Developing disruptive mobility scenarios for rural areas. Participatory mobility scenario building in a Belgian village for the year 2050

Despite the fact that current transport policy is often based on forecasts, forecasts are often inaccurate [1]. Forecasting models are continuously updated,however, their accuracy has not improved [2]. This is because the future is not a linear result of the past, and it will also not be a linear continuation of the present.

Modern transport forecast methods are based on how the current situation is likely to evolve [3]. Hence, they are not equipped to handle uncertainty, and sudden changes are not considered. Recently, there has been an evolution towards non-traditional future studies such as scenario planning. Scenarios show different possible future pathways, whereas a forecast aims to predict only one. Nevertheless, traditional and path-dependent forecasting methods are still dominant [4]. For example, in their analysis of 62 recent future studies papers, Miskolczi et al. [5] found that 16 were based on scenario planning, while 46 were based on forecasts.

Scenarios are “an internally consistent view of what the future might turn out to be” ([6], p. 63). Scenario planning and decision making, however, often fail to incorporate outliers and divergent thinking. As a result, linear, non-disruptive thinking often dominates [7]. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, for example, has shown “the importance of incorporating more diverse and non-linear visions into decision-making” ([7], p. 11). Such events can have a high impact, but their probability is low, and they are often not taken into account when developing mobility scenarios. Soria-Lara et al. [7] argue that scenarios need to incorporate disruptions in order to be useful for policy making, thereby reducing linear thinking. This can be done using wild cards, i.e. events that have three characteristics: their impact is high, their probability of occurring is low, and they appear suddenly [8]. Such an event is seen as a surprise and would drastically change our lives [9]. Examples of wild cards related to transport include a drastic decrease in passenger transport and flying cars [10]. Due to their low likelihood, many wild cards will never occur. Nevertheless, identifying them can make policies more resilient to disruptions, allows the identification of early warning signals, and gives time to make investments that increase resilience [9].

Wild cards are often used to test the robustness of scenarios [7]. Von der Gracht and Darkow [11], for example, provide insights in possible changes in the macro-environment by developing logistics scenarios for 2025 and use eight expert wild cards to conduct an analysis of discontinuities. Ecola et al. [12] incorporate sustained very weak growth as a wild card event to develop scenarios for the future travel demand in China by 2030. Although no wild cards were used, Tuominen et al. [13] involved young people aged 15 to 17 in their visioning process, which resulted in visions that were more original than expert visions. Even when using more open methods, such as interviews and focus groups, linear thinking dominates the visioning process [14]. It should be noted that wild cards are a relatively new topic in foresight literature, so questions remain, such as how to best generate them or studying their impacts [10].

In addition to scenarios, visions are also used in transport policy making. Contrary to scenarios, visions provide a powerful single image of a desired future [15]. A vision is made up of two key components: (1) a desired future configuration, and 92) a future environment where this configuration can be successful [16]. The difference to scenarios is therefore that a vision represents a desired future, while scenarios map out possible futures. In terms of flexibility, multiple possible scenarios keep more options open for decision makers by providing different courses of action. Combining normative (visions) and exploratory (scenario) approaches can be considered to make the process more relevant for policy making [15].

Despite the fact that participation can increase the probability of implementing research outcomes [15], scenario building and visioning exercises are often developed top-down by experts [17]. In addition, experts are used to visualize the future linearly [18]. In our research, we developed a participatory approach, and we paid special attention to the involvement of children, as they are often not included in policy making. Children up to the age of 14 make up over 25% of the global population and 17% of the population in Belgium [19]. Children move around less and use the local surroundings more often than adults. However, children are not involved in the design of the places and spaces they use most often. In addition, younger people have been known to have a better capacity of visualizing disruptive scenarios, when compared to experts and adults [20]. They will also be the next generation of adults.

Visioning and scenario building exercises tend to focus on urban areas. These exercises are, for example, a crucial part in the development of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs). SUMPs have been in use since 2013, stimulating the transition towards sustainable mobility in cities [40]. Only recently have guidelines for SUMPs in smaller cities and towns been published [41]. However, these guidelines do not apply in very low-density contexts (less than 5000 people and less than 300 people/km²). As rural areas are often characterized by low public transport accessibility and long waiting and travel times [21], rural communities are often car dependent [22]. Visions and scenarios can offer new and radically different ways of approaching the problem of individual mobility [23]. The focus of our research therefore lies on a rural area. Throughout our analysis of the literature, we did not find any scenario building exercises focused specifically on rural mobility. Applying these methods in a car dependent rural area thus offers an interesting avenue for research.

The goal of our research is to apply creative and participatory methods to develop a vision and different disrupted scenarios for the mobility of a Belgian village in 2050. In this paper, we seek to address the following research question:

How do citizens from rural areas imagine the future of mobility in their village using visions and disrupted scenarios?

Section 2 provides the materials and methods employed in our research. Section 3 gives an overview of the results, discussed in Sect. 4. In Sect. 5, we provide some concluding remarks and indications for further research.

The goal of our research was to develop one vision and several alternative scenarios for the Belgian rural context. Our methodology contained two main phases: i) case study selection and wild cards development, and ii) participatory visioning and scenario building.

For the development of the vision, 31 citizens shared their input, combined with the workshops held with 113 children of the village primary school. For the development of the scenarios based on the wild cards, 12 interviews were held. In each interview, the developed vision was subjected to two wild cards, resulting in four scenarios based on the input of six interviews. In total, we developed one mobility vision for Oetingen for 2050, as well as four disrupted scenarios, each based on one of the pre-identified wild cards. The development was done by analysing the most common codes in Nvivo through content analysis. Figure 7 shows, for the visions, the difference in relative importance of all ten categories for children and adults. From the graph, we see that the most discussed theme by adults was mobility, followed by shopping. For children, most vision elements pertained to leisure, followed as well by shopping. Mobility is the third most discussed theme with the children.

Using the most recurring codes, we developed one-page narratives for the vision and each scenario. The contents of the visions and scenarios was developed based on citizens’ input and so might be unrealistic to mobility experts. However, the goal of our research was not to achieve a prediction, but to obtain an outside-the-box view based on residents’ input. Below, a short summary overview of the vision and the scenarios is provided.

In this paper, we presented a creative and participatory methodology to develop visions and disrupted scenarios for the mobility of a rural Belgian village in 2050. The various scenarios were developed using wild cards, as it is important to incorporate non-linear thinking into decision making [7]. Additionally, wild cards are a young topic in foresight literature, so it is important to address questions such as how to develop them, or to study their impact [10].The goal of our research was to understand how residents in rural areas in Belgium imagine the future of mobility for their village using visions and disrupted scenarios. Our aim was to showcase what elements residents find important for their future mobility, without the results needing to be realistic to mobility experts.

We involved and informed citizens in as many steps as possible. However, this involvement of lay people in the development of wild cards did not increase their level of unimaginability.

Our methodology involved people of various age categories to develop a common vision. The workshops with children resulted in very creative and often impractical ideas. However, these ideas give an interesting indication of children’s requirements. As was noted by Tuominen et al. [13] and Soria-Lara and Banister [20], the involvement of younger people leads to more outside-the-box thinking.

It is important to lower the barriers for participation. We visited the village multiple times to meet citizens and to hold interviews and offered a mix of online and offline participation methods. As most citizens were employed, we were also flexible with timing, making it easier to participate. Nevertheless, the achieved response rate among adult citizens was rather low.

It is relevant to note that our research focused on a rural area, as most scenario planning and visioning research is focused on (peri-)urban areas. As rural communities can be very car-dependent, they should not be left out of foresight exercises. Strictly speaking, our methodology is one that could also be applied to urban areas. However, the time and resources to be employed would be much higher. In the case of a village, it is possible to reach out to the entire population, and to frequently meet with citizens. In an urban context, the level of outreach we aimed for would require much more effort.

From our research, we believe it is important to include rural areas in foresight exercises for the future of transport, since these areas are usually very car-dependent [22]. Additionally, we recommend incorporating wild cards more often for the development of scenarios, since this is currently a rather research topic of research within transport [10]. Since we did not find a clear link between the level of imaginability of a wild card and the contents of the scenarios, contrary to the findings of Soria-Lara et al. [7], we recommend involving younger people in such research, to stimulate non-linear thinking.