Integrating Social–Ecological Systems and Megatrends: A Participatory Foresight Framework for Sustainability Governance in European Cold Lands

Abstract

Mountainous and sparsely populated regions in Europe—here called “cold lands”—are particularly exposed to global megatrends such as climate change, demographic shifts, and economic restructuring. Addressing these interconnected challenges requires approaches that link foresight with local governance systems. This study presents a pilot methodological framework that integrates Ostrom’s Social-Ecological Systems (SES) model with the European Commission’s Megatrend Assessment method to support participatory foresight. The framework was tested in two illustrative cases, located in the Italian Alps and Norway, to demonstrate its feasibility and potential value. Through a structured discussion among researchers, key megatrends were prioritised, and qualitative scenarios were developed to explore how community preparedness can influence socio-ecological outcomes. The results highlight climate change, resource scarcity, and demographic imbalances as dominant drivers, while contrasting scenarios illustrate how proactive governance can mitigate vulnerability and foster adaptive capacity. The approach contributes a replicable and scalable foresight tool to bridge global trends and local sustainability strategies, supporting anticipatory and community-based governance in vulnerable territories.

1. Introduction

Regions such as the European Alps and the Northern Sparsely Populated Areas (NSPAs) are undergoing significant transformations under the combined pressures of climate and ecosystem change, demographic shifts, and economic restructuring. These areas represent social-ecological systems (SES) where human livelihoods and ecological integrity are tightly interdependent [1]. Climate change [2], demographic crisis, and economic transition [3] are examples of megatrends, i.e., long-term global driving forces that profoundly influence every aspect of communities for decades and in complex ways, amplifying the speed and pervasiveness of change [4]. Megatrends intersect with four persistent challenges in environmental assessment (EA): complexity and uncertainty, efficiency, significance, and communication/participation. These challenges may be better addressed if EA methods evolve: instead of aiming for a single, predictable future, EA should develop multiple scenarios, potentially enhancing SES’s adaptability and resilience to rapid change [5].

Areas of general concern for sustainable development in rural areas include land tenure, also collective, poverty, education and skills, and migration [6], while policy development for sustainable development is hindered by definitional issues, fragmentation, and a lack of awareness exacerbated by marginalisation [7]. In the Alps and Scandinavian NSPA, glaciers are set to lose their volume by the century’s end [8,9,10], posing significant impacts on both ecosystems and human communities, e.g., local agriculture, hydropower production, biodiversity conservation, and tourism [11]. All these impact factors may have amplified and differentiated local implications depending on how local communities manage the above-mentioned megatrends in the meantime.

Anticipating the long-term impacts of megatrends on such vulnerable and dynamic territories is a critical task for sustainability and regional planning. Anticipation is a key element of adaptation and is connected with society’s perceptions and expectations through feedback and feedforward cycles, from which “anticipatory systems” emerge [12], in which, through complex interactions between physical processes, socio-political interventions, and visions of a desirable future, society seeks to predict and shape climate or other environmental dynamics [13]. At the level of local communities, as Holzhausen and Grecksch observe [14], perceptions and visions may enhance adaptive capacity to climate change when people’s values and collective identities are acknowledged, or undermine it when these are disregarded or perceived as under threat.

Conventional assessments often privilege technocratic and disciplinary framings, failing to account for the complex interdependencies and co-evolutionary dynamics characteristic of social-ecological systems [1,15]. As a result, they risk underestimating systemic vulnerabilities or over-relying on expert-driven models that may lack contextual validity or legitimacy in specific territories [16]. This fragmentation is particularly problematic in mountainous regions and sparsely populated areas, where ecological fragility, climate sensitivity, and socio-demographic decline interact in ways that defy sectoral compartmentalisation.

In contrast, anticipatory approaches grounded in futures studies and participatory foresight aim to integrate multiple knowledge systems, embrace uncertainty, and support systemic learning [17,18]. These approaches offer a more suitable basis for engaging with megatrends whose effects manifest over long timescales and across multiple domains of society and nature. Environmental assessment practices can benefit from full incorporation of forward-thinking and integrated methodologies into standard governance routines, especially in the context of SES rooted in the territory [19].

Following these considerations, this article proposes a novel methodological approach to anticipate the implications of megatrends on at-risk SES. Our approach integrates Elinor Ostrom’s widely recognised Social-Ecological Systems (SES) framework [20] for its robust diagnostic capacity in analysing complex human-environment interactions [1] with the participatory foresight methodology of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) Megatrend Implication Assessment workshop [21].

The proposed approach is intended to facilitate the identification of emerging risks and opportunities, foster anticipatory thinking, and help the alignment of sustainability strategies with broader trajectories of change. We believe this integration can make sustainability research more explicitly future-oriented and capable of supporting proactive policy design and establishing the anticipatory capacity necessary for the preservation of these vital environments [19].

In summary, European ‘cold lands’—mountainous and sparsely populated regions—are particularly exposed to overlapping megatrends that can reshape both ecosystems and livelihoods. To understand and anticipate these transformations, it is essential to bridge foresight with local knowledge systems. Combining the Megatrend Assessment and SES frameworks allows for such integration: the former identifies large-scale drivers of change, while the latter captures community-based interdependencies and governance mechanisms that mediate their local effects.

To test the functionality of this approach method, this paper presents a pilot application for two case studies, representative of Alpine areas and Scandinavian NSPA, two examples of SES that are geographically, economically, and socially diverse but both threatened by megatrends in complex ways.

The scope of this paper is primarily methodological: it aims to introduce and illustrate an integrated foresight approach, rather than to provide an exhaustive comparative analysis of two heterogeneous European regions. To the authors’ knowledge, the proposed approach is novel; such a promising hybridisation of paradigms, especially among participatory practices, has not yet been found in the literature. The selected cases serve as demonstrative examples to test and refine the proposed framework, which we hope will be adopted and further developed in transdisciplinary collaborations among local actors, policymakers, and researchers to enhance anticipatory governance capacity in diverse territorial contexts.

2. Method and Materials

2.1. The Social-Ecological System Framework

The proposal builds specifically on research contributions by Ostrom [1] and Hinkel et al. [22]. Ostrom’s SES framework distinguishes Resource System (RS), Resource Unit (RU), Governance Systems (GS), and Actors (A) to analyse contexts where users harvest RUs from a shared stock linked to a specific RS [23] (Figure 1). This builds on earlier extensive research on common-pool resources, particularly in areas like fisheries, forests, and water systems [24]. Common-pool resources are typically defined by two key features: (1) subtractability—where one person’s use of the resource reduces its availability to others—and (2) low excludability—meaning it is difficult to prevent people from accessing or using the resource, even if they are not authorised users. The central idea of the SES framework is that RS, RU, GS and A properties define the nature of their interdependence that emerges through their interactions within a shared biophysical system and a governance setting.

The four components of the SES are each characterised by sets of variables that are considered relevant to their sustainability over time, see Figure 2 in [25]. For example, for RS, the variable set includes productivity and predictability; for RU, the mobility of resource units and economic value are considered relevant; for GS, ownership systems and access rights, as well as monitoring and sanctioning rules, are considered; for A, the number of relevant actors and entrepreneurship are important.

To support consistent application of Ostrom’s SES framework in multi-use contexts, we also refer to the step-by-step diagnostic procedure developed by Hinkel and colleagues, which focuses on beneficiaries, collective goods and action situations [22]. This procedure consists of a series of questions (

Table A1. The questions included in the diagnostic procedure for applying the social-ecological systems framework in diverse cases (from [22]).

1	Which actors (A) obtain which benefits from the SES? Benefits are understood widely, including instrumental, moral, aesthetic values, current vs. future values, direct vs. indirect values, option values, etc.
2	Which collective goods are involved in the generation of these benefits? Several goods may be involved in the generation of a single benefit, and several of these may be collective. For example, the benefit of recreational angling may involve the collective goods “catching fish” as well as “enjoying an undisturbed place for angling.”
3	Are any of the collective goods obtained subtractable? If so, an appropriation action situation arises where activities subtract from a stock of resource units (RU). For non-subtractable goods there is no need to consider the variables of the RU.
4	What are the biophysical and/or technological processes involved in the generation of the stock of RU? These will collectively be called the resource system (RS). Multiple RS may be relevant, and several types of RU may be obtained from the same RS.
5	How do the variables of RS and RU characterise the appropriation-related governance challenges? Now that the concepts of RS and RU have been defined for the SES studied, the second-tier variables of RS and RU can be applied to further characterize the governance challenges at hand.
6	What kind of institutional arrangements have emerged as a response to the appropriation action situation governance challenge? This question forms the entry point to making A and governance system (GS) variables operational.
7	Which actors contribute to the provision, maintenance, or improvement of the RS, and by what input (labor, resources, etc.)? This defines a provision action situation associated with a particular RS. In the case that non-subtractable collective goods are obtained from the RS, this action situation is the provisioning of a pure public good. This and the following two questions need to be addressed for each RS.
8	How do the variables of RS characterise the provisioning action situation-related governance challenge? Similarly to the appropriation action situation, a provisioning action situation may be further characterised by the variables of the RS.
9	What kind of institutional arrangements have emerged as a response to the provisioning action situation governance challenge?

, Appendix A), relating to the actors benefiting from the SES, the collective goods involved in generating these benefits, and the situations in which the collective goods are provided and appropriated. The ultimate goal of applying the SES framework is to identify which combinations of variables determine the sustainability of different SES.

2.2. The Megatrend Assessment Framework

The insights derived from this SES framing are assessed in light of the local implications of megatrends through a workshop format defined by the EU Policy Lab: Megatrends Assessment workshop [21,26]. According to the EU Policy Lab, megatrends are powerful, long-term drivers of global change that are already visible today and will shape the future for decades. The Megatrends Assessment workshop is a short, accessible workshop protocol using 14 megatrends to explore how change may affect a given topic—be it a policy, research issue, or societal challenge—within a systemic and long-term perspective. The process builds on a collective intelligence work to manage complexity and to avoid blind spots and bias. The 14 megatrends are presented as ‘Megatrend cards’, each with an image and a brief summary. These cards help participants start discussions about the future implications and interplay of trends in relation to a chosen topic.

Here is the list of the 14 megatrends (a short description is in

Table A2. The 14 megatrends and related short descriptions (from https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/foresight/tool/megatrends-hub_en; accessed on 30 August 2025).

Megatrend	Short Description
1. Accelerating technological change and hyperconnectivity	There is a growing impact of technology and digital connectivity on how we live, from how we socialise and work, to production and governance.
2. Aggravating resource scarcity	Demand for water, food, energy, land and minerals is rising substantially, making natural resources increasingly scarce and more expensive.
3. Changing nature of work	New generations entering the workforce and older generations working longer are changing employment, career models, and organisational structures.
4. Changing security paradigm	The diversification of threats, and the people behind them, is generating new challenges for the defence and security communities and for society as a whole.
5. Climate change and environmental degradation	Continued unabated, anthropogenic pollution and greenhouse gas emissions will further increase, changing climate patterns.
6. Continuing urbanisation	People in search of better opportunities-such as jobs, services and education-have been moving from rural to urban areas across the world.
7. Diversification of education and learning	New generations and hyperconnectivity are rapidly changing both educational needs and modes of delivery.
8. Widening inequalities	The absolute number of people living in extreme poverty has been declining. But the gap between the wealthiest and poorest of the population is widening.
9. Expanding influence of East and South	The shift in economic power from the established Western economies and Japan towards the emerging economies in the East and South is set to continue.
10. Growing consumption	By 2030, the consumer class is expected to reach almost 5 billion people. This means 1.3 billion more people with increased purchasing power than today.
11. Increasing demographic imbalances	The world’s population will reach 9.7 billion by 2050, with rapid growth mainly in Sub-Saharan Africa and stagnating numbers of residents in the majority of developed countries.
12. Increasing influence of new governing systems	Non-state actors, global conscientiousness, social media and the internationalisation of decision-making are forming new, multi-layered governing systems.
13. Increasing significance of migration	The societal and political significance of migration has increased. Migration dynamics have become more complex in an interconnected world.
14. Shifting health challenges	Science and better living standards have reduced infectious diseases. Unhealthy lifestyles, pollution and other anthropogenic causes are turning into health burdens.

, Appendix A):

• Accelerating technological change and hyperconnectivity;
• Aggravating resource scarcity;
• Changing nature of work;
• Changing security paradigm;
• Climate change and environmental degradation;
• Continuing urbanisation;
• Diversification of education and learning;
• Widening inequalities;
• Expanding influence of East and South;
• Growing consumption;
• Increasing demographic imbalances;
• Increasing influence of new governing systems;
• Increasing significance of migration;
• Shifting health challenges.

The Megatrends workshop is structured as an interactive 3–4 h workshop, consisting of the following steps:

• Map and prioritise trends with maximum relevance and minimum awareness (looking for blind spots);
• Anticipate and examine potential future consequences (long-term developments and consequences);
• Explore policy implications (examining how this potential future could impact policy);
• Plan relevant actions (new policy options or actions).

In the Megatrends workshop support materials, each megatrend is accompanied by guiding questions to help prepare for the discussion, reported in

Table A3. The 14 megatrends and related short descriptions (from https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/foresight/megatrends-preparation-template_en; accessed on 30 August 2025).

Megatrend	Guiding Questions
1. Accelerating technological change and hyperconnectivity	Which emerging technologies (biotech, genomics, AI, quantum, complex materials, etc.) will play the greatest role in the evolution of the issue? How will the issue be shaped by technological development and societal response to it?
2. Aggravating resource scarcity	How will increasing resource scarcity influence your issue? What resources will it need in the future?
3. Changing nature of work	How is the rise in temporary, freelance, platform-mediated and remote work going to impact your issue? What new jobs and skills will be needed to address the issue? Who are the people/organisations working with it in the future?
4. Changing security paradigm	What will the future security aspects of your issue be? Can it be weaponised or contribute to a military strategy? Can it be part of future conflicts, or a source of new tensions?
5. Climate change and environmental degradation	How will the increasing effects of climate change, pollution, pressures on the environment (and people’s perception of it) affect your issue? What role could it play in adaptation/mitigation and environmental protection policies?
6. Continuing urbanisation	What role will cities play in the issue, as spaces where change and experimentation happen, as policymakers? How will urban population growth affect your issue?
7. Diversification of education and learning	How will people learn and access knowledge about your issue in the future? What will they want to know and from whom?
8. Widening inequalities	How will the existing inequalities (gender, income, digital, etc.) affect your issue? What are the new inequalities that could emerge in its context?
9. Expanding influence of East and South	What role will growing Asia and Africa play in the development of the issue? Will they understand and act on it similarly to the EU and Europe? What agreements, standards institutions need to be changed or created?
10. Growing consumption	How will the increasing global demand for products and services affect your issue? What new markets could it be associated with, or create?
11. Increasing demographic imbalances	How will demographic trends such as population growth and growing youth cohorts in some countries, or ageing populations in other countries, affect the issue? How might millennials and future generations perceive the issue when they become the decision-makers?
12. Increasing influence of new governing systems	Will the issue be affected by the creation of new collective actors who are influencing existing governance structures (networks, communities, social movements, industry, tech oligarchs)? What future non-state governance structures and actors will be decisive for your issue?
13. Increasing significance of migration	How does the issue relate to future migration flows (in terms of who migrates and where people want to go) and livelihoods of migrant populations (also in terms of how migrants are perceived in their host societies)? To what extent will the politicisation of migration and public attitudes towards diversity affect the issue?
14. Shifting health challenges	How will the increasing importance of non-communicable diseases affect the issue? How will it interact with changing health systems and the pharmaceutical sector?

of Appendix A.

2.3. The Combination of SES and Megatrend into a Participatory Foresight Process

We combine the SES diagnosis questions with megatrend assessment into the strategic and research question: how might megatrends change SES variables and their interdependence in the coming decades? The answer to this question is intended to be useful in defining long-term strategies for the management of SES and their sustainability. This integration provides a knowledge bridge between global systemic drivers and local SES dynamics, aligning diagnostic analysis with strategic foresight to identify cross-scale vulnerabilities and opportunities.

Our framework is consistent with the Association of Professional Futurists (APF) framework of foresight that includes 6 practices or disciplines: Framing, Scanning, Futuring, Visioning, Designing, Adapting [27]. In particular, we adapted the first three practices (Figure 2):

• Framing: selection of SESs of interest and delimitation of RU, RS, GS, and A subsystems;
• Scanning: megatrend selection and prioritisation for the selected subsystems (RU, RS, GS, US), according to maximum relevance and minimum awareness by SES actors and governance bodies;
• Futuring: identification of different possible futures in terms of two contrasting scenarios: one positive (assuming the megatrend is managed by an aware and prepared local community) and one negative (assuming a local community is unprepared).

The sequence of these phases follows a deliberate analytical logic: first, diagnosing the structure of the SES (Framing), then identifying external forces shaping its evolution (Scanning), and finally exploring alternative plausible outcomes (Futuring). This progression, summarised in Figure 2, ensures internal coherence between the theoretical frameworks and their operational application.

A comprehensive foresight process would also involve defining desirable futures (Visioning), designing the changes or innovations necessary to achieve those visions in the form of long-term strategies (Designing), and continuously monitoring and adapting these strategies to unforeseen events (Adapting). However, this is beyond the scope of the present proposal.

With regard to framing, the definition of the geographical framework is illustrated below in the description of the case studies. The time frame is set here at 2050, considering that 20–25 years is a functional time span for visualising the impacts of megatrends and, at the same time, defining forward-looking adaptation strategies.

In the scanning phase, the participants select and rank the megatrends, placing megatrend cards (or icons on a digital whiteboard) on the prioritisation poster based on two axes (relevance and awareness). The relevance axis concerns the following questions:

• How relevant this megatrend is for the long-term sustainability and governance of the SES;
• How significant its potential impact might be;
• How it could evolve over the next 5, 10, or 20 years in shaping the SES future.

The awareness axis concerns questions such as the following:

• To what extent the potential impact of the megatrend is recognised;
• How aware stakeholders and the public are of its influence;
• How well decision-makers understand its implications;
• Whether the media and scientific community give it sufficient attention.

In practice, prioritisation helps select the most relevant megatrends that are currently receiving less attention or consideration from stakeholders or public policies. The aim is to broaden the scope of observation on possible futures, considering potential surprises, rather than focusing on already known issues.

In line with this perspective, the futuring phase consists of a discussion about what different future consequences the developments could have on selected SES from the most relevant and disregarded megatrends, which addresses questions such as the following:

• What could happen if this trend is ignored or underestimated in future decisions?
• What could be achieved if this trend is assessed and integrated into future decisions?

This identification of implications is based on a variety of sources, such as official documentation, scientific literature, qualitative research fieldwork, or personal participants’ knowledge. It should be noted that this exploration focuses on elements of possible futures from a qualitative foresight perspective, not the most probable futures, which are the subject of quantitative forecasting.

The entire procedure was applied with a small group of researchers from different backgrounds, but it is designed to be replicable with working groups in person or remotely, even in asynchronous mode. The number and profile of participants can be adapted to the specific context and purpose of each participatory foresight process, ranging from small expert panels to multi-stakeholder workshops.

2.4. The Case Studies

The two case studies were selected to represent contrasting socio-ecological and governance settings—Pejo Valley in the Italian Alps and Norrbotten County in Sweden—both significantly affected by similar megatrends and relevant for examining how local communities contribute to shaping sustainable development policies in “cold-land” regions.

The two regions were intentionally chosen for their diverse socio-ecological and governance characteristics, yet similar exposure and sensitivity to global megatrends such as climate change, demographic shifts, and economic transformation. This diversity allows the framework to be tested across contrasting contexts: a small-scale, community-managed mountain system in the Alps and a large, resource-based governance system in northern Sweden. At the same time, both cases highlight the crucial role of local communities in shaping adaptive and development policies, making them particularly relevant for exploring how participatory foresight can inform sustainability strategies in “cold lands”.

Both regions are “cold lands that are melting”, warming significantly, and experiencing dramatic social and environmental transformations. The Alps are losing their ice cover at an alarming rate, with 1938 glaciers disappearing between 1850 and 2015 [28]. The Arctic is warming at 2.4 times the Northern Hemisphere average, leading to rising temperatures and an increase in rainfall [29,30]. These changes threaten the delicate balance of ice, permafrost, and water reservoirs in both regions.

In both regions there is a conflict between preserving the environment and fostering economic development. In the European Arctic, this involves balancing energy and transport infrastructure investments with the interests of Indigenous Sámi populations and the need to regulate economic activities [31]. The Alps, too, grapple with issues like overtourism, which strains fragile ecosystems and causes conflict with local residents [32].

The core challenge for these melting “cold lands” is how to preserve their social-ecological systems while also managing new economic opportunities and ensuring long-term benefits for the local communities. This makes them ideal cases to test new approaches for addressing these complex issues. Obviously, the differences remain significant, and it is not our intention to make a direct comparison.

The diversity of cases is also epistemological: in the Alpine case, the information comes from ethnographic studies (with fieldwork, participant observations, and in-depth interviews), while in the Scandinavian case, information is mainly drawn from studies and research published in English. This seeks to simulate the contribution of a heterogeneous group of participants.

2.4.1. Pejo Valley (Italy)

The Pejo Valley, located in Trento Province (northern Italy), covers 162 km² and represents a well-defined social-ecological system (SES) shaped by a small Alpine community characterised by demographic decline, ageing, and a strong sense of local identity [33,34]. Approximately 1800 people live in the valley (U), with a population density of about 11 inhabitants per km²—among the lowest in the Italian Alps—and a slightly decreasing trend over the past five years (−0.69% annually). The average age (47.9 years) exceeds the regional mean, and men represent 52% of the population.

For centuries, the community’s livelihood has depended on agro-forestry-pastoral resources, maintaining deep cultural and ecological ties to the land even as these dependencies evolve. The resource system (RS, RU) includes 2226 hectares of collectively owned land—1370 ha of alpine pastures and 856 ha of forests—managed under a regime of collective private property.

Governance (GS) is exercised through a statute adopted in 2005, rooted in medieval customary law [35]. Acting as a “super-individual,” the institution coordinates decision-making and reinvests revenues for the collective benefit. Supported by national Law (Act No. 168 of 2017), the model represents a hybrid form of ownership and governance that integrates ecological stewardship, embedded rights, and social cohesion. Collective assets are inalienable and perpetual, ensuring access for community members, respect for third-party rights, and protection of universal heritage [36,37,38].

While this collective system remains robust, privately owned lands face abandonment, leading to declining landscape maintenance and ecological degradation. Unused plots no longer generate benefits and instead impose collective costs, inverting the notion of shared “fruits” into shared burdens [32].

Insights into how megatrends affect this SES derive from ethnographic research conducted over four years through participant observation and more than 40 h of recorded “anthropological dialogues” with key informants, complemented by historical and legal sources. This triangulated qualitative approach enabled a contextual understanding of community values, governance practices, and perceptions of change. Informants were treated as co-producers of knowledge, reflecting a participatory and reflexive epistemology consistent with the foresight approach applied in this study.

2.4.2. Norrbotten (Sweden)

Norrbotten is a county belonging to the NSPA, with an area of approximately 98,245 km² inhabited by 248,480 inhabitants (2023), and with a population density of about 2.5 inhabitants per km²—among the lowest in Sweden. The region has been witnessing a steady population decline, even compared to other European sparsely populated areas, while maintaining a strong base of young workers and a higher GDP than the rest of the aforementioned sparsely populated areas. Nevertheless, the NSPA is facing issues due to an ageing population and the migration of the young outside of the regions. At the same time, productivity has grown in agriculture, forestry, and fishing; the three sectors’ productivity increased up to 50% between 2008 and 2020, while they still need to adapt to climate change and to find ways to become sustainable [39].

The local resource systems (RS) are composed of large-scale mining landscapes, forests, hydropower rivers, and Arctic ecosystems. These systems are characterised by their vast spatial scale, relatively high productivity, and location-specific dependencies related to global climate and resource markets.

The resource units (RU) extracted from these systems include critical minerals, timber, freshwater, and ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration and biodiversity. These units differ significantly in mobility and replacement rates, with minerals being non-renewable and forest resources depending on long-term management cycles.

Local users (U) include a mix of global mining corporations, municipal governments, Sámi herders, tourism entrepreneurs, and civil society actors. These actors differ in terms of knowledge systems, dependence on the resource, and technological capacities. Sámi communities and rural residents are particularly dependent on traditional ecosystem functions, whereas corporate actors leverage advanced extraction technologies.

The governance systems (GS) are defined by multi-level institutions involving national permitting agencies, EU regulations, municipal spatial planning, and informal consultation forums. Property rights are contested in some areas, especially where indigenous land-use claims intersect with mining or forestry concessions. A growing emphasis on collaborative planning and strategic dialogues indicates shifts in operational and collective-choice rules [40,41].

Notably, documents such as the regional strategy 2030 promote the integration of resource governance within a framework of climate neutrality, circular economy, and social equity, aligning with sustainability science goals and SES principles. Mechanisms for participatory foresight, adaptive planning, and balancing competing claims over land and water use are increasingly prioritised to improve governance outcomes [42].

3. Results

3.1. Framing

The Framing phase is implicitly addressed in the selection and description of the two social-ecological systems presented in Section 2.4. This phase involved defining system boundaries (RS), identifying key actors (U), resources (RU), and governance structures (GS) that set the temporal frame (2050) and spatial scope for the subsequent Scanning and Futuring steps.

3.2. Scanning

For each of the selected SES components (RU, RS, U, GS), the 14 megatrends were ranked by importance and awareness, assigning a score based on position (5 for first place, 4 for second, and so on). This resulted in a ranking at the component level. By adding the scores obtained for each component (Figure 3), a ranking for the selected SES was obtained (Figure 4). Adding all the scores for each component for the two SES gives an overall ranking (

Table 1. Prioritisation of megatrends (the five most relevant).

Ranking Position	General Raking	Ranking for Pejo	Ranking for Norrbotten
1	Climate change and environmental degradation	Aggravating resource scarcity	Climate change and environmental degradation
2	Aggravating resource scarcity	Demographic imbalances	Continuing urbanisation
3	Demographic imbalances	Climate change and environmental degradation	Changing nature of work
4	Continuing urbanisation	Influence of new governing systems	Growing consumption
5	Influence of new governing systems	Diversification of education and learning	Demographic imbalances

).

For Pejo, the general ranking (Table 1) shows a strong local sensitivity to resource scarcity. Demographic imbalances (depopulation, ageing) weigh more heavily than elsewhere. Climate change remains important but ranks third because, as many informants have stated in interviews, its effects are felt through the scarcity of resources. Governance and learning also emerge, more closely linked to the community’s ability to adapt.

For Norrbotten, climate change emerges as a priority, consistent with its impacts on the Arctic and on mining/energy activities; urbanisation appears central; labour market innovation and increased consumption weigh more heavily than in Pejo. Demographics are present but less crucial, because migration flows and low density are structural problems but controlled at the higher level of national policies.

3.3. Futuring

Here we present possible outcomes that could emerge from two of the megatrends ranked in the top five in the pilot cases and based on ethnographic studies (with fieldwork, participant observations, and in-depth interviews) for Pejo and studies and research published in English for Norrbotten. For each one, considering the associated guiding question, elements of two opposing scenarios have been identified. The elements reported are not predictions to be assessed by probability (as in forecasting) but represent plausible situations that can inform and guide action today, in line with the principles of foresight.

Indications for the proactive scenario in Pejo show positive initiatives found. The Eumint project in Trentino demonstrates concrete efforts toward the civic and labour integration of migrants, a key signal for an inclusive community [43]. The provincial strategy “Trentino Digital District 2026” supports digital participation and online public services, which are crucial for modern governance [44]. Furthermore, the existence of a biomass plant in Cogolo, Val di Pejo, for renewable energy has been confirmed, showcasing sustainable resource use. Ample evidence also exists for the commitment of Trentino and the Val di Pejo to eco-sustainable tourism that engages local communities and promotes niche products [45].

In the reactive scenario for Pejo, several troubling signals have also been identified. One study highlights how inheritance-based admission rules can reduce the number of members in collective properties, jeopardising self-governance and leading to a loss of local ecological knowledge [46]. This supports the idea of rigid governance and waning legitimacy. The abandonment of pastures and the encroachment of shrubs in Trentino have been confirmed, resulting in a loss of biodiversity [47]. Bark beetle epidemics in Trentino’s forests, following events like the Vaia storm, are a clear sign of forest degradation and increased hydrogeological risks. The presence of obsolete water infrastructure in Trentino and a significant national labour shortage in the tourism sector were also noted, which could negatively impact the Val di Pejo. Finally, it was found that tourism, if not well-managed, may not uniformly benefit local communities, leading to generic offerings and a loss of authenticity.

Related to the scenarios for Norrbotten, the Swedish population is expected to slightly grow by 2050 and the end of the century, reaching 11 million inhabitants with an increase in young people [48], but the county of Norrbotten’s population is expected to slightly decrease—marking a countertrend [49]. Demographic change in cities and rural communities poses challenges and opportunities: such as merging cities to make them more attractive and supporting the growth of small urban areas scattered across the region to improve services accessible to the most isolated populations.

Regional developments in Norrbotten are potentially at a crossroads between continuing current production systems, which are sensitive to a general labour shortage, or transitioning to more digital and environmentally friendly systems. One example is the future of forest management, where a younger, more environmentally conscious workforce could favour the adoption of sustainable practices over the current widespread clear-cutting [50]. Decision-makers might need to invest in technological developments to better increase production without requiring external or additional workforce, as it is already happening in sectors such as agriculture, fishing, and mining [41]. These demographic and economic dynamics frame two contrasting futures for Norrbotten, depending on whether local governance anticipates change or remains reactive.

Table 2. Possible scenarios emerging from selected megatrends for the SES of Pejo (Italy).

Megatrend and Guiding Question	Scenario Summary
Aggravating resource scarcity	Resource System (RS)—Prepared/proactive community Anticipating glacier retreat and water scarcity, the community manages reservoirs and pastures adaptively, diversifies forests, controls fuel loads, and cooperates to maintain water flows for ecosystem functioning. Agro-pastoral practices use resilient, native, less demanding breeds, rotational grazing, and control shrub encroachment, sustaining ecosystem functions and local productivity. The “rules” for harvesting and storing raw materials, such as fodder and timber, are updated to adapt to more variable natural regeneration.
	Resource System (RS)—Unprepared/surprised community Lack of water and forest management leads to hydro-ecological degradation, pest outbreaks, unstable slopes, and declining forage quality. Land abandonment and shrub encroachment reduce biodiversity and scenic value, amplifying social and environmental vulnerability.
Increasing demographic imbalances	Governance System—Prepared/proactive community The community adapts by revising its statute, introducing youth participation and hybrid decision formats. Returnees and newcomers integrate through apprenticeships and community engagement, creating a diversified and inclusive governance system.
	Governance System—Unprepared/surprised community Governance remains rigid and ageing; participation declines and legitimacy weakens. External operators fill management gaps, eroding collective control. Generational and cultural divides deepen, leading to disengagement and contested ownership.

summarises these alternative scenarios, illustrating how proactive adaptation or institutional inertia could, respectively, strengthen or undermine the region’s long-term socio-ecological resilience.

4. Discussion

As a methodological pilot, the study was designed to test the internal consistency and practical usefulness of the proposed framework, rather than to produce generalizable findings about the two case regions. We develop the discussion by distinguishing different levels with reflections on the results of testing the application, the method tested, and the limitations and developments.

4.1. About the Results

The analysis presented here should be interpreted as a methodological pilot aimed at demonstrating the coherence and potential usefulness of the combined SES × Megatrend framework. It is not intended to offer comprehensive socio-ecological forecasts or detailed scenario modelling for the Pejo and Norrbotten systems. Future research could build on this pilot to design participatory foresight processes involving multiple timeframes and stakeholder groups.

The rankings from the scanning phase reveal a general view where climate change is perceived as the dominant megatrend, followed by resource scarcity and demographic dynamics. Urbanisation could be more relevant for the Norrbotten region, while aggravating resource scarcity could affect the Pejo territory more.

The contrasted scenario clearly illustrates the wide range of possible futures for the Pejo valley and Norrbotten region and supports the plausibility of the scenarios outlined in the experimental workshop (shown in

Table 3. Possible scenarios for Norrbotten SES.

Megatrend and Guiding Question	Scenario Summary
Demographic imbalances	Governance (GS)—proactive governance: Anticipating ageing and migration, decision-makers invest in sustainable and labour-intensive practices. Younger, qualified workers attract EU funds, while diversified local economies and new ownership models increase resilience to economic shocks.
	Governance (GS)—outdated governance: Failure to attract younger generations accelerates labour shortages. Traditional forestry and aquaculture persist due to weak regulation and cost pressures. Small businesses lose support, extractive industries expand, and conflicts with Sámi livelihoods intensify.
Changing nature of work	Users (U)—Prepared/proactive Strong digital infrastructure and innovation hubs attract remote professionals and SMEs. Local and Sámi entrepreneurs engage in platform-based markets, linking place-based activities with national and EU value chains.
	Users (U)—Unprepared/surprised Employment becomes fragmented and low-skilled; emigration continues, widening the skill gap. Weak social ties and unresolved land-use conflicts hinder innovation and reduce community capacity to benefit from new work models.

). This dual-scenario framing highlights how megatrends—depending on the preparedness and adaptiveness of the community—can either reinforce or undermine the sustainability of social-ecological systems in mountainous and sparsely populated areas.

In the megatrend ranking, a useful modification of the protocol emerged: megatrends “Changing security paradigm” and “Expanding influence of East and South” could be omitted from the ranking (thus considering only 12 of the 14 megatrends) as they operate within the sphere of global geopolitics and influence local subsystems through other megatrends (such as resource scarcity, migration, etc.), often reinforcing or accelerating them, rather than directly.

4.2. About the Methodology

The study is a proof-of-concept study whose primary contribution lies in the proposed integration of existing frameworks rather than in extensive empirical comparison. This integration builds upon two theoretically robust and widely applied paradigms. The SES framework offers a multi-tier structure to analyse human–environment interdependencies and collective action mechanisms, while the JRC Megatrend Assessment provides a systemic foresight lens to explore long-term global drivers and their local implications.

The sequence of activities—from framing the SES subsystems, to scanning changes on the horizon, to prioritising and evaluating the most relevant yet overlooked megatrends, and outlining elements of opposing scenarios—seems to have been productive. In our opinion, the variety of ideas and the specificity of the insights that emerged are capable of guiding choices that differ from those that the same group of participants could make without this method. Specifically, as users and experimenters observing ourselves and the process, we have noticed some advantages: megatrends help us consider a wider variety of aspects and understand complex interactions that cut across social sectors and disciplines. In practice, the approach helps organise a multidisciplinary discussion, focus it, and make it more conducive to generating new insights (at least for participants).

In particular, the use of the SES framework has been confirmed as useful for mapping components and understanding complex interactions within a specific mountain and sparsely populated SES; the integration of SES diagnostics with a megatrend approach allows changes to be focused on explicit time horizons (e.g., 2050) rather than vague ones. This follows the suggestions of Partelow [25], who emphasises the need for tools capable of effectively supporting the aggregation of knowledge contributions within the multiple academic interpretations of sustainability, in order to promote the effective implementation of practical solutions.

The integration of the SES framework with participatory foresight into sustainability research reveals several key advantages: co-evolution of types of SES knowledge, orientation of primary research and sustainability assessment, development of a transdisciplinary boundary object, and facilitation of comparative analysis [25]. As a boundary object [51], the SES framework can support the collection and coherent comparison of data across disciplines and case studies, enabling the development and testing of theories [22].

Considering megatrends and their implications offers significant advantages for sustainability research: it encourages a long-term and systemic perspective, helping researchers and decision-makers understand how large-scale, slow-moving forces—such as climate change, demographic shifts, or technological transitions—interact with local dynamics. Improved data integration, regional collaboration, knowledge sharing, and global policy mainstreaming should bridge existing gaps [7]. The framework integrates bottom-up and top-down approaches for sustainable alpine and proglacial landscape management, fostering transdisciplinary dialogue, cross-regional cooperation, and multiscale governance.

A recognised function of mountainous and Arctic regions is to act as an early warning system for global change. The speed and intensity of the transformations observed in these regions make them critical indicators—akin to a “canary in the coal mine”—for understanding wider environmental shifts that will occur globally. Participatory foresight practices could become a social response to the increasing uncertainty surrounding the future, opening up spaces for dialogue, imagination, and plural perspectives [52]. In implementing this, anticipatory approaches challenge linear thinking and technocratic solutions, inviting more inclusive, reflexive, and transformative pathways toward sustainability and justice [53].

The combination of SES and Megatrend assessment frameworks helps “the identification, creation and dissemination of images of the future shaping the possibility space for action, thus enacting relationships between past, present and future” [54]. The futuring phase explicitly resorts to imagination to create a sense of continuity in time, establishing complex relationships of causality among actions and/or events. Futuring enables decision-makers to apply their ideas about the future to the present, bringing expectations and values to the fore and aligning collective efforts.

4.3. Limits, Applications, and Perspectives

The pilot application has the following limitations:

• Pilot scale and participant profile: the workshop was piloted with a small group of researchers rather than a mixed stakeholder panel; rankings and implications therefore reflect expert judgement and facilitation choices, not a fully deliberative consensus. This constrains external validity and the diversity of perspectives captured.
• Scope restricted to early foresight phases: by design, the exercise covered Framing, Scanning, and Futuring only; Visioning, Designing, and Adapting were not implemented. As a result, pathways, policy options, and monitoring schemes remain unoperationalised.
• Methodological simplifications: the prioritisation matrix (relevance × awareness) uses simple ordinal scoring without inter-rater reliability checks or sensitivity tests; scores can be influenced by anchoring and group dynamics.
• Epistemic asymmetries across cases: the Alpine case drew on in-depth ethnographic fieldwork, whereas Norrbotten relied mainly on published sources; this disparity may have shaped how risks and opportunities were surfaced and weighted.
• Time horizon and trend set: A single time horizon (2050) and the 14 megatrends identified by the JRC were used; the most useful time horizon may vary depending on the specific decision-making situation (see SES framework).
• Plausibility instead of probability: the two “prepared vs. unprepared” scenarios were developed as plausible narratives to inform attention and action; they are not probabilistic forecasts and were not stress-tested against quantitative models.

Possible mitigation measures in future occasions could include multi-stakeholder panels, preliminary readings, anonymous individual assessments prior to discussion, cross-checking between assessors, brief sensitivity analyses on weights, and at least an initial introduction to the Designing and Adapting phases of the APF framework (options, early indicators, responsible parties, timelines).

The workshop structure is intended to bring together diverse stakeholders in a variety of contexts—including local communities, scientists, policymakers, and industry representatives—to collectively identify and analyse global megatrends (e.g., climate change, demographic shifts, technological advancements) relevant for SES, regions or territories. Through facilitated discussions, participants explore potential pathways through which these megatrends might interact with and exert impacts on the selected SES. The workshop process encourages participants to delve into both direct and indirect implications, anticipate emergent properties, and identify potential leverage points for intervention. The different spatial extension of demonstrative cases shows that this is replicable in small communities of commoners within relatively small SES or in a larger context of an entire region, involving local assembly or regional/provincial/county government bodies.

The protocol is intentionally lightweight and modular, making it easy to replicate from micro to macro scales and in contexts beyond mountainous and sparsely populated contexts. Here are some possible situations:

• Micro (involving a community/commons board): 3–4 h session with 10–20 participants to map RS–RU–GS–A, prioritise 3–4 “high-relevance/low-awareness” megatrends, and draft implications (“prepared vs. unprepared”) for one SES component at a time. The results could inform multi-year plans or annual assembly decisions.
• Meso (municipal/provincial commissions, park authorities, river basin councils): a half-day lab to produce a cross-departmental megatrend map for multiple SES (e.g., water, energy, forest, tourism), aligning with SEA/EIA or climate adaptation planning, and nominating leverage points and no-regret measures.
• Macro (regional/national strategy units): a one-day design sprint to compare several SES, run parallel groups, and synthesise shared risks, opportunities and early-warning indicators for anticipatory governance routines.

The same SES × megatrend logic can be applied to areas beyond those we have considered, such as coastal deltas, urban areas, green infrastructure, agri-food systems, and cultural heritage systems. Because the method makes interdependencies explicit through the SES lens and focuses attention on under-recognised drivers, it can be applied to many areas of sustainability.

A minimal replication kit could comprise the following: (1) a SES framing sheet (RS, RU, GS, and A), (2) 14 megatrend cards, (3) a relevance/awareness template, (4) a prepared/unprepared implications template, (5) a capture grid for signals, leverage points, indicators, owners and next steps.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

This article presented a pilot methodological framework integrating Ostrom’s Social-Ecological Systems (SES) model with the European JRC Megatrend Assessment to explore long-term transformations in European “cold lands.” The main purpose was to demonstrate the feasibility and potential value of this integration as a tool for anticipatory governance and participatory sustainability planning, rather than to produce detailed socio-ecological projections.

Conceptual and methodological contributions.

The proposed framework demonstrates how the SES model—focused on local structures of interaction between resources, users, and governance—can be effectively combined with megatrend analysis, which operates at the global scale of drivers and pressures. This integration helps connect place-based social-ecological diagnosis with systemic foresight and strengthens the ability to identify both emerging risks and future opportunities. As a “boundary object,” the framework enables transdisciplinary learning and dialogue between research and practice, contributing to the operationalization of anticipatory governance at multiple scales.

Policy and governance implications.

The pilot cases suggest how community-based foresight can enhance local resilience by helping stakeholders recognise the implications of long-term global trends for their specific resource systems. Local and regional institutions could adopt similar workshops to:

• identify “low-awareness/high-relevance” megatrends affecting territorial sustainability;
• co-develop adaptive strategies that connect traditional ecological knowledge with future-oriented planning;
• integrate foresight outputs into Environmental Assessment, Adaptation Strategies, and Local Development Plans.

In mountainous and sparsely populated territories, these exercises can serve as early-warning and learning platforms, fostering proactive rather than reactive decision-making.

Future developments.

To consolidate this methodological contribution, future applications should expand the pilot process to include multiple stakeholders and extend the foresight cycle to the Visioning, Designing, and Adapting phases. This would allow the identification of concrete actions, responsible actors, and early indicators of change. Comparative replications across other European territories—such as coastal, urban, or agricultural systems—could further validate the framework’s flexibility and scalability.

Ultimately, fostering anticipatory capacity within communities represents both a scientific and policy challenge: it enables local actors to co-create sustainable futures while aligning local decision-making with long-term dynamics.