Co-Designing Games for Transformations Towards Sustainability:

Connecting Practitioners with Alternative Socio-Economic and

Governance Models

Student: Rok Kranjc (5617596)

Mentor: dr. Joost Vervoort

Program: MSc Sustainable Development (Earth System Governance)

Utrecht, 18. August 2017

Dedication

To my parents, and my grandparents. For their unconditional love, care, and support. For their

teaching me the virtues of compassion, and response-ability. For all their labours, so that I may

inhabit this virtual freedom, in the bosom of which is my pursuit. For their pushing me to be ever

more, to not concede, and for believing in me always.

To Hsiang-Yun, the love of my life. Without her, I would not be pushing myself as far as I do, and

opened myself to others as much as I have.

To my non-human confidants, and to my canine companion, Billa. For guiding me past my humani-

ty, and for showing me the wholesome beauty of this world.

To the birth of space-time, to cosmic and earthly evolution, to Sun, Moon and Earth, and to our

commons, the true giants whose shoulders us, and our futures, bare.

To my friends, and all those that accompany me throughout this journey, too numerous to name.

And to you, dear reader. May our world be one of healing and discovery.

Acknowledgments

I particularly would like to thank Joost Vervoort for his absolutely immense support, feedback, and

at times critical questions - were it not for him, I would very likely still be confining myself to the

'high towers' of purely theoretical investigation.

I also would like to thank all the individuals that graciously accepted to speak with me about and as

part of this project, and whose encouraging words fundamentally shaped this thesis into the form it

is today.

Someone once said that it is easier to

imagine the end of the world, than to

imagine the end of capitalism.

Fredric Jameson (2003) Future City

It is easy to call for interdisciplinary

syntheses, but will anyone respond? Scientists

know how to train the young in narrowly focused

work; but how do you teach people to stitch

together established specialties that perhaps

should not have been separated

in the first place?

Garrett Hardin (1998) Extensions on the Tragedy of the Commons

Make the world work, for 100% of humanity,

in the shortest possible time, through spontaneous

cooperation, without ecological offense or

the disadvantage of anyone.

Buckminster Fuller (1960) The World Game

It matters what stories tell stories,

it matters what thoughts think thoughts,

it matters what worlds world worlds.

Donna Haraway (2016) Staying With the Trouble

Abstract

With social and sustainability goals being in conflict with the dominant "neoliberal" political

economic narrative, numerous researchers and 'alternatives' practitioners around the world are

currently working on a number of radical alternatives to socio-technical-ecological systems

organization (e.g. commoning, circular economy), but there are yet still disconnects between

these strands of thought and practice on the one hand, and non-expert practitioners as aspiring

and/or active 'agents of change' on the other. Today, more and more attention is paid to narra-

tives of and experiments around new logics and forms of (social) economy and governance,

the acknowledgment of which may inform and open a wider set of possibilities for transfor-

mations towards sustainability (Longhurst et al., 2017). Much of the recent literature on trans-

formations has also pointed towards foresight and more anticipatory forms of governance as

playing a potentially pivotal facilitating role (Wolfram, Frantzseskaki & Maschmeyer, 2017;

Fazey et al., 2017). Additionally, in recent times there have been many developments in

terms of more nuanced approaches to theorizing transition and/or transformation dynamics

(e.g. Patterson et al., 2016). However, to date very little has been said about the prospects of

linking alternative economic and governance models, critical theories around transformation

dynamics, and foresight tools and techniques (Ahlqvist & Rhisiart, 2015). The present thesis

analyzes and explores socio-economic and governance alternatives, both in theory and prac-

tice, particularly in how they (can) relate to theoretizations of transformation dynamics and

social innovation institutionalization processes, the politics and governance of transitions

and/or transformations, and how various tools and techniques, and specifically those relating

to foresight and games, might be developed and used with and by non-expert practitioners to

engage with these alternatives in a way that produces new insights and (thus) opens up more

informed transition and/or transformation (and, effectively, transformative) trajectories,

pathways and projects of/for (co-)creation.

Key words: Transformations, Games, Alternatives, Co-Design, Sustainability

ii

Table of Contents

1 Introduction & Problem Framing....................................................................................... 1

1.1 Research Aim and Research Questions ....................................................................... 4

1.2 Preliminary Theoretical Framework and Objects of Analysis .................................... 5

2 Outline of Methodology ..................................................................................................... 9

3 Phase One: Theoretical Analysis ..................................................................................... 11

3.1 Methods ..................................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Results ....................................................................................................................... 12

3.2.1 Political Economic Alternatives ........................................................................ 12

3.2.1.1 Commons ................................................................................................... 13

3.2.1.2 Circular & Sharing Economy .................................................................... 15

3.2.2 Theories of Change ............................................................................................ 17

3.2.3 Transformations and Governance ...................................................................... 20

3.2.4 Roles of Foresight .............................................................................................. 22

3.2.4.1 Traditions & Epistemological Orientations ............................................... 23

3.2.4.2 Foresight & Theory ................................................................................... 24

3.2.4.3 Foresight Tools & Techniques .................................................................. 25

3.2.4.4 Anticipatory Governance ........................................................................... 26

3.2.5 Synthesis ............................................................................................................ 27

4 Phase Two – Interviews ................................................................................................... 28

4.1 Interviewee Selection & Interview Methods ............................................................. 28

4.2 Results ....................................................................................................................... 30

5 Phase Three – Prototyping & Design............................................................................... 33

5.1 Workshop Set-Up ...................................................................................................... 35

5.2 Game Co-Design Workshop Results ........................................................................ 36

6 Reflections & limitations ................................................................................................. 42

7 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 46

8 Future directions .............................................................................................................. 47

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 48

iii

Appendixes: ............................................................................................................................. 58

Appendix 1: Interview questions (semi-structured) ............................................................. 58

Appendix 2: Game guide Prototype (Version 1.0) .............................................................. 60

Appendix 3: Playing Cards – Barries & Transition Ingredients (Examples)....................... 70

Appendix 4: Workshop proceedings transcript.................................................................... 72

Appendix 5: Extended literature list .................................................................................. 112

List of tables

Table 1 Three phases of research and their interrelations 10

Table 2 The modes, or 'epistemological orientations', and characteristics of foresight 23

Table 3 New frontiers in foresight theory and practice and an overview of literature 26

Table 4 Interviewee Matrix 29

Table 5 Examples of existing games on alternative socio-economic and governance

paradigms

33

- 1 -

1 Introduction & Problem Framing

Today, the challenges of sustainability are increasingly recognized as persistent and systemic,

requiring equally systems-oriented, and strategic solutions. With these crucially time-stamped

(Rockström et al., 2017) and immensely complex, multi-faceted and wicked challenges, it is

arguably more urgent than ever to think with the questions of what the terms community,

economy, politics, science, culture, art, etc., today even mean, and indeed, what they should

(then) mean. Nothing short of radical transformation(s), of our ways of doing, organizing,

knowing and framing (Haxeltine et al., 2016), seems to be necessary to stay within surmisa-

ble planetary boundaries (Steffen et al., 2015); to secure diverse, meaningful, and resilient

lives; and to preserve and restore, as far as we are able, the complex webs of life and non- as

we have come, and continue to explore, uncover, and appreciate.

These deep-seated issues call for deep, inclusive and integrative problem definition and seek-

ing of systemic solutions and pathways; the bridging, and in some cases rethinking and dis-

mantling of disciplinary boundaries; removing silos around knowledge production and use;

and engagement and experimentation with radical alternatives. Notably, to meet these chal-

lenges, in recent years there has been an upsurge of new reseach areas, socio-economic and

governance models, proto-political movements, and various experiments around the world

with the aims and ambitions to contribute to transformative change towards more sustainable,

just and resilient societies, pointing towards a 'humanized economy' (Kemp et al. 2016) and

egalitarian and emancipatory politics (Swyngedouw, 2016) more in tune with peoples and the

environment. These may be captured under such diverse terms as circular economy, sharing

economy, commons-based peer-production and commoning, collaborative economy, solidari-

ty economy, the open-source movement, smart or 'wise' cities, polycentric governance, col-

laborative governance, anticipatory governance, and so on.

That said, there is a general concern among researchers and 'alternatives practitioners' (here

defined as practitioners who in their work engage in some capacity with alternative socio-

economic and governance models) alike regarding a lack of uptake, integration and/or scaling

of these economic and governance alternatives (Longhurst et al., 2017). On the other hand, a

great many practitioners and scientists are not familiar with these alternatives, and/or insofar

as they are, they seem to be foremostly engaged with either at the level of consultancy and

incumbent business(-as-usual) ventures, mere 'buzzwords', or unrealistic, 'utopian' longings.

While alternatives-oriented thinking is unequivocally on the rise, research and practice re-

garding these (radical) alternatives still finds itself bounded largely to 'niches' in academia

and industry. In other words, people with transformative aspirations and ambitions find them-

selves confined to the 'interstices' (Wright, 2009) of a markedly hegemonic and 'post-

- 2 -

political' (Žižek, 1999; Swyngedouw 2016) neoliberal landscape, marked by entrenched im-

aginaries (e.g. around human nature, plausible and possible futures), institutional lock-ins,

path dependencies and various co-optation dynamics (Pel, 2015; Pel et al., 2016). Once more,

dominant narratives around and practices of change in the context of economics and govern-

ance for sustainability have for the most part taken a top-down, 'cockpitist' (Hajer et al. 2015)

approach, laden with simplified worldviews (Bennett et al. 2016), dominated by 'techno-

solutionist' narratives (Carson, 2016), unquestioned economic growth (Kallis, 2017), trust in

conventional market mechanisms (Longhurst et al., 2017), and unaccountable for the 'expul-

sions' (Sassen, 2014) occurring across the world. These dominant narratives produce and re-

produce a default future (Inayatullah, 2005; 2009) that is at once the product of, as well as

maintains, an unsustainable status quo.

On the other hand, a non-fatalist framing would see the above outlined problematique (also)

in terms of an acute lack of (strategic) methods, tools, and mechanisms (Ravetz, 2017; Scholz,

2017) that would foster and facilitate the co-production of, experimentation with, and social

salience and political grounding and legitimacy of socio-economic and governance alterna-

tives. Once more, the complexities of transformations demand more reflexive and 'synergis-

tic' approaches to the sustainability problematique (Ravetz, 2017), which calls for engage-

ments with fundamentally 'multi-sphere' (institutional, social, political, economic, cultural,

legal, etc.), 'inter-system' (food, housing, energy, mobility, etc.) thinking and experimentation.

That is not to say, however, that when speaking of the different stakeholders involved in, or,

conversely, excluded from, shaping alternative desirable sustainable futures, one should for-

get the pivotal issue of power and (dis)empowerment (Avelino & Wittmayer, 2016), along-

side the more general challenges concerning the tasks of commensurating the normative di-

mensions of highly related environmental sustainability and social justice imperatives with

(co-)generative processes involving multiple and often mutually antagonistic interests,

worldviews, and, more fundamentally, 'native' epistemologies (or, 'ways of knowing') and

ontological assumptions.

One way to approach these wicked challenges comes from the emerging disciplines of fore-

sight and futures studies, which seek to “help individuals and organizations better understand

the processes of change so that wiser preferred futures can be created” (Inayatullah, 2008: 5).

Notably, a new generation of reflexive foresight practice is emerging, along with articulations

of more 'anticipatory' modes of governance (Boyd, Borgstrom, Nykvist & Stacewicz, 2015)

that would link futures-making, civil action, and co-design (Ramos, 2017). Such techniques

may be applied to and very helpful in rendering operable to various societal actors and net-

works these alternative socio-economic and governance models, and, relatedly, the various

theoretical perspectives and heuristics that attempt to structure thinking, planning and action

with regard to agency and dynamics of transformations towards sustainability. Notably, re-

- 3 -

cent scholarship has turned its attention particularly towards the potential roles of games

(Mayer, 2009) and other foresight-based tools and techniques as pivotal aids in multi-

stakeholder engagement and facilitation of such complex transformations (Patterson et al.,

2016; Bennett et al., 2016; Fazey et al., 2017; Ramos, 2017). Additionally, new directions in

foresight, enabled in part by the onset of new technologies such as the Internet, and the net-

work society dynamic, have emerged in very recent years, such as experiential futures (Can-

dy, 2010; Kuzmanovic & Gaffney, 2016), speculative design (Dunne & Raby, 2013;

Angheloiu, Chaudhuri & Sheldrick 2017), and network-based 'peer-producing' of futures

(Ramos, Mansfield & Priday 2012; 2014), which have led to additional lines of inquiry about

the possible (and political) roles of foresight in both thinking about and practice of sustaina-

bility transformations.

The great challenges of today have 'bred' a many aspiring 'changemaker', and many new eco-

nomic and governance systems have been proposed, which arguably operate not only as

models, designs, or experiments, but also on the level of discourses, imaginaries, logics, al-

ternative or counter-narratives, principles of design, theories (of change, etc.), and so on.

Once more, various calls have been made for the seeking out of possible commonalities, rela-

tionalities, commensurabilities, complementarities and convergences between and among

these alternatives (e.g. Hobson & Lynch, 2016), at the various social, technical and ecological

levels and scales at which they (may) operate. Such (co-)creative endeavours also arguably

necessitate new roles of/for researchers, as boundary objects, brokers, facilitators, activists

and/or catalysts (Scholz, 2016), as well as generally imply more emphasis on interdiscipli-

nary, transdisciplinary, foresight and action-oriented engagements, calling upon a new gener-

ation of 'citymakers', 'transition designers' (Irwin, 2016), 'transition managers' (Loorbach,

2007), 'institutional designers' and 'new economy-ists' (Wolfram, Frantzeskaki & Maschmey-

er, 2017), 'experience-makers' (Candy, 2010), and so on.

It is thus clear that much theoretical and methodological development is still very much

needed to understand and address the multi-faceted challenges of (social, cultural, political,

economic, technological, ecological, institutional, urban, etc.) transformations towards sus-

tainability, perhaps particularly in enabling non-expert stakeholders to situate their work and

transformative ambitions in often times very 'niche' and inaccessible radical alternatives-

oriented thinking and practice. Building on the 'emancipatory tradition' of foresight and fu-

tures studies, which is arguably today overshadowed by more instrumentalist orientations that

lack a solid critical theoretical basis, some have proposed paying closer attention to how po-

litical economy, critical theory, and futures practice can be related and combined (Ahlqvist &

Rhisiart, 2015).

- 4 -

1.1 Research Aim and Research Questions

I attempt to approach the above outlined issues and knowledge gaps in the literature both in a

theoretical, as well as more hands-on, practical way. Notably, an important element concern-

ing the practical (as well as informing the theoretical) dimensions and development of this

thesis project has been the case of the Dutch city of Eindhoven and aspirations of its inhabit-

ants towards a more sustainable future city. Prior to this thesis, a visioning process had been

conducted in Eindhoven over the course of several weeks in 2016 concerning a 'circular' vi-

sion for the local food system (Proeftuin040, 2016). These foresight workshops were sup-

ported by the international foresight project TRANSMANGO (see Hebinck & Villarreal,

2016). Notably, the visioning process involved many city stakeholders, such as local gov-

ernment, companies, and included a prominent role of civil society. An initial interview dis-

cussion with one of the effective 'problem owners' of the produced vision, a local practitioner

and director of the Eindhoven-based agricultural knowledge hub Proeftuin040, Andre Cools,

was conducted as part of the scoping out of a potential case study and development context

for this thesis. The account was that, while the visioning process indeed included the coopera-

tion of a multitude of different stakeholders, the 'uptake' of said vision grinded to somewhat

of a halt, and was, in one sense, 'disowned' by key actors. Andre Cools agreed to help with

setting up a contact with some of the actors involved in the visioning process. Involving into

the thesis project the effective 'problem owners' of the Eindhoven Vision offered a way to

apply the more theoretical objects of research in an applied case study, for which interviews

were conducted, and a subsequent game co-design session took place as part of the research –

in order to test in practice how a foresight tool co-design process with key local stakehold-

ers/'changemakers' may be used to introduce and render operable alternative socio-economic

and governance models, and how might theories or heuristics relating to transformation pro-

cesses be helpful in such engagements.

The thesis project was in this way structured into three (interrelated, mutually influencing)

segments or phases, with complimentary components and aims that work towards answering

the following main research question and sub-questions:

Main research question

How can alternative socio-economic and governance models, based on scholarly work and

real-world practices, be made understandable and available to non-expert practitioners aspir-

ing towards transformative change?

- 5 -

Sub-question 1

What kinds of alternative socio-economic and governance models are being articulated and

experimented with, and on what grounds may these be critically assessed, and related?

Sub-question 2

What kinds of theories regarding transition and/or transformation dynamics and processes

may apply to such models, and how may these offer useful heuristics for practitioners to

structure transformations-oriented thinking, communication and strategy?

Sub-question 3

How can foresight methods such as games enable assemblages of non-expert stakeholders to

engage productively with alternative socio-economic and governance models, and (thus) help

develop their transformative capacities?

An overarching aim of this thesis is notably to offer a (limited) contribution to the shaping of

both 'transformation sciences', i.e., integrative areas of inquiry that strive towards developing

a holistic understanding of the nature, levels and scales of transformations, how transi-

tion/transformation processes happen, and/or can happen; and 'transformative sciences', (or,

research for transformations) i.e., areas of inquiry, especially transdisciplinary and with an

important strategic and unequivocally political component, that strive towards (co-

)developing, investigating and suggesting methods and tools that would aid in the instigation

and furthering of transition/transformation processes involving and empowering various

'changemaking' societal actors (WBGU, 2011; see also generally Singer-Brodowski & Au-

genstein 2016; Göpel, 2016; Scholz, 2017)

.

1.2 Preliminary Theoretical Framework and Objects of Analysis

In the following, I outline the theoretical grounding for the first stage of this thesis, which I

lay out in the form of assertions and theoretical assumptions. These assumptions in them-

selves are part of a preliminary comparative literature review, supported by my previous en-

gagements with these topics, prior to the thesis project (which are also outlined below).

In recent times, diverse scholarship has attempted to outline a new agenda for (effectively,

'transformative') transitions and/or transformations research and practice, paying close atten-

tion to pivotal questions such as those of epistemology, normativity and transdisciplinarity

(Scholz, 2017), politics and governance (Biermann et al. 2012; Avelino, Grin, Pel & Jhagroe,

- 6 -

2016; Patterson et al., 2016), power (Avelino & Wittmayer, 2016), alternative economies

(Longhurst et al., 2017); actor capacity development (Wolfram, Frantzeskaki & Maschmeyer,

2017), social innovation (Haxeltine et al., 2016), design (Irwin, 2016), and the potential roles

of foresight methods (Ramos, 2017; Ravetz, 2017).

That said, the notion of transformations is still often times used in a vague or ambiguous way,

with more rigorous approaches necessary towards its application (Feola, 2015). While these

different frames have certain commonalities, there are also important differences (for an

overview, see generally Patterson et al., 2016). Semantically, the notion of 'transformations'

denotes both the processes and outcomes involved in attaining a different state or systemic

configuration, while the notion of 'transitions' arguably only refers to the former (Wolfram,

Frantzeskaki & Maschmeyer, 2017: 19). The terms seem too often be used indistinctly in

literature, delineating rather "particular epistemic communities (...) than a substantive differ-

ence in meaning" (Ibid.). That said, the notion of transformation(s) does seem to lend itself as

a more open and encompassing concept (Ibid.; see also Patterson et al., 2016).

As of yet, there exists no holistic, or 'synergistic' (Ravez, 2017) theoretical and methodologi-

cal framework that could serve as a basis and benchmark for both studying and inciting trans-

formation processes. That said, there have been developments in recent decades, and in very

recent years especially, that indicate the urgent need for such (a) framework(s) (WBGU,

2011). One could cite here as examples the powerful tool for the diagnosis and development

of institutions for collective action found with the Institutional Analysis and Development

Framework (Ostrom, 1999), as well as research areas that explicitly aim to influence and take

active part in 'sustainability transitions and/or transformations'', such as Transition Manage-

ment (Loorbach, 2007; 2014). 'Transformation research' has been proposed as the name of a

new scientific discipline, one that “specifically addresses transformation processes”, is based

on “systemic interdisciplinarity” and “involve(s) stakeholders on a transdisciplinary basis”,

particularly in “identifying research issues and objectives” (WBGU, 2011).

Outlining all of the components of such a research agenda is needless to say well beyond the

scope of this thesis. In this section I outline a preliminary theoretical basis to guide the initial,

literature review phase of the research; the results of which in turn offer a more clear and

robust theoretical framework regarding political economic alternatives, theories of change,

and roles of foresight (and the potential interconnections between), which then in turn offered

a more robust theoretical basis for methodological application in the form of interviews,

game prototyping, and a game co-development workshop with key stakeholders or problem

owners. The first literature review and comparative analysis phase of the research is in this

way used to construct a 'true' framework to structure the other, more practical components of

the research project and reflections on the process.

- 7 -

Notably, the above outlined aims and questions work with certain assumptions about current

conditions and possibilities to experiment with socio-economic and governance alternatives,

the forms and speeds of (radical, social, economic, political, cultural, institutional, etc.)

change required to stay within planetary boundaries (Steffen et al., 2015; Rockström et al.,

2017), and the natures and types of tools or engagements that may be designed and used to

foster such changes.

One working assumption of the thesis is that tools that may link up the exploration of possi-

ble alternative socio-economic models, (novel) institutional designs and governance modes,

and complexities of transformation dynamics and pathways (i.e. in terms of 'pre-imagining')

can help develop the 'transformative capacities' of actors (Wolfram, 2015). The “use of sus-

tainability foresight and practical experimentation” is also seen as a key component of such

endeavors (Wolfram, Frantzeskaki & Maschmeyer, 2016: 24). The notion of transformative

capacities is notably understood here as “an action-oriented and empowering concept” that

concerns “diverse forms of institutions, resources, skills and interactions required to effec-

tively empower actors individually and collectively for effectuating systemic change” (Ibid.,

22). What is taken to be a closely related concept here is people's 'capacity for worldmaking',

or their 'ontological agency' (Vervoort et al., 2015: 64), a notion recently developed by

Vervoort et al. (2015) in their pursuit of a more pluralist and radical futures scenario practice,

and which denotes the capacity of people to fundamentally “shape worlds through and

through” (Ibid.).

Another working assumption is that today, experimentation with radical alternatives is usual-

ly limited to 'niches' (Loorbach, 2007), or the 'interstices' (Wright, 2009) of an otherwise heg-

emonic “neoliberal” narrative and political economic system (Longhurst et al., 2017;

Swyngedouw, 2017). This so-called 'post-political condition' (Swyngedouw, 2010) necessi-

tates new thinking and strategy with regards to 'steering' transformations, with greater empha-

ses on the potential input of the social sciences, and economic alternatives (Fazey et al.,

2017), foresight methods, and novel institutional designs (Wolfram, Frantzeskaki & Mas-

chmeyer, 2017: 24). Notably, for Swyngedouw (2016: 3), the notion of "(p)ost-politicisation

signals the continuous and highly politicised struggle and conflict over the institutionalisation

of post-democratic regimes of governance, articulated around rendering governing to a tech-

nomanagerial and bio-political practice of arranging life without changing the common sense

and everyday routines of the existing sociopolitical configuration and its constitutive power

relations."

This thesis gears explicit attention towards institutional socio-economic models and govern-

ance modes that may be characterized as (as of yet) rather theoretical (e.g., Iaione, 2015;

- 8 -

2016) and 'speculative design' (Dunne & Raby, 2013) oriented. This is a conscious choice on

the part of the research, as it would seem that genuinely radical alternatives are rather scarce

today in the real world (for hopefully rather apparent structural reasons, both institutional and

of-imaginary), while on the other hand exciting new ideas and designs have been articulated

in more radically-inclined scholarship, but also to limited extents experimented with (e.g.

Foster & Iaione, 2016). The challenge seems to be twofold: on the one hand, these models

may offer new insights that can inform the creation and experimentation with new forms of

(social) economy and governance, while on the other, these (then) should be realized as on-

the-ground experiments subject to much less speculative and more rigorous assessments and

developments, relating for example both to socio-technical-ecological 'metabolism', as well

as concrete norms and rules (e.g. Ostrom, 1990; 2010; 2012).

The thesis also works with the assumption that transformative research in the overarching

context of environmental sustainability should engage more actively with theories of change

as heuristic tools that help people to understand and instigate transformation processses.

Fazey et al. (2017: 4) for example propose that engaging actors with theories of change can

“stimulate critical thinking about the underlying process and nuances of social change”

and/or “improve capacities to enact societal change”.

With reference to these preliminary theoretical assumptions or underpinnings, I have identi-

fied what are deemed some of the key objects of inquiry for approaching the aims and ques-

tions posed as part of this thesis project, which form the basis of the initial comparative theo-

retical analytical investigation, and the latter of which then in turn informs the development

of the research framework for this thesis:

1. Emerging alternative political economic models

2. Theories, conceptual frameworks or heuristics developed to cognize, inform, prepare

for, design for, support, facilitate and instigate transition pathways and transformative

change models, policies, services and processes;

3. The related issue of the politics and governance of and for transformations;

4. Foresight methods, tools and techniques

Lastly, I should like to note that my own interests regarding the topic of transformations to-

wards sustainability stem from my background in and previous engagements with critical

theory and sociological approaches in the general context of what have by some been termed

the challenges of 'emancipatory social transformation' (Wright, 2009). These past endeavors

have fundamentally shaped my understanding of, and approaches to the problematique of

transformations towards sustainability as essentially a social process, strongly relating to so-

- 9 -

cial and political imaginaries, sensibilities, and political subjectivities. During the Master's

programme in Sustainable Development at Utrecht University, as well as several years prior,

I have actively engaged with topics concerning alternative ways of social and political eco-

nomic organization such as 'degrowth' (e.g., Kallis, 2017; Latouche, 2009) and 'collaborative

economy' (e.g., Rifkin, 2015), and the question of how more 'utopian' sensibilities and modes

of thinking (Levitas, 2010; 2013) about possible social-economic and political configurations

can foster unexpected new insights and help generate new alternative pathways of so-called

'sustainable development'.

I would like to acknowledge at the outset that this thesis, as part of a long-standing, and,

looking towards the future, expectedly life-long 'passion project' of seeking out and aiding in

the realization of 'emancipatory and egalitarian modalities of politics' (Swyngedouw, 2016),

notably builds on, and in turn is shaped by much of this background. In line with more recent

calls for scholars to take up new roles as part of more normative, strategic, action-oriented,

interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary transformation (and, effectively, 'transformative') re-

search (WBGU, 2011; Göpel, 2016; Scholz, 2017; Schneidewind, Singer-Brodowski & Au-

genstein 2016), with this thesis I have tried to embody and pursue the roles of a critical theo-

rist, as well as catalyst and facilitator of transformative 'praxis', and 'transdisciplinary com-

munities of practice' (Cundill, Roux & Parker, 2015). It is my hope that the present thesis can

offer a small contribution to the form(ul)ation of the emerging field(s) of explicitly transfor-

mations-oriented research, specifically in seeking out possible relationalities, or nexus be-

tween political economic alternatives, interdisciplinary critical theory concerning the question

of transformations, and transdisciplinary foresight practice.

2 Outline of Methodology

In the following (Table 1), the respective three complimentary phases of the research are out-

lined, along with brief descriptions of the respective methods, aims, and preliminary indica-

tions of interrelations between them. The phases notably entail methods that are both well-

established (literature review, interview), in combination with more innovative, explorative

and experimental methods (e.g., game co-design with stakeholders).

- 10 -

Table 1: Three phases of research and their interrelations

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Methods Literature review

Preliminary scoping;

Identification of keywords;

Snowballing techniques;

Critical comparative analysis;

Approx. 200 articles (out of 500

considered)

Interviews

Semi-structured;

Three-level (academics,

alternatives practitioners,

Eindhoven case-study

practitioners)

Prototyping, (Co-)Design

Scenario development;

Backcasting-game hybrid prototyping;

Game co-design with Eindhoven case-

study stakeholders

Aims &

Connections

(1) Contour literature on

transformation/transformative

research, and lay out an agenda

and prototype framework

explicitly to approach the

research aims and questions

(2) Analyze and explore socio-

economic and governance

alternatives, relations to theories

of change, governance and

politics of transformations, and

possible roles of foresight.

(3) (Partial) Synthesis within and

among the respective areas of

inquiry

(4) More nuanced account of

theories of change, and the

possibility of their translation

into 'heuristics' that inform

transformations thinking and

action (for Step 3)

(5) Inform the formation of

interview questions (Phase 2)

(6) Create a (theoretical) basis

for developing a scenario of a

'posssible' future world, and

game prototype, in Phase 3

(1) Validating and testing

robustness of theoretical analysis

conducted in Phase 1 (2) Informing 'translation' of the

theoretical analysis (of

alternatives, and theories of

change) into foresight

methodology for Phase 3 (3) Collecting inputs for the

foresight tool prototype and it's

components/mechanics (e.g.

barriers to and drivers of change)

(1) Co-develop with practitioners (on the

basis of theoretical alternatives analysis,

and inputs from interviews) a foresight

tool that would facilitate learning,

communication, strategy-building, and

pathway-mapping with regards to more

radical socio-economic and governance

models (2) Help practitioners ('change agents')

who are running into systemic

boundaries develop their 'transformative

capacities' (3) Support the practical execution of a

previously generated vision for a

circular food system for Eindhoven (4) Explore game co-design as a method

to think about problems, how to

organize them, discuss them, and offer

solutions.

The concrete methods corresponding to the three phases are outlined more in detail in the

beginning of their respective chapters.

- 11 -

3 Phase One: Theoretical Analysis

In this section, I lay out the methods used for the theoretical section of the thesis, which is

followed by the results, and conclusions of the critical comparative analysis.

3.1 Methods

The method used for this section is a comprehensive literature review and comparative analy-

sis. The literature was selected through an initial phase of scoping out and identification of

major recent publications in the areas of alternative political economic models, theories of

change, the politics and governance of transitions/transformations, and futures studies and

foresight. Notably, an important basis for this phase was prior interest in, and knowledge

about, these specific areas and some key publications, which arose both from my personal

ambitions, as well as were introduced throughout the Master's programme of Sustainable De-

velopment at Utrecht University. The notable exceptions here are futures studies and fore-

sight, which were new and highly welcome topics engaged. The following key terms, and

their various combinations, were initially used with the internet-based search engine Google

Scholar to identify the key publications:

“Commons”; “urban commons”; “commons transition”; “peer-to-peer”, “P2P”; “commons-

based peer production”; “sharing economy”; “circular economy”; “social economy”; “ethical

economy”; “solidarity economy”; “degrowth”; “post-growth”; “platform cooperativism”;

“smart city”; “open-source”; “collaborative governance”; “gift economy”; “care economy”;

“polycentric governance”; “transition theory”; “power”; “social innovation”; “new economy”;

“transformation”; “social transformation”; “sustainability”; “futures”; “foresight”; “vision-

ing”; “backcasting”; “games”; “design”; “imaginary”; “political ecology”; “political econo-

my”; “politics”; “post-political”; “emancipatory”; “alternative”.

The designation of 'key' publications notably here refers to two aspects of the literature – one

being the number of references to the respective publication, and; a rather subjective assess-

ment of its quality and pertinence for the task at hand. This initial selection of the literature

was complemented with 'snowball' techniques, i.e. the identification and reviewing of other

publications referenced within the initially identified literature, and the repetition of said pro-

cess with these newly identified and reviewed articles. Additional keywords were then ex-

tracted from these materials, which enabled the further identification of more recent publica-

tions on the key topics of interest. These keywords were the following:

- 12 -

“knowledge commons”; “design commons”; “digital commons”; “open cooperativism”; “re-

generative economy”; “ethical economy”; “cosmo-localism”, “cosmopolitan localism”; “co-

optation”; “scaling”; “anticipatory governance”; “experiential scenarios”; “narrative”; “dis-

tributed manufacturing”; “design global manufacture local”.

The literature was transferred onto literature citation and organization software Mendeley,

which enabled a relatively easy scoping out of conceptually related articles, using the key

identified concepts. To the best of my knowledge, to date the relationships between these

areas of inquiry and their operative concepts have not been explored and/or synthesized in the

literature – likely due to the expansiveness and highly dynamic conceptual frames and epis-

temologies used to characterize, for example, alternative political economic models; but also

due to the fact that many of these publications are 'state of the art' (i.e. published within the

past two years). This research notably aims to provide a partial basis for such synthesis en-

deavors, which in my opinion would offer greater conceptual clarity, by distinguishing terms

and attempting to synthesize the types of relationships that may be found between and among

them. Notably, however, no 'proper' bibliometric analysis technique was used for this thesis

project. The final selection of the analyzed articles used for this part of the thesis amounted to

approximately 100 individual publications. The 'expanded literature list', which may hopeful-

ly inform subsequent integrative inquiries into these concepts and their interrelations, counts

approximately 450 publications (see Appendix 5).

3.2 Results

In the following, I offer the results of this literature review based investigation in the form of

critical comparative analysis and relating of the concepts within and among the respective

thematic clusters (i.e. political economic alternatives; theories of change; transformations and

governance; roles of foresight). This is immediately followed by reflections and an outlining

of the research framework for approaching the subsequent parts or sections of the research.

3.2.1 Political Economic Alternatives

In the area of political economic alternatives, one promising field has emerged from the lega-

cies and criticisms concerning work on 'commons' (Hardin, 1968; Ostrom, 1990; 2010; Bol-

lier, 2016). Once bounded foremostly to the study of the governance of 'common pool re-

sources' such as forests and fisheries, the term has since come to be increasingly used in vari-

ous other contexts. Using the 'language of the commons' (Foster & Iaione, 2016), new strands

of commons-oriented thinking have sought to use the narrative and practice of 'commoning'

as a possible bridge between a normative claim to resources on the one hand, and the way in

- 13 -

which those resources are governed on the other (Ibid.). Some contemporary scholars view

commons and 'commoning' as a kind of 'post-capitalist politics' (Gibson-Graham, Cameron &

Healy 2016) that offers a framework, distinct vocabulary and imaginary for thinking about

and experimenting with emerging political economic alternatives, such as circular and shar-

ing economy (Kostakis, Roos & Bauwens, 2015). In line with such thinking, I will attempt to

frame in this thesis political economic alternatives with the invocation of 'commons' as a kind

of normative 'meta-frame', while remaining critical and reflexive of this, arguably new re-

search area with respect to traditional studies of commons, as well as such creations of con-

ceptual and vocabulary boundaries.

Contemporary scholarship generally identifies a great need to situate any one alternative po-

litical economic model or narrative as part of a broader (meta-)narrative and framework, urg-

ing us to seek possible commensurabilities, relationalities, complementarities and conver-

gences with other emerging alternative economy (and governance) narratives, existing and

'prefigurative' practices (i.e., practice that operates within the limitations of an existing-

hegemonic political economic paradigm), and as-of-yet speculative designs and visions.

Some of the more prominent concerning these include commoning (e.g. Bollier 2016, Iaione

2016), urban commons (e.g. Iaione 2015; Foster & Iaione 2016; Ramos (ed.) 2016) and

commons-based peer production (e.g. Benkler 2004; 2016; Kostakis, Roos & Bauwens 2015),

circular economy, sharing economy (e.g. Benkler 2004; Bradley & Pargman 2017) and plat-

form cooperativism (Scholz 2016), collaborative economy (e.g. Kostakis & Bauwens 2014),

smart cities (Araya (ed.) 2015; March 2016; Niaros, Kostakis & Drechsler 2017) and open

source urbanism (Sassen, 2011; Jimenez 2014; Bradley 2015). Other notable highlights are

the care economy, ethical economy, social economy, regenerative economy, gift economy,

and various other perspectives, models, and/or visions aiming to integrate two or more of the

above (e.g. 'social solidarity economy'; 'collaborative commons economy').

In the following sections I zoom in on a narrower selection of the above mentioned proposed

models, namely commons, circular economy and sharing economy. While an exhaustive ex-

ploration of all potential relationalities, convergences, complementarities and commensura-

bilities of these models is well beyond the scope of the thesis, it is nonetheless deemed perti-

nent for the thesis project, as well as for subsequent investigations, to outline some of these,

feeding into the discussion on how these might be operationalized in foresight practice gener-

ally, and in games as transdisciplinary tools for facilitating transformations particularly.

3.2.1.1 Commons

The notion of commons has in recent years been used as a frame that is purported to outline a

new social and political economic paradigm (e.g. Bollier, 2016; Bauwens, 2016), in stark

contrast with conventional neoliberal approaches (Gibson-Graham, Cameron & Healy, 2016;

- 14 -

Kostakis, Roos & Bauwens, 2015; Benkler, 2016). Building on the legacy and criticisms of

the work of Garrett Hardin (1968), Carol M. Rose (1994; 2015), and Elinor Ostrom (1991;

2010; 2012), among numerous others, a new strand of commons thinking has emerged, ma-

turing into a promising integrative field of thinking and practice, and spawning concepts such

as knowledge commons (Hess & Ostrom, 2007) and digital commons (Coleman & Dyer-

Witheford, 2007; Kostakis, Latou, Liarokapis & Bauwens, 2016). Relatedly, some commons

scholars, as well as other critical scholars of the recent past, have directed special attention to

the global transformative potential of urban spaces, with the cry and demand for “the right to

the city” (Lefebvre, 1996; Mitchell, 2003; Harvey 2012; Mattei & Quarta, 2015), and, more

recently, concepts of “the city as a commons” and “urban commons” (see, generally, Foster,

2011; Iaione, 2016, Foster & Iaione 2016), becoming a kind of emblem of the global emanci-

patory struggle at the urban level.

Some 'traditional' commons scholars might view this development antagonistically, seeing

such terminology as little more than misnomers, or inappropriate uses of the term. The asser-

tion I follow in this research regarding this 'conundrum' is the following. On the one hand,

there are valid criticisms concerning so-called 'neo-commons' scholarship – either in terms of

its often times rather speculative and abstract political philosophizing, and/or its underappre-

ciation of the analytical rigor needed in addressing real-world collective action problems

(Ostrom, 2012). However, in line with Foster & Iaione (2016), I argue that 'the commons' can,

and perhaps should be seen as more than a purely analytical or ontic category, and that these

new strands of commons-oriented thinking, or rather invocations of “the language of the

commons” as normative claims to resources and the 'appropriate' modes of governance that

may be associated with them (Foster & Iaione, 2016: 284), represent diverse, intellectually

rich and crucial attempts to discursively and practically 'properly politicize' (Žižek, 1999)

alternative ways of social and political economic organization, an arguably necessary strate-

gic and tactical component of transformations-oriented ambitions of radical alternatives

minded people, who find themselves situated within a post-political and hegemonic neoliber-

al landscape (Swyngedouw, 2016; Dikec & Swyngedouw; 2016).

In other words, the endeavors of various "commons transition" (P2P Foundation & Transna-

tional Institute, 2017) advocates, theorists and practitioners may be seen as representing a

turn towards the normative, 'performative', and political-strategic and tactical (i.e. the ques-

tions of '(de-) politicization') aspects of transformative agency, representing, at least in part,

an 'ontological turn' in commons-oriented discourse and practice. While one should be weary

of an "ontologized commons" functioning as a cover for the absence of effective political

strategy (de Bloois, 2016), I argue that there is an urgent need to see the ontic (i.e. 'real reali-

ty'; specific institutional arrangements) and the ontological as indeed frictional but also inex-

tricably intertwined in transformative political economic praxis; i.e. demanding equal atten-

- 15 -

tion to both norms, rules, and concrete egalitarian institutional arrangements and metabolisms,

as well as the imaginaries, narratives, speculations, ('self-referential') fictions etc. that (may)

comprise the processes of their ultimate constitution.

Thus, turns towards notions such as 'commoning' and 'commoners' (Bollier, 2016; Iaione,

2016), 'commonism' (Choi et al., 2016) and 'modalities of being-in-common' (Swyngedouw,

2016), may be seen as a way to imbue the practical question concerning the purported institu-

tional arrangements of just and sustainable political economies with unequivocally social,

cultural, aesthetic, and properly political dimensions, pointing towards not only different

ways and modes of doing and living, but also, and by extension, other ways of 'being'. The

term commoning was initially coined by historian Peter Linebaugh (2009) in an effort to ac-

centuate the link between commons as material and immaterial resources on the one hand,

and (social, cultural, political, economic, every day, etc.) practice on the other. Since then,

this 'verb' for the commons has been taken up by many other researchers, such as David Bol-

lier and Silke Helfrich, who advocate the term as a way to provide a new and much needed

vocabulary to make visible “the social practices and traditions that enable people to discover,

innovate and negotiate new ways of doing things for themselves” (Bollier & Helfrich 2012).

Such uses of the term reflect the need for a socio-political reframing and denaturalizing of

deeply embedded paradigms which give rise to today's unsustainable socio-technical-

ecological systems, which have also combindedly begun to outline the contours of an emerg-

ing viable alternative, open source, peer to peer, co-evolving, platform and commons-based

political economic institutional architecture (Ramos, Kostakis & Bauwens 2016; Foster &

Iaione 2016).

Notably, such emphases on alternative imaginaries vis-a-vis new creative vocabularies and

generally ways of expression are also among the central tenets of the degrowth movement

(D'Alisa, Demaria & Kallis (ed.), 2014). This however begs the question to which extent

these terms really help foster new imaginaries around 'the Possible' (Bloch, 1986), or, on the

other hand, create new divides among scholars and practitioners (but also, scholars and other

scholars) working with alternatives.

3.2.1.2 Circular & Sharing Economy

The concept of a circular economy, emanating originally from the field of industrial ecology,

has gained increasing attention in recent years with industry, academia, and policymakers.

Closed loop manufacturing, cradle-to-cradle, and zero waste are some of the key concepts

that proponents of circular economy see as upcoming design principles that qualitatively dif-

fer from that of a linear, non-circular economy (see, for example, Ede 2016; Hobson 2016;

Hobson & Lynch 2016; Prendeville, Cherim & Bocken 2017). A move towards a circular

economy entails dimensions of "design, production, consumption, use, waste and reuse prac-

- 16 -

tices", with the main goal of keeping "valuable materials in circulation through a series of

systemic feedback loops" (Hobson, 2016: 88).

However, while the concept is increasingly being taken up by various actors and organiza-

tions, an all-encapsulating and agreeable definition remains elusive. The major scholarly crit-

icism of mainstream debates around and practices of circular economy concerns the reality

that a large segment of incumbent organizations and institutions operate with the concept

almost exclusively in terms of technical innovation, production efficiency gains, market-

based interventions, and sustained economic growth (Hobson, 2016), offering an incremen-

talist and post-political discourse of "capitalist techno-solutionism" (Carson, 2016), which

can leave a range of possible contingent futures underexplored (Hobson, 2016). While explo-

rations of innovative technological solutions and technologically-mediated forms of socio-

economic engagement are not undesirable per se, scholars note that currently not much is

being said about "the socio-political implications and possibilities for shifting current produc-

tion-consumption-use-waste practices" (Hobson, 2016: 89).

In other words, the potentially disruptive, generative and transformative innovation space

offered by the notion and 'prefigurative' practice of circular economy is taken up by narra-

tives and practices that obfuscate its social, political, and cultural dimensions. The prevailing

narrative thus becomes promoting sustainable lifestyles (Hobson, 2013; Lorek & Spangeberg,

2013) that ascribes citizens to a de-politicized role of green consumers (Akenji, 2014; Fuchs

& Lorek, 2005). Another emerging criticism concerns the path-dependencies generated by a

hegemonic neoliberal market rationality and its proclivity towards economic growth as a

prime policy objective in itself, which poses, for example, dangers of a so-called 'circular

economy rebound effect' (Zink & Geyer, 2017), a phenomenon where increases in efficiency

make consumption of certain goods relatively less resource intensive, thus lowering their

market price, which increases their use, thus offsetting the environmental benefits, and in

some cases even leading to higher net impacts (Ibid.).

Generally it has become a well-known assertion that circular economy, like other alternative

economy and governance narratives and practices, does not in or by itself offer a panacea for

sustainable, just and resilient transitioning. In this light, some critical scholars have argued

for imbuing circular economy with degrowth (e.g., Charonis 2012; Hobson, 2015; Hobson &

Lynch, 2016), and/or post-growth and not-for-profit business perspectives (Ede, 2016). The

notion of circular economy in more radical scholarship and with alternatives practitioners is

highly connected to the ideas of open source design, and 'smart cities', raising profound ques-

tions around the creation, ownership, access and use of data involved in the making and polit-

ical economy of cities. For example Ravetz (2017) argues here for a move away from 'smart'

cities discourse, towards a more 'wise' cities approach. More radical approaches to circular

economy have also been linked to the 'makerspace', open design and FabCity (http://fab.city/)

- 17 -

movements. Closely related and emerging concepts also include 'design global, manufacture

local' (Kostakis et al. 2015; Kostakis et al. 2016) and cosmolocalism (Manzini, 2013; Manzi-

ni & Rithaa, 2016; Bauwens & Niaros, 2016). Newer discourse around and practice practice

of the commons, as indicated in the previous section, has been related to circular economy

with the notion of 'design commons' (Kostakis, Niaros, Dafermos & Bauwens, 2015), essen-

tially characterized by shared, and developed design tools using principles of open-source.

In seeking more integrative narratives and models of political economic alternatives, the cir-

cular economy narrative has also been related to the notion of the sharing economy (e.g.

Hobson & Lynch, 2016), 'sharing' here denoting a distinct 'modality of economic production'

(Benkler, 2004), and seen by some, perhaps more provocatively, as a kind of 'commons' in its

own right (Bradley & Pargman, 2017). In recent years many practitioners and scholars have

become critical of invoking the term sharing economy in the context of business models such

as those of Uber and Airbnb, perceiving them as a (continued) corporativist appropriation,

privatisation, precarisation, commodification and exploitation of the social sphere. Rooted in

emerging new socio-technologies, the "corporativist sharing economy" has by some accounts

found a rival in a commons-oriented, and arguably more open and egalitarian "platform co-

operativism" (Scholz 2016), standing in direct contrast to what has by some been termed

"platform capitalism" (Srnicek, 2016), or "netharchical capitalism" (Kostakis & Bauwens

2014: 23).

3.2.2 Theories of Change

The institutionalization dynamics of commons-oriented political economic models, i.e., those

that seek to go beyond the narrative of privatization and the usual dychotomy of a Leviathan

diad of market and state, while largely overlooked in previous engagements with the concept

(Van Laerhoven & Ostrom 2007; Ostrom, 2010), have in recent times been addressed both

directly by some scholars articulating the institutions, modes and strategies of a 'commons

transition' (e.g. P2P Foundation & Transnational Institute, 2017), as well as more generally

through the parallel development of theoretical and practical engagements with transforma-

tive change and social innovation institutionalization processes (e.g. Haxeltine et al. 2016;

Loorbach, 2007; Pel, 2015) and the critical issues (of inclusion, power, empowerment, etc.)

concerning these. In this section I draw upon the literature review to briefly lay out and criti-

cally compare a number of selected theories, heuristics and practices concerning transitions

and/or transformations; i.e. inquiries that strive to approach the question of agency and dy-

namics of transformations.

One widely established approach has been 'transition management' (e.g., Kemp, Loorbach &

Rotmans, 2005; Loorbach, 2007; Scholz, 2017) and the 'multi-level perspective', a heuristic

- 18 -

model distinguishing and articulating the complex dynamics between the 'niches', 'regimes',

and 'landscape' levels of 'socio-technical systems' (Geels, 2010). Various recent iterations

have been made upon this model, with infusions concerning the question of power in transi-

tions (Avelino & Rotmans, 2009), a 'multi-actor' perspective (Avelino & Wittmayer, 2016),

and closer attention to the politics of transitions and/or transformations (Avelino, Grin, Pel &

Jhagroe, 2016; Patterson et al., 2016). These more recent and critical developments (Pel,

Avelino & Jhagroe, 2016) notably seek to go beyond a rigid niche 'versus' regime dichotomy,

aiming to take into account several critiques of the transition management approach itself, not

least for its apparent 'post-political' tendencies and framings (Kenis, Bono & Mathijs, 2016).

More nuanced accounts of transition and/or transformation dynamics have been called for,

with one of the more prominent new approaches to the issue being the 'transformative social

innovation theory (TRANSIT)' (Haxeltine et al., 2016) currently being developed at the

Dutch Research Institute for Transitions in Rotterdam. This focus on 'social innovations', as

“changes in social relations, involving new ways of doing, organizing, knowing and framing”

(Longhurst et al., 2017: 2), has notably been applied to 'new economy' narratives and experi-

ments, understood as “novel ways of organizing economic relations which might form the

more fundamental transformation” (Ibid.) of economies, an approach which attempts to offer

a distinctly more normative and anti-capitalist turn in transition studies.

Relatedly, Pel (2015) criticizes the evolutionary economics approaches to understanding the

dynamics of 'capture' found in transition dynamics and argues for a more dialectical perspec-

tive (Pel, 2015; see also Pel et al., 2016). This perspective posits that "the ambiguity and evo-

lution of capture are crucial and closely related aspects", which "becomes apparent through

the possible 'inflections' through which initial capture may be followed by radicalization" (Pel,

2015: 4). Pel (2015) offers the well-known metaphor of the Trojan Horse to illustrate a coun-

ter-example to seeing innovation capture dynamics as they have been overly simplified by

one-sided evolutionary economics perspectives. The Trojan Horse "exemplifies the latent

transformative force that innovations may have, only emerging after and through capture"

(2015: 6).

Paying close attention to such co-optation dynamics has also been an emphasis of some re-

cent scholarship around 'commons-based peer production' (Kostakis & Stavroulakis, 2013).

Kostakis & Stavroulakis (2013), in their formulation of the concept of the 'parody of the

commons', critique Yochai Benkler's 'naive' account of 'commons-based peer production'

(Benkler, 2003), and problematize the co-optation of commons-oriented political economic

models. Similarly, Bauwens & Kostakis (2014) propose the concept of a 'netharchical capital-

ism' as a name that encapsulates the seemingly ineliminable lock-ins, path-dependencies, and

co-optation dynamics produced by capitalisms' hegemonic tendencies. However, these ac-

counts could be criticized following Pel's (2015) argument for a more dialectical perspective

- 19 -

to innovation capture – i.e. the so-called 'parody of the commons' and 'netharchical capital-

ism' may be seen as a rather 'fatalist' conception and framing of agency and dynamics of

transformations.

Apart from these theoretizations coming from a transition studies tradition, other approaches

to conceptualizing change have been proposed, one of which may be found in the 'theory of

emancipatory transformation' (Wright 2010, 273), coming from a more political sociological

tradition. According to Wright, the theory offers the tools to examine and compare 'ruptural',

'interstitial' and 'symbiotic' strategies or processes of social transformations, in the context of

their wider systemic transformation functions. While his consideration of 'ruptural strategies

builds on the hypothesis that any attempt at transcending capitalism necessarily entails a de-

cisive rupture, or break with existing institutions and societal structures, the ideas of intersti-

tial and symbiotic strategies build on the premise of a gradual and maintained social-

institutional metamorphosis, without necessarily a 'moment' of systemic discontinuity

(Wright 2010, 303). His formulation of a 'theory of emancipatory social transformation' fo-

cuses on 'real utopias' as a key concept, and component/driver of transformations, pointing

towards a profound reshaping of various social institutions, and not on abstract formulations

of 'the good life'. He puts forward participatory city budgeting, Wikipedia, cooperatives, and

Universal Basic Income as examples of these 'real utopias'; a concept that arguably closely

resembles that of 'social innovation' coming from the transition studies tradition.

Similarly, discussions have arisen about the frictions between 'ruptural' or 'radical change'

conceptions of transformations, and more 'incrementalist' views; seeking a hybrid or mid-way

with, for example, with the notion of 'radical incrementalist' strategies (Göpel, 2016), i.e. a

consciously incrementalist approach operating with an overarching vision of a possible de-

sired future. This approach to the question of the purposeful attempts to influence or steer

transformation processes is arguably much in line with Pel's (2015) dialectical perspective.

Transformative agency, following a radical incrementalist lens, “requires intense work of an

often highly political character and the acceptance that it takes time. Seeking to change a sys-

tem too swiftly or too drastically is likely to create self-defensive or destabilizing reactions.

The art of system innovation therefore entails finding the right steps and measures at the right

time, and also being prepared to deal with unexpected results” (Göpel, 2016: 7). What may be

seen as a highly related concept here is also that of disruptive innovation (Westley, 2011).

A pertinent question with such conceivable approaches to the question of transformations

towards sustainability is how might such theories be used as heuristic models that may struc-

ture transformation-oriented thinking, tool-building and action. One particularly useful model

here may be that developed by Riddell & Moore (2015), concerning the scaling of systemic

social innovation. They conceptualize the scaling of social innovation as a three-partite pro-

cess: scaling up (i.e., impacting laws and policy – changing institutions at the level or policy,

- 20 -

rules and laws), scaling out (i.e., impacting greater numbers – replication and dissemination,

increasing number of people and communities impacted), and scaling deep (i.e. impacting

cultural roots – changing relationships, cultural values and beliefs, hearts and minds) (Ridell

& Moore, 2015: 3).

Notably, the literature review yielded an identification of many other approaches to the ques-

tion of agency and dynamics of transformations, which are not included in this section. Other

possible approaches include the socio-ecological systems (SES) perspective (for a compari-

son of socio-technical systems, and SES perspectives, see Patterson et al. 2016), as well as

more classical social science engagements. Fazey et al. (2017) for example in their outlining

of theories of change relevant to the transformation sciences agenda, propose 'new institu-

tionalism' and other perspectives (see Fazey et al., 2017: 4–5). Generally, very few concep-

tions of change examined used the post-political critique as a framework of either/both as

reflexive self-critique, or use as a theory of change in its own right.

3.2.3 Transformations and Governance

A clear insight from the literature is that novel social-economic solutions will necessarily

involve innovative governance models and experiments (Iaione, 2015; Foster & Iaione, 2016).

The question however remains as to what “kinds of governance (…) will be needed in a

transformed world versus those needed to achieve it”, and “how such changes in governance

can be achieved, whether a hybrid of these two different models of governance is possible”

(Fazey et al., 2017: 9). In other words, clear delineations have to be made when talking about

'governance for transformations (governance that creates the conditions for transformations);

governance of transformations (governance to actively trigger and steer transformation pro-

cesses); and transformations in governance (transformations in governance modes/regimes)

(Patterson et al., 2016: 4). Also relatedly, Irwin (2015), in outlining an agenda for a 'transition

design approach' - i.e. “design within radiccally new socio-economic and political paradigms”

(Irwin, 2016: 231), puts forward the notion that “some solutions have intentionally short life-

spans and are designed to become obsolete as steps toward a longer-term goal. Other solu-

tions are designed to change/evolve over long periods of time. Transition Designers look for

‘emergent possibilities’ within problem contexts, as opposed to imposing pre-planned and

fully resolved solutions upon a situation” (Irwin, 2016: 237).

Modes of governance modified and/or created in the name of transformations will thus argu-

ably necessitate both models that are consciously transitory by design to very much 'future-fit';

that range from the small and partial, to wide-instiutional and systemic; from urgent here-now

pragmatic solutions, to effectively emancipated spaces for radical experimentation. Another

key insight is that fundamentally antagonistic interests and ways of knowing may exist,

- 21 -

which call for 'discordant pluralist' approaches (Vervoort et al., 2015) that engage with such

frictions and discomforts in new and productive ways (Vervoort et al., 2015; Fazey et al.,

2017).

In this regard, several models of governance 'of' and/or 'for' transformations have been out-

lined in the literature. In the following section, I offer a brief account of two of the arguably

more prominent models of governance - i.e. so-called 'polycentric' (Ostrom, 2010; 2012;

Iaione, 2016; Foster & Iaione, 2016) and 'collaborative', with explicit attention to formula-

tions offered by Iaione (2016) and Iaione & Foster (2016).

According to Iaione (2016: 426–427), collaborative governance requires a polycentric "quin-

tuple helix" approach, i.e. a structure of distributed networks that could forge new relation-

ships among government, knowledge institutions, industry, nonprofits, social innovators and

citizens, and encourage the collective power of these groups. In essence, according to Iaione,

the challenge is to, in a constitutive and unequivocally political process, transcend the Levia-

than diad of market and state, with actors coalescing and co-articulating a new 'Partner'

(Kostakis & Bauwens 2014), 'Enabling', or 'Facilitator' (Foster & Iaione 20166) state. Relat-

edly, a prime example of a concrete multi-stakeholder supported prototype of a collaborative

commons institutionalization process (at the urban level) today is the so-called 'Co-Mantova'

process experimented with in Italy, however such projects are springing up in cities through-

out Europe. Other prominent examples include the city of Bologna (see Iaione, 2016), and a

commons transition plan for the Belgian city of Ghent (Bauwens & Onzia, 2017). Notably,

the urban commons covered by the new regulation in the city of Bologna includes mainly

public spaces, urban green spaces and abandoned or squatted buildings or areas (Iaione

2016::424). According to the project initiator, such steps or 'nudges' are necessary for "city

inhabitants to start a collaboration with the local government to undertake, through a civic

pact, the care and regeneration of the urban commons across the city" (Ibid.), a strategy

which can arguably lead to an increase in overall salience and legitimacy of urban commons

visions and approaches to economy and governance.

The 'prefigurative' and largely theoretical models put forward by Iaione (2016) and Foster &

Iaione (2016) remain some of the only examples of real-world experimentation to date. Fur-

thermore, the authors' insistence on a 'quintuple helix' model does not yet explicitly address

the question of how roles and responsibilities might qualitatively transform over time with

such forms of collaboration, i.e. the question if these models represent a 'transformation in

governance', 'transformation of governance', or 'transformation of governance' (Patterson et

al., 2016) remains a critical one. Such a lack of empirical studies on “how diverse polycentric

institutions help or hinder the innovativeness, learning, adapting, trustworthiness, levels of

cooperation of participants, and the achievement of more effective, equitable, and sustainable

outcomes at multiple scales” (Ostrom, 2010: 9) is a key knowledge gap identified. While

- 22 -

such outlined institutional designs and preliminary experiments may offer some basis for

'commons-oriented' normative claims and deliberations on their possible applications in vari-

ous locales and existing institutional contexts, much work with such models is still deemed

needed.

As a side note, following a personal reflection, accepting the general thesis of a 'crisis of poli-

tics' and the 'post-political' condition (Žižek, 1999) – terms holding great deconstructive

power, yet ultimately by themselves not generative of genuinely 'egalitarian and emancipa-

tory modalities of politics' (Swyngedouw, 2016), may entail strategic shifts from discourses

around 'government versus governance', to distinctly power-oriented Foucauldian shifts to

'governmentality'; or even beyond such arguably fatalistic framings to what might be called

'meta-governmentality', here theoretically defined as 'virtually' emancipated spaces and places

where modes of governance may be openly contested, envisioned, co-defined, shared, as-

sessed and experimented with anew.

3.2.4 Roles of Foresight

In recent times, there has been some interest in merging understandings of alternative socio-

economic models (not explicitly commons-oriented) with 'post-normal' participatory scenario

co-design (e.g. Hebinck & Villarreal, 2016). However, there are a few identified problems

with these existing approaches. For one, an empirically rigorous analysis and scenario opera-

tionalizaton of the socio-economic and governance models discussed in this thesis is very

challenging both from a critical analytical and methodological (co-design) standpoint. While

using a scenario co-design approach in the sense of a reflexive and iterative engagement in-

volving a multitude of stakeholders is highly relevant for approaching the issues of social

salience, perceived legitimacy, and the developing of a sense of collective problem ownership,

such engagements risk the possibility of overly simplifying and/or overlooking complex so-

cio-technical-ecological realities, as well as possibilities. Another pertinent issue is that co-

designed scenario elements in participatory processes are often grounded in, and therefore to

one or another extent limited by, 'consensual presents' (Vervoort et al. 2015: 63), or 'flatlands'

of the future (Slaughter 1998a; 1998b), tied to ingrained imaginaries around probable (i.e.,

what is likely to happen), plausible (i.e., what could happen), and possible futures (i.e., the

full range of agency and possibility) (Inayatullah, 2009), devoid of deep critical (theoretical)

reflection and/or access to the full range of possible alternative futures that may be derived

from 'tendencies latent in the present (Sharpe, 2013). According to Ramos (2017) the ideal

role of foresight is “to inform and inspire social transformation toward ethical goals”, and

that enable people from many walks of life to “plant the seeds of change and create social

innovations, alternatives, and experiments that provide new pathways and strategies that can

- 23 -

lead to alternative and desirable futures. Foresight can inspire a sense of social responsibility

and impetus for social action, at both political and personal levels” (Ramos, 2017: 824). Ina-

yatullah (2009) argues that 'used' or 'default' futures offered by dominant narrratives around

possibilities should be fundamentally questioned. 'Postnormal times', according to Kuz-

manovic & Gaffney (2016), call for fostering people's 'futures literacy' and deeper engage-

ments with a range of other possible 'alternative futures'.

3.2.4.1 Traditions & Epistemological Orientations

Ramos (2017) and Fazey et al. (2017) have recently respectively put forward systematic

overviews of a range of foresight approaches and methods and the epistemological and onto-

logical assumptions found therein, as relating to the future, the present, and the discords and

connections between vis-a-vis conceptions of agency and dynamics of change. Table 2 serves

as an overview of these, leaning heavily on the above two works. Table 3 includes additional

trends in more recent foresight theory and practice.

Table 2: The modes, or 'epistemological orientations', and characteristics of foresight

approaches

Mode of Foresight

Practice

Characteristics

Predictive,

Deterministic

Predictability of the future

Linear change

Macro-economic forecasting

Limited complexity

Systemic

Complex models, causal loops and

interactions between variables

Open sets of possibilities

Scenarios & simulations

Contradictory modeling

Critical,

Deconstructive

Centrality of perspective, discourse and culture

Combining futures inquiry with

critical theory and political economy

How are power dynamics expressed in different images of the future

(i.e. 'default' or 'used' futures)

- 24 -

Mode of Foresight

Practice

Characteristics

Participatory, Action

Participatory engagement, involving different (contrasting)

perspectives

Group-based generative conversations about futures and pathways,

co-exploration of new narratives, visions and strategies,

Seeks a common understanding of challenges and grounds for visions

Uses combinations of other modes/approaches

How can tensions and discomforts be made productive?

Design-oriented

Combined with design approaches (e.g. service co-design,

speculative design, design futures), social innovation, and embodied

and experiential processes

The future is seen as shaped, and change driven, mostly from

intention and intervention by purposefully acting individuals who

(are able/in a position to) look beyond the status quo

Hybrid/Combinations Approaches that combine some of the above

Sources: Ramos, 2017; Fazey et al., 2017

3.2.4.2 Foresight & Theory

Karlsen et al. (2010), in their attempt to offer some contributions from sociology to futures

theory, poignantly characterize the state of foresight practice with the following: “Contempo-

rary foresight activities are dominated by commitment to research methods, almost as an end

in itself, resulting in abstracting modes of futures empiricism based on both quantitative and

qualitative methods. Arguably, there has been a general failure to examine and explicate the

relationship between theory and method. The application of a particular method has been

seen as sufficient requirement or justification for a foresight study, seemingly loosely coupled

to the wider issues the study is designed to address” (Karlsen et al., 2010: 61). Fazey et al.

(2017:12) relatedly point out that in foresight scholarship and practice, there are problematic

"assumptions regarding the ontological nature of the future, assumptions which are not usual-

ly questioned“.

Adressing the above issues, Vervoort et al. (2015) have recently proposed 'scenario

worldmaking', notably an attempted rehabilitation of Nelson Goodman's (1967) mode of so-

cial constrictivism, as a novel theoretical and methodological framework for visioning and

scenario practice. Grounded in the notion that realities are at their fundamental level socially

constructed, and that humans thus in effect inhabit a multiplicity of intertwining worlds,

which shape and are shaped by our (social, economic, political, cultural) imaginaries, it intro-

duces the notion of facilitating ontological agency as the core mission of collaborative sce-

- 25 -

nario practice. Instead of having questions of probability and plausibility of scenarios take

center stage (Ramirez & Selin 2014), Vervoort et al. (2015) stipulate that „engaging with

discomfort and ignorance as guidelines for scenario practice (...) may not only help produce

truly novel insights on potential futures, but may also help produce deeper insights about the

individuals or organizations involved in the exercise—at least reveal what they find discom-

forting and why“ (Vervoort et al. 2015: 63).

3.2.4.3 Foresight Tools & Techniques

In the following some of the more used foresight techniques in foresight practice are outlined:

Backcasting denotes a process that involves “generating a desirable future, and then

looking backwards from that future to the present in order to strategize and to plan how it

could be achieved” (Vergragt & Quist 2011: 747).

Scenarios are stories “with plausible cause and effect links that connects a future condi-

tion with the present, while illustrating key decisions, events, and consequences through-

out the narrative” (Glenn 2009). According to Angheloiu, Chaudhuri & Sheldrick (2017:

9) scenarios can be used to “encourage speculation across a widely varied set of alterna-

tive futures, and secondly, they enable a backcasting approach that begins with the as-

sumption of radical long-term change”.

Transition scenarios are the outcomes of “participatory explorations of possible long-

term development trajectories that incorporate a structural systems change towards a de-

sired, sustainable future state of the system” (Sondeijker 2009: 18).

Games can be playful engagements with potential futures which develop thinking around

new possibilities (Davies et al. 2012). Games usually take the form of a simulation, which

may be characterized as an experimental and experiential, rule-based, interactive envi-

ronment in which players take actions, and experience their effects though feedback

mechanisms built into and around the game (Mayer, 2009: 825).

Other new frontiers in foresight practice include 'anticipatory governance, experiential futures,

narrative foresight, and network-enabled foresight.

- 26 -

Table 3: New frontiers in foresight theory and practice and an overview of literature

Frontier Key literature

Anticipatory governance Fuerth (2011); Fuerth & Faber (2012); Ramos (2014); Guston (2014);

Boyd, Borgstrom, Nykvist & Stacewicz (2015)

Experiential futures &

speculative design

Candy (2010); Dune & Raby (2013); Candy & Dunagan (2016);

Kuzmanović & Gafney (2016); Angheloiu, Chaudhuri & Sheldrick

(2017)

Narrative foresight &

fiction

Milojevića & Inayatullah (2015); Burnam-Fink (2015); Raven &

Elahi (2015); Bina, Mateus, Pereira & Caffa (2016)

Network-enabled / Peer-

to-peer foresight

Priday, Mansfield & Ramos (2014); Ramos, Mansfield & Priday

(2014); Raford (2014); McGrail & Gaziulusoy (2014)

3.2.4.4 Anticipatory Governance

Anticipatory governance is an emerging concept and practice attempting to link foresight

with public decision-making structures and mechanisms. The notion is related to 'adaptive

governance' from resilience thinking (Folke et al. 2010). One of the aims of anticipatory gov-

ernance is to make "values explicit through foresight tools and techniques that deal with so-

cial complexity, perception, values and worldviews" (Ramos, 2014; see also Bezold, 2006;

2010). Fuerth (2011) defines anticipatory governance as "a system of institutions, rules and

norms that provides a way to use foresight, networks, and feedback for the purpose of reduc-

ing risk and increasing capacity". In outlining a research agenda for transformative science,

Fazey et al. (2017: 12) note that more “anticipatory forms of governance (are) required for

the Anthropocene era”. Some scholars note that polycentric governance approaches may lend

themselves to applications of network foresight (Boyd, Borgstrom, Nykvist & Stacewicz,

2015).

Ramos (2014) traces the evolution of the discourse around and practice of anticipatory gov-

ernance around the developments of: 1.) the notion of anticipatory democracy; 2.) science,

technology and innovation foresight; 3.) futures commissions; 4.) foresight informed strategic

planning; 5.) transition management; 6.) integrated governmental foresight; 7.) network fore-

sight. On the basis of his review, he proposes new (speculative) modes of anticipatory gov-

ernance, relating to different levels and scales of operations (from Ramos, 2014):

User-led state government system: generating cross-departmental intelligence, as

well as including and engaging citizens in issue identification and local problem-

solving.

- 27 -

National liquid foresight system: a robust interactive system designed to facilitate

interactivity, collective intelligence making and collaborative problem solving; a na-

tional web platform that allows citizens to establish pop up town hall style meetings.

Global foresight commons: a transnational cooperative system between governments,

businesses, community and research organizations around the world; an anticipatory

democracy platform that allows people to interact and self-organize, create and enact

new possible futures.

Other authors have also outlined 'global foresight commons' as a crucially needed system of

inclusive and empowered futures-making (e.g. Priday, Mansfield & Ramos, 2014).

3.2.5 Synthesis

While the emerging discourses concerning a 'new economy' and more egalitarian modes of

governance on the surface appear to diverge, seem largely disconnected, and contestable, on

the basis of the literature review and (partial, attempted) synthesis I would argue that it is

precisely the imaginaries, power plays and dynamics of a hegemonic neoliberalism that ob-

fuscate their potential complementary nature as part and parcel of an emerging and qualita-

tively different institutional logic. To a growing number of researchers and alternatives prac-

titioners, these emerging socio-economic and political alternatives are seen as a multitude of

interstitial, prefigurative, complimentary and/or overlapping, organizational and functional,

value, ethics, rights, technology and science based principles of an arguably very possible

new mode of (open, inherently pluralist) collaborative enterprise, one that could do very well

in building upon and be normatively orientated towards co-evolving theories, practices,

knowledge and imaginaries inspired by the notion of 'the commons'.

In exploring the theories of change literature, and foresight practice, I came to the conclusion

that these may indeed represent crucial tools to enable non-expert practitioners to operate

with such alternatives and apply them in their efforts toward more sustainable and egalitarian

ideals concerning political economy and society more generally. Specifically, games espe-

cially seem to lend themselves to engage in such complex topics in both a serious and playful

manner. Throughout the analysis, two questions came to mind that I sought to explore with

the subsequent practical part of the thesis, which notably are in themselves represent a kind of

theory, and speculative praxis, of (social, political) transformation:

1. Can games, and specific methods of game and/or game content co-development, serve

as a boundary object between the world of alternatives (e.g. theorists, alternatives

practitioners, institutional designers, radical experimenters) on the one hand, and

practitioners dealing with incumbent institutions, actors, and power dynamics on the

- 28 -

other; in order to foster new insights, strategies and 'interventionist' designs (as 'novel

attractors') that could serve to support their 'ontological agency' and 'transformative

capacity'?

2. How might the various new economy and governance models, as well as foresight

tools and practices be operationalized, or 'gamified', within a game-type environment

– both as a learning tool that familiarizes players with radical alternatives and more

anticipatory modes of governance, and for engaging with futures-making more

generally; thus offering a kind of suite of 'self-referential design fictions' that may

ultimately lead to their own realization via subsequent further co-design and place-

based experimentation?

4 Phase Two – Interviews

During and after the initial phase of critical comparative literature review, interviews were

conducted with various actors, to pursue in practice the research questions and aims posed.

4.1 Interviewee Selection & Interview Methods

For the interviews, a selection of participants was conducted, notably corresponding to 'three

layers' of enquiry: global alternatives academics, Dutch academics and alternatives practi-

tioners, and local non-expert practitioners based in Eindhoven (i.e., involved in the aforemen-

tioned pre-thesis Visie Stadslandbouw process). The interviews were conducted on the

grounds of either their respective expertise or interests in alternatives, and/or their involve-

ment with the Visie Standslandbouw process:

Local case study: (1) Eindhoven stakeholders/practitioners/'problem owners/; (2) foresight

expert involved in the visioning process (Visie Stadslandbouw) in Eindhoven in 2016

Netherlands: (1) academics with background in supporting multi-stakeholder processes,

foresight, and/or socio-economic and governance alternatives; (2) 'alternatives practitioners'

that have a background in, and in their work (within municipal government, or on the basis of

'start-ups') pursue in one way or another socio-economic and/or governance alternatives

Global: (1) academics actively involved with and writing publications about radical socio-

economic and governance alternatives

- 29 -

Below is an overview of the respective interviewees, the levels at which they work, their ex-

pertise and/or itnerests, and affiliations.

Table 4: Interviewee Matrix

Level Position Name Expertise/Interest Affiliation

Global Academic Jennifer

Hinton

Post-growth political

economy

Stockholm Resilience Centre (PhD

researcher); Post-Growth Institute (researcher)

Netherlands Academic Michiel de

Lange

Civic media, Smart

Cities, Multi-stakeholder

foresight, Games

Utrecht University (assistant professor New

Media Studies); Mobile City (co-founder);

The Hackable City (researcher)

Academic Heleen Mees Urban governance,

Bottom-up initiatives,

Climate adaptation,

Action research, Multi-

stakeholder foresight

Utrecht University; City Deal on Climate

Adaptation (researcher)

Alternatives

practitioner

Ward

Mesman

Circular economy, Smart

cities

‎CTO Municipality of Amsterdam; Circular

Economy Programme (manager)

Alternatives

practitioner

Walter

Dresscher

Sharing economy

(mobility); Smart cities;

'Urban commons'

De Natuurlijke Stadt (co-founder); P2P

Foundation (blog coordinator)

Eindhoven

(Case Study)

Academic Aniek

Hebinck

Foresight, Action

research

TRANSMANGO

Local

practitioner

Rik Thijs Sustainability City Council Eindhoven, GroenLinks

Local

practitioner

Henri

Verbruggen

Food system

sustainability, Bottom-up

initiatives

Municipality of Eindhoven (district initiative

coordinator)

Local

practitioner

Andre Cools Urban design Proeftuin040 (Knowledge broker)

Local

practitioner

Wieteke

Brocken

Social design Aarde & Co.

(founder)

Interview dates (in order from first to last):

Aniek Hebinck: 5.5.2017

Heleen Mees: 10.5.2017

Michiel de Lange: 18.5.2017

Wieteke Brocken: 7.6.2017

Walter Dresscher: 13.6.2017

- 30 -

Henri Verbruggen: 16.6.2017

Jennifer Hinton: 19.6.2017

Ward Mesman: 19.6.2017

Rik Thijs: 27.6.2017

The initial talk with Andre Cools as part of the framing of the research informed the formula-

tion of semi-structured interview questions for the participants. For this, an important input

was also the conducted critical comparative literature review. The interview questions are

included in Appendix 1; all the questions were posed to all the interviewees, apart from the

last question concerning game design, which concerned only the practitioners of the Eindho-

ven case study.

The critical literature review served especially to formulate some strategic normative 'framing

devices' that were used during the discussions with all interviewees, in order to probe the

possible knowledge gaps and/or discomforts of the participants. The main such framing de-

vice was the explication of the examples of businesses Airbnb and Uber to participants as

'corporativist models of sharing economy'. The co-optation dynamic, or generally appropria-

tion of 'alternative economy' discourse, implicit in the explication of the Airbnb and Uber

examples, served as a frame in discussions with the practitioners and academics; which

probed their understanding of the problematique of socio-economic and governance alterna-

tives, and the dynamics of transformation, which led to varied responses on the part of all the

interviewees. The interview time-frame was also set up so as to have a 'back and forth' be-

tween various experts (academics and alternatives practitioners), local practitioners of the

case study, and 'alternatives practitioners'. Below I offer some of the core results, or insights

from the interviews conducted.

4.2 Results

The interview with Aniek Hebinck as a researcher directly involved in the facilitation of the

Visie Stadslandouw process yielded deeper insights into the dynamics of the workshop, about

the stakeholders present (and not present) in the workshops, and views on what were and are

generally the barriers in such multi-stakeholder processes regarding “rather radical vision(s)”

for the city. Interview with Heleen Mees generated insights as to how it is “very difficult” for

various city stakeholders to “imagine anything beyond yesterday, or tomorrow”.

The insights from the de facto core problem owners of the Eindhoven vision (Rik Thijs, An-

dre Cools, Wieteke Brocken) were the following.Rik and Henri (Municipality of Eindhoven)

emphasize the advantage of the institutionalized 'triple helix' system (close cooperation be-

- 31 -

tween government, business, and knowledge institutions), and ongoing aspirations and prob-

ings to instate a 'quadruple helix' system (i.e. actively involving civil society in multi-

stakeholder decisionmaking regarding the city, its economy, and future). However, they indi-

cate that while there are some initial endeavours in this direction, they are unsure of how such

an involvement of civil society would work in practice. There is also the question of scaling

initiatives – "to scale or not to scale, that is the question" (Rik Thijs), and how this fits with

overarching goals, a vision, etc., for the city. Rik Thijs from the municipal government said,

"Sometimes it's not so much what the government should do, but what it should not do". In

other words, a big question concerns creating the space, "letting go" (Heleen Mees), and how

that might work. Their use of the notion of triple and quadruple helix lended itself unexpect-

edly well with the introduction of the so called "quintuple helix model" (Iaione, 2016; Foster

& Iaione, 2016), with which the organization LabGov is experimenting in Italy. The social

designer, Wieteke (Aarde & Co.), would reportedly like to see the government be a "co-

creator", be “on the same page”.

One of the biggest barriers the government actors identified concerns the financial aspect

(Rik Thijs), i.e. underinvestment from the national government when compared to other ma-

jor Dutch cities such as Amsterdam. A possible driver or solution was proposed as forming a

“city region of Eindhoven” (Rik Thijs), with a common funding scheme to support innova-

tion. One of the things that led to the visioning process in the first place is reportedly that the

government was “looking at CO2 targets” specifically, and that “with current plans we have,

these won't meet those targets at all” (Rik Thijs).

One of the crucial and more complex barriers overall was identified by all interviewees as the

compartmental structure of the city's departments. Vested interests and different ways of ap-

proaching and thinking about change was also a common highlighed core issue.

The 'normative framing' of economic alternatives, and introdutions of the quintuple helix,

collaborative governance, and 'commons transition plan' respectively, were met positively

with all the interviewees involved. The interview with post-capitalist economy expert Jen-

nifer Hinton yielded especially interesting insights – on the basis of the introduced critical

framing of the business models of Uber and Airbnb, discussion ensued on a more dialectical

perspective towards such models, i.e., that their introcution is not necessarily as 'bad' and

'fatalistic' as many make them out to be, and that their proliferation may in fact present a kind

of 'Trojan Horse' dynamic, outlined by Pel (2015). Another key insight gotten from this par-

ticular interviewee was the notion of 'radical incrementalism' and a reference to the perceived

importance of the new publication of Göpel (2016) – a notion and literature work which were

retroactively integrated into the theoretical analysis. Jennifer also introduced her six-layers

heuristic, named 'six layers of engagement', an important component of part of her upcoming

book How on Earth: Flourishing in a Not-for-Profit World in co-authorship with Donnie

- 32 -

MacLurcan. This draft content is cited in this thesis with permission from the authors, and

was used as part of the design of the initial game guide prototype (see Appendix 2).

The interview discussion with civic media expert Michiel de Lange also yielded some in-

sights as to how alternative modes of governance might be introduced and rendered operable

to stakeholders, by outlining his engagement with games as an important medium. This in-

formed the methodological approach taken in the next stage, while also using the theoretical

analysis and other interview input.

The 'back and forth' between the actors at various levels also proved crucial to the formation

of some specific questions for Ward Mesman (Municipality of Amsterdam) – as Henri Ver-

bruggen (Municipality of Eindhoven) identified lack of space of alternatives as a key issue,

this issue was raised with Ward Mesman, who gave an account of how Amsterdam is secur-

ing space for experimentation with circular economy, and generally how the city is support-

ing both social innovation, as well as establishing channels of communication and feedback

with the average citizen. One key issue raised by civic media expert Michiel de Lange, name-

ly that innovation space is often taken up by very much “design-oriented thinking” and that

actors applying for funding fundamentally have “their own financial stakes” with these types

of projects. The issue was taken up subsequently with Ward Mesman, however no insights as

to how this dynamic may play out in Amsterdam were generated.

Generally, the questions and discussions with interviewees yielded answers that may be char-

acterized by the following typology. With each type of answer are indicated interviews whose

focal point was the respective category:

Barriers to change (all interviewees)

Drivers of change (all interviewees)

Support mechanisms for social innovation (Ward Mesman)

Local/global initiatives (Henri Verbruggen, Walter Dresscher)

Modes of multi-stakeholder cooperation (Rik Thijs, Henri Verbruggen, Wieteke

Brocken, Ward Mesman, Heleen Mees, Michiel de Lange)

Tools for change (all participants)

New avenues for research (theory/heuristic of/for change) (Jennifer Hinton)

Foresight methodology (games) (Michiel de Lange)

Which and how these results were operationalized in the game prototype is laid out in the

next section.

- 33 -

5 Phase Three – Prototyping & Design

On the basis of the critical comparative literature review and interviews, and with the agree-

ment of several local practitioners in Eindhoven to join a game co-development session, I

used the knowledge gained and interview inputs to create a backcasting-game hybrid proto-

type with role playing elements, a scenario vision of a 'commons future', and some supportive

materials in terms of 'playing cards' (namely, 'Barriers', 'Transition ingredients', and 'Seeds').

The choice for a backcasting-game hybrid with role playing elements, and the supportive

cards, was made on the basis of the literature review, a subsequent overview of existing ana-

log games such as card games and board games, which are outlined in the following table:

Table 5: Examples of existing games on alternative socio-economic and governance

paradigms

Game Web Link

Comonsopoly http://commonspoly.cc/

The Commons Game https://futureslab.org/2016/12/20/the-commons-

game-proposal-version-3-for-feedback/

C@rds in Common https://www.thegamecrafter.com/games/c-rds-in-

common

Utopoly

http://www.furtherfield.org/features/interviews/ut

opoly-playing-tool-reimagine-our-future-

interview-neil-farnan

Transition Ingredients Card Game

https://www.transitionculture.org/2017/02/13/tran

sition-ingredients-cards-in-english-italian-and-

chinese/

The Commons Game (Proposal Version 3+) https://futureslab.org/2016/12/20/the-commons-

game-proposal-version-3-for-feedback/

The game prototype design process itself notably involved a lot of intuition on the part of

myself in how to use the theoretical analysis in tandem with the results from the interview.

The game guide prototype included mechanics involving role-play elements, backcasting, the

use of cards, and a structured reflection stage involving theories, or heuristics concerning

transformation, as well as optional retroactive futuring on the basis of the completed backcast

(see Game Guide Prototype Version 1 in Appendix 2).

- 34 -

The commons future scenario, and the optional supportive 'co-cities everywhere' scenarios

also involved a lot of intuition and creativity, which was in large part based on the theoretical

review. The respective scenarios may be found as part of the Game Guide Prototype Version

1.0 in Appendix 2. Notably, in the latter phases of the theoretical analysis, I developed a criti-

cal question that may be seen as a 'spectulative design scenario', and was used as the basis for

developing the scenario used in the game co-design workshop. The speculative design ques-

tion is the following:

"Notwithstanding the (by certain means, navigable) barriers in terms of ingrained post-

political institutions and imaginaries and global neoliberal hegemony, could the idea of the

inauguration of a kind of cooperative (cyberspatial, on-the-ground, hybrid) knowledge-

foresight-design commoning platform, with sets of expanding, collaboratively moderated and

shared knowledge, information, interfaces, designs, models and fictions, constitute a viable

kind of open, co-generative and co-evolving scaled and networked polity space (with corre-

sponding place-based instances, such as on-the-ground workshops, councils, and delibera-

tions, with knowledge brokers modulating insights between the on-the-ground and cyberspa-

tial), by means of which we may inclusively articulate and play out diverse, resilient, open

and experimental political economies, organizational and institutional transformation path-

ways, future-fit thinking, designs and infrastructures, transitory empowerment schemes (such

as a fiat-capital based universal income, gradually phased out with the introduction of other

mechanisms to secure people's welfare and ontological security), generative justice frame-

works, alternative valuations and modalities of work, alternative welfare pooling and alloca-

tion/distribution schemes, alternative indexes and currencies, product and service designs,

civic medias, technologies and cultural practices?"

The rationale behind the development and use of the scenario was to introduce some models

engaged with through the theoretical-analytical research (e.g. circular & sharing economy,

collaborative governance), coupled with creative inputs of the researcher, as an 'intervention-

ist' way to stimulate thinking of participants about ways in which our social and political eco-

nomic systems might be organized and function (on both more abstract, and everyday levels)

differently in the future. This in turn was to serve as a reference point for the subsequent col-

lective visioning and goal-making for the city of Eindhoven (as a starting point for the back-

casting-game), as a city that is part of, but in some respects may also differ from the future

world scenario narrative. The one-page long written scenario as read out to participants may

be found as part of the 'Game guide Prototype Version 1.0' in Appendix 2.

The 'Barriers' and 'Transition Ingredients' cards were formulated mostly on the basis of the

mixed input of all the interviewees, that is, on the basis of their account of the barriers they

face in pursuing their transformative ambitions; as well as potential drivers, or 'ingredients' of

transitions. Some examples of these cards are provided in Appendix 3. The total number of

- 35 -

pre-developed cards amounted to 60 original cards. Notably, in forming the final cards, the

raw data from the interviews was slightly modified for gramatical correctness and coherence.

In some instances, when multiple interviewees identified the same or very simmilar barrier,

the quotes were combined to form one card. In some instances I took creative liberties in

modifying the original text (i.e. interview quotes from transcripts). I also assigned the respec-

tive cards clearly visible names, sometimes with intentionally humorous overtones. Some of

the cards were based not on input from interviews, but from the theoretical analysis of fore-

sight tools (e.g. the 'Global Alternatives Map' and 'Serious games used as facilitative and re-

search tools' cards shown in Appendix 3).

The 'Seed' cards were based on more intuitively and rather arbitrarily selected initiatives

found during the analysis of the literature, specifically in contexts such as sharing and circu-

lar economy. A few of the Seeds were based on the interviews with both local and alterna-

tives practitioners ('Local/Global initiatives'), regarding the alterantives-oriented initiatives

that either they themselves have come across, or personally work with/on. Seed cards thus

included initiatives such as: 'Bike sharing infrastructure', 'Urban garden', 'Library of things',

'Hedgehog and other wildlife-friendly cityscape redesign', 'Eco-village', 'Decentralized energy

production', 'Car sharing infrasturcure'; 'Permaculture farm'; 'Sustainable beekeeping'; 'Tiny

houses'; 'Edible parks and forests'; 'Ecosystem restoration camp'. The seeds were envisioned

as supporting the backcasting process (as another type of 'drivers of change'), as optional ad-

ditional elements.

The game prototype developed was tested and iterated upon prior to the workshop in Eindho-

ven during a brief 30-minute session with my mentor, dr. Joost Vervoort, and a fellow Sus-

tainable Development MSc student of Utrecht University, Astrid Mangnus.

5.1 Workshop Set-Up

Out of four local practitioners based in Eindhoven asked to join the game co-development

and playtesting workshop, three responded positively. Additionally, the thesis project mentor

dr. Joost Vevoort, a foresight specialist, was asked to join the workshop in the capacity of

both participant/co-developer, and co-facilitator. The workshop was conducted on July 13th

2017 from 3pm to 6pm (3 hours) in the offices of Eindhoven City Hall. The transcript of the

workhop is included in Appendix 4.

The final participants were:

Rik Thijs (Eindhoven city councelor, political party GroeneLinks)

- 36 -

Andre Cools (Urban developer and enterpreneur, organization Proeftuin040)

Wieteke Brocken (Social designer, organization Aarde & Co.)

dr. Joost Vervoort (Foresight researcher, Utrecht University)

5.2 Game Co-Design Workshop Results

The game co-design workshop entailed the collective re-design of the first draft prototype

that was designed by myself and iterated upon through. The game co-design session, as a

very experimental method, and the discussion that ensued, yielded a number of interesting

results, which are outlined below.

In the starting phase of the workshop, I briefly introduced the pre-developed game prototype

model. It was explained to participants that the engagement was designed as a backcasting-

game hybrid, which starts with a reading out of a pre-developed scenario (based on a combi-

nation of literature review and interviews), a collective visioning phase, and the definition of

the players' respective roles, followed by a backcast that is partly facilitated through the use

of cards ('Barriers', and 'Transition Ingredients', respectively) that have been pre-developed

for the game. In agreement with this basic layout, we began the session. Participants engaged

in constructive dialogue regarding the various facets of the potential game and its uses. New

possible elements of the game, reflecting and iterating upon several aspects of the pre-

developed prototype, were proposed by the participants. The game co-design process notably

generated many insights as to how people/stakeholders would like visioning to be structured,

and how they conceptualize the key components in thinking about transformations and new

forms of collaboration and economy:

In analyzing the transcript made of the workshop discussions, I have structured the insights

from participatory game co-development into the following clusters/elements:

Target Users & Aims of the Game

Scenario & Vision

Roles, Goals & Incentives

Direction

Element of Fun/Play

Target Users & Aims of the Game

The aims of the game and target users were discussed both with respect to the researcher's

stated goals of the game, as well as the participant's expressed ideas and needs as potential

end-users. These were expressed by the participants as the following. Andre Cools (Proef-

tuin040) interpreted the target users as being practitioner 'changemakers' (e.g., within gov-

- 37 -

ernments, larger organizations) working with different social and political economic para-

digms, who face certain barriers in their transformative ambitions. The goal he expressed was

to offer a way for internal barriers and restricting issues of organizations to be openly ex-

pressed and dealt with by participants. Joost (Utrecht University) expressed the target users as

being individuals, working in different parts of the city (e.g., government, private sector) who

know and feel comfortable enough with each other enough to talk openly about the issues

they are running into in pursuing their transformative ambitions, and find together potential

solutions. He expressed the main aim as to bridge people working on alternatives, with practi-

tioners. In discussing the game's aims and target users, Rik Thijs (City Council Eindhoven)

proposed the possibility of the game process involving civil society actors. However, other

participants (Andre Cools, Joost Vervoort) noted in response that this would entail a risk that

more internal issues of organizations would then likely not be openly discussed by practition-

ers, and that while the opinions of civil society should always be valued, this should likely

take the form of a different, complimentary process, such as in the form of a game for a more

public-oriented engagement. That said, a subsequently proposed idea (Rik Thijs) was that

although it may indeed be undesirable to include civil society actors into such sensitive inter-

nal organizational deliberations, a game could 'simulate' that perspective, by having one or

more players play a clearly defined role of a 'citizen', giving the example of a sanitary worker

with a below-average salary. Notably, the general issue was raised by Joost Vervoort that the

game design process should avoid trying to "produce a game to do everything".

Scenario & Vision

The scenario presented – a narrative around a 'possible or ' 'alternative future' world – was

introduced at the beginning of the playtesting and co-design session. The participants were

encouraged to make notes during the reading of the scenario, to serve as a basis for the sub-

sequent visioning (a 'desirable', or 'preferred' future) for the city of Eindhoven. Wieteke

Brocken (Aarde & Co.) responded very favorably to the scenario vision. However, her as

well the rest of the participants immediately expressed concerns over the scenario being pre-

sented as a "vision in the name of" (Wieteke Brocken), and the importance of giving "people

the feeling that they are gearing towards a future that they would actually like to see happen"

(Andre Cools). This illustrated the tension between a pre-given scenario and the need for co-

ownership of a vision. As the scenario was in part a way to introduce to players some facets

of the research into political economic alternatives conducted, participants sought to achieve

a middle ground methodologically. One suggestion by a participant (Andre Cools) to address

this tension was that players might be given a set of cards to choose from, each with one

small part or element of the overall scenario context, in order to build a kind of composite

image of the future. Joost Vervoort stated that such a composite vision may still be used with

a pre-given scenario, for example on the condition that the fundamentally pluralist aspect of

- 38 -

that scenario narrative future is made very clear to participants. The participants generally

agreed that a "utopian point on the horizon" (Andre Cools) is desirable to inform thinking and

action.

Regarding the vision for the city of Eindhoven, originally intended to be located within the

overarching scenario world, Rih Thijs noted that one could create cards with four questions:

the ideal, a topic, a threat, and “who should not be forgotten”. Generally Andre Cools noted

that the vision should be more “plug and play”. Andre Cools said that the vision should be

guided by the statement, “this (is) what I want to do good for the city, and for myself, but

why can't I do it”. Generally Joost Vervoort commented that a balance should be made what

had been pre-made for the game (i.e. the overarching scenario), and the collective creation -

“it should be less about responding to a given scenario” and “more about getting the tools to

make the scenario fit the questions that you have.” Andre Cools, referring back to the scenar-

io vision, stated that “I don't believe that actually our world (…) will be like this In any

amount of time, well maybe in 500 years.” “How you should see this future” was a question

raised by Joost Vervoort. Wieteke Brocken commented that the different participants may

interpret various aspects of the pre-given scenario differently, “in this whole story I pick up

on other words than you did.” Rik Thijs commented that “some things that are given now are

completely forgotten there,” such as crime, and the question of inclusivity in this scenario

vision. Joost Vervoort commented that this depends on “how long this is in the future”, and

also pointed out that participants may have some preconceived notions about “at what speed

and intensity” people in this future do these new, more co-creation oriented jobs laid out in

the scenario. Furthermore, he pointed out that “maybe it is true that in this future there are

problems with inclusivity”, and that the scenario may be seen as a kind of meritocracy world

where “only the people who can, count.” Who may be left out in this future scenario was thus

a key question outlined, or, conversely, how have the issues concerning inclusivity, participa-

tion and/or empowerment been dealt with before this future vision. Rik Thijs commented that

he was fond of the idea that “the helping part, that that was the base of success,” and that it

combines the “global and local” orientations.

Roles, Goals & Incentives

The players were encouraged to think about the roles or positions that they would occupy

within this future vision of the city and world, and what goals these roles may have looking

from the present moment, towards the future. Instead of selecting the roles arbitrarily, during

the co-design it was suggested that it would be best for the participants to “play themselves,

but then think about their future roles” (Joost Vervoort). The following goals for the future,

with respect to already thinking about their desired future roles, were articulated by the par-

ticipants:

- 39 -

Andre Cools: “The city contributes to people's health, instead of endangering it”

Wieteke Brocken: “Working with and in nature, with communities; community farm,

nature and culture connection

Joost Vervoort: “Get many people involved in empowered future making”

Rik Thijs: “Make metropolotan region Eindhoven the most helpful part of the world”

Discussion then ensued on what is meant by “health”, and what is meant by “helpful”. The

participants spontaneously started to 'fertilize' each other's goals, or visions, with their own

interpretations of what was meant by the respective statements. Regarding health, the issues

of sport and recreation, and psychological health were raised. Concerns were raised over

“helpful” being something that may also resemble more a standard practice “business model”

(Andre Cools).

Wieteke Brocken commented that while the other expressed roles were not so much personal

ambitions as general goals for the city. She encouraged the participants to explain more in

detail how these expressed goals relate to personal ideals. However, Rih Thijs was of the

opinion that “I don't want to know what's the personal agenda, if the vision is to be sustaina-

ble, or circular.” Andre Cools expressed that he interpreted the task as explicating “actually

your professional goal (…) not your personal.” Rik Thijs commented that he wrote down his

goal “as goal of Eindhoven.”

Discussion ensued on the more concrete roles of each player in this future vision:

Andre Cools: Concept developer

Joost Vervoort: Impact researcher

Wieteke Brocken: Ecological food designer / Designer and farmer / Community creator /

Communicator

Rik Thijs: Amb-Minister (a combination of ambassador and minister) of the new wider

region of Eindhoven, within the national government

Some of the participants thought that it was not so much their role that was different in the

future, but more so the overall institutional context or substratum surrounding that role; “I

can be just myself, but my surroundings have to change” (Andre Cools). Such discussions

around the changes necessary in the institutional context, rather than the role per se, led to the

identification of first barriers articulated by the participants themselves, as barriers towards

achieving that “position”, rather than perhaps a “role” (Joost Vervoort).

At this stage, I began introducing to the players the pre-developed Barrier and Transition In-

gredients cards, along with some Seed cards. These were hand-picked for the players, in re-

sponse to the future roles or positions that the players defined for themselves. The players

- 40 -

were also encouraged to come up with their own barriers, for which blank cards were provid-

ed. This general mix of pre-made and user-generated content was notably received well by all

the participants, “ it’s also to get people inspired by what kind of barriers are we talking about.

And if you let people decide for their own they will probably be very pragmatic” (Andre

Cools).

Discussion then ensued on the question if players should define barriers for themselves, each

other, or a mix of both. A point system that would incentivize both the creation of barriers

and possible solutions that would work towards overcoming the barriers was also discussed.

A general comment was that “most barriers will apply closer to the present” (Andre Cools),

while Joost Vervoort noted that “some barriers (…) take a lot of time to be resolved, and

some can be resolved earlier.” Joost Vervoort also commented that “talking about your role,

and the barriers, and how to overcome these barriers” while “ making structured plans over

time is quite difficult, especially if you are working back” from the future towards the present

moment.

Several possible solutions were proposed for this. One suggestion was that the backcast sce-

nario could be first split into several phases, “to achieve that role, what steps do there need to

be” (Rik Thijs). The idea was then that each participant does a quick backcast for themselves,

and explains it to the other players, which would then be followed by working with one back-

cast at a time in 'seeding' the backcast with barriers and ways of overcoming them. Generally,

in that context one idea was that the identification of one's role and goal could be done as

“homework beforehand” (Andre Cools). Another issue then concerned how this splitting of

the pathways would then enable finding common goals (a desirable purpose of the game, as

expressed by the participants). One proposal by Joost Vervoort was to work “on your own

goals, but you are thinking together about them, trying to help each other”, i.e. “you are try-

ing to achieve these individual things, but you are trying to help each other achieve

them.“ Andre Cools suggested that might work well if the players of the game “are ideologi-

cally on the same page,” but even in that situation, during playtesting in this session the goals

were expressed at radically different scales and with regard to different topics. An idea to

address that issue was to agree beforehand on, rather than fundamentally separate goals, one

common overarching goal, by making a composite goal though seeing how the different goals

and roles articulated might relate to each other – at different levels and scales.

One common overarching goal as part of that endeavor to make a composite goal was pro-

posed as “the city has to be circular” by “2050” (Rik Thijs). Andre Cools added that “you can

still do different things and make connections, because maybe you can have this goal, Eind-

hoven circular by 2050, and then make it a little bit more practical,” saying “what are the four

things you would like to do most, within that Eindhoven circular (vision). So one person

- 41 -

maybe says ‘I want to have an experimentation lab here in the city square, which makes the

circular design completely visible’, and then you (...) all these barriers why...”

As a summarization of the game co-design process, Joost Vervoort stated the following lay-

out: “what do we want to achieve, what is the step just before that, (...) what are the things

that need to be in place for that to be achieved, (...) and then you can let that be guided by

some ideas about what are the challenges (are) … (T)hen you create roles, and then you do

the backcasting, and help each other achieve those (positions).” Andre Cools added that “for

the sake of simplicity, (...) divide (the backcast) up into for example four or five phases, so

don’t let people think about every little step they need to take, (...) (Y)ou have these phases,

and then everyone can have a turn to put a barrier before phase one, because the thing you

want to do is make it really clear to the people playing this that they know what they want to

do, but maybe even more importantly, what are the things that are causing it that it is so hard

to for us to accomplish (…) (T)he message should be (...) crystal clear, (...) phase one we

have five or six, and these are the most important barriers, they are probably not all the barri-

ers, but they are the most important ones.” Rik Thijs commented that that layout would make

it “easier to connect (the barriers).” In another attempt at summarization, Andre Cools said

“(s) it is just one common goal, a few building blocks how to reach it, (...) roles associated

with it, and the building blocks to be organized in different phases. Actually, transitioning

from phase one to phase two to phase three, is a game mechanic.”

Direction

One prominent discussion was with regards to questioning the direction in which the fore-

sight exercise should be conducted, i.e. a backcast, or a forecast. Andre Cools commented

that forecast „could also be nice because if you can’t overcome some barriers, then you can

get stuck. So you have this goal here, and then you start building your tree, with options and

barriers that you overcome, and if you get stuck then, well … You can’t reach your

goal.“ Joost Vervoort agreed generally, but noticed that „this then also makes it difficult in

another way. Because if I’m thinking (...) I want to achieve that everyone can participate in

future-making“, Andre Cools finishing the sentence „what is going to be your first step“.

Joost Vervoort continued that that is „difficult to say (...) if I don’t know what my longer term

steps are. So in that sense the backcasting is actually better.“

The Element of Fun/Play

As regards the element of fun, with connection to the respective roles, one suggestion by

Joost Vervoort was to “create a kind of ‘super team’. So you say this is the goal that we want

to achieve” and you “have roles in different positions, how do we create an Avengers-like

- 42 -

team where we are all in the roles that we think are necessary, together as a team (...) achieve

that. And then you work together, help each other achieve those role changes. Because then

the role changes are integrated by this idea of creating a team.” Rik Thijs added that “in that

way you are also focusing because then you know, okay if we go back or we start, we need to

communicate, but how are we going to communicate - we make a laboratory, in the city cen-

tre of Eindhoven. And it also needs the super communicator, you need the new economist,

you need the new... And then you can define those roles, and work back.

Regarding the pre-made cards, Rik Thijs commented that more imaginative cards, like House

of Cards, and Article 5 on steroids, were a good choice and 'made things a bit lighter', com-

pared to “lack of funding mechanisms”. Regarding a similar point Andre Cools pointed out

that “I think it’s a nice combination to have also an element of “chance, or you can, maybe

pick some cards out that maybe nobody thought of yet, like a wildcard, or a joke card, and be

like, oh, we have another problem, what now (…), the barriers you put for each other, but the

wildcard or joker card is something nobody picked so you have to solve them together”.

6 Reflections & limitations

In the following I put forward some reflections on (1) the game design process, (2) the pro-

posed elements of the game and how they fit the initially envisioned purpose of familiarizing

and rendering operable to practitioners socio-economic and governance alternatives, and (3) a

reflection on how the three phases of the research do or do not relate to each other as per ini-

tially envisioned.

Firstly, the game co-design workshop entailed the collective re-design of the first draft proto-

type that was initially designed by myself with input from the interviewees, and iterated upon

through a preliminary play-test session. Co-designing games with practitioners themselves, as

well as the three-layered interview phase and connections to the theory and game design, are

methodologies that, to the best of my knowledge, have not been experimented with prior to

this project. Initially, I thought there occurred quite a disconnect between the stated ambition

of the project, i.e. it's theoretical underpinnings, and 'results' in terms of practitioner empow-

erment, or capacity development. The proceedings of the game design session, and my sub-

sequent reflections, were in that regard a very humbling, and at once inspiring experience.

Overall, one of the major reflections on the connections, or disconnect between the theoreti-

cal basis and practical execution concerns the limited (or rather, no explicit) use of theories

and/or heuristics concerning change in the game co-design session, as well as a lack of hands-

- 43 -

on and more normative engagement with socio-economic and governance alternatives. Here I

most notably refer to the usage during the co-design and playtesting the rather general and

uncritical goal of 'being circular by 2050'. Such rather superficial engagement with economic

alternatives is by my account a deeply problematic hallmark of foresight practice today.

I also believe that the data from the interviews could have been made of use more, i.e. trans-

lated into supportive materials for, and elements of, the backcasting game. In hindsight, more

rigor in extracting all the usable data (notably, for example, Ward Mesman's account of the

support mechanisms used for social innovation for circular economy) could have yielded

some interesting game proposals and mechanics. Additionally, 'hidden' within the interview

data are in my opinion already inklings of very interesting institutional designs, especially

those that resemble the narratives and practices associated with the 'platform' and/or 'open

cooperativism' movements, and 'smart cities'. Also, a back and forth between the interviews,

game design, and follow up questions on how to use that data with reference to the game de-

sign could have been fostered – i.e. getting feedback from participants of the workshop, prior

to it, could have yielded a prototype, based more on the more 'normative' research conducted.

The game co-design workshop, following a very much experimental and untested method,

yielded a number of interesting results. While I acknowledge the connections between the

theoretical analysis and the practical execution are not very strong, these are limitations of a

fairly simple, intuitive and experimental game-backcasting hybrid method. Some of the fur-

ther and more profound 'limitations' I identify concern the rather limited amount of time for

the workshop, as well as generally the fact that the practitioners that were involved in the

workshop themselves (as generally the core envisioned users of such foresight engagements)

are active 'problem owners' and changemakers/worldmakers with aspirations and ways of

knowing in their own right. I believe my very limited experiences with facilitating (semi-

)structured conversations/workshops of any kind also aided in a 'disconnect' between the the-

ory and practice – however, here I note that it should generally be expected in such time- and

resource limited experimental/prototyping ventures, but also generally any such engagement,

that things will rarely go 'according to plan'.

At this point I harken to the question implied throughout this thesis, that is, how can alterna-

tive socio-economic and governance models, and the theories of change, arising in the hearts,

minds and places of aspiring worldmakers of all walks of life, be used productively in combi-

nation with foresight techniques to foster transformative capacity and 'guided' ontological

agency. My informed formulation regarding this question is the following:

- 44 -

Theories of change, and/or alternative socio-economic and governance models may...

Be 'allowed' to arise spontaneously during exercises such as visioning, forecasting,

backcasting, gaming, etc., and hybrid forms

Be used as game mechanics and incentive systems (e.g. modes of cooperation, a point

system, the 'economics' of the game or foresight endeavor)

Be used as operable components (e.g. content, cards, ...)

Be used as (more normative) reflective and framing devices/heuristics in such a way

that they engage participants with the inherent complexities, frictions, discomforts found

in participatory processes and human communication and consciousness in general, iden-

tify and help remedy knowledge gaps, and often conflicting interests, ambitions, and

ways of knowing of participants.

I expect that iterations upon the method outlined in this thesis may yet yield some very inter-

esting tools/experiments, the potential outcomes or aims of which I summarize based on my

theoretical analysis and practical investigation as the following (likely in practice quite inter-

related) points:

A communication tool for deliberative articulation of critical issues around barriers to

change, and potential solutions; and to share and explore values, assumptions, views, in-

terests and priorities of participants.

A learning tool that introduces to players emerging socio-economic and governance

models (e.g., modes of organizing the support and scaling of social innovations); and un-

forseen or unexpected transformation dynamics ('theories of change'), informing also how

transitions might be consciously 'induced' and/or 'steered';

A design and strategy-building tool for more informed co-creation of transition path-

ways; new possible policies; supportive instruments; forms of public engagement; new

institutional designs and governance models; experiments ('social innovations')

Regarding the three-tier methodology, I believe more feedback loops between the theoretical

part, the interviews, and the game design process and playtesting may yet to be identified

and developed. Furthermore, I would offer the view that interviews may also be replaced or

complemented with (depending on the aim and target users)

Analyses of existing interviews of researchers & practitioners

Analyses of case studies

Purely theoretical and speculative design engagements in instiutution-building

The uses of the above may be inspired by the schemata/typology of answers of interviewees

developed in this project.

- 45 -

Another thing to note is that a handful of interviewees expressed their deep concerns about

change, or rather lack thereof, and their conviction that nothing short of a major crisis can

really 'push us in the right direction'. My input here is that we as researchers should not afford

ourselves too much of this kind of fatalism, and pursue other theories and praxes of change –

ones where the words 'imagination', 'fiction', 'tools', 'empowerment', 'inclusivity' and 'deep

collaboration' are not missing.

Another general reflection, or rather reassertion is that transformations towards sustainability

are a highly sensitive and political subject. When requested, anonymity of the inputs should

always be guaranteed to interviewees. In further engagements with methodologies, such as

the one outlined in this paper, it may be worthwhile to think about the ways in which ano-

nymity of interviewees can be assured, while at the same time maintain credibility and social-

political salience over the contents used in game format; as well as playfulness as a funda-

mental constituent of being human.

Here I would offer the idea that translating such game-type engagements with alternative

ways of political economic organization and radical futures into digital forms, as network-

based game tools and interfaces, may be one potentially fruitful avenue to explore; one which

is in line with some of the more current thinking on the potentials of 'network-based foresight',

and calls for a so-called 'global foresight commons', or perhaps less controversially, with re-

spect to 'traditional' commons scholars, 'global foresight system'. Also, in relation to anonym-

ity, generally radical ideas, while becoming more and more palatable and indeed even sought

after in many cities in many parts of the world, are still frowned upon in a lot of places, and

even in the so-called developed world, many stakeholders will generally likely refrain from

speaking of personal opinions on radical ideas, when they enter the interview discussions on

the back of their obligations to their respective organizations (maintaining conventional prof-

itability of businesses, for example). Another notable factor, which was illucidated in two

seperate interview discusisons, are the uncertainties and insecurities that talks of radical al-

ternatives breed, for example in terms of 'fear for their own jobs'.

- 46 -

7 Conclusions

The attempt at conceptual synthesis and application in this thesis may be seen as stretching

the boundaries of interdisciplinarity, and to some degree, transdisciplinarity. That said, the

wicked systemic challenges we face, and the limited time frames associated, I argue

necessitates such levels of endeavour, also in the form of post-normal approaches (Funtowicz

& Ravetz, 2003), and perhaps going even beyond (Ravetz 2006; Ravetz & Ravetz, 2016). At

the outset I acknowledge that any attempt at such synthesis of an array of seemingly disparate

and incommensurable research epistemologies almost necessarily runs the risk of creating an

intractable mosaic of loosely connected ideas that is not immediately operable as a fully-

fledged research and practice. Some, indeed a substantial amount of depth has notably been

sacrificed in this thesis for the sake of breadth, to some degree or another.

During the course of this thesis, I sought to engage with an expansive literature, which at

times, or most of the time, produced feelings of overwhelmedness, and a lot of internal

frictions, and reflections on myself as a human being and my role in this world. One's thought

processes, the assumptions we work with, in our daily lives, fundamentally shape our world,

and our work, which extends to our agency as a fundamental constituent of other's (social-

imaginary) worlds, and the 'Earth system' itself. As part of my overarching ambition to

'change the world' for the better, thinking as integratively and at the same time reflexively as I

could muster, I found myself approaching the thesis project, on several occasions, with the

following question in mind, perhaps even counter-productively, and perilously: 'What does it

take – what kind of imaginaries, vocabularies, what kinds of articulations and visions, and,

perhaps most importantly, what sorts of tools and generally 'Possible' forms of engagement,

can foster the social transformations of our worlds, while taking into account, as far as we are

humanly-cognitively able, all the challenges, complexities and dynamics associated?

It is my hope that the inklings of a theoretical framework, heuristic and methodological

prototype presented in this thesis, along with the 'knowledge commons pool' put forward,

may be found useful to other researchers and practitioners in supporting their transformative

aspirations, ambitions and capacities. This attempt to offer a kind of prototypical 'researcher's

and practitioners' toolbox', one that may help in bridging worlds of alternative socio-

economic and governance models, transformations/transformative research, and

transdisciplinary foresight and design practice together, offers less a new theory than a

(re)discovery and attempted synthesis of insights coming from multiple authors, strands of

thinking and practice, past and present, inextricably coupled with my own personal

background, interests, ambitions, and 'wild' theories about change and limitations/possibilities

of agency.

- 47 -

At the very least, the scouring of, and attempts to 'bring into conversation' this expansive

literature, also my means of methodological experimentation in an applied case study; will

offer a knowledge base to think about the roles of researchers today and enacting

transformations in a more integrative, 'synergistic' way. I would argue, today, we need

individuals, teams, communities of practice to engage analytically, critically, theoretically,

deconstructively, reconstructively, generatively, strategically, reflexively and unequivocally

politically with questions such as outlined here, and in dealing with any intellectual pursuit in

the names of sustainability, justice, and resilience. With the proper rigour, and equally

importantly, effective (modes of) communication and co-creation, lessons learned can then be

operationalized as instruments of empowerment and emancipation. There are daunting tasks

still ahead of us, but we shall, we must prevail, on account of the infinite possibilities that our

serendipitous existence holds.

Here I should like to offer also a rather personal, but should none the less be stated reflection

– that is, my rather poor time management. I apologise to the reader if at times the text and

the structuration of the arguments and overall connections was/is not very clear. I hope that

the outlines were made to a sufficient degree that others may follow me and the like-minded

in these ambitions and aspirations. We live, and we learn.

8 Future directions

In the near future, I expect to write and publish several articles on the themes discussed

throughout this thesis. I would also like to continue to work on the game prototype developed

and related endeavors in the capacities that I may. I should notably like to pursue avenues of

integrating in such games the aspect of 'seeds', using existing databases of exciting projects

and experiments being undertaken today all around the world. Especially exciting to myself

seem the prospects of 'experiential scenarios'/'experiential futures'/'speculative designs', as a

kind of neo-'situationist' strategy and exercise of an ethics, values, 'good science' based

ontological agency. If games can indeed be such 'situationist' 'boundary objects', I should like

to explore the possibilities also of translating these models into open source digital and

analog tools, with interfaces where either existing materials or new ones can be shared,

generated, curated, and fed into new iterations of games and integrated in their (possibly,

'anticipatory' polycentric governance) meta-structures. This, again, comes close to notion of a

'global foresight system'; or, 'global foresight commons', as a reincarnation of Buckminster

Fuller's plea and idea for a 'World game'.

- 48 -

Bibliography

Ahlqvist, T., & Rhisiart, M. (2015). Emerging pathways for critical futures research:

Changing contexts and impacts of social theory. Futures, 71, 91–104.

doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2015.07.012

Angheloiu, C., Chaudhuri, G. & Sheldrick., L. (2017). Future Tense : Alternative Futures as a

Design Method for Sustainability Transitions, (May), 0–13.Araya, D. (Ed.) (2015).

Smart Cities as Democratic Ecologies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Avelino, F., Dumitru, A., Longhurst, N., Wittmayer, J., Hielscher, S., Weaver, … Haxeltine,

A. (2015) Transitions towards new economies? A transformative social innovation

perspective (TRANSIT working paper ; 3), TRANSIT: SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant

agreement no: 613169. Retrieved from

http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/

Local%20PDFs/180%20TRANSIT_WorkingPaper3_NewEconomy_Avelinoetal_Sept

ember2015.pdf

Avelino, F., & Rotmans, J. (2009). Power in Transition: An Interdisciplinary Framework to

Study Power in Relation to Structural Change. European Journal of Social Theory,

12(4), 543–569. doi: 10.1177/1368431009349830

Avelino, F., & Grin, J. (2016). Beyond Deconstruction. A Reconstructive Perspective on

Sustainability Transition Governance. Environmental Innovation and Societal

Transitions, 22, 15–25. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2016.07.003

Avelino, F., Grin, J., Pel, B., & Jhagroe, S. (2016). The Politics of Sustainability Transitions.

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 18(5), 557–567.

doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2016.1216782

Avelino, F., & Wittmayer, J. M. (2016). Shifting Power Relations in Sustainability

Transitions : A Multi-actor Perspective. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning,

18(5), 628–649. doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2015.1112259

Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J., Haxeltine, A., Kemp, R., O'Riordan, T., Weaver, P., … Rotmans, J.

(2013). Game Changers and Transformative Social Innovation. The Case of the

Economic Crisis and the New Economy. TRANSIT working paper. Grant agreement

no: 613169. Retrieved from

http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/TRANSIT

%20outputs/91%20Gamechangers_TSI_Avelino_etal_TRANSIT_workingpaper_201

4.pdf

Bauwens, M. (2016). Towards a Commons Transition Policy: Re-Aligning Economics and

Politics for a Commons-Centric Society. P2P Foundation. Retrieved from

http://revista.ibict.br/p2p/article/download/1784/1986

- 49 -

Bauwens, M., Kostakis, V., Troncoso, S. & Utratel, A. M. (2017). Commons Transition and

P2P: a primer. Transnational Insitute & P2P Foundation. Retrieved from

https://www.tni.org/files/publicationdownloads/commons_transition_and_p2p_primer

_v9.pdf

Benkler, Y. (2004). Sharing Nicely: On Shareable Goods and the Emergence of Sharing as a

Modality of Economic Production. The Yale Law Yournal, 114(273), 273–358.

Bollier, D. (2016a). Commoning as a Transformative Social Paradigm. Retrieved from

http://thenextsystem.org//wp-content/uploads/2016/04/DavidBollier.pdf

Boyd, E., Borgstrom, S., Nykvist, B., & Stacewicz, I. A. (2015). Anticipatory governance for

social-ecological resilience. Ambio, 44, 149–161. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0604-x

Bradley, K. (2015). Open-Source Urbanism: Creating, Multiplying and Managing Urban

Commons. Footprint Delft Architecture Theory Journal, 16, 91–108. doi:

10.7480/footprint.9.1.901

Bradley, K & Pargman, D. (2017). The sharing economy as the commons of the 21st century.

Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 10(2), 231–247.

doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsx001

Burnam-Fink, M. (2015). Creating narrative scenarios: Science fiction prototyping at

Emerge. Futures (70), 48-55. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2014.12.005

Cameron, J., & Healy, S. (2016). Commoning as a postcapitalist politics. In Releasing the

Commons: Rethinking the Futures of the Commons, 192–212 .Candy, S. (2010). The

Futures of Everyday Life: Politics and the Design of Experiential Scenarios (PhD

thesis). School of the Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago.

doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1840.0248

Candy, S. (2010). The Futures of Everyday Life: Politics and the Design of Experiential

Scenarios (PhD thesis). School of the Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago.

doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1840.0248

Carson, K. A. (2016). Techno-Utopianism, Counterfeit and Real. Center for a Stateless

Society. Retrieved from https://c4ss.org/wp-

content/uploads/2016/02/TechnoUtopiaPDF1.pdf

Coleman, S., & Dyer-Witheford, N. (2007). Playing on the digital commons: collectivities,

capital and contestation in videogame culture. Media Culture Society, 29(6), 934–953.

doi: 10.1177/0163443707081700

Cundill, G., Roux, D. J., & Parker, J. N. (2015). Nurturing communities of practice for

transdisciplinary research, Ecology and Society, 20(2): 22. doi: 10.5751/ES-07580-

200222

- 50 -

Davies, S. R., Selin, C., Gano, G., & Pereira, Â. G. (2012). Citizen engagement and urban

change: Three case studies of material deliberation. Cities, 29(6), 351–357.

Davis, M. S. (1971). That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a

sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1(4), 309-344.

Dikec, M., & Swyngedouw, E. (2016). Theorizing the Politicizing City. International Journal

of Urban and Regional Research, 41(1), 1–18. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12388

Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming.

Cambridge & London: MIT Press.

Ede, S. (2016). How Relocalising Production With Not-For-Profit Business Models Helps

Build Resilient and Prosperous Societies. Post-Growth Institute. Retrieved from

http://postgrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/The-Real-Circular-Economy-

Sharon-Ede-December-2016.pdf

Fattori, T. (2012). Public-Commons Partnership and the Commonification of that which is

Public. Retrieved from https://commonsblog.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/fattori-

commonification-of-that-which-is-public.pdf

Fazey, I., Moug, P., Allen, S., Beckmann, K., Blackwood, D., Bonaventura, M., …

Wolstenholme, R. (2017). Transformation in a changing climate: a research agenda.

Climate and Development. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2017.1301864

Feola, G. (2015) Societal transformation in response to global environmental change: A

review of emerging concepts. Ambio, 44, 376 – 390

Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockstrom, J. (2010).

Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability.

Ecology and Society, 15(4), 20.

Foster, S. R. (2011). Collective Action and Urban Commons, Notre Dame Law Review 87(1)

57–134.

Foster, S. R., & Iaione, C. (2016). The City as a Commons. Yale Law & Policy Review, 34(2),

281–349. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

article=1698&context=ylpr

Fuerth, L. S. (2011) Operationalizing Anticipatory Governance. Prism, 2, 31-46.

Fuerth, L. S., & Faber, E. M. H. (2012). Anticipatory governance – Practical upgrades :

Equipping the executive branch to cope with increasing speed and complexity of

major challenges. Washington, DC: Elliott School of International Affairs, George

Washington University.

- 51 -

Fuller, B. (1971). The World Game: Integrative Resource Utilization Planning Tool. World

Resources Inventory. Carbondale.

Geels, F. W. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-

level perspective. Research Policy, 39(4), 495–510. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022

Goodman, N. (1978). Ways of Worldmaking. Hackett Publishing Company.

Göpel, Maja. (2016). The Great Mindshift: How a New Economic Paradigm and

Sustainability Transformations go Hand in Hand. Springer Open: Berlin

Graham, P., & Elahi, S. (2015). The New Narrative: Applying narratology to the shaping of

futures outputs. Futures, 74, 49–61. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2015.09.003

Guston (2014) Guston, David H. (2014) Understanding 'anticipatory governance'. Social

Studies of Science, 44(2): 218–242. doi: 10.1177/0306312713508669

Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. Retrieved

from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1724745

Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. London

& New York: Verso.

Haxeltine, A., Avelino, F., Pel, B., Kemp, R., Dumitru, A., Longhurst, N., … Strasser, T.

(2016). TRANSIT WP3 Deliverable D3.3 - A Second Prototype of TSI Theory.

Retrieved from http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/resource-hub/transit-wp3-

deliverable-d33-a-second-prototype-of-tsi-theory-deliverable-no-d33

Hebinck, A., & Villarreal, G. (2016). “Local” Level analysis of FNS pathways in the

Netherlands: Exploring two case studies - Urban Food Initiatives and Food Bank

Pracitces.

doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18240.33285

Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (Eds.). (2007). Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From

Theory to Practice. Cambridge & London: MIT Press.

Hobson, K. (2013). “Weak” or “Strong” Sustainable Consumption? Efficiency, Degrowth,

and the 10 Year Framework of Programmes. Environment and Planning C:

Government and Policy, 31(6), 1082–1098. doi: 10.1068/c12279

Hobson, K. (2016). Closing the loop or squaring the circle? Locating generative spaces for

the circular economy. Progress in Human Geography, 40(1), 88–104.

doi: 10.1177/0309132514566342

Hobson, K., & Lynch, N. (2016). Diversifying and de-growing the circular economy: Radical

social transformation in a resource-scarce world. Futures, 82, 15–25.

- 52 -

doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2016.05.012

Iaione, C. (2015). Governing the Urban Commons. Italian Journal of Public Law, 7(1), 170–

221.

Iaione, C. (2016). The CO-City: Sharing, Collaborating, Cooperating, and Commoning in the

City. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 75(2) 415-455.

http://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12145

Inayatullah, S. (2008). Six pillars: futures thinking for transforming. Foresight, 10(1), 4–21.

doi: 10.1108/14636680810855991

Irwin, T. (2016). Transition Design: A Proposal for a New Area of Design Practice, Study, and

Research. Design and Culture, 7(2), 229–246. doi: 10.1080/17547075.2015.1051829

Jiménez, A. C. (2014). The Right to Infrastructure: A Prototype for Open Source Urbanism.

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32(2), 342–362. doi:

10.1068/d13077p

Kallis, G. (2017). In Defense of Degrowth: Opinions and Minifestos. (A. Vansintjan, Ed.).

Kemp, R., Loorbach, D. A., & Rotmans, J. (2005). Transition management as a model for

managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. The

International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 14(1), 78-91.

Kenis, A., Bono, F., & Mathijs, E. (2016). Unravelling the (post-)political in Transition

Management: Interrogating Pathways towards Sustainable Change. Journal of

Environmental Policy & Planning, 18(5), 568–584. doi:

10.1080/1523908X.2016.1141672

Kostakis, V., & Bauwens, M. (2014). Network Society and Future Scenarios for a

Collaborative Economy. Houndmills, Basingtoke, Hampshire, New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Kostakis, V., Latou, K., Liarokapis, M., & Bauwens, M. (2016). The convergence of digital

commons with local manufacturing from a degrowth perspective: Two illustrative

cases. Journal of Cleaner Production. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.077

Kostakis, V., Niaros, V., Dafermos, G., & Bauwens, M. (2015). Design global, manufacture

local : Exploring the contours of an emerging productive model. Futures, 73, 126–

135.

Kostakis, V., Roos, A., & Bauwens, M. (2015). Towards a political ecology of the digital

economy : Socio-environmental implications of two competing value models.

Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 18, 82–100. doi:

10.1016/j.eist.2015.08.002

- 53 -

Kostakis, V., & Stavroulakis, S. (2013). The Parody of the Commons, Triple C, 11(2), 412–

424.

Kuzmanovic, M., & Gaffney, N. (2016). Enacting futures in postnormal times. Futures, 86,

107–117. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2016.05.007

Laerhoven, F. Van, & Ostrom, E. (2007). Traditions and Trends in the Study of the Commons.

International Journal of the Commons, 1(1), 3–28.

Latouche, S. (2009). Farewell to Growth. Cambridge & Malden: Polity Press.

Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on Cities. Oxford & Malden: Blackwell Publishers.

Levitas, R. (2013). Utopia as Method: The Imaginary Reconstitution of Society. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Levitas, R. (2010). The Concept of Utopia. Bern: Peter Lang.

Longhurst, N., Avelino, F., Wittmeyer, J., Weaver, P., Dumitru, A., Hielscher, S., … Morton,

E. (2017a) Experimenting with alternative economies: four emergent counter-

narratives of urban economic development. Current Opinion in Environmental

Sustainability, 22, 69–74. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.04.006

Longhurst, N., Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J., Weaver, P., Dumitru, A., Hielscher, S., … Morten,

E. (2017b). New economic logics and urban sustainability transitions.

doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26823.70567.

Loorbach, D. (2007). Transition Management: New Mode of Governance for Sustainable

Development. Utrecht: International Books.

Loorbach, D. (2014) To Transition! Governance Panarchy in the New Transformation.

Faculty of Social Science, Rotterdam. Retrieved from https://www.drift.eur.nl/wp-

content/uploads/2016/12/To_Transition-Loorbach-2014.pdf

Lorek, S., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2013). Sustainable consumption within a sustainable

economy: beyond green growth and green economies. Journal of Cleaner Production,

63, 33–44. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.045

Manzini, E. (2013). Resilient systems and cosmopolitan localism: The emerging scenario of

the small, local, open and connected space. Retrieved from

http://www.ecologiapolitica.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Resilient-

systems-and-cosmopolitan-localism.pdf

Manzini, E., & Rithaa, M. K. M. (2016). Distributed Systems And Cosmopolitan Localism:

An Emerging Design Scenario For Resilient Societies. Sustainable Development,

24(5), 275–280. doi: 10.1002/sd.1628

- 54 -

March, H. (2016). The Smart City and other ICT-led Techno-Imaginaries: Any room for

dialogue with Degrowth? Journal of Cleaner Production. doi:

10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.154

Mattei, U., & Quarta, A. (2015). Right to the City or Urban Commoning ? Thoughts on the

Generative Transformation of Property Law of Property Law, 303. Retrieved from

http://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/1287

McGrail, S. & Gaziulusoy, I. (2014). Using futures inquiry to create low-carbon, resilient

urban futures : a review of practice, theory and process options for the Visions and

Pathways project, (August 2016). doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2167.0641

Miller, C. A., Leary, J. O., Graffy, E., Stechel, E. B., & Dirks, G. (2015). Narrative futures

and the governance of energy transitions. Futures, 70, 65–74. doi:

10.1016/j.futures.2014.12.001

Milojević, I. & Inayatullah, S. (2015). Narrative Foresight. Futures. 73 151–162.

doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2015.08.007

Mitchell, D. (2003). The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space.

London & New York: The Guildford Press.

Moore, J. W. (2015). Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital.

London & New York: Verso.

Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex

Economic Systems. Transnational Corporations Review, 2(2), 1–12.

Ostrom, E. (2012). Nested externalities and polycentric institutions: must we wait for global

solutions to climate change before taking actions at other scales? Economic Theory,

49(2), 353–369. doi: 10.1007/s00199-010-0558-6

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective

Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.

P2P Foundation (2015). Commons Transition: Policy Proposals for an Open Knowledge

Commons Society. Retrieved from http://commonstransition.org/wp-

content/uploads/2014/11/Commons-Transition_-Policy-Proposals-for-a-P2P-

Foundation.pdf

P2P Foundation (2017) Commons Transition and P2P: A primer. Transnational Insitute.

Retrieved from https://www.tni.org/files/publication-

downloads/commons_transition_and_p2p_primer_v9.pdf

Patterson, J., Schulz, K., Vervoort, J., Hel, S. Van Der, Sethi, M., & Barau, A. (2016).

Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability.

- 55 -

Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1–16. doi:

10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001

Pel, B. (2015). Trojan horses in transitions: A dialectical perspective on innovation “capture”.

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 18(5), 673–691.

doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2015.1090903

Priday, G., Mansfield, T., & Ramos, J. (2014). The Open Futures Library: One Step Toward a

Global Foresight Commons? Journal of Futures Studies, 18(4), 131–142.

Proeftuin040. (2016). Visie Stadslandbouw. Retrieved from

http://www.proeftuin040.nl/single-post/2016/06/10/Scenarioworkshop-visie-

stadslandbouw

Raford, N. (2014). Online foresight platforms: Evidence for their impact on scenario planning

& strategic foresight. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 97, 65–76. doi:

10.1016/j.techfore.2014.03.008

Ramirez, R., Mukherjee, M., Vezzoli, S., & Kramer, A. M. (2015). Scenarios as a Scholarly

Methodology to Produce “Interesting Research.” Futures, 71, 70–87.

doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2015.06.006

Ramírez, R., Selin, C., & Ramı, R. (2014). Plausibility and probability in scenario planning.

Foresight, 16(1), 54-74. doi: 10.1108/FS-08-2012-0061

Ramos, J. (2017). Linking Foresight and Action: Toward a Futures Action Research. In The

Palgrave International Handbook of Action Research, 823–842. doi: 10.1057/978-1-

137-40523-4

Ramos, J. M. (2014). Anticipatory Governance: Traditions and Trajectories for Strategic

Design. Journal of Futures Studies, 19(1), 35–52.

Ramos, J. M. (2015). The Inner Game of Futures. Journal of Futures Studies, 20(1), 91–100.

doi: 10.6531/JFS.2015.20(1).S91

Ramos, J., Bauwens, M., & Kostakis, V. (2016). P2P and Planetary Futures. In Critical

Posthumanism and Planetary Futures, 193–214. doi: 10.1007/978-81-322-3637-5

Ramos, J., Mansfield, T., & Priday, G. (2012). Foresight in a Network Era : Peer-producing

Alternative Futures. Journal of Futures Studies, 17(1), 71–90.

Ravetz, J. R. (2006). Post-Normal Science and the complexity of transitions towards

sustainability. Ecological Complexity, 3(4), 275–284. doi:

10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.02.001

Ravetz, J. & Ravetz, A. (2017) Seeing the wood for the trees: Social Science 3.0 and the role

- 56 -

of visual thinking. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research,

30(1), 104–120. doi: 10.1080/13511610.2016.1224155

Ravetz, J. (2017). From “smart” cities to “wise” : synergistic pathways for collective urban

intelligence, 1–11. Retrieved from http://jpi-urbaneurope.eu/app/uploads/

2017/04/Ravetz_From-smart-to-wise.pdf

Rockström, B. J., Gaffney, O., Rogelj, J., Meinshausen, M., Nakicenovic, N., & Joachim, H.

(2017). A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science, 355(6331) 1269–1271.

Rose, C. M. (2015). Surprising Commons. BYU Law Review, 2014(6).

Rose, C. M. (1994). Property and Persuasion: Essays on the History, Theory, and Rhetoric of

Ownership. Boulder & Oxford: Westview Press.

Sassen, Saskia. 2011. 'Open Source Urbanism'. The New City Reader: A newspaper of Public

Space, (14)

Sassen, S. (2014). Expulsions: Brutality and Complexity in the Global Economy. Cambridge

& London: Harvard University Press.

Sharpe, B. (2013). Three horizons: Patterning of hope. Axminster: Triarchy Press.

Slaughter, Richard A. (1998a) Transcending flatland: Implications of Ken Wilber's meta-

narrative for futures studies. Futures, 30(6), pp. 519-533

Slaughter, Richard A. (1998b) Futures beyond Dystopia. Futures, 30(10), pp. 993-1002

Sondeijker, S. (2009). Imagining Sustainability: Methodological building blocks for

transition scenarios (PhD Thesis). Erasmus University, Rotterdam.

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., …

Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing

planet. Sciencexpress, 347(6223), 1259855. doi: 10.1126/science.1259855

Swyngedouw, E. (2010). Impossible Sustainability and the Post-political Condition. In

Making Strategies in Spatial Planning, 185–205. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-3106-8

Swyngedouw, E. (2016). Unlocking the mind-trap : Politicising urban theory and practice.

Urban Studies, 54(1), 55-61. doi: 10.1177/0042098016671475

Vergragt, P. J. & Quist, J. (2011). Backcasting for sustainability: Introduction to the special

issue, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(5). doi:

10.1016/j.techfore.2011.03.010

Vervoort, J. M., Bendor, R., Kelliher, A., Strik, O., & Helfgott, A. E. R. (2015). Scenarios and

- 57 -

the art of worldmaking. Futures, 74, 62–70. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2015.08.009

Westley, F., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Homer-Dixon, T., Vredenburg, H., Loorbach, D., …, van

der Leeuw, S. (2011). Tipping toward sustainability: emerging pathways of

transformation. Ambio 40(7), 762–780.

Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen (WBGU)

(2012). Factsheet 5: Research and Education: Drivers of Transformation. WBGU,

Berlin. Retrieved from

http://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/user_upload/wbgu.de/templates/dateien/veroeffentlich

ungen/factsheets/fs5/wbgu_fs5_en.pdf

Wolfram, M. (2015). Conceptualizing Urban Transformative Capacity: A Framework for

Research and Policy. Cities. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.011 Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287508119_Conceptualizing_urban_transfor

mative_capacity_A_framework_for_research_and_policy

Wolfram, M., Frantzeskaki, N., & Maschmeyer, S., (2016) Cities, Systems and sustainability:

status and perspective of research on urban transformations, Current Opinion in

Environmental Sustainability, 22, 18–25.

Wright, E. O. (2009). Envisioning Real Utopias, (July). Retrieved from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.152.6099&rep=rep1&type=

pdf

Žižek, S. (1999). The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology. London &

New York: Verso.

- 58 -

Appendixes:

Appendix 1: Interview questions (semi-structured)

a.) Current Situation – Barriers

What are the barriers that you are currently running into when pursuing your

ambitions towards a more sustainable city/world/future?

How do current conditions enable or restrict you in achieving your objectives?

Where do you run into limitations that are endemic to current system, in terms of

affecting change?

b.) Alternatives Scoping

What sorts of economic and/or governance alternatives do you know about and/or are

interested in?

Do you know of any initiatives, local, national or global, that are doing it?

c.) Space for Alternatives

What kinds of spaces are there in the city to investigate such alternatives, and what

kinds of mechanisms are or could be in place for such alternatives?

What would you say are the key drivers that can make these alternatives possible?

Is there anything going against such alternatives?

d.) Presenting Alternatives, Normative Framing

What would you say in response if I said that Uber and Airbnb are not what many

people and researchers have in mind when they speak of a 'sharing economy'?

Do you think that the narratives around these alternatives (e.g., sharing economy,

circular economy, smart cities) are dominanted by very specific kinds of thinking,

such as an orientation toward technology, and disregard for the more social, cultural

or equity and inclusivity aspects of these alternatives?

- 59 -

Do you know of any governace alterantives explicitly? (I present the case of the

'quintuple helix' model and collaborative governance experimented with in Italy, and

the 'commons transition plan' being formulated for the Belgian city of Ghent)

e.) Narrowing Selection

What kinds of tools do you think you would need to address the issues you are facing,

and/or to foster these alternatives?

f.) Proposing a Game

I would like to develop a game for/with you as a tool that would help to learn about

and communicate around these alternatives. Would you be interested in participating

in such a game co-development process, during a small workshop (question only for

local case study practitioners)?

May I use the feedback you just gave me throughout the interview to pre-develop

some content for the game? The game will be developed with alternatives-minded

people, and the more 'delicate subjects' of the process, regarding barriers you face, etc.,

will/can be kept internal.

- 60 -

Appendix 2: Game guide Prototype (Version 1.0)

Game Guide Prototype Ver. 1.0

Co-City Eindhoven: The Urban Sustainability Transitions Game

a.) Taking on Roles; „World in Common“ Future Scenario, and the „City in

Common“ Vision

Players assign themselves, and/or each other roles that correspond to real-life (multi-level)

actors (see examples in Table 1 below). The game begins with a "final", 'commons-oriented'

and pluralist future scenario for the world. A player, or the facilitator, reads this scenario (see

script provided in Supportive Material 1) aloud to the other players. The players then take this

scenario into account, in creating their own collective vision for a city (i.e., Eindhoven) with-

in that world. This exercise lasts for up to around 25 minutes. Coloured notes are used to

write down the main features of this future city.

Table 1

Actor/Player

Government Representative

("Big") Business Owner

Social Innovator

Knowledge Institution Leader

University Researcher

Media Outlet Employee

Citizen

b.) Backcasting: Introducing the Cards – 'Barriers' and 'Transition Ingredients'

The players move back in time from the vision of the future world/city, to the current situa-

tion. The facilitator gradually introduces 'Barrier Cards' to the players. The barriers generally

go from what are expected to be more persistent long-term barriers, to mid-range, to more

present-oriented pressing issues. The facilitator decides when to introduce which barrier cards.

The players may contest where/when the barriers, in their opinon, really would come into

- 61 -

play, and deliberatively place them on the timeline. Once the barriers are introduced, players

may discuss the individual barrier or combinations of barriers (and extract perhaps hidden

assumptions, or barriers that underlie those barriers, using coloured notes to write them

down). The players may deliberatively reflect on the barriers as they go along, using the 'Six

Layers of Engagement' scheme of Behaviours; Feelings; Conditions; Frameworks; Values;

Constructs. The formulation is borrowed from an upcoming book, How on Earth: Flourish-

ing in a Not-for-Profit World (December 2017, Chelsea Green Publishing) by Jennifer Hinton

and Donnie Maclurcan, with the permission of the authors.

These reflections are written on the back of the respective barrier card (optionally, for the

next playthrough), or written down as additional cards that are put on the timeline. The cen-

tral questions to ask here is: In what ways do the respective barriers and solutions played ad-

dress these layers, and how may they relate to, or extend, to other layers? Can we tease out

any hidden assumptions about these barriers and solutions? Do the barriers and/or proposed

solutions come with (additional) barriers of their own, at other layers?

Players may also collectively brainstorm on what they think would be some additional (long-

term, mid-range, or short-term) barriers, and create new cards. At this point, the solutions

seeking as regards these barriers starts. Players may use 'Transition Ingredients' cards provid-

ed (which are on display on the table to all the players, and may be picked up freely by any

one), or come up with their own orignial solutions. These cards represent possible solutions

to the barriers/challenges, as drivers, strengths, tools, and/or opportunities, and are placed

next to the barriers. Keep in mind that there may be competing, and/or conflicting proposed

solutions for one problem. Additionally, two or more solutions may feasibly work together in

complementing each other in addressing a problem. These tensions provide opportunities for

critical discussion during playthrough. The facilitator takes notes on the discussions that en-

sue, and writes down any new outlined additional cards that can be played in later iterations

of the game.

While the respective actors/players play different roles, the challenge in going from the future

to the present is in thinking about how these roles and related responsibilities and capacities,

in the future, are distinct from roles working with the present conditions. Generally with

moving back in time, the more the roles become conventional, or reflective of the present

situation. To aid in thinking about how these roles may be very different in the future, below

(Table 3) are indications of a possible articulation of roles. Notably, the table entails negative

roles in the present, and generally more positive and dynamic roles in the future, however this

is by no means a necessary dynamic of the game itself.

- 62 -

Table 2: Examples of roles

Actor/Player Present? Future?

Government Rep. Political Party Member,

Climate Change Denier

Partner, Citizen Co-Governor

("Big") Business

Owner

Profit/Growth Seeker Ecologically Attuned Opportunity Seeker

Social Innovator Niche-Finder Radical Experimentator

Knowledge

Institution Leader

"Objective" Knowledge

Disseminator

Broker, Experience-Maker, Initiative

Configurator

University

Researcher

Company Lackey Experimentator, Feedback Mechanism

Designer, Urban Metabolism Inquirer

Media Outlet

Employee

Dystopia Writer, Spectacle-

Chaser, Post-Truther,

Ideology-Entrencher

Convivial Ways of Living Sharer, Reflexive

Value Reflector

Citizen End-user, Consumer User, Feedback-giver, Co-Visioner, Co-

creator, Co-venturer

When this initial backacst stage is complete, and the timeline between the future vision and

present moment has been filled with barriers, some (corresponding) transition ingredients,

and roles and the changes of roles over time have been articulated, the players may move on

to the reflection stage.

c.) Reflection stage

The reflection stage may follow the below four-tier framework, or any combination of the

(ultimately, complimentary) elements thereof.

* Barriers & Solutions: Players revisit what were identified as the most purtinent barriers

and solutions (i.e. 'transition ingredients') that defined the overall generated pathway/story in

most significant ways. We may do this by three (also complimentary) means:

a) Scoring system: the solutions for (or, alternatively, ways of bypassing) the barriers

proposed by the players/actors are assessed for their viability and feasibility in a

deliberative way among players by using a simple scoring system (for example, from 1 to

4). The exercise aims to generate discussion and build consensus around what solutions

- 63 -

and barriers are realistic, and which are not. It may also result in the formulation of new

cards by players.

b) Connecting the dots: the barriers and solutions that have been identified to have a strong

influence on each other in the overall continuum of the generated story/timeline are

connected across spatial and temporal scales (for example, by drawing lines or arrows

between them). The exercise aims to help understand how limitations, strategies and

actions relate to and build on top of each other through time and across geographical

scales.

c) Layers: using the 'Layers of the Great Transition' framework, the barriers and solutions

may again be reflected on critically.

* Roles & Responsibilities: In this step we reflect upon the roles and responsibilities of the

played actors, and how those changed through in time. As noted, we may expect that, in the

future, roles of various actors may be drastically different, and/or more intermixed, than in

the present moment. However, starting from the future and working back to the present, it is

not so easy to imagine at the outset the nature of these changes. Looking back, do the changes

observed correspond to what might be expected? Were the roles of the future very different

from, or more tied to, the roles we find in the present? How do these roles at different times

correspond to dynamics we see or might expect in the real world? What interfaces and tools

do these actors use to cooperate today, and what might those look like in the future? What

does that transition dynamic and agency look like? Players may look back at the schema pro-

vided in the previous section to reflect on these questions and structure their answers.

* Visions & Models of Change: Players may take a moment to reflect on how the provided

commons scenario of/for the future corresponded to respective players' own visions and as-

sumptions about how change happens. Players may structure their thinking and deliberation

with the scheme (Table 3) below. This is also a chance to reflect on assumptions about prob-

able, plausible and possible futures, knowledge gaps, sources of unease and discomfort, etc.

Reflections may also ensue on how these theories/models of change correspond to particular

Barriers and Transition Ingredients, (and, later, 'Seeds' and 'Alliances'), and how, putting

them together in the context of transformation strategy, build with and on top of each other.

Table 3: Models of change

Model of Change Description

Ruptural Change Revolution, a sharp break.

Interstitial Change Building the new in niches and margins of the

old.

- 64 -

Model of Change Description

Symbiotic Achieving social empowerment, and deep

collaboration, solving practical problems

associated with dominant classes/"elites".

Incremental Change Close to the notion of interstitial change above,

incremental change assumes a cumulative,

stepping-stone approach towards change, but not

necessarily with a clear overarching vision.

Radical Incrementalism Incremental change, working with an

overarching, co-evolving vision.

Hybrid Combinations of the above at various spatial and

temporal scales.

At this stage of discussion, the players are introduced to the notion of a Mid-way Milestone

after the backcast. The question here is: Do you think we can see from this pattern we have

generated, a profound moment in history, a big milestone, that for example reframed how

people see themselves and the world, their roles, responsibilities, and actions (e.g., that 75%

of the world's cities have become quadruple, or quintuple helix co-cities). May we think

about this milestone as a kind of inauguration of a new collaborative suite of tools, and/or a

symbolic inaguration, a social event based milestone where it has solidified in people's con-

sciousness the idea that from now on we are all really working as partners in the great trans-

formation, with an equal claim to and share in the world's riches, and riches we may provide

each other in the form of knowledge and experiences (e.g., the First Global Olympiad for co-

city transdisciplinary science and social innovation). In other words, is it possible to imagine

a (symbolic and/or concrete institutional) moment in (future) history of deep collective re-

thinking of roles, responsibilities, institutions, and related possibilities, an entering of a new

co-evolving cycle of co-visioning, co-design, and co-venturing (e.g. "The Deep Rethinking",

or, "Co-Cities Everywhere"). This exercise also offers a chance for the players to reflect on

the theories and practices of change, considering important milestones in future history. For

subsequent playthroughs, and in creating their own scenarios for the game, the players may

operationalize a this as a model of change, with a scenario vision/story in between the present

moment and global commons future. An example mid-way milestone is provided to aid

thinking in this direction (Supportive Material 2). Additionally, it should be possible to have

several 'Milestones' within the game, in a form of kind of semi-permeable stages of transfor-

mation – building on one another, yet with the introduction of new contingencies, etc.

- 65 -

d.) Reverse-backcasting – A Retroactive Visioning

Players are now faced with two choices. Either they take the lessons learned into a new back-

casting process, or take the existing setup, with lessons learned, in a retroactive visioning

exercise, where players now go from the present conditions towards the future vision. One

major additional component of the game that may be introduced in the latter case, are the

"Seeds" and "Alliances" cards. The 'Seeds' cards contain, and offer the chance to put forward,

real-world existing, prefigurative, and/or speculative initiatives that players know of or can

feasibly imagine, and which may contribute to the transitions/transformations to sustainabil-

ity, and perhaps some scaled over time. Complimentary to this, the 'Alliances' cards offer the

chance to include in the game real-world existing, prefigurative, and/or speculative organiza-

tions (and/or individuals), that could become partners of the respective actor roles in over-

coming the barriers. Some time may also be allocated to have a closer look at these initiatives

and organizations, using internet keyword queries, or following links to initiatives provided.

These may be found at neighbourhood, city, inter-city, regional, national, or internation-

al/global levels. These cards are especially relevant for critical deliberative reflections on the

prospects of strategy, and, as mentioned, scaling.

* Multi-Tier Scaling: Various initiatives and socio-economic models may evolve through

time, resonating either in policy, other locations, and/or impacting cultural roots, norms and

values. Some may also be consciously transitory by design, while others follow us, in various

forms, into the future. Did the generated pathway entail any dynamics of such scaling of

various innovations? What innovations were scaled, in what ways, and by what means? We

may use the framework of scaling up, out, deep, and future-fit scaling, to aid in our thinking.

What sort of frameworks, tools, interfaces and actor configurations would enable such scaling?

- 66 -

Figure 1: Multi-tier scaling

Note on 'future fit scaling': in "the Great Transition", certain business models may be created

to be consciously transitory (i.e. temporary, short-lived), yet very necessary (e.g. ocean

plastics recovery). Rather than motivating the creation of businesses solutions for serious

problems, which ultimately may not exist anymore in a decade's time, the market structure of

today promotes occupying niches in the system, deepening path-dependencies. For example,

today we need business around recycling existing waste, but in the future we won't design

and produce and use things in the same way (e.g. based on principles of circularity and

sharing). These kinds of businesses may (following an overarching transition pathway)

become obsolete with time; the people involved in this work will have gathered some specific

skill-sets, and may be encouraged to move on to new projects, applying themselves in other

"future-fit" businesses/industries.

e.) Final reflections

Another issue that may be discussed is also the use of terminology, and its normative, per-

formative, and political-strategic aspects. Notions such as commons, quadruple helix, quintu-

ple helix, circular economy, sharing economy, transition (as a process with an implied open-

ended transformed state), and transformation(s) (as both process and goal) are usually highly

politically charged and used in sometimes very conflictive ways, and deserve explicit atten-

tion, when trying to transpose the lessons from the game into real-world tools and strategies.

- 67 -

Supportive material A: The World in Common Scenario

The Earth is filled with different, rich, and exciting social realities/worlds and practices in

harmony with the natural world. There are societies and communities that choose to have

very digitally-oriented interactions with each other and the city, with „big data“ and „co-

mapping“, for example, becoming commonplace terms, and practices, which inform a more

cosmopolitan, globally-minded city-making, and convivial/artful place-making. On the other

hand there are communities, and whole societies, that rely on more 'analog' forms of coopera-

tion, such as meetings of neighbourhoods, cities, and interest- and challenge-based 'transdis-

ciplinary communities of practice', some taking the form of eco-village, or ecosystem restora-

tion camp type arrangements. Then there are also hybrid communities, with mixes of the digi-

tal and analog. One of the most crucial and respected jobs becomes that of the broker, media-

tor, catalyzer, artist, facilitating interaction and co-evolution between these worlds. Collabo-

ration has become generally very cross scale. These various interfaces among people, and

between peoples and cities, are much more openly designed („open-source“), shared across

scales, and applied to local contexts and conditions.

Whole industries have been reformulated, reoriented, using principles of circularity and deep

collaboration, a lot of goods (such as transportation vehicles) are now shared, co-owned and

maintaned, rather than privately owned. Global design has become more commoplace, with

many 'micro-factories' that then produce those things locally, and adjusted to local wants,

needs, and preferences. The decisionmaking structures are very different than they used to be,

completely open, transparent, based on cooperative platforms where people can put up and

integrate visions, designs, and experiment with them, on the practical, experiential level (i.e.

'design', 'knowledge' and 'foresight' platforms). Many cities become living laboratories, gen-

erative of new worlds and experiences.

Measures such as the Happiness Index, pioneered by places such as Bhutan, have evolved

and become a lot more important and commonplace in the grand scheme of things. Global

trade, rather than based on traditional GDP, has been replaced by solidarity-based carbon and

resource trading, coupled with open knowledge circulation. Currencies have switched to be

reflective of resources and values attached to them, as well as ethical considerations. Time

has also become a more popular mode of exchange, especially in skill-sharing ventures, how-

ever many now operate under a gift principle as well. People have generally become a lot

more aware of how even the smallest everyday practices, and also ways of using resources

and manufacturing things (e.g. what goes into food production, and electronic equipment),

reverberate across social and ecological systems, and across spatial and temporal scales, so,

from local to global, from immediate, to long-term effects. This has been partly due to the

- 68 -

reconceptualization of what we traditionally would call „media“, which are now more akin to

what one might call „experience-designs“ (probing values, ethical norms, states of mind,

ways of living, and experiencing material flows), via art installations, and also, not surpris-

ingly, through augmented and virtual reality, and games, which have become quite the popu-

lar mediums in their own right, and which may be found in many cities around the world,

accessible for everyone in public spaces, and arcades.

These interfaces allow people to put themselves in the shoes of others (including even ani-

mals, plants, and inanimate objects), experience other cultural (and socio-linguistic) forms

and solidarities. New conscious rituals have arisen, and which have by now become almost

semi-conscious, that serve to 'reinforce' a (global) community spirit, the idea that each has

and still is playing their part in the great transformation(s), which is in stark contrast to old

socio-economic practices that tended to atomize people at both imaginary and institution-

al/material levels. This, for example, is very much reflected in local food systems, where an-

sambles of actors, ranging from farmers, to chefs, traditional horticulture specialists, seed-

keepers, recipemakers, nutritionists, to sustainability experts and storytellers, and to everyday

users/people, together decide what they would like to grow, or see grown locally, where and

how, what nutritious and exciting meals they could make, and how to minimize any waste

and uses of unsustainable methods such as plastics packaging. That is not to say that there is

not regional, and global exchange of foodstuffs. For example, some food ambassadors, rec-

ognized for their expertise, travel through regions/coutnries with their local specialty items,

and cities all over the world hold festivals to celebrate these peoples, these crops and foods,

and associated peculiar cultural practices and traditions, and share embodied and tactile

knowledge.

The traditional roles and responsibilities of government, industry an business, media, educa-

tion, have become a lot more blurred and intertwined. People do many different jobs, or so-

cial and ecological services, within a given week, month, or year. Of course jobs themselves

have been deeply rethought, and rather than money as the measure of success, success has

become synonymous with helping community, the world, and the environment and animals to

get back on their feet. If this sounds like a hastle, keep in mind that the pace of life now is

very different from that of the accelerated capitalist society of past. Inclusion has been a per-

sisting issue, but with education, transitory empowerment schemes, etc., people now have

more or less equal footing globally.

- 69 -

Supportive Material B: Mid-range milestone scenario (i.e. Co-Cities Everywhere)

We have entered a new cycle of co-creation, people and institutions are deeply redefining

their roles together (e.g. thinking about, what kinds of collaborations really get to the heart of

circular, collaborative, participatory, sharing, social economy thinking, co-design, practice,

living), regulation is consciously loosened and areas in the city are mapped and used to ena-

ble experimentation, the first cooperative platforms (digital, analog, hybrid) pop up that ena-

ble open and inclusive citymaking; multi-level scaling of innovation; people are using more

and more various foresight methods as a tool to design, co-create and stragegize with the fu-

ture in mind (e.g. some solutions, such as business around recycling, is consciously transitory

and becomes obsolete/is replaced by a redesign of the whole material cycles of design, pro-

duction, use, re-use, etc.), but also to experience the futures derived from their values, aspira-

tions, and images of the world (e.g. experiential scenarios & games become commonplace).

Some pressing issues still remain, such as inclusivity and empowerment, and not all parts of

the world have entered this model off co-creation. Indeed, some consciously choose to live in

other (old/new) ways. People in many cities have been empowered with a fiat-capital based

basic income as a consciously transitory welfare-guarantee scheme, while at the same time

there are parallel experiments with direct access to goods and services without the need for

money as such, which fostered new, non-commodified relationships between people(s).

- 70 -

Appendix 3: Playing Cards – Barries & Transition Ingredients (Examples)

- 71 -

- 72 -

Appendix 4: Workshop proceedings transcript

Workshop proceedings – transcript (13.6.2017, 15:00-18:00, Eindhoven City Hall)

Participants:

Rok Kranjc (MSc Student, Utrecht University)

Joost Vervoort (dr.) (Foresight researcher, Utrecht University)

Rik Thijs (Eindhoven city councelor, political party GroeneLinks)

Andre Cools (Urban developer and enterpreneur, organization Proeftuin040)

Wieteke Brocken (Social designer, organization Aarde & Co.)

Joost: I’m also in recent years interested in working with people on using games for similar

purposes, as a simulation exercise to explore different futures and consequences. So Rok’s

work really fits in that. And I and my colleagues helped you guys last year for coming up

with content for the Visie Stadslandbouw. … All this local work feeds into the European lev-

el … Take European food policy … Where all of this stuff comes together, in an attempt to

create an European-level food policy platform, like a food policy council but at European

level, where all kinds of societal stakeholders including the European commission look at

food challenges from a more systemic perspective Work in Eindhoven for instance gives

these people a good sense of how can we create supportive environments for activities at the

city and country level etc. What about you?

Rik: I’m in the city council, for GroenLinks. On the topics of sustainability, all the green stuff.

And next to that I am a teacher. I teach different courses, but healthcare technology.

Wieteke: It’s funny, because of you we had here a meeting of about the city farming, and

then people could come in from the city, it was your initiative, and then there somebody said

we need a vision, and because of that and your work, we had the Proeftuin040 to make the

vision. And also people who were interested to put effort into it. It’s been a year. And now,

you (Andre) gave it back to the government again, and now …

Andre: There is some news, but I can tell you later.

Wieteke: Almost a real life example how this works and what the friction is and what the

need is, but also the voices from within, government let’s say, and the people outside, and

still something goes …

Andre: A little bit of guidance for the game. Rok initially wanted to create the game. So there

is like this system, different paradigms, the system we are all fighting against, and where ide-

- 73 -

as get stuck or maybe a little bit delayed and stuff like that. And that system is maintained

usuall y by governmental structures, national, locally. So first the idea was…

Wieteke: Albert Heijn was not coming to the vision sessions.

Andre: At first the idea was to create a game to help people who take the initiative.

Wieteke: But as you say like, fighting against, but it should not be fighting against, it should

be working together, but then it’s like people working on transition are like yeah let’s work

together, but …

Andre: 5:27 - 7:10 (in Dutch)

Joost: So I was in that kind of situation with people last week at Nestle global headquarters.

And there I was talking with people exactly like that. People in the sustainability network of

the Nestle company… And they are in position like that. So if we can, the results of our play-

test today, …

Joost: (9:00) So I think that while we are playing this game, and doing this backcast, it’s a

gamified backcast, a combination of a game and backcasting exercise, hybrid, we should

keep in mind quite a lot how it could be used elsewhere. If this could be packaged in a sim-

pler way, it could be given as part of trainings in the city council kind of system system,

that’s kind of what we’re thinking about in terms of scale, not just for Eindhoven, but global-

ly, because you (Rok) are in touch with all these global people who are working on commons

and things like that. They could … And there is a lot of interest in this kind of approach, right.

So we are also, so maybe just a little bit of a further explanation when we are all talking about

this project. Rok has a lot of connections to the kind of global world of people working on

commons, and alternative political economic models. And it would be, it was a real benefit

that you had that, that interest, and a lot of knowledge about this, so we made that group of

people actually part of the research. So you’ve been interviewing all these people, and as well

as practitioners in Eindhoven, and see if you can make that connection between that

knowledge of all these people who are working with these alternative political economic

models and people who are working on the ground but who are struggling against the current,

against the limitations of the current system, maybe that’s a better way to say it. So we’ll see

if that, we’ll find out.

Joost: (10:30) So we have to make roles. Or are you going to read the scenario first?

Rok: We can maybe pitch some ideas first about roles, about the future.

- 74 -

Joost: So the future time, we’re going to be working on, how far away it is in terms of time is

not specified, so it’s a transformed world, we start in a world that is completely different from

now …

Wieteke: So we are not also having the same roles (in the future, as opposed to today)?

Joost: Exactly, so that’s part of the game. We, I think it’s actually important to know the

world, and talk about the world first, and then put our roles in it. So if you can read the sce-

nario. And explain maybe how it was created.

Rok: Right. So I’ve prepared a scenario which is a compendium of all the kind the progres-

sive ideas I’ve been engaging throughout the years, but also from these various experts, and

try to combine it in a kind of experiential narrative, so it’s maybe provocative in some senses,

but it’s mostly to see what is out there, what is possible, may be possible.

Joost: And we will inhabit this world, we will imagine ourselves to be in this world, and then

imagine what Eindhoven is like in that world, and what roles we are playing. So that’s kind

of to start off the game.

Rok: Yeah, so the vision is more about a general …

Wieteke: Sorry can I say something. Actually, there is a whole starting with a vision, is the

most important thing, so if we hold somebody’s scenario, then we should agree with this sce-

nario, or write our own ones.

Joost: Yes. So, typically you would write your own one, that’s how you would start. But in

this case what we are offered is what is the global context. So what’s happening in the rest of

the world. Because that is a way to bring all that stuff that Rok is finding through the research,

kind of in one world to us, and then we can … You know, like I don’t agree with everything

that is happening in the world now, but it’s still out there. So we just have to imagine this

world, and that we are living in this world, and then we can decide on what we want to do in

Eindhoven ourselves. So there is two levels to it. There is this global context, that’s just, a

transformed world, and we have to do something with that, and then what we want to do in

Eindhoven.

Wieteke: So it’s different scenarios written by different people?

Rok: No, it’s a kind of a combination of a few scenarios that have been developed. And it’s

not a rigid scenario, we can of course talk about it, but it’s just to pick your brains in terms of

what might be possible.

- 75 -

Joost: And maybe we want to make some notes actually ourselves, writing down some ideas.

So we don’t just listen and it goes like this (in one ear and out the other), on post-its. So may-

be the way to do it is, if you give us the assignment to think about what Eindhoven looks like

in this world, and we can start making notes right.

Andre: What we think Eindhoven would look like, or what we would like Eindhoven to look

like.

Joost: Assuming that this is a desirable picture of the future, I think what we would like it to

look like.

---

Rok: So, I am the messenger from the future.

Joost: Welcome

Rok: *Reading out scenario*

Joost: So you are talking about a situation in which globally things are designed, so there is

global networks of people sharing ideas, open source kind of stuff, and then produce in kind

of efficient, small-scale production sites locally.

Rok: *Reading on the scenario*

Joost: So there is basically like a space for very different types of societies to exist and to ....

Rok: *Reading the scenario*

Joost: So it’s coming from, you are combining basically a whole bunch of ideas from the in-

terviews etc.

Rok: Yeah, and research.

Wieteke: I want a teleporting machine.

Joost: You want to go there. Good.

Wieteke: The seeds of this are already in society.

Joost: Yeah, a lot of people are experimenting with this kind of stuff.

*BREAK*

- 76 -

Andre: It might actually be, just for the gaming experience, might also be nice to explore the

possibility to (Joost: Make a video or something?), no, to create a certain given future or con-

text, with different kinds of elements, so if you play with four or five people, then everyone

gets to pick one card, and then that’s the future.

Joost: That’s interesting. So like a composite. Because this is a composite of all kinds of ideas.

Andre: Yeah but I feel this is too polished a composite.

Joost: I see what you mean, not enough spaces for innovative …

Andre: Also, disruptive things in a negative way. For example I don’t believe that actually

our world, this fuzzy and woolly, will be like this in any amount of time, well maybe in 500

years or so. But, I think you know there are also, it’s, the age old story of good and bad.

Joost: Well sure, but then there is a question about how should you see this future. I don’t

think we should see it as a ... I mean, okay, so Rok what do you think. Andre is saying that he

believes this will never happen, basically. Because it’s not challenging, it’s a fuzzy future, etc.

But the question is of course, how do you interpret it. Is it a most likely future, no, right. It is

a plausible future scenario that you are investigating. Maybe not. Right. Is it utopian. Yes. So

what kind of reality state do you give this future? Any thoughts on that?

Wieteke: But isn’t it the best to have the ideals in the future and then work on it?

Andre: For the game was an idea, to just give a set of cards, with small parts of the context

and then everyone can just pick a part of the context so you build this kind of random future.

Because it’s. You know you say yes, you have to have a utopian point on the horizon, but this

for me is not utopia, actually. So I don’t agree with the given. You presented it as a given fact,

loosely, that this might be a future I would like to work towards.

Rok: Or a future that just exists. Maybe you are not working towards it.

Joost: In this case, so that’s an interesting discussion right, how do you want to interpret this.

Should we, and we can just make a decision now for this game session, should we just take it,

this is just a role that we are in, and maybe we don’t like it or maybe we do like it, but that’s

the way it is. It’s a hippie fuzzball world, you are in hippie land. Right? If that’s the way you

are describing it.

Wieteke: Maybe the interpretation is also different, yours or mine, it may be that in this

whole story I pick up other words than you did.

Joost: For me for instance it sounds like a very technology focus.

- 77 -

Wieteke: Also technology.

Rik: But I, I see what you mean, because when you go to the future and go back, and what do

you need, and what needs to change, like government structures and all that kind of stuff,

some things that are given now, are completely forgotten there. Like crime, everyone is being

a part, but there are also people who are maybe not part of this world. If you’ve got those

things they are very important also for what you do want in your government structure or not.

Joost: Yeah that’s right.

Wieteke: Yeah, the flip side.

Andre: One of the strongest feelings I get from this scenario is that we are already talking

about that here in the city of Eindhoven, but a lot of places in the world, is the divide, it’s a

city of two speeds they say around here. And you have the haves and the have not’s, and they

are very, a lot of different theories, and the first thing that popped in my head when I heard

that is that it would only make the division between those who can participate and have the

skills to do that, and those who cannot.

Joost: Yeah, but that’s interesting, because I commented on something like that when I

looked over it, but then I thought by myself, hold on. I mean, first of all, it depends on how

long this is in the future. If it’s quite long into the future, you can change those people who

can or cannot participate through education, etc. But secondly, it also depends how intense …

Like when I first heard this, oh my it’s super exhausting, everybody has to be co-creative etc.,

but that depends on what speed and intensity you do that. Because if your job structures

change you can actually do that kind of collaborative work much more slowly, and you have

more time to fail, etc. Then it’s a different story. Because if I interpret it with my present kind

of overcommitted work mind, I think this is really exhausting and super intensive to be a per-

son in that world. But that’s not the way that you necessarily have to look at it right, see what

I mean.

Andre: Yeah.

Joost: But let’s maybe investigate that question by talking a bit more about what it would

look like for, the question about Eindhoven would be, what would we want to see Eindhoven

be like in this situation. So part of the things, so maybe it’s true that in this future there are

problems with inclusivity, right. So we have this fantastic world, but working together and

economies organized very differently, but maybe these kinds of mechanisms are … Because

what I said to Rok is, it’s a meritocracy. Only the people who can, count. It sounds a little bit

like that. It’s not how it’s meant, but that’s how you pick it up. And it’’s kind of cruel maybe

even, you say it sounds fluffy, but it also can be, underneath the fluffiness it can be pretty

- 78 -

cruel. You remember the scenario we developed in the TRANSMANGO process, the fa-

tamorgana world, it was like that. Like, very superficial sustainability and inclusivity …

Andre. I think, because we are actually playtesting right now, it’s not actually about what

kind of future, or steps, or where, we are playtesting your (Rok’s) game, so in that respect I

think for the commitment of people playing the game, I think it will be, it’s difficult but it’s

also rather important, to give people the feeling that they are gearing towards a future that

they would actually like to see happen. Because now we get barriers, to a future I maybe

don’t even want, and because it’s that future, the barriers might be different than the actual

barriers that are existing right now.

Joost: And you (Rok) have a lot of empty cards so we can put our own barriers too. But that’s

a really good point, and that’s kind of a general reflection on this stuff. Typically, and espe-

cially with the vision, you normally want people, just to start coming up with their own vision,

it’s their vision right. But there is a tension here, because in Rok’s project, the problem he is

engaging with is that a lot of, like, a huge amount of people everywhere around the world are

thinking about alternative modes of working together, etc., and that people don’t know about

it. So you should be learning about it in a playful way. But I think that that's a really good

point Andre.

Wieteke: I don’t agree with that. Because I think every human being has a certain vision, and

that can be very completely different for everybody, how far it goes. I think every human

being has something ...

Joost: I’m not disagreeing with that at all, I’m just saying that normally in most of these pro-

cesses ...

Wieteke: That’s how we create, our own thing that, most of the people are really, and even

we are really not conscious yet about our creation power. It starts with that, creating a vision.

Andre: But I think it’s good, it has to be a hybrid form, because there are also a lot of people

who would like to create a vision but need some help with some out of the box ideas that they

didn’t think of before. So that’s why you also have to give people some …

Wieteke: There are people good at going far in visioning, people who play it safe …

Joost: And also people who do it fast, and people who need more time, but maybe come up

with more deep stuff …

Andre: So what’s the next step.

- 79 -

Rok: I just have a comment about the scenario. We could take it as a, I’m a student from the

future, sending you guys a message that had to be one page long, and say, describe as best as

I can. One of the points is that, I tried to create an image that this is a world where any kind

of way of life that you would like to lead, it can be accommodated in this world. So there is a

place for any kind of …

Joost: That’s kind of true, because you said like that there are very different ways of organiz-

ing societies …

Wieteke: Isn’t it funny, it’s already happening, and maybe also happening in the government,

you are bringing us a vision, and we are already like meh, I don’t really like it, … I think not

everybody thinks we do this. Maybe it’s already happening, with us, at this table, is already

an example of what is happening with what we talk about, what we do this.

Joost: You mean that visions are kind of being brought in down and then everybody is

fighting about …

Wieteke: Yes there is always people not agreeing with …

Joost: So the interesting point coming from the two of you I think in a sense is that, and it

connects to what Andre was saying about combining things, if your vision is fundamentally

pluralist, and that people can do, can create all kinds of communities, ways of working, at the

same time, in the same world, maybe you should emphasize that more, so we can create a

vision that is not just one block, right, but where different things are possible, and then there

is a lot more space for all of us to include our ideas. And that combines really well with the

building blocks idea that you had.

Wieteke: That’s also, the people who create the vision, feel dependent on things like govern-

ment, and things can get stuck because there will always be people who don’t agree with the

vision. But in the end, people who are there, working hands on on this materialization, doing

it, just simply doing it, are actually the ones.

Joost: But they are also doing it with a certain vision in mind, right.

Wieteke: Yeah.

Joost: Okay let’s keep going maybe. Shall we just discuss the vision a bit more, and what it

means for Eindhoven?

Rik: Something in the whole vision was the scale at which you were talking. Because I think

don’t think we’re not talking on the scale of Eindhoven as it is a city right now.

- 80 -

Joost: More a global, yeah.

Rik: It’s the mix between global, local, and something in the middle. Because now you have,

especially when you talk about the food part, and that you could, a local food system, I don’t

think we could have a local food system for 200.000 inhabitants. So I think you have to look

at Eindhoven as another scale of city, more like metropolitan region, to accomplish that.

Joost: That makes sense yeah.

Rik: And then I had, I like the helping part, that that was the base of success. And that it

could be global and local, also very much now with all the Brainport talk that says we are

developing products, systems, all that kind of stuff, to tackle large-scale problems, that could

be exported to other parts of the world.

Andre: Actually one thing, for Eindhoven, there was like, the global designs, but then local

micro-factories, was like, that’s also, but still that local design is still coming from Eindhoven;

we have the knowledge and the research and development, and essentially we sell the blue-

prints, so you can make it at your own. Fablabs, or whatever.

Joost: Maybe we should, these are already Eindhoven, start putting them down. Did you have

yours on a post-it? Shall we maybe go around, maybe that’s the best way to do it? Wieteke,

do you have a thought on it?

Wieteke: Yeah, I notice when I hear all this, that I still get a feeling that people who give this

direction of the vision, or are sitting on the position of making these decisions, are the ones

who are in the more power of creating this, while... (in Dutch)

Andre: (in Dutch)

Joost: Your commentary is covering two elements right. One is what the purpose of this game

should be, and I think that’s something which. The core comments was that is really valid and

mentioned a lot of times in this kind of work is that this kind of futures thinking is always

dominated by design thinkers, academics, and policymakers. So it’s a non-inclusive culture

of planning.

Wieteke: There are the people working on it, in this today space, dealing with today things,

and bumping in today problemes, maybe they have certain visions, but …

Joost: Can we in our vision say, how do we create a way that many more people can partici-

pate in shaping the future. ... (in Dutch). So I was saying, so the comment works on two lev-

els, the game, but also just in general. So I was saying, in this ideal future, what would be

your ideal way in which people in the city are participating in future-making.

- 81 -

Wieteke: I think the most important thing is that people, every individual has the challenge to

really discover what their purpose is in life. That starts, for every individual. It’s much more

close to the now to create the future in this harmonious way, that everybody fits well in this

position he or she wants to create in, otherwise you will always have … Like the virtual reali-

ty, so the people are like, virtual reality, what … It’s much more if you are connected with, I

am this person with this personal purpose, how can I work, make myself useful. If I look at

the past at leadership, leadership is who listen to the people what they need, what the prob-

lems are, asking people how they can solve it, themselves even. Leadership is to make inde-

pendent. A vision, in the name of, is making people dependent again somehow, instead of

really on their own …

Joost: Okay but now we are discussing at two levels at the same time, maybe we should …

Wieteke: I’m discussing about the start point.

Joost: So we’re talking about what we are doing here today, and what would be there in that

future. Because we are working back, so we are starting with this, what we would like to see,

and then we are thinking how it connects to the present.

Wieteke: And I’m already questioning that. Because if you do this game, then I already ques-

tion, if you have to do it in this, I wonder if this direction is the way to go.

Andre: I think, for the game, there should be a little bit more pragmatical approach, because

you can already see this is taking a long time and discussion is getting at this meta, very ab-

stract level, which is …

Wieteke: We are also here to give feedback to him on what kind of tool he could create.

Joost: That’s why it’s also taking long, we’re constantly flipping between ...

Rik: Maybe, if you would let the people who play the game, make their own vision, but not

write it down, maybe you ask them, make cards with three questions, the ideal, and then a

topic, then you can pick, then you just need to look at the NWO, they have 40 sustainability

topics, but also social. Maybe you ask, what’s your ideal, then someone can pick a complete-

ly energy neutral, or somebody can pick all the food is produced locally, all that kind of ques-

tions, then maybe you have to pick one threat, so also to get not the negative but the … And

then maybe one card, who should not be forgotten, or something like that. So you can …

Andre: It should be much more plug and play I think. For example we are here people who,

just for the sake of the argument, are working a lot with sustainability and greening stuff, so

we should, I think actually what we, and if we would be city council or city workers, then

actually we should just decide what is important for me as a person, what I would like to ac-

- 82 -

complish in my work, but it’s something I cannot accomplish I cannot accomplish right now.

So for example just make everything green that can be green, and he (Rik) says I want to

make all energy sustainable, and Wieteke says, I want every material to be circularly reused.

And then you have a little bit more. Then the people who are playing the game will be chal-

lenged to discover where are the barriers along this way. I have this as a personal goal, I have

this as what I want to do good for the city, and for myself, but why can’t I do it.

Rik: Yeah and you also have to have, if someone else is there and doesn’t have anything to

do with all the green stuff, then you also have, they should have to get to pick the card, what

we mustn't forget, like money, or what is a threat, privacy, because then you come up with

the real barriers.

Wieteke: Yeah and then you can get communication more to understand like, oh I didn't think

about that, and also to understand what’s behind it. And then you start feeling that it’s maybe

a barrier, because with the transition, maybe you get like a no from the government or what-

ever. You start to understand what’s the barrier, but even if the other person can be open

about what is behind it. And then somebody can say, I have a solution, maybe can come over

this, so it should be more communication, communication tool.

Joost: So, I think that’s really clear, so the game, less, so the balance between what you have

already produced, it should be less about responding to a given scenario, it should be more

about getting the tools to make the scenario fit the questions that you have.

Rik: Yeah, it doesn’t have to have a whole story (Joost: Narrative / Wieteke: Yeah I don’t

think), just ideals, threats, don’t forget, something like that.

Wieteke: Maybe to make people communicate with each other.

Joost: Should we already try to hack the game a little bit to combine that, now, so that we can

keep playing, and then maybe we keep going, otherwise we get stuck too much on the design-

ing. And also theoretically designing without playing. So how do we change the game now a

little bit. So for instance, just as a suggestion, we could think about what do each of us want

to achieve, what to achieve for ourselves, and think about in what role. Because the next

question was, what role do you see yourself in in this future right. So we have to think, what

do we want to achieve, and what are the jobs, the positions, the whatevers that we would have

to be in to make that work. So maybe, we start with that, so let’s start with ourselves. And

maybe take one important element, not a huge manifesto. And then the question is of course,

because I think to make this a good playtest is to let these guys all play themselves, but then

think about their future roles. And I can play a fake person, or maybe no, maybe I can also

play myself as Joost coming into Eindhoven.

- 83 -

Andre: Because you have all these different roles, to prepare, just play as … I don’t mind

playing the devil’s advocate for a while.

Rok: You (Joost) can play the researcher.

Joost: Yeah. I think it’s actually a good idea, because if we want to kind of experience what

it’s like to really play the game from your own perspective, we should play from our own

perspective, right, an extra element of role play would make it too difficult.

Andre: So, but for now, one goal which is a kind of …

Joost: That you can achieve it, and you can die happy (laughter).

---

Joost: (55:31) From my own perspective this question is really weirdly meta to answer, be-

cause my kind of job is to try to help create these kinds of things, well maybe it’s fine.

Andre: (Reading out Wieteke’s card) ‘Working with and in nature, with communities, com-

munity farm, nature and culture connection’.

Joost: (Reading Rik’s card) ‘Make metropolitan region Eindhoven the most helpful part or

the world’. So it’s basically like everybody helps each other.

Rik: Global and local.

Joost: Ah, so also as a global leader of innovative ideas. So it’s like, Eindhoven is the helping,

the friendly family member of the world. Are there places like that in the world now, like that

you could say this place is really helping everybody else. I guess the Netherlands are a little

bit like that. I mean there are some elements, I think Wageningen university is a little bit like

that …

Andre: I think in absolute terms we are the second biggest avocado importers in the world,

which is not very sustainable for example. We import a lot of soya for our pigs …

Joost: Ah yes. I’m thinking more in terms of, as knowledge broker maybe.

Rik: Well we were proclaimed to be the smartest region in the world, two years ago, about

healthcare.

Andre: Most patents per inhabitant, or per square …

Wieteke: And how do you see this?

- 84 -

Rik: The most helping part of the world.

Wieteke: Yeah, how does that look like, more concretely.

Rik: Global and local. So it’s really based on, all the knowledge we have that we can export,

can be healthcare, could be sustainable projects, we have some of that. And local, that we not

forget about the neighbourhoods. So that also in the community you have in the city, or the

metropol, they help each other. So it’s …

Wieteke: And what do you understand with helping?

Andre: It sounds a lot like a business model.

Wieteke: Supporting?

Andre: Supporting might be a better ...

Joost: I haven’t thought about that, but when we were talking about this that, you know in

that kind of right-wing media discourse around, there is this idea of virtue signalling. Virtue

signalling, they say, if you are worried about a certain problem, like if you are worried about

immigrants or something, and you are posting about it on social media, then the right-wing

will say you are virtue signalling, which means you are only trying to look good for other

people, that’s what they say. So you don’t actually care, you are like showing off. So like, oh

look, I’m really concerned. Showing off. I was thinking about that because, I thought that, to

actually stimulate people helping each other, there is a lot of interesting science about the

psychology of helping people, that it makes you very happy, stuff like that. And this idea that

helping people is somehow also selfish, it’s bad, maybe you should get rid of that. Because of

course it’s also selfish, you want to make, want to feel you are having a fulfilling life. And

you are doing that partly by helping.

Andre: I saw some research as well, saying like that there is no thing as true altruism.

Joost: Yeah, but then the question is, what do you mean by ‘real’. Because if you are helping

people because you feel you have to, and want a fulfilling life, but you are also doing it be-

cause actually to feel strong emotions about seeing people suffer, so there is a weird mixture

of reasons right, and I think that like one way to help achieve this kind of culture of helping,

is to like really understand what happens in the psychology of helping people, and make that

much more of a basis of the, of how these things are being design. You know what I mean?

How do you ingrain, how we understand what happens when people help each, into systems

of reward and recognition.

Wieteke: Thinking about being supportive.

- 85 -

Joost: Yeah. Just adding to your idea there, maybe.

Andre: Now we have these four goals. what now Rok (laugter)?

Joost: So which one did you have Andre?

Andre: ‘The city contributes to people’s health, instead of endangering it’.

Joost: So like the city is a source of health, when you come to Eindhoven, for all kind of rea-

sons …

Andre. Yeah, right now you are inhaling all kinds of fine dust, and there is the people in the

city live actually three or four years shorter than people on the countryside … So, greening,

making more sustainable, may actually contribute to …

Wieteke: For you it’s also the green part, in it.

Andre: Yeah, the biodiversity, climate adaptation, because heat strokes is one of the things

why people die early, and ...

Wieteke: So you can get other directions in it too.

Joost: Lifestyle kind of stuff, healthcare, …

Andre: Yeah.

Rik: It can also be that the city is designed so that you could easily take the bike or go by foot,

instead of taking the car, so you get exercise every day.

Joost: It could also be about psychological health, that there are ways in which you are kind

of, social …

Andre: There is probably a line somewhere in the broadness which I implied, but it’s broader

than just planting trees.

Rok: So we are kind of fertilizing each other’s visions, maybe in another playthrough that

would make sense to have little words here and there, interpretations of people what the other

person meant, enriching this whole thing into …

Joost: But we can do that right though right. So mine is simple, it picks up on what you

(Wieteke) said. So, ‘get many people involved in empowered future making’. So you have a

way in which actually a lot of people can be involved in thinking about the future, and think-

ing about how it affects their lives, and the purpose that they are trying to achieve. And

somehow finding a way to make that available for many people, specifically in a way that

- 86 -

makes them feel empowered. Because I feel disempowerment is a fundamental problem of

our time, you see it a lot in politics, people are disempowered. So that would be my goal, as a

person in Eindhoven coming from outside. So I’m responding to your (Wieteke’s) challenge.

Witeke: Great (laugter).

Joost: So, do we each want to add some ideas to each other, and maybe talk about how they

can be combined.

Wieteke: Shall I say mine aloud? I have maybe a little bit more concrete, I try to be. It’s like

community farm. So more a place where you can have local food, but also where people can

come and experience nature, and relax, and come back to nature, reconnect with it.

Rik: The whole city should be like that, or?

Wieteke: No, no, it’s more personal. But I think there will be more places like this. So that’s

what I, you made it really more wide, and I made it really more personal.

Joost: A community farm, yeah.

Wieteke: But I know this is happening for more people.

Andre: What is the goal that is, because this is a means, what is the goal in the end.

Wieteke: It’s the reconnection with nature. And, it talks also about, our food system actually,

changing our food system, also more locally-based, and more involved with the people them-

selves. Know where it comes from, respect within nature, a new food structure actually, in an,

I think in a more idealistic form. And it doesn’t mean that it has to, the whole solution of …

Joost: Feeding everybody?

Wieteke: Yeah, but I think it’s important that you get also more local food. It’s already hap-

pening.

Andre: Sustainable and healthy food system and people that are connected with nature.

Wieteke: Yeah, that this whole food system is connected more with nature. More balanced

with nature.

---

Joost: I’m going to add here. This is just my attempt at understanding how the helping (Rik’s)

works

- 87 -

Rik: I think, as a reflection on the game, we have here people who have done this before, but

I guess for the game if you want to play it with different stakeholders, and you do want to

include, the cleaning lady to join the process, I think you really have to find a way that you

can, that you can pick some goals. Because otherwise … And also to get them on the same

level.

Joost: But then we have to think a bit about, what the goal of the game is, because the goal of

the game and the players of the game, are really people who are working in the government,

or other major organizations and institutions, and who are running into boundaries for change.

So it’s I think we should avoid thinking about this as something everybody should play.

Rik: That’s interesting, because, when you have a big company, that could. For example. At

my work we are building a new building, we’re in the process with the architect, and there is

a group of eight people, who are putting together the plan. So the question is how sustainable

it has to be, all that kind of stuff. And the director of DIF, so DIF is the Diesenheit (?) Ge-

bouwen, it’s the project leader, it’s me as a teacher but mainly because I worked on the team

of sustainability, but in that group who needs to put out the plan, there is no student, there is

no one who will be cleaning the space and stuff. So I guess also in, especially when you are

in a, when you are a policymaker, you have to, have to get those people to get to play the

game with you. Because otherwise you get a very, very, …

Wieteke: That is, who are the stakeholders of the ...

Andre: Yeah, but in the broader sense, in corporate decisionmaking, I absolutely agree with

you, just not for the game, you’re not going to solve all these kinds of problems. Because the

thing I think that Rok is trying to tackle, and which you cannot do when other people get in-

volved, is try to get the internal barriers into the daylight. And no one from the municipality

is going to talk about restricting organizational issues, within the municipality, if the cleaning

lady sits here. It’s too public. Or when inhabitants of the city, which you should absolutely

value their opinion, but in a different process, also, get them to join on the vision making. But

if you want to explore, what is our problem when we want to go from this vision to today,

then you don’t want any ‘pottekijkers’.

Joost: So it’s really, this is an important point, which I tend to agree with. That we should

avoid trying to get this game to do everything. Right. Everything at the same time. You have

to make this kind of game for a very specific purpose. If we can agree, we can still talk about

multiple games, or another version which is more meant for multi-stakeholder processes.

Wieteke: But it start’s with the mentality.

Andre: But Wieteke, it shouldn’t do everything, it is for a specific purpose.

- 88 -

Joost: So, I think that that comment is really true in terms of, how we should for instance look

at this vision etc., this is really for your organization. But I think you can also use it like with

a group like this, where you guys know each other, you work in different parts of the city, but

you are, you feel comfortable enough to talk quite openly about the problems that you are

running into typically, I hope. So then you can also do in a multi-stakeholder setting. An ex-

ample is the Nestle thing. I worked in two processes. One was only with the internal sustain-

ability champions of Nestle, and later in the week during the conference all kinds of people

came and was played with all kinds of people, scenarios, backcasting. We had to get all kinds

of security clearances, and have a really polished, sanitized, neutralized version for the one

that was public. The one internally with all the Nestle people could be much more talking

about the gritty reality. And so for that internal process with these internal changemaker peo-

ple in Nestle, that’s what this game would be used for.

Andre: I mean, for me maybe the goal the game has indeed a different goal, but the way I

understood it is, for example, if you have within the group of city workers, and then just

someone says I want to do the good thing but I have to, I am accountable, and I have to be

responsible to the head of my division, and my division is only ... (in Dutch)

Rik: It’s more that I don’t know if it has to be a part of this, or maybe it has to be a part of

different roles.

Joost: Ah so that you would at least simulate that perspective.

Rik: It’s also possible.

Joost: Ah that’s maybe a nice solution actually, so maybe you, even though you have to keep

it internal because you are dealing with sensitive stuff, you can at least try to play these roles.

Rik: Yeah, I don’t know, maybe not the wizard, but the …

Wieteke: The cleaning lady, a daily life person.

Rik: And maybe with a bit of a, the cleaning lady who is divorced, lives on a 700 budget.

Also to put it in the perspective from what kind of background she …

Joost: So now let’s take that into account. I think for now we can just keep keep going as we

are, where we say, we are, we are coming from different places, but we are working together

so we have a little space in which we can explore problems and we can relatively, talking

about the real problems. So we’ve got these four personal visions, and then maybe the first

thing to do is to …

- 89 -

Wieteke: The funny thing what I noticed here is that I try to be really more personal, and you

open me up to be more global, and you are quite global which I don’t really understand the

personal.

Joost: Mine is just city level. Well, I mean I can explain, maybe we should explain why it’s

personal. Not just have a statement, but also why does it matter to me, so you get a bit more

sense of the value behind it. So maybe in my case, so I’m saying I want to get more people

involved and empowered future-making, so people like you said can be really empowered,

feel empowered, that they can actually participate how people are thinking about the future of

the city. Because I’m personally extremely concerned about this empowerment, like okay this

is also my job right, my job is to find ways to make thinking about the future better, but I’m

also really concerned about, I see disempowerment, and people feeling disempowered about

changes in society, as a real core issue, that people are struggling with, we are just creating

new political tensions, etc. And it’s really sad that people feel disempowered.

Wieteke: The question is, how do you empower people.

Joost: Well I don’t know, I mean, that’s my goal, and we have to find out how we will get

there.

Andre: And what barriers we run into.

Joost: But I feel like that’s really sad. Many people feel really frustrated, disempowered, they

cannot participate in society, it’s just like this storm boiling over their heads and everything

gets destroyed.

Wieteke: And they are not included.

Joost: I feel personally, I have this conversation with my students a lot, and they come to me

and they start their first year in sustainability science, and they say I feel really disempowered.

I’m like you’re really not disempowered, you know, you are in such a privileged position,

let’s talk about what you can do. So that’s my … Is that what you mean, more personal?

Wieteke: Yes. I am already thinking, where does this feeling of not being empowered come

from. Can also be, blocked by the outside, can also be something coming from the inside.

Joost: Of course, it can also be culturally incorporated in people inside, where they feel

like …

Wieteke: No tools to get yourself empowered. So then maybe you get to go back and (inaudi-

ble)

- 90 -

Joost: So okay, so that’s what you mean right, get the more personal side out in the game.

Rik: And I would question that. Because, if the purpose of the game is to break barriers in a

more decisionmaking process, then I don’t want to know what’s the personal agenda, if the

vision is to be sustainable, or circular in 2030.

Andre: It’s actually your professional goal, it’s not your personal ...

Wieteke: Yeah, because we talked about writing down your personal goals, so I got quite

personal, but that’s why, now I understand why you ask the question …

Rik: Maybe the question then, it doesn’t have to be a personal goal, because personal goal

you can interpret it like that, but I interpreted it, okay I write my goal as goal of Eindhoven.

Wieteke: Yeah the question is different.

Joost: Alright, so what we’re doing to wrap this up, I guess we should pay attention to the

time. So maybe now we should pick our roles, right, and then start moving back, because I

have still yet to see the barriers, that’s the key right. We want to work on that, see how that

works. So roles. So, you want to start Andre, so you’re, what would be your future role in this

situation where Eindhoven actually is a city where you get healthier instead of less healthy.

Andre: I would, it has to be somehow linked to what I’m doing right now. I think then I

would be a concept developer.

Wieteke: You already are.

Andre: Well we play ourselves right.

Joost: Right, but how would your role change though, would you need more influence,

more …

Andre: But then my role doesn’t change, only the context surrounding my role changes. I

have more opportunity as a concept developer.

Joost: So you don’t have to change your role.

Andre: I don’t have to change anything (laughter).

Joost: Okay, so, but that’s interesting actually right, because I’m thinking about that as well,

if I have to think about how my role changes, in this future where I’m empowering people in

Eindhoven, to think about the future and really do that personally etc. I could do that from

university.

- 91 -

Andre: But that’s actually quite interesting because. If most people have this comment, I can

be just myself, but my surroundings have to change, I have to get more opportunities, then

you get to the barriers, I’m not the problem, the context is the problem.

Joost: The way that your role is defined is not really the problem, but it also depends per per-

son. I think if you’re a civil servant, it’s very different. Because your role is not so defined

right. You define your own role. In my case, my role is also pretty much not defined, but if I

would be really effective in this, I would maybe have to drop a bunch of teaching, or drop the

endless hunt for proposals, or something, right. So I would have to have a lot more freedom

to engage with this stuff myself. What about you guys, do you think your role would have to

change?

Rik: Yeah. I’m …

Wieteke: Well I’m working on it, I think it’s, for me to talk about my role, it’s like being a

designer and a farmer at the same time, and I’m already a designer and I’m working on the

farm part. But it’s more than that, it’s also community creating, communicative part.

Joost: So you would be a community leader of some sort in that scenario. So let’s try to make

that quite concrete, let’s see if we can still capture that role a bit and work outward from there.

So, in my situation I would still be an academic of some sorts, but I would get a lot more,

then you get to the incentives thing, and how you, not your role, but how your role is valued

etc. Because I could for instance say like, I would, my job description would include, has to

engage with, has to, Joost in his position has to work with people to make processes of imag-

ining the future much more inclusive, that should be in my job description, so in that sense

my role, or at least it should be part of my job description, that I should have societal impact.

At the moment, it’s,I’m working all around the world with governments etc., so hopefully I

have a lot of societal impact, but it’s not really valued right. They only value publication, and

a little bit of societal impact, it’s like five percent. But I think it should be 50 percent at least,

maybe 70. So my role needs to be changed.

Andre: That’s also a barrier.

Joost: Yeah, so we are getting to the first barrier, in my case is that I’m in a system where,

academic outputs is valuated, but not societal impact, and that has to change, so that’s a bar-

rier.

Wieteke: My problem is that the land is too expensive.

Andre: What’s yours (Rik’s).

- 92 -

Rik: So, the Netherlands, in that, consists of 40 regions. So it’s 40 regions, we don’t have the

provinces any more. We don’t have hundreds of cities, small cities, big cities. So 40 regions,

and I’m the am-minister, so a combination of an ambassador and minister, of the region of

EIndhoven, in the national government. And I don’t know then how the …

Wieteke: I’m curious, how do you see this new governmental structure?

Rik: I didn’t completely, have that, but … It’s not a parliament of 150, and then …

Andre: It’s like, right now, the whole policy for the next 4 years is decided (inaudible)

Andre: Okay, so you are the am-minister.

Joost: I’m an impact researcher.

Wieteke: Nature food designer.

Joost: You (Andre) are still, your role is so flexible that you can basically do anything.

Andre: I can do anything.

Joost: That’s good, that also good, interesting to realise.

Andre: Yeah, just for the sake of the game, just keep it simple.

Rok: (handing out pre-made cards)

Andre: So you hand-picked them, or are random?

Rok: Hand picked, yeah.

Joost: You are responding to what we defined as our roles.

Rok: Yeah.

Andre: So you definitely always need some sort of a game master in this? Like Dungeons and

Dragons.

Rok: As we are doing it now yes, but ... (not necessarily).

Joost: I want more, more ideas.

Wieteke: Oh now we get the barriers.

- 93 -

Joost: So now we get some barriers. And we can also come up with our own barriers, right.

So I think that would be a nice mix for the game, where you come up with your own stuff,

and then you get fed a couple of things, so there is a bit of an interaction.

Wieteke: I’m getting only the barriers.

Rok: Yeah I’m picking out the barriers now …

Joost: How many barriers have you (Wieteke) have? You have three barriers. I’ve got one.

Wieteke: Want one of my barriers?

Andre: But they are hand picked for you, Rok picked them.

Wieteke: Oh really, you don’t have any barriers.

Joost: He will give us more.

Rok: This one is for Rik.

Joost: (reading out the card) Article 5 on steroids.

Andre: Article 5 is about driving isn’t it?

Joost: It’s a legislation that says civil servants may in some sense look the other side, so as to

make things possible for initiatives.

Rik: That’s Article 5.

Andre: And when can you invoke that?

Rik: (inaudible)

Joost: Article 5 is when the government looks away to make things possible.

Andre: ... (in Dutch)

Joost: I’ve learned something new already.

Joost: Big government as a barrier. Ah yea I can see that, Participatiesamenleving etc., that’s

interesting.

Rok: (handing out more cards)

- 94 -

Andre: Rok, we talked about this, but I still have to say, you should really really simplify the

usage of your language (laughter). (... in Dutch)

Joost: Yeah, so keep it simple. ... Mine are pretty understandable.

Andre: Let me read mine. “Some innovations twist knobs that correspond to more institution-

al knobs, either implicitly or explicitly, pointing to big changes needed in the modus operandi

of businesses and governments. Incumbent actors from such organizations are very reluctant

to converse around prospects of scaling such innovations, and messing with the status quo.”

Joost: Yeah that’s a lot of jargon. Of course you would have a Dutch version of this game

anyway, but still it shouldn’t have so much jargon in it. I mean like, Article 5 on steroids, if

you quickly explain what article 5 is, that works, that’s clear. So, short, and simple language,

is the point. Alright, I want more stuff Rok.

Andre: I want more stuff (laughter).

Joost: (Reading out card) “Open calls and competitions for issue-based innovations and solu-

tions, high budget, high impact”. Now we’re talking. High budget, high impact, I love it.

GIve me money. (Reading out next card) “Existing groundwork for multi-stakeholder part-

nerships”, okay.

Rok: I can also give you some blank cards so you can write down your own ...

Andre: What shall we do with these cards that we already have now, the barrier cards?

Joost: So we should be backcasting, right. So we’ve got our roles, we should be working to-

wards the present, and then I think originally you had in mind that you would introduce these

barriers along the way, but actually I think it’s quite interesting as like a card game, that we

can make life difficult for each other. So we could introduce, you know somebody has got a

story, oh and we'll do this, and then they say oh, but here’s a barrier. Right, and you deal with

this barrier, and that’s kind of fun.

Wieteke: So these are not my barriers, but of somebody else? But you can also write down

your own barriers.

Joost: Yeah, I think so.

Wieteke: Or when you feel like oh this is really one of my barriers you can also give each

other…

Joost: Yeah and that’s important because, oh maybe you can actually get more points by put-

ting in more barriers, so by putting in and overcoming more barriers, because that incentivis-

- 95 -

es people to play it in a way that they are engaging with barriers, right. So if you just do a

backcast, and like, and then, and then, and then, if I do this then I do this, etc., and you never

say what would actually be the problems that you would face. You could actually maybe win

points, by saying, well can you think of a barrier. Yeah actually this is a barrier. And how you

overcome it.

Wieteke: Overcoming the barrier, then you are empowering people.

Joost: That’s right, and then you get points for that. And you can also, instead of making it

difficult, you are making it difficult for each other by putting in barriers, but you also help

them because you give them an opportunity to score points. So if you are trying to do some-

thing, and I say, well, but Big Businesses, Andre, they are weary, they don’t want to talk

about big systems change, how do you deal with this. That’s fun. That’s interesting.

Andre: But, we’ll see how that pans out, but I think that we will get, I think it’s hard to put

down barriers when we were, I think the most barriers will apply to the last piece of paper.

Because these things will probably be general.

Wieteke: The seeds are close to here (the far future).

Joost: That’s what we talked about before, there are some barriers that we think take a lot of

time to be resolved, and some can be resolved earlier. So maybe actually the game speeds up

when you are moving up back towards the present. As you move towards the present, more

and more barriers come into play, and then it becomes difficult and you really start making

your, the points are really being increased when you move towards the end of the game.

That’s actually interesting.

Rok: (to Wieteke)The idea behind the seeds was that they are also a catalyzer of change, so

how does this kind of innovation or …, potentially change the landscape. It can also be more

drivers in the present, that are shaping people’s …

Joost: Yeah, but a general point that, I’m kind of thinking about this now as well, the point

that Andre is making, I think that the structured time, like the backcast element itself, we

have to think about this a little bit, because that’s really challenging, like talking about your

role, and the barriers, and how to overcome these barriers, I think is fine, we can, people can

do that, but having, making structured plans, over time, is quite difficult, right, especially if

you are working back. So, but let’s just try it. And maybe you have to define the phases a bit

more. So then it becomes a few rounds or something.

- 96 -

Andre: And you can foresee the barriers you get, for example, in the next five years, because

that’s you can oversee them and you see what kinds of things are playing out in society. So

you know what’s impacting you.

Joost: Yeah, actually that’s interesting, maybe, well let’s just keep trying, because maybe one

conclusion could be that backcasting is maybe not the best approach, maybe it should be

forecasting. Make your vision, and then forecast towards it. Overcome the first barriers, may-

be right. Okay, anyway...

Andre: That could also be nice because if you can’t overcome some barriers, then you can get

stuck. So you have this goal here, and then you start building your tree, with options and bar-

riers that you overcome, and if you get stuck then, well … You can’t reach your goal.

Wieteke: Yeah, while I put the seeds there (in the future), maybe they should be more here

(closer to the present).

Joost: Yeah. What do you think, shall we try to move forward?

Rok: Yeah let’s maybe do that.

Joost: It sounds like it’s better. You can always try, with some students or something, see if

the backcasting works better or whatever. Let’s just try and move forward. Okay so that

means that our roles, our future roles are not there yet, the people we want to become are

goals in the future, so now we’re just ourselves again.

Wieteke: But then you have to put the seeds here.

Joost. I don’t have any seeds yet. Can I have some seeds?

Wieteke: You can also write down your own seeds.

Joost: So if we start from the present, that means that if I want, let’s say I … But it also

makes it difficult in another way. Because if I’m thinking like, oh I want to achieve that eve-

ryone can participate in future-making, …

Andre: What’s going to be your first step.

Joost: And it’s difficult to say that if I don’t know what my longer term steps are. So in that

sense the backcasting is actually better, because I’m like. Shall we just try backcasting, what

do you think? Let’s just try it. Okay what’s the first thing that I want to do. If I want to work

with Eindhoven on participatory future making, then I have the, well the first thing I would

do is to get funding, have time allocated for this, and have a team. I would put in a proposal.

I’m still working within the barriers of the current system, eh.

- 97 -

Wieteke: The only thing I’m wondering now is, because now we make our own individual

paths, but actually in this whole case we are talking about that you work on something to-

gether, within a company, or the government, or whatever. I can make my own project, but…

Andre: You are absolutely right, and also what you said, that it’s a combination, because, you

said I’m still working in the system. So you are already thinking about circumventing certain

problems. My, the first thing I wanted to write down was make people see the added value of

greening the city, which is also for me a measure to cope with the current system. So actually,

green stuff not having a value in most people’s heads is already a barrier, which I’m trying to

circumvent that way. And together with the thing that we’re getting four different paths.

Joost: But the four different paths, is not necessarily super bad, because if we are talking

about empowering people in our own environment, what we could do is make some rules

where you say, you can help each other, and you can find common goals. So if you want to

achieve something, I want to achieve something, can we something together, and you get

extra points for achieving it, or can you come up with suggestion to help somebody else

overcome their barrier. So you are working on your own goals, but you are thinking together

about them, trying to help each other.

Wieteke: But this whole thing was meant to, for, if we take again the example of the vision of

urban farming, then we have this vision, but then somehow this friction inside the govern-

ment, and then we have this game to understand that we have this vision, and we have these

people right here who have a problem with it. And then what we can do to understand, but

then you have one thing you all focus on, and then you go to understand what are the barriers,

to understand how you can solve it. And that’s not what’s happening now.

Joost: Because now we are all focusing on our personal visions, that’s what we try to experi-

ment.

Rik: Oh, I’m trying to get all four together in the steps I think I need to take. Maybe mine is

more easy because … No, I can … Put them all together.

Joost: So there is a problem of how much of a common vision are we aiming for in the game.

That’s the way it was originally designed, to come up with a vision together and then work

towards it, but then we shifted towards this really, putting people, from their own perspec-

tives what do you want to achieve and what are the barriers you are running into in your own

organizations. So let’s say this is the common vision, and I think maybe we need to discuss

that a little bit more, and then think about what we could each do from our own role to

achieve it, and what barriers we run into. So you have a common vision, but individual paths,

that are interconnected at certain points, and that you can help each other think about that.

- 98 -

Rik: For me, let’s say if this would be the main goal, because it’s very abstract, this one is

part of it, people’s health, I guess there are more ways to help but, let’s say the health, I think

this is a very important part of it, because to get the city, the people, the city contributes to

people’s health instead of endangering it, the key is to connect nature and culture, I guess,

and then this, this is sort of overall base.

Joost: Yeah, like how do you get people to think about what they do, together. I think that’s

correct yeah, the shared vision.

Andre: So now it coincidently fits very nicely into…

Joost: … Well it’s good that we are finding that out, we are a very compatible group (laugh-

ter). So, but I think that that’s fine, so you do it like this, you put your own goals down, and

think together about how the vision fits together. And then you work back. Or you work…

I’m still struggling a little bit with what direction to go into though. I wonder if backcasting

isn’t actually better, because… Or, well, you said it was easier for you to think what you

could do tomorrow.

Wieteke: Yeah I can change that too, I can change my mind.

Andre: Maybe there should actually always be two sessions. You do the backcasting in an

earlier session, without knowing that you are going to play the game next, so you have this

objective. Not the forecast, the backcasting. And then you do the backcast, projected on some

kind of playing board. Then it gets easier because you already have the steps, and if you have

to think with the steps with the game in the back of your mind, it gets a bit difficult.

Joost: That’s a good point, so let’s do a quick dedicated backcasting session.

Andre: (laughter) Without the game in mind.

Joost: Yeah, just quickly, what are the steps that we take, just for the sake of experimenting,

what are the steps that we think are necessary to achieve this, and that will put…

Wieteke: What do we need, and what are the barriers. To achieve this.

Joost: Yeah then the barriers come after that. So we do the backcasting.

Rik: For me, it’s to do the steps, it’s not about this but about the role you have. That’s far

more easier to do… To achieve that role, what steps do there need to be.

- 99 -

Joost: Ah I see what you mean, so you create the vision, then you create a fairly detailed idea

of what your role in there, and then … Yeah, because, that works really well because that’s

about the barriers that you are running into in your role, right. So then you have to try to

achieve that role, so everybody does that backcast, and then you think about the barriers, and

you get points for overcoming those barriers, and giving each other barriers … Yeah I think

that that’s a good idea.

Andre: And I think it might be helpful just to, or to, invent the barriers ourselves, and dealing

them out, but also, think of your own. Because I think we will end up with a scenario where I

think of a barrier that is hurting me, professionally and personally, but this probably applies

to more of the (players/roles) as well.

Joost: That could be a really interesting point system where if you come up with something

that is a barrier for you but it’s also a barrier for other people … You get points for raising

barriers right. For bringing up barriers, and then also for overcoming them.

Andre: Because I think it’s also a very good thing for prioritising what should be tackled first

in an organization, because it’s a common barrier for everyone.

Wieteke: Why working with points?

Andre: It’s a game (laughter).

Joost: It’s not about winning, so you can play the game and if you together get a number of

points, and then you play again and get more points, that means your playing of the game is

better, right, it’s yielding more insights. So you are scoring what ...

Wieteke: So then it’s still about competition?

Joost: No, you get the points together. Or it could be a combination, it could be collaborative

and competitive at the same time. Typically when we build these kinds of games where we

have a point system and we don’t want it to be a competitive battle, because that’s not really

helpful for this kind of discussion, we make it a bit of a combination. So you can win person-

al points, but you also, you have a collaborative win, so you win together, you try to achieve

a certain number of points, but you still have some differentiation between who wins what, so

that you can at least kind of in a playful way say that …

Joost: Let me make a suggestion, the points awarding system should be in line with commons

principles. If this is a game which focuses on these alternative ideas, then the economics of

the game should reflect stuff from the research that you’ve done. So, how would you, would

a collaborative win, I guess that would be in line with commons thinking.

- 100 -

Rik: But you could also, isn’t it possible that first in the game you play, it feels like, I have to

make the most barriers, to get the most points. So that… Eventually everything comes to-

gether, this is a total score.

Wieteke: You are very motivated to make barriers.

Joost: So you could have a ‘most valuable player’ kind of thing, where you, it’s not like you

are beating other people, but there is one person, who did the best for the team.

RIk: You could also say at the end of the game, well, congrats that you have the most. There

is not a competition. During the game it feels like a competition, but in the end you say, well,

it was not a competition, all the points will be taken together, and this is your total.

Joost: Yeah, and you could have several prizes or achievements. You could be the one that

helps the other person, comes up with the most barriers for the others that they have to over-

come, or the one that brings the most solutions, right, things like that.

Wieteke: It’s really psychological this, to think about what you want to achieve with these

people in this game.

Joost: But I think it’s nice to have some kind of mechanism for collaboration, but for every-

body to make a good effort. And I think that is what we are aiming for. You want to be the

person that, maybe, maybe you are better at coming up with problems, and another person is

really good at solving them, and then you can be the problem solver and, … It’s like being

wizard and the warrior, one person who does spells and the other one, …

Wieteke: You can say oh I am a really good problem maker.

Joost: Yeah, but that’s kind of a good skill, it means you are analytically really strong, which

is good right. So, let’s go forward. So we are making the backcast and then we are doing the

barriers thing. So let’s just all put some steps down, try to create some kind of pathway right,

all together.

Andre: And it was for my role?

Joost: For your role yeah, so how do you get yourself into a better position with better re-

sponsibilities and funding or however you want to do it.

Andre: That’s actually quite difficult.

Joost: (to Rik) You have to change the entire government structure right (laughter)

Rik: You can come up with a barrier (laughter)

- 101 -

Andre: The constitution, is that barrier enough (laughter)

Rik: So, we need to put them all?

Joost: Let’s make it a few steps at least, so we have a bit of a ...

Wieteke: What you need to achieve that?

Joost: Yeah you have to achieve your role, where you are a community leader, a farmer, etc. I

think that’s a nice idea, to focus on the roles.

Joost: So we can use some of this stuff (the pre-made cards) as well, right, on our pathway,

put some of these things down.

Joost: (puts down card) So I’m saying, spaces and technologies for creating concrete futures,

futures education made actionable. Ah I see you (RIk) have put down new local voting sys-

tem. You are getting some radical stuff there. Has to be eh.

Joost: (to Rik) These are barriers right?

Rik: It’s a seed.

Joost: It sounds more like a barrier. People not involved, people feeling, …

Rik: It’s a seed for a new local voting system.

Joost: Oh, you mean it’s like a driver, like a problem that you can use. I see what you mean.

Andre: Civic upheaval. I think you should also come up with a cool slogan for it. If you are

going to invent a new government system, you need some revolutionary rhetoric as well.

Joost: Radical empowerment.

Joost: (to Rik) Bye bye King, orange post-it, nice (laughter)

Joost: Maybe we are getting to having enough, and we start talking about adding barriers.

And overcoming them, for scoring points.

Andre: It might be something you would want, want to give people as homework beforehand,

because if you have to do this in like 10-15 minutes, and you are not doing it together but you

are doing it for your own professional goal, ...

Joost: I think that, ah you mean doing the backcast in 10-15 minutes.

- 102 -

Andre: Yeah, just deciding, what is my professional goal, when can I die happy, is a difficult

question, but then also the question, how are you going to achieve this, or which steps do you

need to take.

Joost: It could be, it becomes a, I mean we have 3 hours now but half of the time we are talk-

ing about game design. But still it would take an hour and a half or two hours to play the

game. Which is okay maybe right, it’s not, … Maybe if you want to go in depth.

Andre: It’s not only about the length of the game, but also, you kind of, on the spot, it’s hard

to think about these things if you don’t know them beforehand.

Joost: Fair enough.

Joost: Okay so let’s try a little bit the barriers, and overcoming the barriers style gameplay.

To complete the play session. So let’s try. So I put down a barrier which is lack of futures

thinking, it’s very difficult for stakeholders to envision anything beyond yesterday or tomor-

row, or to think ahead in terms of the future. I guess I, it’s a bit of a chicken and egg situation,

because maybe it fits here as a barrier. The problem is that, I need, if I’m going to create, for

my role, a situation where I actually have the funding etc., to educate and to create all kinds

of spaces for futures thinking, it has to also, it has to be connected to political priority setting,

etc. If governments don’t want, are not interested in long-term thinking, how are they going

to fund that.

Andre: Because, you know, we have to discuss everybody’s steps, and I think it would be,

because you are now placing your first barrier in your own. But, the further you go, the more

it lacks interactivity with each other.

Joost: Yeah so you have to actually get, you have to put barriers down for me for instance.

Andre: For example. Maybe at first, and then you can add your own barriers later. Or you can

see if somebody else comes up with a barrier you are already thinking of.

Joost: That’s interesting, I like that. So let’s try to put barriers with each others’ stuff, right.

So Rik’s got the most extreme backcast I think …

Andre: Let’s take that one (laughter)

Joost: The easiest to put barriers down right. Okay so can you explain your backcast, and then

we will start putting in barriers.

- 103 -

Rik: Okay so I explain my backcast. Byebye king, so we have a new national government.

It’s “regional public”. Forty national regions, forty administers, elected by inhabitants of the

region, and those administers are the head of the local parliament, which consists of 20 peo-

ple. Those are even numbers, because when they vote stack, get back to the table, it’s a com-

mon goal you go to. So, next, the new local voting system is because of people who are not

involved, not feeling connected to local government or even national government throughout

the party system. So, we have an election based on different teams, for example, economy,

social, or health maybe, green design, education, … Every city region can pick their own. We

have design because it’s a very important part of our profile. And then you have five votes, in

this case. The list can be based on parties or individuals. So as a party of the democrats you

can put on every team you can put someone on. So for example you can have your spokes-

person for the green part from the green list, and then you have five, every inhabitant has five

votes per election. So you have to vote on every team. So you can say for economy I want

someone of the VVD to be that, because I believe that they are the best when it comes to

money. And when it comes to the green I want the Party for the Animals. And education I

pick a student from … You cannot vote five on one. On every team you have an opinion. Or

leave a blank space. So you do not have to pick the political party. So on the educational part

you can also have De Studente Raad.

Joost: So it’s a much wider form of organizing participatory government.

Rik: Yeah. More diverse. So that’s hopefully it will tackle the ‘not being empowered’. But

first we have the formation of the metropolitan region of Eindhoven. And the first step is,

Neune is forced to join.

Andre: Forced, not enticed? (laughter)

Rik: Forced. It’s already happening. And the seed is that the city is in debt. And they have a

weak local government. So that’s the first step.

Joost: So what I put down, and I think this may also be a way to score points, and you (Rok)

also have it in your guide is the connections. Let’s say, for this participatory future stuff to be

impactful, that means you actually have to be able to impact political priority setting and di-

rections. So this whole thing connects very much with what I’m … So my whole futures

thing can support this more kind of local, this kind of participation election processes etc.

That’s good. So can we come up with any barriers? Probably plenty right.

Andre: Let’s see if I have one ready. … Oh yes, the ‘House of Cards’, especially in the first,

Neune alderman will probably not look kindly on …

- 104 -

Joost: So house of cards is the one where you can’t change the system, if you pull one thing

away it all collapses right. That’s that barrier. So people don’t want to see the change because

they are worried if you change things at all, then …

Andre: And in this case, the people who have to make the change are also the ones that most

benefit with the status quo.

Joost: So it’s a status quo kind of, system inertia kind of problem.

Wieteke: So also the fear of letting go, is part of it.

Joost: So we are already finding a lot of barriers, and big government is the, the unwilling-

ness of government, like the tendency of government to give work, responsibility to other

right. Participatiesamenleving where the government doesn’t actually have to do anything,

and citizens are all made responsible for the local stuff.

Andre: And maybe I have one for this one (Rik’s backcast). It would be very interesting to

see what the results are, but I can also imagine that this superstructure, also gets more dis-

tance from local people, than the municipality has right now. I mean for you it’s some sort of

a solution to improve commitment with the government, … Because people also don’t vote

on what we have to vote for at the provincial …

Rik: That’s true.

Joost: I’ll put it down, as a barrier.

Wieteke: How do you see it also with the, choosing a mayor, is there still a mayor?

Rik: No, an (ad)minister, eventually.

Joost: So, a barrier, I’m not so sure if it’s a barrier or more of a problem of execution - chang-

ing the voting system, you know, it’s a chicken and egg thing as well, where, getting that

politically through may be creating huge decades of a political mess right. So, the actual im-

plementation, the shifting …

Andre: I think the elegance of this system is that the party system and ideologies can still

remain, so politically it’s not per se a very messy organization.

Joost: That’s true yeah. But I mean more like, the way you have to, the negotiation process,

how will that exactly look like, that will be, could be derailed and could take very long. So

that’s a barrier.

- 105 -

Andre: But again, also, for example in this game, the thing that I mentioned, is actually the

chance, …

Rik: It’s a seed.

Andre: It’s different than a seed, because you take certain aspects of the existing system,

to …

Joost: So, the way I think the scoring should work in this game, is that every time you put

down a barrier, you get a point. Because you are helping the conversation get more concrete.

And every time you overcome it, you also get a point. Right. Or maybe two points, or what-

ever. The way you create points is by putting up barriers and overcoming them. Because

that’s what it should all be about right. So let’s say, we’ve got how many barriers. Five barri-

ers. So we have five points so far, yay us. Can we win more points by overcoming these bar-

riers. And maybe we should win two points each time we overcome the barrier, otherwise the

temptation is too great to just see problems everywhere. And you also get points for connec-

tions, let’s say.

Rik: How are you going to do that in the game (make the connections)?

Joost: So I, let’s say here I say okay, I see a connection between what I need and what you

offer, with … What my pathway needs in terms of political systems supporting wide partici-

pation, you are offering that, so there is a link there. So I, we get a point together.

Andre: But I think, for the scope of the game, it definitely works well for teams, or organiza-

tions, where you have like in a team you have common goals usually. Okay with our team,

our organization, or municipality, we want to accomplish --- And then you have three of four

goals which are probably highly related, because you are on the same team. Then you can get

more links and same barriers. But even now, where I think we are ideologically quite on the

same page on a lot of things, and now we get things that are …

Rik: Very different.

Andre: Different scale, different topic, …

Joost: But that’s okay I think, if you think about the game as a game where you are each try-

ing to achieve these individual things, but you are trying to help each other achieve them. So

the game is about collaboration, about helping each other to think of barriers, right. So you

want to change the entire Dutch political system, we can help you by coming up with the

problems that you may face, but also with the solutions to those problems. So you are getting

points by helping each other. So you can have different people, in a government, in the pri-

- 106 -

vate sector etc., playing this game together, and then they bring up these problems, and they

can help each other to figure out how to deal with them.

Wieteke: They also find out what positions, because it could be, I don’t agree with this ideas

(Rik: Yeah), and I put all the time problems, and get a high score on problems, and not think-

ing about helping him.

Joost: But you get twice the points for helping.

Wieteke: Or yes, but then there is, well if we do this, I can help you, then maybe somebody is

like, oh wait, ...

Andre: This could work very well when there is like, when is more or less the same topic.

Rik: Yeah you have to have the same goal, you cannot do it by three or four goals, I guess.

Joost: So this really needs to be defined together, as the same goal, and you can play it with

different roles, but … So that’s the question right, because you said maybe we should focus

on role change, and have everybody working towards their new role, which I think is interest-

ing from the perspective of, because then you really run into those barriers, in terms of how

can I enter into that new position, it’s not only a role, it’s a position of influence, in a way,

right. So what resources do you have at your disposal and things like that.

RIk: For example, if you have the role, the city has to be circular let’s say in 2050, maybe

that’s the goal you pick together, and you have on the table a civil servant, you have someone

from the department of communication, you have the alderman, and from that on, what is the

role of the communication, like that. More …

Andre: And you can still do different things and make connections, because maybe you can

have this goal, Eindhoven circular by 2050, and then make it a little bit more practical, okay

what are the four things you would like to do most, within that Eindhoven circular. So one

person maybe says ‘I want to have an experimentation lab here in the city square, which

makes the circular design completely visible’, and then you get these really, all these barriers

why …

Rik: But that’s a step I guess, the thing you name, could be a thing in time to get people …

Andre: But that’s why maybe it’s not so much about these steps, but more you have this one

goal, and you have a few building blocks which are part of that goal. And then of course then

you go discussing, okay how do we, how can we make these building blocks possible, and

what kinds of problems do you run into there.

- 107 -

Joost: And another way to think of it is to try to create a kind of ‘super team’. So you say this

is the goal that we want to achieve, now you are working there at the moment, and you there,

you guys have roles in different positions, how do we create an Avengers-like team where we

are all in the roles that we think are necessary, together as a team, to achieve that. And then

you work together, help each other achieve those role changes. Because then the role changes

are integrated by this idea of creating a team. And that also fits with ideas about transfor-

mation, where if I think about transformative change one way to define it is to say, new net-

works of people doing new stuff, while accessing new resources, power shifts etc., right. So if

you have a new group of people achieving new things and new roles, with influence and

money etc., having move that way, then you are mapping a transformation.

Rik: I think then it’s important, next to the goal, that you also formulate or pick threats, or

things you need. Because in the example of you Andre, to make a laboratory or something, it

can be because of to achieve a circular city in 2050, what we mustn't forget is the economy,

(Wieteke: communication) communication of it so that we can, because we need to change

people’s way of doing. And in that way you are also focusing because then you know, okay if

we go back or we start, we need to communicate, but how are we going to communicate - we

make a laboratory, in the city centre of Eindhoven. And it also needs the super communicator,

you need the new economist, you need the new, … And then you can define those roles, and

work back.

Joost: So we have like, what do we want to achieve, what is the step just before that, basically

right, what are the things that need to be in place for that to be achieved, so not the goal but

the things needed ...

Rik: Yeah the threats, or the, I don’t know how to call it ...

Joost: Strengths, weaknesses opportunities and threats. Yea but I think that it’s, I don’t think

it’s necessarily maybe about threats, but more about what are the components that you need,

and then you can let that be guided by some ideas about what are the challenges etc. that you

are taking on. And then you create roles, and then you do the backcasting, and help each oth-

er achieve those, to get yourself into place.

Wieteke: And then you see the problems ...

Andre: And then for the sake of simplicity, if you want to add a factor of time to it, just di-

vide it up into for example four or five phases, so don’t let people think about every little step

they need to take …

Rik: What is tomorrow, or something, and …

- 108 -

Andre: And that’s actually quite okay because then you get like for example you have these

phases, and then everyone can have a turn to put a barrier before phase one, because the thing

you want to do is make it really clear to the people playing this that they know what they

want to do, but maybe even more importantly, what are the things that are causing it that it is

so hard to for us to accomplish.

Joost: That’s what you’re really looking for.

Andre: I look at this, which is of course not very representative of what it’s going to look like,

but this is already getting a little bit messy. And the message should be like crystal clear, like

okay phase one we have five or six, and these are the most important barriers, they are proba-

bly not all the barriers, but they are the most important ones.

RIk: If you do it like this, and you talk about everything, then it gets too messy.

Joost: Too complicated, too messy, because you are talking over time, and ... Yeah. So you

talk per time period what everybody is doing in each time step. Which is kind of realistic be-

cause if you are travelling back in time, it means, well, now we are in the present, in this pre-

sent which is in 10 years or whatever. And we’re looking more at …

Rik: And it makes it more easy to connect them.

Andre: Yeah. Because the more you’re maybe visiting all the, at the disposal, organizations,

etc., looking into ways to make the experimental lab. But both in the beginning phase, and

probably both need communication, funding, approval, … So the problems are also more or

less similar.

Rik: And then when you do a backcasting, because this is quite high level here, the barriers

are very abstract. But it’s also in the game, a first step to know how it works, the process,

how you get your points, so when you do this one you already know more of it, how to play

the game, and then when you are at the step of tomorrow, which is I guess the most important

because that’s when it starts, and you can immediately start with it, you have it in your fin-

gers how it works, and can be more concrete about the barriers.

Joost: That’s nice, that’s really good, so learning through the various phases is also what hap-

pens in board games a lot right, you play a round, and then you play another round.

Andre: So it’s actually just one common goal, a few building blocks how to reach it, reach

the goal, …

Joost: Roles associated with it.

- 109 -

Andre: Roles associated with it, and the building blocks to be organized in different phases.

Actually, transitioning from phase one to phase two to phase three, is a game mechanic.

Joost: And then there is points assigned, right, so you win points by coming up with barriers

for each other, for dealing with the barriers, ....

Andre: And you also have to have, I guess what you meant, the phase zero, where we are

now. And have to put down what to do we have to do to get from step zero to step one.

Rik: Well maybe that’s a question for before playing the game, so what are we going to do

tomorrow, make an action …

Joost: As a result to take out of the game. Interesting.

Rik: Because otherwise everybody leaves and …

Joost: That’s another thing, and you (Rok) designed that in the game as well, but we really

don’t have time for it anymore, we’re kind of doing it constantly, but these types of games,

the research shows that if you play games together like this, you shouldn’t just play them, you

should also have like half an hour to talk about the results. You should reflect. And let there

be a bit more … Because then many of the insights that were incubated in the game actually

land.

Andre: But that’s also why it should be a kind of structured, as opposed to this more free-

form, because then the results will …

Joost: Yeah. So structured, I think structured in a way that you don’t have to do a hundred

different things, but the few things that you are engaging with you are really engaging with

them, so that you can play it rather fast, like in half an hour maybe or a little bit more, and

then maybe do it again. So that ...

Andre: Well I think you underestimate how much time for talk you need if you go from phase

one to phase two, and think about what all the barriers there are.

Joost: Yeah, half an hour per phase maybe.

Andre: Yeah I think so.

Joost: And that’s fine because that’s what you mentioned, you learn from around, you talk

about it, and go on to the next one.

Rik: And I don’t know if you need the seeds.

- 110 -

Joost: Hmm, good question. Maybe as ammunition, I mean it’s not part of the basic game

loop, that’s what you mean right. You can add it as a kind of ideas thing, I think in that way it

can work. And then maybe before we stop, a final thing about existing materials versus our

own materials. I think it was kind of nice to have some standard examples, these problems

like ‘House of Cards’, so you can make your own cards, or you can put down other ones. I

think that kind of works okay right.

All: Yes.

Andre: Yeah, and it’s also to get people inspired by what kind of barriers are we talking about.

And if you let people decide for their own they will probably be very pragmatic. Changing

the system also needs some …

Rik: And I would advise to think, I like this one, house of cards, because you can play the

house of cards card, or the Article 5 on steroids, is a bit comic, a bit lighter, and when you do

the lack of funding mechanisms …

Joost: Maybe make it a bit playful, because the playfulness also gets people to think more out

of the box.

Rik: When I do with my students sometimes the brainstorm, we also use the superheroes way,

so then you have all cards with superheroes, then we have to lay down a problem, and they

have to pick the superhero cards, what is their personality, what is their weapon, and what is

their special need. And then they have to solve the problem with embodying the role. So in

order for my granny can leave the house. Well I can fly, I have my batmobile so I can fly to

the roof, take her out and put her in the batmobile to ...

Andre. So just to loosen your brain muscles?

Rik: Yeah. So if you have some cards like that, people …

Joost: I think these kinds of cards will help with that, as long as just that you really, make

them very, trigger the imagination, make them very accessible. I mean Article 5 on Steroids

one is a good example of that - okay so then you can do this much more often, maybe then

there are risks of corruption there but …

Andre: I think it’s a nice combination to have this like this standard pattern of things you

have to do, so for example first barriers, then solutions, and you know maybe there are two or

three steps overcoming every phase, but there is also like sort of a chance, or you can, maybe

pick some cards out that maybe nobody thought of yet, like a wildcard, or a joke card, and be

like, oh, we have another problem, what now.

- 111 -

Joost: So then it becomes really interactive because you’re like, oh yeah, how do we deal

with this, right.

Andre: And the barriers you put for each other, but the wildcard or joker card is something

nobody picked so you have to solve them together.

Joost: Like a pile of wildcards. Like in the Game of Thrones board game, you have ‘the wild-

lings are coming’, and you have to deal with that together. Everybody has to put money be-

cause the wildlings are a problem. Interesting, cool. Well a lot of ideas, you (Rok) have a lot

to process.

- 112 -

Appendix 5: Extended literature list

Ahlqvist, T., & Rhisiart, M. (2015). Emerging pathways for critical futures research:

Changing contexts and impacts of social theory. Futures, 71, 91–104.

doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2015.07.012

Allen, T., & Prosperi, P. (2016). Modeling Sustainable Food Systems. Environmental

Management, 57(5), 956–975. doi: 10.1007/s00267-016-0664-8

Ampatzidou, C., Bouw, M., Kloundert, F., Lange, M. De, & Waal, M. De. (2015). The

Hackable City: A Research Manifesto and Design Toolkit. Amsterdam. Retrieved from

http://www.publishinglab.nl/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/HvA_HackableCities_DEF_

spreads-cover.pdf

Amstel, F. M. C. Van, Hartmann, T., Voort, M. C. Van Der, & Dewulf, G. P. M. R. (2016).

The Social Production of Design Space. Design Studies, 46, 199–225.

doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2016.06.002

Angelis, M. De. (2017). Omnia Sunt Communia: On the Commons and the Transformation to

Postcapitalism. London: Zed Books.

Angelo, H., & Wachsmuth, D. (2014). Urbanizing Urban Political Ecology: A Critique of

Methodological Cityism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research

39(1), 16–27. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12105

Angheloiu, C., Chaudhuri, G. & Sheldrick., L. (2017). Future Tense : Alternative Futures as a

Design Method for Sustainability Transitions, (May), 0–13.

Araya, D. (Ed.) (2015). Smart Cities as Democratic Ecologies. New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Arbib, J. & Seba, T. (2017). Rethinking Transportation 2020-2030: The Disruption of

Transportation and the Collapse of the Internal-Combustion Vehicle and Oil

Industries. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/

585c3439be65942f022bbf9b/t/591a2e4be6f2e1c13df930c5/1494888038959/RethinkX

+Report_051517.pdf

Arias-Maldonado, M. (2015). Environment and Society: Socionatural Relations in the

Anthropocene. New York & London: Springer.

Asara, V., Otero, I., Demaria, F., & Corbera, E. (2015). Socially sustainable degrowth as a

social – ecological transformation: repoliticizing sustainability. Sustainability Science,

10(3), 375–384. doi: 10.1007/s11625-015-0321-9

Avelino, F., Dumitru, A., Longhurst, N., Wittmayer, J., Hielscher, S., Weaver, … Haxeltine,

- 113 -

A. (2015) Transitions towards new economies? A transformative social innovation

perspective (TRANSIT working paper ; 3), TRANSIT: SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant

agreement no: 613169. Retrieved from

http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/

Local%20PDFs/180%20TRANSIT_WorkingPaper3_NewEconomy_Avelinoetal_Sept

ember2015.pdf

Avelino, F., & Rotmans, J. (2009). Power in Transition: An Interdisciplinary Framework to

Study Power in Relation to Structural Change. European Journal of Social Theory,

12(4), 543–569. doi: 10.1177/1368431009349830

Avelino, F., & Grin, J. (2016). Beyond Deconstruction. A Reconstructive Perspective on

Sustainability Transition Governance. Environmental Innovation and Societal

Transitions, 22, 15–25. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2016.07.003

Avelino, F., Grin, J., Pel, B., & Jhagroe, S. (2016). The Politics of Sustainability Transitions.

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 18(5), 557–567.

doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2016.1216782

Avelino, F., & Wittmayer, J. M. (2016). Shifting Power Relations in Sustainability

Transitions : A Multi-actor Perspective. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning,

18(5), 628–649.

doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2015.1112259

Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J., Haxeltine, A., Kemp, R., O'Riordan, T., Weaver, P., … Rotmans, J.

(2013). Game Changers and Transformative Social Innovation. The Case of the

Economic Crisis and the New Economy. TRANSIT working paper. Grant agreement

no: 613169. Retrieved from

http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/TRANSIT

%20outputs/91%20Gamechangers_TSI_Avelino_etal_TRANSIT_workingpaper_201

4.pdf

Badiou, A. (2005). Metapolitics. London & New York: Verso.

Badiou, A. (2005) Politics: a non-expressive dialectics. Paper presented at the conference ‘Is

the politics of truth still thinkable?’ organized by Slavoj Žižek and Costas Douzinas,

Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities, Birkbeck College, London, 25–26 November.

Baek, J. S., Kim, S., Pahk, Y., & Manzini, E. (2017). A Sociotechnical Framework for the

Design of Collaborative Services. Design Studies, 1–25. doi:

10.1016/j.destud.2017.01.001

Barbrook, R. (2007). Imaginary Futures: From Thinking Machines to the Global Village.

London & Ann Arbor: Pluto Press.

Bardini, T. (2011). Junkware. Minneapolis & London: University of Minnesota Press.

- 114 -

Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L. & Duane R. (2006). What Makes Management Research

Interesting, and Why Does It Matter? Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 9–15.

Bauwens, M. (2016). Towards a Commons Transition Policy: Re-Aligning Economics and

Politics for a Commons-Centric Society. P2P Foundation. Retrieved from

http://revista.ibict.br/p2p/article/download/1784/1986

Bauwens, M., & Kostakis, V. (2014). From the Communism of Capital to Capital for the

Commons : Towards an Open Co-operativism. Triple C Journal for a Global

Sustainable Information Society 12(1), 356–361.

Bauwens, M., & Niaros, V. (2016). Value in the Commons Economy: Developments in Open

and Contributory Value Accounting. Retrieved from https://www.boell.de/sites/

default/files/value_in_the_commons_economy.pdf

Bauwens, M., Kostakis, V., Troncoso, S. & Utratel, A. M. (2017). Commons Transition and

P2P: a primer. Transnational Insitute & P2P Foundation. Retrieved from

https://www.tni.org/files/publication-

downloads/commons_transition_and_p2p_primer_

v9.pdf

Benesch, Hammami, Holmberg, & Uzer. (Eds.). (2015). Heritage as Common(s). Gothenburg

& Stockholm: Makadam Publishers.

Benkler, Y. (2003). The Political Economy of Commons, Upgrade The European Journal for

the Informatics Professional, IV(3), 6–10.

Benkler, Y. (2004). Sharing Nicely: On Shareable Goods and the Emergence of Sharing as a

Modality of Economic Production. The Yale Law Yournal, 114(273), 273–358.

Benkler, Y. (2016). Peer production, the commons, and the future of the firm. Strategic

Organization, 15(2), 264–274. doi: 10.1177/1476127016652606

Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and

Freedom. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

Bennett, E. M., Solan, M., Biggs, R., Mcphearson, T., Norström, A. V, Olsson, P., …

Carpenter, S. R. (2016). Bright spots: seeds of a good Anthropocene. Froniers in

Ecology and the Environment, 14(8), 441–448. doi: 10.1002/fee.1309

Beveridge, R., & Koch, P. (2016). The Post-Political trap ? Reflections on politics, agency

and the city. Urban Studies Journal, 54(1), 31–43. doi: 10.1177/0042098016671477

Biel, R. (2016). Sustainable Food Systems: The Role of the City. London: UCL Press.

Biggs, R., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Atkinson-Palombo, C., Bohensky, E., Boyd, E., Cundill, G.,

- 115 -

… Zurek, M. (2007). Linking Futures across Scales: a Dialog on Multiscale

Scenarios. Ecology and Society, 12(1).

Bina, O., Mateus, S., Pereira, L., & Caffa, A. (2016). The future imagined: Exploring fiction

as a means of reflecting on today’s Grand Societal Challenges and tomorrow’s

Options. Futures, 86, 166–184. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2016.05.009

Bloch, E. (1970). A Philosophy of the Future. New York: Herder and Herder.

Bloch, E. (1986). The Principle of Hope. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Bloch, E. (2000). The Spirit of Utopia. Standford: Stanford University Press.

Blok, A. & Farias, I. (Eds.) (2016). Urban Cosmopolitics: Agencements, Assemblies,

Atmospheres. London & New York: Routledge.

Boaventura de Sousa, S., (2003). The World Social Forum: Toward a Counter-Hegemonic

Globalisation (Part I). Presented at: XXIV International Congress of the Latin

American Studies Association, Dallas, USA, March 27–29. Retrieved from

http://www.boaventuradesousasantos.pt/media/wsf_JaiSenPart1.pdf

Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. Cambridge &

London: MIT Press.

Bogost, I. (2011). How to Do Things with Video Games. Minneapolis & London: University

of Minnesota Press.

Bogost, I. (2015). How to Talk about Videogames. Minneapolis & London: University of

Minnesota Press.

Bollier, D. (2016a). Commoning as a Transformative Social Paradigm. Retrieved from

http://thenextsystem.org//wp-content/uploads/2016/04/DavidBollier.pdf

Bollier, D. (2016b). Re-Imagining Value: Insights from the Care Economy, Commons,

Cyberspace and Nature. Retrieved from https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/re-

imagining-value-report.pdf

Bollier, D. (2016c). State Power and Commoning: Transcending a problematic relationship.

Retrieved from http://cdn8.commonsstrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/State-

Power-and-Commoning.pdf

Bollier, D. (2016d). The City as Platform: How Digital Networks are Changing Urban Life

and Governance. Washington: The Aspen Institute, Washington, D.C..

Bollier, D., & Conaty, P. (2015). Democratic Money and Capital for the Commons: Strategies

for Transforming Neoliberal Finance Through Commons-Based Alternatives. Berlin.

- 116 -

Retrieved from

https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/democratic_money_capital_for_the_

commons_report_january2016.pdf

Bookchin, M. (1996). The Philosophy of Social Ecology: Essays on Dialectical Naturalism.

New York & London: Black Rose Books.

Bookchin, M. (1982). The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of

Hierarchy. Palo Alto: Cheshire Books.

Bookchin, M. (2015). The Next Revolution: Popular Assemblies & The Promise of Direct

Democracy. London & New York: Verso.

Borch, C., & Kornberger, M. (Eds.) (2015). Urban Commons: Rethinking the City. Oxon &

New York: Routledge.

Borries, F. von., Walz, S. P. & Böttger, M. (Eds.) (2007). Space Time Play: Computer Games,

Architecture and Urbanism - The Next Level. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag AG.

Bottici, C. (2014). Imaginal Politics: Images Beyond Imagination and the Imaginary. New

York: Columbia University Press.

Bradley, K. (2015). Open-Source Urbanism: Creating, Multiplying and Managing Urban

Commons. Footprint Delft Architecture Theory Journal, 16, 91–108. doi:

10.7480/footprint.9.1.901

Bradley, K & Pargman, D. (2017). The sharing economy as the commons of the 21st century.

Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 10(2), 231–247.

doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsx001

Braidotti, R. (2013). The Posthuman. Malden: Polity Press Cambridge.

Brand, S. (1999). The Clock of the Long Now: Time and Responsibility. New York: Basic

Books.

Brassett, J., & O’Reily, J. (2015). Styling the future: A philosophical approach to design and

scenarios. Futures, 74, 37-48. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2015.07.001

Broumas, A. (2017). Social Democratic and Critical Theories of the Intellectual Commons: A

Critical Analysis. Triple C, 15(1), 100–126.

Buber, M. (1958). Paths in Utopia. Boston: Beacon Press.

Buck, H. J. (2015). On the Possibilities of a Charming Anthropocene. Annals of the

Association of American Geographers, 105(2), 369–377. doi:

10.1080/00045608.2014.973005

- 117 -

Bulkeley, H., Luque, A., McFarlane, C., & MacLeod, G. (2013). Enhancing Urban

Autonomy. Durnham University. Retrieved from

https://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/

autonomy_briefing.pdf

Burnam-Fink, M. (2015). Creating narrative scenarios: Science fiction prototyping at

Emerge. Futures (70), 48-55. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2014.12.005

Callenbach, E. (2004). Ecotopia: The Notebooks and Reports of William Weston. Berkeley:

Banyan Tree Books.

Calvário, R. & Kallis, G. (2017). Alternative Food Economies and Transformative Politics in

Times of Crisis: Insights from the Basque Country and Greece, Antipode – A Radical

Journal of Geography, 49(3), 597–616. doi: 10.1111/anti.12298

Cameron, J., & Healy, S. (2016). Commoning as a postcapitalist politics. In Releasing the

Commons: Rethinking the Futures of the Commons, 192–212 .

Campbell, T., & Sitze, A. (2013). Biopolitics: A Reader. (T. Campbell & A. Sitze, Eds.).

Durham & London: Duke University Press.

Canavan, G., & Robinson, K. S. (Eds.). (2014). Green Planets: Ecology and Science Fiction.

Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.

Candy, S. (2010). The Futures of Everyday Life: Politics and the Design of Experiential

Scenarios (PhD thesis). School of the Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago.

doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1840.0248

Candy, S., & Dunagan, J. (2016). Designing an Experiential Scenario: The People Who

Vanished. Futures, 86(2), 136–153. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2016.05.006

Carson, K. A. (2016). Techno-Utopianism, Counterfeit and Real. Center for a Stateless

Society. Retrieved from https://c4ss.org/wp-

content/uploads/2016/02/TechnoUtopiaPDF1.pdf

Certau, M. de. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley, Los Angeles & London:

University of California Press.

Certomà, C., & Tornaghi, C. (2015). Political Gardening: Transforming Cities and Political

Agency. Local Environment, 20(10), 1123–1131. doi:

10.1080/13549839.2015.1053724

Chagani, F. (2014). Critical political ecology and the seductions of posthumanism. Journal of

Political Ecology, 21, 424–436.

Chaudhury, M., Vervoort, J., Kristjanson, P., Ericksen, P. & Ainslie, A. (2012). Participatory

- 118 -

scenarios as a tool to link science and policy on food security under climate change in

East Africa. Regional Environmental Change, 13(2), 389–398. doi: 10.1007/s10113-

012-0350-1

Choi, B., Lütticken, S., & Seijdel, J. (2015). Commonist Aesthetics, 1–4. Retrieved from

https://www.onlineopen.org/commonist-aesthetics

Clark, H., & Brody, D. (Eds.). (2009). Design Studies: A Reader. Oxford & New York: Berg.

Clark, T. (2015). Ecocriticism on the Edge: The Anthropocene as a Threshold Concept.

London, New Delhi, New York, Sydney: Bloomsbury.

Clarke, B., & Rossini, M. (Eds.) (2017). The Cambridge Companion to Literature and the

Posthuman. New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from

http://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/86203/frontmatter/9781107086203_frontmatter.

pdf

Coleman, S., & Dyer-Witheford, N. (2007). Playing on the digital commons: collectivities,

capital and contestation in videogame culture. Media Culture Society, 29(6), 934–953.

doi: 10.1177/0163443707081700

Collard, R., Dempsey, J., & Sundberg, J. (2015). A Manifesto for Abundant Futures. Annals

of the Association of American Geographers, 105(2), 322–330.

doi: 10.1080/00045608.2014.973007

Connely, S., Markey, S., & Roseland, M. (2011). Bridging sustainability and the social

economy: Achieving community transformation through local food initiatives,

Critical Social Policy, 31(2), 308–324. doi: 10.1177/0261018310396040

Cooper, D. (2014). Everyday Utopias: The Conceptual Life of Promising Spaces. Durham &

London: Duke University Press.

Crivits, M., & Paredis, E. (2013). Designing an explanatory practice framework : Local food

systems as a case. Journal of Consumer Culture, 13(3), 306-336.

doi: 10.1177/1469540513484321

Cumbers, A. (2017). Diversifying Public Ownership: Constructing Institutions for

Participation, Social Empowerment and Democratic Control. Retrieved from

https://thenextsystem.org/diversifying-public-ownership

Cundill, G., Roux, D. J., & Parker, J. N. (2015). Nurturing communities of practice for

transdisciplinary research, Ecology and Society, 20(2): 22. doi: 10.5751/ES-07580-

200222

Dam, R. Van, Salverda, I., & During, R. (2014). Strategies of citizens’ initiatives in the

Netherlands : connecting people and institutions, Critical Policy Studies, 8(3), 323–

- 119 -

339. doi: 10.1080/19460171.2013.857473

Dator, J. A., Sweeney, J. A., & Yee, A. M. (2015). Mutative Media: Communication

Technologies and Power Relations in the Past, Present, and Futures. London & New

York: Springer.

doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-07809-0

Davidson, N. M., & Infranca, J. J. (2016). The Sharing Economy as an Urban Phenomenon.

Yale Law & Policy Review, 34(2), 215–279.

Davies, S. R., Selin, C., Gano, G., & Pereira, Â. G. (2012). Citizen engagement and urban

change: Three case studies of material deliberation. Cities, 29(6), 351–357.

Davis, M. S. (1971). That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a

sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1(4), 309-344.

Davis, H., & Turpin, E. (Eds.). (2015). Art in the Anthropocene: Encounters Among

Aesthetics, Politics, Environments and Epistemologies. London: Open Humanities

Press.

Dawson, A. (2016). Extinction: A Radical History. New York & London: OR Books.

De Botton, A. (2008). The Architecture of Happiness. New York: Vintage International.

De Cindio, A. (2008). Augmented Urban Spaces: Articulating the physical and electronic

city. Aldershot: Routledge.

Debord, G. (1994). The Society of the Spectacle. New York: Zone Books.

Dikec, M. (2005). Space, Politics, and the Political. Environment and Planning D: Society

and Space, 23(2), 171–188. doi: 10.1068/d364t

Dikec, M., & Swyngedouw, E. (2016). Theorizing the Politicizing City. International Journal

of Urban and Regional Research, 41(1), 1–18. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12388

Dombi, J., & Elekes, Z. (2014). Evaluation of Local Food Systems Based on De-growth.

Presented of 5th

Central European Conference in Regional Science, 177–185.

Retrieved from

http://www3.ekf.tuke.sk/cers/files/zbornik2014/PDF/Dombi%20Elekes.pdf

Donaldson, S., & Kymlicka, W. (2011). Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights.

Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.

Dooren, T. van (2015). The Last Snail: Loss, Hope, and Care for the Future. In Springer, A. &

Turpin E. (eds.) Land and animal and nonanimal. Berlin: Haus der Kulturen der Welt.

- 120 -

Dooren, T. van (2014). Flight Ways: Life and Loss at the Edge of Extinction. New York:

Columbia University Press.

Dooren, T. van, Kirksey, E., & Münster, U. Multispecies Studies Cultivating Arts of

Attentiveness Environmental Humanities, 8(1), 1–23. doi: 10.1215/22011919-

3527695

Dufva, M. & Ahlqvist, T. (2015). Elements in the construction of future-orientation: A

systems view of foresight. Futures, 73, 112–125. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2015.08.006

Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming.

Cambridge & London: MIT Press.

Dyer-Witheford, N. (2006). Species-Being and the New Commonism: Notes on an

Interrupted Cycle of Struggles. The Commoner, 15–32. Retrieved from

http://www.commoner.org.uk/11witheford.pdf

Dyer-Witheford, N., & Peuter, G. De. (2009). Games of Empire: Global Capitalism and

Video Games. Minneapolis & London: University of Minnesota Press.

Ede, S. (2016). How Relocalising Production With Not-For-Profit Business Models Helps

Build Resilient and Prosperous Societies. Post-Growth Institute. Retrieved from

http://postgrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/The-Real-Circular-Economy-

Sharon-Ede-December-2016.pdf

Escobar, A. (2015). Degrowth, postdevelopment, and transitions: a preliminary conversation.

Sustainability Science, 10(3), 451–462. doi: 10.1007/s11625-015-0297-5

Fattori, T. (2012). Public-Commons Partnership and the Commonification of that which is

Public. Retrieved from https://commonsblog.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/fattori-

commonification-of-that-which-is-public.pdf

Fazey, I., Moug, P., Allen, S., Beckmann, K., Blackwood, D., Bonaventura, M., …

Wolstenholme, R. (2017). Transformation in a changing climate: a research agenda.

Climate and Development. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2017.1301864

Felber, C., & Hagelberg, G. (2017). The Economy for Common Good: A Workable,

Transformative Ethics-Based Alternative. Retrieved from

https://thenextsystem.org/the-economy-for-the-common-good

Fennell, L. A. (2011). Ostrom’ s Law: Property Rights in the Commons. International

Journal of the Commons, 5(1), 9–27. doi: 10.18352/ijc.252

Feola, G. (2015) Societal transformation in response to global environmental change: A

review of emerging concepts. Ambio, 44, 376 – 390

Ferguson, R. S., & Lovell, S. T. (2013). Permaculture for agroecology: design, movement,

- 121 -

practice, and worldview - A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34(2)

251-274. doi: 10.1007/s13593-013-0181-6

Fitzgerald, A. J. (2015). Animals as Food: (Re)connecting Production, Processing,

Consumption and Impacts. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

Flanagan, M. (2009). Critical Play: Radical Game Design. Cambridge & London: MIT Press.

Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockstrom, J. (2010).

Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability.

Ecology and Society, 15(4), 20.

Foster, S. R. (2011). Collective Action and Urban Commons, Notre Dame Law Review 87(1)

57–134.

Foster, S. R., & Iaione, C. (2016). The City as a Commons. Yale Law & Policy Review, 34(2),

281–349. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

article=1698&context=ylpr

Foucault, M. (1972). Archaeology of Knowledge. London & New York: Routledge.

Frantzeskaki, N., Castán Broto, V., Coenen, L & Loorbach, D. (Eds.) (2017). Urban

Sustainability Transitions. New York & London: Routledge

Fritsche, U. R., Laaks, S., & Eppler, U. (2015). Urban Food Systems and Global Sustainable

Land Use, International Institute for Sustainability Analysis and Strategy (IINAS).

Retrieved from

http://iinas.org/tl_files/iinas/downloads/land/IINAS_2015_Urban_Food_

Issue_Paper.pdf

Fromm, E. (2008). To Have or to Be. London & New York: Continuum.

Fry, T. (2009). Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice. Oxford & New

York: Berg.

Fuller, B. (1950). Comprehensive Design. In H. Holtzman (Ed.), Transformation: Arts,

Communication, Environment, 18–23.

Fuller, B. (1971). The World Game: Integrative Resource Utilization Planning Tool. World

Resources Inventory. Carbondale.

Gabrys, J. (2014). Programming Environments: Environmentality and Citizen Sensing in the

Smart City. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32, 30–48. doi:

10.1068/d16812

Galt, R. E. (2013). Placing Food Systems in First World Political Ecology: A Review and

- 122 -

Research Agenda. Geography Compass, 7(9), 637–658. doi: 10.1111/gec3.12070

Galt, R. E. (2016). The Relevance of Regional Political Ecology for Agriculture and Food

Systems. Journal of Political Ecology, 23, 126–133.

Gameren, V. Van, Ruwet, C., & Bauler, T. (2013). Towards a governance of sustainable

consumption transitions: how institutional factors influence emerging local food

systems in Belgium, The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 20(8),

37–41.

doi: 10.1080/13549839.2013.872090

Gardiner, M. E. (2001). Critiques of everyday life. London & New York: Routledge.

Geels, F. W. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-

level perspective. Research Policy, 39(4), 495–510. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022

Geels, F. W. (2011). Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions The multi-level

perspective on sustainability transitions : Responses to seven criticisms.

Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 24–40. doi:

10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002

Geels, F. W., McMeekin, A., Mylan, J., & Southerton, D. (2015). A critical appraisal of

Sustainable Consumption and Production research: The reformist, revolutionary and

reconfiguration positions. Global Environmental Change, 34, 1–12. doi:

10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.04.013

Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2017). Cultivating Community Economies: Tools for Building a

Liveable World. Retrieved from https://thenextsystem.org/cultivating-community-

economies

Gibson-Graham, J. K., Hill, A., & Law, L. (2016). Re-embedding economies in ecologies :

resilience building in more than human communities. Building Research &

Information, 44(7), 703–716. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2016.1213059

Gintis, H., Boyd, R., & Fehr, E. (Eds.). (2005). Moral Sentiments and Material Interests: The

Foundations of Cooperation in Economic Life (Vol. 7). Cambridge & London: MIT

Press.

Glenn, J. C. (2009), Scenarios, in J. C. Glenn & T. J. Gordon (eds), Futures Research

Methodology Version 3.0. Washington DC: Millennium Project.

Glenn, J. C., & Florescu, E. (2016). 2015-16 State of the Future. The Millennium Project

Glenn, J. C., Gordon, T. J., & Florescu, E. (2015). 2013-14 State of the Future, 1–11. The

Millennium Project

- 123 -

Gliessman, S. (2015). A Global Vision for Food System Transformation. Agroecology and

Sustainable Food Systems, 39(7), 725–726. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2015.1039159

Gliessman, S. (2017). Transforming food systems with agroecology. Agroecology and

Sustainable Food Systems, 40(3), 187–189. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2015.1130765

Goertzel, B., Goertzel, T., & Goertzel, Z. (2016). The global brain and the emerging economy

of abundance: Mutualism, open collaboration, exchange networks and the automated

commons. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 65-73.

doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.022

Gold, J. R. (1984). The Death of the Urban Vision? Futures, 16(4), 372-381.

Gonz, M. (2012). Agroecology and Politics: How To Get Sustainability? About the Necessity

for a Political Agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 37(1), 45-49.

Goodman, N. (1983). Fact, Fiction, and Forecast (Fourth). Cambridge & London: Harvard

University Press.

Goodman, N. (1978). Ways of Worldmaking. Hackett Publishing Company.

Gordon, E. & Mihailidis, P. (2016). Civic Media: Technology, Design, Practice. Cambridge:

MIT Press

Gorz, A. (1999). Reclaiming Work: Beyond the Wage-Based Society. Cambridge, Oxford &

Malden: Polity Press.

Göpel, Maja. (2016). The Great Mindshift: How a New Economic Paradigm and

Sustainability Transformations go Hand in Hand. Springer Open: Berlin

Graeber, D. (2004). Fragments of an anarchist anthropology. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm

Press.

Graeber, D. (2013). On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs. Strike Magazine, Summer, 10-11.

Graeber, D. (2011). Debt: The First 5.000 Years. Brooklyn & New York: Melville House

Publishing.

Graham, P., & Elahi, S. (2015). The New Narrative: Applying narratology to the shaping of

futures outputs. Futures, 74, 49–61. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2015.09.003

Groot, L. & Veen R. van der (Eds.) (2000). Basic Income on the Agenda: Policy Objectives

and Political Chances. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Grusin, R. (Ed.). (2015). The Nonhuman Turn. Minneapolis & London: University of

Minnesota Press.

- 124 -

Hahnel, R. & Albert, M. (1991) The Political Economy of Participatory Economics.

Princeton: Princeton University Press

Hahnel, R. (2016). Participatory Economics and the Next System. Retrieved from

https://thenextsystem.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/NewSystems_RobinHahnel.pdf

Hahnel, R., & Wright, E. O. (2015). Alternatives to Capitalism: Proposals for a Democratic

Economy. Retrieved from

http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/

alternatives_to_capitalism_proposals_for_a_democratic_economy

Haraway, D. (1984). A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the

Late Twentieth Century. Retrieved from

http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Haraway-CyborgManifesto-1.pdf

Haraway, D. (2008). When Species Meet. Minneapolis & London: University of Minnesota

Press.

Haraway, D. (2015). Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making

Kin. Environmental Humanities, 6, 159–165.

Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham &

London: Duke University Press.

Haraway, D., Ishikawa, N., Gilbert, S.F., Olwig, K., Tsing, A. L., & Bubandt, N. (2015).

Anthropologists Are Talking - About the Anthropocene. Ethnos Journal of

Anthropology, 81(3), 535–564. doi: 10.1080/00141844.2015.1105838

Hardin, G. (1998). Extensions of “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science, 280(5364), 682-

683.

Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. Retrieved

from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1724745

Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press.

Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2004). Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. New

York: The Penguin Press.

Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. London

& New York: Verso.

Hassink, J., Salverda, I., Vaandrager, L., Dam, R. Van, & Wentink, C. (2016). Relationships

between green urban citizens’ initiatives and local governments. Cogent Social

Sciences, 2(1),1250336. doi: 10.1080/23311886.2016.1250336

- 125 -

Haxeltine, A., Avelino, F., Pel, B., Kemp, R., Dumitru, A., Longhurst, N., … Strasser, T.

(2016). TRANSIT WP3 Deliverable D3.3 - A Second Prototype of TSI Theory.

Retrieved from http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/resource-hub/transit-wp3-

deliverable-d33-a-second-prototype-of-tsi-theory-deliverable-no-d33

Haxeltine, B. A., Avelino, F., Pel, B., Kemp, R., & Dumitru, A. (2016). Framing

Transformative Social Innovation: A Theoretical and Conceptual Framework.

Retrieved from

http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PD

Fs/240%20TRANSIT_WorkingPaper_no5_TSI%20framework_Haxeltine%20et%20a

l_November2016_AH041116.pdf

Hebinck, A. (2016). Dutch food banks’ alternative strategies to food and nutrition security.

TRANSMANGO. Retrieved from http://www.transmango.eu/userfiles/file/

13032016%20update%20transmango/the%20netherlands%20food%20banks.pdf

Hebinck, A., & Villarreal, G. (2016). “Local” Level analysis of FNS pathways in the

Netherlands: Exploring two case studies - Urban Food Initiatives and Food Bank

Pracitces.

doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18240.33285

Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the

Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books.

Herrero, M., Thornton, P. K., Bernues, A., Baltenweck, I., Vervoort, J., Steeg, J., … Staal, S.

J. (2014). Exploring future changes in smallholder farming systems by linking socio-

economic scenarios with regional and household models. Global Environmental

Change, 24, 165–182. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.008

Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (Eds.). (2007). Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From

Theory to Practice. Cambridge & London: MIT Press.

Heynen, N., Kaika, M., & Swyngedouw, E. (Eds.). (2006). In the Nature of Cities: Urban

political ecology and the politics of urban metabolism. London & New York:

Routledge.

Hill, A. (2014). Moving from “matters of fact” to “matters of concern” in order to grow

economic food futures in the Anthropocene. Agriculture and Human Values, 32(3),

551–563. doi: 10.1007/s10460-014-9576-5

Hinrichs, C. C. (2014). Transitions to sustainability: a change in thinking about food systems

change? Agriculture and Human Values, 31(1), 143–155. doi: 10.1007/s10460-014-

9479-5

Hinton, J., & Maclurcan, D. (2017). A not-for-profit world beyond capitalism and economic

growth ? Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 17(1), 147–166.

- 126 -

Hobson, K. (2016). Closing the loop or squaring the circle? Locating generative spaces for

the circular economy. Progress in Human Geography, 40(1), 88–104.

doi: 10.1177/0309132514566342

Hobson, K. (2013). “Weak” or “Strong” Sustainable Consumption? Efficiency, Degrowth,

and the 10 Year Framework of Programmes. Environment and Planning C:

Government and Policy, 31(6), 1082–1098. doi: 10.1068/c12279

Hobson, K., & Lynch, N. (2016). Diversifying and de-growing the circular economy: Radical

social transformation in a resource-scarce world. Futures, 82, 15–25.

doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2016.05.012

Holmgren, D. (2002). Permaculture: Principles & Pathways Beyond Sustainability.

Hampshire: Permanent Publications.

Hopkins, T. K., & Wallerstein, I. (Eds.). (1996). The Age of Transition: Trajectory of the

World- System, 1945-2025. London & New Jersey: Zed Books.

Humane Society International (2016). Addressing unsustainable consumption of animal-

based foods in the European Union: policy recommendations. Retrieved from

http://www.plantingfreshideas.eu/uploads/8/8/6/7/88674326/ec_edd_recommendation

s_ltr_141116.pdf

Iaione, C. (2015). Governing the Urban Commons. Italian Journal of Public Law, 7(1), 170–

221.

Iaione, C. (2016). The CO-City: Sharing, Collaborating, Cooperating, and Commoning in the

City. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 75(2) 415-455.

http://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12145

Illich, I. (1973). After Deschooling, What? Retrieved from http://learning.media.mit.edu/

courses/mas713/readings/Illich,%20I.%20After%20deschooling%20what.pdf

Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling Society.

Illich, I. (1973). Tools for Conviviality. New York, Evanston, San Francisco, London: Harper

& Row.

Inayatullah, S. (2008). Six pillars: futures thinking for transforming. Foresight, 10(1), 4–21.

doi: 10.1108/14636680810855991

Inayatullah, S. (2008). Using Gaming to Understand the Patterns of the Future - The Sarkar

Game in Action. Journal of Futures Studies, 18(1), 1–12.

Irwin, T. (2016). Transition Design: A Proposal for a New Area of Design Practice, Study, and

Research. Design and Culture, 7(2), 229–246. doi: 10.1080/17547075.2015.1051829

- 127 -

Itoh, M. (1988). The Basic Theory of Capitalism: The Forms and Substance of the Capitalist

Economy. Houndmills & London: Macmillan Press.

Itoh, M., & Lapavitsas, C. (1999). Political Economy of Money and Finance. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

IPES FOOD (2015). The New Science of Sustainable Food Systems: Overcoming Barriers to

Food Systems Reform. Retrieved from http://www.ipes-

food.org/images/Reports/IPES_report01_ 1505_web_br_pages.pdf

Jameson, F. (1975) World-Reduction in Le Guin: The emergence of Utopian Narrative.

Science Fiction Studies, 2(3), 221–230.

Jameson, F. (2004) The Politics of Utopia. New Left Review, 25. 35–54.

Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham:

Duke University Press.

Jameson, F. (2005). Archaeologies of the Future: The Desire Called Utopia and Other

Science Fictions. London & New York: Verso.

Jameson, F. (2003) ‘Future City’, New Left Review, 21, 65–79.

Jégou, F., & Carey, J. (2015). Creating Space for Sustainable Food Systems in Urban

Communities: Practical Approaches and examples for cities. Retrieved from

http://www.sustainable-everyday-project.net/urbact-sustainable-food/the-handbook/

Jiménez, A. C. (2014). The Right to Infrastructure: A Prototype for Open Source Urbanism.

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32(2), 342–362. doi:

10.1068/d13077p

Jørgensen, M. S., Avelino, F., Dorland, J., Rach, S., & Wittmayer, J. (2016). Synthesis Across

Social Innovation Case Studies. TRANSIT. Retrieved from

http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PD

Fs/207%20TRANSIT_D4.4_Synthesis%20Report%20about%20all%20in-

depth%20case%20

studies.pdf

Jurgilevich, A., Birge, T., Kentala-Lehtonen, J., Korhonen-Kurki, K., Pietikäinen, J., Saikku,

L., & Schösler, H. (2016). Transition towards Circular Economy in the Food System.

Sustainability, 8(69). doi: 10.3390/su8010069

Kallis, G. (2017). In Defense of Degrowth: Opinions and Minifestos. (A. Vansintjan, Ed.).

Kallis, G., & March, H. (2014). Imaginaries of Hope: The Utopianism of Degrowth. Annals

of the Association of American Geographers, 105(2), 360–368.

- 128 -

doi: 10.1080/00045608.2014.973803

Kelliher, A., & Byrne, D. (2014). Design futures in action: Documenting experiential futures

for participatory audiences. Futures, 70, 36–47. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2014.12.004

Kemp, R., Loorbach, D. A., & Rotmans, J. (2005). Transition management as a model for

managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. The

International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 14(1), 78-91.

Kemp, R., Strasser, T., Davidson, M., Avelino, F., Pel, B., Dumitru, A., & Kunze, I. (2016).

The humanization of the economy through social innovation. SPRU 50th

anniversary

conference. Retrieved from http://kemp.unu-

merit.nl/docs/The%20humanization%20of%

20the%20economy%20-%20Kemp%20et%20al%20for%20SPRU%20conference

%202016.pdf

Kenis, A., Bono, F., & Mathijs, E. (2016). Unravelling the (post-)political in Transition

Management: Interrogating Pathways towards Sustainable Change. Journal of

Environmental Policy & Planning, 18(5), 568–584. doi:

10.1080/1523908X.2016.1141672

Kirwan, S., Dawney, L., & Brigstocke, J. (Eds.). (2016). Space, Power and the Commons:

The struggle for alternative futures. London & New York: Routledge.

Klein, N. (2001). Reclaiming the Commons. New Left Review, 9, 81–89.

Klimowicz, K. A. (2016) The role of digital tools in the development of citizen-centred

politics. In: Jonak, L, Juchniewicz, N. & Wloch, R. (Eds.) Digital Ecosystems –

Society in the Digital Age 57-70. Retrieved from http://www.delab.uw.edu.pl/wp-

content/uploads/

2016/07/Digital-Ecosystems-part2.pdf

Kok, K., Patel, M., Rothman, D. S., & Quaranta, G. (2006). Multi-scale narratives from an IA

perspective : Part II . Participatory local scenario development. Futures, 38(3), 285–

311.

doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2005.07.006

Kok, K., Vliet, M. Van, Bärlund, I., Dubel, A., & Sendzimir, J. (2011). Technological

Forecasting & Social Change: Combining participative backcasting and exploratory

scenario development : Experiences from the SCENES project. Technological

Forecasting and Social Change, 78(5), 835–851. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2011.01.004

Kostakis, V., & Bauwens, M. (2014). Network Society and Future Scenarios for a

Collaborative Economy. Houndmills, Basingtoke, Hampshire, New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

- 129 -

Kostakis, V., Latou, K., Liarokapis, M., & Bauwens, M. (2016). The convergence of digital

commons with local manufacturing from a degrowth perspective: Two illustrative

cases. Journal of Cleaner Production. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.077

Kostakis, V., Niaros, V., Dafermos, G., & Bauwens, M. (2015). Design global, manufacture

local : Exploring the contours of an emerging productive model. Futures, 73, 126–

135.

doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2015.09.001

Kostakis, V., Roos, A., & Bauwens, M. (2015). Towards a political ecology of the digital

economy : Socio-environmental implications of two competing value models.

Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 18, 82–100. doi:

10.1016/j.eist.2015.08.002

Kostakis, V., & Stavroulakis, S. (2013). The Parody of the Commons, Triple C, 11(2), 412–

424.

Kriegler, E., Neill, B. C. O., Hallegatte, S., Kram, T., Lempert, R. J., Moss, R. H., &

Wilbanks, T. (2012). The need for and use of socio-economic scenarios for climate

change analysis : A new approach based on shared socio-economic pathways. Global

Environmental Change, 22(4), 807–822. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.05.005

Kuzmanovic, M., & Gaffney, N. (2016). Enacting futures in postnormal times. Futures, 86,

107–117. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2016.05.007

Laerhoven, F. Van (2014). When is Participatory Local Environmental Governance Likely to

Emerge? A study of collective action in participatory municipal environmental

councils in Brazil. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(4), 77–93. doi:

10.1002/eet.1646

Laerhoven, F. Van, & Ostrom, E. (2007). Traditions and Trends in the Study of the Commons.

International Journal of the Commons, 1(1), 3–28.

Last, C. (2016). Technological Forecasting & Social Change Global Commons in the Global

Brain. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 114, 48-64.

doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.013

Latouche, S. (2009). Farewell to Growth. Cambridge & Malden: Polity Press.

Latour, B. (2004). Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences Into Democracy. Cambridge

& London: Harvard University Press.

Latour, B. (2004). Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of

Concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(Winter), 225–248.

Latour, B. (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.

- 130 -

Latour, B. (2011). Waiting for Gaia. Composing the common world through arts and politics.

Lazzaratto, M. (2012). The Making of the Indebted Man. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). Critique of Everyday Life, Volume 1. London & New York: Verso.

Lefebvre, H. (2009). State, Space, World. (N. Brenner & S. Elden, Eds.). Minneapolis &

London: University of Minnesota Press.

Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on Cities. Oxford & Malden: Blackwell Publishers.

Lefebvre, H. (1971). Everyday Life in the Modern World. New York, Evanston, San

Francisco, London: Harper & Row.

Le Guin, U. (1974) The dispossessed. New York: Avon.

Le Guin, U. (1982) A Non-Euclidean view of California as a Cold Place to Be. Lecture,

University of California, San Diego, CA. Retrieved from

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ursula-k-le-guin-a-non-euclidean-view-of-

california-as-a-cold-place-to-be

Le Guin, U. (1989) Dancing at the Edge of the World: Thoughts on Words, Women, Places.

New York: Grove.

Le Guin, U. (2014) Plenary lecture at Anthropocene: Arts of Living on a Damaged Planet

Conference, University of California, Santa Cruz, 8–12 May.

Lemke, T. (1999) ‘“The Birth of Bio-politics” – Michel Foucault’s Lectures at the Collège de

France on Neo-liberal Governmentality’, Economy & Society, 30(2), 190–207.

Leopold, A. (n.d.). Thinking Like a Mountain, 1–2. Retrieved from http://www.eco-

action.org/dt/thinking.html

Lerch, A. (n.d.). The Tragedy of the “Tragedy of the Commons”, 1–9. Retrieved from

https://us.boell.org/sites/default/files/downloads/Lerch_Tragedy.pdf

Levitas, R. (2013). Utopia as Method: The Imaginary Reconstitution of Society. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Levitas, R. (2010). The Concept of Utopia. Bern: Peter Lang.

Longhurst, N., Avelino, F., Wittmeyer, J., Weaver, P., Dumitru, A., Hielscher, S., … Morton,

E. (2017a) Experimenting with alternative economies: four emergent counter-

narratives of urban economic development. Current Opinion in Environmental

Sustainability, 22, 69–74. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.04.006

- 131 -

Longhurst, N., Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J., Weaver, P., Dumitru, A., Hielscher, S., … Morten,

E. (2017b). New economic logics and urban sustainability transitions.

doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26823.70567.

Loorbach, D. (2007). Transition Management: New Mode of Governance for Sustainable

Development. Utrecht: International Books.

Loorbach, D. (2014) To Transition! Governance Panarchy in the New Transformation.

Faculty of Social Science, Rotterdam. Retrieved from https://www.drift.eur.nl/wp-

content/uploads/2016/12/To_Transition-Loorbach-2014.pdf

Lorek, S., & Fuchs, D. (2011). Strong sustainable consumption governance: precondition for

a degrowth path ? Journal of Cleaner Production, 38, 36–43.

doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.08.008

Lorek, S., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2013). Sustainable consumption within a sustainable

economy: beyond green growth and green economies. Journal of Cleaner Production,

63, 33–44.

doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.045

Lutz, J., & Schachinger, J. (2013). Do Local Food Networks Foster Socio-Ecological

Learning from Real Place Experiences, Sustainability, 5(11), 4778–4796.

http://doi.org/10.3390/su5114778

Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge & London: MIT Press.

Lyth, A., Baldwin, C., Davison, A., Fidelman, P., Booth, K., & Osborne, C. (2016). Valuing

third sector sustainability organisations – qualitative contributions to systemic social

transformation. Local Environment The International Journal of Justice and

Sustainability, 22(1) 1-21. doi: 10.1080/13549839.2016.1149457

Majoor, S., & Schwartz, K. (2015). Instruments of Urban Governance. In Geographies of

Urban Governance, 109–126. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21272-2

Malm, A. (2016). Fossil Capital: The Rise of Steam Power and the Roots of Global Warming.

London & New York: Verso.

Manzini, E. (2013). Resilient systems and cosmopolitan localism: The emerging scenario of

the small, local, open and connected space. Retrieved from

http://www.ecologiapolitica.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Resilient-

systems-and-cosmopolitan-localism.pdf

Manzini, E., & Rithaa, M. K. M. (2016). Distributed Systems And Cosmopolitan Localism:

An Emerging Design Scenario For Resilient Societies. Sustainable Development,

- 132 -

24(5), 275–280. doi: 10.1002/sd.1628

March, H. (2016). The Smart City and other ICT-led Techno-Imaginaries: Any room for

dialogue with Degrowth? Journal of Cleaner Production. doi:

10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.154

Marcuse, H. (1964). One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial

Society. London & New York: Routledge.

Marsden, T. & Farioli, F., (2015). Natural powers: from the bio-economy to the eco-economy

and sustainable place-making, Sustainability Science, 10(2), 331–344. doi:

10.1007/s11625-014-0287-z

Marsden, T., & Franklin, A. (2013). Replacing neoliberalism: theoretical implications of the

rise of local food movements. The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability,

18(5), 636–641. doi: 10.1080/13549839.2013.797157

Martinelli, L. (2017). The Fiscal and Distributional Implications of Alternative Universal

Basic Income Schemes in the UK, Institute for Policy Research. Retrieved from

http://www.bath.ac.uk/publications/the-fiscal-and-distributional-implications-of-

alternative-universal-basic-income-schemes-in-the-uk/

Martínez-Alier, J., Pascual, U., Vivien, F., & Zaccai, E. (2010). Sustainable de-growth:

Mapping the context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm.

Ecological Economics, 69(9), 1741–1747. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.04.017

Marttila, S., & Botero, A. (2017). Infrastructuring for Cultural Commons. Computer

Supported Cooperative Work, 26(1-2), 97–133. doi: 10.1007/s10606-017-9273-1

Marx, K. (2004 [1867]) Capital, vol. 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Matacena, R. (2016). Linking alternative food networks and urban food policy: a step

forward in the transition towards a sustainable and equitable food system?

International Review of Social Research, 6(1), 49–58. doi: 10.1515/irsr-2016-0007

Mattei, U., & Quarta, A. (2015). Right to the City or Urban Commoning ? Thoughts on the

Generative Transformation of Property Law of Property Law, 303. Retrieved from

http://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/1287

Mayer, I. S. (2009). The Gaming of Policy and the Politics of Gaming: A Review. Simulation

& Gaming, 40(6), 825–862. doi: 10.1177/1046878109346456

McGrail, S. & Gaziulusoy, I. (2014). Using futures inquiry to create low-carbon, resilient

urban futures : a review of practice, theory and process options for the Visions and

Pathways project, (August 2016). doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2167.0641

- 133 -

McKay, A. (2005). The Future of Social Security Policy: Women, Work and a Citizens’ Basic

Income. London & New York: Routledge.

McQuire, S. (2008). The Media City: Media, Architecture and Urban Space. London: SAGE

Publications.

Mellor, M. (2016). Money – The Neglected Agent of Change. Capitalism Nature Socialism,

27(4) 28–39. doi: 10.1080/10455752.2016.1197291

Metzger, J. (2015) The City is not a Menschenpark: Rethinking the Tragedy of the Urban

Commons Beyond the Human/Non-human Divide (2015); In: Urban Commons –

Rethinking the City, Borch & Kornberger (eds.)

Metzger, J. (2016) Expanding the Subject of Planning – Enacting the Relational Complexities

of More-Than-Human Urban Common(er)s. In: Space, Power and the Commons –

The Struggle for Alternative Futures, Kirwan, Dawney & Bringstocke (eds.)

Miller, C. A., Leary, J. O., Graffy, E., Stechel, E. B., & Dirks, G. (2015). Narrative futures

and the governance of energy transitions. Futures, 70, 65–74. doi:

10.1016/j.futures.2014.12.001

Milojević, I. & Inayatullah, S. (2015). Narrative Foresight. Futures. 73 151–162.

doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2015.08.007

Missoni, E. (2015). Degrowth and health: local action should be linked to global policies and

governance for health. Sustainability Science, 10(3), 439–450. doi: 10.1007/s11625-

015-0300-1

Mitchell, D. (2003). The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space.

London & New York: The Guildford Press.

Moor, T. de. (2013). Homo Cooperans: Institutions for Collective Action and the

Compassionate Society. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.

Moore, J. W. (2015). Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital.

London & New York: Verso.

Moore, J. W. (Ed.). (2016). Anthropocene or Capitalocene? Nature, History, and the Crisis of

Capitalism. Oakland: PM Press.

Moragues-Faus, A., & Morgan, K. (2015). Reframing the foodscape : the emergent world of

urban food policy, Environment and Planning A, 47(7), 1558–1573.

doi: 10.1177/0308518X15595754

Morton, T. (2016). Dark Ecology: For a Logic of Future Coexistence. New York: Columbia

University Press.

- 134 -

Mouffe, C. (2005). On The Political. London & New York: Routledge.

Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Swyngedouw, E., & Gonzalez, S. (2005). Towards Alternative

Model(s) of Local Innovation. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1969-1990. doi:

10.1080/00420980500279893

Nadesan, M. H. (2008). Governmentality, Biopower, and Everyday Life. New York &

London: Routledge.

Negri, A., & Hardt, M. (2009). Commonwealth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Neill, B. C. O., Kriegler, E., Riahi, K., Ebi, K. L., Hallegatte, S., Carter, T. R., & Vuuren, D.

P. van. (2014). A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of

shared socioeconomic pathways. Climatic Change, 122(3), 387–400. doi:

10.1007/s10584-013-0905-2

Niaros, V., Kostakis, V., & Drechsler, W. (2017). Making ( in ) the Smart City : The

Emergence of Makerspaces. Telematics and Informatics, (May). doi:

10.1016/j.tele.2017.05.004

Nitsche, M. (2008). Video Game Spaces: Image, Play, and Structure in 3D Game Worlds.

Cambridge & London: MIT Press.

Nordgren, A. (2012). Ethical Issues in Mitigation of Climate Change: The Option of Reduced

Meat Production and Consumption, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental

Ethics, 25(4), 563–584. doi: 10.1007/s10806-011-9335-1

Notten, P. W. F. Van, Sleegers, A. M., & Asselt, M. B. A. Van. (2005). The future shocks: On

discontinuity and scenario development. Technological Forecasting & Social Change,

72(2), 175–194. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2003.12.003

O’Gorman, M. (2015). Necromedia. Minneapolis & London: University of Minnesota Press.

Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2014). The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the

Future. New York: Columbia University Press.

Osbaldiston, N. (Ed.). (2013). Culture of the Slow: Social Deceleration in an Accelerated

World. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex

Economic Systems. Transnational Corporations Review, 2(2), 1–12.

Ostrom, E. (2012). Nested externalities and polycentric institutions: must we wait for global

solutions to climate change before taking actions at other scales? Economic Theory,

49(2), 353–369. doi: 10.1007/s00199-010-0558-6

- 135 -

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective

Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E. (2008). Governing a Commons from a Citizen’s Perspective, 1–9. Retrieved from

https://us.boell.org/sites/default/files/downloads/Ostrom_Governing_a_Commons.pdf

Otsuki, K. (2014). Food Governance Transformation: Aligning Food Security with

Sustainable Farming Practices in Developing Communities, Current

Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports, 1(2), 51–56. doi: 10.1007/s40518-014-0008-

3

P2P Foundation (2015). Commons Transition: Policy Proposals for an Open Knowledge

Commons Society. Retrieved from http://commonstransition.org/wp-

content/uploads/2014/11/Commons-Transition_-Policy-Proposals-for-a-P2P-

Foundation.pdf

P2P Foundation (2017) Commons Transition and P2P: A primer. Transnational Insitute.

Retrieved from https://www.tni.org/files/publication-

downloads/commons_transition_and_

p2p_primer_v9.pdf

Parikka, J. (2010). Insect Media: An Archeology of Animals and Technology. Minneapolis &

London: University of Minnesota Press.Parikka, J. (2012). What is Media

Archaeology? Cambridge & Malden: Polity Press.

Parikka, J. (2015). A Geology of Media. University of Minnesota Press.

Patterson, J., Schulz, K., Vervoort, J., Adler, C., Hurlbert, M., Hel, S. Van Der, … Sethi, M.

(2015). “Transformations towards sustainability”: Emerging approaches, critical

reflections, and a research agenda, (July).

Patterson, J., Schulz, K., Vervoort, J., Hel, S. Van Der, Sethi, M., & Barau, A. (2016).

Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability.

Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1–16. doi:

10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001

Pavel, T. G. (1986). Fictional Worlds. Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press.

Payo, A., Becker, P., Otto, A. & Vervoort J. (2016). Experiential Lock-In: Characterizing

Avoidable Maladaptation in Infrastructure Systems. Journal of Infrastructure Systems,

22(1), 2–5.

doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000268

Pel, B. (2015). Trojan horses in transitions: A dialectical perspective on innovation “capture”.

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 18(5), 673–691.

doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2015.1090903

- 136 -

Pel, B., & Backhaus, J. (2016). Just do it! Shifting dimensions of social innovation in Basic

Income experiments. Retrieved from

file:///C:/Users/Sasa/Downloads/Just%20do%20it_

SIdimensions_Pel_Backhaus_DEF010716.pdf

Pel, B., & Bauler, T. (2015). Governing Transformative Social Innovation: Capture dynamics

in the Social Solidarity Economy. Retrieved from

https://cidd2015.sciencesconf.org/51230/document

Pel, B. B., & Bauler, T. (2015). The Institutionalization of Social Innovation between

Transformation and Capture, TRANSIT, Grant Agreement no 613169. Retrieved from

http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/resource-hub/the-institutionalization-of-social-

innovation-between-transformation-and-capture

Pel, B., Avelino, F. R., & Jhagroe, S. S. (2016). Critical Approaches to Transitions Theory

Introduction. In Handbook on Sustainability Transition and Sustainable Peace, 451–

463. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-43884-9

Pel, B., Weaver, P., Cipolla, C., Afonso, R., Søgaard Jørgensen, M., Elle, M. … Bauler, T.

(2016). Institutionalization dialectics in Transformative Social Innovation; a

comparative case study. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308209913_

Institutionalization_dialectics_in_Transformative_Social_Innovation_a_comparative_

case_study

Pettman, D. (2011). Human Error: Species-Being and Media Machines. Minneapolis &

London: University of Minnesota Press.

Pichler, J. (2016). Co-Mapping our Transition Towards “Abundance for All”: The Social

Network we Truly Need. Retrieved from

https://www.slideshare.net/juliapichler/comapping-our-transition-towards-abundance-

for-all-the-social-network-we-truly-need

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge & London: Harvard

University Press.

Ploeg, J. D. Van Der. (2016). Theorizing Agri-Food Economies. Agriculture, 6(30).

doi: 10.3390/agriculture6030030

Polanyi, K. (2001). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our

Time. Boston: Beacon Press.

Poli, R. (2015). The implicit future orientation of the capability approach. Futures, 71, 105–

113. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2015.03.002

Priday, G., Mansfield, T., & Ramos, J. (2014). The Open Futures Library: One Step Toward a

- 137 -

Global Foresight Commons? Journal of Futures Studies, 18(4), 131–142.

Proeftuin040. (2016). Visie Stadslandbouw. Retrieved from

http://www.proeftuin040.nl/single-post/2016/06/10/Scenarioworkshop-visie-

stadslandbouw

Purcell, M., & Tyman, S. K. (2014). Cultivating food as a right to the city. The International

Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 20(10), 37–41. doi:

10.1080/13549839.2014.903236

Raford, N. (2014). Online foresight platforms: Evidence for their impact on scenario planning

& strategic foresight. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 97, 65–76. doi:

10.1016/j.techfore.2014.03.008

Ramirez, R., Mukherjee, M., Vezzoli, S., & Kramer, A. M. (2015). Scenarios as a Scholarly

Methodology to Produce “Interesting Research.” Futures, 71, 70–87.

doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2015.06.006

Ramírez, R., Selin, C., & Ramı, R. (2014). Plausibility and probability in scenario planning.

Foresight, 16(1), 54-74. doi: 10.1108/FS-08-2012-0061

Ramos, J. (2017). Linking Foresight and Action: Toward a Futures Action Research. In The

Palgrave International Handbook of Action Research, 823–842. doi: 10.1057/978-1-

137-40523-4

Ramos, J. (2016). Liquid Democracy and the Futures. In The Future Internet, 173–192.

doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-22994-2_11

Ramos, J. M. (2014). Anticipatory Governance: Traditions and Trajectories for Strategic

Design. Journal of Futures Studies, 19(1), 35–52.

Ramos, J. M. (2015). The Inner Game of Futures. Journal of Futures Studies, 20(1), 91–100.

doi: 10.6531/JFS.2015.20(1).S91

Ramos, J. (2013). Mutant Futurists in the 21 st Century, Journal of Futures Studies, 17(3),

151–158.

Ramos, J. M. (Ed.). (2016). The City as Commons : A Policy Reader. Commons Transition

Coalition, Melbourne, Australia.

Ramos, J., Bauwens, M., & Kostakis, V. (2016). P2P and Planetary Futures. In Critical

Posthumanism and Planetary Futures, 193–214. doi: 10.1007/978-81-322-3637-5

Ramos, J., Mansfield, T., & Priday, G. (2012). Foresight in a Network Era : Peer-producing

Alternative Futures. Journal of Futures Studies, 17(1), 71–90.

- 138 -

Rancière, J. (2001) Ten theses on politics. Theory and Event 5.3.

Rancière, J. (2003) Politics and aesthetics: an interview. Angelaki 8.2, 194–211.

Ranciere, J. (2007). The Future of the Image. London & New York: Verso.

Raskin, P. (2017). Earthland: Scenes from a Civilized Future. Retrieved from

https://thenextsystem.org/earthland-scenes-civilized-future

Raventós, D. (2007). Basic Income: The Material Conditions of Freedom. London & Ann

Arbor: Pluto Press.

Ravetz, J. R. (2006). Post-Normal Science and the complexity of transitions towards

sustainability. Ecological Complexity, 3(4), 275–284. doi:

10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.02.001

Ravetz, J. & Ravetz, A. (2017) Seeing the wood for the trees: Social Science 3.0 and the role

of visual thinking. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research,

30(1), 104–120. doi: 10.1080/13511610.2016.1224155

Ravetz, J. (2017). From “smart” cities to “wise” : synergistic pathways for collective urban

intelligence, 1–11. Retrieved from http://jpi-urbaneurope.eu/app/uploads/

2017/04/Ravetz_From-smart-to-wise.pdf

Reisch, L., Eberle, U., & Lorek, S. (2013). Sustainable food consumption: an overview of

contemporary issues and policies, SSPP Journal, 9(2), 7–25.

Restakis, J. (2017). Cooperative Commonwealth & the Partner State. Retrieved from

https://thenextsystem.org/cooperative-commonwealth-partner-state

Reynolds, B., & Healy, S. (Eds.). (2016). Basic Income: Radical Utopia or Practical

Solution? Retrieved from https://www.socialjustice.ie/sites/default/files/attach/policy-

issue-article/4638/shbr.pdf

Rifkin, J. (2014). The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative

Commons, and the Eclipse of Capitalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Rockström, B. J., Gaffney, O., Rogelj, J., Meinshausen, M., Nakicenovic, N., & Joachim, H.

(2017). A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science, 355(6331) 1269–1271.

Roelvink, G., St. Martin, K., & Gibson-Graham, J. K. (Eds.). (2015). Making Other Worlds

Possible: Performing Diverse Economies. University of Minnesota Press.

Rose, C. M. (2015). Surprising Commons. BYU Law Review, 2014(6).

Rose, C. M. (1994). Property and Persuasion: Essays on the History, Theory, and Rhetoric of

- 139 -

Ownership. Boulder & Oxford: Westview Press.

Rose, C. M., & Roset, C. (1986). The Comedy of the Commons: Commerce, Custom, and

Inherently Public Property of Chicago Law Review.

Rosen, R. A. (2016). A Socialist Economy for the Twenty-First Century: Explorations of

Challenging Issues. Retrieved from: https://thenextsystem.org/a-socialist-economy-

for-the-21st-century

Rossi, A. (2017). Beyond Food Provisioning: The Transformative Potential of Grassroots

Innovation around Food. Agriculture, 7(6), 9–14. doi: 10.3390/agriculture7010006

Rotmans, J. (2005). Societal Innovation: Between Dream and Reality Lies Complexity.

Inaugural Addresses Research in Management Series. Retrieved from

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=878564

Rust, S., Monani, S., & Cubitt, S. (Eds.). (2013). Ecocinema Theory and Practice. New York

& London: Routledge.

S.Funtowicz, & Ravetz, J. (2003). Post-Normal Science, 1–10. Retrieved from

http://leopold.asu.edu/sustainability/sites/default/files/Norton,%20Post%20Normal%2

0Science,%20Funtowicz_1.pdf

Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone Age Economics. Chicago & New York: Aldine Atherton.

Sarkki, S., Ficko, A., Grunewald, K, Kyriazopoulos, A.P. & Nijnik, M. (2017) How

pragmatism in environmental science and policy can undermine sustainability

transformations: the case of marginalized mountain areas under climate and land-use

change. Sustainability Science, 12(4), 549–561. doi: 10.1007/s11625-016-0411-3

Sassen, Saskia. 2011. 'Open Source Urbanism'. The New City Reader: A newspaper of Public

Space, (14)

Sassen, S. (2014). Expulsions: Brutality and Complexity in the Global Economy. Cambridge

& London: Harvard University Press.

Schneidewind U., Singer-Brodowski M., Augenstein K. (2016) Transformative Science for

Sustainability Transitions. In: Brauch H., Oswald Spring Ú., Grin J., Scheffran J. (eds)

Handbook on Sustainability Transition and Sustainable Peace. Hexagon Series on

Human and Environmental Security and Peace, vol 10, 123–136. Springer.

Scholz, T. (2016). Platform Cooperativism: Challenging the Corporate Sharing Economy.

New York: Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung.

Scholz, T., & Schneider, N. (Eds.). (2016). Ours to Hack and to Own: The Rise of Platform

Cooperativism, A New Visionfor the Future of Work and a Fairer Internet. New York

- 140 -

& London: OR Books.

Scholz, R.W. (2017) The Normative Dimension in Transdisciplinarity, Transition

Management, and Transformation Sciences: New Roles of Science and Universities in

Sustainable Transitioning. Sustainability, 9(6), 991.

Schumacher, E. F. (1975). Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. New York,

Hagerstown, San Francisco & London: Harper & Row.

Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Sharpe, B. (2013). Three horizons: Patterning of hope. Axminster: Triarchy Press.

Sherman, L. W., & Feller, D. A. (Eds.). (2017). Foresight. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Shove, E., Trentmann, F., & Wilk, R. (Eds.). (2009). Time, Consumption and Everyday Life:

Practice, Materiality and Culture. Oxford & New York: Berg.

Shukin, N. (2009). Animal Capital: Rendering Life in Biopolitical Times. Minneapolis &

London: University of Minnesota Press.

Shuman, M. (2017.). The Promise of a Million Utopias. Retrieved from

https://thenextsystem.org/promise-million-utopias

Siefkes, C. (2008). The Commons of the Future: Building Blocks for a Commons-based

Society. The Commoner. Retrieved from http://www.commoner.org.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2009/03/siefkes_future-commons.pdf

Silberman, M. S. (2016). Reading Elinor Ostrom In Silicon Valley: Exploring Institutional

Diversity on the Internet. GROUP '16 Proceedings of the 19th International

Conference on Supporting Group Work, 363–368. doi: 10.1145/2957276.2957311

Slaughter, Richard A. (1998a) Transcending flatland: Implications of Ken Wilber's meta-

narrative for futures studies. Futures, 30(6), pp. 519-533

Slaughter, Richard A. (1998b) Futures beyond Dystopia. Futures, 30(10), pp. 993-1002

Smith, R.C., Vangkilde, K.T., Kjaersgaard, M.G., Otto, T., Halse, J & Binder, T. (Eds.).

(2016) Design Anthropological Futures. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Sondeijker, S. (2009). Imagining Sustainability: Methodological building blocks for

transition scenarios (PhD Thesis). Erasmus University, Rotterdam.

Sonnino, R., Marsden, T., & Moragues-Faus, A. (2016). Relationalities and convergences in

food security narratives: towards a place-based approach. Transactions of the Institute

- 141 -

of British Geographers, 41(4) 477–489. doi: 10.1111/tran.12137

Sova, C., Vervoort, J., Thornton, T., Helfgott, A., Matthews, D., & Chaudhury, A. (2015).

Exploring farmer preference shaping in international agricultural climate change

adaptation regimes. Environmental Science and Policy, 54, 463–474. doi:

10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.008

Spangenberg, J. H. (2014). Institutional change for strong sustainable consumption:

sustainable consumption and the degrowth economy, SSPP Journal, 10(1), 62–77.

Speth, J. G. (2017). The Joyful Economy: A Next System Possibility. Retrieved from

https://thenextsystem.org/the-joyful-economy

Springer, S., Birch, K., & Macleavy, J. (Eds.). (2016). The Handbook of Neoliberalism. New

York & London: Routledge.

Springmann, M., Godfray, H. C. J., Rayner, M., & Scarborough, P. (2016). Analysis and

valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change, PNAS

113(15), 1–6.

doi: 10.1073/pnas.1523119113

Standing, G. (2011). The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. London & New York:

Bloomsbury.

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., …

Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing

planet. Sciencexpress, 347(6223), 1259855. doi: 10.1126/science.1259855

Swyngedouw, E. (2004) Scaled geographies: Nature, place, and the politics of scale. In Scale

and geographic inquiry: Nature, society, and method, ed. E. Sheppard and B.

McMaster, 129–153. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Swyngedouw, E. (2010). Apocalypse Forever? Post-political Populism and the Spectre of

Climate Change. Theory Culture Society, 27(2-3), 213-232. doi:

10.1177/0263276409358728

Swyngedouw, E. (2009). The Antinomies of the Postpolitical City: In Search of a Democratic

Politics of Environmental Production. International Journal of Urban and Regional

Research, 33(3), 601–620. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.00859.x

Swyngedouw, E. (2010). Impossible Sustainability and the Post-political Condition. In

Making Strategies in Spatial Planning, 185–205. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-3106-8

Swyngedouw, E. (2016). Unlocking the mind-trap : Politicising urban theory and practice.

Urban Studies, 54(1), 55-61. doi: 10.1177/0042098016671475

- 142 -

Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of

Governance-beyond-the-State. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1991–2006. doi:

10.1080/00420980500279869

Swyngedouw, E. (2011). Interrogating post-democratization: Reclaiming egalitarian political

spaces. Political Geography, 30(7), 370–380. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2011.08.001

Swyngedouw, E. (2017). Insurgent Urbanity and the Political City, (January). In Ethics of the

Urban: The City and the Spaces of the Political, 46–74, Harvard University Graduate

School of Design, Zurich/Cambridge.

Taylor, G., & Ramos, J. M. (2016). Introduction to the Special Issue on “Exploring Paths to a

Viable Future.” Journal of Futures Studies, 20(3), 1–6. doi:

10.6531/JFS.2016.20(3).I1

Teli, M., Fiore, A. Di, & Andrea, V. D. (2017). Computing and the common: a case of

Participatory Design with think tanks. CoDesign, 13(2), 1–13. doi:

10.1080/15710882.2017.1309439

Thackara, J. (2005). In the Bubble: Designing in a Complex World. Cambridge & London:

MIT Press.

Thompson, P., & Žižek, S. (Eds.). (2013). The Privatization of Hope: Ernst Bloch and the

Future of Utopia. Durham & London: Duke University Press.

Tornaghi, C. (2014). Critical geography of urban agriculture. Progress in Human Geography,

38(4), 551–567. doi: 10.1177/0309132513512542

Tornaghi, C. (2014). The urban metabolism of public space and the creation of food

commons.

doi: 10.3920/978-90-8686-187-3_29

Tornaghi, C. (2016). Urban Agriculture in the Food-Disabling City: (Re)defining Urban Food

Justice, Reimagining a Politics of Empowerment. Antipode, 49, 781–801.

doi: 10.1111/anti.12291

Tornaghi, C., & Dyck, B. Van. (2015). Research-informed gardening activism: steering the

public food and land agenda. Local Environment, 20(10), 1247–1264.

doi: 10.1080/13549839.2014.949643

Torry, M. (2013). Money for Everyone: Why we Need a Citizen’s Income. Clifton & Chicago:

Policy Press.

Townsend, A. M. (2013). Smart Cities: Big data, Civic Hackers, and the Quest for a New

Utopia. New York & London: W.W. Norton & Company.

- 143 -

Tsing, A. L. (2015). The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in

Capitalist Ruins. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Tsing, A., & Pollman, E. (2005). Global Futures: The Game In Histortes of the Future, 107–

122. Durham. Duke University Press.

Turpin, E. (Ed.). (2013). Architecture in the Anthropocene: Encounters Among Design, Deep

Time, Science and Philosophy. Michigan: Open Humanities Press.

Vaneigem, R. (2001). The Revolution of Everyday Life. London: Rebel Press.

Vanolo, A. (2016). Is there anybody out there? The place and role of citizens in tomorrow’s

smart cities. Futures, 82, 26–36. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2016.05.010

Vazquez, A. M., & Gonzalez, P. A. (2016). Knowledge Economy and the Commons : A

Theoretical and Political Approach to Post-neoliberal Common Governance. Review

of Radical Political Economics, 48(1), 140–157. doi: 10.1177/0486613415586991

Vermeulen, S. J., Challinor, A. J., Thornton, P. K., Campbell, B. M., & Eriyagama, N. (2013).

Addressing uncertainty in adaptation planning for agriculture. PNAS, 110(21), 8357–

8362. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1219441110

Vergragt, P. J. & Quist, J. (2011). Backcasting for sustainability: Introduction to the special

issue, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(5). doi:

10.1016/j.techfore.2011.03.010

Vervoort, J. M., Bendor, R., Kelliher, A., Strik, O., & Helfgott, A. E. R. (2015). Scenarios and

the art of worldmaking. Futures, 74, 62–70. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2015.08.009

Vervoort, J. M., Hoogstra, M. A., Kok, K., Lammeren, R. van, Bregt, A. K. & Janssen R.

Visualizing Stakeholder Perspectives for Reflection and Dialogue on Scale Dynamics

in Social – Ecological Systems. Human Ecology Review, 21(1), 157–181.

Vervoort, J. M., Kok, K., Beers, P., Lammeren, R. Van, & Janssen, R. (2012). Combining

analytic and experiential communication in participatory scenario development.

Landscape and Urban Planning, 107(3), 203–213.

Vervoort, J. M., Kok, K., Lammeren, R. Van, & Veldkamp, T. (2010). Stepping into futures:

Exploring the potential of interactive media for participatory scenarios on social-

ecological systems. Futures, 42(6), 604–616. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.031

Vervoort, J. M., Rutting, L., Kok, K., Hermans, F. L. P., Veldkamp, T., Bregt, A. K., & Van,

R. (2012). Exploring Dimensions, Scales, and Cross-scale Dynamics from the

Perspectives of Change Agents in Social–ecological Systems. Ecology and Society,

17(4), 24.

- 144 -

Vervoort, J. M., Thornton, P. K., Kristjanson, P., Forch, W., Ericksen, P. J., Kok, K., … Jost,

C. (2014). Challenges to scenario-guided adaptive action on food security under

climate change. Global Environmental Change, 28, 383–394. doi:

10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.03.001

Vezzoli, C., & Manzini, E. (2008). Design for Environmental Sustainability. London:

Springer.

Villarreal, G. (2013). Urban Food Initiatives as Re-Assembled Food Production and

Consumption Spaces. TRANSMANGO.

Vinnari, M., & Vinnari, E. (2013). A Framework for Sustainability Transition : The Case of

Plant-Based Diets. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 27(3), 369–396.

doi: 10.1007/s10806-013-9468-5

Vivero Pol, J. L. (2010). Universal Food Coverage for Ecuador: A proposal based on the

narrative of food as a commons, 1–8. Retrieved from http://floksociety.org/wp-

content/uploads/2014/01/UNIVERSAL-FOOD-COVERAGE-FOR-ECUADOR-JL-

Vivero-27-Jan-2014.pdf

Vivero Pol J. L. (2012). Transition towards a food commons regime: re-commoning food to

crowd-feed the world, 1–30. Retrieved from

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2548928

Vivero Pol J. L. (2013). Food as a commons: Reframing the narrative of the food system, 1–

28. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2255447

Vivero Pol, J. L. (2014). The Food Commons Transition: Collective actions for food and

nutrition security. http://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4140.3203

Vivero Pol J. L. (2015). The commons-based international Food Treaty: A legal architecture

to sustain a fair and sustainable food transition. INIDA. Penser Une D´ Emocratie

Alimentaire Volume II, 177–206.

Vivero Pol, J. L. (2016). The Food Commons in Europe: Relevance, challenges and proposals

to support them, 1–23. Retrieved from http://www.socioeco.org/bdf_fiche-document-

5213_en.html

Vivero Pol, J. L. (2016). Transition towards a food commons regime : re-commoning food to

crowd-feed the world. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/

SSRN_ID2548928_code2037859.pdf?abstractid=2548928&mirid=1

Vivero Pol, J. L. (2017). Epistemic Regards on Food as a Commons : Plurality of Schools,

Genealogy of Meanings, Confusing Vocabularies, Preprints, (April), 1–62.

doi: 10.20944/preprints201704.0038.v1

- 145 -

Vivero Pol, J. L. (2017). Food as Commons or Commodity ? Exploring the Links between

Normative Valuations and Agency in Food Transition, Sustainability, 9, 442. doi:

10.3390/su9030442

Volkery, A., Ribeiro, T., Henrichs, T., & Hoogeveen, Y. (2008). Your Vision or My Model ?

Lessons from Participatory Land Use Scenario Development on a European Scale.

Systemic Practice and Action Research, 21(6), 459–477. doi: 10.1007/s11213-008-

9104-x

Vuuren, D. P. Van, Kok, M. T. J., Girod, B., Lucas, P. L., & Vries, B. De. (2012). Scenarios in

Global Environmental Assessments : Key characteristics and lessons for future use.

Global Environmental Change, 22(4), 884–895. doi:

10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.06.001

Wahl, D. C., & Baxter, S. (2008). The Designer’s Role in Facilitating Sustainable Solutions,

Design Issues, 24(2).

Walz, S. P., & Deterding, S. (Eds.). (2014). The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues,

Applications. Cambridge & London: MIT Press.

Wark, M. (2011). The Beach Beneath the Street: The Everyday Life and Glorious Times of the

Situationist International. London & New York: Verso.

Wark, M. (2016). Molecular Red. Theory for the Anthropocene. London & New York: Verso.

Wark, M. (2004). A Hacker Manifesto. Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press.

Wark, M. (2007). Gamer Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts & London: Harvard University

Press.

Wark, M., & Jandrić, P. (2016). New knowledge for a new planet: critical pedagogy for the

Anthropocene. Open Review of Educational Research, 3(1), 148–178.

doi: 10.1080/23265507.2016.1217165

Watts, N., & Scales, I. R. (2015). Seeds , Agricultural Systems and Socio-natures: Towards an

Actor – Network Theory Informed Political Ecology of Agriculture. Geography

Compass, 9(5), 225–236. doi: 10.1111/gec3.12212

Weeks, K. (2011). The Problem with Work: Feminism, Marxism, Antiwork Politics, and

Postwork Imaginaries. Durham & London: Duke University Press.

Westley, F., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Homer-Dixon, T., Vredenburg, H., Loorbach, D., …, van

der Leeuw, S. (2011). Tipping toward sustainability: emerging pathways of

transformation. Ambio 40(7), 762–780.

Weston, B. H., & Bollier, D. (2013). Green Governance: Ecological Survival, Human Rights,

- 146 -

and the Law of the Commons. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wiedemann, C., & Zehle, S. (Eds.). (2012). Depletion Design: A Glossary of Network

Ecologies. Amsterdam: Insitute of Network Cultures.

Wilkinson, A., & Eidinow, E. (2008). Evolving practices in environmental scenarios : a new

scenario typology, Environmental Research Letters, 3(4), 5017. doi: 10.1088/1748-

9326/3/4/045017

Wilson, J., & Swyngedouw, E. (Eds.). (2014). The Post-Political and Its Discontents: Spaces

of Depoliticisation, Spectres of Radical Politics. Edinburgh University Press.

Wilson, J., & Swyngedouw, E. (2015). Seeds of dystopia : Post-politics and the return of the

political, (November 2016). in The Post-Political and its Discontents: Spaces of

Depoliticization, Specters of Radical Politics, 1–24.

Wirsenius, S., Hedenus, F., & Mohlin, K. (2011). Greenhouse gas taxes on animal food

products: rationale, tax scheme and climate mitigation effects. Climatic Change,

108(1-2), 159–184. doi: 10.1007/s10584-010-9971-x

Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen (WBGU)

(2012). Factsheet 5: Research and Education: Drivers of Transformation. WBGU,

Berlin. Retrieved from

http://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/user_upload/wbgu.de/templates/dateien/veroeffentlich

ungen/factsheets/fs5/wbgu_fs5_en.pdf

Wittmayer, B. J. M., Backhaus, J., Avelino, F., Pel, B., Strasser, T. & Kunze, I. (2015).

Narratives of change : How Social Innovation Initiatives engage with their

transformative ambitions, Grant Agreement 613169. Retrieved from

http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/

content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/181%20TRANSIT_WorkingPaper4

_Narratives%20of%20Change_Wittmayer%20et%20al_October2015_2.pdf

Wolfe, C. (2010). What is Posthumanism? Minneapolis & London: University of Minnesota

Press.

Wolfram, M. (2015). Conceptualizing Urban Transformative Capacity: A Framework for

Research and Policy. Cities. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.011 Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287508119_Conceptualizing_urban_transfor

mative_capacity_A_framework_for_research_and_policy

Wolfram, M., Frantzeskaki, N., & Maschmeyer, S., (2016) Cities, Systems and sustainability:

status and perspective of research on urban transformations, Current Opinion in

Environmental Sustainability, 22, 18–25.

Wright, E. O. (Ed.). (2003). Redesigning Distribution: Basic Income and Stakeholder Grants

- 147 -

as Alternative Cornerstones for a more Egalitarian Capitalism The Real Utopias

Project Vol. V.

Wright, E. O. (2009). Envisioning Real Utopias, (July). Retrieved from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.152.6099&rep=rep1&type=

pdf

Yagisawa, T. (2010). Worlds and Individuals, Possible and Otherwise. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Zurek, M. B., & Henrichs, T. (2007). Linking scenarios across geographical scales in

international environmental assessments, Technological Forecasting and Social

Change, 74(8) , 1282–1295. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2006.11.005

Žižek, S. (1999). The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology. London &

New York: Verso.

Žižek, S. (2006) The Parallax View. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Žižek, S. (2009). First as Tragedy, Then as Farce. London & New York: Verso.

Žižek, S. (2010). Living in the End Times. London & New York: Verso.

Žižek, S. (2013). Demanding the Impossible. Cambridge & Malden: Polity.