDIES

AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL - A METHODOLOGICAL
APPROACH

Anastasia STRATIGEA
Dept. of Geography and Regional Planning, School of Rural and Surveying Engineering
National Technical University of Athens, E-mail: stratige@central.ntua.gr

Abstract
The issue of stakeholders’ and citizens’ engagement in policy decisions is nowadays at the
forefront of participatory planning efforts at the various spatial levels. Involving stakeholders
and citizens in participatory planning is always a challenge for planners, which stresses the
need for effective tools, capable of dealing with respective planning efforts. The focus of the
present paper is on the development of a methodological framework, which builds upon the
integration of an analytical scenario planning model – the LIPSOR model, in support of
future anticipation and structuring of scenarios, with a tool supporting stakeholders’ and
citizens’ engagement - the Focus Group methodology, which aims at the support of planners
in structuring the context of the participatory process and producing the necessary qualitative
information, used in the scenario planning process. The use of the proposed framework can
guide the efforts of planners to incorporate views and visions of a range of local actors, when
exploring future development paths of a region/problem at hand. The experience gained from
the application of this framework in a specific case study at the regional level is also
presented, drawing upon the advantages and disadvantages of such an approach, while
finally some conclusions are drawn.

Keywords: participatory planning, policy, scenario planning, LIPSOR model, Focus Groups,
regional level
JEL Classification: R0

Introduction

Within a globalized environment, characterized by complexity and uncertainty, the issues of

future anticipation and scenario planning are considered as the milestones for taking policy
action, which can make desirable outcomes more likely to happen. Moreover, engaging
stakeholders and citizens in a participatory planning context can lead to policy decisions that
are well consolidated into social acceptance, thus indemnifying consensus and commitment of
local societies, which drive the successful implementation of policy actions (Stratigea et al.,
[1]).

But what should be the breadth of stakeholders’ and citizens’ engagement into such kind of
future studies and how should the participatory process be structured? The structure of the
participatory process and the type of participants that need to be engaged in a future exercise
are of central concern of planners and decision makers, not only because there is a need to
produce legitimate, robust and relevant results, but also because these can assure better
acceptance in the implementation phase of policy decisions (Handbook of Knowledge Society
Foresight, [2], Stratigea et al., [1]).

Along these lines, approaches and tools that support the process of integration of future
anticipation and planning efforts with citizens’ involvement can add value to the efforts of
decision makers and planners in their work (Stratigea et al., [1]).
146 Stratigea A., Regional Science Inquiry Journal, Vol. V, (1), 2013, pp. 145-161

The goal of the present paper is to elaborate on such a participatory scenario planning
framework, built upon the integration of a scenario planning analytical model – the LIPSOR1
model – supporting future anticipation and decision making; and a participatory tool
supporting stakeholders’ and citizens’ engagement - the Focus Group methodology. The
LIPSOR model, constituting the core of the proposed participatory scenario planning
framework, needs to be properly fed with information obtained by a range of actors (experts,
stakeholders, local administrations, pressure groups and citizens). The identification of key
issues/questions that need to be addressed in order to gather information that fulfils data needs
of the various scenario planning LIPSOR modules demarcates the context, the structure and
the type of participants to be considered in the participatory process (Focus Groups
discussions), thus feeding LIPSOR with targeted information in support of the structuring of
possible future scenarios of the region/problem at hand that incorporate experts’ knowledge
but also local views and desires.

The structure of the paper has as follows: in Section 2 are shortly presented the two tools,
upon which the proposed methodological approach is built, namely the LIPSOR scenario
planning model and the Focus Group methodology; in Section 3, the integration of these two
participatory tools is presented that aims at steering the efforts of planners in structuring the
participatory decision making context by identifying the key issues/questions that need to be
raised, the type of participants to be involved, the structure of the discussion etc., in order to
gather the necessary input, feeding the different stages of the LIPSOR model; in Section 4 is
shortly presented the experience gained by the application of this framework in a specific case
study at the regional level; while finally, in Section 5, some conclusions are drawn.

Tools Involved in the Proposed Methodological Framework

In the present section are shortly presented the LIPSOR participatory scenario planning
approach and the Focus Groups methodology.

The LIPSOR Approach

The LIPSOR model consists of five discrete modules (see Figure 1). More specifically:

The MICMAC module explores the key variables of the study area/problem at hand and
formulates the basic questions as to their future states. The scope of this module is to reveal
the key driving forces that may affect future developments of the system at hand. Such
knowledge is valuable for decision makers in order to define policies that can guide the
system towards desired ends. The module is based on a ‘structural analysis’ of the system at
hand, exploring the ‘influence – dependence’ relationships among a set of selected variables.
These variables correspond to the attributes of the internal and external environment of the
system, while their selection is conducted on the basis of their role as drivers of change of the
system at hand. Structural analysis attempts to study the inter-relationships between the
variables considered (Godet, [3], [4]), in order to depict those key variables of the system,
both internal and external, which are capable of driving the system’s future states.

The MACTOR module is focusing on the study of the actors’ games2, exploring the role of the
basic stakeholders in the study system. More precisely, the stakeholders involved in the
region/problem at hand are studied on the basis of power relationships, goals and objectives,
projects in progress, preferences, motivations, internal means of action, past strategic
behaviour, constraints, interests, potential strategic moves, attitudes, personal profiles,

1
The LIPSOR approach (MICMAC, MACTOR, MORPHOL, SMIC και MULTIPOL modules and related software) has been
developed by Michael Godet in the Laboratory for the Investigation in Prospective and Strategy (LIPSOR).
2
Actor’s games: seek to gauge the balance of power among actors and study their convergences and divergences with a certain
number of associated stakes and objectives (Godet et al., [5]).
Stratigea A., Regional Science Inquiry Journal, Vol. V, (1), 2013, pp. 145-161 147

alliances, strengths and weaknesses, etc. (Godet et al., [5]). The scope of the module is to get
insight on:
- The influence – dependence relationships among the various actors functioning in the
area of concern through a cross-impact analysis of actors, taking into account the actors’
profiles. This will provide planners with information on potential alliances–power
relationships in the region at hand.
- The attitudes of the various actors (convergence or divergence) in respect to the planning
objectives of the area/problem at hand, i.e. how actors perceive/resist to the objectives set,
through a cross-impact analysis of actors by objectives. This knowledge supports planners
to refine or even reorient objectives in order to reflect local peculiarities and stakeholders’
interests and also define those policies, which will contribute towards conflicts’
resolution.

The SMIC-PROB EXPERT module supports an expert-based approach that aims at gathering
experts’ opinions on a certain number of hypotheses referring to the study system. The goal of
this step is to define single and conditional probabilities of these hypotheses, upon which can
be based the structuring of probable3 future scenarios of the study region at hand. The SMIC-
PROB EXPERT approach belongs to a greater group of explorative approaches, in which the
‘cross-impact analysis’ concept is used to describe the way that a future state of a system can
be considered, through the influence - dependence relationships among different hypotheses.

Figure 1: The LIPSOR approach

Source: Godet et al. [5]

The MORPHOL module is used for a systematic exploration of all possible future states of a
system through its morphological analysis4, structured on the basis of all combinations of
possible future outcome of various key components. The total number of combinations

3
It should be bear in mind the distinction among probable (trends based scenarios – forecasts), possible (all possible future
states), desired (visionary scenarios) and plausible future developments (selected ‘futures’ on the basis of certain inclusion-
exclusion criteria).
4
The morphological analysis of a system is a generalized method for structuring and analyzing complex problems/systems,
which (Erikson and Ritchey, [6]): are inherently non-quantifiable; contain genuine uncertainties; cannot be causally modeled
or simulated; and require a judgmental approach.
148 Stratigea A., Regional Science Inquiry Journal, Vol. V, (1), 2013, pp. 145-161

corresponds to the whole set of possible scenarios i.e. the morphological space. The method
integrates, at this stage, all kinds of information acquired at the previous LIPSOR modules. It
can deal in a systematic way with multi-dimensional problems with non-quantitative
dimensions and can (Erikson and Ritchey, [6]):
- provide the ground for a well-structured discussion concerning complex problems;
- fit well for carrying out participatory discussion, engaging groups of experts/participants
that represent different areas of competence;
- produce an ‘audit trail’ and documentation i.e. one should be able to trace what is being
done and how certain conclusions are reached;
- fit well for structuring scenarios and strategy alternatives.
The MULTIPOL module supports the evaluation process and helps policy makers to make
decisions within different decision environments (scenarios). In such a context, it evaluates
the scenarios delivered by the previous module (MORPHOL), attempting at the same time to
define strategic directions (policies) and choices (actions/measures) for the effective
implementation of each scenario. MULTIPOL, as a multi-criteria evaluation method,
incorporates two different types of evaluation:
- the actions/policies evaluation that evaluates actions (measures) in respect to policies,
indicating which actions best fit to each single policy. The output of this process is a
classification of all actions (actions’ prioritization) as to their performance in each policy;
and
- the policies/scenarios evaluation that evaluates policies in respect to scenarios, indicating
the policy which best fits to each specific scenario. The output of this process is a
classification of all policies (policies’ prioritization) as to their performance in each
scenario.

It should be noted that the LIPSOR approach enables each module to function both
independently and as a stepwise approach, dealing with foresight studies in a coherent,
systematic and analytical mode.

The Focus Groups Methodology

As serving society’s goals and interests is the main focus of every planning effort, it is quite
important to use appropriate tools which will, in an effective and constructive way,
incorporate thoughts, feelings, fears and perceptions of the public as to the planning problem
at hand. Such an effort calls for the use of more pluralistic and complementary approaches
(Godet, [3], [4]), which are capable of providing such kind of information to decision makers
and planners. The focus, in such a context, is not only on the results obtained, but also on the
way tools can structure thoughts and support an effective communication platform among
participants in a specific theme.

The call for public participation in science builds upon the confidence that lay people are able
to discuss complex issues under the condition that they receive adequate and understandable
information. The Focus Groups methodology is a promising scientific tool and a suitable
social setting for organizing such a social debate (Kasemir et al., [7]). It is also a promising
participatory tool for arriving at policy-oriented assessments.

Focus Groups may serve as a platform for social learning that brings together scientific
knowledge and behavioural patterns of citizens. They can be described as guided group
discussions that are focused on a specific topic. In contrast to ordinary group discussions,
purposive information on the focal issue is provided as input and/or stimulus to Focus Groups
discussions.

The key attribute of Focus Groups as a research method is the interaction between the
members of a group, which diversify them from interviews, where interaction is taking place
between the interviewer and the interviewee. The whole process is characterized by its
Stratigea A., Regional Science Inquiry Journal, Vol. V, (1), 2013, pp. 145-161 149

dynamic nature and synergetic effects, which results in far more information being generated
that in other research methods (Berg, [8]; Stewart and Shamdasani, [9]).

Focus Groups methodology can be defined as a structured process of dealing with complex
issues, using knowledge from various scientific disciplines and/or stakeholders and lay
people, so that integrated insights are made available to decision makers (Rotmans, [10]). The
steps undertaken within the Focus Groups methodology are presented in Figure 2. The whole
process is divided into three stages, as follows:
- Stage 1 refers to the planning of the whole exercise, including decisions on the:
number of sessions and time devoted to each session; selection of participants e.g.
type and number of participants; planning of the discussion such as creating an
interview guide, preparing the material to be presented to the participants for the issue
at stake, selecting and organizing the meeting place and selecting and training the
moderator of the whole process.
- Stage 2 refers to the running of the whole exercise on the basis of the predefined
interview guide. The process starts with the presentation of the informative material,
designed to introduce the issue and motivate discussion, while round discussions
within the Focus Group are encouraged, where participants are expressing their
views/opinions on a well structured set of questions.
- Stage 3 refers to the elaboration of results and the production of the final report.
Various tools of qualitative analysis can be useful in this respect (Stratigea et al.,
[11]).

Figure 2: The Focus Groups methodological approach

Based on deliberately presented input and specific rules, Focus Groups can be considered as
social experiments, capable of producing collective judgments, revealing communication
barriers, studying conflict behaviour, acquiring local knowledge, creating acceptable options
of the study theme, synthesizing information, etc. In such a context, the role of Focus Groups
is more to increase insights than to produce generalized results (Dürrenberg et al., [12]).
150 Stratigea A., Regional Science Inquiry Journal, Vol. V, (1), 2013, pp. 145-161

Integrating the LIPSOR and the Focus Groups Approaches

In this section is presented the way in which the LISPOR scenario planning approach and the
Focus Group methodology were integrated for the structuring of future development scenarios
in a specific case study region (Herakleion-Crete) (Stratigea et al., [1]). Towards this end, the
issue of concern lies on the identification of the key issues/questions that need to be addressed
in a Focus Groups participatory exercise, so that the information delivered by participants can
feed the various modules of the LIPSOR scenario planning model. The knowledge of the key
issues/questions is of importance for defining the context of participation, and can orient
planners to properly:
- define the context of the Focus Groups participatory process, in order to produce the
desired output (guide the structuring of the discussion, identify issues to be addressed,
etc.);
- engage the right group of participants (experts, decision makers, local administration,
pressure groups, lay persons, etc.), based on the type of data demanded at each stage of
the participatory planning exercise;
- prepare an interview guide, stimulating fruitful discussions / interaction among
participants; and
- select informative material as a stimulus to Focus Groups discussions.

Figure 3: Integrating the LIPSOR and Focus Groups tools in participatory planning

More specifically, the integration of the two previously described approaches (LIPSOR model
and Focus Groups methodology) in the specific case study (Herakleion-Crete) was
accomplished by following two discrete steps (Figure 3):
- Step 1: a first round of interaction has taken place between planners on the one hand and
decision makers and participants on the other (stakeholders, experts or citizens, depending
Stratigea A., Regional Science Inquiry Journal, Vol. V, (1), 2013, pp. 145-161 151

- on the scope of each module). Based on the planners’ preliminary work, participants are
getting informed on the issue at hand and are provided with a first round of the LIPSOR
model results for further discussion. These results are elaborated by them in a Focus
Groups context in order to provide planners with information on their reactions,
perceptions, opinions, ideas, proposals, objections, dreams, etc. The output of the Focus
Groups discussion enriches planners’ understanding of the system at hand by providing
information on the views of participants in respect to the issues raised. This information
provides the ground for a second round of calculations by the LIPSOR model and the
production of new, more refined results.
- Step 2: the refined results produced in the first stage are subject to a new round of Focus
Groups discussions, where further refinements are taking place, which lead to the
production of the final outcome of each stage to be forwarded to the final report, being the
output of the whole process.
The above two steps are taking place within every single module of the LIPSOR model, since
each of them serves a different purpose of the planning process and has module-specific data
needs, calling for a different context of Focus Groups discussions and eventually a different
target group (synthesis of participants) in order to yield the desired output that supports the
different stages of the LIPSOR scenario planning process.

In the following is presented a step by step description of the stages of the proposed
methodological approach of Figure 3, aiming at the integration of the LIPSOR analytical
scenario planning model with the Focus Group methodology, placing emphasis on the
participatory context that will provide information for feeding the LIPSOR model. More
specifically, light is shed on; the key issues/questions raised at each different stage; the scope
of each stage of the Focus Groups participatory process; the type of participants involved; and
the final outcome expected out of each Focus Groups discussion.

The MICMAC Module

The main focus of the MICMAC module is on the definition of a set of variables describing
the system at hand and its environment, together with the influence-dependence relationships
among these variables, presented in the form of a ‘structural matrix’ (Table 1). Filling this
matrix with information presupposes to give answer to a large number of questions, defining
the influence – dependence relationship between each pair of variables considered; and the
intensity of this relationship. This process can provide a very good insight of the system at
hand and its environment, on the basis of the examination of causal relationships between
every single pair of variables involved. Questions posed cover all four kinds of the following
influence-dependence relationships:
- influence-dependence relationships among internal variables of the system at hand
(Box I of Table 1) – intensity of relationship;
- influence-dependence relationships between variables of the system at hand and
variables of its external environment (Box II of Table 1) – intensity of relationship;
- influence-dependence relationships between variables of the external environment
and variables of the system at hand (Box III of Table 1) – intensity of relationship; and
- influence-dependence relationships among variables of the external environment
(Box IV of Table 1) – intensity of relationship.
152 Stratigea A., Regional Science Inquiry Journal, Vol. V, (1), 2013, pp. 145-161

- Table 1: Structural matrix

Figure 4: Participatory context aiming at feeding with information the MICMAC module

The structural analysis of the study system (region) is conducted in a Focus Groups
participatory mode, with various actors actively participating in the process (stakeholders,
public administration, lay people, specialists, pressure groups, etc.). The aim of the
participatory process at this stage is to refine the preliminary information describing the study
system, as this is predefined by planners. Thus the tasks of participants, entering the Focus
Groups discussions, are to:
- enrich the range of variables entering the structural matrix, i.e. the variables better
describing the system at hand and its external environment; and
- refine the content (data) of the structural matrix provided by planners i.e. values
attached to each cell of the structural matrix, which is a good point for stimulating
interaction within the Focus Groups discussion.

The context of participation, designed to produce data input that feeds the MICMAC module,
is perceived as an iterative process, running in two steps (Figure 4):
- The first step provides participants with information on the external and internal
environment of the study system, as perceived by planners, upon which are based a first
round of MICMAC results. Based on these results, a first round of group discussion
among Focus Groups participants takes place. This discussion enriches planners’
understanding of the study system, providing valuable information on the key drivers
(variables) of the internal and external environment, as perceived by the participants.
During the participatory process, certain ideas can be revised, new ideas can emerge, new
Stratigea A., Regional Science Inquiry Journal, Vol. V, (1), 2013, pp. 145-161 153

- variables can emerge that were previously considered as unimportant, preconceived ideas
can be questioned, etc.
- In the second step, the refined information obtained from the first step, feeds back the
MICMAC module and a second round of analytical calculations is taking place. Results
of these calculations are subject to further refinement by participants, in a second round of
Focus Groups discussion. The output of this process provides information on the key
drivers of change of the system at hand, both internal and external, which is forwarded to
the report stage, as the final outcome of this module, but is also used as input for the next
stages of the planning process.

The MACTOR5 Module

This module aims at getting insight into the power relationships among stakeholders (actors)
activated in the study system and their perception/attitude as to the planning objectives
(convergence or divergence). This knowledge is quite important for planners as it can provide
information on potential conflicts both among stakeholders in pursuing their goals as well as
among stakeholders’ objectives and planning objectives set in a certain study. The impact of
these conflicts on the planning process depends on the balance of power among actors and
will largely determine the future development of the system at hand towards the one or the
other direction. Thus identifying and resolving conflicts is of crucial importance for the
successful implementation of policy decisions.

The actors6 considered are stakeholders, selected on the basis of their direct or indirect control
on the key variables of change in the system at hand, as these are identified by the MICMAC
module. Actors’ information can be gathered by qualitative interviews. In such an effort,
planners can cope with problems as to the willingness of actors to provide accurate
information or information in respect to their goals, strengths and weaknesses, strategic
moves, etc.

As long as this information is gathered, further elaboration is undertaken in a Focus Groups

context. Participants can be ‘experts as representatives of groups of stakeholders’ (Godet [3],
p. 106). The discussion starts with the description of the planning goal for the system at hand,
which is further analyzed by certain objectives. Then the Focus Groups participatory process
develops in two steps, namely (Figure 5):
- The first step aims at getting insight into the role and actions of stakeholders in the
study system, which can reveal power relationships of stakeholders, their objectives,
strengths and weaknesses, strategic moves, etc. The analysis is based on the: qualitative
information gathered on stakeholders considered; information on the influence-
dependence relationships among actors (‘actor by actor’ cross-impact analysis); and the
information on influence-dependence relationships between actors and planning
objectives (‘actor by objective’ cross-impact analysis). The above information represents
the planners’ understanding, upon which are based the first round of analytical
calculations (MACTOR results) that are also presented to experts. Then experts are
invited to an exhaustive discussion in respect to the role and specific characteristics of
stakeholders, relevant to the key variables of the system under study, while they are also
invited to further elaborate on the ‘actor by actor’ and ‘actor by objective’ influence-
dependence relationships, which will refine planners’ input and will feed back the
MACTOR module for a second round of analytical calculations.
- In the second step, the refined results obtained from the second round of calculations
are subject to a second round of experts’ Focus Groups discussion, where these are
subject to further refinement, aiming at drawing final conclusions as to:

5
MACTOR method – Matrix of Alliances and Conflicts: Tactics, Objectives and Recommendations, developed by Michael
Godet in 1985.
6
Experience shows that a total of 10-20 actors constitute a realistic and operational number for analysis in the MACTOR
module (Godet, [3]).
154 Stratigea A., Regional Science Inquiry Journal, Vol. V, (1), 2013, pp. 145-161

 the power relationships among the various actors functioning in the study area; and
 the attitudes (level of resistance) of the various actors in respect to the objectives of
the study;
which are forwarded to the report stage, as the final outcome of the MACTOR module.

Figure 5: Participatory context aiming at feeding with information the MACTOR module

The SMIC7 PROB-EXPERT Module

The application of the SMIC PROB-EXPERT module calls for a participatory approach,
where participants are experts in various fields. The scope of their involvement is to estimate
the probability of certain hypotheses to occur on the basis on their professional expertise.
Experts are selected to represent different fields / sectors, depending on what are the issues
that have to be explored (e.g. government, entrepreneurial, international, etc.) (Figure 6). The
method rests on interviewing a group of experts in the most rational and objective way
possible (Godet, [3]). Experts’ opinions are gathered through a mailed inquiry, thus allowing
the elimination of subjectiveness due to the researcher’s presence. Firstly, five to six basic
hypotheses are formulated by planners, based on the good knowledge of the system at hand
and its external environment as well as the results obtained by MICMAC and MACTOR
modules. Each of the experts has then to determine the ‘simple’8 and ‘conditional’ 9
probabilities of these hypotheses.
Each expert has to revise his assessment several times until consensus (convergence of
results) is reached. He/she also has to reveal the implicit coherence of his/her reasoning

7
SMIC: Cross-Impacts Systems and Matrices.
8
‘simple’ probability (Pi): the probability of a hypothesis to be materialized in a predefined time horizon.
9
‘conditional’ probabilities (Pi/j) and (Pi/nonj): the probabilities of: a) a hypothesis i to be materialized, if another hypo thesis j
has been materialized before; and b) a hypothesis i to be materialized, if another hypothesis j has not been materialized
before.
Stratigea A., Regional Science Inquiry Journal, Vol. V, (1), 2013, pp. 145-161 155

(Godet, [3]). The principle of the SMIC method is to adjust experts’ unprocessed opinions in
such a way so that coherent final results, i.e. results satisfying the normal constraints
bounding probabilities, can be obtained.

Based on all possible combinations of hypotheses, probable scenarios of the region/problem

at hand can be structured, while resting on the single and conditional probabilities of the
hypotheses set, the SMIC method determines also the probabilities of all probable to happen
scenarios, thus facilitating the selection of the most probable of them, which are also
compatible to both the internal and the external environment of the study region/problem at
hand.

Figure 6: Participatory context aiming at feeding with information the SMIC PROB-EXPERT module

As depicted in Figure 6, the participatory process structured in case of the SMIC PROB-
EXPERT module differs from those previously described, in the sense that experts-based
information is gathered by mailed inquiry, excluding thus the organization of an experts’
Focus Group for carrying out lively discussion on the issues raised. In this respect, there is no
interaction among experts neither between planners and experts in this process. The outcome
of the participatory process is a set of probabilities of the hypotheses considered, which can
be further elaborated by planners in order to conclude with a number of probable scenarios, as
produced by the SMIC PROB-EXPERT module.

The MORPHOL10 Module

The goal of the MORPHOL module is to scan the field of all possible future developments
(scenarios) (Godet, [3]). Scenarios, in this respect, are built on the basis of certain components
(or dimensions or domains), which are considered as exhibiting a high degree of uncertainty
in respect to their future developments, e.g. oil price or demographic developments. These
domains can be further analyzed into certain variables, which are subject to future changes.
For example regional structure, as a domain, can be analyzed in terms of economic structure
and population (variables). For each of these variables, different configurations can be built,
reflecting different future evolutions of them. Scenarios then are constructed as different
combinations of such configurations. Usually, five to six basic variables are sufficient for
scanning future uncertainty in terms of scenarios, for each of which two to four different
configurations can be formulated (Godet, [3], [4]).

10
MORPHOL Module – Basic Principle: the system or function under study is divided into subsystems or component parts,
which are as independent as possible, while they represent the totality of the system at hand.
156 Stratigea A., Regional Science Inquiry Journal, Vol. V, (1), 2013, pp. 145-161

Previous steps of the LIPSOR methodological approach provide useful information, which
supports the selection of different components to be used for the scenario building process.

Figure 7: Participatory context aiming at feeding with information the MORPHOL module

Building scenarios in a participatory context by use of the MORPHOL module incorporates

participatory work, undertaken in the Focus Groups participatory discussion platform (Figure
7). This work can follow two successive steps:
- Step 1: the organization of an expert workshop (specialists in different
disciplines) as a productive forum for structured discussions on the problem at hand. The
role of participants in such a workshop is to discuss first round MORPHOL results
produced by planners, by contributing to:
a) The elaboration of variables, selected by planners, to be used as building blocks of the
future developments (scenarios), based on the LIPSOR analysis undertaken so far;
b) The elaboration of potential future developments of these variables (different
hypotheses set for each variable by planners), taking advantage of the expertise of each
expert involved in the process;
c) The elaboration of exclusion criteria, which form the basis for excluding scenarios that
are not relevant or cohesive or even consistent to the peculiarities of the study system
at hand.

The outcome of this participatory process is the further refinement of variables and
hypotheses, which feed the MORPHOL module for a second run of analytical calculations.
The results obtained are subject to a second run of group discussion in an expert workshop,
for further elaboration in order to make all necessary adjustments and conclude with several
plausible scenarios for further discussion in a public workshop. This elaboration may refer
to e.g. removal of scenarios with very low probability, removal of scenarios which are very
close to each other and their presentation in one scenario, etc.
Stratigea A., Regional Science Inquiry Journal, Vol. V, (1), 2013, pp. 145-161 157

- Step 2: refers to the organization of a public workshop involving all parties of

local society - stakeholders, public, public institutions, local administration, experts, etc. –
where plausible scenarios are presented and elaborated according to the
views/opinions/visions of the participants involved. This Focus Groups participatory
process aims at the further refinement of scenarios and their enrichment with the views of
local society.

Scenarios produced at this stage enter into the next step for evaluation.

The MULTIPOL Module

MULTIPOL is the final stage of the LIPSOR scenario planning model. The scope of this step
is to evaluate scenarios obtained by the previous module. The outcome of the evaluation
process is not one prevailing scenario on the basis of certain evaluation criteria. On the
contrary, the evaluation process aims at shedding light on a policy framework - policies and
actions (measures) - which are more effective for reaching each different scenario context. In
other words, evaluation aims at providing decision makers with the necessary input (relevance
of policies/actions) in order to be prepared to cope with each different plausible future
outcome.

The main issues entering the MULTIPOL evaluation process are:

- a number of distinct scenarios, as defined in the previous step (MORPHOL module);
- a pool of policies (paths), i.e. different strategic directions for reaching objectives set; and
- a pool of actions (policy measures), which can serve different policies.

The aim of the Focus Groups discussions at this stage is multifold. More specifically, these
may serve one of the following goals (Figure 8):
a) refinement of policies and actions;
b) setting priorities in the evaluation process, which reflect local society’s values and visions;
and
c) assessing the impacts of each specific policy direction and policy measure.

The accomplishment of the above goals calls for the involvement of different groups of
participants, ranging from experts to stakeholders, citizens, public agencies, pressure groups,
etc.

The participatory process at this stage has as follows:

- At first, policies and measures can be set by the decision makers and planners running the
whole planning exercise. These policies can be subject to an experts’ Focus Groups
discussion, in order to get feedback for further refinement.
- After the finalization of policies and measures, the issue of setting priorities comes to the
fore. At a first round, priorities are set by decision makers/planners, based on the
knowledge of the system at hand, but also on reactions of experts. Results obtained by a
first run of the MULTIPOL module need then to be refined by the views/opinions of the
local society. This step aims at informing the public, but also getting their reactions and
views on priorities considered. These call for the organization of a second Focus Groups
discussion, where participants are selected from a broader audience (stakeholders, public
agencies, public, pressure groups, local administration, etc.), having the task to set
priorities, i.e. attach weights to the evaluation criteria, policies and scenarios, which are
reflecting the values and visions of the local community.
- Finally, the evaluation of actions, policies and scenarios in respect to certain evaluation
criteria is carried out i.e. the assessment of the impacts of actions, policies and scenarios,
which, together with the set of priorities, is expected to feed the MULTIPOL module with
the information required to conclude to a policy framework that prioritizes policies and
158 Stratigea A., Regional Science Inquiry Journal, Vol. V, (1), 2013, pp. 145-161

- actions better serving each specific scenario context. This calls for an experts’ Focus
Groups discussion, involving thus participants with a certain expertise on the issues
tackled.

Figure 8: Participatory context aiming at feeding with information the MULTIPOL module

Experience Gained from the Application of the Proposed Framework

The above described methodological framework was used in the context of a scenario
planning exercise of a specific region of the Greek territory, the Herakleion-Crete region. The
aim of this exercise was the structuring of participatory scenarios for the integrated future
agricultural development of this region (Stratigea and Giaoutzi, [13]). In the following, is
summarized the experience gained from its application in the specific case study.

The value added by the application of the proposed methodological approach in the scenario
planning process, as experienced in the Herakleion-Crete foresight exercise (Stratigea and
Giaoutzi [13]), lies mainly on:

The establishment of a discussion platform within the Focus Groups part of the planning
exercise (Figure 3), within which are properly elaborated all key questions/issues that need
to be addressed in the scenario planning process, supported by the LIPSOR approach. The
running of a number of Focus Groups sessions, involving each time a number of different
types of participants, has led to fruitful discussions and interaction between planners and
participants, which have:
- enriched the planner’s insight on the system at hand and influence-dependence
relationships among external and internal drivers and among actors that may affect its
future states, guiding thus the scenario development process; and
Stratigea A., Regional Science Inquiry Journal, Vol. V, (1), 2013, pp. 145-161 159

- increased the effectiveness of the whole scenario planning exercise, as the information
gathered in these discussions was integrated in the planning output, leading thus to future
developments which are anchored to the specific local socio-economic environment.

The support provided to planners as to the more effective structuring of Focus Groups
discussions, since the ‘interface’ created between the two tools has provided useful
guidance on: the context of the Focus Groups participatory process; the key issues/questions
that need to be addressed in the discussion; the preparation of an interview guide, structured
on the basis of key issues identification; the right choice of the types of participants to be
involved in each specific Focus Groups discussion, relying on the issues that need to be
tackled in each specific LIPSOR module, etc. These have led to more effective and targeted
Focus Groups discussions, and a more focused information gathering, thus strengthening
the scenario planning process and enhancing the anchoring of the scenario planning results,
produced by the LIPSOR model, in the local society and its visions.

The mobilization of a ‘learning process’ among planners, decision makers, local

stakeholders and citizens, which has further:
- increased transparency of the scenario building process;
- increased knowledge share/exchange among all parties involved in the foresight exercise,
i.e. planners, decision makers, local stakeholders, local administration, citizens, etc.;
- supported mutual understanding of different views/perceptions of local participants
involved;
- reduced conflicts among different interests in the local society, acting thus as a ‘conflict
resolution mechanism’;
- created a common ground for discussion and brainstorming on the future development of
the region in general and the agricultural sector in particular;
- enhanced ownership of participants in respect to the outcome of the whole planning
effort;
- strengthened their commitment towards the final planning ‘product’ (scenarios, policies
and actions);
- increased awareness of local society as to a range of issues that are crucial for the future
development of the specific region; and
- prepared the ground for successful implementation of policy decisions.

The setting of priorities in various choice problems in the scenario design process, which
largely reflect local expectations, values, goals, traditions etc. of the local society. As a
result, the whole planning process was better adjusted to the specific local socio-economic
environment.

In respect to the difficulties that have to be dealt with in applying the proposed
methodological framework, as these were experienced in the specific case study, there could
be mentioned:
- the communication gaps among participants of different background, which can place
tension in the participatory process;
- the conflicting interests of the various groups of the local society, which can also place a
certain tension in the whole process. In coping with this tension, the experience of the
moderator and the very scholastic organization of the whole participatory process are
stressed.
- the time-consuming processes involved for organizing the Focus Groups discussions in
the sense of the organizational work involved, the preparation of the necessary material,
the running of the process and the elaboration of qualitative results;
- the effort devoted in the ‘translation’ of the qualitative information obtained from the
Focus Groups sessions into the data input format of the LIPSOR model;
- the participants’ identification/recruitment efforts, which have to cope with certain
difficulties in both stages (identification and recruitment), where the latter have also to
160 Stratigea A., Regional Science Inquiry Journal, Vol. V, (1), 2013, pp. 145-161

- deal with a sort of unwillingness of all participants identified to take part in the
participatory process;

Conclusions

In the present paper the focus is on the integration of an analytical scenario planning
framework – the LIPSOR model – with a participatory tool – the Focus Group methodology.
The scope of this effort is to establish ‘bridges’ that support the interaction of planners’ work
with the local society, thus increasing the quality of the planning outcome and meeting
expectations and visions of the society. This framework will support the gathering of local
experts’ intelligence but also common knowledge of the local setting, which can strengthen
the performance of foresight studies at the regional level.

The methodological approach presented, aims at creating the ‘interface’ between the two
frameworks in support of planners to effectively address key issues that need to be dealt with
in structuring participatory future development scenarios of a study system. Such an interface
can place the context of participation, i.e. the identification of key questions/issues to be
addressed in a participatory process, the guiding of the discussion serving specific demand for
data input, the number and type of sessions required, the identification of the types of
participants to be involved in the various sessions etc., through which a more effective
discussion platform is created, allowing effective interaction among participants involved and
serving the qualitative data demands for feeding the LIPSOR scenario planning tool.

The scope of the proposed methodological approach is to support planners’ and decision
makers’ with tools that can both: deal with complexity and uncertainty; and enhance their
understanding on views, aspirations and visions of local societies in the planning process for
making policy decisions. The application of this framework implies the adoption of more
pluralistic approaches in the planning process, which can lead to the increased transparency of
the whole process as well as the production of results that are legitimate, robust, relevant and
cohesive.

References

Stratigea, A., Papadopoulou, Ch.-A. and Giaoutzi, M., “A Methodological Framework for
Foresight Analysis in AG2020: The Case of Herakleion - Crete Region”. Paper presented
at the AG2020 Experts’ and Stakeholders’ Workshop, Florence, 6-9 October, 2008.
Handbook of Knowledge Society Foresight. European Foundation for the Improvement of
Living and Working Conditions, 2003.
Godet, M., “From Anticipation to Action: A Handbook of Strategic Perspective”, UNESCO
Publishing, ISBN 92-3-102832-4, 1994.
Godet, M., “Creating Futures: Scenario Planning as a Strategic Management Tool”,
Economica Ltd, London, 2001.
Godet, M., Monti, R., Meunier, F. and Roubelat, F., “Scenarios and Strategies: A Toolbox for
Problem Solving”, Cahiers du LIPSOR, Laboratory for Investigation in Prospective and
Strategy, Paris, 2004.
Eriskon, T. and Ritchey T., “Scenario Development using Computerized Morphological
Analysis”, Paper presented at the Cornwallis and Winchester International Operational
Research Conferences (www.swemorph.com), 2002.
Kasemir, B., Jaeger, C. and Dürrenberg, G., “Embedding Integrated Assessment Models in
Social Discourse”, Science and Public Policy, 23, 2, 1996, pp. 124-125.
Berg, B., “Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences”, Pearson Education
Company, USA, 1989.
Stewart, D. and Shamdasani, P., “Focus Groups: Theory and Practice”, Sage Publications,
103-424-465, London, 1990.
Stratigea A., Regional Science Inquiry Journal, Vol. V, (1), 2013, pp. 145-161 161

Rotmans, J., “Methods for IA: The Challenges and Opportunities Ahead”, Environmental
Modeling and Assessment, 3, 1998, pp. 155-180.
Stratigea, A., Grammatikogiannis, E. and Giaoutzi, M., How to Approach Narratives in
Foresight Studies: Qualitative Data Analysis. In E. van Leeuwen, M. Giaoutzi and P.
Nijkamp (Eds.), Future Perspectives for Sustainable Agriculture, International Journal
of Foresight and Innovation Policy (IJFIP), Special Issue, Vol 8, Nos 2/3, DOI:
10.1504/IJFIP.2012.046112, 2012, pp. 236-261.
Dürrenberg, G., Behringer, J., Dahinden, U., Gerger, A., Kasemir, B., Querol, C., Schuele,
R., Tabara, D., Toth, F., van Asselt, M., Vassilarou, D., Willi, N. and Jaeger, C., “Focus
Groups in Integrated Assessment - A Manual for a Participatory Tool”, Darmstadt,
Technical University of Darmstadt, ZIT Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in
Technology, 1998.
Stratigea, A. and Giaoutzi, M., “Scenario Planning as a Tool in Foresight Exercises: The
LIPSOR Approach”, in M. Giaoutzi and B. Sapio (Eds.), Recent Developments in
Foresight Methodologies, Springer, New York, pp. 215-235, 2013.