Participatory pathways to the Sustainable Development Goals: inviting divergent perspectives through a cross-scale systems approach

Incorporating stakeholder perspectives in SDG processes has been identified as a key policy challenge (see Bennich et al 2020, and Allen et al 2018, for 2030 Agenda literature reviews, see also García-Sánchez et al 2022, and Haywood et al 2019), yet currently only a few participatory approaches have been applied to 2030 Agenda studies. Examples of studies include Hutton et al (2018) who combine integrated assessment modeling in coastal Bangladesh with stakeholders to elucidate value conflicts regarding policy prioritization and trade-offs between different policies with regard to the 2030 Agenda implementation. Kanter et al (2016) provide another example of an integrated SDG study, with a focus on the Uruguayan beef sector. They use a backcasting approach that incorporates stakeholders to develop national agricultural transformation pathways. Hodes et al (2018) use participatory visual methods with HIV-positive adolescents to shed light on stakeholders' aspirations across the domains of health and social development. Glover and Hernandez (2016) take a more overarching perspective using foresight methods and imaginative storytelling involving development scholars in discussing the interactions between inequality, security, and sustainability. The approach presented by Weitz et al (2018) uses a cross-impact matrix to assess systemic and contextual interactions between SDGs and has been used in case studies in Colombia, Mongolia, and Sri Lanka (TWI2050 - The World in 2050 2020). Eichhorn et al (2021) present a multi-stakeholder approach to the 2030 Agenda implementation with a focus on integrated management and present case studies from Germany. These participatory approaches are all promising but do not explicitly incorporate global multidimensional narratives, or a diversity of worldviews, and fail to invite a wider discussion on overarching and systemic 2030 Agenda pathways.

Participatory pathways approaches (Leach et al 2010) are examples of structural analyses that incorporate discussions on contrasting boundaries (i.e., what to include in an analysis as 'the system'). As such, the normative nature of visions of the future is emphasized, including social justice elements. Critical questions include who participates and which contesting values and narratives are brought together (Vergragt and Quist 2011). Vergragt and Quist (2011 p. 749) challenge the futures research community by asking the rhetorical question 'Can [visioning] be left to experts, or should it be a democratic or a deliberative process involving stakeholders and citizens?'. Indeed, envisioning the future with stakeholders has the potential of lifting voices that are not heard or that are being deprived (Cvitanovic et al 2019), including voices that question the status quo. Future visioning can also play an emancipatory role for those involved, through the discovery of leverage points previously not acknowledged (Ulrich 2003, Meadows 1997). Work on adaptation pathways has also highlighted the need to recognize multitudes of actors and the need to work with a plurality of values (Fazey et al 2016).

The Three Horizons is a tool to think about the future that focuses on three qualities of the future visible in the present: present dominant system features that are declining in importance, desired future features of the system, and change elements to reach a desired future. The tool has been used in participatory settings to explore possible alternative futures (Sharpe et al 2016, Colloff et al 2017, Pereira et al 2018, Sharpe 2020, Schaal et al 2023). The three horizons represent respectively (figure 1): the system to transform from (Horizon 1), the changes that are needed to break the current dominant patterns that are undesirable and to reach desirable alternative patterns (Horizon 2); and the system to transform to (Horizon 3). The Three Horizons is widely used in business management and increasingly used in research. Three Horizons brings a focus to the potential for alternative futures. It also brings an overarching frame, although it does not explicitly use systems concepts such as systems' causal structure incorporating feedback loops. In our approach, we are using elements of the Three Horizons visuals and therefore borrow its name. We propose to use the Three Horizons as a useful starting point in our pursuit of a participatory method that covers the full 2030 Agenda in a systemic way. However, as will be seen in the following section, we significantly depart from the tool by embedding it in a broader, cross-scale process focused on capturing multiple perspectives and deep-level causes of current problems. We focus on deep-level causes of problems with the understanding that to shift and transform systems, one needs to critically engage with the system structure that has brought us to where we are and develop alternatives.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

The process that we refer to as 'dialogue' (following Schultz et al 2016) is structured into sessions corresponding to three steps, usually adopted in backcasting exercises (backcasting is here referring to the generation of desirable futures in order to elaborate on how they can be achieved, see, e.g., Börjeson et al 2006, Quist and Vergragt 2006). Step 1 surfaces future aspirations and existing initiatives hinting at this future, Step 2 presents concerns, and Step 3 highlights necessary changes to reach the desired futures expressed in Step 1, or address present concerns identified in Step 2. Figure 2 illustrates the full process. Starting from the desired future enables participants to imagine a future without the confines of current constraints. This further avoids anchoring the discussions in today's concerns and norms and supports the exploration of what may be currently non-dominating visions, which dominant narratives would otherwise overshadow. For each step, a bigger group of participants is to be divided into smaller groups. In order for the groups to be manageable and for each participant to be able to fruitfully contribute to the dialogue, we propose around six to eight people in each group, plus two facilitators. A variety of perspectives may be represented in each group, allowing for diverse views and narratives through which to discuss the 2030 Agenda. Alternatively, one may want to separate participants from similar backgrounds in order to, at a later stage, be able to highlight differences and similarities between groups. To better reach the stated aims of the process, we suggest pre-allocating people into groups so that each group incorporates the sought diversity of perspectives.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

In each group, participants have a large Three Horizons diagram in front of them: on a table or on the ground (figure 1). The diagram is used as a visual device to facilitate conversation between the participants and to capture their ideas. The participants gradually populate the diagram with their contributions, in the form of colored post-it notes. Each step has a guiding question that can be adapted to different contexts (see the example from our pilot case study below). During the entire process, divergent perspectives are noted down by the facilitator on a board, thereafter discussed in a plenary session, and can later be analyzed by the researchers.

To ensure that a multitude of dimensions of sustainability is covered when discussing future aspirations and present concerns (steps 1 and 2), colored post-it notes can be used representing the various dimensions, e.g., society, economy, environment, and governance (this is also corresponding to the 2030 Agenda characterization by the UN Secretary-General: People, Prosperity, Planet, Peace, and Partnership, figure 1). After populating the diagram with post-it notes in Step 2, the dimensions are discussed integratively. The facilitator asks the stakeholders to analyze the deep causes underlying the present concerns: the core obstacles that are standing in the way to reach sustainability. The activities include clustering the post-its, creating a list of deep causes, including, if possible, sketching influence diagrams with the participants (influence diagrams are often referred to as causal loop diagrams, CLDs). Using influence diagrams promotes the systemic understanding of the root causes, and later in Step 3 helps identify leverage points for change.

The facilitators' roles in the process are (a) to support all participants to contribute equally, avoiding dominance of more outspoken or powerful participants; (b) to ensure that a broad range of sustainability dimensions are covered in steps 1 and 2; and (c) when disagreements among participants emerge, to note the divergences and move the process forward (avoiding long discussions about individual topics but still acknowledging the issues). The facilitators should listen, take notes and organize the discussion, but avoid interfering with their own views as this may bias the discussions.

After steps 1 and 2, exchanges between groups and a presentation of existing global perspectives on sustainability, e.g., those that are dominant in existing global scenarios, follow (figure 2). This exchange between participants can take place through a World Cafe session, in which group participants rotate between the groups allowing the sharing of results and taking note of contrasting perspectives. The exchange exposes participants to issues they may not have considered. The Global Perspectives session exposes participants to assumptions underpinning recent global scenario studies, for example, the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, SSPs that are informing the IPCC (O'Neill et al 2017), and their implications for the context under discussion. This step is carried out through a presentation prepared by the facilitators. This session takes place after Step 2 in order to avoid constraining the thinking of participants as they brainstorm their preferred futures. Multiple perspectives may also emerge by contrasting global perspectives of the SSPs with the results of the discussions for different regions or groups of actors.

In Step 3 which is introduced after the global perspectives deliberation, each group discusses the possible actions necessary to overcome the current obstacles and reach the SDGs in an integrated manner, using single-colour post-its to indicate the potential integrative nature of actions. Participants are here asked to think about short-term and long-term actions to break the present concerns, and about deep causes and the actors behind the proposed actions. Finally, as in the other steps, the facilitators ask the participants to summarize the pathways.

As in the process described by Folhes et al (2015), at the end of each step, participants are asked to use a creative method to summarize the discussion (see figure 3). The facilitators then leave the room, and participants write a story, a letter, create hashtags, imagined newspaper headlines, draw, create a theater play, a video - or use whatever available media they prefer. The goal is to support that the participants unleash their imagination and take ownership of the process, by including their emotions in the visioning process. Imagination in participatory approaches contributes to inspiring and empowering the participants (Pereira et al 2018, 2021).

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

The outcomes of each step are threefold: (i) the diagram with post-its across all three horizons; (ii) the list of divergences marking potentially separate pathways; (iii) the creative synthesis product (see figure 3). As described above, in the case of Step 2 of highlighting concerns, participants may create a list of root causes or create influence diagrams. In the final plenary, group results are presented, and convergences and divergences within and across the groups and in relation to the global perspectives are discussed. After the plenary, a facilitated evaluation session provides participants with time to reflect upon the dialogue process and gives organizers feedback to improve it.

After the dialogue, the researchers transcribe and organize the outcomes, and analyze what we refer to as the convergences and divergences among the pathways. Convergences are common elements among different pathways. The convergence analysis can provide information on common premises and actions that are perceived to be commonly agreed upon parts of all pathways to sustainability. The divergence analysis aims at shedding light on multiple alternatives of sustainability pathways. Divergences may entail branching points of different future pathways as seen differently by participants (see figure 6 below). An example of branching points may concern a future society where a large part of the population lives in rural areas, and others in a more urban future, or a future in which community relations stay important, with extensive local trade transactions, versus a future in which an extensive part of products are exported and imported.

Dialogue results and analysis are structured in a report that is shared with participants in a draft form inviting them to review it before it is distributed to the wider society. In the next section, we briefly present how the approach was applied in an illustrative case study.

We piloted the approach during the African Dialogue on the World in 2050, held in Kigali, Rwanda, in October 2018, over two days. Situating the dialogue in Central Africa with a pan-African focus and participants from across the continent was considered appropriate given our aim to include perspectives from the Global South. However, other localities in the Global South, including countries in Latin America, Asia, and Oceania, would also have been suitable. Placing the dialogue in this particular country was also grounded in practical reasons including already having established a node of contact through the organization SwedBio at Stockholm Resilience Centre. The dialogue focused on the safe and just operating space for humanity ('safe' and 'just' space refers to staying within the planetary boundaries and ensuring human needs, see, e.g., Häyhä et al 2016) with the overarching question: How can transforming the food and agriculture systems in Sub-Saharan African contribute to attaining the SDGs within planetary boundaries?.

The event was organized with financial support from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Sida, through SwedBio at Stockholm Resilience Centre. The dialogue had 40 participants (31 stakeholders and 9 facilitators) from 11 different countries, including representatives of national governments, UN organizations, civil society and local communities, academia, and research. The stakeholders were selected based on their expertise and experience (relevant to African agri-food systems and agro-biodiversity); and for having an understanding of related policy processes (e.g., social and economic development strategies, spatial planning, research-development-innovation, conservation and resource management).

The dialogue took place over a span of two days in Kigali, Rwanda, with the first two steps of the process and the World Cafe taking place on the first day, the presentation of global perspectives, the third step, the synthesis, and the evaluation, taking place the second day.

The participants were divided into four regionally focused sub-groups, based on the Sub-Saharan African regionalization of the African Union, including (i) West and Central Africa (combining the two African Union zones), (ii) East Africa, (iii) Southern Africa, and (iv) Sub-Saharan Africa to represent issues beyond sub-regions. The goal of this division was to increase the inter-group diversity of perspectives and thereby potentially enrich the cross-scale comparison (global, Africa-wide, and regional). Note that the intent here was to showcase, and shed light on, differences in perspectives. If the process is to be reiterated or followed-up one may want to, in the next step, distill similarities across groups to build commonly agreed upon scenarios that could be useful for researchers and policymakers across the board. The division of participants among the groups considered various aspects such as the location of the participant, professional background, and the practical requirement of having manageable groups (in line with the selection process of Pereira et al 2018). Diversity within groups was sought, so as to include a variety of competencies, values, and narratives within the separated regions. Each group incorporated around six stakeholders and two facilitators. Facilitators were trained to guide the process and not to contribute with expertise to the themes being discussed.

Considering the overarching theme for the Dialogue, the specific guiding questions for Step 1 were: 'What are our visions for the future of agriculture and food systems in the group region?' and 'What do you see of the desired future already existing in the present (initiatives, project, proposals etc)? The step 2 guiding question was: 'What concerns do we have about the present agriculture and food system in your group region?'. The step 3 guiding questions were: 'How do we change the present system to transform to the desired futures?' and 'Which measures and actions are required (considering the root causes)?'

The presentations of global perspectives about pathways to reach multiple goals were based on IIASA's The World in 2050 report (TWI2050 2018). These global perspectives were further deliberated, and compared to the outcome of the African Dialogue in Aguiar et al (2020). At the end of the Dialogue, an evaluation form was provided for all the participants (see Supplementary data for the form and anonymized stakeholder replies) and after the Dialogue, results were shared and compiled in a report (see Aguiar et al 2019). Next, some dialogue results are presented with emphases on convergences and divergences.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

The 3H4SDG process resulted in future visions, lists of current challenges and their root causes, and lists of the changes needed to attain a sustainable future, as discussed in each group (see Appendix A in Supplementary data). The results also included a complete analysis of the divergences and convergences across the groups and in relation to the Global Perspectives (see Appendix B in Supplementary data).

To illustrate the process outcomes, below we provide a brief introduction to the resulting visions, summarized in table 1. The West and Central Africa group named their pathway the Ubuntu pathway after popular doctrine for the quality of human interdependence and connectivity. The Ubuntu pathway describes a future of African agriculture and food systems dominated by farmers' associations and cooperatives. In this pathway, participants presented that Africa embraces its diversity, and the right to land is inclusive. Agroecology takes the lead and the farming systems are fully organic.

In the pathway developed by the group focusing on Eastern Africa, named the Peaceful and Prosperous East Africa Pathway, food security is assured through either small-scale agriculture or large-scale commercial farming, as this is one of the divergences that emerged from the process. Investments in agriculture and education enable a prosperous future. Agriculture is private-sector led and gender-balanced. Farmers are secured financial resources.

The Southern Africa group named their pathway after the Swahili and Kinyarwanda word for pathway or direction: the Urugendo pathway. In the Urugendo pathway, agriculture provides livelihoods and drives the economy. Agriculture is private-led and peace is emphasized as a precondition for a prosperous future. Both cooperatives and private businesses are participating and the government provides preconditions by enabling credit and enabling legal frameworks.

The final group had an overarching focus on Sub-Saharan Africa and named their pathway the Rainbow Pathway. In the Rainbow Pathway, an aware and educated society empowers its citizens and promotes home-grown and local knowledge. Nations are capable, with strong institutions that can deliver and be accountable to their citizens. Citizens are actively participating in society and collaboration platforms are provided. The Sub-Saharan Africa group, when compared to the sub-regional groups, emphasized more aspects related to regional cooperation, including data generation/sharing and the importance of alliances for change (across Africa and with the other continents). In the following section, we explore the convergences and divergences which emerged from the exercise. Table 2 illustrates the outcome of the creative part from one of the pathways, the Uruguendo pathway, as an illustrative example.

The core present concerns convergent among all groups included the impacts of climate change, land degradation, food insecurity, inadequate governance, inadequate infrastructure, low level of financing, issues related to technology (including the dichotomy between Western and indigenous knowledge), and youth migration/brain-drain. Also, an overall vision of a peaceful and prosperous Africa capable of feeding itself and the world emerged convergently across the groups. Other convergent themes that emerged across all groups were an emphasis on education/skills, youth, women, and population empowerment, the consolidation of cooperatives and cooperation between farmers, the need for infrastructure, generating and sharing reliable data, financing, and insurance for agriculture, reaching independence from foreign donors, regional cooperation, transparency and accountability of governments—and predominantly, political will.

Participants also highlighted and tackled the enormous challenges of implementing an African agricultural transformation that is considering current societal and power structures, vested interests, the power of elites, rising inequalities, etc. Another key aspect that emerged from the discussions was a need to recognize the multiple uncertainties related to the impacts of disruptive technological changes in the near future, including those related to democracy. In table 3, we present a synthesis of convergences, grouped into three large interdependent categories: Empowerment, Partnerships for change, and Knowledge, technology and data sharing. The actions referred to here can be understood as the backbone for transformation towards the desired futures (figure 6), by participants understood as being necessary to the achievement of several SDGs. Table 3 also brings examples of existing 'seed' initiatives discussed in the groups.

Examples of divergences (see table B.1 in the Supplementary data) related to different perspectives concerning urbanization, population growth, consumption changes, agricultural practices (sustainable intensification, agroecology), the role of different actors and agricultural systems in the future (community-oriented farming, market-oriented small-holder farming, large-scale industrial agriculture), and the role of the agriculture sector in the African economy. The discussions in the groups challenged some of the basic assumptions of existing global sustainability scenarios outlined in the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, including massive urbanization, very low population growth, reduced area for agriculture due to the expansion of biofuels and large-scale forest restoration for carbon absorption, land-sparing approach, and drastic reduction in meat consumption. That the participants contested some key aspects of global sustainability scenarios indicates the importance of these types of cross-scale dialogues for improving the design of scenarios that can be supported (see van der Leeuw 2020) (presented in table B.2 in the Supplementary data). Box 1 presents an example of how a divergence can shed light on multiple perspectives represented in a simple influence diagram, figure 5.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

Table B.3 in the Supplementary data synthesizes the divergences grouped into seven categories (Urbanization, Population growth, Agricultural intensification, and practices, Actors in agriculture, Alternative diets, Markets for agricultural products, and Land-based climate change mitigation), discussing their implications for societal decisions at different political and geographical levels, and also for future scenario design. In Aguiar et al (2020), we further explore how the identified divergences can be used to create narratives for alternative target-seeking scenarios.

Zoom In Zoom Out Reset image size

An evaluation of the Dialogue in the form of a written survey was submitted by 58% of the participating stakeholders (survey in Appendix C, and submitted replies in Appendix D in the Supplementary data). The results indicate that the approach was received positively and perceived as useful, discussing relevant questions and worth applying in different contexts (median 4 on a scale between 1 and 5 in the survey). Most of the respondents would also recommend the process to be used by others (median 5 on a scale of 1 to 5). Some participants had to leave early and could not participate in the evaluation, which may have affected the results.

In the following subsections, we detail selected qualitative details of the participants' responses, related to the first two of the above-mentioned premises of the study: (a) systems perspective and SDG integration, (b) multiple perspectives, and participants' ownership of the pathway narratives. It should here be noted that evaluating participatory approaches is challenging and there is a risk of over-focusing on quantitative measures. In addition, when assessing the outcomes of participatory approaches, the complexity of the context makes it difficult to trace the causal relationships between actions and outcomes (see a further discussion on this in Norström et al 2020).

Systems perspective and SDG integration

Multiple perspectives and participants' ownership of the pathway narratives

Pathway development and discussions on transformations, including such where the 3H4SDG is applied, involve power relationships, as systemic changes create winners and losers. Transformations are therefore not 'apolitical' but rather underpinned by political processes (Patterson et al 2017, Blythe et al 2018, Linnér and Wibeck 2019). Conflicting paradigms in the context of various international assessments such as the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, IAASTD (e.g., around the use of different agricultural technologies, Vanloqueren and Baret 2009), IPCC (including around the incorporation of negative emissions, Beck and Mahony 2018) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES (competing framings around biodiversity, Borie and Hulme 2015) are often situated within uneven processes of deliberation where resourceful actors take part besides less resourceful actors, shaping the discourses (Vanloqueren and Baret 2009, Beck and Mahony 2018).

As values and paradigms influence the behavior of global models, this needs to be acknowledged in global modeling, including those used in the context of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (see Saltelli et al 2020 which also points to the need to acknowledge stakeholders and multiple views in model formulation). In the case of the 2030 Agenda, this risks the production of overly technocratic outlooks that do not incorporate the possibilities for radically different futures, of which some are already emphasized and desired by communities (see Wyborn et al 2020). It is here that the main strengths of the 3H4SDG approach can be found, as it explicitly highlights divergences and thereby gives room for alternative perspectives that can later be incorporated into models. However, dialogues such as the African Dialogue on the World in 2050 do not take place in a vacuum but are inevitably affected by surrounding power relations, paradigms, and perspectives. In the case study presented here, these include, e.g., who was invited to the dialogue and who was able to come.

Reaching a desirable level of diversity of pathways that are explored may prove difficult due to various constraining factors, including time, financial capacity, geographic representation, language barriers, etc (see Turcotte and Pasquero 2001, Reed 2008).

Although the African Dialogue participants' group covered different parts of the African continent (across eleven countries) and was diverse regarding participants' origin, residence and home organization, East Africa was overrepresented, and Southern Africa was underrepresented. Furthermore, while participants came from different age groups, a majority of the participants were men, as it has proved challenging to keep a gender balance given that the positions that we recruited the participants from were primarily occupied by men. This occurred despite a conscious strategy and targeted invitations. Power dynamics affect participatory processes and demonstrate asymmetries (Cornwall 2008, Pereira et al 2020). As this is sometimes unavoidable, the process has to be carefully accounted for and should not pretend to be representative. Particularly if the group is not representative of societies. This risks the skewing of the results of the process and limits the extent to which deprived voices are heard. In our case study, it may be difficult to imagine how a women-dominated or gender-balanced group of participants would have affected the results but it is likely that such a group would better represent women's unique experiences and related perspectives. Bringing together a non-representative group of stakeholders (but one whose viewpoints are nevertheless important to engage), can still lead to an effective outcome - and bring different points of view to the forefront as is evident from the diversity of the pathways that were uncovered. Future case studies would nevertheless benefit from including follow-up workshop(s) in connection to the dialogue, in which the results can be presented and further discussed and related to existing governance processes. This conclusion has also been brought forward to the 2021–2024 XPaths project in which the approach is being used, see Box 2.

We see the overarching frame and systems perspective as a strength of the approach which has been called for elsewhere (e.g. Bennich et al 2020). It facilitates the visualization of alternatives to the prolongation of existing societal trends - which has been identified as an asset in future studies (Andersson and Westholm 2019). However, with such an overarching frame there may be few clear receivers that will implement the suggestions, and the impact is difficult to measure, and often results in 'small wins' (see also Turcotte and Pasquero 2001). Nevertheless, in other potential applications, the proposed approach is versatile enough to target particular decision-making contexts.

Although this study focuses on scenarios for achieving the SDGs, the process is generally also applicable to the globally very influential Shared Socioeconomic pathways (SSPs). Expanding the scenario space of the SSPs to include a diversity of perspectives, in particular from the Global South, was a key recommendation to improve SSPs discussed in the paper reflecting SSPs by many of their founders (O'Neill et al 2020). Thus, in this study, we have concretized how this recommendation could be carried out with a geographically and expertise-wise diverse set of stakeholders, which the SSP community could learn from. In Aguiar et al 2020, we discuss how the results presented here could be contrasted to the SSPs.

The 3H4SDG approach serves as a meaningful way to provide stakeholder inputs and visioning to implementation that not only offers advice on a detailed level but enables a systems view of development. The approach can also open a critical discussion on sustainability visions that are imposed top-down. We see the approach as adaptable to different circumstances and with different themes and questions, and it has already been taken up and adopted in different settings by the Dialogue participants (Graziani 2019), and as the backbone of the more comprehensive XPaths research project (see Box 2 and https://www.xpathsfutures.org/).