Inherited Futures: Generation Z and Their Parents on the Future and Sustainability

Abstract

People’s conceptions of the future influence their willingness to engage in sustainability-oriented actions today. A sense of moral responsibility toward both past and future generations may also be linked to greater interest in sustainability. This study explores how members of Generation Z (Gen Z) and their parents conceptualize the future, including their views on intergenerational justice and sustainability. Using semi-structured interviews with 11 Gen Z–parent pairs, we examined how ideas about the future are formed, transmitted, and expressed. Thematic analysis revealed that Gen Z participants most frequently framed the future in terms of economics, technology, and social dynamics, with environmental concerns mentioned occasionally but not as a dominant theme. Compared to their parents, Gen Z expressed distinct priorities—including creating opportunities for future generations—and used different language to describe future possibilities. We develop the concept of the lexicon of futures thinking—the specific terms, metaphors, and conceptual categories used to articulate visions of the future—as a tool for understanding and engaging youth perspectives. These findings offer insights into how educators and advocates can more effectively connect with Gen Z on sustainability issues by aligning with their values and linguistic framing.

1. Introduction

The ways in which individuals envision the future can significantly influence their behavior in the present. Research has shown, for example, that when people feel psychologically connected to their future selves, they are more likely to make decisions today that benefit their long-term well-being [1,2,3,4]. Additionally, studies have found that engaging in future-oriented thinking can increase prosocial behaviors, such as helping others, suggesting that imagining future scenarios may foster a broader sense of moral responsibility and social engagement [5].

Sustainability is fundamentally concerned with the future. It requires individuals and societies to consider the long-term consequences of present-day choices, particularly but not exclusively in relation to the environment. This future orientation is embedded in the widely cited definition of sustainable development from the Brundtland Report: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [6]. Recent scholarship has emphasized that future-oriented thinking is essential for fostering sustainable behaviors and decision-making [7,8] and is a key competency to cultivate in sustainability education [9]. Futures thinking encourages individuals to envision desirable futures and to act in ways that align with those visions, thereby bridging the gap between abstract sustainability goals and concrete personal and collective action. As such, cultivating and activating futures consciousness [10] and future orientation [11] may be a critical pathway for motivating pro-environmental behavior.

A central temporal theme within sustainability discourse is intergenerational justice, the ethical responsibility of current generations to ensure fairness and equity between current and future generations. This concept emphasizes a moral “chain of obligation” [12] that applies to concepts like maintaining environmental integrity, sustainable resource management, and social equity so that future generations can enjoy a quality of life at least equal to that of the present [13]. Intergenerational justice is embedded in traditional thought, like the Seven Generations Principle of Indigenous American communities [14], as well as more contemporary calls to be “good ancestors” [15]. The idea is well captured by the aphorism, “Society prospers when elders plant trees in whose shade they know they will never sit,” reflecting a moral imperative to act with foresight, stewardship, and care for those yet to come.

An intergenerational justice lens also leads to recognition that younger generations live longest with the consequences of today’s decisions yet often have less power to shape the future than older contemporary generations. Generation Z (Gen Z; people born between 1997 and 2012) is one such generation: it has many decades ahead of it and currently a relatively limited role in influencing the trajectory of those years. Increasingly, however, members of Gen Z are asserting their agency through consumer behavior, civic engagement, and social activism. Their beliefs about what the future holds, and their perceived capacity to influence it, are likely to inform their responses to environmental and societal challenges. Understanding the issues that Gen Z finds most salient can illuminate the domains where they are most likely to invest their energy and attention. Individuals are more inclined to act on problems they perceive as personally relevant or urgent [16,17].

Futures thinking refers to the cognitive and imaginative process by which individuals envision possible, probable, and preferable futures [18]. It involves anticipating change, identifying emerging trends, and considering the long-term consequences of present-day decisions [19]. In the context of sustainability, futures thinking helps bridge the gap between abstract goals and concrete actions by encouraging people to imagine desirable outcomes and work toward them. By examining the themes that dominate Gen Z’s future thinking, we gain insight into how best to engage them in sustainability efforts that resonate with their values and lived experiences.

Despite growing scholarly interest in Gen Z’s social, political, and environmental attitudes, relatively little is known about how this cohort conceptualizes the future, particularly in terms of the language and thematic frameworks they use to describe it. While prior research has explored Gen Z’s values and aspirations [20,21], sustainability orientation [22,23], and anxiety about future environmental decline [24,25], few studies have examined what might be called the lexicon of futures thinking: the specific terms, metaphors, and conceptual categories that individuals use to articulate their visions of the future. This lexicon reflects not only what people believe about the future, but how they frame those beliefs in language. Understanding this linguistic framing is essential for engaging Gen Z in sustainability efforts, as it reveals the symbolic and narrative tools they use to make sense of complex issues. By analyzing the lexicon, we gain insight into the values, priorities, and emotional tone that shape their future-oriented thinking. Adapting engagement effort to a pre-existing lexicon has been demonstrated to enhance audience engagement [26]. Moreover, while it is well established that certain values like political affiliation can be transmitted from parents to children [27,28], the degree to which future-oriented thinking is similarly shaped by intergenerational influence remains underexplored. This study addresses these gaps by investigating how Gen Z speaks about and envisions the future, how sustainability and intergenerational ethics factor into those visions, and to what extent these ideas are inherited from or diverge from parental perspectives.

With these gaps and potential practical benefits in mind, this research is guided by four research questions (RQs):

• RQ 1: How do members of Generation Z conceptualize the future, and what role does environmental sustainability play in these visions?
• RQ 2: How do participants frame their personal agency in shaping future outcomes, and does this differ between generations?
• RQ 3: How do concepts of intergenerational justice manifest in Gen Z’s thinking about the future?
• RQ 4: To what extent are Gen Z’s ideas about the future influenced by the beliefs and values of their parents?

Identifying the thematic language and conceptual frameworks that Gen Z uses to articulate their visions of the future can enhance efforts to communicate effectively and foster meaningful engagement with this youth population.

2. Methods

Participants were recruited through social media platforms, professional networks, and listservs. Interested individuals completed a form to determine eligibility to participate in the study. Selection criteria required participants to be a resident of the United States and either a Generation Z child (born between 1997 and 2012) or a parent of a Generation Z child. For inclusion in the study, both parent and child participants were required to complete participation in the study. Recruiting through professional networks and listservs may have introduced selection bias, as individuals in these channels may not represent the broader population. Furthermore, the participants may have shown prior interest in futures thinking or sustainability, which could impact the composition of the sample. Additionally, parent–child dyads who agreed to participate were likely on good terms, which may have led to greater similarity in their responses. Additionally, parent–child pairs who agreed to participate were likely on good terms, which may have led to greater similarity in their responses. For these reasons, the results should be interpreted with awareness of this sampling limitation. Informed consent was obtained by email, and assent was acquired for participants under the age of 18.

We selected parent–child dyads to enable direct comparison of generational perspectives within family units, which aligns with our research questions on intergenerational transmission of futures thinking. The sample size of 11 pairs reflects qualitative research norms for thematic analysis and was constrained by feasibility. This design prioritizes depth over breadth, allowing nuanced exploration of language and conceptual framing. However, the relatively small and non-random sample limits generalizability and may underrepresent variation across socio-economic and cultural contexts. Limiting participants to U.S. residents, however, ensured a degree of cultural and policy context consistency that aided comparisons across parent–child dyads.

A total of 31 interviews were initially conducted; however, eight were excluded due to concerns about participant eligibility, specifically indications that they were not residents of the United States, and one was excluded because a corresponding parent interview was not available. The final study group included 22 participants, consisting of 11 Generation Z individuals and 1 parent for each.

Participants in the Gen Z category were born between 1997 and 2010, making them roughly 15 to 28 years old at the time of the interview. Parental birth years ranged from 1962 to 1982, meaning that parental participants mostly belonged to Generation X (birth years often described as around 1965 to 1980), though some parents were either younger Baby Boomers or elder Millennials. In total, the 22 participants were located in 8 different states in the American Midwest, West, and South.

To collect data relevant to our research questions, we conducted semi-structured interviews that were guided by 27 open-ended questions organized around four thematic areas: “Images of the Future,” “Pathways to the Future,” “Intergenerational Obligations,” and “Sustainability.” (See Appendix A for the complete interview guide). First, the “Images of the Future” section examines how participants create mental images, frame narratives, and connect to their sense of hope about the future (RQ 1). Second, the “Pathways to the Future” section explores the participant’s belief in agency, control, responsibility, and perceived role in shaping the future (RQ 2). Third, the “Intergenerational obligations” section investigates how participants understand responsibilities across time, including perceptions of other generations relating to intergenerational justice and generational impressions (RQ 3 and RQ 4). Lastly, the “Sustainability” section focuses on the participants’ awareness of environmental concerns and how this awareness connects to their vision of the future (RQ 1). Interviews with each parent and their Gen Z child were conducted separately using Zoom between April and September 2025. Interview durations ranged from 12 to 36 min. Parents were encouraged to schedule their interviews prior to their child’s, if they wished to preview the questions or topic areas. Each participant received a $30 incentive for completing the online Zoom interview.

Interview recordings were transcribed using Zoom’s transcription feature and then manually revised. Transcripts were manually analyzed using thematic coding [29] by a single coder, guided by a codebook developed iteratively during the initial stages of analysis and based on the codebook featured in previous research by the first author [30]. This approach was chosen to maintain consistency in applying predefined codes and because the codebook had been validated in prior studies. To enhance reliability, coding decisions were documented and reviewed through peer debriefing with the second author. Ambiguous excerpts were discussed collaboratively to ensure interpretive rigor and reduce bias. These steps provided a systematic process for maintaining coding consistency despite the use of a single coder.

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the University of South Dakota’s Institutional Review Board before participant recruitment.

3. Results

3.1. Timelines of “The Future”

When asked what distance away they considered “the future” to be, participants on average considered the future to be roughly 15–20 years away. Responses varied, with one participant describing the future as 3–4 years away while another noted that the future was to them 50 years away. Fourteen out of the 22 participants indicated that they thought of the future as being somewhere between 10 and 25 years ahead. There was no observed difference in perceived “distance to the future” between parent and Gen Z participants.

3.2. Anticipated Futures

Participants were asked to share their foresight with regard to both what they thought the future would be like and to the events that would transpire to bring about this envisioned future.

3.2.1. Visions of the Probable Future

When asked to anticipate what the United States would be like in the future (at whatever number of years away they had previously defined), the most frequently referenced theme was Social Dynamics, referenced by 5 Gen participants and 6 parents. (See Table 1 for a summary of the most frequently occurring themes of the futures descriptions aggregated across the three futures descriptions.) References linked to this theme generally focused on socio-political unity (“I think that the United States would hopefully be coming together and like growing in our mindset of like that. We’re all people, and we’re all we’re all just trying to make the world a better place.” 06C (Participants were assigned anonymizing codes. Parent–child pairs were assigned the same unique number and P was used to designate the parental participant and C was used to designate the Gen Z child.)) or division (“I think, see, 10 years out, I think there’s still probably a pretty strong political divide. Fifty years out… I think if something doesn’t get fixed there fifty years out, maybe it breaks apart into multiple, you know, countries.” 07P). Relatedly, some respondents spoke about either greater or reduced acceptance of various groups within society (“Like, based on the path that we’re on, that it’s gonna be kind of reminiscent of a past era in, just, global history, where certain people are purposefully excluded, or… persecuted….” 10C).

Table 1. Most frequently used themes found in descriptions of what the future could be like (including if the things go “well” or “poorly”).

Theme	Coding Description	Number of Participants (Gen Z/Parents)
Economics	References aggregate economic indicators, conditions, or dynamics at the national or global scale or references economic indicators, conditions, or dynamics in reference to the lived, personal experience of individuals. Relevant references include: inflation; poverty and poverty rates; wages; employment/jobs	10/9
Social Dynamics	References societal-level relationships/dynamics. Relevant references include: open-mindedness; social strife/division; isolation and lack of human interaction; gentrification; political divisions (outside of government)	8/6
Technology	Makes reference to some aspect of technology, research, or innovation. Relevant concepts include: automation; artificial intelligence; social media	4/3
Health	References developments in physical, mental, and social well-being, including developments in medical technology, access to healthcare, and food/diets. Relevant concepts include: curing diseases; food quality; obesity.	3/2
Environment	References the condition of the environment/natural resources, human populations, biodiversity, or climate change. Relevant concepts include: trash/plastic; (air/water) pollution; extinction	3/0
Government and Law	References the type, quality, or functionality of government or the creation or elimination of laws, regulations, or taxes. Relevant concepts include: political corruption; polarization; elections; budgets; political parties (as national organizations).	0/3

Economics was the second most frequently referenced theme, being a part of nine participants’ description of the expected future of the United States (including 6 from Gen Z). Some spoke about the economy in terms of lived, personal experience, focusing on concepts like the job market and the cost of living (“I hope that we’re more economically stable than we are right now, and I hope that we have better living wages than we do now, because it’s hard for us to support families and what we like to do.” 13C). Others spoke in terms of aggregate, national-scale economic indicators (“I don’t think the economy overall is going to improve, per se.” 09P).

Technology was the third most common theme, mentioned by 7 participants (5 by Gen Z). The majority of those mentioning technology specifically focused on artificial intelligence (AI) and its anticipated impacts on economic and social factors (“…how kind of our industries are going to look with AI. I mean, immediately my mind goes to, I think, almost every business, and anywhere you go is going to be just changed in the next 50 years with, are you going to have that face-to-face interaction with people?” 08C).

3.2.2. Pathways to the Probable Future

When asked about the pathways they believed would lead to the future they anticipated, one of the two most commonly referenced mechanism was Individual and Collective Action, referenced by 13 participants (5 Gen Z and 8 parents). (See Table 2 for a summary of the most frequently occurring themes of the pathways descriptions.) References to individual actions were the most common, highlighting ways that isolated individuals might change the course of events (“I think that we have more people start to speak out, and more people start to stand up and go, whoa, whoa, whoa, this isn’t quite what we want.” 12P). Less popular were references to social movements, where individual actions congeal into a larger, cohesive force (“People are not into the system, and the 2-party system like, there’s a growing awareness that neither party is really there for the people and the people versus systems, thing is gonna get stronger and stronger.” 09P).

Table 2. Most frequently used themes found in descriptions of the pathway to the most likely future.

Theme	Coding Description	Number of Participants (Gen Z/Parents)
Government and Law	References aggregate economic indicators, conditions, or dynamics at the national or global scale or references economic indicators, conditions, or dynamics in reference to the lived, personal experience of individuals. Relevant references include: inflation; poverty and poverty rates; wages; employment/jobs	7/5
Individual and Collective Action	References personal characteristics, behaviors, beliefs, values, or morals or a sustained campaign to achieve a social goal or the wholesale change in a social system. Examples include: ignorance, apathy, mass consumerism, charitable giving, giving up, stop caring, socialism replacing capitalism, activists	5/8
Technology	Refers to some aspect of technology, research, or innovation, excluding energy or medical research/technology. Examples: market research, medical research, money for research, engineers	7/3
Other	References to topics not covered in the above themes. Examples: education, mental health, food	3/2

The second most commonly referenced mechanism anticipated to shape the future was Government and Law, mentioned by 7 Gen Z participants and 5 parents. Within this theme, there were two main ideas expressed. Some spoke about the nature of governance, including the structure or character of different parts of government (“First, it starts with us losing our system of checks and balances as a government.” 10C). Others focused on various policies or taxes that might affect the United States in the future (“I guess hopefully, putting in some, you know, like bills or something in place to reduce inflation and different things like that.” 07C). Beyond thematic coding, language use revealed notable framing differences between Gen Z participants and their parents. The Gen Z participant emphasized the importance of government action to address an economic situation of reducing inflation, noting, “Well, I think probably you know a bit of like, I guess hopefully, putting in some, you know, like bills or something in place to reduce inflation and different things like that” (07C). In contrast to the parent (07P), who responded that the government needs to get out of the way, “I think you know entrepreneurship and markets in general bring it to the future. If as long as we, as long as the government doesn’t get in people’s way, then people can see there’s an opportunity to make money solving the hardest problems”. This finding, while it is outside our thematic analysis, offers valuable insights for potentially developing communication interventions.

Technology was the third most commonly cited pathway to the future, referenced by 7 Gen Z participants and 3 parents. Some participants spoke generically about “more” or advancing technology (“I think what happens today, since then, will just kind of be more discoveries and advancements in the technology and resources we already have, and I think as stuff like that advances, we’ll start to be able to find other use cases for it and integrate it more.” 15C). Others spoke about a specific technology or field, most often AI (“Well, I think the advancement of all of this AI, all of this AI creation. I mean, and don’t get me wrong: I utilize it because it’s convenient. But then, how many people, how many products, how many resources are we eliminating by this almighty creation that knows all, thinks all does all, and that’s a little bit scary? So whoever is behind the AI, the creators like that’s a lot of power. And what if the power gets designed to do something adverse?” 10P).

3.3. If Things Go Well

When asked what the United States would be like in the future “if things in the years ahead go well”, the most frequently referenced theme was Economics. Descriptions of the future covered both national-level economic indicators as well as more personal, “kitchen table” matters. Economics was almost uniformly used as a descriptor of a better future by Gen Z, with 10 of 11 participants invoking some fashion of economic concept to describe the future. Nearly half of parental participants (5 of 11) referenced the economy. Beyond thematic analysis, yet still significant for understanding language framing, appears in how the Gen Z participant and parent described financial goals. The Gen Z participant focused on “chasing money,” explaining, “I feel like you can go a lot of directions with that, and I’m trying to focus on a direction where I’m making more positive impact, and not just, like, chasing money and stuff, so I think… I hope people continue to do that, like, kind of put their money where their mouth is.” (11C). In contrast, the parent has a different focus centered on the perspective of “obtaining wealth,” stating, “Being allowed to obtain wealth, but maybe not at… You know, 1000 times or 1 million times what the average person can obtain.”(11P). This contrast provides an example of how the language framing illustrates generational differences and offers a potential insight for developing communication interventions once the thematic differences have been established.

Social Dynamics and Health were the two second most frequently referenced themes, being present in seven participants’ description of a good future of the United States. In this future, participants described greater tolerance and more unity across society as well as more affordable and accessible healthcare.

3.4. If Things Go Poorly

Consistent with the visions of a good future for the United States, when asked what it would be like in the future “if things in the years ahead go poorly”, the most frequently referenced theme was Economics, invoked by 7 Gen Z participants and 5 parents. Higher prices of goods, including homes and basic necessities, was the chief means by which participants described the economy in their version of a poorer future.

Social Dynamics was the second most commonly invoked idea, being raised by 4 Gen Z participants and 3 parents. Participants broadly painted pictures of increased civil strife marked by political division, protest, and violence.

3.5. Hope for the Future

When asked about their overall sense of hopefulness, participants generally expressed greater optimism about their personal futures than about the future of the United States. Seventeen of the 22 participants indicated more hope for their own lives than for the country as a whole. In the remaining cases, participants either expressed equal levels of hope or provided responses that were too ambiguous to categorize.

3.6. Shaping the Future

When asked what people or organizations had the most power to shape the future, government was the most common influencing force mentioned, with 13 participants (8 Gen Z and 5 parents) including it in their response. Individuals were the second most common response theme (9 responses; 3 from Gen Z and 6 from parents). Wealthy people and organizations were the third most common response, mentioned by 8 participants (5 Gen Z and 3 parents).

When asked what they as individuals could do to affect the future, across the set of participants the most common response theme related to parenting. This response was given exclusively by parent respondents, seven in total; no Gen Z respondents referenced raising children as a chief means of influencing the future. Act of service was the second most common theme in the data, with 3 people in each group highlighting the potential of volunteerism and a commitment to good works as a way for individuals to shape the future. Advocacy and personal development were the third most common themes, more prominent among Gen Z respondents (n = 4) than their parents (n = 1).

3.7. Intergenerational Sensibilities

Participants were asked to reflect on concepts germane to intergenerational justice, including the influence of past generations and what is owed to past and future generations.

3.7.1. Effects of Past Generations

When asked how their lives had been affected by previous generations of Americans, the most common thematic element of answers related to the establishment of rights, with two members of Gen Z and 6 parents noting this legacy of the past. Some of these references were to a generic set of rights or freedoms. Several respondents, though, itemized specific rights advancements made in past, for example: “My ancestors have gotten rid of slavery and fought for woman’s rights, and we have overall come closer to being more… I don’t know what the word is, but we’re just becoming more unified and equal.” (09C)

The second most commonly recognized impact of previous generations was in setting a general foundation for life today, with 4 Gen Z participants and 2 parents making note of this effect. Several noted that their current geographic location was due to previous generations, either through colonization of North America or deciding to settle in a particular state.

After foundation, the two most common themes related to values and prosperity, with five participants noting either impact. Participants discussing values typically noted being shaped by values from parents (“And so I think that work ethic and that ‘just move forward and do what you can’ ethic, instilled in me and my siblings by our parents has been probably the most, like, concrete small driver in our family.” 11P) Those discussing Prosperity broadly mentioned that the work of past generations within their own family had been the basis of their own current material welfare (“So me being in this place is because of them, and the way that they were strong and fought to live, like my grandma rode in a boat across the Irish Canal with her babies, you know, to have a prosperous life.” 06P)

3.7.2. Debt to Past Generations

When asked what, if anything, they owe to previous generations, gratitude was the most prominent idea expressed, with five Gen Z and five parental participants speaking to that idea. This gratitude was generally based on the recognition that current levels of well being are based on previous generations (“And realizing that without those previous generations we wouldn’t be with all the abundance that we have today. And so it’s important to acknowledge that all these people have come together to make the world a better place, even if there’s been ups and downs.” 07C) and that these contributions sometimes entailed sacrifice (“Well, to our military service, there’s nothing I can do to repay for everything that they’ve done for me. I mean they gave their life, and some of them are still giving, and so, I think, honoring them, honoring their service, showing respect and hopefully not letting all of the things that they did get washed away.” 10P).

Care was the second most common theme of discussions about obligations to past generations. Mentioned by five participants, comments connected to care were oriented towards taking care of elderly relatives, seeing to their physical and social needs (“I love my grandparents and my parents and all that, so I definitely want to make sure they’re all taken care of and comfortable. I think we owe just making sure. I think there’s… just with, like, the very elderly, what I see with my grandparents’ concerns and their friends is sometimes, like, they just kind of disappear, and I don’t think that’s fair.” 11C).

3.7.3. Debt to Future Generations

When asked what, if any, they owe to future generations, the most common sentiment expressed was a sense that they were obliged to leave the world a Better place. This idea, expressed by four Gen Zs and 6 parents, spoke to an obligation to act, as 07P put it, “… like the Boy Scout model: try to leave things a little better than they were when you arrived.” Typically this was generically expressed a general idea, though some specifically identified the environment as a domain for improvement (“I think, you know, we need to be better, probably, stewards of our environment, definitely. I don’t know how I can personally change that, but I wish that, not only the United States would get on board with that, but I think the world.” 15P).

The second most commonly referenced ideas concerning obligations to future generations related to providing opportunity (n = 5) and giving guidance (n = 5). Sentiments about opportunity either referenced one’s own life experience (“...giving them like the same chance that I have. I like giving them the same opportunities that I have. I don’t know how I would do that, but I just feel like that’s what I that’s what they deserve is for us to all have the same opportunities in life.” 06C) or were a general recognition of the value of opportunity (“Now, societally, I think we have to find ways to do better by some of the people that don’t have power or resources, whether that’s people who are impoverished, who have dealt with certain traumas, or all these different things that we, just as a society, owe them a hand up. Not a hand out, but a hand up, and the ability to have opportunities like we want for our own children.” 11P). Guidance referred to helping future generations navigate potential pitfalls, either in general or the regard to specific concerns (e.g., “I think the biggest thing is, like, to keep them off of, like, technology as much is the biggest thing for me, because, like, technology reduces social interactions, which I believe isn’t ideal.” 13C).

3.8. Environmental Concerns

In the last section of the interview, participants were asked directly about any environmental concerns they might have and how they viewed these concerns as impacting the future. One indicator of the degree to which the environment factors into people’s thinking about the future is whether the environment was organically mentioned, that is, whether it factored into an answer without explicit prompting. We found that six of our 22 participants (4 from Gen Z and 2 parents) made mention of the environment without being asked first.

Climate change was the environmental issue that most concerned participants, with 7 members of Gen Z and 5 parents listing it when prompted. Waste and pollution were the next most frequently referenced issues (n = 6).

4. Discussion

This article explores how members of Generation Z conceptualize the future. The language and frameworks people use to describe the future influence the kinds of actions they are willing to take in the present, including with regards to sustainability. Understanding how Gen Z envisions the future, and particularly the lexicon they use to speak about the future, can help educators, policymakers, and advocates more effectively engage them in efforts to build a more sustainable world. If Gen Z is to be meaningfully involved in shaping future outcomes, it is essential to appreciate how they perceive the pitfalls, possibilities, perils, and promise ahead.

4.1. Gen Z’s Conceptualization of the Future

This study first sought to understand how members of Generation Z describe and conceptualize the future, with particular attention to the role of environmental sustainability concerns. Across our 11 Gen Z interview participants, only one topic (Economics) was present in the majority (n = 6) of descriptions of what they thought the future of the United States would likely look like. Economics emerged as the most frequently cited theme in descriptions of a ‘good future’ (n = 10), and also appeared prominently in visions of a ‘bad future’ (n = 7). Two other topics (Technology and Social Dynamics) were referenced by five Gen Z participants in the “likely future” description, with Social Dynamics also being one of the more frequent descriptors of the good and bad futures. These frequencies are broadly consistent with prior research on Gen Z’s future-oriented thinking [30], although the specific thematic content differs.

As economics, technology, and social dynamics are terms by which Gen Z participants most frequently discussing potential futures, we expect that concepts in these three areas are the most likely to be engaging starting points for conversations with Gen Z about the future. Previous research suggests that technology may be an evergreen topic for futures thinking [31,32,33], while the prominence of economics and social dynamics may be a product of the timing of data collection (summer of 2025), which in the United States was marked by deep political divisions, rising inflation, and a tightening job market. Frequent references to artificial intelligence (AI) likely reflect heightened public discourse around rapid AI advancements during this period. These contextual factors suggest that Gen Z’s future orientation is not only shaped by enduring generational values but also by salient socio-economic and technological developments, grounding the visions they expressed in the realities of 2025. This pattern is consistent with prior research suggesting that non-expert futures thinking often exhibits continuity bias, projecting present conditions forward rather than envisioning radically different scenarios [34,35].

We specifically sought to understand the degree to which the environment gets used in Gen Z conceptualizations of the future. Although environmental concerns were not among the most frequently cited themes, they were mentioned by approximately one-quarter of Gen Z participants, suggesting a moderate but meaningful presence in their future-oriented thinking. (Notably, none of the parent participants mentioned environmental issues in their descriptions of the future, reinforcing generational differences observed in prior studies). This relatively low frequency contrasts with prior research suggesting environmental salience is strong within this cohort [24,30] and that environmental sustainability concerns have an appreciable influence over lifestyle decisions [22,23,36]. Several factors may explain this discrepancy. First, our interviews were conducted during a period marked by economic uncertainty, including a poor labor market for recent graduates, which may have shifted attention toward economic futures. Second, our open-ended approach did not explicitly prompt environmental issues until later in the interview, possibly reducing their salience compared to studies using direct measures. Finally, this finding may indicate that environmental concerns, while present, compete with other priorities such as economic stability and social cohesion in Gen Z’s future thinking. These contextual and methodological considerations suggest that environmental salience among Gen Z may be more variable and contingent than previously assumed. Regardless of the underlying cause, these findings suggest that one effective strategy for engaging Gen Z in environmentally oriented dialogue may be to emphasize the social and economic co-benefits of sustainability initiatives [37].

4.2. Pathways and Agency and Change

When asked to describe the mechanisms by which the future they envisioned might come to pass, Gen Z participants pointed to government and law as the most significant pathway (n = 8). Interestingly, responses were evenly split between those who emphasized the role of political leadership and institutions, and those who focused on the impact of legislation, budgeting, and policy decisions. This dual emphasis suggests that Gen Z might see both the actors and the actions of government as critical levers in shaping societal outcomes. Technology was the second most frequently mentioned mechanism, indicating that while it may not be viewed as an autonomous shaper of the future, it is still considered a powerful tool through which change can occur, particularly in relation to economic and social transformations (e.g., via AI-based job displacement or social media).

When asked who or what holds the most power to shape the future, Gen Z participants most frequently identified government (n = 8), followed by wealthy individuals and corporations (n = 5). This emphasis on institutional actors may suggest that Gen Z participants viewed the future as being largely shaped by systems of governance and economic power, rather than by emergent forces or decentralized processes. The prominence of government may reflect a belief in the potential for policy and leadership to either mitigate or exacerbate societal challenges, which in turn may stem from observations of contemporary political polarization and economic uncertainty. The identification of wealthy actors as influential further may suggest a concern with inequality and the perceived outsized role of corporate interests in shaping national trajectories. This emphasis on government as a major mechanism of change contrasts somewhat with other evidence of reduced engagement in politics and the political process.

When asked what they personally could do to shape the future, Gen Z participants most commonly referenced advocacy and personal development. Advocacy responses emphasized speaking out, participating in civic discourse, and challenging existing systems, suggesting that Gen Z sees individual and collective action as meaningful tools for change, perhaps particularly if directed towards governmental and corporate institutions. Personal development, on the other hand, reflected a more internalized form of agency, where self-improvement and ethical growth were viewed as foundational to contributing positively to society. This interpretation is consistent with the finding that participants tended to be more optimistic about their personal futures as compared to the future of the United States. Individuals have more agency, a key component of hope [38], at the personal level as opposed to a more global level, and so an emphasis on personal development may be viewed as the route to maximizing one’s capacity to achieve desired outcomes.

In contrast, parenting was the most frequently cited form of agency among parent participants, with seven parents identifying it as a key way to influence the future, while no Gen Z participants did. This divergence likely reflects life stage differences, but it also points to distinct generational understandings of how change occurs as well as to cohort effects. While parents may see their legacy as rooted in the upbringing of children, Gen Z appears to locate agency in more immediate and self-directed actions. Interestingly, service was mentioned by both groups, indicating a shared value around contributing to the well-being of others. These findings suggest that while Gen Z recognizes the power of institutions in shaping the future, they also maintain a belief in personal and collective agency, particularly through advocacy and self-improvement.

These generational contrasts in agency are consistent with theories of political socialization and generational evolution. Generational Theory suggests that formative socio-political contexts shape distinct orientations toward change [39], which may explain Gen Z’s systemic focus on governance and advocacy versus parents’ emphasis on family-based influence. Research on political socialization suggests that there is a direct transmission from parent to child in families that are highly politicized and if political cues are readily available to children [40,41]. Given that the future may not be a topic that people think about routinely or formally [42], it follows that intergenerational “futures socialization” may not be very pronounced.

4.3. Intergenerational Justice

Gen Z participants in this study demonstrated a clear awareness of the legacy left by previous generations. When asked how their lives had been affected by earlier Americans, they frequently referenced foundational contributions such as geographic settlement, legal rights, social values, and economic prosperity. These reflections suggest that Gen Z recognizes that the present was shaped by deliberate actions and sometimes sacrifices of those who came before. This awareness was further reflected in their responses to what they felt they owed to past generations. Gratitude emerged as the most common theme (n = 5), with participants expressing appreciation for the freedoms, opportunities, and material conditions they had inherited.

When considering their obligations to future generations, Gen Z participants most frequently emphasized the importance of leaving the world a better place (n = 4) and creating opportunities (n = 4). These responses suggest a forward-looking ethic rooted in fairness and stewardship, core principles of intergenerational justice. The idea of making the world better was also common among parents (n = 6), indicating that this may be a broadly shared cultural value. However, the emphasis on opportunity was notably stronger among Gen Z than among parents (only one parent mentioned it), which may reflect Gen Z’s acute awareness of economic precarity and perceived declines in opportunity compared to previous generations. This generational difference could signal a shift in how younger people conceptualize fairness: not only as preserving what exists, but actively expanding access and equity for those who come next.

Taken together, these findings suggest that Gen Z’s thinking about intergenerational justice is characterized by a dual orientation: a retrospective appreciation for inherited legacies and a prospective commitment to improving conditions for future generations. Their responses reflect a nuanced understanding of continuity across time, where the past informs moral obligations to the future. This framing may offer a powerful foundation for sustainability education and engagement, particularly when linked to themes of fairness, opportunity, and legacy.

4.4. Intergenerational Comparison

The absence of generational differences in perceived ‘distance to the future’ may reflect a general cognitive tendency to conceptualize the future within a relatively stable horizon of about 10–20 years. Prior research suggests that beyond this range, people’s ability to imagine distinct futures declines [43], a finding consistent across demographic groups. It may be that people understand the future in terms of foreseeable personal milestones (e.g., finishing school) rather than broader public concerns like the end-of-century effect of climate change.

The evidence from this study suggests a mixed picture regarding the influence of parental beliefs on Gen Z’s conceptualizations of the future. While some thematic overlap exists, particularly around concerns with social dynamics, Gen Z participants generally emphasized different priorities and used distinct lexical elements compared to their parents. For example, economics was a central theme in Gen Z’s descriptions of likely, good, and bad futures, whereas it appeared less frequently in parental responses. Similarly, technology was more prominent in Gen Z’s thinking, especially as a pathway to future change, while parents rarely mentioned it. These differences suggest that Gen Z may be responding to a different set of cultural and economic conditions, or that they are developing their own generational lexicon for describing the future.

In terms of mechanisms shaping the future, Gen Z participants placed stronger emphasis on government as a key factor, both in terms of institutional leadership and policy-making. Parents, by contrast, more frequently cited individual actions and parenting as influential forces. This divergence may reflect life stage differences, but it also points to distinct models of agency and responsibility. Gen Z’s focus on systemic levers like governance and technology suggests a more structural view of change, while parents’ responses reflect a more interpersonal or familial orientation.

Importantly, there was no consistent pattern indicating that parent–child pairs shared similar conceptual frameworks or thematic emphases. Indeed, Gen Z participants appeared to have more in common with one another than with their respective parents. This finding suggests that generational identity may play a stronger role than familial transmission in shaping how young people think about the future. It may also reflect the influence of peer networks, media, and broader cultural narratives that resonate more strongly within generational cohorts than across them. In this sense, Gen Z’s future thinking appears to be generationally distinct, shaped by shared experiences and concerns rather than directly inherited from parental worldviews.

Gen Z’s distinctive future orientation is reflected in their responses. Compared to their parents, Gen Z participants more consistently framed the future through systemic and structural lenses. This contrasts with parents’ greater focus on interpersonal and familial pathways, such as parenting and individual actions. Gen Z participants also articulated agency in terms of advocacy and personal development rather than legacy-building, potentially signaling a forward-looking ethic grounded in opportunity and systemic change. Furthermore, while environmental concerns were present, they were often secondary to economic and technological considerations, suggesting that sustainability messaging may resonate more when linked to these dominant themes. Taken together, these patterns underscore a generationally distinct lexicon and orientation toward the future, shaped by collective mechanisms and structural levers rather than personal or familial influence.

4.5. Limitations and Future Directions

The findings in this paper and are limited in several ways. This study was based on parent–child pairs, a design that can offer rich insights into intergenerational continuities but that always makes broad recruitment of participants more complicated. Our data included 22 participants (i.e., 11 pairs), which is a sample size that limited our ability to capture a diverse range of backgrounds and contexts. The recruitment of these participants also introduced a few avenues for bias. Participants were found through the professional networks and listservs known to the authors, which might have a higher incidence of people already interested in sustainability or futures thinking in general. Participants may have exhibited bias by expressing overly optimistic views of technological solutions or overstating pro-environmental beliefs to align with perceived study expectations. Results may be skewed as participants try to modify their responses to match those of the study, thus being less creative or truly reflective of a broader population. In addition, the fact that parent and child both needed to agree to joint participation (though in separate interview sessions) might have selected for participants who are on relatively good terms with their child/parent, which could skew results towards greater general similarity of thinking. Finally, as noted above, this data was collected at a particular point in time (summer of 2025) and it is highly likely that the context of this point in time substantially influenced the themes and ideas expressed by participants.

Future research might correct for these limitations and build on our findings in several ways. Expanding the sample of participants would allow for a more diverse set of responses and generate data that is more representative of Gen Z as a whole. Relatedly, conducting interviews at multiple points in time (e.g., yearly) would help determine the degree to which the most prominent lexical elements in people’s futures descriptions are context driven as opposed to stable and intrinsic. It would be particularly interesting to compare the stability of lexical elements between generations so as to observe whether, as people age, their terms for thinking about the future become more fixed. This study primarily employed qualitative thematic analysis on a sample size that was too small to support statistical analysis. The observed differences between Gen Z and their parents could be further validated through quantitative approaches. For example, future research might survey a large sample of both Gen Z and Gen X and compare the relative degree of agreement with various sentiments tied to the themes of this work (e.g., how much do participants agree with the idea that they owe it to future generations to create opportunities). Such an approach would strengthen the precision of conclusions regarding intergenerational variation. Finally, it would be valuable to test whether honing in on the most common futures thinking lexical elements were indeed appreciably more effective at engaging Gen Z in futures- or sustainability-oriented action. A series of experiments could assess whether, for example, framing appeals for action in terms of economic or environmental benefits impacted willingness to undertake pro-environmental behavior change.

5. Conclusions

This study indicates that Generation Z holds a nuanced and multifaceted view of the future, a view seemingly shaped by economic realities, technological change, and evolving social dynamics. While their visions of the future allude to systemic challenges, Gen Z also expresses a clear sense of personal agency and moral responsibility, particularly in relation to intergenerational justice. Their emphasis on advocacy and personal development suggests a cohort that is not only aware of the stakes but also willing to contribute to meaningful change if equipped with the right set of tools. Gen Z’s framing of obligations to future generations in terms of expanding opportunities contrasts with their parents’ focus on care and legacy, suggesting a forward-looking ethic that centers equity and access.

Importantly, Gen Z’s conceptualizations of the future are distinct from those of their parents, reflecting generational shifts in priorities, language, and perceived pathways to progress. This generational distinctiveness underscores the need for tailored strategies to engage youth populations in sustainability efforts. By aligning outreach and education with the themes and values that resonate most strongly with Gen Z, educators, policymakers, and advocates can more effectively foster their involvement in shaping a better future. The task before us is to nurture this potential; to listen, to learn, and to co-create futures in which Gen Z can thrive, lead, and pass the baton in time.