1

‘Wicked’, ‘messy’ and ‘clumsy’: Long-term Frameworks for Sustainability

BOB FRAME Sustainability and Society, Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research, New Zealand

Correspondence Address: Bob Frame, Sustainability and Society, Landcare Research, PO Box 40, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand.

Email: frameb@landcareresearch.co.nz

Tel: +64-3-321-9673

Fax: +64-3-321-9996

ABSTRACT Society requires new forms of science and technology to productively accommodate the intrinsic value-laden judgments needed to manage the high uncertainties and considerable long-term impacts of sustainable urban planning. Responses include the development of post-normal science in the early 1990s by Funtowicz and Ravetz and in subsequent literature. More recently, various post-normal sustainability technologies taking multi-actor approaches to decision-making have emerged. This paper examines an example: the development in New Zealand of a 100-year vision: the Auckland Sustainability Framework. Developed over 15 months through ‘messy’ consultation across stakeholders, it has provided a ‘clumsy’ outcome, namely one where “all the ‘voices’ (are) heard and responded to by the others”. The process adopted offers evidence in support of the development of sustainability frameworks over much longer timescales than the current norm in local authorities and indications of how such processes may unfold.

2

‘Wicked’, ‘messy’ and ‘clumsy’: Long-term

Frameworks for Sustainability

ABSTRACT Society requires new forms of science and technology to

productively accommodate the intrinsic value-laden judgments needed to

manage the high uncertainties and considerable long-term impacts of

sustainable urban planning. Responses include the development of post-normal

science in the early 1990s by Funtowicz and Ravetz and in subsequent

literature. More recently, various post-normal sustainability technologies taking

multi-actor approaches to decision-making have emerged. This paper examines

an example: the development in New Zealand of a 100-year vision: the

Auckland Sustainability Framework. Developed over 15 months through

‘messy’ consultation across stakeholders, it has provided a ‘clumsy’ outcome,

namely one where “all the ‘voices’ (are) heard and responded to by the others”.

The process adopted offers evidence in support of the development of

sustainability frameworks over much longer timescales than the current norm in

local authorities and indications of how such processes may unfold.

Scope

A key element of sustainable development is the emphasis placed on, to quote

Brundtland (WCED, 1987), ‘future generations’, or, as Tonn (2007) puts it,

‘Sustainability and future studies should be intimately related’. As the pace of change

increases, planners must address the long-term implications of their policy decisions.

As a result there is increasing interest in using scenario techniques and ‘futures’

exercises to better inform policy development. The purpose of thinking about the

future is not to predict what will happen but rather to consider alternatives. Through a

range of alternative futures it is possible to make judgements about underlying

assumptions. Futures research provides a powerful framework and set of techniques

that allow us to test both the feasibility and desirability of possible futures.

3

In this paper the importance of long-term frameworks in terms of both content

and process is reviewed in the wider context of post-normal science as developed by

Jerry Ravetz and Silvio Funtowicz in the mid-1980s to mid-1990s (notably Ravetz,

1986; Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1990, 1993, 1994, and 1997) and in subsequent literature.

The long-term planning context in New Zealand is reviewed along with, more

specifically, development of the Auckland Sustainability Framework (ASF), which

took place over a 15-month period in 2006–07 involving many multi-actor

interactions. This kind of long-term visioning of futures can be seen as a technology

to tackle, using Rittel and Weber’s (1973) term, ‘wicked problems’ such as

sustainability. In turn, Rayner (2006) reduced Rittel and Webber’s characterisation to

unique aspects of wicked problems, that is, they are:

• symptomatic of deeper problems

• unique opportunities that cannot be easily reversed

• unable to offer a clear set of alternative solutions

• characterised by contradictory certitudes

• (contain) redistributive implications for entrenched interests

• persistent and insoluble

‘Clumsy’ solutions can be defined as one where “all the ‘voices’ (are) heard and

responded to by the others” (Verweij et al 2006, p.822) that are emerging as

contributions to tackling the wicked problems of a resource-constrained world. This

leads to comments on the development of new forms of civic epistemologies as

anticipated by Carolan (2006), Miller (2005) and Carlsson-Kanyama et al. (2007), and

opens up a research agenda to compare the development of long-term frameworks

around the world.

Long-term Frameworks, Foresight, and Futures as Post-normal Sustainability

Technologies

The notion of post-normal science was first developed in contrast with Kuhn's (1970)

conception of ‘normal science’. Normal science, underpinned by positivist

philosophy, sought ‘universal, objective and context-free knowledge’ (Haag &

Kaupenjohann, 2001, p. 53) and was characterized by a lack of reflection on the

4

standpoints of researchers and social actors in wider socio-political contexts. It

therefore struggled to deal with the uncertainties in real-world organizational and

public policy contexts. ‘Post-normal’ implies a qualitative change in the way science

and policy-making are approached. It draws attention to aspects of uncertainty and

values that are often downplayed (or ignored) in traditional research. It takes the

concepts of stakeholder input and democratic participation beyond notions of an

integrated, single and internally consistent framework to one which allows for the

coexistence of a diversity of perspectives and ways of understanding (e.g. O'Connor,

1999; Frame & Brown , 2007). It thereby opens up possibilities for more inclusive,

open and ongoing engagement processes. Post-normal science (Ravetz, 2006, p. 279),

involves managing complexities to do with questions of survival more than addressing

uncertainties to do with technological risks (ibid., p. 283). This requires institutions to

adopt new knowledge-making processes within risk-laden, uncertain environments

and develop a different set of technologies based on post-normal approaches to

science (Ravetz, 1986, 2006; Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993 Luks, 1999; O'Connor, 1999,

2000, 2006; Ravetz & Funtowicz, 1999; Gallopín et al., 2001; Haag & Kaupenjohann,

2001; Liberatore & Funtowicz, 2003; PCE, 2004; Funtowicz, 2006; Giampietro et al.,

2006; Mayumi & Giampietro 2006; and contributions in Guimarães Pereira et al.,

2006).

Post-normal sustainability technologies (PNSTs) require

• extended peer communities,

• agonistic processes and

• forms of citizenship that revitalise civic responsibility (Frame & Brown,

2007)

They take concepts of stakeholder input beyond simply broadening democratic

participation to new processes, open dialogue and ongoing engagement (Carlsson-

Kanyama et al., 2007) Being based on “assumptions of unpredictability, incomplete

control, and plurality of legitimate perspectives” (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993, p. 739)

they are necessarily transdisciplinary, committed to methodological pluralism,

participatory and context-specific (Luks, 1999).

The premise of futuring techniques is that through a better understanding of the

medium- to long-term future, society should be able to make better decisions in the

5

present. Future scenarios are not intended to predict the future; rather they are tools

for thinking about the future based on several assumptions. Firstly, the future is

shaped by human choice and action. Secondly, the future cannot be foreseen, but

exploring the future can inform present decisions. Thirdly, there are many possible

futures; scenarios therefore map a ‘possibility space’. Finally, scenario development

involves both rational analysis and subjective judgement.

There is a considerable body of work around futures with specific journals

(including, Foresight, Futures, Futures Research Quarterly, Futuribles, Journal of

Futures Studies, and Technological Forecasting and Social Change) and a burgeoning

literature in both technique (e.g. Delaney, 2003; Heijden et al., 2002; Aaltonen et al.,

2005) and in sectors of particular interest to understanding of sustainability issues (for

example, in Australia (BCA, 2004; Cork et al., 2005), in Britain (DTI, 2003), and

relating to Global Climate Change (IPCC, 2000)). Futuring has been described as ‘the

study of the present reality from the point of view of a special interest of knowledge

of the future; knowledge of the future considered characteristically as knowledge of

contingent events’ (Mannermaa, 1986). This ‘very fuzzy multi-field’ (Marien, 2002)

has been described by various typologies (predictive, explorative, and normative) of

the overall futuring field (see, for example, Inayatullah, 1990; van Asselt & Rijkens-

Klomp, 2002; Van Notten et al., 2003; Walz et al., 2007). Of these only the

explorative supports the need for pluralist interpretations of future occurrences as a

means of supporting decision-making processes in the present and, as such, can be

interpreted as post-normal (Frame & Brown, 2007). Such techniques permit open

discussion on contested and uncertain topics and are ideally suited to enabling

discussion around the long-term temporal issues relating to sustainability. Exploratory

techniques, therefore, include framings of multiple realities which expose the

underlying and potentially irresolvable trade-offs of capitals including the need for a

more dialogic approach (Frame et al., 2005) and as ‘opening up spaces for

deliberating desirable futures’ (Hoijer et al., 2006).

To engage then with these rich and inconclusive subtleties requires an essentially

‘thick’ interpretation of possible futures (Adger et al., 2003, citing Geertz, 1973)

where thick analysis implies the identification of connections and general patterns that

are characteristic of a certain context (Geertz, 1973, pp. 25–26). To achieve such an

analysis requires a distinctive post-normal form of futuring termed foresight

6

knowledge (Keenan et al., 2003; Von Schomberg et al., 2006; Guimarães Pereira et

al., 2007). The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working

Conditions (Keenan et al., 2003, p. 21) described such a technology as an assemblage:

• Planning. Strategic approaches that involve qualitative as well as

quantitative data

• Networking. This includes new forms of democratization and legitimacy in

political processes, and

• Futures studies. This includes exploratory processes that include extensive

stakeholder involvement alongside expert-led approaches.

As with all PNSTs, the foresight approach specifically acknowledges that it is not

intended to displace existing decision-making and planning processes but is intended

to complement and inform them so as to increase their overall effectiveness as

described by Guimarães Pereira et al. (2007). There are few examples of the

development of long-term frameworks as PNSTs in the literature and so the Auckland

Sustainability Framework (ASF) provides an opportunity for insights into the

implementation of such ‘messy’ approaches. To understand this better, we first place

the ASF in the context of longer-term planning in New Zealand and then look at its

overall development.

Local authority long-term planning in New Zealand

Local authorities in New Zealand have become increasingly involved in various

aspects of long-term planning processes in recent years and in particular resource

management and local government planning (Bührs, 2002; Zöllner, 2004, Miller,

2006). This also needs to be seen in the context of various other public and private

local partnership initiatives on sustainability (Chapman & Milne, 2004: Frame, 2004;

Frame & Taylor, 2005; Stone, 2005 a,b; Milne et al, 2006; Tregida & Milne 2006;

Brown & Stone, 2007; Collins et al., 2007; Frame & Newton, 2007; Taylor & Allen).

The 1991 Resource Management Act (RMA) replaced more than 20 individual

major statutes. It heralded an integrated approach that considered the environment in

its totality and put a greater emphasis on the link between environment and people. It

set the stage for the development of planning, consent, and enforcement procedures

7

that were common to the majority of resource uses. Despite its many improvements

the RMA has not dealt well with accumulative effects of activities across the

landscape, nor has sufficient consideration and integration been given to long-term

environmental forces including climate change (MfE, 2004) and the uncertainty which

will arise from their impacts (Ericksen et al., 2003; Freeman & Thompson-Fawcett

2003; Miller, 2006).

The Local Government Act (2002) (LGA) reinforced the need for wider

consideration of four pillars of sustainability, social, economic, cultural and

environmental, with considerable consideration given to community consultation

through Long Term Council Community Plans (LTCCPs). A long-term plan must

cover a period of ten consecutive financial years though it is prepared every three

years. This allows a local authority to take a long-term view while enabling it to

adjust for constantly changing financial factors and keep its accounting and budgets

up to date. In addition to these legislative frameworks central and local government

have developed programmes that have considered the interrelatedness of the four

well-beings and have recognized that long-term planning frameworks will need to

develop a wide range of partnerships, new political processes, new ways of

integrating and analyzing information, and better methods for community engagement

to produce sound, well-supported decisions.

Of interest here, is the development of long-term futuring projects. In the late

1970s, a Commission for the Future was established with various futures initiatives

since 2000 often directly related to sustainability. These sit alongside other

contemporary medium- and long-term futuring projects at national, local and sectoral

levels in New Zealand (e.g. Frame et al., 2005, 2006,; MoRST, 2005; Miller, 2006;

Ministry of Transport, 2007; Taylor et al 2007 and in various other ministries and

local authorities). Of particular interest here is the development of the 100-year

Auckland Sustainability Framework, New Zealand’s first, and the way it addresses

institutional issues and long-term growth. A successful long-term framework will

guide future plans and policies for sustainable development. It will be robust in its

scenario setting, compelling and, critically, achieve support from the wider

community. The long-term planning process must, therefore, define and articulate the

vision, principles and goals of achieving a sustainable region which links the local to

the national scale.

8

Development of the Auckland Sustainability Framework

Purpose

Auckland is New Zealand’s largest (and only) medium-sized city. The region is home

to over 1.3 million people, about one-third of the national population, and the region's

population grew by 12.4% between the 2001 and 2006 censuses. Auckland is

characterised by ethnic diversity with just over one-third (37.0%) of the region’s

residents born overseas. In the region there are four cities and three districts, each

with their own council as well as an overarching regional council. Under the RMA,

each council develops its own plans and strategies, which resulted in areas of overlap.

Its trading success continues to attract new inhabitants but there have been drawbacks

in such significant growth, namely a lack of cohesive and effective approaches to

ongoing transport problems and concerns about the pattern and nature of urban

growth. As a result the Auckland Regional Growth Forum (RGF), established in 1996,

is a co-operative partnership between the Auckland Regional Council and the region's

territorial local authorities to develop and implement a strategy for managing the

effects of growth.

The interconnectedness of national and local Auckland issues, such as housing and

education, with growth and innovation and the major investment required, particularly

in land transport, clearly fits the bill as a wicked problem. Auckland’s importance to

the New Zealand economy and areas of common interest such as transport and energy

provision, surprisingly central government left regional and local government with a

free reign within the non-prescriptive confines of the RMA and the LGA in the

development of their regulatory documents. Concern emerged that without agreement

on a high level strategy and framework, decision making in the region could be ad hoc

and adversarial if each stakeholder tried to have their say from their own perspective,

without cognisance of the region as a whole. As a result there was a clear need for

coordinated strategic planning across the Auckland Region to ensure that Auckland

could compete as a twenty-first-century city. This was responded to by the preparation

of a Regional Growth Strategy (2001) which aimed to provide a vision for what

Auckland could be like in 50 years. More importantly, a Regional Growth Forum was

9

then established of all the Territorial Local Authorities in the Auckland region. In

parallel with this, the three-year Auckland Sustainable Cities Programme (ASCP),

2003 to 2006, was developed as part of the national Sustainable Development

Programme of Action with a strong community emphasis including promoting an

enhanced ability for communities to be involved in their own sustainable development

(DPMC, 2003; Frame & Marquardt, 2006). A key success of the ASCP was the

establishment, in 2006, of the multi-agency Government Urban and Economic

Development Office (GUEDO) to build understanding and ability to support the

challenge of making Auckland a world-class city.

In 2006, as a result of the ASCP, the eight local authorities (Auckland City,

Auckland Region, Franklin District, Manukau City, North Shore City, Papakura

District, Rodney District, and Waitakere City) in collaboration with central

government through GUEDO, at the instigation of their Chief Executives’ joint

forum, engaged with central government to develop a long-term sustainability

framework. Initially termed START (Sustaining the Auckland Region Together), it

attempted to evaluate ‘forces’ which might play a more significant role in the long-

term with a 100-year vision to align government effort and create strategic directions.

Drivers for START included the need for resilient systems able to respond to

persistent pressures over short and long time horizons with no obvious alternative

solutions and many vested interests with apparently irreconcilable implications.

Collectively these and other criteria provide an assemblage of factors which coincide

with those identified as typical of wicked problems.

Making a START: Gathering Information

The START working group developed a prototype framework with a cascading set of

deliverables including a vision, goals, initial foundation and process principles, initial

themes, some potential responses which included catalyst projects and long-term

sustainability goals, and development of indicators to measure progress. Critical to

that progressive development was consideration of the ‘forces’ which would shape

Auckland’s future and impact on its development (Sustainable Auckland, 2007a, c),

namely:

10

• Climate change and natural hazards. New Zealand is in a geologically

unstable environment, has young fragile soils, and occasionally suffers form

severe floods.

• Resource availability. In the global context New Zealand has good current

and future access to water and renewable energy though there are issues

concerning demand and supply. However, most supplies are outside the

Auckland Region and therefore create a large ecological footprint for the

region (McDonald & Paterson, 2003).

• Demographics. The ageing and more ethnically diverse New Zealand

population may become under pressure to accept a much higher number of

immigrants with climate change and resource scarcity,

• Worldviews. Auckland’s ethically diverse population is currently strongly

dependent on international trade and tourism

• Globalisation. Auckland is New Zealand’s largest business centre with

many local and internationally owned companies.

• Technological transformations. Auckland’s ability to innovate and embrace

new technologies is critical to its future success.

Significant to the development of the framework was the involvement of ‘expert

groups’ including academics and experts from the business and community sectors,

feeding into the development through facilitated workshops, to develop theme papers

for key issues identified in the prototype framework, namely: the built environment,

urban form and infrastructure, energy, economic transformation, social development,

cultural diversity and community cohesion, environmental quality. Each group

deliberated around four ‘sustainability principles’ – resilience, prosperity, liveability

and ecology – and considered how they would be influenced by the forces. Additional

processes were also held to ensure a strong voice from Māori.

In August 2006 a three-day START design workshop enabled 120 representatives

from local and central government, academics, and the community and business

sectors to contribute expertise and perspectives into further developing the draft 100-

year framework (Sustainable Auckland, 2007b). The methodology drew heavily on

the Vancouver ‘Cities Plus’ model (Sheltair Group, 2003), which moved from a high-

11

level vision to responses and indicators with an adaptive management approach to

developing a responsive, resilient urban planning framework to address future

challenges. The workshop used a ‘charrette’ format, a word derived from the French

for cart and referring to a process where ideas emerge and evolve quickly. It is an

interactive process that harnesses the talents of a range of parties to resolve planning

challenges (Lennertz, 2003). The charrette form is particularly successful for local

government to engage the community in planning processes and the product is usually

a tangible output for immediate implementation. In major international cities

including London, Melbourne, Mumbai, Shanghai, and Vancouver, long-term

sustainability frameworks have been developed through charrette processes. However

these have been based largely on spatial models of a city rather than on more abstract

concepts such as sustainability as in Auckland. The START workshop was, however,

an input into a further process, namely an overarching framework with

implementation being a couple of times removed.

Stakeholder Consultations and Inter-agency Coordination

As a result of feedback and wider strategic discussions following the START

workshop, the framework was to include:

• Addition of shifts from business as usual as a key component of the

framework

• Goals and key directions being collapsed together and the addition of

leadership and Māori goals

• Adoption of a revised version of a regional vision developed by a youth

contingent

• Development of a draft set of indicators

• Development of the process and tools for applying the framework

A governance and reporting structure was set up with the project being overseen by

the council officers’ Steering Committee, sponsored by the Chief Executives’ Forum

responsible for final sign-off of the framework, and reported to the RGF in December

2006 and again, following feedback from all councils, in April 2007. Consultation

with stakeholders and the public took place (February to May 2007) with 19

workshops and around 200 participants plus written submissions from several

12

individuals, four organisations and two regional councils (Sustainable Auckland,

2007e). A revised version, now termed the Auckland Sustainability Framework, was

endorsed in September 2007 by the RGF after being endorsed by all member local

authorities and government agencies (Figure 1). It also received high level support

from central government. The ASF’s goals and visions were consistent with central

government priorities especially in the substantive shifts needed from the present. In

turn it was seen that the ASF would provide a tool to review national policies as they

impact on Auckland. However it was also recognised that better understanding was

needed to understand how goals would be achieved and what indicators would be

needed to assess progress.

The ASF is also intended to guide regional strategies (e.g. Regional Growth

Strategy, Regional Land Transport Strategy, and Auckland Regional Economic

Development Strategy). It is also anticipated that Councils will apply the Framework

in the 2009 round of LTCCPs on complex issues such as developing a carbon-neutral

future and the balance between instigating change by policy intervention or market

forces.

The process of developing a framework was, therefore highly inclusive, with many

conversations feeding into the framework and emerging responses. The RGF, for

example, facilitated region-wide discussion and a councillors’ reference group to

provide direction and support. Similarly local authorities and central government

formed a working group to ensure representative influence; enable shared

responsibility for ASF funding; and ensured staff were actively involved. The process

was neither linear nor predictable and its ‘messiness’, can be seen as an inherent

quality of a positive outcome. As stated earlier, a key collaborative element was the

relationship between central and local government with common governance

elements, primarily through GUEDO, including a joint commitment to developing a

shared long-term view of a sustainable Auckland.

The ASF’s vision is to “improve Aucklanders’ quality of life by building upon the

region’s many unique and positive attributes. It will build further resilience and

strength to the important social and economic role that Auckland plays in New

Zealand and the Pacific, and it will establish the region as a world leader in

sustainable development’ (Sustainable Auckland 2007f, p. 2). It provides a 100 year

framework with eight interrelated and long term goals plus eight major shifts that

13

‘must occur in our social values and expectations, and systems and processes’. It will

provide direction so that our local authorities and central government agencies can

work together with a common purpose to embrace the opportunities and face the

challenges associated with developing a truly sustainable region’.

(Fig. 1 here)

In the New Zealand context it is important to acknowledge that the long-term view

is a deeply entrenched aspect of Māori culture (Loomis, 2000; Jollands &

Harmsworth, 2007) and that various iwi (tribes) have put together their own visions of

the future (e.g. Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Raukawa). The ASF acknowledges Mana Whenua

as the first peoples of the region and as an intimate part of the ecological and cultural

fabric of the region. In response, Mana Whenua developed their own sustainability

framework through a parallel process with linkage points developed between the two

frameworks, best described in their own words:

The Mana Whenua view of sustainability is anchored in a world view built on

a holistic philosophy that recognizes values and treasures everything’s and

everyone’s interconnectedness. Stories, traditions, philosophies and values

passed down from generation to generation underpin this world view. These

traditions have combined to shape the Mana Whenua world view and their

understandings and relationships with the natural world. They act to reinforce

the various relationships between the land and people and will continue to do so

for the present and future generations. Mana motuhake is the term that best

describes Mana Whenua’s concept of sustainability, as it focuses on the essence

of those relationships between the land, people and atua. It is about self-identity,

self-sustainability and self-determination at a whanau, hapu and iwi level. Mana

motuhake encompasses creation (mana atua), the land (mana whenua) and the

people past-present-future (mana tupuna/mana tangata). The quality and

effectiveness of how we care and give regard to these relationships will

etermine the quality and effectiveness of sustainable outcomes (Sustainable

Auckland, 2007d,, pp. 36–38).

14

It is not possible to provide any absolute claims on the development of the ASF or to

make predictions on its implementations. These are clearly part of the inherent

messiness of the process and there will be both internal and external future events that

will influence the extent to which the ASF remains current and the form that that will

take. Any assessment of the ASF is only therefore valid at the time of execution and,

for the purposes of this article; this is taken standing in a place just as the ASF has

gained endorsement. Other relevant processes include “Stronger Auckland”, a project

for strengthening governance and decision-making across the Auckland region to

improve the economic, social, cultural and environmental performance of Auckland;

and an over-arching regional strategic plan, 'One plan' to strengthen the region's

governance arrangements.

Assessment of the ASF Development Process as a Post-normal Sustainability

Technology

With increasing focus on sustainability, researchers (and citizens) must discriminate

between ‘greenwash’ policy and that which provides genuine long-term progress

towards more sustainable states. Assessment of any futures exercise in terms of both

process and content can provide a useful barometer for the integrity of such exercises.

In New Zealand, implementation of the ASF should, therefore, continue to be of

research interest. However, its impact will be enmeshed with any ensuing changes in

governance, and with other national developments on sustainability issues. This paper

restricts itself to assessing the ASF development process as a PNST through the

author’s participant-observer notes from various meetings; interviews with key

personnel in the weeks following adoption of the ASF; and analysis of key ASF

documents and websites. First the development of the ASF is reviewed on the criteria

developed by Frame and Brown (2007), who looked at an assemblage of

arrangements for the development of PNSTs. These built on Funtowicz and Ravetz’s

foundation of an extended peer community to demonstrate how these would look in

practice, the agonistic processes through which they can achieve agency, and the (in

this case limited) forms of environmental citizenship that must be enabled for these to

take place. The content of the ASF is then reviewed before assessing the extent to

15

which it operated as a PNST. Finally comments are provided on the ASF as a long-

term framework able to contribute to sustainability.

Extended Peer Communities

The overall process created considerable buy-in at both political and administrative

levels with the resulting framework being owned by all parties. It was also a

deliberate intent not to include public consultations until later. Given local politics,

this is seen as a considerable achievement. However, there appear to have been two

groups less well represented. There was concern about the low level of involvement

by business representatives and developers who would eventually implement

strategies and activities based on the framework. There were also concerns that there

were no obvious links with a tripartite (central and local government with business)

development process (‘Metro’), which had a strong focus on economic development.

Views on this varied with some believing that business was ‘not interested’ while

others believed it was a ‘lost opportunity’. Perhaps, the key to this wicked component

is in the pragmatic. In a messy consultation, it is only possible to work with what is

possible and to move forward as long as the learnings are identified and brought into

future processes.

Similarly, Auckland’s ethnic diversity appeared underrepresented, even though,

through the Mana Whenua process, Auckland-based Māori groups developed their

own 100-year sustainability framework which would link to the ASF. A regional

government attendee said that ‘in my view of Auckland’s future is as a vibrant Asian-

Pacific Megacity, I didn’t get the feeling that the future of Auckland is planned

around Asian/Pacific values and needs’. However, members of the ASF working and

steering groups believed that the prototype framework had been tested and shaped by

a broad range of stakeholders. In particular, the input of those with expertise not held

within participating councils; and input from community group representatives, was

singled out.

In this way, the ASF attempted to address Auckland’s current political impasse and

its future development as a wicked problem, which clearly complied with Rayner’s

characteristics of a wicked problem as listed earlier. As the above suggestion confirms

though, the overall process did not result in an ideal situation, the result was indeed

16

‘clumsy’. However, it is important to ascertain if the process was agonistic – that is,

did it permit tensions and contradictions and was it sensitive to the complex and

dynamic nature of social relations?

Agonistic Processes

The ASF was not intended to be about ‘business-as-usual’ but about doing things

differently. As an adaptive management process it was considered internally an

exemplar with, for example, one senior executive stating: ‘The Framework

encourages ongoing engagement and dialogue on the issues relating to the future

sustainability of the Auckland Region’ and that it set a standard for involvement by a

wide range of stakeholders in the development pathway of the city through an

inclusive, information-driven development process. However views varied

considerably among those closely involved with development of the ASF which

resulted in an ‘element of compromise’. For some the participatory process had diluted

some elements of, potentially radical, reform, while for others it was a heartening

example of being a party to a joint document. This is not too surprising as, in the

process of 15 months, there will be a dynamic towards a negotiated middle ground in

some instances and areas of agreed trade-offs in others. Or, as Verweij et al. (2006, p.

839) put it: ‘we have at one extreme an unresponsive monologue and at the other a

shouting match amongst the deaf. Between these extremes we occasionally find a

vibrant multivocality in which each voice formulates its view as persuasively as

possible, sensitive to the knowledge that others are likely to disagree, and

acknowledging a responsibility to listen to what others are saying’.

This highlights the need for balance between monologues and ‘talk fests’ that lead to

an anodyne middle ground of inconsequentiality. This is in keeping with Wallace’s

cautionary note on futuring when he remarks that, although this offers an idealised

form of ‘consulting’ widely for a preferred future, some processes can be ‘too socially

unitary’ (2007, pp. 31–32). He argues that, to generate meaningful futures, in a post-

normal sense, requires that those participating must be able to co-create through

awareness of possible trade-offs and the incomplete nature of any attempt to resolve

these. He emphasises that futuring in this integrative way ‘should be subordinated to

17

democratic discussion of ways of collectively orienting to the future’ and be a ‘tool of

democratic envisioning’ by focusing on the process of constructing these futures

rather than an approach that relies on quantitative data and (predominantly) economic

drivers (Wallace, 2007, pp. 31–32).

It is difficult to ascertain the extent to which the ASF encouraged agonistic

behaviour compared to a gravitation pull to a common consensus. Certainly opinions

ranged from moderate satisfaction to soft criticism and it is hard to divine this as a

position between apathy and ‘clumsiness’. This suggests that PNSTs cannot be

evaluated in a traditional sense using formal criteria and that success can only be

judged with hindsight from a distant point. If so, then the continued commitment of,

in this case, the local authorities and their ability to enlist growing participation in the

ASF will be a useful benchmark. The issue of capacity and capability is therefore a

crucial criterion for ongoing success.

Citizenship

In the case of the ASF, development of environmental citizenship is not especially

relevant as there has been no direct public consultation at the development stage.

However it is useful to look at the various expertises anticipated during the whole

process and the extent to which these are present in local government in New Zealand

given Bührs’ (2002) early critique of greening the New Zealand state services and,

perhaps, a more general example of Marquand’s ‘hollowing out of citizenship’

(2004).

One participant noted that ‘people get tired’ and that colleagues need ‘an ability to

crack it’ which, perhaps, gives an indication of the type of capability and resourcing

that is needed when embarking on such an exercise. More worrying is that, as the ASF

process continued, cross-cutting shifts were eroded as traditional silo-thinking crept

back in. This was compounded by a strong focus on ‘the first three pages’ of the

framework (i.e. the executive summary and its political implications) rather than a

pathway to implementation. In practical terms, resilience of those participating in

PNST-type approaches is a critical capacity issue along with development of

appropriate skills. In turn these frameworks will require practitioners who

demonstrate a wider, and quite different, skill set than that currently in many local

authorities. Carolan (2006) has described these as combining the traditional

18

contributory expertise (of which the papers in this journal are one example) with the

interactional expertise needed to facilitate enabling conversations in workshops and

other multi-stakeholder fora. To these, he adds the concept of public expertise – that is

‘the explicit incorporation of values into the decision-making process’ Carolan (2006,

p. 665). This requires going beyond possessing knowledge about certain issues to a

sense of what public sentiments and values are around the topic. Success in this can

be seen as an ability to straddle the boundary between the institutions of research and

politics – sometimes referred to as boundary organizations. What is not yet clear is

how such expertise is developed and given experience in PNSTs. It would seem that

more formal recognition and opportunity to experience directly need to become part

of the overall sustainability discourse. This assumes a reasonable level of reflexive

learning and adaptive management in organizations, though it is not yet clear the

extent to which this has been recognized in Auckland to date.

Content: Numbers or Narratives?

For some participants, the richest material produced during the ASF process was from

the theme papers and expert groups. Indeed, having some strong, controversial

viewpoints emerge was seen as a stimulus to the debates with a clear need for social

issues to have greater consideration. However some participants were disappointed

that these did not survive to the later versions of the ASF. Although researchers

developed theme papers for the charrette, subsequently, the lack of local expertise on

future behaviours underlined how difficult it was to make considered judgements

about developing long-term policy. Couple this with the lack of targets and indicators

(at the time of writing) in a conventional sense, and the ASF is open to criticism as a

high-level policy which lacks mechanisms of accountability. And it is in this area

where the ASF will be tested as an agent of genuine change. Existing datasets,

available through national, regional and local institutions, and reported through

existing mechanisms (e.g. national censuses, Statistics New Zealand), do not provide

data to measure progress against the ASF’s shifts. Indicators developed through a

Framework toolkit will provide a genuine insight into the region’s attempt to be truly

sustainable. They will also be an early barometer of the commitment to the ideals laid

out in the ASF.

While this will require new forms of partnership with data-gathering providers and

with research organizations, it also reveals another tension: that between those who

19

do, and those who do not, see the world as physical constructs. In the framework

(Figure 1), the overall landscape is seen through the framework goals (x-axis), yet the

means to achieve these is represented through the shifts (y-axis). As these are largely

values-based parameters, they are not easily amenable to quantification and so

understanding progress on these must rely on society accommodating more narrative

ways of representing progress, which is a key component for the ASF to be

considered as a PNST. Such processes require new forms of science, ones that ‘can

legitimately support... a range of competing, value-based political positions’

(Sarewitz, 2004, p. 386). This is likely to require new kinds of modelling and datasets

for planning purposes as these become much more exploratory and less extrapolatory

in nature. Miller (2005) anticipates these ‘new civic epistemologies of quantification’

will start to become part of the norm by which decisions get made and the ways in

which information will inform public debate. Again, at the time of writing, these

deeper aspects of the ASF had yet to emerge in the public discourse. This maintains a

consistent approach to clumsy solutions with that adopted by Verweij et al (2006)

who noted that ‘successful solutions to pressing social ills tend to consist of creative

and flexible combinations of …various ways of organizing, perceiving and justifying

social relations’ (2006, p. 818). It is the extent to which this has been achieved that we

now turn.

Of Messy Problems and Clumsy Solutions

As an indicator of genuine progress, the ASF is seen as having ‘great potential’ to

work as an ‘additional lever for integrated thinking’. As a ‘living document’ it

represents a paradigm shift in thinking and will, as noted above, be subject to the need

for ongoing renegotiation and development. It will be important for the Auckland

Region to not just monitor and review the ASF’s impact over time, but also to

establish processes for active learning and adaptive management. Indeed the

development of long-term ‘futures’ frameworks would begin to be seen as a critical

part of a pathway to a more sustainable future. Indeed the kinds of process used in the

development of the ASF confirm the added value of using futuring techniques as part

of transition management as described by Sondeijker et al. (2006), Wiek et al. (2006)

and Carlsson-Kanyama et al. (2007) on three quite separate research sites in Europe.

As such there appears to be growing momentum for futuring processes that exhibit

20

post-normal characteristics and, as such, there is likely to be considerable variance in

the way in which this is acted out locally. However, this is not without potential

downsides. In terms of the criteria by Keenan et al. (2003) for effective futuring

(planning, networking, and futures studies), the ASF can be seen to have taken a

balanced approach. Inevitably there are ways in which the overall process could be

improved but, given that futuring is an incomplete and inconclusive exercise, this is

not especially relevant. However a research agenda to compare and evaluate processes

in other large urban centres globally, such as though adopting the Vancouver 100-year

‘Cities Plus’ model (Sheltair Group, 2003) would be of considerable benefit to the

development of post-normal technologies. Techniques, such as those used in the ASF,

will involve highly ‘messy’ approaches to long-term planning that require lengthy

forms of engagement which may not result in convenient consensus-based results with

single lines of action but in far ‘clumsier’ solutions. Success is likely to mean changes

to underlying governance structures and failure will mean consignment to the

archives.

Concluding Comments

Long-term sustainability frameworks, such as that developed in Auckland, have a

growing place as PNSTs though the level of commitment in terms of time and energy

and the hazards of messy approaches should not be underestimated. Successful

frameworks are unlikely to develop behind closed doors or over a weekend retreat.

They will require extensive consultation in which conflicts need to be aired and

managed (not necessarily leading to resolution through consensus) and where simple

trade-offs may not be feasible. New partnerships need to be brokered and innovative

processes developed to counter current unsustainable practices. It is unlikely to be

quick or cheap and its quality may well be fickle and undetermined for much of the

process. Conversely it is difficult to conceive of successful transitions to more

sustainable practices without such a framework being developed (and frequently

redeveloped). As such there is an interesting research seam opening up for both

comparative and longitudinal studies to take place in a wide range of jurisdictions.

While building a constituency willing to think beyond the next generation or so is,

in itself, a challenge for politicians and councillors who are primarily engaged with a

21

populace for no more than one or two political terms, the challenge of sustainability

must, of course, go considerably beyond that. Tonn (2007) exhorts public policy to

consider ‘1000-year planning’ as a ‘foundation for futures sustainability policies’ that

would lead to much longer time horizons such that ‘the scope of sustainability needs

to be expanded to extend at least tens of thousand years into the future’. While this is

unlikely to become a practical reality in the near future, it is certainly enough to

encourage considerably more practice of and research into futuring techniques

globally.

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to the START working group and the Auckland Long-Term

Sustainability Framework working group for the opportunity to be involved in their

work. Special thanks are due to Maggie Lawton for her contributions on the START

workshop; and to various interviewees for their insights on the ASF process. The

research was supported by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology

‘Building capacity for sustainable development: The enabling research’ project

(C09X0310) and the CRI Capability Fund administered by the Ministry of Research,

Science and Technology. Thanks also go to Mike Krausse and Penny Nelson and two

anonymous referees for comments on earlier versions. The opinions voiced are, of

course, the author’s alone.

References

Aaltonen, M., Barth, T., Casti, J. L., Mitleton-Kelly, E. & Sanders, T. I., 2005,

Complexity as a Sensemaking Framework (Finland Futures Research Centre).

Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Fairbrass, J., Jordan, A., Paavola, J., Rosendo, S. &

Seyfang, G. , 2003, Governance for sustainability: towards a ‘thick’ analysis of

environmental decision-making. Environment and Planning A, 35, pp. 1095–

1110.

BCA (Business Council of Australia), 2004, ASPIRE AUSTRALIA 2025: Change Is

Inevitable, Progress Is Not (www.bca.com.au).

22

Brown, G. & Stone, L., 2007, Cleaner production in New Zealand: taking stock.

Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, pp. 716–728.

Bührs, T., 2002, New Zealand’s capacity for green planning: A political-institutional

assessment and analysis, Political Science, 54, 27-46

Carlsson-Kanyama, A. K., Dreborg, H., Moll, H. & Padovan, D., 2007, Participative

Backcasting: A tool for involving stakeholders in local sustainability planning,

Futures, doi:10.1016/futures.2007.06.001

Carolan, M. S., 2006, Science, expertise, and the democratization of the decision-

making process. Society and Natural Resources, 19, pp. 661–668.

Chapman, R. & Milne, M., 2004, The triple bottom line: How New Zealand

companies measure up. International Journal for Sustainable Business, 11(2), pp.

37–50.

Collins, E., Lawrence, S., Pavlovich, K. & Ryan, C., 2007, Business networks and the

uptake of sustainability practices: the case of New Zealand. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 15, pp. 729–740

Cork, S., Delaney, K. & Salt, D., 2005, Futures Thinking…about Landscapes,

Lifestyles and Livelihoods in Australia (Canberra, Land and Water Australia).

Delaney, K., 2003, Decision corridors as a futuring technique. Taiwan Journal of

Futures Studies, 8(1), 53-60.

DPMC (Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet), 2003, Sustainable Development

for New Zealand: Programme of Action (Wellington, New Zealand, DPMC).

DTI (Department of Trade and Industry), 2003, Foresight Futures 2020: Revised

Scenarios and Guidance (London, DTI (www.foresight.gov.uk)).

Ericksen, N. J., Berke, P. R., Crawford, J. L. & Dixon, J. E., 2003, Planning for

Sustainability: New Zealand under the R M A (Hamilton, New Zealand,

International Change Institute, the University of Waikato).

Frame, B., 2004, The Big Clean Up: Social marketing for the Auckland Region. Local

Environment, 9, pp. 507–526.

Frame, B. & Marquardt, M., 2006, Implications of the Sustainable Development

Programme of Action. (Landcare Research Contract Report LC0607/015.

Available at

http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/publications/researchpubs/LCR_SDPOA_revi

ew_2006.pdf)

23

Frame, B. & Newton, B., 2007, Promoting sustainability through social marketing:

examples from New Zealand. International Journal of Consumer Studies, doi:

10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00600.x

Frame, B. & Brown, J., 2007, Developing post-normal sustainability technologies,

Landcare Research Working Paper. Accepted subject to minor revision at

Ecological Economics.

Frame, B. & Taylor, R., 2005, Partnerships for sustainability: effective practice?

Local Environment, 10, pp. 275–299.

Frame, R., Molisa, P., Taylor, R., Toia, H. & Wong, L-S., 2005, 100% pure

conjecture? Accounts of our future state(s), in: J. Liu, T. McCreanor, T. Teaiwa,

& T. McIntosh (Eds) New Zealand Identities: Departures and Destinations

(Wellington, New Zealand, VUW Press), pp. 255–290.

Frame, B., Allen, W., Delaney, K., Harris, G., McDermott, A., Lattimore, R., Newton,

B. & Wheatley C., 2006, Reshaping Asia: Sustainability, Resources and the

Environment (Wellington, New Zealand, Asia New Zealand Foundation.

Available at

http://www.asianz.org.nz/files/Reshaping%20Asia%20Summary.pdf).

Freeman, C. & Thompson-Fawcett, M., 2003, Living Space towards Sustainable

Settlements in New Zealand (Dunedin, New Zealand University of Otago Press).

Funtowicz, S. O., 2006, Why knowledge assessment?, in A. Guimarães Pereira, S. G.

Vaz & S. Tognetti (Eds) Interfaces between Science and Society (Sheffield, UK,

Greenleaf Press), pp. 138–145.

Funtowicz, S. O. & Ravetz, J. R., 1990, Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy

(Dordrecht, Kluwer).

Funtowicz, S. O. & Ravetz, J. R., 1993, Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25,

pp. 739–755.

Funtowicz, S. & Ravetz, J., 1994, The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a

post-normal science. Ecological Economics, (10), pp. 197–207.

Funtowicz, S. O. & Ravetz, J. R., 1997, The poetry of thermodynamics. Futures,

29(9), pp. 791–810.

Gallopín, G. C., Funtowicz, S., O'Connor, M. & Ravetz, J., 2001, Science for the

twenty-first century: from social contract to the scientific core. International

Social Science Journal, 53(168), pp. 219–229.

Geertz, C., 1973 The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books, New York.

24

Giampietro, M., Allen, T. F. H. & Mayumi, K., 2006, The epistemological

predicament associated with purposive quantitative analysis. Systems Research

and Behavioural Science, 23, pp. 307–327.

Guimarães Pereira, A., Vaz, S. G. & Tognetti, S., 2006 Interfaces between Science

and Society (Sheffield, UK, Greenleaf Press).

Guimarães Pereira, A., von Schomberg, R. & Funtowicz, S., 2007, Foresight

knowledge assessment. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation

Policy, 3(1), pp. 53–75.

Haag, D. & Kaupenjohann, M., 2001, Parameters, prediction, post-normal science and

the precautionary principle: a roadmap for modelling for decision-making.

Ecological Modelling, 144, pp. 45–60.

Heijden, K. van der, Bradfield, R., Burt, G., Cairns, G. & Wright, G., 2002 The Sixth

Sense: Accelerating Organisational Learning with Scenarios. (Chichester,

Wiley).

Hoijer, B., Lidskog, R. & Uggla, Y., 2006, Facing dilemmas: sense-making and

decision-making in late modernity. Futures, 38, pp. 350–366.

Inayatullah, S., 1990, Deconstructing and reconstructing the future: predictive,

cultural and critical epistemologies. Futures, 22(2), pp. 115–141.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2000 Emissions Scenarios: a

Special Report of IPCC Working Group III (Cambridge UK, Cambridge

University Press).

Jollands, N. & Harmsworth, G., 2007, Participation of indigenous groups in

sustainable development monitoring: Rationale and examples from New Zealand.

Ecological Economics, 62(3–4), pp. 716–726.

Keenan, M., Miles, I. & Kaivo-Ova, J., 2003 Handbook of Knowledge Society

Foresight (Dublin, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and

Working Conditions. Available at: http://www.eurofound.eu.int/transversal/

foresight.htm).

Kuhn, T.,1970 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago,.University of

Chicago Press).

Lennertz, B., 2003 The Charrette as an Agent for Change, New Urbanism:

Comprehensive Report and Best Practices Guide, 3rd edn (Ithaca, New Urban

Publications), pp. 12–28.

25

Liberatore, A. & Funtowicz, S., 2003, ‘Democratising’ expertise, expertising

democracy: what does this mean, and why bother? Science and Public Policy, 30,

pp. 146–150.

Loomis, T. M., 2000, Indigenous populations and sustainable development: building

on indigenous approaches to holistic, self-determined development. World

Development, 28, pp. 893–910.

Luks, F. , 1999, Post-normal science and the rhetoric of inquiry: deconstructing

normal science? Futures, 31, pp. 705–719.

Mannermaa, M., 1986, Futures research and social decision making: alternative

futures as a case study. Futures, 18(5), pp. 658–670.

Marien, M. (2002) Futures studies in the 21st Century: a reality based view. Futures,

34(3–4), pp. 261–281.

Marquand D., 2004 The Decline of the Public: The Hollowing Out of Citizenship,

Polity Press

Mayumi, K. & Giampietro, M., 2006, The epistemological challenge of self-

modifying systems: governance and sustainability in the post-normal science era.

Ecological Economics, 57, pp. 382–399.

McDonald, G. & Patterson, M., 2003 Ecological Footprint of New Zealand and its

Regions (Wellington, New Zealand, Ministry for the Environment).

Miller, C. M., 2005, New civic epistemologies of quantification: Making sense of

indicators of local and global sustainability. Science, Technology and Human

Values, 30, pp. 403–432

Miller, C., 2006, New directions in New Zealand’s urban planning and research.

Urban Policy and Research, 24(3), pp. 341–354.

Milne, M. J., Tregidga, H. M. & Walton, S., 2006, Actions Not Words: Companies

"Doing Sustainability" in New Zealand? (AFIS Discussion Papers, University of

Canterbury. Available at

http://www.afis.canterbury.ac.nz/publications/milne.shtml (Accessed 27 June

2006))

Ministry for the Environment and New Zealand Climate Change Office, 2004

Preparing for Climate Change. A Guide for Local Government in New Zealand.

(Wellington, New Zealand, MfE).

Ministry of Transport (in press) Future of Transport in New Zealand (Wellington,

New Zealand).

26

MoRST (Ministry of Research, Science and Technology), 2005 Biotechnology to

2025 (Wellington, New Zealand).

O'Connor, M., 1999, Dialogue and debate in a post-normal practice of science: a

reflexion. Futures, 31(7), pp. 671–687.

O'Connor, M., 2000, Pathways for environmental valuation: a walk in the (hanging)

gardens of Babylon. Ecological Economics, (34), pp. 175–194.

O’Connor, M., 2006, The “Four Spheres” framework for sustainability. Ecological

Complexity, 3, pp. 285-292

PCE (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment), 2004 Missing Links:

Connecting Science with Environmental Policy (Wellington, New Zealand, PCE).

Ravetz, J. R., 1986, Usable knowledge, usable ignorance: incomplete science with

policy implications, in W. C Clarke & R. E. Munns (Eds) Sustainable

Development of the Biosphere (Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University), pp.

415–434.

Ravetz, J. R., 2006, Post-normal science and the complexity of transitions towards

sustainability. Ecological Complexity, 3, pp. 275–284.

Ravetz, J. & Funtowicz, S., 1999, Post-normal science – an insight now maturing.

Futures, 31, pp. 641–646.

Rayner, S., 2006, Wicked Problems, Clumsy Solutions: Diagnoses and Prescriptions

for Environmental Ills (Available at

www.martininstitute.ox.ac.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C3EDD045-9E3B-4053-9229-

9CF76660AAC6/645/JackBealeLectureWickedproblems.pdf).

Rittel, H. & Webber, M., 1973, Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy

Sciences, 4, pp. 155–169.

Sarewitz, D.,2004, How science makes environmental controversies worse.

Environmental Science and Policy, 7, pp. 385–403.

Sheltair Group, 2003 A Sustainable Urban System, the Long-term Plan for Urban

Vancouver (www.sheltair.com/library_usp.html).

Sondeijker, S., Geurts, J., Rotmans, J. & Tukker, A., 2006, Imagining sustainability:

the added value of transition scenarios in transition management. Foresight, 8,

pp. 15–30.

Stone, L-J., 2005a, Limitations of cleaner production programmes for business I:

Achieving commitment and on-going improvement. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 14, pp. 1–14.

27

Stone, L.-J., 2005b, Limitations of cleaner production programmes for business II:

Leadership, support, communication, involvement and programme design.

Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, pp. 15–30.

Sustainable Auckland, 2007a, Eight Sustainability Goals in Full

(www.sustainingauckland.org.nz).

Sustainable Auckland, 2007b, Report on Design Workshop, August 2006

(www.sustainingauckland.org.nz).

Sustainable Auckland, 2007c, Expert Themes Papers

(www.sustainingauckland.org.nz).

Sustainable Auckland, 2007d, Long-Term Sustainability Framework for the Auckland

Region (www.sustainingauckland.org.nz).

Sustainable Auckland, 2007e, Summary Report on Stakeholder Engagement and

Public Consultation on the December 06 Draft Long Term Sustainability

Framework for the Auckland Region (LTSF) (www.sustainingauckland.org.nz).

Sustainable Auckland, 2007f, Draft Auckland Sustainability Framework: An agenda

for the future. (www.sustainingauckland.org.nz).

Taylor, R. & Allen, W. Changing household behaviours: learning for urban

sustainability, submitted to The Innovation Journal

Taylor, R., Frame, B., Delaney K. & Brignall-Theyer, M., 2007 Work in progress –

four future scenarios for New Zealand (Lincoln, New Zealand, Manaaki Whenua

Press).

Tregidga, H. M. & Milne, M. J., 2006, From sustainable management to sustainable

development: a longitudinal analysis of a leading New Zealand environmental

reporter. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(4), pp. 219–241.

Tonn, B. E., 2007, Futures sustainability. Futures, doi:10.1016/j.futures.2007.03.018

van Asselt M.B.A., Rijkens-Klomp, N., 2002, A look in the mirror: reflection on

participation in integrated assessment from a methodological perspective. Global

Environmental Change 12, 167-184.

van Notten, P. W. F., Rotmans, J., van Asselt, M. B. A. & Rothman, D. S., 2003, An

updated scenario typology. Futures, 35(5), pp. 423–443.

Verweij, M., Douglas, M., Ellis, R., Engel, C., Hendriks, F., Lohmann, S., Ney, S.,

Rayner S., Thompson, M., 2006, Clumsy solutions for a complex world: the case of

climate change. Public Administration 84 (4), 817-843.

28

von Schomberg, R., Guimarães Pereira Â., Funtowicz, S., 2006 Deliberating

foresight knowledge for policy and foresight knowledge assessment. In Guimarães

Pereira et al., 2006, 146-174.

Wallace, D., 2007, From future states to images of identity. Foresight, 9, pp. 26–36.

Walz, A., Lardelli, C., Behrendt, H., Grêt-Regamey, A., Lundström, C., Kytzia, S. &

Bebi, P., 2007, Participatory scenario analysis for integrated regional

modelling. Landscape and Urban Planning, in press.

WCED (The World Commission on Environment and Development), 1987, Our

Common Future (Oxford, Oxford University Press).

Wiek, A., Binder, C. & Scholz, R. W., 2006, Functions of scenarios in transition

process. Futures, 38, pp. 740–766.

Zöllner, E., 2004, Urban Policy in New Zealand – New Initiatives and Familiar

Barriers, Urban Policy and Research, 22(2), 221-230

29

Figure 1. Key elements of the Auckland Sustainability Framework (from Sustainable

Auckland, 2007d).