Three Horizons APathways Practicefor Transformation

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/304563088
Three horizons: A pathways practice for transformation
Article in ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY · June 2016

DOI: 10.5751/ES-08388-210247
CITATIONS READS
153 9,781
5 authors, including:
Bill Sharpe Anthony Hodgson

Independent Researcher University of Dundee
15 PUBLICATIONS 367 CITATIONS 26 PUBLICATIONS 1,128 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Graham Leicester Ioan Fazey

international futures forum The University of York
18 PUBLICATIONS 385 CITATIONS 40 PUBLICATIONS 2,899 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Transformation Research View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Graham Leicester on 31 July 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Copyright © 2016 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.
Sharpe, B., A. Hodgson, G. Leicester, A. Lyon, and I. Fazey. 2016. Three horizons: a pathways practice for transformation. Ecology
and Society 21(2):47. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08388-210247
Insight
Three horizons: a pathways practice for transformation

Bill Sharpe 1, Anthony Hodgson 1,2, Graham Leicester 1, Andrew Lyon 1 and Ioan Fazey 2
ABSTRACT. Global environmental change requires responses that involve marked or qualitative changes in individuals, institutions,
societies, and cultures. Yet, while there has been considerable effort to develop theory about such processes, there has been limited
research on practices for facilitating transformative change. We present a novel pathways approach called Three Horizons that helps
participants work with complex and intractable problems and uncertain futures. The approach is important for helping groups work
with uncertainty while also generating agency in ways not always addressed by existing futures approaches. We explain how the approach
uses a simple framework for structured and guided dialogue around different patterns of change by using examples. We then discuss
some of the key characteristics of the practice that facilitators and participants have found to be useful. This includes (1) providing a
simple structure for working with complexity, (2) helping develop future consciousness (an awareness of the future potential in the
present moment), (3) helping distinguish between incremental and transformative change, (4) making explicit the processes of power
and patterns of renewal, (5) enabling the exploration of how to manage transitions, and (6) providing a framework for dialogue among
actors with different mindsets. The complementarity of Three Horizons to other approaches (e.g., scenario planning, dilemma thinking)
is then discussed. Overall, we highlight that there is a need for much greater attention to researching practices of transformation in
ways that bridge different kinds of knowledge, including episteme and phronesis. Achieving this will itself require changes to
contemporary systems of knowledge production. The practice of Three Horizons could be a useful way to explore how such
transformations in knowledge production and use could be achieved.
Key Words: adaptation pathways; climate change; scenarios; transformation; transition
INTRODUCTION with uncertain futures in imaginative ways while also retaining

Climate and other environmental change is a serious threat to the important societal features from the present. Interest in Three
security and well-being of the expected 9–10 billion population Horizons has been growing over the last decade, and this
of the planet (Rockstrom et al. 2009, Nicholls et al. 2011, IPCC approach is increasingly being used in a variety of contexts as a
2013). The viability of business-as-usual ways of life will be way to help navigate complexity and identify actions to encourage
affected, and transformational changes throughout society at change (e.g., Table 1). While this paper is not based on formalized
many social and geographical scales are required (Stafford-Smith academic research, it does present the outcomes of cumulative
et al. 2011, O'Brien and Sygna 2013). Yet, the knowledge we critical reflective practice and experiential knowledge of skilled
already have that can inform transformational change is not being facilitators of futures-oriented approaches. This knowledge
effectively used (O'Brien 2011), and the knowledge and processes provides new insights about the approach and transformation in
of change we do have are limited in their ability to work with the practice.
systemic complexity of global problems and to influence action
We first explain the need for new approaches for exploring
at the rates needed to avoid dangerous climate change (Frame and
transformative change and then outline the methodological
Brown 2008, Sardar 2010, O'Brien 2012).
approach taken to articulating the practical knowledge we
New capacities for transformation are needed (Frame and Brown present. We then describe the Three Horizons approach and the
2008, Sardar 2010, Miller 2011, ISSC 2012, Proust et al. 2012, key features that make it useful for transformative thinking and
ISSC and UNESCO 2013, Kläy et al. 2015). This includes the insights that have emerged from using the approach. Overall,
approaches to help facilitate transitions, open up thinking, this will be of wide relevance to academics and practitioners
reimagine futures, work with intractable problems, encourage interested in learning about how to conceptualize, study, and
dialogue across diverse groups of people, and provide a sense of facilitate the practice of transformation.
empowerment and hope in an era where the extent of the
challenges seems overwhelming and debilitating (Frame and The need for new approaches to facilitate transformation
Brown 2008, Miller 2011, Ison et al. 2014, Wicks and Jamieson Working with complexity
2014, Kläy et al. 2015). While there are clear overlaps, a focus on Two important challenges related to the practice of
transformation is different from resilience, which is often transformation are working with complexity and with the future.
interpreted as adapting to retain current system functions and First, many studies highlight the inherent complexity of
processes, while transformation is focused on creating significant contemporary challenges, describing them as “wicked” (Rittel
systemic changes (Walker et al. 2004, Gallopin 2006). In relation and Webber 1973), working in a “swamp” (Rosenhead 2006),
to issues like climate change, transformation implies a need to “messy” (Ackoff 1979), “conceptual emergencies” (Leicester and
focus on accelerating the development of processes and practices O'Hara 2009), or hyper-complex problems (Scharmer 2009 in
for change (O'Brien 2012). We respond to such calls by outlining O'Brien 2013). These problems, by definition, defy any single way
a practice called Three Horizons that can be used to help work
1
International Futures Forum, The Boathouse, Silversands, Aberdour, Fife, UK, 2Centre for Environmental Change and Human Resilience,
University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
Ecology and Society 21(2): 47
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art47/
Table 1. Examples where Three Horizons (3H) dialogue has been used to facilitate change and innovation.
Participants Background Aims and Objectives Process and Role of 3H

Case Study
Intelligent UK Govt. Office for £8Bn a year invested to maintain Explore how science and Combination of science reviews,
Infrastructure Science & Technology and develop UK transport technology could, over the scenarios, and technology forward
Systems Foresight Unit, with input infrastructure; next 50 years, bring look;
from a wide community of Investments can last 50–100 intelligence into Three Horizons used to link the
experts in government, years or longer; infrastructure to meet components together
academia, and industry Investment needs to meet demanding and sometimes
(2006) conflicting and changing conflicting objectives of
demands, and be safe and investments for transport
resilient to shocks infrastructure
Challenges facing Carnegie UK Trust, Long-term pressures on rural Undertake a comprehensive Commission of Inquiry;
rural communities Commission on Rural communities, and a firm belief consultation on the challenges Three Horizons used to integrate
Community Development that a vibrant rural life is a vital and opportunities facing rural material from the Inquiry, develop
(2007) and International component of an enduring, communities across the UK a future-oriented “scenario” view,
Futures Forum balanced, and healthy society and Ireland in recent years, support strategic visioning,
and look ahead to the future determine transformative (H2)
of rural areas actions
Transformative Scottish Inspectorate of Radical changes required in Support transformative Three Horizons strategic
innovation in Schools, Education education needed to prepare innovation with a highly conversations used to develop a
education: Scotland, and International young people for an uncertain decentralized, bottom-up, 3H kit for schools to enable them
“Opening up Futures Forum future system-wide approach to develop their own
Transformative transformative initiatives
Innovation,” 3H kit
for schools
Climate change Glasgow community and Conflict in discussions betweenTo improve the dynamics of Facilitation and framing of
community action International Futures meeting outcomes required by collaboration on climate community leader conversations,
Forum grant givers and values of lifechange to meet both formal using Three Horizon
for those affected institutional and community understanding of horizons as
objectives forms of conscious perspective
Transition to Major European oil and Using foresight methods to To develop a managerial Scenario method combined with
renewable energy gas company explore new paradigm of energy understanding toward Three Horizons to develop a
and the transition issues reframing strategy and credible research and development
investment portfolio story to guide resource
deployment
of characterizing them (Rittel and Webber 1973). Nevertheless, Working with the future
they can broadly be considered as possessing dynamic complexity, A second challenge is the need to work effectively with an
social complexity (where conflicting values and cultures exist “incompletely known and uncertain future” (Wilkinson 2008:274
among diverse stakeholders), and generative complexity (where in Ramirez et al. 2008). Futures practices in general support ways
the intended future cannot be addressed only by existing of taking decisions in the present that are as well-informed about
knowledge) (Scharmer 2009 in O'Brien 2013). Contemporary the future as we can make them, while recognizing ignorance and
problems can also be characterized as having ambivalent goals, uncertainty. If there is no uncertainty, then plans and decisions
uncertain knowledge, and distributed power (Voß et al. 2007). We can be made about how to act to achieve the desired outcome.
broadly refer to these challenges as “complex problems.” Futures methods therefore connect agency (human decisions,
choices, actions, and capacities) (Câmpeanu and Fazey 2014) and
Working with complex problems requires approaches that can
intent to irreducible uncertainty about the future context and the
work with both biophysical and social understanding of systems
effect of our actions.
at interrelated scales (Folke et al. 2010); engage diverse individuals
and institutions (Voß et al. 2007); distinguish between and link There are many tools and approaches for working with the future
incremental and transformative change (Wise et al. 2014b); make (Van der Heijden 2005, Miller 2011, Hodgson 2012, Mahony
issues of power and competing values open and amenable to 2014, Milojević and Izgarjan 2014, Videira et al. 2014). They can
discussion and resolution (Voß et al. 2007, Valorinta et al. 2011); broadly be classified according to how they deal with agency and
and work effectively through learning, invention, and innovation uncertainty (Fig. 1). First, there are traditional forecasting and
to help purposely move toward uncertain futures (Voß et al. 2007, planning approaches, such as weather and economic forecasting,
Wilkinson 2008:274 in Ramirez et al. 2008). While much progress that work with low social and generative complexity (bottom left
has been made in understanding complexity (Newell 2012, quadrant). In these approaches, the future is generally conceived
McGowan et al. 2014) and the different values held by different of as being an extension of the past and is predictable within a
stakeholders (Christie et al. 2012, Kenter et al. 2015), there are set of known sources of variation, even though such changes may
still major practical challenges in working with multiple be very hard to model or understand.
perspectives and norms (Frame and Brown 2008, Holman 2011,
McGowan et al. 2014).
Third, there are approaches that work well with uncertainty but
Fig. 1. The different kinds of tools for working with the future. do not necessarily result in high degrees of agency in the same
The horizontal axis represents the degree of uncertainty about way that roadmaps do (bottom right quadrant). This includes
the future; the vertical axis represents the extent to which the scenarios. These are perceptual tools for exploring uncertainties
tools enhance a degree of agency. Four domains indicate the in an unknown future; they are usually developed as a small set
relative strengths of different tools and approaches. For (two to four) of plausible and structurally different futures
example, scenarios are generally most useful when the future is (Peterson et al. 2003, Van der Heijden 2005). Although scenario
highly uncertain, but often on their own have limited capacity approaches can generate agency (see next paragraph), scenarios
to identify strategies for achieving different futures. Roadmaps do not by themselves reveal strategies, and are instead part of an
tend to be most useful in circumstances where there is greater input to a strategy process (Ramirez and Van der Heijden 2007).
certainty, where they provide clearer directions for change. New Scenario planning therefore actively seeks out sources of
pathways approaches are emerging, which aim to enhance uncertainty and keeps them visible in ways that challenge the
agency in situations of high uncertainty. The arrows indicate assumptions on which current activities are based. The output of
that some scenario approaches, depending on how they are a scenario planning project is a set of different scenarios that
applied, also can work well in the high uncertainty and high highlight critical uncertainties by using distinct stories or visual
agency domain, and that many existing pathways approaches representations of alternative futures.
are aligned more closely with roadmaps.
Roadmaps are concerned mostly with coordinating social
complexity, whereas scenarios are theorized as exploring and re-
perceiving the dynamic complexity and uncertainty of the future
(Ramirez et al. 2008) (Fig. 1). This leaves an important space for
approaches that bring agency into the full domain of future
uncertainty (top right quadrant, Fig. 1). A variety of scenario
planning approaches are used for this, such as normative,
transformative, and participatory approaches, those which
combine exploratory and normative scenarios, and those that use
backcasting to develop normative strategies within a scenario
framework (Ogilvy 2002, Bell 2003, van Notten et al. 2003, Voß
et al. 2007, Kok et al. 2011, Kahane 2012). Privileging agency of
participants is a critical aspect of such futures work (Ogilvy 2002,
Bell 2003, Weisbord and Jasanoff 2010). Increasingly, however, a
new set of approaches, known as pathways approaches, attempt
both to deal with complexity and provide agency (Fig. 1). There
are many different interpretations of pathways approaches
(Leach 2008, Haasnoot et al. 2012, Wise et al. 2014b, Fazey et al.
2015), but essentially they aim to help work toward new futures
in a semiexploratory way (e.g., by identifying different routes and
paths) but without the specificity of a single roadmap that
Second, there are approaches that generate high agency but which
assumes the ability to control all the sources of complexity. Many
work best in situations where the uncertainty can be managed by
of the existing pathways approaches are, however, highly
bringing it fully within the scope of the actors involved to
technical, and work on identifying key decision points and critical
collectively assert their agency (top left quadrant). This includes
junctures in ways that do not easily translate well into the messy
roadmaps, which are a strategic planning exercise focused around
and subjective world of complexity in practice. Such pathways
a complex issue that involves step-by-step progress and learning.
approaches are often more similar to roadmap techniques, and
Roadmaps usually involve bringing together expertise to assemble
have an underlying assumption of well-understood systemic
paths toward the future in relation to intermediate goals, and
causality and an intention to identify linear directions for
aligning intent among many parties to direct resources and
establishing new futures.
activity toward shared goals (Saritas and Aylen 2010). In
technology, the classic case is the semiconductor industry Currently, there are limited futures-oriented approaches that
roadmap, which was based on the premise that computing power simultaneously work with complexity, diverse perspectives, and
would increase exponentially (Moore 1965). Through continued values and still provide space for the kinds of imagination,
resourcing and shared effort, the roadmap helped ensure the creativity, and emergence necessary to go beyond incremental or
future was realized. The roadmap orientation to the future is marginal change. While there are exceptions (Burns 2007, Burns
therefore about creating a strong sense of shared agency while and Worsley 2015), many existing approaches are complex and
also reducing uncertainty in more manageable ways through technical, and there is a need instead for approaches that can help
shared research and development. The outcome is usually a single generate futures literacy among broad constituencies of
roadmap that characterizes the path of action and learning the participants in transformative change (Miller 2011, O'Brien et al.
participants intend to pursue. This provides the agency but does 2013). We outline a relatively new approach called Three Horizons
not allow significant space for the emergence of new and uncertain practice, which was first introduced as an analytic lens for
future conditions that might require going down new paths. foresight work (Sharpe and Hodgson 2006, Curry and Hodgson
2008). Three Horizons practice supports thinking and dialogue situations, and training 135 people to use the approach. We have
about transformation, and while it has been used in many contexts also spent considerable effort in learning from and about the
(Table 1), as yet, there has been limited critical explanation and approach, innovating, and reflecting on its outcomes, including
examination of the approach. having numerous discussions that have led to refinements and
improvements, and ultimately this paper.
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
We outline the Three Horizons practice to encourage further and Importantly, it is not our intention to present this work as an
wider debate about the facilitation of transformative change. The academic piece that “tests the effectiveness” of Three Horizons,
research approach used to generate the insights, however, does presents “evidence” of its value, or promotes the approach above
not conform to traditional methodological approaches used in other useful approaches. We also do not suggest that the work
academia. Instead, it is an articulation of the extensive experience meets notions of rigor applied in the social sciences that are used
the authors have gained through developing and using Three to develop epistemic knowledge, and some may therefore label
Horizons in purposive reflective practice. this paper as no more than a “practice note.” Instead, we have
worked carefully to find the best way to articulate what we think
Researchers tend to focus on epistemic forms of knowledge, which we know from reflecting on the facilitation of Three Horizons.
is logically built up and then applied back to practice (Aristotle The work can therefore be considered as the outcome of action-
2004). Such knowledge is teachable and often represented as a set oriented, first-person inquiries by practitioners (Reason and
of principles or guidelines. Such principles are used to illuminate Bradbury 2008), and our intention is to lay a foundation for others
an issue and inform judgment, but they do not prescribe action. to apply Three Horizons, develop their own practical
This requires more practice-oriented forms of knowledge, such understanding, and come to their own conclusions in their own
as techne or “know how” knowledge and phronesis (practical settings and contexts about the relevance and validity of the
wisdom)(Aristotle 2004). The latter involves knowing how to act approach. This paper should therefore be viewed as a set of
and reflect appropriately to achieve “good ends” (Shotter and propositions about (1) the practice of Three Horizons, and (2)
Tsoukas 2014). Techne and phronesis are usually concerned with the more general insights about the nature of transformation that
the particulars of the situation and what is experienced (Van De have emerged from its practice. These propositions can then be
Ven and Johnson 2006, Shotter and Tsoukas 2014), such as the examined in further detail by using more deductive
knowledge applied by expert facilitators when working with methodologies, such as through critical and reflexive action
different groups of people, solar technicians installing solar research and comparative case studies (Ison et al. 2014).
panels in different circumstances, or doctors working with
different patients. Eliciting such knowledge is challenging because THREE HORIZONS AS A PATHWAYS PRACTICE
the process of elicitation separates the knowledge from the person
in which it is embodied and the context to which it is applied Three Horizons framework
(Barab and Plucker 2002). In this section, we outline how Three Horizons practice is often
used. The practice typically involves a facilitated conversation
Epistemic knowledge alone cannot facilitate the kinds of change with diverse stakeholders to assist sense-making and strategic
needed to address contemporary societal challenges, and other action. It can be facilitated through multiday workshops or as
forms of practical knowledge are required. Yet, despite this need, short exercises to complement other activities, including working
techne and phronesis are not well recognized by academics. This in ways that are complementary to other approaches and tools.
results in the theories of pure researchers dictating actions of Three Horizons practice uses a simple framework that can easily
those in practice (Pryjmachuk 1996), or practitioners ignoring be communicated in a few minutes. This framework includes three
theoretical insights because they do not find them useful (Rolfe lines, with each line representing a system or pattern in the way
1998). Standard attempts to close the perceived “gap” between things are done in a particular area of interest (e.g., how an
academia and practice then usually involves academics trying to organization operates, particular values in society, or the use of
develop better strategies for dissemination and greater use of certain forms of technology) (Fig. 2). The horizontal axis
research findings, which makes the gap wider by suppressing represents time stretching into the future from the present, and
professional judgment and forcing practitioners to use ill-suited the vertical axis indicates the prevalence of each pattern in a
research findings (Rolfe 1998). relative way. The framework represents three different patterns:
We therefore take a different approach to that normally presented an established first horizon pattern giving way over time to an
in academic journals. We aim to articulate how Three Horizons emerging third horizon, via transitional activity in the second
practice is approached and used (techne), and discuss the insights horizon.
about change and transformation that have emerged from The first horizon (H1): This represents the way things are done
facilitating Three Horizons practice, which help make judgments now, generally called “business as usual.” Society relies on stable
about “good ends” (phronesis). These insights have emerged from patterns for the everyday business of life, and most change is
our collective practical knowledge of learning how to apply the incremental within these familiar patterns and serves to reproduce
approach in diverse contexts in combination with many other and reinforce them. The starting point of a three horizon
approaches, and from the facilitation of groups trying to make conversation is the recognition that the first horizon pattern is
sense of, and work with, complexity. Together, we have losing its fit with emerging conditions.
approximately 90 years of experience in facilitation of futures and
strategy thinking and about 35 years of facilitating Three
Horizons. This includes using the approach in about 180 different
The practice of Three Horizons

Fig. 2. Three Horizons. “Prevalence” refers to the extent to Although Three Horizons has a simple framework, it can be
which a particular pattern dominates the issue of concern (e.g., thought of as a practice rather than a theory, concept, or idea.
way of doing things, use of a particular technology, set of This is because it involves a facilitated process with a diverse group
values). These patterns change over time. H1 is a current, of stakeholders to map out how different patterns change over
declining, pattern. H3 represents an emerging future pattern. time. It is the experience of being involved in the process that helps
H2 is the turbulent domain of transitional activities and participants reframe their understanding of the relationship
innovations which people are trying out in response to the between the present and the future. This makes it different from
changing landscape between H1 and H3. Importantly, each way detailed concepts and frameworks, such as multilevel perspectives
of doing things is present at all times, albeit to a greater or on socio-technical transitions, technological innovation systems,
lesser extent. H2- and H2+ highlight that innovations emerging or the sociology of expectations (Borup et al. 2006, Geels and
in H2 can either be subsumed back into H1 or go on to create Schot 2007, Bergek et al. 2008), which are used predominantly as
the space for, and emergence of, H3. explanatory abstractions and heuristics. The simple structure of
Three Horizons makes it highly accessible to diverse participants,
including children (e.g., Leicester et al. 2013), and allows for the
incorporation of different dimensions of existing theories (e.g.,
multilevel perspectives) when required.
There are usually five key steps involved in the practice of Three
Horizons. They are illustrated through an example (Fig. 3) where
a local authority sought to explore how to transition toward and
implement a new Curriculum for Excellence in Scotland (CfE).
This aimed to be a radical departure from existing curricular and
educational approaches. In this case, the Three Horizons dialogue
process assisted thinking within the local authority about how to
meet the challenges and opportunities within the emerging policy
framework while continuing to deliver effective education through
the transition period (Fig. 3). The following steps were used to
explore this transition:
The third horizon (H3): This represents the emerging pattern that
will be the long-term successor to the current first horizon. It is Step 1: Examining present concerns. A three horizon conversation
appearing and growing on the fringes of the present system, and begins by bringing the issue of concern into view and describing
developing new ways of meeting the emerging conditions and the ways in which the current way of doing things is seen to be
possibilities. Although some dominant pattern will eventually losing its fit with emerging conditions. In the CfE example, the
emerge, in the process of developing a three horizon map, many emergence of personalized, adaptive teaching technology,
different views of the future will be present and contested. alongside pervasive digital delivery offered a multitude of new
ways to structure individual learning paths. This required a
The second horizon (H2): This is the turbulent domain of
complete rethink of the role of the teacher, classroom, and school
transitional activities and innovations that people are trying out
to make best use of emerging opportunities and changing
in response to the changing landscape between the first and third
context.
horizons. This second horizon is important, as it provides the
disruptions for more radical 3H systems to emerge. Some Step 2: Exploring future aspirations. This involves examining the
innovations (H2+) will help extend the H1 systems and facilitate third horizon, where visions, aspirations, and possibilities for the
the emergence of H3 systems. Many innovations will fail, and reality that will emerge over time are explored as a replacement
others (H2-) will be absorbed back into the H1 systems and of the first horizon. In CfE, the emerging technologies offered
contribute only to marginal or incremental change. A good possibilities to link the school and home in many more ways to
example are photovoltaic cells (solar panels). They have support learning, and there were aspirations for teachers to be
significant potential to generate a revolution in the power learners, and for children to have greater responsibility and
relations between traditional consumers and producers of energy. ownership of their learning.
Consumers can become producers, and create the conditions for
Step 3: Exploring inspirational practice in the present. The second
radical and transformative innovations in storage capacity and
step generally merges with the third step, which is to identify
localized production that remove market dominance of existing
“pockets of the future in the present,” which are concrete examples
large energy companies (Schleicher-Tappeser 2012). Whether the
of where new ways of doing things are visible at the margins of
H2 innovations become subsumed or controlled by existing
the mainstream first horizon systems. In CfE, this involved both
energy generation patterns and actors or go on to generate
looking to existing practices locally and examining the huge
transformative outcomes remain to be seen, and will depend on
variety of educational systems globally and the different
an array of social, political, and technological factors, including
approaches they provide.
the extent of the ability of different actors to influence regulatory
demands. Step 4: Innovations in play. This step considers the second
horizon, which is viewed as the realm of transition between the
first and third horizons, and innovations are identified that can
Fig. 3. An example of the outcome of using Three Horizons as a process to structure dialogue developed through working with a
local authority in Scotland to transition to the Curriculum for Excellence. The black numbered boxes represent the order in which
different aspects of the Three Horizons are explored. The dark grey shaded boxes were items given to participants by the facilitators
to trigger thinking about how things might change in the future. These prompted wider discussion and are represented by the lighter
shaded boxes. The figure is an anonymized version with only a sample of the items included.
be seen to be going on in response to the failings of the first action, such as examining trade-offs and dilemmas, and how some
horizon and the possibilities of the third. For example, in CfE, a H2 innovations can serve to prop up H1 systems or go on to
huge number of new players were identified, coming from both provide new space for emergence of H3 systems, and how the
inside and outside the education system, who are introducing new participants relate to acting on these possibilities. The specific
digital platforms such as MOOCs (Massive Open Online process is highly contingent on the project context, but in general,
Courses). These have gained a great deal of attention and are the aim of a 3H conversation is to get into action by identifying
evolving rapidly in ways that open up further opportunities in the actions in the second and third horizons that will take a step along
H2 space. The outcome of many of these disruptive innovations the pathway of change. These issues are covered in the next section
is not yet clear. as part of the discussions about the useful features of Three
Horizons practice.
Step 5: Essential features to maintain. The final step draws
attention to those aspects of the old system that will persist into USEFUL FEATURES OF THREE HORIZONS PRACTICE
the future within the context of the new dominant system. These
are often examined as the key or desirable elements that need to A simple framework to help work with complexity
be retained. We have found that one of the most useful aspects of Three
Horizons is that it provides a simple structure for working with
Finally, a number of additional steps are typically added to the complexity around which dialogue about change from one pattern
process that make the move from sense-making to transformative to another can occur. While this is not as comprehensive as deeper
explanatory theories and approaches to change (Waddock et al. participants explore dominant patterns of activity and more
2015), a deep explanatory framework is not the intention. Instead, transformative ways of doing things. Through the facilitation of
we have found that the pre-given framework is simple enough to Three Horizons practice, participants begin to recognize that the
allow participants to add their own issues and perspectives, help first horizon is not static and that dominant pattern(s) of activity
them begin to make sense of the complexity in a holistic way, are actively maintained and reproduced by social processes. That
avoid constraints in thinking about how progressive change may is, invention and innovation are always going on in which the
unfold, and explore the role of different components in a system renews itself and gets “better” in its own terms, such as
particular change context or situation. We have also found it computers getting faster, drugs getting better, guns getting more
helpful to avoid deep dialogue around concepts like transition, lethal, and political parties producing their manifestos. Such
resilience, or transformation, which in our experience often patterns are actively maintained by many social actors: those who
creates inertia and inhibits action. Unlike scenario planning, we produce them, use them, and govern them with tacit and explicit
have also found that the Three Horizons framework avoids the rules, laws, and norms.
need to create a unique structure for each particular issue or
An example is the outcomes of many attempts in practical
context. Creating a Three Horizons map can be done in only a
domains to enhance resilience. While origins of the concept in
few hours or through much longer sessions. While developing
environmental domains highlight the importance of adaptability
deep understanding takes time, a short discussion can give a
and flexibility in social and ecological domains as a key source of
preliminary grip on a situation which then motivates further
resilience (Holling 2001), the concept of resilience is increasingly
enquiry and more detailed explorations to help shape the
used in diverse ways (Chandler 2013). In particular, it can often
implementation of the actions identified.
be interpreted as a process for maintaining the status quo rather
Development of future consciousness than for creating more systemic levels of change or in ways that
While it is common to represent societal change as succeeding S- do not acknowledge ecological feedbacks from human actions
curves (Perez 2004, Tibbs 2011), this does not draw attention to (Whiteman et al. 2004, Pelling 2011). Examples include finding
the fact that change always originates in the present (Curry and more flexible ways to keep motorways open or airplanes flying
Hodgson 2008). In the practice of Three Horizons, a key step is when societies are faced with various natural and human hazards.
to identify examples of the third horizon in the present (pockets This reinforces or enables environmentally unsustainable
of the future in the present), and consider how this new pattern economies, even though the perseverance of heavily
can emerge through the transitional second horizon. We have consumption-based economies continues to influence underlying
found that Three Horizons can help participants situate the causes of increasing threats from natural hazards through climate
present moment in relation to the future. This is because it helps change. Such well-intentioned approaches to resilience prop up
them regard each horizon as a quality of the future in the present, existing systems in ways that early proponents of social-ecological
with each horizon characterizing a distinct way of acting in the resilience sought to avoid (Holling and Meffe 1996, Holling 2001,
present with a qualitatively different relationship to current and Folke 2006). In Three Horizons practice, these kinds of
future patterns. The first horizon is characterized as a adjustments might be interpreted as sustaining the first horizon
“managerial” mindset, which keeps things going in familiar ways; political-economic structures. In contrast, transformation is then
the second is the entrepreneurial orientation that seizes an understood as requiring renewal of those structures in the
opportunity; and the third is the visionary outlook that holds an transition to the third horizon. This interpretation of
imagined future in mind and steers toward it. In this sense, our transformation is consistent with many of those in the academic
experience suggests the approach can help different actors bring literature (Walker et al. 2004, Gallopin 2006).
all three orientations to the future into view and encourage By exploring first and third horizon patterns, we have found that
participants to work with these horizons in a flexible way— participants begin to appreciate how active processes of
moving from holding any one orientation as a fixed mindset to innovation can often help maintain and reinforce current systems
using them all as alternative perspectives. in ways that paradoxically limit change, and result in only minor
This step into an explicit awareness and use of all three incremental advances over time. Working with the first horizon
perspectives can be thought of as “future consciousness,” or an also highlights how incremental changes that maintain this
awareness of the future potential of the present and how the future horizon can result in “fixes that fail.” For example, an issue
emerges from what is done now (Sharpe 2013). This relates to calls explored in the Intelligent Infrastructure Systems foresight
for “effective future-mindedness” (Ramirez et al. 2008) or futures project (Table 1) was the need to transition to sustainable forms
literacy (Miller 2011). Developing future consciousness highlights of transport with greatly reduced greenhouse gas emissions. In
that effective transformational practice needs to engage people in this case, participants came to the conclusion that the first horizon
developing their own role in shaping the future in a reflexive and transport system needed to continually increase the provision of
reflective way, so that they can take responsibility for the process transport infrastructure to keep up with increasing demand. Yet,
of making transformation happen. the gains from greater efficiencies that emerged from new
incremental innovations were generally being lost when the use
Distinguishing between incremental and transformative change of transport in the system overall increased. This highlighted that
Being able to distinguish between actions that generate transformation to a fully sustainable system therefore involved
incremental or transformative change is important for more not only major transitions to clean energy but also ways to contain
effectively transitioning to new futures (Wise et al. 2014a). Yet, demand, such as through new patterns of mobility achieved by
this is difficult because transformation is often apparent only after alternative forms of urban design and different work and leisure
it has occurred. We have found that Three Horizons helps social practices. Through contrasting first and third horizon
patterns, participants were then able to consider a new system By working with Three Horizons, we have found that the processes
that was a better fit to emerging conditions (e.g., a low carbon that support or resist change can be made amenable to discussion,
economy) and that included changes in the underlying which can help participants think about how to manage the
assumptions that put boundaries on incremental change. In our transitions and change those processes. This does not mean that
experience, practicing Three Horizons can therefore help everyone will necessarily agree on what the third horizon and
participants distinguish between incremental and transformative pattern of renewal should be. Quite the reverse: the practice offers
change, but in a way that enables them to bring these aspects a way to identify where there are disagreements and help inform
together and consider the transitions necessary to move from one which actors need to be convened to support the process of change
form of action to another. and renewal. We refer to this process as “Convening the Future”
(Sharpe 2013). This relates directly to the observations of both
Making power explicit Weisbord and Jasanoff (2010), in their Future Search method,
Deliberate societal transformation involves intentionally trying and Kahane (2012), in his Transformative Scenario Planning
to direct patterns of change. This requires exploring who has the method, that it is crucial to get the “whole system” in the room.
power to resist or bring about change, to what extent change can Three Horizons does not take a view on whether the whole system
be created, and the relationships between different actors (Hatt must be convened, since often change is brought about by
2013, Geels 2014). Through facilitating Three Horizons, we have challengers outside the system, but it does support the enquiry
found that it can help participants explore issues of power in two and facilitate constructive dialogue in systemic ways among those
main ways. First, through focused discussions it assists who view the world through particular horizon perspectives (see
practitioners to identify how different actors can most usefully Framework for dialogue among different actors).
influence change. For example, in the Intelligent Infrastructure
Systems project (Table 1), it became apparent through discussions Exploring the management of transitions
that an individual citizen can do little to influence the availability In our experience of using Three Horizons, we have found that it
of electric cars beyond exercising their consumer choice, but they helps maintain focus on the management of transitions.
might join a green lobby group to campaign for change; an Consideration of the first horizon brings out the initial scoping
entrepreneur can raise capital and pioneer innovative of the issue and the indicators of stress and loss of fit that are
technologies but cannot do much to put in place needed motivating the need for change. Discussing the third horizon then
infrastructure, and they need pioneering citizens as customers; or allows participants to drop the assumptions that would keep
a government transport minister has power to influence policies responses within the incremental range of the first horizon
but might need the active support of industry groups and lobby system. This frees participants to explore a wide range of
groups to drive change and shift social norms around the use of transformational possibilities by drawing both on what they see
cars. out in the world as responses to the changing context and their
own visions and aspirations. The exploration of the second
Second, through facilitating the practice of Three Horizons, we
horizon is then placed between these two as the zone of transition
have found that the approach can help participants explore
between the existing systems of the first horizon and the emerging
whether or how society is organized to manage the processes of
or imagined third. This enables discussions to focus on managing
moving toward the third horizon depending on the nature of the
the transitional process from current to transformative ways of
societies in which they live. For example, democratic societies have
doing things. In the Intelligent Infrastructure Futures example
established processes for the orderly transfer of power, and can
(Table 1), transport policies for incremental improvements in
renew their laws and the constitution that governs those law-
efficiency (extension of the first horizon) were contrasted with
making processes. Other societies may be unable to transfer power
policies to transform mobility patterns to reduce demand (third
and manage change without violent conflict, collapse, and
horizon transformation), which enabled a focus on second
renewal in the governance structures themselves. In these cases,
horizon policies that would help the third horizon changes to
it may take acts of profound courage to challenge the power of
emerge.
the status quo, and the outcomes will be violently contested.
Similarly, in developed market economies, affairs have been We have found two techniques for exploring the second horizon
organized so that there are distinct policies for governance of the transitional space to be helpful. The first is the distinction between
established businesses of the first horizon, venture investment for “H2 plus” (H2+) innovations, which lead on to the third horizon,
the second, and exploratory research—often government funded and “H2 minus” (H2-) innovations, which may “prop up” the first
through universities—for the third. Most societies have some horizon. Designating innovation as H2 plus or minus is not
policies to limit the power of the first horizon actors, such as absolute but something that can be explored. For example, in the
monopoly rules and preventing cartels (Ma 2013), but powerful Intelligent Infrastructure Futures project (Table 1), one of the
companies can buy up or suppress threatening innovations issues identified was how new technologies would interact with
(Stanford 2012, Gerschel-Clarke 2013, Geels 2014). Incumbents the demand for transport. On the one hand, transport innovations
also have significant power and access to the processes of that increase speed and efficiency were considered to be useful for
government, and can often achieve a degree of regulatory capture, relieving some problems in the short term but still increased
which enables them to exert influence over how new possibilities demand and emissions in the longer term. This then represented
are framed, or resist legislation they perceive as damaging their an H2 minus capture of the innovation by the H1 patterns of
interests (Geels 2014). Differences in the way societies are mobility. On the other, innovations that link transport services to
organized, therefore, have different effects on the way in which new urban planning and shifts toward active transport (walking
renewal occurs or can be precipitated. and cycling) were identified as likely being able to gradually
transform mobility patterns toward a third horizon of sustainable
transport—an H2 plus intervention. This does not mean that H2 who imagines new possible futures and tries to achieve them
minus interventions are inappropriate and there is no a priori through pioneering actions. Many of the ideas of the visionary
“right” view of interventions. Nevertheless, our experience are likely to be considered too far beyond current thinking to be
suggests that considering the role of innovations through Three widely accepted in the present, even though they may eventually
Horizons can help participants identify which ones are more likely become the new normal in the future. The second horizon is the
to lead to transformation. mindset of the entrepreneur, who acts opportunistically to “seize
the day” and bring new ideas and innovations into reality. In
The second technique for exploring the second horizon
discussions about complex issues involving change, participants
transitional space is dilemma thinking (Hampden-Turner 1990,
often bring a particular mindset, and implicitly view the others
Höijer et al. 2006). The central idea is that while decision situations
in adversarial ways (Table 2).
often appear to be exclusive choices, they can sometimes be more
helpfully viewed as two competing sets of values where both must
be respected (Leicester et al. 2013). For example, businesses have Fig. 4. The space of dilemmas between the values of Horizon 1
a dilemma of needing to optimize the current business while and Horizon 3 in the Carnegie case study. In this space, policies
investing in innovation for future revenue. If either is chosen to and experiments are used to progress towards transformation.
the exclusion of the other, the business will eventually fail.
Through facilitating Three Horizons we have found that
discussions about change often become polarized between the
first horizon status quo, seen as “bad,” and the new/desired third
horizon system, viewed as “good.” In any real world situation,
however, there will be much in the existing system that needs to
be carried forward into the new, and aspects of the new that need
to build on contributions from the first rather than to fully
reinvent or ignore them. In the Carnegie case (Table 1), for
example, participants identified historical patterns of land use
and ownership that have been both barriers to, and enablers of,
new patterns of use. This included, for example, increasing trends
toward rural estate owners effectively becoming farmers of wind
or water alongside more traditional agriculture and forestry, and
picking up rich subsidies in the process. Dilemma thinking
addresses such challenges by taking the two sides of a polarity
and presenting them orthogonally, framing a space in which there
can be dynamic movement toward synthesis and resolution (Fig.
4). Dilemmas are therefore not “solved,” but constantly “re-
solved” through experimentation, feedback, learning, and
creative innovation. Overall, approaches such as distinguishing
between H2 plus and minus, and dilemma thinking, complement
other aspects of Three Horizons practice to help participants
identify the kinds of transitional changes that need to be put into We have found that by using Three Horizons, participants become
place to achieve transformation. aware of the different value and role of each horizon and their
associated mindsets, and that this greatly reduces many sources
Framework for dialogue among different actors—the three of tension and conflict. Initially, those responsible for the first
horizon “voices” horizon systems that are important for daily life, who have to meet
Participants involved in Three Horizons practice have indicated ever greater obligations for accountability, transparency, and so
that one of the most useful aspects of the framework is that it on, often regard the third horizon visionary as an irritating and
helps improve the social dynamics of transformative unrealistic nuisance (Table 2). The third horizon pioneer, in
conversations. Through our extensive experimentation and contrast, will often regard the first horizon manager as a dinosaur
reflection on the practice, it seems that this occurs because Three who is blocking change (Table 2). Yet, when each party is able to
Horizons (1) is easily communicated and provides opportunities see that if no one keeps the current system going, the future cannot
for sense-making in a pragmatic way, (2) enables participants to be resourced, and that if there is no action toward future needs,
help identify their own role toward either maintaining the existing the existing system will collapse, then a much more fruitful
systems or pioneering new ones, and (3) encourages those involved discussion becomes possible.
to understand the different roles and positive contribution of each
A concrete example from using Three Horizons was in the
horizon. The second and third points are made possible when
Carnegie case (Table 1). The commissioners were exposed to a
participants start to move from inhabiting a horizon as a fixed
diversity of views and perspectives on the future and were able to
mindset to using it flexibly as a perspective. Here, the first horizon
visit examples of innovative, nonmainstream practice. They
represents the mindset of a “manager” responsible for keeping
realized at that point that they needed help to make sense of the
business-as-usual systems going; i.e., “keeping the lights on” or
mass of everything they had seen and the numerous perspectives
“ensuring the plane can still stay airborne while being
of individual commissioners. The Three Horizons approach
redesigned.” The third horizon is the mindset of the “visionary,”
enabled the different perspectives and variety of evidence to be
Table 2. The different outlooks of the Three Horizons toward each other, both as a negative mindset and a positive perspective in the
form of words that have been used in real sessions (based on text produced by Ian Page, personal communication). This table is often
reported to be one of the most useful things people get from using Three Horizons.
Looking from Looking at this Negative (Mindset) Positive (Perspective)

this Horizon Horizon
Horizon 1 Horizon 1 Competitor. Beat or take over. Useful infrastructure. Potential allies in lobbying for shared
interests, etc.
Horizon 2 Parasite of potential investment. Watch and Source of abundant ideas. Improvement. Changes scope of what
monitor. can be done.
Horizon 3 Fanciful and irrelevant. Ignore, or kill to prevent Hope for the future. Possibility of renewal.
momentum building that would challenge H1 Not challenging H1 role: relates to more of my life than H1.
dominance.
Horizon 2 Horizon 1 Slow-moving dinosaurs. Obstructive. Get out of Holding the “innovator’s dilemma.” Destination for innovation.
the way! Arena of action. Source of support and ways to scale up.
Horizon 2 Competitors for resources. Allies in creating momentum.
Horizon 3 Impractical. Inspirational. Source of ideas and visibility. Sense of direction.
Horizon 3 Horizon 1 Massive error and liability, barrier to progress. Potential resource when unlocked. Skills that can be redeployed
—to scale. Valuable heritage and gains to be protected.
Horizon 2 Obstructive compromise. They are misusing our Potential allies. Promising practice, stepping stone. Changes
vision. scope of what is possible.
Horizon 3 Vision competitors: debate vigorously. Extends the debate beyond the present; brings deeper issues of
value into play.
held and appreciated at the same time. An important contribution Three Horizons therefore seems particularly useful for supporting
was the way the approach revealed that commissioners who were a rapid entry into a future-oriented dialogue on diverse topics,
initially stereotyped as entrenched in one specific horizon with a language that is easily grasped. But like all approaches, it
volunteered significant perspectives from other horizons, thus has limitations. Personal communication with scenario planning
dissolving many of the earlier disagreements. This shows how facilitators has indicated they find it useful to use the approach
Three Horizons legitimizes each of the different perspectives and as a scoping tool at the start of a project and to shape strategic
highlights the value of each. In our experience, this can result in action at the end, while using scenario planning to explore the
a shift from holding a horizon as a mindset to using it as a flexible uncertainties within and between horizons. Other tools and
perspective on the situation. This allows a shift into future practices are therefore sometimes needed to develop deeper
consciousness that is the key enabling feature of Three Horizons. insights, such as systems mapping to develop understanding of
In summary, Three Horizons helps create a common language critical relations and feedbacks (Fazey et al. 2011); scenarios to
where participants quickly find it very natural to start talking of structure third horizon uncertainties (Peterson et al. 2003, Saritas
issues and situations in terms of the “horizons,” which in turn, and Aylen 2010); multiscale perspectives to examine transitions
helps participants with significantly different values and in more depth (Geels and Schot 2007, Geels 2014); and dilemma
ideologies work together more effectively. thinking to help work with trade-offs (Höijer et al. 2006). In a
recent exploration of the future of carbon pricing for an
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS international institution that had convened a high level expert
The key qualities of Three Horizons practice, based on our group, Three Horizons was used primarily to frame the problem
experience of facilitating the approach, can be summarized in and identify critical unknowns. These unknowns were then
three main ways. First, it seems to help people begin to make sense explored in greater detail using dilemma thinking and scenarios,
of complex situations through seeing the world in patterns in a which together then enabled the identification of the adaptive
way that is relevant to their concerns and their aspirations for pathways most likely to lead to the third horizon future pattern
change. Second, it appears to allow participants to “put (Fig. 5). As with all approaches for working with complexity, good
themselves in the picture” and to relate their own role in bringing facilitation is also required. While in our experience the
about change to that of other actors. Finally, by moving from framework can be easily understood and facilitators can quickly
their own mindset to a wider perspective of all three horizons, learn how to apply the approach, the expertise of the facilitator
our experience suggests that participants can improve the quality has a significant bearing on the depth of insights achieved. We
of future-oriented dialogue between those who have are therefore currently both exploring and experimenting with
responsibility for the present pattern and those seeking a path of how Three Horizons can be used as a supportive and integrative
transformation to the future. Through experiencing such framework with other methods while simultaneously developing
dialogue, participants often express that they have experienced a appropriate online training for its facilitation and practice (http://
renewed sense of hope brought about by greater understanding h3uni.net/).
of how actions in the present can contribute to emerging futures
(Sharpe 2013).
Table 3. Key propositions about deliberate transformation derived from observations and experience of facilitating the practice of
Three Horizons (based on some of the insights in Sharpe 2013).
Proposition Explanation
Transformation requires development Future consciousness can be considered to be an awareness of the future potential of the present moment. It is
of future consciousness. limited by a range of cognitive, psychological, and systemic issues, such as existing psychological investment in
the security of the status quo, fear of a new changed paradigm, which can trigger denial of the problems in the
present, and linear causal mindsets that limit appreciation of underlying systemic issues. Nevertheless, working
with Three Horizons suggests that everyone has a natural capacity to relate to the future and act in the present
moment to create that future, and this awareness can be deepened through reflective practice using approaches
such as Three Horizons.
Transformation involves a repatterning Incremental changes can lead to transformation, but these changes act mostly to retain existing ways of doing
of collective lives rather than expansion things. This implies that it is important to work collectively to change existing patterns when transformation is
of the current pattern. needed and to identify what needs to be done in the present moment to work with the future in the long term.
Transformation needs to bring together Transformative innovation involves working with different qualities of the future in the present (in this case, the
personal aspects and wider structural different horizons) in a way that brings together the inward looking aspect of reflecting on an individual or
aspects of change. groups’ future consciousness (the first proposition) and the outward looking aspect of collectively
understanding patterns of change and response (the second proposition). That is, transformation needs to
bring together the personal aspects (e.g., values, future consciousness) and those aspects that need to be
changed. This is similar to ideas that highlight the importance of working across the personal, political, and
practical spheres of society (Sharma 2007), and which affirm that the incorporation of ethics and aesthetics, in
addition to seeking new knowledge, is essential for transformation to occur (Hanlon et al. 2012).
Simple structures are needed for Simple and easily accessible approaches are needed to help work with diverse perspectives and provide
integrative and transformative dialogue. opportunities for collective thinking about the future without being trapped by personal values, fears, or other
emotional ties. Working with Three Horizons suggests that there is a need for such approaches to provide a
balance between having some structure and avoiding inappropriate constraints on understanding. Approaches
also need to help avoid getting stuck in discussions about different interpretations of concepts like
transformation.
Transformation can occur only as a Human lives are a process of constant discovery and invention, with each person living a unique human life
universal shared practice in which every (Horton 2002). Building a fully shared capacity for future consciousness is essential for engendering hopes for
person is viewed as a unique source of transformation and moving toward a more just and equitable world.
insight and human potential.
In addition to articulating what we think we know about the

Fig. 5. An example of the way Three Horizons (3H) can frame practice of Three Horizons, reflecting on its practice has helped
the use of other tools. It depicts the flow of a recent project led identify insights about the nature of transformation itself (Table
by one of the authors that explored how carbon pricing could 3). We do not claim that these represent reproducible findings,
be used to help drive the transformation of the world economy but rather that they serve to represent the articulation of practical
to a low carbon future. From the initial 3H exploration, the knowledge in epistemic ways. Such reflections through practice
critical unknowns of approach were explored with both have, for example, helped us develop our own thinking about the
dilemmas and scenarios, which led to an understanding of the differences between incremental and transformative change and
adaptive pathways to the third horizon. how conversations about transformation can be facilitated. This
highlights that new and important knowledge about the nature
of change itself emerges from trying to do change as well as from
analytical-deductive approaches that primarily seek to observe it.
This is consistent with calls for researchers to engage more directly
in processes of change to help accelerate learning for deliberate
transformation (O'Brien 2012, Arkesteijn et al. 2015).
To accelerate learning about practices of change and
transformation, we need participatory, reflective, and action-
based forms of research that simultaneously work with techne,
phronesis, and episteme (Frame and Brown 2008, Reason and
Bradbury 2008, Ison et al. 2014). These needs are reflected in
wider calls for more open knowledge systems that are more
inclusive, transparent, and action-oriented (Flyvberg 2001,
Cornell et al. 2013, van Kerkhoff 2014, Kläy et al. 2015). Yet,
despite the importance of the transformation agenda, currently
there are limited avenues for funding research that works more
directly with practical forms of knowledge (Kläy et al. 2015). This Bergek, A., S. Jacobsson, B. Carlsson, S. Lindmark, and A.
may seem surprising given the increasing emphasis on the need Rickne. 2008. Analyzing the functional dynamics of
for research to be useful. Yet, usefulness is usually defined by technological innovation systems: a scheme of analysis. Research
existing policy and research environments that focus on research Policy 37:407–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.003
to address first horizon issues (i.e., “keeping the lights on”) rather
Borup, M., N. Brown, K. Konrad, and H. Van Lente. 2006. The
than on the processes and practices of third horizon renewal
sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology
(Pardoe 2014). The challenge here is that for research to be
Analysis and Strategic Management 18:285–298. http://dx.doi.
effective in assisting transformation, a transformation in the way
org/10.1080/09537320600777002
research is conducted and the acceptance of other forms of
knowledge will also be required. Details of a new research agenda Burns, D. 2007. Systemic action research: a strategy for whole
are beyond the scope of this paper, but such changes rest on greater system change. Policy Press, Bristol, UK.
acknowledgement by researchers and practitioners that all
Burns, D., and S. Worsley. 2015. Navigating complexity in
research is socially constructed and that observers are not
international development: facilitating sustainable change at scale.
independent from what is observed (Aufenvenne et al. 2014, Kläy
Practical Action Publishing, Rugby, UK. http://dx.doi.
et al. 2015). Moving toward new ways of thinking about research
org/10.3362/9781780448510
and knowledge production will require second horizon strategic
actions that can assist the transition from the first horizon to new Câmpeanu, C. N., and I. Fazey. 2014. Adaptation and pathways
third horizon modes of research. Three Horizons would be useful of change and response: a case study from Eastern Europe. Global
for helping to begin to explore how such transitions might come Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions 28:351–
about. 367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.010
Chandler, D. 2013. Resilience ethics: responsibility and the
Responses to this article can be read online at: globally embedded subject. Ethics and Global Politics 6:175–194.
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses. http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/egp.v6i3.21695
php/8388 Christie, M., I. Fazey, R. Cooper, T. Hyde, and J. O. Kenter. 2012.
An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for
assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services
to people in countries with developing economies. Ecological
Acknowledgments: Economics 83:67–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.012
We would like to thank the insightful comments provided by three Cornell, S., F. Berkhout, W. Tuinstra, J. D. Tàbara, J. Jäger, I.
anonymous reviewers. Jim Ewing first formulated the idea of the Chabay, B. de Wit, R. Langlais, D. Mills, P. Moll, I. M. Otto, A.
different voices in which each horizon typically speaks, and Ian Page Petersen, C. Pohl, and L. van Kerkhoff. 2013. Opening up
developed those ideas into the horizon outlooks shown in Table 2. knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental
We are grateful to the many people who collaborated with us in change. Environmental Science and Policy 28:60–70. http://dx.doi.
exploring the possibilities of using Three Horizons for their projects, org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.008
in particular those whose applications we report in Table 3. This
work was partly supported by the Knowledge Network for Enabling Curry, A., and A. Hodgson. 2008. Seeing in multiple horizons:
Transformation project funded by the International Social Science connecting futures to strategy. Journal of Futures Studies 13:1–20.
Council (ISSC) (T2S_PP-067). Fazey, I., N. Pettorelli, J. Kenter, D. Wagatora, and D. Schuett.
2011. Maladaptive trajectories of change in Makira, Solomon
LITERATURE CITED Islands. Global Environmental Change 21:1275–1289. http://dx.
Ackoff, R. 1979. The art of problem-solving. John Wiley, New doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.07.006
York, USA. Fazey, I., R. M. Wise, C. Lyon, C. Câmpeanu, P. Moug, and T.
Aristotle. 2004. The Nicomachean ethics (translated by J. A. K. E. Davies. 2015. Past and future adaptation pathways. Climate
Thomson). Penguin Books, London, UK. and Development 8:26–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2
014.989192
Arkesteijn, M., B. van Mierlo, and C. Leeuwis. 2015. The need
for reflexive evaluation approaches in development cooperation. Flyvberg, B. 2001. Making social science matter: why social inquiry
Evaluation 21:99–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1356389014564719 fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810503
Aufenvenne, P., H. Egner, and K. Von Elverfeldt. 2014. On climate
change research, the crisis of science and second-order science. Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for
Constructivist Foundations 10:120–129. social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change-
Human and Policy Dimensions 16:253–267. http://dx.doi.
Barab, S. A., and J. A. Plucker. 2002. Smart people or smart org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002
contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of
situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Folke, C., S. R. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Chapin, and
Psychologist 37:165–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3703_3 J. Rockström. 2010. Resilience thinking: integrating resilience,
adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society 15(4):2.
Bell, W. 2003. Foundations of futures studies: history, purposes, and http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/
knowledge: 1 (Human science for a new era). Transaction
Publishers, Piscataway, New Jersey.
Frame, B., and J. Brown. 2008. Developing post-normal International Social Science Council (ISSC). 2012. Transformative
technologies for sustainability. Ecological Economics 65:225–241. cornerstones of social science research for global change.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.11.010 International Social Science Council, Paris, France.
Gallopin, G. C. 2006. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, International Social Science Council (ISSC) and United Nations
and adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change-Human and Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Policy Dimensions 16:293–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. 2013. World social science report: changing global environments,
gloenvcha.2006.02.004 Paris, France.
Geels, F. W. 2014. Regime resistance against low-carbon Ison, R., A. Grant, and R. Bawden. 2014. Scenario praxis for
transitions: introducing politics and power into the multi-level systemic governance: a critical framework. Environment and
perspective. Theory, Culture and Society 31:21–40. http://dx.doi. Planning C: Government and Policy 32:623–640. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/0263276414531627 org/10.1068/c11327
Geels, F. W., and J. Schot. 2007. Typology of sociotechnical Kahane, A. 2012. Transformative scenario planning: working
transition pathways. Research Policy 36:399–417. http://dx.doi. together to change the future. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San
org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003 Francisco, California, USA.
Gerschel-Clarke, A. 2013. Are patent trolls strangling sustainable Kenter, J. O., L. O'Brien, N. Hockley, N. Ravenscroft, I. Fazey,
innovation? The Guardian. K. N. Irvine, M. S. Reed, M. Christie, E. Brady, R. Bryce, A.
Church, N. Cooper, A. Davies, A. Evely, M. Everard, R. Fish, J.
Haasnoot, M., H. Middelkoop, A. Offermans, E. van Beek, and
A. Fisher, N. Jobstvogt, C. Molloy, J. Orchard-Webb, S. Ranger,
W. P. A. van Deursen. 2012. Exploring pathways for sustainable
M. Ryan, V. Watson, and S. Williams. 2015. What are shared and
water management in river deltas in a changing environment.
social values of ecosystems? Ecological Economics 111:86–99.
Climatic Change 115:795–819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.006
s10584-012-0444-2
Kläy, A., A. B. Zimmermann, and F. Schneider. 2015. Rethinking
Hampden-Turner, C. 1990. Charting the corporate mind: graphic
science for sustainable development: reflexive interaction for a
solutions to business conflicts. The Free Press, New York, USA.
paradigm transformation. Futures 65:72–85. http://dx.doi.
Hanlon, P., S. Carlisle, M. Hannah, A. Lyon, and D. Reilly. 2012. org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.10.012
A perspective on the future public health: an integrative and
Kok, K., M. van Vliet Mathijs, I. Bärlund Ilona, A. Dubel, and
ecological framework. Perspectives in Public Health 132:313–319.
J. Sendzimir. 2011. Combining participative backcasting and
Hatt, K. 2013. Social attractors: a proposal to enhance ‘resilience exploratory scenario development: experiences from the
thinking’ about the social. Society & Natural Resources 26:30–43. SCENES project. Technological Forecasting and Social Change
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.695859 78:835–851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.01.004
Hodgson, A. 2012. A transdisciplinary world model. Systems Leach, M. 2008. Pathways to sustainability in the forest?
Research and Behavioral Science 29:517–526. http://dx.doi. Misunderstood dynamics and the negotiation of knowledge,
org/10.1002/sres.2154 power, and policy. Environment and Planning A 40:1783–1795.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a40215
Höijer, B., R. Lidskog, and Y. Uggla. 2006. Facing dilemmas:
sense-making and decision-making in late modernity. Futures Leicester, G., and M. O'Hara. 2009. Ten things to do in a conceptual
38:350–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.07.007 emergency. International Futures Forum, Aberdour, Scotland.
Holling, C. S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, Leicester, G., D. Stewart, K. Bloomer, and J. Ewing. 2013.
ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems 4:390–405. http://dx. Transformative innovation in education: a playbook for pragmatic
doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5 visionaries. Triarchy Press, Axminster, UK.
Holling, C. S., and G. K. Meffe. 1996. Command and control and Ma, D. 2013. State capacity and great divergence, the case of Qing
the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation China (1644–1911). Eurasian Geography and Economics 54:484–
Biology 10:328–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10020328. 499.
x
Mahony, T. O. 2014. Integrated scenarios for energy: a
Holman, P. 2011. Engaging emergence: turning upheaval into methodology for the short term. Futures 55:41–57. http://dx.doi.
opportunity. Eighth International Conference on Complex org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.11.002
Systems, New England Complex Systems Institute, Massachusetts,
McGowan, K. A., F. Westley, E. D. G. Fraser, P. A. Loring, K.
USA.
C. Weathers, F. Avelino, J. Sendzimir, R. R. Chowdhury, and M.
Horton, S. L. 2002. Conceptualizing transition: the role of L. Moore. 2014. The research journey: travels across the idiomatic
metaphor in describing the experience of change at midlife. and axiomatic toward a better understanding of complexity.
Journal of Adult Development 9:277–290. Ecology and Society 19. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/es-06518-190337
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Miller, R. 2011. Futures literacy: embracing complexity and using
Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. IPCC Working the future. Ethos 10:23–28.
Group I Contribution to AR5. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Stockholm, Sweden.
Milojević, I., and A. Izgarjan. 2014. Creating alternative futures environments. International Journal of Environmental Research
through storytelling: a case study from Serbia. Futures 57:51–61. and Public Health 9:2134–2158. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.12.001 ijerph9062134
Moore, G. E. 1965. Cramming more components onto integrated Pryjmachuk, S. 1996. A nursing perspective on the
circuits. Electronics 38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/jproc.1998.658762 interrelationships between theory, research and practice. Journal
of Advanced Nursing 23:679–684. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
Newell, B. 2012. Simple models, powerful ideas: towards effective
j.1365-2648.1996.tb00037.x
integrative practice. Global Environmental Change 22:776–783.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.03.006 Ramirez, R., J. W. Selsky, and K. van der Heijden. 2008. Business
planning for turbulent times: new methods for applying scenarios.
Nicholls, R. J., N. Marinova, J. A. Lowe, S. Brown, P. Vellinga,
Earthscan, London, UK.
D. De Gusmão, J. Hinkel, and R. S. J. Tol. 2011. Sea-level rise and
its possible impacts given a ‘beyond 4°C world’ in the twenty-first Ramirez, R., and K. Van der Heijden. 2007. Scenarios to develop
century. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: strategic options: a new interactive role for scenarios in strategy.
Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369:161–181. In B. Sharpe, and K. Van der Heijden, editors. Scenarios for
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0291 success: turning insights in to action. Wiley, Chichester, UK. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119208136.ch4
O'Brien, K. 2011. Responding to environmental change: a new
age for human geography? Progress in Human Geography 35:542– Reason, P., and H. Bradbury. 2008. The Sage handbook of action
549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309132510377573 research: participative inquiry and practice. Sage, London, UK.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607934
O'Brien, K. 2012. Global environmental change II: from
adaptation to deliberate transformation. Progress in Human Rittel, H. W. J., and M. M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general
Geography 36:667–676. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309132511425767 theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4:155–169. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/bf01405730
O'Brien, K. 2013. Global environmental change III: closing the
gap between knowledge and action. Progress in Human Geography Rockstrom, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, A. Persson, F. S. Chapin,
37:587–596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309132512469589 E. Lambin, T. M. Lenton, M. Scheffer, C. Folke, H. J.
Schellnhuber, B. Nykvist, C. A. de Wit, T. Hughes, S. van der
O'Brien, K., J. Reams, A. Caspari, A. Dugmore, M. Faghihimani,
Leeuw, H. Rodhe, S. Sorlin, P. K. Snyder, R. Costanza, U. Svedin,
I. Fazey, H. Hackmann, D. Manuel-Navarrete, J. Marks, R.
M. Falkenmark, L. Karlberg, R. W. Corell, V. J. Fabry, J. Hansen,
Miller, K. Raivio, P. Romero-Lankao, H. Virji, C. Vogel, and V.
B. Walker, D. Liverman, K. Richardson, P. Crutzen, and J. Foley.
Winiwarter. 2013. You say you want a revolution? Transforming
2009. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space
education and capacity building in response to global change.
for humanity. Ecology and Society 14(2):32. http://www.
Environmental Science and Policy 28:48–59. http://dx.doi.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/
org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.011
Rolfe, G. 1998. The theory-practice gap in nursing: from research-
O'Brien, K., and L. Sygna. 2013. Responding to climate change:
based practice to practitioner-based research. Journal of
the three spheres of transformation. In K. O'Brien, and L. Sygna,
Advanced Nursing 28:672–679. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/
editors. Proceedings of Transformation in a Changing Climate.
j.1365-2648.1998.00806.x
June 19–21 2013. University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Rosenhead, J. 2006. Past, present and future of problem
Ogilvy, J. A. 2002. Creating better futures. Oxford University
structuring methods. Journal of the Operational Research Society
Press, New York, USA.
57:759–765. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602206
Pardoe, S. 2014. Research impact unpacked? A social science
Sardar, Z. 2010. Welcome to postnormal times. Futures 42:435–
agenda for critically analyzing the discourse of impact and
444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.028
informing practice. SAGE Open 4. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/2158244014529774 Saritas, O., and J. Aylen. 2010. Using scenarios for roadmapping:
the case of clean production. Technological Forecasting and Social
Pelling, M. 2011. Adaptation to climate change: from resilience to
Change 77:1061–1075. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.03.003
transformation. Routledge, London, UK.
Schleicher-Tappeser, R. 2012. How renewables will change
Perez, C. 2004. Finance and technical change: a long-term view.
electricity markets in the next five years. Energy Policy 48:64–75.
Pages 775–799 in H. Hanusch, and A. Pyka, editors. The Elgar
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.042
companion to neo-Schumpeterian economics. Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781847207012.00059 Sharma, M. 2007. Personal to planetary transformation. Kosmos
Journal Fall/Winter:31–35.
Peterson, G. D., G. S. Cumming, and S. R. Carpenter. 2003.
Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Sharpe, B. 2013. Three horizons: patterning of hope. Triarchy Press,
Conservation Biology 17:358–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/ Axminster, Devon, UK.
j.1523-1739.2003.01491.x
Sharpe, B., and A. Hodgson. 2006. Intelligent infrastructure
Proust, K., B. Newell, H. Brown, A. Capon, C. Browne, A. futures: technology forward look. Foresight Directorate, UK Dept
Burton, J. Dixon, L. Mu, and M. Zarafu. 2012. Human health of Trade & Industry, London, UK.
and climate change: leverage points for adaptation in urban
Shotter, J., and H. Tsoukas. 2014. In search of phronesis: Wicks, A., and M. Jamieson. 2014. New ways for occupational
leadership and the art of judgment. Academy of Management scientists to tackle “wicked problems” impacting population
Learning and Education 13:224–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/ health. Journal of Occupational Science 21:81–85. http://dx.doi.
amle.2013.0201 org/10.1080/14427591.2014.878208
Stafford-Smith, M., L. Horrocks, A. Harvey, and C. Hamilton. Wise, R. M., J. R. A. Butler, T. Skewes, E. Bohensky, and N.
2011. Rethinking adaptation for a 4C world. Philosophical Peterson. 2014a. The future economics of marine ecosystem
Transactions of the Royal Society A 369:196–216. services in Kimbe Bay, Papua New Guinea: implications for locally
managed marine areas. Report prepared for the Australian
Stanford, M. 2012. Eco thugs: how patent trolls threaten to
Department of Environment as part of the Coral Triangle
undermine a sustainable energy future. Green Living Press. http://
Initiative on Coral Reefs, Food Security and Fisheries. CSIRO,
blog.loomistank.com/2012/02/23/eco-thugs-how-patent-trolls-threaten-
Canberra, Australia.
to-undermine-a-sustainable-energy-future/
Wise, R. M., I. Fazey, M. Stafford Smith, S. E. Park, H. C. Eakin,
Tibbs, H. 2011. Changing cultural values and the transition to
E. R. M. Archer Van Garderen, and B. Campbell. 2014b.
sustainability. Journal of Futures Studies 15:13–32.
Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of
Valorinta, M., H. Schildt, and J. A. Lamberg. 2011. Path pathways of change and response. Global Environmental Change
dependence of power relations, path-breaking change and 28:325–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.002
technological adaptation. Industry and Innovation 18:765–790.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2011.621745
Van De Ven, A. H., and P. E. Johnson. 2006. Knowledge for theory
and practice. Academy of Management Review 31:802–821. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.22527385
Van der Heijden, K. 2005. Scenarios: the art of strategic
conversation. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
van Kerkhoff, L. 2014. Developing integrative research for
sustainability science through a complexity principles-based
approach. Sustainability Science 9:143–155. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s11625-013-0203-y
van Notten, P. W. F., J. Rotmans, M. B. A. van Asselt, and D. S.
Rothman. 2003. An updated scenario typology. Futures 35:423–
443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0016-3287(02)00090-3
Videira, N., F. Schneider, F. Sekulova, and G. Kallis. 2014.
Improving understanding on degrowth pathways: an exploratory
study using collaborative causal models. Futures 55:58–77. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.11.001
Voß, J. P., J. Newig, B. Kastens, J. Monstadt, and B. Nölting. 2007.
Steering for sustainable development: a typology of problems and
strategies with respect to ambivalence, uncertainty and
distributed power. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning
9:193–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15239080701622881
Waddock, S., G. M. Meszoely, S. Waddell, and D. Dentoni. 2015.
The complexity of wicked problems in large scale change. Journal
of Organizational Change Management 28:993–1012. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1108/jocm-08-2014-0146
Walker, B., C. S. Hollin, S. R. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig. 2004.
Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological
systems. Ecology and Society 9(2):5. http://www.ecologyandsociety.
org/vol9/iss2/art5/
Weisbord, W., and S. Jasanoff. 2010. Future search: getting the
whole system in the room for vision, commitment, and action. Third
edition. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, California, USA.
Whiteman, G., B. C. Forbes, J. Niemela, and F. S. Chapin. 2004.
Bringing feedback and resilience of high-latitude ecosystems into
the corporate boardroom. Ambio 33:371–376. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1579/0044-7447-33.6.371
View publication stats

Three Horizons APathways Practicefor Transformation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Three Horizons APathways Practicefor Transformation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Three Horizons APathways Practicefor Transformation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Three horizons: A pathways practice for transformation

Article in ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY · June 2016

Bill Sharpe Anthony Hodgson

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Graham Leicester Ioan Fazey

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Transformation Research View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Three horizons: a pathways practice for transformation

INTRODUCTION with uncertain futures in imaginative ways while also retaining

Participants Background Aims and Objectives Process and Role of 3H

The practice of Three Horizons

Looking from Looking at this Negative (Mindset) Positive (Perspective)

In addition to articulating what we think we know about the

View publication stats

You might also like