FutuResilience Policy Roadmap

FutuResilience Policy Roadmap Matias Barberis, Philine Warnke, Kerstin Cuhls, Evangelia Petridou Contributors: Elina Griniece, Alasdair Reid, Jörgen Sparf, Ron Iphofen, Erica Gaudino This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe under grant agreement No 101094455. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency (REA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. 1 FutuResilience Policy Roadmap Matias Barberis, Philine Warnke, Kerstin Cuhls, Evangelia Petridou Contributors: Elina Griniece, Alasdair Reid, Jörgen Sparf, Ron Iphofen, Erica Gaudino 2 Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................3 1.1 Roadmap goals ........................................................................................................ 3 1.2 Navigating the roadmap ................................................................................... 4 2. Knowledge valorisation for policy uptake .......................................................5 2.1 Experimentation for policy testing ...............................................................5 2.2 Archetypes of Knowledge Valorisation for policy uptake .................7 3. Future resilience in the policy arena ...............................................................10 3.1 Challenge-based approach ............................................................................10 3.2 The power of futures thinking .....................................................................12 4. Approaches towards designing policies for societal resilience ..........13 4.1 A1: Problem framing ......................................................................................... 13 4.2 A2: Stakeholder engagement .....................................................................16 4.3 B1: Scenario development ..............................................................................19 4.4 B2: Speculative design .................................................................................. 22 4.5 B3: Forecasting tools ...................................................................................... 25 4.6 B4: Science-Fiction narratives ...................................................................28 4.7 B5: Future visioning ..........................................................................................31 4.8 B6: Backcasting .................................................................................................34 4.9 B7: Agent-based modelling .........................................................................37 4.10 B8: Simulations ............................................................................................... 40 4.11 C: Policy design .................................................................................................43 5. Policy recommendations .....................................................................................46 6. References ..................................................................................................................50 6. 1 Further resources ...............................................................................................51 3 1. Introduction The FutuResilience project aimed to strengthen Europe’s economic and social resilience by improving the ability to respond quickly and effectively to future crises. Knowledge valorisation for policy uptake was at the core of the project’s approach, supported by an ecosystem of 10 ‘FutuResilience Labs’. These labs acted as spaces for policy experimentation, designed to foster challenge-based resilience policies. Over the course of more than a year, each lab began by defining concrete challenges, mapping key stakeholders and exploring how these challenges might evolve over time. To do this, they applied a range of foresight tools, including scenarios, backcasting, future visioning and speculative design. Stakeholders within the labs worked together to develop evidence-based policy actions, drawing on diverse sources of evidence such as scientific research, policy recommendations, local studies and citizen insights. As a result, the labs supported the valorisation and uptake of tools and evidence to create policy solutions that strengthen resilience and improve preparedness for future crises. 1.1 Roadmap goals This policy roadmap supports the adoption of co-creation mechanisms that help policymakers and stakeholders prepare for a range of possible future scenarios. It presents a set of approaches to enable participatory processes for developing policy instruments which foster societal resilience. These approaches are organised according to the sequential stages of policy formulation — from engaging stakeholders and framing policy problems, to analysing underpinning factors and, finally, designing policy responses. The intention is to offer clear, practical guidance that helps organisations move from experimentation to real-world policy action. Figure 1 Policy design under FutuResilience approach The roadmap applies key insights from the FutuResilience co-creation and testing activities, translating them into concrete steps that can be used to improve resilience-building efforts. It highlights methods for working collaboratively, tools for anticipating emerging challenges and approaches that make policies more inclusive, adaptive and forward-looking. 4 1.2 Navigating the roadmap This policy roadmap is designed to be read following two complementary pathways: knowledge valorisation and societal resilience. At the beginning, the roadmap provides a brief introduction to these concepts, including an explanation of knowledge valorisation, the role of policy experimentation and a definition of archetypes of knowledge valorisation for policy uptake; followed by a concise overview of societal resilience. The subsequent sections present a series of approaches that support key steps in policy design— from problem framing and stakeholder engagement to future-oriented approaches for analysing factors and designing policies that foster societal resilience. These sections can be read through the lens of the two pathways. The main navigation pathway follows the sequence of approaches that support knowledge valorisation through participatory, co-creation processes. Each strategy is grounded in the insights from the FutuResilience activities and illustrates how existing knowledge and tools can be activated and expanded collectively. Within each strategy, a secondary reading pathway highlights how knowledge is mobilised in practice towards enhancing societal resilience across a diversity of challenges. This includes: ׉ Strategy definition supporting design of policies for societal resilience. ׉ Examples that illustrate real applications, specifying the policy challenge addressed, the relevant resilience profiles and the core resilience dimensions involved. ׉ Tools and evidence sections that showcase how existing knowledge, data and practical resources can be valorised within participatory processes addressing complex policy issues, leveraging on concrete examples from the FutuResilience labs. ׉ Reflection questions that help stakeholders understand how a strategy or tool could be applied in their own context. As you move through the roadmap, these two pathways are intertwined: the approaches describe what to do, while the accompanying tools, evidence and examples show how it can be done and what types of knowledge can be leveraged at each stage. Across these sections, you will also find testimonials, offering stakeholder perspectives that illustrate the perceived value and impact of each strategy, as well as key messages, which summarise essential insights from experts on the relevance and added value of each topic. The document concludes with a set of policy recommendations dedicated to strengthening knowledge valorisation and enhancing societal resilience. They offer guidance for organisations seeking to transition from experimentation to effective real-world policy action. Evidence Type of data, practices or community insights supporting policy design Tool example Practical methods, approaches or tools that help analyse the evidence Testimonial Statements from stakeholders illustrating the strategy impact Key messages Takeaways from experts in the filed on the relevance of the topic 5 2. Knowledge valorisation for policy uptake Knowledge valorisation is the process of transforming data, know-how and research results into social and economic value — not only by developing products and services, but also by shaping evidence-based policies. For policymakers, this means that research outputs can directly inform policymaking, leading to more evidence-based, forward-looking strategies. Valorisation encourages co-creation across sectors: between academia, industry, civil society and governments, ensuring that policies reflect societal needs and include multisectoral evidence (scientific, citizens insights, studies applied to local context, usually in national language, etc.). Key message: “The FutuResilience project is relevant for the knowledge valorisation policy. It is about the uptake of research results to inform public policy in different areas, engaging with citizens, using experimentation as policy tool and building resilience.” (Iphigenia Pottaki, DG RTD) 2.1 Experimentation for policy testing Knowledge valorisation supports policy experimentation by creating the structures and practices that allow for iterative, real-world testing of research-informed ideas. Policy experimentation represents an opportunity to design policies for societal resilience and future preparedness. Policy experimentation allows governments to test new adaptive strategies in a controlled way, helping to reduce uncertainty while encouraging systemic learning. Policy experimentation is a structured and evidence-driven approach that enables policymakers to test, refine and improve policy interventions before implementing them. It constitutes a purposeful and coordinated process, partly a research method, partly an approach to governing, in which different solutions to policy problems are tested (Huitema et al., 2018). A defining characteristic of policy experimentation is its structured learning process, intentionally designed to generate insights through methodologies such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs), A/B testing, rapid cycle evaluations and human-centred design approaches (European Commission, 2024). Policy experimentation has the potential to offer benefits to practitioners: 1. It reduces uncertainty and financial risk by allowing spatially, sectoral, or temporally limited policy trials before major reform implementation, thus minimising the costs of unsuccessful interventions to the broader polity. 2. As a research method, it fosters evidence-based decision-making by generating data that regarding the viability of policy solutions, how to optimise programme delivery, or when to discontinue ineffective interventions (Bravo-Biosca, 2019). 3. It builds organisational capacity and institutional learning by establishing new logics of public administration and creating recursive processes of continuous improvement across government systems (Eneqvist, 2022). Key message: “Regions and municipalities are ideal for local policy experiments, requiring a balance of risk-taking and entrepreneurial collaboration to overcome a compliance-driven culture and encourage innovation.” (Arnault Morisson, Science Po Paris) Over time, embedding valorisation in policy cycles enhances the adaptive capacity of governments: they become less reactive and more willing to experiment, learn and adopt evidence-based solutions for long-term societal challenges. The different tools and methods proposed in this roadmap contribute to mainstreaming knowledge valorisation within the first two phases of the policy cycle: agenda setting and policy formulation, as depicted in the graphic below. 6 Figure 2 The FutuResilience approach within the policy cycle Problem framing is the first stage of the policy cycle where the desirable and undesirable conditions are identified and cast in a way that suggests a need for policy intervention. The approaches used are generally interpretative, analytical and highly collaborative, focusing on constructing a compelling and politically viable narrative. During this phase, it is relevant to gather information on the problem’s existence, complexity, severity and scope, as well as diverse perspectives from experts views, practitioners and citizens, ensuring all voices are heard. During the stakeholder engagement phase, there are systematic,strategicand iterative interactions, focusing on identifying,analysingand consulting with all relevant parties to gather knowledge,build consensusand ensure policy legitimacy of the defined problem framing. Stakeholder engagement phase focuses on identifyingwhois affected by the defined policy problem andhowto involve them in the policy process to address it. Although contemporary governance frameworks often present policymaking as a clean, staged and rational cycle, real-world practice diverges significantly. Policymaking is frequently shaped by non-linear dynamics, including political cultures, institutional arrangements, stakeholder values and pre-existing problem framings. These forces make the process inherently complex, contested and adaptive rather than sequential. As a result, policymaking is better understood through a path-dependence perspective, in which decisions are continuously shaped by prior trajectories while evolving in response to shifting structural conditions and emerging societal challenges. In this context, policymaking should not be conceptualised as a closed, linear cycle but rather as an ongoing, iterative process in which problem definitions, priorities and strategies must be continuously revisited, reframed and analysed. 7 Mainstreaming ethics in knowledge valorisation for policy uptake Most political leaders and administrators claim to be proponents of ‘evidence-based policymaking’. However, what does it mean? Knowledge is most valued and valuable when based on rigorous and reliable evidence-gathering: ‘good’ research, that must be both methodologically and ethically sound. Key ethical values and principles in research practice include honesty, transparency, integrity, justice and respect for the rights of communities and individuals. Such principles might be regarded as universal and to be a challenge to policies based upon established political biases or ideologies (Iphofen and O’Mathuna, 2022). The knowledge gained from good research must resonate with policymakers’ aims and intentions to be effective. Ethically sound evidence gathering draws upon professional expertise, societal stakeholders, participatory practices and reliable data and data sources. The key to discovering ‘what works’ is to enable policy-testing either within the community or lab spaces that recognise a multiplicity of stakeholders’ perspectives, similarities, differences and priorities. Reflection Questions: Have we been fully transparent about how the evidence was gathered and for what purpose? Have we communicated uncertainties, limitations and potential biases in the evidence? How could this contribute to or affect policymaking? Have stakeholders had a fair opportunity to challenge our interpretations of the evidence? 2.2 Archetypes of Knowledge valorisation for policy uptake The archetypes are recurrent models that describe how diverse forms of knowledge (scientific, citizen, experiential, data-driven, organisational) are transformed into policy-relevant value through specific configurations of evidence, stakeholders, tools and decision processes. Based on the work performed by the FutuResilience Labs and further analytical research, the project has identified the following archetypes of knowledge valorisation for policy uptake: Figure 3 Archetypes of Knowledge Valorisation for policy uptake 14 Relevant tools The MURCIA Lab developed vulnerability maps, highlighting critical infrastructural vulnerabilities. Supporting the mapping, the lab implemented community mapping, providing street-level community knowledge that enriches and validates vulnerability assessments. The community mapping was conducted using an adapted version of the Place Standard Tool through a questionnaire on the characteristics of public space design factors that influence the urban microclimate. Figure 5 Crowdmapping exercise in the MURCIA Lab (data collection and results) What evidence was relevant for framing the problem? The MURCIA Lab problem framing relied on a suite of spatial analyses that mapped neighbourhood-level vulnerability to heat, flooding and urban form, including satellite-based thermal simulations (Landsat 8–9), combined with cadastral data, Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) data, National Flood Zone Mapping System (SNCZI) and prior UPCT studies. Additionally, for the factor analysis – as part of the framing phase – previous EU funded research included in the FutuResilience Knowledge Base was used in combination with a questionnaire targeting municipal technical staff. ׉ Challenge: The complexity of climate change adaptation led to an increasing number of variables during certain phases of the process (two neighbourhoods, three climate impacts, several working groups, multiple scenarios). As a result, several moments required reducing the number of variables under consideration (selecting key factors, limiting the number of policies, etc.) to keep the workshop dynamics feasible in terms of time and complexity. à Diverse tools in section B could provide alternatives to narrow down variables. Citizens were able to assess microclimatic conditions—shade, pavement materials, exposure, thermal comfort—providing insights that complemented and challenged the technical maps. This hybrid method helped policymakers understand not only where risks occur but howthey are experienced by the community. At the same time, it enhanced public awareness of climate risks and empowered residents to articulate local problems with precision. (Fernando García Martín, Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena) 15 Reflection questions Policymakers Ȉ Who is most affected by how the problem is currently defined, and whose perspectives are missing from the definition? Ȉ How does the current problem framing align or conflict with existing policies, regulations, or political priorities? Are there other problems that are not getting attention and if so, why? Private sector Ȉ How is the policy issue affecting or influencing business core activities? Ȉ How could reframing the problem open up new partnerships, innovations, or business models? Civil society Ȉ What lived experiences, stories, or patterns do we observe that reveal what the problem looks and feels like on the ground? Ȉ Whose voices have historically been excluded from shaping how this problem is understood? Ȉ Are there some aspects of an issue that receive more attention than others? 16 4.2 A2: Stakeholder engagement Why is important to engage stakeholders in policy design? Being inclusive in involving diverse perspectives and engaging stakeholder takes time and resources. This begs the question: why should public authorities spend these resources? The benefits of including stakeholders in policymakingoutweighsthe costs of doing so. First,stakeholder engagement enriches the policymaking process with important knowledge of stakeholders situated perspectives. People are experts in their own lives and can contribute with valuable perspectives, knowledge and visionsregarding inmaking important decisions about public policy. Second,stakeholder engagement increases diversity, equity and inclusion in public policy. It is the democratic duty of public authorities to deliver public goods to everyone. The inclusion of diverse perspectives not only can improve the quality public policies, but it can also increase the trust that citizens have in the public sector. In times of increase distrust and midand dis-information suchtrust is crucial for the democratic polity and have positive consequences not only for a specific but for the democracy in general. The case of CHIOS Lab The CHIOS Lab illustrates a distinctive way of setting up the scene for participatory processes towards policy testing. The lab started with a stakeholder analysis, incorporating both strategic planning and local insight. A series of online meetings was held to gain a basic understanding of the migration crisis and the specific context in which the pilot studies would be conducted. These sessions served as a foundation for building trust among key partners and allowed identifying early perspectives, outlining initial challenges and aligning the methodological approach. Furthermore, the lab used a combined ethnographic approach – through a dedicated person that spent time in place having informal conversations with local stakeholders – followed by a questionnaire in local language. 17 Relevant tools The stakeholder analysis was built classifying the stakeholders based on two dimensions: Influence (power) and Interest (level of affectedness). Influence refers to a stakeholder’s authority or capacity to affect project decisions, allocation of resources, or overall outcomes. Interest indicates the degree of concern or involvement a stakeholder has in relation to the project. Each stakeholder was assessed by project team members on a scale from 1 to 10 for both Influence and Interest and subsequently grouped into six distinct categories. The analysis helped tailor the engagement strategy and focus resources effectively. Figure 6 Representation of Stakeholders mapping for CHIOS Lab What evidence was collected through initial engagement phases? The CHIOS lab built on direct evidence informed by stakeholders through the interviews to core stakeholders and online questionnaire in the local language geared towards citizens. The design of the data collection was based on evidence about migration from the United Nations and the Greek Ministry of Migration and Asylum as well as the FutuResilience Knowledge Base through projects such as ASILE project (2022), the TransSOL project (2018) and REBUILD project (2020). During the data collection process, participants reflected on past and future threats, especially around the 2015 migration influx, their responses, the island’s characteristics, responsible agencies and collaboration needs. Also, they answered targeted questions based on their specific roles, such as private sector, residents, or those involved in refugee support. These methods contributed to engaging stakeholders at local, regional and national levels to test 15 policy measures across a range of future scenarios. This approach ensured that policy proposals were not only well-grounded in theory but also practical and resilient in real-world contexts. Policymakers responded positively to the approach, as it went beyond abstract evidence and enabled them to see the practical implications of decisions under uncertainty. (Jenny Sikala, Municipality of Chios) 18 Reflection questions Policymakers Ȉ How can we create accessible, inclusive engagement formats that allow meaningful participation—not just token input? Are there mechanisms to integrate their feedback? Ȉ Are you reaching all the relevant stakeholders? Are there populations that consistently do not participate? If so, why? Ȉ How do we ensure long-term, not one-off, engagement throughout the policy cycle? Private sector Ȉ What concerns or expectations do other stakeholders have about our role, influence, or potential conflicts of interest? Civil society Ȉ Which communities or actors must we engage to ensure the process reflects diverse lived experiences and justice perspectives? Ȉ How can we build alliances with other organisations to expand outreach and amplify stakeholder voices? 19 4.3 B1: Scenario development Why scenario development is key for policy testing? Scenario development is one of the oldest and most established foresight approaches. The core idea is to sketch a range of alternative futures that span the wide realm of future possibilities (done through a process of identification of the most impactful and most uncertain drivers of change – known as ‘key uncertainties’ – across the whole spectrum of change domains such as society, technology, economy, environment, policy, ethical & legal aspects). For testing strategies or policy options in situations of high uncertainty it is especially useful to develop scenarios of possible external framework conditions (‘context scenarios’). By thinking through the effectiveness and applicability of the policy in different scenarios we can get an idea how robust the policy is against different possible framework conditions, how it might have to be adapted and what are signposts to monitor to understand when such adaptations are required. The case of SCRL Lab The Slovenian Cyber Resilience Lab (SCRL) was launched to enhance the cybersecurity resilience of Slovenian small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), R&D communities and start-up ecosystems. Recognising the growing cyber threats, the lab aimed to bridge the gap between the cybersecurity needs of these businesses and the available solutions, while also engaging policymakers to develop effective cybersecurity policies. Working with scenarios allow them to prepare robust, while flexible policy responses to strengthen cyber resilience at national level. Relevant tool The lab team prepared an outline for four general Future of Cybersecurity scenarios, revolving around future geopolitical and economic development. The scenario drafts were then consolidated with stakeholders in a series of short, online brainstorming sessions. During these sessions, participants worked refining and further developing the scenarios from a scenario grid, while performing a SWOT analysis focusing on: what are consequences and threats in the given scenario? Which of the current scenario features may appear as weakness? Are we prepared to deal with the evolving scenario? 20 Figure 7 Scenarios developed for the Slovenian Cyber Resilience Lab ׉ Challenge: while building scenarios, participants may tend to interpret the expected evolution of the problem as a worsening of the situation in the coming years and decades à To address this issue, guidance on the scenario development should be sought, alternative imaginary methods could be used such as backcasting or future visioning. What evidence was used supporting the scenario development? The SCRL carried out a study on the Slovenian Start Up community. The study examined SME’s ability to implement a cybersecurity measure. The factors were identified via a systematic literature review (through the FutuResilience Knowledge Base and additional scientific literature). This data fed into a structured survey that was distributed among Slovenian start-ups and small tech companies, providing insights into barriers and boosters for adopting cybersecurity measures. These results were then discussed with stakeholders to create a consolidated list of factors, assessed by their impact and uncertainty, as well as discuss their potential future development. These methods made the discussions more interactive and helped policymakers connect cybersecurity issues with their own responsibilities. We also learned that evidence from real-world experience - such as experiences from start-ups and information on economic impacts - was just as important as scientific data in shaping useful and realistic policies. Even beyond the policy results, our work impacted new projects and encouraged public discussion about the importance of cybersecurity for economic stability. (Luka Jelovčan, SGB Security Consulting) 21 Reflection questions Policymakers Ȉ Do you systematically consider different framework conditions when developing policies? Ȉ Are you aware of the critical assumptions underlying your strategic choices? Ȉ How can we design scenarios that remain relevant even as political or institutional conditions shift? Private sector Ȉ Which external trends and uncertainties could create new risks or opportunities for our industry? Will your company still be competitive when circumstances change? Ȉ What assumptions about markets, customers, or competitors are we making—and how do different scenarios test those assumptions? Civil society Ȉ What future conditions would strengthen or weaken the rights, wellbeing, or agency of the communities we represent? Ȉ What emerging threats or opportunities could affect marginalised groups in ways that other stakeholders might overlook? Ȉ What are the expectations and assumptions your organisation members, or other civil society groups hold about the future? 22 4.4 B2: Speculative design Why speculative design? Speculative design is a design approach that explores possible futures rather than focusing on immediate, practical solutions. It uses design as a tool to stimulate discussion, question assumptions and imagine alternative scenarios—often addressing social, technological, or ethical implications (Cardenas Cardova et al., 2025). It often involves creating artifacts, prototypes, or narratives that represent hypothetical futures. Participatory speculative design is especially suitable for mobilising the voices of actors who are less comfortable with abstract policy level debates and thereby bringing the highly relevant tacit knowledge of communities of practice into the policy arena. It also helps to unlock insights about more emotional reactions to different futures which is often neglected in more analytical approaches to scenario building but highly relevant to consider in strategic decisions. The case of FICTIONS Lab The FICTIONS Lab implemented a participatory speculative design approach with manufacturing workers. It entailed a series of workshops to discuss the future implications of technologies in their work environment to gather direct insights. As result, the operators generated policy recommendations for various stakeholders based on their experiences and discussions throughout the workshops. Relevant tools A key tool as part of speculative design is the use of technology prototypes. The FICTIONS lab developed a prototype for the workers addressing issues pre-identified by them across different scenarios workshops and a survey. The idea was to reflect with participants about the potential impact that such technology might have. 23 Figure 8 Prototype developed for the FICTIONS lab The prototype and the exercises led participants to reflect about the implications of technology from a mundane level (e.g. how to wash the garment, how hot would it be to work in, whether materials would endure harsh working conditions, or whether there would be electromagnetic interferences) to a policy level (e.g. implications it might have for occupational safety and health regulation). ׉ Challenge: Factory workers could feel uncomfortable drawing, so we provided pre-designed images they could simply cut and use. In the last workshop, we prioritised writing when developing artefacts, as we found it was the medium they felt most comfortable using for expression. à It is important to understand the public of participatory design to achieve expected results. What evidence was used during the process? As preparatory work, the FICTIONS team explored the FutuResilience Knowledge Base and examined 10 relevant documents in the field. Furthermore, the team launched a survey on attitudes towards digital technologies at work next to operators working in three industrial units related to metal work and woodwork. The survey design followed a previous study methodology used for studying the role of skills for the future of work. These results fed the different workshop activities of speculative design until the development of the prototype. For the prototype, the team mapped technology readily available or soon to be available which could solve the issues raised by participants, as well as enact the solutions they have forwarded. Creating design fictions to spark reactions among participants had a significant impact and immersion, these materials were visually styled and feel real. The methodology yielded positive results, from knowledge gains to capacity building among factory operators, while also facilitating the sharing of their future visions as specialists of their workplace. (Ana Correia de Barros, Fraunhofer AICOS) 30 Reflection questions Policymakers Ȉ Which potential risks or unintended consequences highlighted in these stories are relevant to our context? Ȉ What values and priorities are revealed in these scenarios, and how might they conflict with our policy objectives? Ȉ How can policymakers collaborate across borders in the case of disasters or preventing crises after a disaster? Private sector Ȉ Which scenarios suggest new opportunities for innovation or competitive advantage? Ȉ What assumptions about consumer behaviour, regulation or societal trends should we test or challenge in these narratives? Ȉ Is it necessary to work with dystopian futures or can we have similar effects with more positively perceived futures? Civil society Ȉ How do these narratives help us envision futures and prepare for them including diverse voices, perspectives and needs? Ȉ How could we use these scenarios to educate or mobilise communities around emerging issues, beyond co-creation activities? 31 4.7 B5: Future visioning What is future visioning? Just like scenario development futures visioning is at the core of the portfolio of Foresight approaches. While scenarios usually describe possible futures, visioning is dedicated to carving out a shared desirable future for a group of actors involved in the visioning process, e.g. describing what they aspire to achieve in the world. Accordingly, in a visioning process it is crucial to exchange on values, hopes and ambitions and to mobilise personal emotions and desires. Accordingly, in foresight, visions are sometimes called ‘futures of the heart’ in contrast to the more analytical scenarios as ‘futures of the head’. Visioning requires protected spaces and often employs creativity techniques that inspire people and empower them to share their more personal values. A vision can give orientation in daily decision making, motivate people to rise raise their ambitions and help to coordinate their actions. A full strategy process combines visioning with scenario development and backcasting. The case of TIMES Lab The TIMES Lab aimed, among other objectives, to strengthen local community preparedness for future crises by analysing the social aspects of risk management, mapping community resources and enhancing community skills. It was designed with a strong participatory approach to develop a real community capacity building process. Future visioning played a key role in engaging the community to help ideate policy actions by illustrating how today’s decisions could influence future responses. Relevant tools Among other tools, the TIMES Lab proposed the ‘Newspaper of Tomorrow’ – a participatory storytelling exercise where participants co-created a fictional newspaper from 2050, imagining a positive future for emergency management, particularly in flood scenarios. When we talk about civic preparedness for future crises, it is key to use first a positive approach for local actors to avoid feeding fear, anguish and eco-anxiety (emerging as a critical factor during framing phase). 32 Figure 11 The “Newspaper of Tomorrow” applied in TIMES Lab What evidence is relevant in the process? The initial phase of the TIMES lab involved extensive data collection through interviews to experts in floods and crisis management, focus groups (with representatives from associations, affected people from neighbourhoods and municipality technical staff) and questionnaires to citizens on the role of spontaneous volunteering during the 2023 flood. Results from this data was used to understand critical factors on the volunteering process such as communication, logistics, management and training, topics that were presented and discussed with participants before performing the ‘Newspaper of Tomorrow’ exercise. ׉ Learning point: From the early phases of interviews and data collection, the emotional dimension of the flood experience emerged as central. For the ideation phase in preparation of the ‘Newspaper of Tomorrow’ exercise, it was useful to use images, photos, postcards, messages in bottles and other creative tools to tell the good things people learned from a traumatic experience. Additional tools such as collective voting (e.g. Mentimeter) allow participants to process and share their experiences in a more comfortable, anonymised way. Emotional dynamics should be carefully considered when designing participatory processes related to extreme events that have affected a specific community. Using mediumand long-term scenarios to positively shape future pathways that improve our preparedness for crises is a useful tool for planning interventions — including cross-sectoral ones — that align with a single strategic objective. (Sofia Burioli, Municipality of Cesena) 33 Reflection questions Policymakers Ȉ How might unintended consequences or policy trade-offs appear in the desired future? Ȉ What are areas where a shared vision would help you to better achieve your goals? Ȉ What are the values you share within your government or ministry that contributes to reach the desired future? Is there a need to coordinate expectations with other stakeholders? Private sector Ȉ Which innovations, business models or partnerships must emerge to make this future plausible? Ȉ What market, technological or societal disruptions could either accelerate or derail this vision? Civil society Ȉ How can we use this vision to inspire collective action, alliances, or policy change today? Ȉ Which social, political or economic changes would need to occur to bring this vision to life? 34 4.8 B6: Backcasting What is Backcasting? As the name is already indicating, Backcasting is looking back to the present from a point in the future. Backcasting is a foresight technique that starts with defining a desirable future state or outcome and works backward to identify the necessary steps to achieve that outcome or desirable state. It is useful in planning interventions in complex situations where straightforward planning is challenging. It contributed to improving focus and prioritisation of recommendations. The desirable future state has ideally been formulated through a participative visioning process but could also e.g. follow from political goals such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals or the Paris Global Warming Limitation Targets or specific organisational goals (see Vergragt and Quist 2011). In some cases, different pathways towards the desirable goal are developed (see, for instance, Heinonen and Lauttamäki, 2012). In a fully-fledged Foresight based strategy process, backcasting is often combined with context scenario development as in many cases the way a certain goal can be achieved depends heavily on the framework conditions. The case of COSIGHT Lab The COSIGHT Lab focused on resilience and societal crises in the context of integration. A special emphasis was on identifying policy issues that are unaddressed and thus a potential cause for future problems. One of those issues identified was the (currently missing) integration of ‘forgotten’ and formally low-qualified groups – particularly women and young people with (often second generation) immigration backgrounds – into the local labour market. For both groups, a vision was formulated. Backcasting served as means to reflect on the main strategies and steps to achieve the desired futures formulated in a vision by starting from the goal and then working backwards to the present. Relevant tools The COSIGHT Lab proposed backcasting as a tool for “Working backwards from a vision 2035 towards the present” so as to discuss more concrete actions bridging needs and policymaking options. Participants used a timeline as a visual tool to summarise and communicate these steps. In a flyer, short-term, medium-term and long-term actions were summarised to describe the ways that could collectively lead to the desired outcomes – reflected in previous workshops. 35 Figure 12 COSIGHT Lab backcasting ׉ Learning point: Backcasting was helpful because it showed where the intersection between the different stakeholders lies in terms of a desirable state in the future - despite all the differences in perception of what is currently happening, what is perceived as sufficiently addressed or not sufficiently solved in terms of integration. The different steps are lined up on the timeline and mark a kind of strategy towards the desired outcome. What evidence was relevant while working with the Backcasting exercise? The COSIGHT Lab built on three strands of evidence: first of all, locally produced studies and local statistics on integration in Hamburg, interviews conducted with FutuResilience and local experts and in-depth interviews with Hamburg citizens, providing valuable insights into their perspectives on integration and the resilience factors identified by the expert group. Examples and experiences discussed in workshops added to the analysis. For instance, real cases for integration were introduced and served as additional evidence for future potential, including a living testimonial invited to participate in the lab activities. Surprisingly, prior to lab work, there was no network connecting the various stakeholders (from academia, NGOs and government authorities) working in the field of labour market integration for low-skilled refugee women and young people with a migrant background. Thanks to the lab initiative and workshops, the idea and intention for impact partnerships roundtable was born and is now a running process. (Marina Beermann, Cociety) 36 Reflection questions Policymakers Ȉ How can we maintain the spirit of working backwards from a vision or goal and from the present towards a vision or goal? Ȉ Which existing policies or institutional structures might hinder progress toward our desired future, and how could they be reformed? Ȉ What mechanisms will allow us to monitor progress and adapt policies as we move toward the envisioned future? Private sector Ȉ What unique capabilities, data, networks or resources can we contribute to co-creating the steps needed to reach that future? Ȉ Which current business practices, incentives or assumptions must we rethink to support the envisioned long-term outcome? Civil society Ȉ What structural barriers must be addressed to make the envisioned future possible? Ȉ Which actions should we advocate for in the early stages of the backcasting pathway? Ȉ How can we hand over to external (different) networks when the original labs capacities are too limited for the long-term task? 37 4.9 B7: Agent-based modelling What is the relevance of agent-based modelling in future-oriented policies? Agent-based modelling (ABM) offers a bottom-up simulation framework that reflects diverse behaviours and helps policymakers test interventions before implementation. For policymakers, the key implication is that ABM can bridge complexity and practice: it translates dynamic and decentralised real-world interactions into actionable insights. It enables the design of adaptive and equitable policies that respond to local vulnerabilities while anticipating long-term impacts. The case of BAPEMED Lab An ABM was co-developed in the BAPEMED Lab to explore scenarios to identify effective solutions by analysing demographic trends, the burden of chronic diseases and the role of technology. The research intended to strengthen Bulgaria’s ability to respond to future health crises, improve health outcomes for citizens and potentially set a benchmark for other nations facing similar challenges in transitioning to personalised and technology-driven healthcare systems. Relevant tools A computational ABM model (based on the NetLogo system as a development environment and observer interface) provided a simulation that can be used for experimental, trial and error, and getting feedback, allowing to develop policy recommendations. 38 Figure 13 BAPEMED Modelling interface on NetLogo The model applied in BAPEMED Lab revealed how socioeconomic inequality and hospital capacity interact, leading to unequal healthcare outcomes. It also evidenced that wealth and insurance status heavily determined treatment access and survival outcomes. Finally, it highlighted that public hospitals often became overloaded, while private institutions remained underutilised due to access barriers. As result, the simulation allowed testing of policy interventions like insurance expansion or subsidy schemes, providing insights into mitigating systemic inefficiencies and reducing mortality and healthcare inaccessibility. What evidence contributed to the model development? The simulation model was designed to represent and explore the dynamics of healthcare accessibility and outcomes within the geographic and socio-economic context of Bulgaria. The participatory co-development of models ensured that diverse knowledge inputs — from citizens, professionals and policymakers — are embedded into scenario design. This not only increases the legitimacy of the models but also strengthens trust and dialogue among stakeholders. The model developed integrates key elements of health system functioning—including public and private hospital infrastructure, patient demographics, financial disparities and insurance coverage— to evaluate how these factors interact to shape individual and systemic health outcomes. The data sources included: OECD database, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation database, Bulgaria’s National Health Information System, outputs from foresight workshops and stakeholder feedback. ׉ Challenges: It is difficult to validate ABM results against real-world outcomes, especially when detailed data (e.g. on health systems or waste behaviours) is incomplete or unavailable. Additionally, small changes in how agents are modelled (e.g. behaviour, risk perception, priorities) can produce very different results, requiring careful scenario design and transparency about uncertainties à Scenario Development could contribute to address this gap. The scenario work and agent-based modelling was highly valuable in illustrating the long-term risks of Bulgaria’s reactive healthcare model and the urgent need to strengthen early-detection systems, health information infrastructure and workforce capacity. These insights fully align with our mission and confirm that investing in robust health data systems and preventive care pathways are essential for resilience and critical for improving outcomes and reducing long-term healthcare costs in Bulgaria. (Silviya Kostova, NM Genomix JSC) 39 Reflection questions Policymakers Ȉ What policy levers or interventions should be included in the model to explore their potential impact? Ȉ How can we ensure that assumptions built into the model reflect diverse social realities? Ȉ What forms of transparency or participatory validation are needed to ensure that the model serves the public interest? Private sector Ȉ How might participating in model design help us identify collective risks, shared value opportunities, or system bottlenecks? Civil society Ȉ How comfortable are we with the simplifications required in modelling? How can we contribute to complement with more citizen-based inputs? Ȉ In what ways might the model challenge our own narratives or expectations about social dynamics? 46 5. Policy recommendations In terms of Knowledge Valorisation for policy uptake, the FutuResilience project team highlight the following core recommendations: ׉ Promote knowledge valorisation in diverse sectors, topics and areas where strong investment was made. This should be supported by cross-sector learning through open-access repositories, thematic knowledge platforms and curated evidence summaries that highlight what works, for whom and under what conditions. ׉ Build capacities for knowledge translation among policymakers and practitioners, for instance through the role of policy scientists and implementation science. This could enable the ‘translation’ of policy solutions in text forms that are relevant to and accessible by policymakers. ׉ Foster participatory research-to-policy models that integrate lived experiences, non-expert insights and community-based evidence into formal knowledge streams. This promotes ‘transdisciplinary knowledge generation’, enabling acceptance of and trust in diversity and structured integration of non-expert knowledge. ׉ Design ‘Valorisation Sandboxes’ as experimentation spaces to test novel approaches, through structured, time-bound environments where policymakers, researchers, innovators and citizens jointly test policy actions, regulatory flexibilities and new governance models before broader implementation. ׉ Reinforce the role of intermediary organisations to support valorisation, with pre-defined skills and competences as well as capacity to mobilise diverse stakeholders in the process of co-creating challenge-driven solutions. Building on the work done by the FutuResilience labs in building strategies for societal resilience, we propose several cross-cutting policy recommendations to foster societal resilience: ׉ Promote anticipatory governance by strengthening coordination across sectors and levels of policy, fostering collaboration within the science–policy–society triangle and reducing siloed approaches to decision-making. For instance, deliberative multi-stakeholder assemblies could support the institutionalisation of participatory processes. In addition, the assignment of specific roles in resilience-building efforts within existing governmental institutions could enhance multilevel liaison. ׉ Introduce scenario-based stress testing to examine how policies perform under a range of future conditions and to enhance the transformative capacity and robustness of institutions. For instance, stress testing of policy adaptations that could take place when some variable changes (e.g. accelerated unemployment or an increased number of cyber threats) could be embedded as core part of policy design. ׉ Prioritise actions based on impact and feasibility to direct resources where they are most needed, while keeping adaptation strategies flexible and regularly updated in response to changing circumstances. For instance, a living ‘navigation’ chart or tool (e.g. dynamic dashboards) could facilitate the updating of priorities as new data or emerging risks appear and allow for faster exploration of policy alternatives. ׉ Develop capacity-building processes that equip institutions and all levels of governance with the competencies needed to recognise emerging risks, interpret complex system dynamics and act proactively. For example, mandatory periodic training on resilience and multi-hazard preparedness and mitigation or peer-learning processes across governance levels, could improve the understanding and encourage ‘lateral’ thinking on core policy issues, while facilitating the exchange of good practices. Partnering with universities or research institutions specialising in resilience could further strengthen capacity-building processes. 47 ׉ Identify and mobilise community capacities to support society’s ability to manage challenge-based and systemic disruptions, engaging diverse actors in exploring alternative futures rather than concentrating solely on immediate crisis response. For instance, collective community mapping or promoting community ‘future resilience’ exercises as core part of planning could serve as a dual strategy for raising awareness and fostering whole-of-society approaches in policy design. ׉ Invest in education and lifelong learning to embed resilience, critical thinking and digital literacy across society, thereby strengthening long-term adaptive capacity and social preparedness. For example, introducing modules on resilience or territorial risk management in school curricula could improve literacy across the population in the long run. Moreover, partnering with grassroots organisations in training programmes could widen the educational reach and engage other sectors of society. ׉ Shift from isolated pilot projects to scalable interventions by supporting participatory, integrated approaches backed by continuous local budgets and EU funding streams, ensuring initiatives can be sustained over time. For instance, promoting expert support to help local initiatives become scalable (e.g. tailoring and replicating to other regions or rescaling to higher governmental levels) or enabling participatory budgets with cross-sectoral or multilevel partnerships as an implementing requirement. ׉ Align economic incentives with resilience goals by adjusting regulatory frameworks and investment criteria to encourage socially, environmentally and economically sustainable practices. This should go hand-inhand with prioritising high-impact and feasible solutions that align with core societal needs. For example, incentives could be provided to private sector when they include resilience design in their core activities (e.g. lower carbon emission, promoting inclusive market solutions, etc.). This could include public recognition of work (e.g. resilience champions) or tax reduction. Offering micro-grants for community entrepreneurship when market objectives contribute to strengthening societal resilience could also enhance private sector engagement in resilience-building efforts. 48 Resilience dimensions in policy design Across the policy roadmap, the different examples were categorised in terms of main resilience theme and evaluated across five dimensions (See BOX 2: “Profiling resilience strategies”). The graph below illustrates how the five resilience dimensions (social, environmental, institutional, economic and infrastructure) are represented across the FutuResilience labs during the definition of needs and the process towards policy design.2 The following recommendations are examples of the policy design from the labs supporting resilience under the different domains – with a degree of replicability to other contexts – and should serve to enhance societal resilience against multiple, interconnected and overlapping challenges. The list should not be considered exhaustive, but examples of solutions. Further solutions could be navigated in the FutuResilience Knowledge Base. 2 The methodology for the analysis: each lab was assigned one or more labels based on its topics and activities; these labels were then grouped into the five dimensions. The frequency with which each dimension appears across the labs was assessed and translated into a score from 1 to 5 (where 1 indicates that the dimension is present in only one of the two labs, and 5 indicates that it appears in all labs). 49 Social dimension ׉ Strengthen education and skills while promoting social integration and cohesion by expanding lifelong-learning programmes, digital-literacy curricula and community-based mentoring that bring together diverse groups. ׉ Improve the role of media actors in disseminating quality information through training on crisis reporting, partnerships with authorities for verified alerts and strengthened public-service and community media. ׉ Develop accessible tools to inform and alert the population using multilingual, inclusive early-warning systems, local alert networks and unified platforms that share real-time guidance. Economic dimension ׉ Promote targeted actions for different societal groups by supporting apprenticeships, entrepreneurship schemes and inclusive hiring incentives tailored to women, youth and multicultural communities. ׉ Reskill and upskill the labour force through rapid-response training, short-cycle certifications with industry partners and flexible learning models reaching remote or underserved areas. ׉ Support diversified and distributed fiscal policies by enabling adaptive social protection, inclusive tax incentives for small and micro businesses and targeted subsidies for essential services. Environmental dimension ׉ Promote investment strategies for adaptation interventions by incentivising nature-based solutions and locally driven adaptation plans with long-term viability. ׉ Enhance predictive systems for extreme weather events through high-resolution modelling, community monitoring networks and cross-border data sharing to strengthen emergency preparedness. ׉ Enhance ecosystem restoration and risk-mitigation planning by restoring degraded landscapes, protecting biodiversity corridors and integrating ecosystem services into local and regional resilience strategies. Institutional dimension ׉ Establish clear communication channels and decision-making protocols by defining unified crisis-response structures, transparent information dashboards and mechanisms for institutional learning. ׉ Promote cross-border collaboration for crisis management by creating interoperable platforms, running joint simulations and aligning regulatory approaches where feasible. ׉ Facilitate the participation of third sector and social-economy entities by formalising their roles in preparedness plans, funding community-driven solutions and involving them in co-designing policies. Infrastructure dimension ׉ Modernise core data infrastructure with unified standards by creating interoperable registries, adopting strong privacy-by-design frameworks and enabling open yet secure data environments. ׉ Implement interoperability with quality-control mechanisms by certifying critical data systems, auditing data and cybersecurity performance and supporting integration between legacy and new technologies. ׉ Support flexible public-service provision through mobile and digital service units, adaptive scheduling and one-stop access points that reflect people’s real needs and mobility patterns. 50 6. References ׉ Bravo-Biosca, A. (2019). Experimental innovation policy (NBER Working Paper No. w26273). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3454374 ׉ Broadhurst, K., & Gray, N. (2022). Understanding resilient places: Multi-level governance in times of crisis. Local Economy, 37(1–2), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/02690942221100101 ׉ Capano, G., & Woo, J. J. (2017). Resilience and robustness in policy design: A critical appraisal. Policy Sciences, 50(3), 399–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9273-x ׉ Cardenas Cordova, D., Kelly, N., & Rezayan, L. (2025). A systematic literature review of the speculative design process and a proposed framework for speculative design. Design Science, 11. https://doi.org/10.1017/ dsj.2025.10030 ׉ Cuhls, K. (2019). Horizon Scanning in Foresight - Why Horizon Scanning is only a part of the game. Futures and Foresight Science, 2019. DOI: 10.1002/ffo2.23. ׉ Day, G. S., & Schoemaker, P. (2004). Peripheral vision: Sensing and acting on weak signals. Long Range Planning, 37(2), 117–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2004.01.003 ׉ Eneqvist, E. (2022). Experimental governance: Organisational capacity for experimental governance in municipalities (Doctoral thesis, Lund University). DiVA Portal. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/ diva2:1654486/FULLTEXT01.pdf ׉ European Commission. (2024). Policy experimentation in research and innovation. Research and Innovation. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/ ׉ Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002 ׉ Heinonen, S., & Lauttamäki, V. (2012). Backcasting scenarios for Finland 2050 of low emissions. Foresight, 14(4), 304-315, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1463-6689 DOI 10.1108/14636681211256099 ׉ Howlett, M., Capano, G., & Ramesh, M. (2018). Designing for robustness: Surprise, agility and improvisation in policy design. Policy and Society, 37(4), 405–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1504488 ׉ Huitema, D., Jordan, A., Munaretto, S., & Hildén, M. (2018). Policy experimentation: Core concepts, political dynamics, governance and impacts. Policy Sciences, 51(2), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9321-9 ׉ Iphofen, R., & O’Mathúna, D. (Eds.). (2022). Ethical evidence and policymaking: Interdisciplinary and international research. Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781447363972 ׉ Mar, R., & Oatley, K. (2008). The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of social experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(3), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00073.x ׉ Rittel, H., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4531523 ׉ Roth, F., Warnke, P., Niessen, P., & Edler, J. (2021). Insights into systemic resilience from innovation research perspectives (Perspectives Policy Brief 03-2021). Fraunhofer ISI. ׉ Ruhl, J. B. (2011). General design principles for resilience and adaptive capacity in legal systems—With applications to climate change adaptation. North Carolina Law Review, 89, 1373–1406. ׉ Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. (2015). United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. https://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf ׉ Sutton, J., Arcidiacono, A., Torrisi, G., & Arku, R. N. (2023). Regional economic resilience: A scoping review. Progress in Human Geography, 47(4), 500–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325231174183 51 ׉ United Nations Development Programme. (2025). Multi-level governance in crisis-affected settings. https:// www.undp.org/publications/multi-level-governance-crisis-affected-settings ׉ van der Heijden, K. (1997). Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation. John Wiley & Sons. ׉ Vergragt, P. J., & Quist, J. (2011). Backcasting for sustainability: Introduction to the special issue. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(5), 747–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.03.010 6. 1 Further resources ׉ FutuResilience Toolbox: https://futuresilience.eu/toolbox ׉ Using the Future. Contributions to the Field of Foresight: https://www.cifs.dk/read-listen/reports-knowledge/using-the-future ׉ Access to the FutuResilience Knowledge Base: https://futuresilience.eu/knowledge-base 52 Copyright The FutuResilience Policy Roadmap is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-sa/4.0 | When citing or using the material from this document, you must give appropriate credit to the authors of the document, provide a link to the license and indicate if changes were made. Published December 2025