A Technological Scenario for a Healthier, More Equitable and Sustainable Europe in 2040: Citizen Perceptions and Policy Implications
1.1. Background on European Development
1.2. Technological (Digital) Solutions for Sustainable Development
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Scenario Planning
2.1.1. The Setting of the Scenarios
2.1.2. Identifying and Analyzing Drivers
2.1.3. Ranking by Perceived Impact and Expected Uncertainties
2.1.4. Setting the Parameters
2.1.5. Elaborating the Scenarios
2.1.6. Implications of the Scenarios
2.1.7. My Life between Realities
Living: Green Spaces
Living: Energy Efficient Housing
Moving: Active Mobility
Consumption: Food and Beverages
2.2. Focus Groups
Quote:“I don’t know if it is possible or not [the scenario “My life between realities”], but I hope it doesn’t happen. It doesn’t provide you with what it should; it dehumanizes”(Spain, 32, female, middle income).
Quote:“The use of technology at home is nice; that it can help you, take different worries off you, the need to think. So, you have more time for yourself, for your family.”(Czech Republic, 37, male, low income).
3.1. Green Spaces
Quote:“As the most negative, I have marked the first scenario [“My life between realities”], since in my opinion, virtual reality cannot be compared with the real one. It is not the same.”(North Macedonia, 26, male, middle income).
Quote:“It would give disabled people that chance to do things; that, probably, is its only benefit that I could think of.”(UK, 62, female, high income).
Quote:“I could imagine it very well for people in an old people’s home who can’t get out anymore.”(Germany, 58, female, middle income).
3.2. Energy Efficient Housing
Quote: “[...] I think it’s good if a lot of things are handled automatically in the house for me. You come home and it knows it’s dark now, it’s winter and the light switch on. But you shouldn’t give up control. I should program it beforehand so that you don’t have to pass this data on, and if I’m at home for the weekend then it should be like this when I’m away to start the washing machine. I think it’s great; why not? It makes life easier.”(Germany, 40, male, low income).
Quote:“Well, big companies created a set of proposals, so it is clear that they will cost and it is clear that big corporations will have them hugely overpriced, so this is what I don’t like, that big corporations would be in charge because it would be the same as today. It would be inaccessible for 99% of people...”(the Czech Republic, 27, male, low income).
Quote:“Because measures like incentivizing public transport prices or facilitating connections with areas further away are also great measures for mobility.”(Spain, 22, male, middle income).
Quote:“And what if the car breaks down on the road, god forbid, and I don’t have a computer to do an analysis of the problem.”(the Czech Republic, 57, male, high income).
Quote:“Well I like the idea of the first one because it says you can personalize your nutrients so then your food, like your health conditions. I think that would give people lot better life quality as well, less illnesses; less side effects from illnesses would give people a better quality of life.”(UK, 58, male, low income).
Quote:“I did not like the fact that meat was produced in laboratories. It may need to be examined whether it has negative effects on the human organism.”(North Macedonia, 36, female, high income).
Conflicts of Interest
|Main Code Group||Sub-Coding||Sub-Coding|
|INHERIT scenarios||My life between realities|
Less is more to me
One for all, all for one
Our circular community
Energy efficient housing
|Behavior drivers||INHERIT triple win||Health|
Knowledge & understanding
|Motivation||Moral (i.e., social justice)|
|Satisfaction with the scenario||Low satisfaction|
|Participants demographics||Age||Youth (18–29)|
- United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Human Development Report 2016; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Elliot, A.J. An Introduction to Sustainable Development, 3rd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Sustainable Consumption and Production; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Gereffi, G.; Lee, J. Why the world suddenly cares about global supply chains. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2012, 48, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Common Future—Brundtland Report; United Nations: San Francisco, CA, USA; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Barnes, P. Capitalism 3.0. A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons, 1st ed.; Berret-Koehler: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report; Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K., Meyer, L.A., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Akenji, L.; Chen, H. A Framework for Shaping Sustainable Lifestyles: Determinants and Strategies; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- European Union (EU). Raw Material Scoreboard 2018; Publication Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- European Environment Agency (EEA). Ecological Footprint of European Countries. 2019. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/ecological-footprint-of-european-countries-1/assessment (accessed on 19 November 2019).
- Global Footprint Network. Has Humanity’s Ecological Footprint Reached Its Peak? 2018. Available online: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/2018/04/09/has_humanitys_ecological_footprint_reached_its_peak/ (accessed on 20 December 2019).
- Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD); European Union (EU). Health at a Glance: Europe 2018: State of Health in the EU Cycle; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- European Union (EU). State of Health in Europe. Companion Report 2017; Publication Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Eurostat. Population Structure and Ageing. 2019. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Population_structure_and_ageing#The_share_of_elderly_people_continues_to_increase (accessed on 19 November 2019).
- European Union (EU). The 2018 Ageing Report: Economic and Budgetary Projections for the EU Member States (2016–2070); European Economy Institutional Papers; Publication Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). Understanding the Socio-Economic Divide in Europe, Background Report; Proceedings of OECD Centre for Opportunity and Equality (COPE); Understanding the Socio-Economic Divide in Europe, Paris, France, 26.01.2017; OECD: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Stiglitz, E.J. The price of inequality: How today’s divided society endangers our future. Sustain. Humanit. Sustain. Nat. Our Responsib. 2014, 41, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
- Staatsen, B.; van der Vliet, N.; Kruize, H.; Hall, L.; Morris, G.; Bell, R.; Stegeman, I. Exploring Triple-Win Solutions for Living, Moving and Consuming That Encourage Behavior Change, Protect The Environment, Promote Health and Health Equity; INHERIT, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Allen, N.L.; Christie, P.G. The emergence of personalized health technology. J. Med. Internet Res. 2016, 18, e99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eurostat. Living Condition in Europe—Poverty and Social Exclusion. 2019. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Living_conditions_in_Europe_-_poverty_and_social_exclusion (accessed on 19 November 2019).
- Drexhage, J.; Murphy, D. Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012. Background Paper Prepared for Consideration by the High Level Panel on Global Sustainability at Its First Meeting 19 September 2010; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations (UN). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2017; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Momete, D.C. Saferational approach to a valid sustainable development. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2014, 8, 497–504. [Google Scholar]
- International Institute for Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development Timeline; International Institute for Sustainable Development: Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Serrat, O. World Sustainable Development Timeline; Asia Development Bank: Manila, Philippines, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Marcucci, A.; Panos, A.; Kypreos, S.; Fragkos, P. Probabilistic assessment of realizing the 1.5 °C climate target. Appl. Energy 2019, 239, 239–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- TWI 2050—The World in 2050. The Digital Revolution and Sustainable Development: Opportunities and Challenges; International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA): Laxenburg, Austria, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Artificial Intelligence and the Circular Economy—AI as a Tool to Accelerate the Transition; Ellen MacArthur Foundation: Cowes, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Majumder, S.; Deen, J.M. Smartphones sensors for health monitoring and diagnosis. Sensors 2019, 19, 2164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Ienca, M.; Ferretti, A.; Hurst, S.; Puhan, M.; Lovis, C.; Vayena, E. Considerations for ethics review of big data health research: A scoping review. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0204937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- European Union (EU). Attitudes towards the impact of digitization and automation on daily life. In Special Eurobarometer 460; Directorate-General for Communication: Brussels, Belgium, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Winfield, F.T.A.; Jirotka, M. Ethical governance is essential to building trust in robotics and artificial intelligence systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2018, 376, 20180085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- World Economic Forum (WEF). Agile governance. In Reimagining Policy-Making in the Fourth Industrial Revolution; World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- SPREAD 2050. Scenario for sustainable lifestyles 2050: From global champions to local loops. In SPREAD Sustainable Lifestyles 2050; ECN, Lund University and CSCP: Wuppertal, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Jousilahti, J.; Koponen, J.; Koskinen, M.; Leppänen, J.; Lätti, R.; Mokka, R.; Neuvonen, A.; Nuutinen, J.; Suikkanen, H. Work 2040: Scenarios for the Future of Work; Demos: Helsinki, Finland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Pérez-Soba, M.; Paterson, J.; Metzger, J.M.; Gramberger, M.; Houtkamp, J.; Jensen, A.; Murray-Rust, D.; Verkerk, P. Sketching sustainable land use in Europe by 2040: A multi-stakeholder participatory approach to elicit cross-sectoral visions. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2016, 18, 775–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Verschuuren, M.; Hilderink, B.M.H.; Von, A.A.R. The Dutch public health foresight study 2018: An example of a comprehensive foresight exercise. Eur. J. Public Health 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guillen-Hanson, G.; Strube, R.; Xhelili, A. Reaching the triple-win. In Four Future Scenarios of a Healthier, More Equitable and Sustainable Europe in 2040; INHERIT, CSCP: Wuppertal, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Neiner, A.J.; Howze, E.H.; Greaney, L.M. Using scenario planning in public health: Anticipating alternative futures. Health Promot. Pract. 2004, 5, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ringland, G. Scenario building. In Managing for the Future, 1st ed.; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: New Jersey, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Fahey, L.; Randal, M.R. Learning from the Future: Competitive Foresight Scenarios, 1st ed.; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: New Jersey, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- European Foresight Platform (EFP). Scenario Method. Available online: http://www.foresight-platform.eu/community/forlearn/how-to-do-foresight/methods/scenario/ (accessed on 25 November 2019).
- Heijden, v.d.K. Scenarios. The Art of strategic Conversation, 1st ed.; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: New Jersey, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Quist, J.; Vergragt, P. Past and future of backcasting: The shift to stakeholder participation and a proposal for a methodological framework. Futures 2006, 3, 1027–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guillen-Hanson, G.; Strube, R.; Xhelili, A.; Liseri, M. Impactful Trends in Europe towards 2040; INHERIT, CSCP: Wuppertal, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Powell, A.R.; Single, M.H. Focus groups. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 1996, 8, 499–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Cornwall, A.; Jewkes, R. What is participatory research? Soc. Sci. Med. 1995, 41, 1667–1676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwards, R.; Holland, J. What Is Qualitative Interviewing? 1st ed.; Bloomsbury Publishing: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Acocella, I. The focus groups in social research: Advantages and disadvantages. Qual. Quant. 2011, 46, 1125–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peek, L.; Fothergill, A. Using focus groups: Lessons from studying daycare centers, 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina. Qual. Res. 2009, 9, 31–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masadeh, M.A. Focus Group: Reviews and practices. Int. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2012, 2, 63–68. [Google Scholar]
- Glaser, B.G.; Strauss, A.L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, 1st ed.; AldineTransaction: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Michie, S.; van Stralen, M.; West, R. The behavior change wheel: A new method for characterizing and designing behavior change interventions. Implement. Sci. 2011, 6, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Ballantyne, A.; Trenwith, L.; Zubrinich, S.; Corlis, M. I feel less lonely: What older people say about participating in a social networking website. Qual. Ageing Older Adults 2010, 11, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Lapan, S.D.; Quartaroli, T.M.; Riemer, J.F. Qualitative Research: An Introduction to Methods and Designs, 1st ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Given, L.M. The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, 1st ed.; SAGE: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Zvěřinová, I.; Ščasný, M.; Máca, V. INHERIT: Barriers and Potential for Adopting Healthier, More Equitable and Environmentally Friendly Solutions Identified in a Five-Country Survey; Charles University Environment Centre: Prague, Czech Republic, 2018. [Google Scholar]
|Czech Republic||Germany||North Macedonia||Spain||United Kingdom|
|Total per country||24||24||23||24||23|
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Xhelili, A.; Strube, R.; Grossi, F.; Zvěřinová, I.; Taylor, T.; Martinez-Juarez, P.; Quiroga, S.; Suárez, C.; Gjorgjev, D. A Technological Scenario for a Healthier, More Equitable and Sustainable Europe in 2040: Citizen Perceptions and Policy Implications. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010231
Xhelili A, Strube R, Grossi F, Zvěřinová I, Taylor T, Martinez-Juarez P, Quiroga S, Suárez C, Gjorgjev D. A Technological Scenario for a Healthier, More Equitable and Sustainable Europe in 2040: Citizen Perceptions and Policy Implications. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(1):231. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010231Chicago/Turabian Style
Xhelili, Arlind, Rosa Strube, Francesca Grossi, Iva Zvěřinová, Timothy Taylor, Pablo Martinez-Juarez, Sonia Quiroga, Cristina Suárez, and Dragan Gjorgjev. 2020. "A Technological Scenario for a Healthier, More Equitable and Sustainable Europe in 2040: Citizen Perceptions and Policy Implications" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 1: 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010231