2023

Jump to: 2021, 2020, 2019

15 pages, 3210 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Proxy Voting for Future Generations: A Laboratory Experiment Using the General Public

by Kentaro Miyake, Yoichi Hizen and Tatsuyoshi Saijo

Sustainability 2023, 15(19), 14310; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914310 - 28 Sep 2023

Cited by 1 | Viewed by 709

To realize policies that benefit the youth and future generations, discussions are being held on how to give the votes of children who are currently ineligible to vote, and even future unborn generations, to their parents or voters of the present generation to [...] Read more.

To realize policies that benefit the youth and future generations, discussions are being held on how to give the votes of children who are currently ineligible to vote, and even future unborn generations, to their parents or voters of the present generation to vote as their proxies. To examine the effect of proxy voting on future-friendly choices, we conducted a laboratory experiment with the general public, including parents. Participants were assigned the roles of present and future generations, and the present-generation participants voted on allocating payoffs between generations. Proxy votes for future-generation participants were granted to some present-generation participants. We found that proxy voting did not increase the proportion of votes for future-friendly choices compared to the case without proxy votes, which is consistent with previous studies involving university students. We also observed that the older the participants, the more likely they were to vote for future-friendly choices. Once age was controlled for, parents were less likely than non-parents to vote for future-friendly choices. From a consequentialist perspective, these results suggest that we should add a twist to proxy voting, examine non-proxy voting methods, or explore other measures. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure A1

2021

Jump to: 2023, 2020, 2019

18 pages, 1600 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Deliberative Forms of Democracy and Intergenerational Sustainability Dilemma

by Pankaj Koirala, Raja Rajendra Timilsina and Koji Kotani

Sustainability 2021, 13(13), 7377; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137377 - 01 Jul 2021

Cited by 4 | Viewed by 4360

Abstract

Intergenerational sustainability (IS) has emerged as the most serious social problem reflecting climate change and accumulation of public debt in modern democratic societies, undermining the potential interests and concerns of future generations. However, little is known about whether or not deliberative forms of [...] Read more.

Intergenerational sustainability (IS) has emerged as the most serious social problem reflecting climate change and accumulation of public debt in modern democratic societies, undermining the potential interests and concerns of future generations. However, little is known about whether or not deliberative forms of democracy with majority voting help support at maintaining IS by representing future generations’ potential interests and concerns. We institute IS dilemma game with three forms of decision-making models with majority voting and examine how they maintain IS in laboratory experiments. In the IS dilemma game, a sequence of six generations is prepared where each generation consisting of three subjects is asked to choose either maintaining IS (sustainable option) or maximizing their own generation’s payoff by irreversibly costing the subsequent generations (unsustainable option) with anonymous voting systems: (1) majority voting (MV), (2) deliberative majority voting (DMV) and (3) majority voting with deliberative accountability (MVDA). In MV and DMV, generations vote for their choices without and with deliberation, respectively. In MVDA, generations are asked to be possibly accountable for their choices to the subsequent generations during deliberation, and then vote. Our analysis shows that a decision-making model with only majority voting generally does not address IS, while DMV and MVDA treatments induce more and much more generations to choose a sustainable option than MV, respectively. Overall, the results demonstrate that deliberation and accountability along with majority voting shall be necessary in models of decision-making at resolving IS problems and representing future generations’ potential interests and concerns. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

27 pages, 5104 KiB

Open AccessArticle

What Do People Say When They Become “Future People”?―Positioning Imaginary Future Generations (IFGs) in General Rules for Good Decision-Making

by Toshiaki Hiromitsu, Yoko Kitakaji, Keishiro Hara and Tatsuyoshi Saijo

Sustainability 2021, 13(12), 6631; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126631 - 10 Jun 2021

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 2972

Abstract

In public decisions with long-term implications, decisions of the present generation will affect long-term welfare, including future generations. However, only the present generation is able to participate in such decision-making processes. In this study, we invited “Imaginary Future Generations” (IFGs), as participants in [...] Read more.

In public decisions with long-term implications, decisions of the present generation will affect long-term welfare, including future generations. However, only the present generation is able to participate in such decision-making processes. In this study, we invited “Imaginary Future Generations” (IFGs), as participants in a discussion who take on the role of members of future generations to argue on behalf of their future interests to engage in present-day deliberations among residents of a Japanese town. Through analysis, it was seen that the deliberations among IFGs rose interest in issues that are related to common fundamental needs across generations. While the cognitive aspects of interpersonal reactivity, which measure the reactions of one individual to the observed experiences of another, were seen as useful in arguing for the interests of future generations, it was suggested that the environment for deliberation had a significant impact on the ability to effectively take on the role of members of future generations. Finally, this paper positioned IFGs within the broad context of general rules for good decision-making, based on an analysis of these deliberations and in light of philosophical arguments such as the veil of ignorance by John Rawls. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

2020

Jump to: 2023, 2021, 2019

10 pages, 230 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Intergenerational Bubbles of Beliefs for Sustainability

by Keiichiro Kobayashi and Asako Chiba

Sustainability 2020, 12(24), 10652; https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410652 - 20 Dec 2020

Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1590

Abstract

We constructed a simple model of a dynamic economy in which the current generation chooses to excessively consume, thereby rendering society unsustainable. In such an economy, we assumed that a notional bubbly asset emerges, and its value grows if the current generation conserves [...] Read more.

We constructed a simple model of a dynamic economy in which the current generation chooses to excessively consume, thereby rendering society unsustainable. In such an economy, we assumed that a notional bubbly asset emerges, and its value grows if the current generation conserves adequate resources for future generations. Provided that the bubbly asset is considered valuable, the current generation chooses to conserve resources, rendering the economy sustainable. The condition for sustainability is that the value of this asset grows intergenerationally and indefinitely. The asset represents a belief system, such as a religious doctrine or a political ideology. Results imply that, to restore sustainability, a new intergenerational belief system must be identified, and its value grows indefinitely. Full article

14 pages, 892 KiB

Open AccessArticle

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

by Raja R. Timilsina, Yoshinori Nakagawa and Koji Kotani

Sustainability 2020, 12(23), 9907; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239907 - 27 Nov 2020

Cited by 7 | Viewed by 3168

Abstract

There are two approaches to future planning: backcasting and scenario planning. While some studies have attempted to relate and combine these two approaches, a future design (FD) approach has recently been advocated and researched. Given this state of affairs, the paper provides an [...] Read more.

There are two approaches to future planning: backcasting and scenario planning. While some studies have attempted to relate and combine these two approaches, a future design (FD) approach has recently been advocated and researched. Given this state of affairs, the paper provides an overview of the FD approach and discusses the potential benefits of linking and incorporating it into backcasting and scenario planning by summarizing the main features of such benefits for future planning for sustainability. A feature of an FD is that it explicitly orients people’s ways of thinking in the current generation to be generative for not only their own future but also generations to come, as well as in designing a plan within a coherent timeframe by demonstrating the characteristics of being prospective and retrospective from the viewpoint of a different generation. Another feature of FD lies in strategy making through some visioning process and in redefining the boundary between what is controllable and what is uncontrollable by considering the perspectives of future generations. We consider this article as a concept paper for the special issue of “Designing Sustainable Future Societies,” building on a literature review and author’s conceptual framework. Thus, our ideas and concepts suggest some potential benefits from incorporating FD into backcasting and scenario planning, further inducing people to be future-oriented and/or sustainable in terms of strategy making. We finally demonstrate some examples of FD practices and illustrative ideas of FD incorporation, remarking on possible avenues for future research. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

25 pages, 2836 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Impact of Future Design on Workshop Participants’ Time Preferences

by Naoko Nishimura, Nobuhiro Inoue, Hiroaki Masuhara and Tadahiko Musha

Sustainability 2020, 12(18), 7796; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187796 - 21 Sep 2020

Cited by 9 | Viewed by 5366

Abstract

In this paper, we examine the impact of Future Design (FD) on public workshops organized in Matsumoto city, Japan, for its city hall renovation plan. We ran an FD workshop and an ordinary workshop as a control, and the participants were randomly assigned [...] Read more.

In this paper, we examine the impact of Future Design (FD) on public workshops organized in Matsumoto city, Japan, for its city hall renovation plan. We ran an FD workshop and an ordinary workshop as a control, and the participants were randomly assigned to one of the two workshops. We identified the SVO (social value orientation) type (pro-social, pro-self, and other) and elicited time preference of each participant using simple questionnaires that were independent of the context of the workshops. We found that pro-self individuals tend to have shorter time perspectives than pro-social individuals before the workshops. While the pro-self individuals who went through the ordinary workshop became even more myopic, we did not detect such adverse effects in the FD workshop. This contrast between the ordinary and FD workshops is consistent with the qualitative differences in the policy outcomes between the two workshops. The discussions in the ordinary workshop tended to focus on the resolution of today’s needs, such as acquiring more rooms and more services, etc., while the discussions in the FD workshop focused on the more fundamental functions of the city hall that will be needed in the future, thereby leading to more constructive policy proposals. Such demand-based discussions in the ordinary workshop may have been a result of the growing myopia within the pro-self participants, who insisted on ensuring their current needs. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

15 pages, 1028 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Future Design as a Metacognitive Intervention for Presentism

by Yoshinori Nakagawa and Tatsuyoshi Saijo

Sustainability 2020, 12(18), 7552; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187552 - 14 Sep 2020

Cited by 10 | Viewed by 3254 | Correction

Abstract

Many serious problems occur due to conflicts between the interests of the present generation and the welfare of future generations, and thus, the actions of the preset generation may be a consequence of presentism. Drawing on the theoretical framework of metacognition, the present [...] Read more.

Many serious problems occur due to conflicts between the interests of the present generation and the welfare of future generations, and thus, the actions of the preset generation may be a consequence of presentism. Drawing on the theoretical framework of metacognition, the present study investigates how presentism can be overcome through future design interventions that incorporate an imaginary future generation setting. Four workshop participants were interviewed, and transcripts of the interviews were made. There were two major findings. First, we identified narratives in the responses of participants that suggest that metacognition was active during the workshops concerning the two cognitions governed by present and future selves. Second, the narratives identified above were classified into two categories, and the two corresponding roles of metacognition were identified: the monitoring and controlling function and the harmonizing function. The former is essential for the acquisition of identity as a future person; the latter is essential for reconciling this future identity with the identity of the person in the present. The present study proposes that future design is a tool that can be used to intervene in the metacognition of individuals concerning how one chooses a temporal reference point from which to view the past, present, and future of society rather than a tool to naively motivate individuals to care for future generations. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 867 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Motivational Factors in Intergenerational Sustainability Dilemma: A Post-Interview Analysis

by Mostafa E. Shahen, Wada Masaya, Koji Kotani and Tatsuyoshi Saijo

Sustainability 2020, 12(17), 7078; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177078 - 30 Aug 2020

Cited by 4 | Viewed by 2657

Abstract

An intergenerational sustainability dilemma (ISD) is a situation of whether or not a person sacrifices herself for future sustainability. However, little is known about what people consider while making a decision under ISD. This paper analyzes motivational factors for people to decide under [...] Read more.

An intergenerational sustainability dilemma (ISD) is a situation of whether or not a person sacrifices herself for future sustainability. However, little is known about what people consider while making a decision under ISD. This paper analyzes motivational factors for people to decide under ISD, hypothesizing that the factors can be different with or without perspective-taking of future generations. One-person basic ISD game (ISDG) along with post-interviews are instituted where a lineup of individuals is organized as a generational sequence. Each individual chooses an unsustainable (or sustainable) option with (without) irreversibly costing future generations in 36 situations. A future ahead and back (FAB) mechanism is applied as a treatment for perspective-taking of future generations where each individual is asked to take the next generation’s position and to make a request about the choice that he/she wants the current generation to choose, and next, he/she makes the actual decision from the original position. By analyzing the post-interview contents with text-mining techniques, the paper finds that individuals mostly consider how previous generations had behaved in basic ISDG as the main motivational factor. However, individuals in FAB treatment are induced to put more weight on the possible consequences of their decisions for future generations as motivational factors. The findings suggest that perspective-taking of future generations through FAB mechanism enables people to change not only their behaviors but also motivational factors, enhancing ISD. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

21 pages, 615 KiB

Open AccessReview

Future Design: Bequeathing Sustainable Natural Environments and Sustainable Societies to Future Generations

by Tatsuyoshi Saijo

Sustainability 2020, 12(16), 6467; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166467 - 11 Aug 2020

Cited by 34 | Viewed by 7977

Abstract

“Future Design,” a new movement among Japanese researchers and stakeholders, asks the following question: What types of social systems are necessary if we are to leave future generations sustainable environments and societies? Looking at the human activity impact on the global environment and [...] Read more.

“Future Design,” a new movement among Japanese researchers and stakeholders, asks the following question: What types of social systems are necessary if we are to leave future generations sustainable environments and societies? Looking at the human activity impact on the global environment and society, I ask: Why is this society we live in generating a series of future failures that will cost future generations so much? I then argue that the source of such a society could be liberalism and that the market and democracy derived from it will not help avoid these future failures. To achieve this, one must design social systems that activate a human trait called futurability, where people experience an increase in happiness because of deciding and acting toward foregoing current benefits to enrich future generations. One method to study these is by employing “imaginary future generations”. Here, I present an overview of the theoretical background of this method, the results of relevant laboratory and field experiments, and the nature of relevant practical applications implemented in cooperation with several local governments. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

15 pages, 401 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Does Voting Solve the Intergenerational Sustainability Dilemma?

by Shun Katsuki and Yoichi Hizen

Sustainability 2020, 12(16), 6311; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166311 - 05 Aug 2020

Cited by 7 | Viewed by 2044

Abstract

Does voting solve the intergenerational sustainability dilemma? Do voting rules matter when trying to induce people to collectively select a sustainable alternative that leaves more resources for future generations? To answer these questions, we conducted a laboratory experiment using an intergenerational sustainability dilemma [...] Read more.

Does voting solve the intergenerational sustainability dilemma? Do voting rules matter when trying to induce people to collectively select a sustainable alternative that leaves more resources for future generations? To answer these questions, we conducted a laboratory experiment using an intergenerational sustainability dilemma game in which players are asked to choose between two alternatives. Choosing the alternative that maximizes the players’ immediate benefit decreases the resources left for subsequent generations. The choice is made by the votes cast within small groups representing successive generations. We compare three voting rules: ordinary voting, whereby each person in the group has one vote; proxy voting, whereby some but not all of the players are given an extra vote to cast on behalf of subsequent generations; and two-ballot voting, whereby all players are given an extra vote. We observe that both proxy voting and two-ballot voting increase the frequency at which the sustainable alternative is selected; however, the frequency of such a choice remains low. This suggests that voting individually is a relatively ineffective way to elicit sustainable choices from successive generations even if the rules of voting are modified. Full article

17 pages, 3675 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Citizen-Participatory Scenario Design Methodology with Future Design Approach: A Case Study of Visioning of a Low-Carbon Society in Suita City, Japan

by Michinori Uwasu, Yusuke Kishita, Keishiro Hara and Yutaka Nomaguchi

Sustainability 2020, 12(11), 4746; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114746 - 10 Jun 2020

Cited by 18 | Viewed by 4082

Abstract

A scenario approach is often used to envision sustainable futures. Several important scenario design factors are identified in the literature, which include the demonstration of deliberation and the participation of stakeholders; however, specific methodologies of scenario design are yet to be established. Accordingly, [...] Read more.

A scenario approach is often used to envision sustainable futures. Several important scenario design factors are identified in the literature, which include the demonstration of deliberation and the participation of stakeholders; however, specific methodologies of scenario design are yet to be established. Accordingly, in this study, we demonstrate a series of workshops involving ordinary citizens for energy visioning in Suita city, Japan, and propose a new citizen-participatory scenario design methodology based on the combination of scenario design and future design approaches. It is shown that the inclusion of future generations in deliberation is effective for creating future visions in a specific context and deriving policy implications. Specifically, by analyzing the deliberation process and the proposed scenarios, it was confirmed that the scenarios proposed by future generations were proactive in terms of paying the costs incurred to facilitate the realization of policies toward achieving a long-term vision. Furthermore, even though the proposals made by the future generations imposed additional burdens for current generations, post-workshop scenario assessment revealed that current generations are supportive of these scenarios. It is concluded that the proposed methodology is effective since it can overcome uncertainties, include holistic scopes, and consider a long-term time horizon. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

15 pages, 1160 KiB

Open AccessFeature PaperArticle

Taking a Future Generation’s Perspective as a Facilitator of Insight Problem-Solving: Sustainable Water Supply Management

by Yoshinori Nakagawa

Sustainability 2020, 12(3), 1000; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031000 - 30 Jan 2020

Cited by 14 | Viewed by 3480

Abstract

Human societies face various unsustainability problems, often characterized as “wicked” in the sense that they have no single definitive formulation. Thus, the role of creativity or insight in solving such problems has attracted a lot of attention from scholars. Therefore, this study investigated [...] Read more.

Human societies face various unsustainability problems, often characterized as “wicked” in the sense that they have no single definitive formulation. Thus, the role of creativity or insight in solving such problems has attracted a lot of attention from scholars. Therefore, this study investigated how an emerging methodology, Future Design (and its unique intervention of asking problem solvers to take a future generation’s perspective), can facilitate insight problem solving (IPS) and the generation of sustainable solutions. In a municipality in Japan, nine officers from a bureau responsible for water supply management participated in a series of seven Future Design workshops. In two groups, these officers created visions of water supply management 30 years into the future, taking the perspective of a future generation working in the same municipality. On the basis of in-depth transcription analyses of these workshops, we obtained a hypothetical framework demonstrating that four factors mediate the influence of perspective taking on IPS: (a) Discounting the present generation’s cost, (b) contrasting the future with the present, (c) deconstructing hierarchy, and (d) intellectual joy. While the first three mediators (a, b, and c) were considered to be contributors to the problem reframing and IPS via constraint relaxation, the fourth (d) was considered to do so via positive interpretation. Further, the reason why taking a future generation’s perspective is likely to lead to sustainable solutions, useful for the future—rather than the present—generation, is also discussed. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

2019

Jump to: 2023, 2021, 2020

17 pages, 751 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Happiness, Generativity and Social Preferences in a Developing Country: A Possibility of Future Design

by Mostafa E. Shahen, Shibly Shahrier and Koji Kotani

Sustainability 2019, 11(19), 5256; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195256 - 25 Sep 2019

Cited by 16 | Viewed by 4641

Abstract

Happiness, generativity and social preferences are pivotal factors for the betterment and sustainability of societies. However, little is known about the relationships among happiness, generativity and social preferences, along with sociodemographic factors, within a single analytical framework. We hypothesize that generativity and social [...] Read more.

Happiness, generativity and social preferences are pivotal factors for the betterment and sustainability of societies. However, little is known about the relationships among happiness, generativity and social preferences, along with sociodemographic factors, within a single analytical framework. We hypothesize that generativity and social preferences are the determinants of happiness, posing a research question “Are people happier by being prosocial and/or generative for sustainability?” We conduct a survey experiment, collecting data from five subjective happiness scales, generativity, social value orientation and sociodemographic variables in one urban area (Dhaka) and two rural areas (Bogra and Gaibandha) in Bangladesh. With the data, we empirically characterize determinants of subjective happiness with a focus on generativity and social value orientation, controlling for sociodemographic factors. The statistical analysis consistently shows a positive association between subjective happiness and generativity, irrespective of the type of happiness scale, while social value orientation does not exhibit any significance. Rural residents have lower peer relative happiness than urban residents, and household income has a positive relationship with general subjective happiness, leading each of these factors to be significant in overall subjective happiness. In summary, generativity, income and residence area are main determinants of happiness, implying that further urbanization, which is expected to occur in the future, will positively affect people’s happiness if it can bring about an increase in generativity. These results also suggest a possibility that people are happier by being more generative for sustainability, and some new institutional framework such as future design shall be recommended to enhance generativity. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

21 pages, 968 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Voting on Behalf of a Future Generation: A Laboratory Experiment

by Yoshio Kamijo, Yoichi Hizen, Tatsuyoshi Saijo and Teruyuki Tamura

Sustainability 2019, 11(16), 4271; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164271 - 07 Aug 2019

Cited by 11 | Viewed by 4513

Abstract

This paper investigates a new voting rule wherein some people are given extra votes to serve as proxies for future generations. We predict that this voting scheme affects the voting behavior of those who do not receive an extra vote (i.e., single-ballot voters) [...] Read more.

This paper investigates a new voting rule wherein some people are given extra votes to serve as proxies for future generations. We predict that this voting scheme affects the voting behavior of those who do not receive an extra vote (i.e., single-ballot voters) because they are less likely to become a pivot, while proxy voters are expected to behave in support of the future generation. To test this prediction, we compare three scenarios wherein single-ballot voters would cast a vote: (a) one-voter-one-vote scenario wherein all voters cast only a single ballot; (b) a standard proxy-voting scenario wherein other voters cast two ballots, and the second vote is to cast for the benefit of a future generation; and (c) a non-proxy-voting scenario wherein other voters cast two ballots with no explanation for the second vote. The result shows that single-ballot voters are less inclined to vote for the future-oriented option in (c) than in (a). This indicates the potential drawback of the new voting scheme. However, there is no difference in the single-ballot voters’ decision between (a) and (b), indicating that the explanation of the second ballot as the proxy is important for reducing the intergenerational inequality through this voting reform. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

Future Design (Closed)

Share This Topical Collection

Editor

Topical Collection Information

Keywords

Published Papers (14 papers)

2023

Jump to: 2021, 2020, 2019

2021

Jump to: 2023, 2020, 2019

2020

Jump to: 2023, 2021, 2019

2019

Jump to: 2023, 2021, 2020

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI