Exploring the Possibility of Linking and Incorporating Future Design in Backcasting and Scenario Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript proposes a discussion on the Future Design (FD) approach as a means to facilitate insight problem solving while generating sustainable solutions.

Despite such an interesting issue, which certainly fits with the journal topics, the manuscript presents several critical flaws that make its quality not in line with the journal standard.

Firstly, the goal of the study is not clearly motivated: in particular, the research context not well introduced so that it is not clear why backcasting and scenario planning are discussed. Moreover, in the introduction the research conclusions are already provided, while a clear description of the research work carried out and its importance in the field of sustainable development are missing.

Although the Authors claim that they provided a systematic review, there is no evidence of it in the manuscript as the criteria used when performing it are not specified.

The case study described in section 3 is not introduced properly, hence its value in the context of the study is unclear.

Similarly, it is not clear which are the benefits of the study: how it contributes to augment scientific knowledge on sustainability?

Research insights and limitations are not discussed in a scientifically sound manner.

Finally, it should be noted that the manuscript is not formatted following the journal rules and some language mistakes/typos can be found.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First, thank you for spending your valuable time on our manuscript and providing us with your comments. Your comments are useful for us to improve our paper. We have tried to clarify all of your quarries and modified our manuscript, accordingly. Our responses to your comments are given below in a .pdf file. Please, kindly find the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The title of this paper is “Future design approach for sustainability: A new attempt of visioning and practicing.”

The authors compare the future design (FD) approach with backcasting and scenario planning for sustainability. They review the commonalities and differences between these three approaches. Two cases of visioning in FD are provided and briefly discussed. The following issues that I consider as significant flaws should be revised or discussed to improve the manuscript. In this case, I think that the manuscript is not suitable for publication in Sustainability in its current form.

Major:

1. The authors put Table 2 on line 85. Therefore, a description of Table 2 should be included in this section. The authors also mention that they show the commonalities and differences between the three approaches in Table 2. However, the comparison among them is vague. Readers may get basic impressions of the three approaches but will not be able to tell their commonalities and differences (which are not completely shown in the table.)
2. According to the three approaches' objectives and applications, it seems that it is not fair to compare FD with the scenario planning approach in the sustainability field.
3. One of the benefits of applying FD is that it considers the perspectives of future generations. It is a major difference between the FD and the other two approaches. How the future generations’ standpoints obtained and how to confirm their representatives should be addressed and shown in the case in section 3.
4. The authors mention two standard procedures for FD on lines 99-111 and three mechanisms, which are IFG, FAB, and IA, on lines 112-127. It would be better to indicate the application of these procedures or mechanisms in the cases in section 3.
5. Line 134: The authors cite references that confirm the urban societies mostly fail to take future generations’ standpoints in FD cases. How this issue affects the performance of FD should be addressed.
6. Line 337: The authors state that several important limitations for FD study should be cautious. These limitations need to be addressed in previous sections.

Minor:

1. In Table 1, it would be better to show the positive visioning first and then the normative visioning. It is because the authors mention the positive visioning in front of the normative one. (see line 45, line 53, etc.)
2. Line 31: There is a “(ii),” but the “(i)” is missing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Firstly, we want to thank you for spending your precious time on our manuscript and providing valuable comments. Your comments are very constructive and useful for us to make improvements to our paper. We have tried to clarify all of your quarries and modified our manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given below in more detail.

Please, kindly find the attachment below.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, the article is well-designed and quite readable.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We want to thank you for spending your precious time on our manuscript.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper proposes a critical review of three possible approaches to planning and design for sustainability by emphasizing the potential of "future design" versus backstaging and scenario-planning. It pays particular attention to the role of visioning – positive and normative – in stimulating future solutions, especially by trying to take into account the needs of the next generations. A deeper contextualisation of the specific disciplinary field would help to better define the potential and limitations of this type of approach and the methodological and conceptual tools on which it is based.

In the second part of the approach, when mention is made of the "scientific" experiments carried out, one of which is then partially described in the third paragraph, it would be useful to go into more detail. It is not clear whether it is qualitative or quantitative research and methods and therefore the potential replicability of the experiment and research experience. For example, the difference between the experiences in the controlled environment of the laboratory and those in the field of the reported studies are not related to the example shown. Given that many of the bibliographical references and experiments cited refer to previous works by the authors, it would be useful to summarize and compare the Japanese and Nepalese case studies. It is not clear what were the methodologies, the script and the activities carried out in the 7 workshops by the subjects involved.

As the FD approach seems to be particularly effective in designing "for" future generations, the concept of generation should be strictly defined. Is reference being made to shared classifications such as Boomers, Millenials, Gen Z or specific age groups (e.g. 30-year cycles)?

Besides, having regard to the initiatives of direct participation of teenagers in claiming their own future and therefore the actions of politics, companies, institutions and societies spontaneously arising as Fridays For Future, what role and involvement the FD approach can offer to the debate? In addition to the possibility that positive and normative envisioning offers in the "identification" in future generations, is it possible to offer a role of co-creation and participation to the them?

In order to validate the methodology also in an empirical way, it would have been interesting to pose the same sustainability problem oand to face it with the three approaches by comparing the limits and potentiality of the experimental response given by the subjects involved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

First, thank you for spending the time on our manuscript and providing us with your comments. Your comments are very constructive and useful for improving our manuscript. We have tried to clarify all of your quarries and modified the manuscript accordingly. Our responses to your comments are given below. Please, kindly find the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors have improved the manuscript considerably. However, some flaws still remain.

Firstly, the language and style should be improved, starting from the full stop in the title.

Then, the discussion of results is indeed poor: which are the benefits of the study? Which are major findings? And which are sustainability implications?

In both the introduction and the conclusive remarks similar statements on sustainability can be found, while the latter are not proven. For example, in lines 357-359, the Authors say:

“This paper provides an overview about FD approach and discusses the potential benefit of linking and incorporating it into backcasting and scenario planning through summarizing their main features for future planning to sustainability.” But practical evidence on how the features of FD can lead to sustainable solutions is unclear. Accordingly, the scientific soundness of the study cannot be demonstrated.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. We really appreciate your suggestions and comments that you have given us to improve the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I really appreciated the effort made by authors t integrate suggestions and comments. The proposed experiments and cases studies discussed are clearly illustrated and related to the overall structure of the paper.

Author Response

Thank you very much for accepting our manuscript. We have made English editorial service check for correcting minor spell check and fix English style