decisions(2)

Access to healthcare: unequal access to healthcare (9), more access to healthcare (2)

### **Social Connection and Relationships**

Isolation and connection: isolation/individualisation (9), social and economic fragmentation (6), more connectivity (4), household relationships (2)

Digitalised world: digital connections (11), more surveillance/manipulation (3)

Notes: Physical and mental health changes were mentioned as part of the changes in daily living from the *Global Foresight Survey of Potential Changes in Society by 2050: Perspectives of Research Institutes and NGOs*. Multiple labels were allowed per response, and frequency of counts is in parentheses. The unit of analysis is reported changes in daily living, and each respondent could report up to two changes. N =71.

Thirty-eight responses focused on **health**, covering four areas: Innovation in healthcare, new challenges, longevity, and access to healthcare (see Table 4). For**innovation in healthcare**, technological advancement would bring innovation to healthcare, which might involve developing more effective treatments of some diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer's disease. Due to the high cost, healthcare will likely only be accessible to those who could afford it. The application of massive datasets will also be common for automated diagnosis and remote healthcare, and healthcare will be more personalised, with self-monitoring, precision medicine, and preventive care. Some **new challenges** were also raised, such as antibiotic resistance, diseases from environmental degradation, lifestyle diseases, and mental diseases. For **longevity**, advances in healthcare technology will mean people living longer but will also cause longer morbidity periods and unhealthy older age, leading to the need to consider end-of-life decisions involving assisted suicide. There were also views that due to increased health concerns, there will be improvements the quality of life for older adults. In terms of **access to healthcare**, the view is that access to healthcare would remain unequal in spite of technology advancement. There were also responses on the emergence of private entities that might make healthcare more accessible in innovative ways.

Twenty-five responses focused on **social connection and relationships**, specifically on isolation and connection and on the digitalised world (see Table 4). In terms of **isolation and connection**, there were views that people would be more isolated due to the spread of Western lifestyles and, thus, people would focus more on self-improvement and individual lifestyle. Other factors include fewer marriages, more divorces, smaller families, digital communication, and more individualised

leisure pursuits. Responses citing more connection are supported by the fact that people would return to their extended families due to ageing demographics, more time for social networking due to less work, and globalisation leading to more tolerance for diversity. There were also responses on changing perceptions of gender due to women's empowerment. For **digitalised world**, social interactions are more likely to take place online, with reduced attention spans and less intimacy. There were also views that online connections might collapse, and people would return to face-to-face communication. Due to increased online communication, there were also concerns about greater surveillance and manipulation by using big data to control people's behaviour.

### 4.1.5. Determining Factors on Shaping Future Sustainable Lifestyles

Based on the survey results, we derived several determining factors in shaping future lifestyles for each aspect of lifestyle. For consumption, respondents discussed reducing the level of consumption of food (meat) and manufactured goods, but with different rationales depending on the group: For some, it would be due to scarcity of resources, while for others, it would be to fulfil their values on health and the environment. According to research using quantitative analysis to determine the required level of consumption to achieve long-term sustainability [34], these survey results add value to the discussion in the form of various drivers underlying the changes in consumption level.

In terms of infrastructure, technological advancement appears to be an important factor in providing more choices, although respondents noted affordability and equal accessibility as concerns. Thus, technological improvement—and the implication that it could fulfil people's pursuit of a meaningful life—requires additional research [8]. Changes in work and education are disruptive due to technological innovation, meaning they require engaging the general public in a more comprehensive assessment of the desired direction [35]. In terms of physical and mental health, uncertainties remain regarding mental health's effects on people's lifestyles, such as on whether longevity contributes to a more active later life and on whether digitalisation would contribute to more meaningful connections or result in more isolation.

The interpretations on sustainable lifestyles are diverse and non-static, and the respondents of the survey provided a diverse set of possibilities in how the future lifestyles could change. Thus, based on the individuals' interpretation of their desirable future lifestyles, discussions on whether foresight future changes in lifestyles are sustainable or not could be included in the public discussion on the participatory foresight process.

### *4.2. Stakeholder Roles*

### 4.2.1. The Strength of Different Stakeholders' Roles

Based on the free-text responses, Figure 2 depicts the changing strength of different stakeholders between now and 2050. Government (national governments) is the only stakeholder whose power is perceived by respondents as neutral or weaker. Of those responding on government, 25% think its role will be stronger than today, compared to 29% who provided neutral responses and 46% who think its role will be weakened. A major factor raised by the respondents saying the government's role will be stronger was the belief that governmen<sup>t</sup> will impose greater control and regulations on society, people, and companies. Those selecting neutral said government's structure will be more decentralised and interactive through direct democracy. Those selecting weaker provided reasons such as reduced public trust in politicians, reduced need for politicians since people could more easily reach consensus using digital platforms, government's inability to handle the challenges caused by climate change and a rapidly changing society, and the independence of central entities from nation-states.

The majority of respondents (74%) believe the role of the **private sector** will be stronger due to increased privatisation of social services, the private sector's potential role in the common good or in society's destruction, and mega-corporations increased influence on governmen<sup>t</sup> policies. Seventeen per cent of respondents consider the private sector's role to be neutral, mentioning changes in its

production process and working models, and 9% believe it will be weaker due to regulations and the redistribution of capital to the government, civil society, and customers.

**Figure 2.** Respondents' projected changes to stakeholders' strength. Notes: the share of the strengths of stakeholders described in the responses of changes in stakeholders' roles in the *Global Foresight Survey of Potential Changes in Society by 2050: Perspectives of Research Institutes and NGOs*. The unit of analysis is reported changes in stakeholders' roles. N = 124.

For **research communities**, 58% of respondents think these communities' role will be stronger due to increasing global complexities. Responses also indicated that different stakeholders are likely to value the knowledge produced by researchers, who would thus have a larger role in the decision-making process. Twenty-five per cent of respondents provided a neutral response, while 17% said researchers' role would be weaker due to a shift from research to consultancy work and due to decreased respect for science due to the overflow of information available online.

Civil society, local communities, and households and individuals represent stakeholders at the grassroots level, although there are some overlaps in the classifications of the three groups. Depending on assumptions, local communities, households, and individuals are part of civil society, which could gain the power to act against other stakeholders that are traditionally included in foresight exercises such as the governmen<sup>t</sup> and private sector [14]. The topic of sustainable lifestyles covers many tangible aspects of daily living and require local communities at the municipal and community levels to provide infrastructure for necessary collective actions [16]. Households and individuals are required make lifestyles decisions and become vital actors in the participatory foresight process. Thus, the distinctions between the three sets of actors are made in this study.

Seventy-eight per cent of respondents who selected **civil society** indicated that its role will be stronger. Civil society is considered a leader in social change through social movements, self-organisation to build large networks through technological platforms, and greater activity in the policy process and service provision; civil society also acts to counter the power balance with the private sector and fills power vacuums created by a weakened government. Those empowering civil society will act at both the local and global level. Nineteen per cent of responses were neutral, mainly because respondents were unsure whether civil society would be stronger or weaker in the future, and 4% said civil society will be weakened due to the increasing influence of large corporations.

As with civil society, the vast majority of respondents (80%) said **local communities** will have a stronger role due to stronger supportive and inclusive networks developed at the community level for local needs such as local production and consumption. Advances in communication technology will also likely enable people to collectively influence national policies. These changes will probably fill the gaps and bridge the inability of services and governance that only rely on the government. Five per cent of respondents were neutral, and 15% said that local communities would be weaker due to

young people becoming more detached from the real world, the loss of a sense of community, and the impoverishment of local communities due to urbanisation.

For **households and individuals**, 71% of respondents said that this group would be stronger due to the improvement of communication technology for information-sharing and that it would be more independent due to the home production of goods and services. As consumers, households and individuals would also demand more sustainable products. Conversely, 29% think these actors would become weaker due to structural unemployment and increased inequality, loss of power to corporations and a wealthy minority, and lack of concern for the real world because of increased attention to the virtual world.

### 4.2.2. Cross-Analysis of the Strengths and Positiveness in Stakeholder Roles

Considering the importance of stakeholders' role in the participatory foresight process, we also conducted a cross-analysis of the strength and positiveness in their changing roles by respondents. For instance, the response below illustrates that local communities will have a stronger role, and this is considered to be positive to the society's sustainability by the respondent:

*"Local communities will be more supportive of equity and inclusion, being more integrated socially, economically, and racially; communities will be supportive of co-production of many needs, and of trading*/*exchanging goods and services internally; they will with their governments and utilities evolve the energy grid to enable in-home and in-community production and storage; they will be more caring for all in the community, supporting the opportunities for all to contribute, grow in meaning and thrive."*

Another example below shows that households are getting weaker, and this is considered to be negative to the society's sustainability by the respondent:

*"Individuals are losing ground on several counts—corporate rights are stronger, ability for individuals to fight the system are eroding; taxes favor wealthy and corporations; unions are weakening, as are worker rights."*

Figure 3 depicts the positiveness of the foresighted future related to stakeholders' changing roles, and Figure 4 depicts the cross-analysis on strength and positiveness.

In terms of the positiveness of the foresighted future related to stakeholders' changing roles, the majority of those who selected governments, the private sector, and research communities selected neutral, which implies that these actors' role could move in either direction. For civil society and local communities, responses were more positive (48% and 60%, respectively). Responses for households and individuals were well-distributed: 29% positive, 36% neutral, and 36% negative.

The results of the cross-analysis on the strengths and positiveness of the changing roles of each stakeholder (see Figure 4) demonstrate that there are variable implications for di fferent stakeholders. For government, the majority of respondents consider a stronger role to be positive and a weakened role to be negative, meaning government's role should be stronger for a positive future. For the private sector, most respondents selected a stronger role, but its positiveness implication is more 'neutral'; this implies that the private sector's strengthened role could be either positive or negative in the future. A weakened role for the research community was considered negative, meaning these communities should be strengthened for a positive outcome.

Most respondents indicated that civil society should have a stronger role, although responses on positiveness were divided between positive and neutral. Nevertheless, this was a negative outcome for those who did not feel civil society would be stronger. Additionally, although most respondents said local communities' role would be stronger, some gave a neutral response, and positiveness was divided among positive, neutral, and negative; this implies that uncertainty exists with regards to the future direction of this stakeholder group. For households and individuals, although the majority felt this group's role would be stronger, some felt its role would be neutral. Nevertheless, weakened households and individuals were considered negative.

**Figure 3.** Positiveness of the foresighted future related to stakeholders' changing roles. Notes: the share of the positiveness of future described in the responses of changes in stakeholders' roles in the *Global Foresight Survey of Potential Changes in Society by 2050: Perspectives of Research Institutes and NGOs*. The unit of analysis is reported changes in stakeholders' roles. N = 124.

**Figure 4.** Cross-analysis of the strength and positiveness of stakeholders' changing roles. Notes: mosaic plots of the strengths of the stakeholder and the positiveness of the future described in the responses of changes in stakeholders' roles in the *Global Foresight Survey of Potential Changes in Society by 2050: Perspectives of Research Institutes and NGOs*. Horizontal axis refers to the strengths of stakeholders. Vertical axis refers to the positiveness of future. The size of boxes refers to the number of responses belongs to each combination of strength and positiveness. The unit of analysis is reported changes in stakeholders' roles. N = 124.

### 4.2.3. Stakeholders' Changing Roles

The results on stakeholders' changing roles between now and 2050 indicate that the government's role could be weaker in the future. More actors at the grassroots level—such as civil society, local communities, and households and individuals—are expected to increase their roles and positively change society. Thus, in foresight design, relying on a government-led process is no longer e fficient when other essential stakeholders from the grassroots level are missing. Although not perceived positively when having a stronger role, the private sector was found to be pivotal in shaping futures both positively and negatively. Thus, engaging the private sector in the foresight process could provide a foundation to involve it in discussions on transitioning to a desirable future. For research communities, foresight experts have been key actors in government-led foresight, and the role of research is likely to remain vital, involving di fferent actors and facilitating their future-oriented thinking in the foresight process. Currently, foresight serves to inform policymakers mostly based on expert knowledge, but this must be expanded to gather the general public's collective knowledge and to empower individuals to shape policies for the desired long-term transition.

### **5. Policy Formation toward Long-Term Sustainable Lifestyles under Participatory Foresight**

This analysis of the survey results makes an important contribution to discussions on policy formation towards long-term sustainable lifestyles through participatory foresight in two aspects.


Foresight should not be limited to the future of technology, as is commonly the case; it should also be used to understand and shape societal expectations and more nuanced areas such as value systems, which tend to shape norms and lifestyle choices. Policy processes designed to benefit from the foresight approach should contribute to the decision-making process by involving various stakeholders and maintaining an openness to a variety of possible futures [10]. Such openness and wider participation would give policy more legitimacy, and thus lead to greater uptake and more e ffective implementation. However, to be successful, policy processes enabled by foresight would need to be grounded in science-based information, supported by stakeholder education on issues and risks needing to be addressed, and led through a well-facilitated process. Moreover, ongoing e fforts to discuss people's lifestyles in foresight exercises are mostly being carried out in European countries [13,31], whereas this survey provides a more global context on this topic.

This paper has provided examples of involving di fferent stakeholders in the participatory foresight process to illustrate factors to consider in the future development of policies on the long-term sustainability of lifestyles. The benefits of foresight in policymaking could have both instrumental value in a more informed decision-making process and also intrinsic value through empowering citizens in a participatory policymaking process [8]. However, a major challenge in future foresight design is how to engage with di fferent stakeholders in the foresight process when the speed of change is increasing due to technological disruption and the interconnectedness of the global system. The current period of uncertainty also provides opportunities to move in a more sustainable direction, with the recent outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) resulting in destructive changes to society during lockdowns that have impacted people's employment, mobility, leisure, and mental well-being. Many of the possibilities discussed in the expert survey provide determining factors to move forward, such as the discussion on universal basic income and the implications of the rapid digitalisation of people's lives for privacy. Although COVID-19s long-term sustainability implications for society and for people's lives require greater scrutiny and discussion, the destructive changes provide a space to boldly reimagine di fferent futures, especially among those who have the agency in democratic societies. Rather than waiting with anxiety and passiveness, applying a participatory foresight mindset means that inventing a new future—not merely extending business as usual—could be the way forward.

When looking at instrumental values, Slaughter (1995) [36] considers foresight to be 'a process that attempts to broaden the boundaries of perceptions in four ways: By assessing the implications of present actions, decisions, etc. (consequent assessment); by detecting and avoiding problems before they occur (early warning and guidance); by considering the present implications of possible future events (proactive future formulation); and by envisioning aspects of desired futures (normative scenarios).' Instrumental or more strategic aspects [8] of contributions from this research in the field of foresight demonstrate that there have been changes to di fferent aspects of future lifestyles and to stakeholders' roles. The survey results discussed here illustrate that the determining factors extend beyond a domain-based approach to lifestyles, which could facilitate more holistic and systemic views when engaging stakeholders in foresight discussions. One cross-cutting trend is the polarisation of those who will have more options as technology advances and those who will likely be deprived and marginalised due to increasing inequity. Moreover, even for individuals with more options, the implications of a 'better quality' of life are complex and require discussion with the general public.

From an intrinsic perspective [8], there are limitations to engaging 'non-expert' groups such as citizens in this process. Insights into stakeholders' changing role demonstrate that greater engagemen<sup>t</sup> with stakeholders from local communities, civil society, and households and individuals could empower them and lead to positive changes for society. Meanwhile, the roles of government, the private sector, and research communities have the potential to move in either a positive or negative direction in the future. Interestingly, the survey results indicate the private sector has the potential to make a transition to be more—or less—sustainable. As the private sector is a key stakeholder, its involvement and cooperation with other stakeholders should be more strongly facilitated in the participatory foresight process.

Due to the potentially increasing role of grassroots-level stakeholders, a foresight process with a more bottom-up approach feeding into policy design could mean a more inclusive policy process. Such opportunities should be used in engaging stakeholders in foresight design. However, when focusing on future lifestyles, it is even more relevant and tangible for citizens to be part of the policy-formation process. In fact, even a bottom-up foresight process is normally facilitated by experts in the foresight field who then engage the general public to discuss their futures [13,31]; thus, more collaboration among experts and grassroots-level stakeholders could empower both sets of stakeholders. Due to the perceived declining strength of governmen<sup>t</sup> in the survey results, engaging other stakeholders in policymaking would not only ensure a more inclusive process to better reflect the needs of all stakeholders but also delegate some of the government's roles to other stakeholders as a part of their democratic participation.
