Forest

Service

United States Department of Agriculture

General Technical

Report NRS-P-187

Northern

Research Station March 2019

The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project
Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/

Published by: For additional copies, contact:

USDA FOREST SERVICE USDA Forest Service

11 CAMPUS BLVD., SUITE 200 Publications Distribution

NEWTOWN SQUARE, PA 19073 359 Main Road

Delaware, OH 43015

March 2019 Fax: 740-368-0152

Manuscript received for publication September 2018

Abstract

Horizon scanning is a method for detecting and interpreting the implications 

of emerging issues and other signals of change, both within and outside of 

an organization or field. Anticipating possible changes that may affect an 

organization is a first step toward strategic thinking, planning, and actions that 

can help prepare it for an uncertain future. Developing insight into emerging 

possible futures—or strategic foresight—can help decisionmakers respond 

proactively to seize opportunities and mitigate potential threats. Decisionmaking 

in forestry and other natural resource management fields has underutilized formal 

horizon scanning. 

The USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station’s Strategic Foresight 

Group recently worked with the University of Houston Foresight graduate 

program to design and implement a formal horizon scanning system for the 

agency, with the goal of increasing strategic foresight. The nine papers in this 

report summarize the early phases of this process and lessons learned. Among 

the topics are the development of a method to identify useful scanning sources 

pertinent to forest futures, ways to analyze scanning hits, and distinguishing 

between current and emerging issues for the Forest Service. Also discussed is 

the range of communication products generated to date by the project. The report 

contains the complete guide written for those volunteering to do the scanning. 

This collection will acquaint forest planners, managers, and policymakers with 

horizon scanning as an integral step in anticipating the consequences of potential 

change and making better decisions in a rapidly changing environment.

Cover Art

Schematic of the horizon scanning process. Source: Hines and Bishop 

(2015), as cited in paper 1, this volume. Created by Maria Romero.

The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is 

for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does 

not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture or the Forest Service of any product or 

service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable.
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project

Andy Hines, David N. Bengston, and Michael J. Dockry, compilers

General Technical Report NRS-P-187
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The compilers thank all the members of the horizon scanning team for their excellent work searching for 

signals of change that could help shape the future of forestry.
CONTENTS

Introduction: The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

David N. Bengston

1. Setting Up the Forest Futures Horizon Scanning System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Andy Hines, David N. Bengston, Michael J. Dockry, and Adam Cowart

2. An Innovative Method for Identifying Fruitful Scanning Sources

for Forest Futures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Bo Roe and Andy Hines

3. Connecting the Dots in the Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Database:

An Initial Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

David N. Bengston, Nicole Zimmerman, and Kurt Callaway

4. Identifying Current USDA Forest Service Issues to Provide Context

for Horizon Scanning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Kurt Callaway, Andy Hines, and David N. Bengston

5. Using the Implications Wheel in Horizon Scanning:

Exploring Implications of Growing Apathy Toward the Environment . . . . . . . . . 34

David N. Bengston, Leif A. DeVaney, Michael J. Dockry, Andy Hines, George H. Kubik, 

 Bo Roe, and Maria Romero

6. Exploration of a Horizon Scanning Trend:

Growing Indigenous Empowerment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Leif A. DeVaney, David N. Bengston, Michael J. Dockry, and Andy Hines

7. Scenarios to Provide Context for Horizon Scanning:

Backcasting North American Forest Futures from 2090 to 2035 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Andy Hines, Johann Schutte, Maria Romero, and David N. Bengston

8. Communicating Horizon Scanning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Andy Hines

9. Forest Futures: A Guide for Scanners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Adam Cowart, Andy Hines, Kurt Callaway, David N. Bengston, and Michael J. Dockry

About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Page intentionally left blank
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 1

INTRODUCTION: THE FOREST FUTURES 

HORIZON SCANNING PROJECT

David N. Bengston

The external environment in which forest planners, 

managers, and policymakers operate today is 

one of rapid, complex, and turbulent change. 

The broad social, economic, technological, and 

political contexts for forestry are constantly 

changing and the pace of change is accelerating 

(Steffen et al. 2015). The internal environment 

for forestry is also characterized by rapid and 

often surprising change, as new developments and 

emerging issues within the field continually appear 

and pose challenges for decisionmakers. To be 

effective in these changing internal and external 

contexts, forestry decisionmakers must anticipate 

emerging issues, trends, opportunities, and threats, 

and act proactively. They need to develop and 

apply strategic foresight: insight into how and 

why the future could be different from today (Lum 

2016).

Horizon scanning is a method to help 

decisionmakers develop strategic foresight and 

achieve the broad forward view they need to 

prepare for change. Also known as environmental 

scanning, horizon scanning involves searching 

the internal and external environments for signals 

of change. Hines and Bishop (2006: 55) state that 

horizon scanning “involves identifying the macrotrends that will form the basis of the baseline 

forecast (or ‘most likely future’) and the weak 

signals that may portend discontinuities that drive 

alternative futures.” Distinguishing characteristics 

of horizon scanning include its emphasis on weak 

signals (early indicators of potential change), 

comprehensive scanning of all domains (e.g., 

social, technological, economic, environmental, 

political), and the inclusion of possible wild cards 

(low-probability, high-impact events). Horizon 

scanning also tends to emphasize emerging 

issues in the external environment of a field or 

organization. This external emphasis is critical 

because experts within a particular field tend to 

focus most of their attention on developments 

and emerging issues within their field or area of 

expertise. But an internal focus creates the risk of 

being blindsided by surprising developments in the 

external environment.

Horizon scanning encompasses a wide range of 

techniques and organizational approaches for 

identifying and interpreting possible implications 

of signals of change (Bengston 2013). Techniques 

for systematically gathering and analyzing 

information about emerging external issues 

and trends were originally devised by military 

intelligence officers to gain insights into new 

developments in enemy countries (Cornish 2004). 

Scanning has long been standard practice in the 

military, the intelligence community, and the 

business world and is a core method in futures 

research. In recent years, horizon scanning has 

been used in a growing number of fields in the 

public sector. But the use of formal horizon 

scanning in forestry, natural resources, and 

conservation has been limited. A notable exception 

is the annual horizon scanning exercises on global 

conservation issues carried out for 9 consecutive 

years by Sutherland and colleagues (Sutherland 

et al. 2018). Though widely used in many fields, 

horizon scanning remains an underused tool for 

environmental and natural resource planning and 

decisionmaking (Sutherland and Woodroof 2009).

Although formal horizon scanning is uncommon 

in forestry and natural resource management 

organizations, all decisionmakers scan the internal 

and external environments in their organization 

or field to some extent and in some form. Most 

scan passively and informally, keeping their 

“antennae up” for signals of change that may be 

important. A few scan actively and formally. The 

research literature on scanning in business clearly 

shows the value of active and formal scanning 

Citation: Bengston, David N. 2019. Introduction: The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project. In: Hines, Andy; Bengston, David N.; 

Dockry, Michael J., comps. The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-187. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 1-4. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-P-187-Intro.
2 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

(Choo 2002). Ideally, horizon scanning serves 

as an early warning system to identify potential 

threats and opportunities. More broadly, horizon 

scanning can help foster a culture of foresight in 

an organization.

The papers in this General Technical Report 

describe a formal and ongoing horizon scanning 

project—the Forest Futures Horizon Scanning 

system—developed by the USDA Forest Service 

(hereafter, Forest Service), Northern Research 

Station’s Strategic Foresight Group and the 

University of Houston Foresight program. The 

overall goal of this report is to introduce forest 

planners, managers, and policymakers to horizon 

scanning and describe the lessons learned through 

the setting up and early implementation of this 

system.

The opening paper by Hines and coauthors, 

“Setting Up the Forest Futures Horizon Scanning 

System,” describes the design of the system and 

the thought process behind it. The University 

of Houston Foresight program’s “Framework 

Foresight” approach (Hines and Bishop 2013) 

provided the conceptual structure for the system. 

Key decisions involved in framing the domain 

for the system are outlined, steps in the scanning 

process are described, and lessons learned 

throughout the process of setting up the system 

and early implementation are noted.

In “An Innovative Method for Identifying Fruitful 

Scanning Sources for Forest Futures,” Roe and 

Hines describe the method they developed for 

identifying a list of useful and relevant scanning 

sources for the forest futures domain. The Forest 

Futures Horizon Scanning project depends on 

volunteer scanners, who often have no experience 

with scanning. Therefore, it was important to 

find ways to help volunteers become productive 

scanners quickly and effectively. The table of 

scanning sources produced by this research is 

intended to help new scanners begin to identify 

relevant signals of change related to forest futures, 

and the method will be useful in any horizon 

scanning project.

A vital step in any ongoing horizon scanning 

process is regularly analyzing the growing 

database of scanning hits to identify emerging 

issues, shed light on possible implications of the 

emerging issues, and generate foresight. A paper 

by Bengston and others titled “Connecting the 

Dots in the Forest Futures Horizon Scanning 

Database: An Initial Analysis” describes a first 

step in “connecting the dots” in the Forest Futures 

Horizon Scanning system. The authors examine 

the descriptive tags associated with each scanning 

hit as a way to characterize the database, and then 

describe several broad themes that have emerged 

from multiple scanning hits.

A paper by Callaway and others, “Identifying 

Current USDA Forest Service Issues to Provide 

Context for Horizon Scanning,” describes an 

effort to develop a list of current issues for the 

Forest Service to be used by scanners in the 

project. A key purpose of scanning is to identify 

new, emerging issues for the agency and its 

stakeholders. But in order to identify what 

qualifies as “emerging,” the scanning team must 

first be aware of the current issues. Without 

a list of current issues, scanners from outside 

the organization are likely to have difficulty 

determining whether a scanning hit represents an 

emerging issue or whether it is well known and 

already on the organization’s “radar screen.” The 

authors developed a simple method for identifying 

current issues, and summarize 12 broad current 

issues that were found.

The next two papers use a futures research 

method called the Futures Wheel or Implications 

Wheel® (Bengston 2016) to explore possible 

direct and indirect implications of themes that 

emerged from scanning. The Futures Wheel is 

a structured “smart group” technique to explore 

possible consequences of any type of change. 

For the paper “Using the Implications Wheel 

in Horizon Scanning: Exploring Implications 

of Growing Apathy Toward the Environment,” 

Bengston and coauthors conducted a small-scale, 

online Implications Wheel exercise to examine 

an emerging social trend: growing apathy toward 

the environment in the United States. Multiple 

scanning hits pointed toward this trend. Although 
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 3

this was a small and exploratory exercise—with 

just six participants—many useful insights were 

generated. A total of 155 possible implications 

of growing apathy toward the environment 

were uncovered, many with important longterm consequences for public land management 

agencies.

In the second Implications Wheel paper, 

“Exploration of a Horizon Scanning Trend: 

Growing Indigenous Empowerment,” DeVaney 

and coauthors explore the emerging trend 

of increasing indigenous empowerment and 

recognition of rights with respect to natural 

resources. This exercise was carried out with 

a group of University of Houston Foresight 

graduate students, faculty, and alumni at the 

annual “Houston Foresight” spring gathering. 

The exercise did not include American Indian or 

Alaska Native participants, and therefore should 

be viewed as an illustration of the usefulness of the 

method for exploring the implications of emerging 

issues identified through horizon scanning. 

Despite this limitation, the findings reveal a wide 

range of significant possibilities that could result 

from growing indigenous empowerment and 

suggest the importance of monitoring this trend as 

it unfolds.

In “Scenarios to Provide Context for Horizon 

Scanning: Backcasting North American Forest 

Futures from 2090 to 2035,” Andy Hines and 

others report on a scenario backcasting project, an 

offshoot of the Forest Futures Horizon Scanning 

system. The horizon scanning team determined 

that it would be useful to provide context for 

the emerging issues identified through scanning 

by crafting a set of scenarios. Emerging issues 

could then be analyzed and understood in terms 

of how they related to the scenarios; that is, one 

could explore how the emerging issues might 

fare in different scenarios. A baseline scenario 

and three alternative scenarios for the year 

2035 are presented. These scenarios for 2035 

provide a context from which policymakers can 

craft responses to avoid scenarios they consider 

undesirable and work toward scenarios they 

consider preferable.

“Communicating Horizon Scanning” by Hines 

describes the importance of diverse outputs of 

horizon scanning to meet the needs of the various 

users of scanning information. Forest planners, 

managers, policymakers, social scientists, and 

other potential audiences are unlikely to have the 

time or inclination to peruse the large number of 

raw scanning hits in the cloud-based scanning 

library. To be useful for the intended audiences, 

this large volume of information must be 

communicated in a variety of formats that fit the 

needs of diverse users. Hines describes the range 

of communication outputs of the Forest Futures 

Horizon Scanning project, including the scanning 

library itself, blog posts about significant scanning 

hits or emerging themes, detailed articles and 

technical reports, presentations to a wide range of 

audiences, and input to other strategic foresight 

projects.

Finally, the scanner guide written for the project 

is presented in its entirety in a paper by Hines 

and coauthors titled “Forest Futures: A Guide for 

Scanners.” A clear and concise guide for volunteer 

scanners is essential for creating a rigorous, 

consistent, and sustainable horizon scanning 

system. The guide includes a brief introduction; 

an overview of the Forest Service for scanners 

from outside the agency; an explanation of horizon 

scanning and its goals, uses, and stakeholders; a 

“how to” guide for using the Web-based system 

for collecting scanning hits; a description of the 

domain map used in tagging scanning hits; and a 

quick guide for getting started in scanning.

Collectively, these papers summarize the early 

phases of a core and ongoing project of the 

Northern Research Station’s Strategic Foresight 

Group. The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning 

system is designed to help forest planners, 

decisionmakers, and policymakers identify 

important emerging issues, grasp their possible 

implications for the future of forestry, and act 

proactively. Hence, the goal of this formal horizon 

scanning system is ambitious: to increase strategic 

foresight within the Forest Service and beyond.
4 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

LITERATURE CITED

Bengston, D.N. 2013. Horizon scanning for 

environmental foresight: a review of issues 

and approaches. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-121. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. 20 p. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRSGTR-121.

Bengston, D.N. 2016. The Futures Wheel: a 

method for exploring the implications of 

social-ecological change. Society and Natural 

Resources. 29(3): 374-379. https://doi.org/10.10

80/08941920.2015.1054980.

Choo, C.W. 2002. Information management 

for the intelligent organization: the art of 

scanning the environment. 3rd ed. Published 

for the American Society for Information 

Science. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc. 

325 p.

Cornish, E. 2004. Futuring: the exploration 

of the future. Bethesda, MD: World Future 

Society. 313 p.

Hines, A.; Bishop, P. 2006. Thinking about the 

future: guidelines for strategic foresight.

Washington, DC: Social Technologies. 242 p.

Hines, A.; Bishop, P.C. 2013. Framework 

foresight: exploring futures the Houston 

way. Futures. 51: 31-49. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.05.002.

Lum, R.A.K. 2016. 4 steps to the future: a 

quick and clean guide to creating foresight.

Honolulu, HI: FutureScribe. 79 p.

Steffen, W.; Broadgate, W.; Deutsch, L. 

[et al.]. 2015. The trajectory of the 

Anthropocene: the Great Acceleration.

Anthropocene Review. 2(1): 81-98. https://doi.

org/10.1177/2053019614564785.

Sutherland, W.J.; Butchart, S.H.M.; Connor, B. [et 

al.]. 2018. A 2018 horizon scan of emerging 

issues for global conservation and biological 

diversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 

33(1): 47-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

tree.2017.11.006.

Sutherland, W.J.; Woodroof, H.J. 2009. The need 

for environmental horizon scanning. Trends 

in Ecology and Evolution. 24(10): 523-527. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.04.008.
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 5

1. SETTING UP THE FOREST FUTURES

HORIZON SCANNING SYSTEM

Andy Hines, David N. Bengston, Michael J. Dockry, and Adam Cowart

Abstract.—The USDA Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station’s Strategic Foresight Group 

partnered with the University of Houston 

Foresight program to design and implement a 

horizon scanning system for the agency. The 

guiding question for the project was: What 

emerging issues might impact forests, forestry, and 

the Forest Service in the future? The University 

of Houston’s “Framework Foresight” approach 

provided the conceptual foundation for this 

horizon scanning system. Framing of the topic is 

described, including creation of a domain map, 

and identifying the geographic focus, timeframe, 

and stakeholders for scanning. Three principal 

steps in the scanning process are then defined: 

finding signals of change, collecting the signals 

in an online database, and analyzing the database 

in order to shed light on possible implications 

for the future of forestry. Lessons learned in the 

implementation of the horizon scanning system are 

discussed.

INTRODUCTION

The goal of horizon scanning is to identify, 

compile, and analyze the various signals of change 

that could affect the future of a particular domain. 

This paper reports on the design, development, and 

early-stage implementation of a horizon scanning 

system established for the USDA Forest Service 

(hereafter, Forest Service), Northern Research 

Station’s Strategic Foresight Group and created 

cooperatively with the University of Houston 

Foresight program. The goal of the project is to 

develop an ongoing horizon scanning system as 

an input to developing environmental foresight: 

insight into future environmental challenges and 

opportunities, and the ability to apply that insight 

to prepare for a sustainable future (Bengston 

2012). Broadly speaking, the objectives of the 

horizon scanning system are to find, collect, and 

analyze the signals of change, and to identify 

emerging issues suggested by these signals that 

could affect forests, the field of forestry, and the 

Forest Service in the future. This project will also 

use this information to support the development of 

scenarios of the future of forestry which integrate 

signals of change and emerging issues into each 

scenario. Once the scenarios are crafted, indicators 

based on signals of change for each scenario 

will be identified. The horizon scanning system 

can then be used to monitor these indicators and 

provide early warnings that the future seems to 

be moving toward a particular scenario (Schwartz 

1996). This information can alert decisionmakers 

to adjust plans accordingly and take timely action 

where necessary. 

Additionally, the horizon scanning system is 

supported by volunteers from within the Forest 

Service. By including participants from throughout 

the Forest Service, the project seeks to foster a 

culture of foresight within the organization and 

eventually to develop a more forward-looking 

organizational structure for the Forest Service and 

other natural resource management agencies. 

The next section of this paper explains the 

approach taken to develop the Forest Futures 

Horizon Scanning system. This is followed by a 

summary of what has been learned so far, and next 

steps for the project.

KEY STEPS IN SETTING UP 

THE HORIZON SCANNING SYSTEM

The Forest Service partnered with the University 

of Houston Foresight program to design and 

implement the horizon scanning system, driven 

by a small core team with members from both 

organizations. The concept for this project was 

based on the University of Houston Foresight 

program’s “Framework Foresight” approach 

(Hines and Bishop 2013), especially the first 

Citation: Hines, Andy; Bengston, David N.; Dockry, Michael J.; Cowart, Adam. 2019. Setting Up the Forest Futures Horizon Scanning System. In: 

Hines, Andy; Bengston, David N.; Dockry, Michael J., comps. The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-187. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 5-13. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-P-187-paper1.
6 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

two steps of the approach: framing the topic 

and its boundaries and scanning to identify 

emerging issues. Framing and scanning provide 

the foundation for forecasting, depicted as 

the baseline and alternative futures in Figure 

1. The baseline future or “business as usual” 

assumes continuity with the present without 

major surprises: Trends stay on track, plans are 

fulfilled, and mainstream projections are on target. 

Emerging issues, however, may indicate potential 

alternative futures, that is, alternative outcomes to 

the baseline. Thus, the identification of emerging 

issues or signals of change—the main goal of 

horizon scanning—provides early warning of 

potential shifts or discontinuities from business-asusual and helps frame alternative future scenarios.

Framing

The process begins with framing the domain or 

topic to be explored. The goal is to set the scope 

of the topic so that it is neither too broad nor too 

narrow (Hines and Bishop 2015: 374). For this 

Figure 1.—Key “Framework Foresight” elements for horizon scanning projects. Source: Hines and Bishop (2013).

project, it was decided that forests and forestry 

are the core domain. Broader natural resourcesrelated scanning hits (e.g., energy, water) could 

be included as they related to forests. Thus, 

scanners’ primary focus is on forests, but other 

natural resource and environmental topics can be 

considered if they have a clear link to forestry.

Domain mapping

The domain map is a visual representation of the 

boundaries and key categories to be explored, or 

framed, in scanning. Simple diagrams can be used 

to represent key categories and subcategories. A 

domain map has three primary functions: defining 

the boundaries of the scanning world, organizing 

the data for analysis, and communicating among 

scanners. Detailed domain maps are helpful 

for those setting up and managing the scanning 

process. But for most scanners, especially in 

a volunteer capacity, a more streamlined or 

simplified domain map is more instructive and 

functional.
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 7

Important questions to help identify key topics in a 

domain map include:

• What are the key activities that take place in the 

domain?

• Who are the key stakeholders in the domain?

• What has been driving change in the domain?

In the Forest Service domain map, six first-level 

categories formed the core of the map. Twenty 

second-level categories were linked to them. 

Third- and fourth-level categories were identified 

as appropriate, resulting in nearly 100 categories in 

total. Each of the primary categories is represented 

as a main branch: ecosystem, industry, institutions, 

stewardship, climate, and STEEP (an acronym 

for the broad external change categories: social, 

technological, economic, environmental, and 

political) (Fig. 2). The standard STEEP categories 

represent the broader context for forestry. This 

broader context was important to depict on the 

domain map as a reminder to the scanners to 

include emerging issues from outside that could 

affect forests and forestry.

Preliminary scanning was carried out to gauge the 

usefulness of the initial domain map, and revisions 

were made as needed. Because the full, detailed 

map can be overwhelming at first, a simplified 

map was also created for new volunteer scanners.

Geographic focus

The geographic focus of scanning is the United 

States, but relevant emerging issues in other 

regions were deemed within the scope of the 

project. For example, a scanning hit describing 

a major nanocellulose project in Sweden (http://

www.vireoadvisors.com/blog/2017/3/14/swedishprocessum-to-lead-major-nanocellulose-project) 

indicates growing research activity related 

Figure 2.—Detailed version of Forest Futures Horizon Scanning domain map.
8 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

to wood-based nanomaterials outside of the 

United States which could affect developments in 

the United States.

Timeframe

Forest management and planning often look 50 

or more years into the future, due to the nature of 

forest ecosystems. But technology and industry 

change much more rapidly, and public forest 

management agencies are influenced by the 

regular short-term nature of budgets and elections 

that affect any government agency. Therefore, the 

timeframe for scanning needs to be understood as 

multifaceted eras. For practical purposes, we used 

2030 as the primary time horizon.

Stakeholder analysis

Another important aspect of framing is to identify 

stakeholders who could be interested in using the 

information, and who may have some influence 

over the project or power to make decisions based 

on foresight produced. Key internal and external 

stakeholders for the horizon scanning project were 

identified through discussions with the Forest 

Service team. Likely internal Forest Service 

stakeholders included the Chief’s Office, Forest 

Service Washington Office leadership, regional 

foresters, national forest and regional office 

planners, research station leaders, and the Strategic 

Foresight Group itself. External stakeholders 

included state foresters, wood industry 

associations, environmental nongovernmental 

organizations, forestry societies and organizations, 

forestry academics and scientists, international 

forestry organizations, and the foresight 

community.

Guiding question

A guiding question captures why the topic is being 

investigated. The Framework Foresight approach 

(Hines and Bishop 2013) suggests that there are 

two useful types of guiding questions: strategic 

and exploratory. A strategic question guides a 

project motivated by a specific purpose, such as 

“Should we invest in blockchain technology?” The 

project is then designed to provide insight to help 

answer the question. An exploratory project, on 

the other hand, does not have a specific purpose 

and the guiding question is more open-ended and 

aimed at learning what the key issues or questions 

are for a broad topic. Our project was exploratory 

and the guiding question was: What emerging 

issues might impact forests, forestry, and the 

Forest Service in the future?

Framing sets the stage for the next step: scanning.

Scanning Process

Horizon scanning has sometimes been criticized 

for a lack of rigor, and even experienced scanners 

have difficulty communicating their process for 

scanning (Hines 2003). Scanning, and futures 

research in general (Burns 2005), is viewed by 

some as more art than science. Horizon scanning 

is often characterized more by informal guidelines 

than by methodological rigor. One way to increase 

the rigor in scanning is to define a systematic 

scanning process. The University of Houston 

Foresight program currently teaches a scanning 

process (Hines and Bishop 2015: 381) that 

suggests three principal steps in scanning: find, 

collect, and analyze (Fig. 3).

Find

“Find” is the process of searching for and 

identifying potential scanning hits. Scanning hits 

are new, unique, and potentially disruptive ideas 

that could at some point have important impacts 

or become drivers of change or emerging issues. 

The task of scanners is to seek out these ideas and 

capture them.

The domain map categories from framing provide 

a useful jumping-off point to organize the search. 

The categories in the domain map can be used as 

primary search terms, accompanied by futuresoriented terms, such as “future,” “trends,” 

“issues,” “long-term,” “change,” “vision,” or 

“2030.” Getting the right search terms is less 

important than it was in the past, because many 

search engines now work well with natural 

language inputs. But having a list of potential 

search terms is useful to help beginning scanners 

get started. Many tools are available for finding 

and monitoring up-to-the-minute information, 

such as Internet feeds and alerts, as well as sources 

beyond simple search engines such as specialized 

databases.
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 9

Figure 3.—Schematic of the horizon scanning process. Source: Hines and Bishop (2015). Created by Maria Romero.

Collect

“Collect” is the process of storing and categorizing 

scanning hits after they have been identified. 

There are several online cloud-based bookmarking 

tools with tagging capabilities that can handle 

group inputs. The convenience and functionality 

of these sites over an old-fashioned spreadsheet 

list and tags are compelling. Most importantly, 

members of a geographically dispersed team can 

add their scanning hits to a private project library 

at any time no matter where they are working. A 

spreadsheet can be used in a cloud-based filesharing system as well, but it takes far more time 

and runs the risk of version-control problems. 

The purpose of collecting is to keep track of 

the scanning hits that may provide the basis for 

identifying an emerging issue. As scanners find 

an article, blog post, video, or whatever item 

they would like to collect as a scan hit, they use 

a “diigolet” icon installed on their Web browser 

to link it to the team library in Diigo, an online 

collection database. The scanner guide provides 

instructions for scanners on how to set up their 

Web browser and link to the Diigo account. For 

each scanning hit, the scanner provides a short 

summary of why he or she selected the article. 

This can simply involve cutting and pasting a 

descriptive paragraph from the piece itself or 

can include commentary from the scanner. The 

scanner also adds a sentence or two about potential 

implications of the scanning hit for forests, 

forestry, and the Forest Service.

It is crucial that scanners tag their scanning posts 

with a set of descriptors. This step keeps the 

scanning library organized and easily searchable. 

The Framework Foresight process uses the domain 

map hierarchy as the basis of the tagging system. 

For example, if a scanner finds an innovative 

new use for a paper product, he would tag it with 

“Industry,” “Forest Products,” and “Paper.” This 

is not an exact science, but more precise tagging 

aligned with the domain map leads to more 

efficient searching of the library of scanning hits 

and aids in the analysis and communication of 

results. The tagging system enables a visitor to 

the library to quickly access, for example, all the 

ecosystem-related articles. The library’s front page 

keeps track of the top 10 tags, which can provide 

an indication of whether certain topics are being 

neglected or overemphasized.
10 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

A tagging system based on the domain map 

is useful in organizing the scanning library 

(University of Houston Foresight Program 2014). 

At a minimum, the first- and second-level domain 

map categories were to be used as tags for the 

Forest Service project. Third- or even fourth-level 

tags could be included, as could a few articlespecific tags if necessary. Scanning is an iterative 

process and there is flexibility to add new tags or 

even edit the map as the scanners learn more about 

the topic and emerging issues.

Analyze

“Analyze” is a sensemaking activity that involves 

prioritizing the various scanning hits collected. 

The Framework Foresight approach suggests three 

degrees or levels of analysis, ranging from simple 

triage to multi-criteria rankings to sophisticated 

weighted indices. Some horizon scanning efforts 

include pruning scanning hits that are deemed less 

relevant. This is effective when the focus of the 

horizon scanning effort is more targeted. In our 

case, all scan hits were kept in the database.

The triage level of analysis involves making 

a quick judgment about a scanning hit. The 

Framework Foresight approach uses a simple 

three-level ranking system:

• A “1” or low score is assigned to those hits 

judged to be “confirming” what is already fairly 

well-known. In our terminology, it confirms 

the baseline future. An example is a scanning 

hit suggesting that wildfire management will 

consume a growing share of the Forest Service 

budget.

• A “3” or medium score is for those hits that 

“resolve” in favor of one of the major known 

alternative futures. It may be an issue in 

dispute, a driver that could play out in different 

directions, or a fundamental uncertainty, and 

the hit provides evidence for one of the possible 

alternatives. An example is a scanning hit 

providing evidence of a paradigm shift in fire 

management from the traditional “war on fire” 

paradigm to a “living with fire” paradigm.

• A “5” or high score is assigned to scanning 

hits that suggest a “novel” future possibility 

and have enough plausibility to be worthy of 

further consideration. An example is a scanning 

hit describing genetic engineering to reduce 

the impacts of forest fires by making trees less 

flammable.

The triage analysis can be used in several different 

ways depending on the goals of the analysis. 

It could eliminate scanning hits from analysis 

that were scored 1 if confirmational scanning 

hits were not important for decisionmakers 

in weighing possible future policy directions. 

Additionally, the triage analysis could just select 

the 5s if the goal is to provide information on 

novel emerging issues. There may also be a reason 

to tweak the scores in a particular project. For 

example, if decisionmakers are most interested in 

more plausible and less speculative futures, the 

resolving hits may be scored higher than the novel 

hits.

The second level of analysis evaluates the 

scanning hits that made it through triage. They 

are further filtered by using one or more of the 

following criteria: credibility, novelty, likelihood, 

impact, relevance, time to awareness (timeliness 

1), and time to prepare (timeliness 2). Two or 

three criteria from this list are often sufficient 

for narrowing down the scanning hits at this 

level of analysis. Questions for each of the seven 

criteria can be used to determine the priority for a 

scanning hit. The questions are as follows:

Credibility

• Is the source reputable?

• Are there confirmations elsewhere?

Novelty

• Is the hit new? Or has it been widely reported?

• Is it new to the client or audience?

Likelihood

• What are the chances that the hit will occur? 

• What is the likelihood that it will amount to 

something significant?

Impact

• Will it change the future?

• If it does change the future, how big a change 

will that be?
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 11

Relevance

• How important is that change to the client or 

the domain?

• Is the relevance direct or indirect?

Timeliness 1 (Time to Awareness)

• How long will it be before this information is 

widely known?

• When will it appear in a mainstream newspaper 

or magazine?

• Are there resources to influence the potential 

outcome suggested by the hit?

Timeliness 2 (Time to Prepare)

• How long before this hit begins to change the 

future?

• Is it too late to do anything about it?

• Is it so far off that action now would be 

premature?

Answers for each criterion will determine which 

scanning hits should be used in an analysis. As 

with triage, this is determined by the goal of the 

analysis. For example, if the goal is to find novel 

scanning hits from credible sources that take a 

long time to prepare for, those scanning hits can be 

identified and analyzed.

The third level of analysis is a weighted index. 

This can be done by using the seven criteria listed 

earlier and assigning more weight to the criteria 

deemed more important to the project. Then a 

total number can be calculated for each scanning 

hit, and scanning hits can be listed in order of 

importance according to the weighted criteria. 

This level of analysis is more than is needed for 

most projects. But in a scanning project in which 

the scanning hits themselves are the deliverable, 

this could be a useful option. Additionally, this 

analysis option could serve to give more weight 

to scanning hits with long or varied time horizons, 

which could be important for identifying emerging 

issues for forestry where the ultimate impacts to 

forests may happen decades or centuries into the 

future.

LESSONS LEARNED

This section describes what has been learned so far 

as the project enters its second year of operation.

1. Background Information 

Versus Scanning

The Framework Foresight process makes the 

distinction between background information that 

covers the recent history and current conditions 

of the domain being explored, and scanning that 

covers what might be changing in the future. Thus, 

scanning hits should be relatively new in terms of 

when they were published—within the last few 

years is our general rule of thumb. If something 

relevant to the scanning domain was reported 

years ago, that is history and part of background 

information. In some cases, information from 

years ago may have been largely ignored and thus 

appears as new information. Our view is that it is 

still part of history and background research.

2. “New to Me” Versus 

“New to the World”

This is similar to the preceding point, but can 

involve recent information. Everything can seem 

new and interesting to someone who is exploring 

a topic for the first time. But some of this may 

be “old hat” to those with experience in the 

field. Thus, it is important to calibrate whether 

something that seems new really is new. Involving 

forestry experts from the Forest Service was 

important in identifying forestry-related hits that 

were not new to the agency or the field of forestry 

but may seem new to student scanners. Ecosystem 

management and ecological forestry, for example, 

may sound like new concepts to those outside of 

the forestry profession; however, they are concepts 

with decades-old roots and far from novel within 

forestry.

3. How to Handle “Coaching” 

of Volunteers

Some volunteers may not read the scanner 

guide and just plunge in and add hits that are 

off-track or below standard. Coaching and other 

reminders about the goals of the scanning project 

can help keep scanners focused on useful hits. 

Our approach was to be careful to avoid being 

perceived as condescending or overly academic 

in giving feedback to volunteer scanners. If the 

feedback is seen as too harsh, the volunteers may 

become discouraged and drop out. Instead, we 
12 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

conducted team “check-ins” to provide scanning 

tips. For instance, the issue of background 

information being tagged as new scanning hits 

(see lesson 1) prompted the suggestion to focus 

on recent emerging issues and developments—

within the past year or so—rather than things that 

happened years ago. Other ways that scanners can 

go off-track are either being too focused on the 

present, so the hits proposed are not sufficiently 

future oriented (e.g., entering an article about 

ongoing deforestation in the Tropics), or entering 

hits that are potentially game changing but for a 

different domain (e.g., entering an article about 

the detection of gravitational waves to a horizon 

scanning effort about forestry).

4. Moving Beyond Forests and Forestry

A challenge for outside scanners, and in framing 

the domain, was trying to get “beyond forests” 

or “beyond trees.” The Forest Service deals with 

many concerns affecting forests and forestry 

organizations: climate change, wildlife, outdoor 

recreation, water, grazing, urban forestry, 

indigenous rights, and many more. And all of these 

concerns are affected by social, technological, 

economic, and political change. For instance, the 

scanner guide suggests that scanners “focus mostly 

(but not entirely) on ‘outside’ issues and change, 

that is, things that are originating outside of the 

field of forestry and natural resources but could 

impact the field in the future...Many leaders and 

policymakers within the field are already aware 

of emerging issues and change originating within 

the sector.” This issue inspired a special project 

to develop a list of fruitful sources for scanners to 

start with.

5. Staying Connected

Staying connected is the opposite of the previous 

issue. Some scanning hits seemed to be entirely 

disconnected from the concerns of forestry. 

Granted, an explicit goal was to connect the 

external world to the Forest Service, but there 

did need to be some connection. The suggestion 

here was to ask scanners to add a comment after 

the description of their scanning hit explaining 

its possible implications or relevance to forestry 

or the Forest Service. For example, a possible 

implication for forests and forest management 

of self-driving cars is that their adoption could 

encourage more sprawling development patterns—

as long commutes are no longer wasted time—

resulting in increased fragmentation of forests.

6. Stretching into the Future

The project team also sought to find a way to 

encourage scanners to get further into the future 

(Curry and Hodgson 2008). Scanners were asked 

to tag each of their hits with the appropriate 

horizon: 

• Horizon 1: focuses on the current prevailing 

system—the baseline—as it continues into 

the future, which loses “fit” over time as its 

external environment changes

• Horizon 2: an intermediate space of transition 

in which alternative futures begin emerging as 

the first and third horizons collide

• Horizon 3: focuses on “weak signals” about 

the future of the system which may seem 

marginal in the present, but which could signal 

significant change in the long term

The judgment about which time horizon is most 

appropriate for a scanning hit is subjective, but 

the process of tagging hits with time horizons 

may encourage more long-term thinking and more 

Horizon 3 hits. That is, if a scanner sees that all 

her hits are in Horizon 1 or 2, she could adjust her 

scanning approach.

At the time of this writing, the breakdown of 

hits by time horizon is 42 percent Horizon 1, 38 

percent Horizon 2, and 20 percent Horizon 3. It is 

not surprising that there are fewer Horizon 3 hits, 

but the distribution of hits will be monitored going 

forward.

7. Tagging Discipline

Tagging “discipline”—that is, accuracy and 

completeness in assigning descriptive tags to 

scanning hits—can be a challenge. The tagging 

instructions in an early version of the scanner 

guide reminded scanners to refer back to the 

domain map: “Tags should be 1st level [of the 

domain map], 2nd level, 3rd level, something 

specific to the piece, and then which time 
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 13

horizon the hit targets.” The Houston team has 

occasionally performed tagging tune-ups and 

edited the library of scanning hits. Tagging 

discipline will be increasingly important as the 

library grows. As of this writing, there were 

already more than 1,000 hits in the library, so 

finding items of interest would be a challenge 

without an accurate tagging system.

8. Current Issues

To properly frame emerging issues it is important 

to first identify a list of existing or current 

issues facing the Forest Service. There is no 

clear source with a formal list of issues for the 

agency. Therefore, the Forest Service-University 

of Houston team reviewed the Forest Service 

strategic plan (USDA Forest Service 2015) and 

other planning documents to identify current 

issues. Thirteen widely recognized current issues 

were identified, including the growing effects 

of climate change, more frequent and intense 

wildfires, and increasing forest fragmentation due 

to development. This list of current issues was 

added to the scanner guide to help scanners focus 

on additional emerging issues identified through 

horizon scanning rather than on well-known 

current issues.

CONCLUSIONS

The Forest Service-University of Houston Forest 

Futures Horizon Scanning project has provided 

an opportunity to experiment in real time with 

academic approaches and in-the-field practice of 

strategic foresight methods. Horizon scanning has 

often proven elusive to teach and to institutionalize 

within organizations. The project team has used 

a learning, iterative approach to develop the 

scanning process that we hope will be sustainable 

within the organization beyond the initial project. 

This paper has described the set-up process and 

what has been learned to date. The challenge 

ahead is for the process to produce useful results 

such that formal horizon scanning will become 

an indispensable component of the work of the 

Forest Service as it moves into an uncertain and 

challenging future.

LITERATURE CITED

Bengston, D.N., comp. 2012. Environmental 

futures research: experiences, approaches, 

and opportunities. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NRS-P-107. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. 79 p. https://www.

fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/44822.

Burns, A. 2005. Is futures studies a science or an 

art? In: Slaughter, R., ed. The knowledge base 

of futures studies: professional edition. Vol. 1: 

Foundations [CD-ROM edition]. Indooroopilly, 

Australia: Foresight International.

Curry, A.; Hodgson, A. 2008. Seeing in multiple 

horizons: connecting futures to strategy.

Journal of Futures Studies. 13(1): 1-20. http://

www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/13-1/A01.pdf.

Hines, A. 2003. Applying integral futures to 

environmental scanning. Futures Research 

Quarterly. 19(4): 49-62.

Hines, A.; Bishop, P. 2015. Thinking about the 

future: guidelines for strategic foresight. 2nd 

ed. Houston, TX: Hinesight. 449 p.

Hines, A.; Bishop, P.C. 2013. Framework 

foresight: exploring futures the Houston 

way. Futures. 51: 31-49. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.05.002.

Schwartz, P. 1996. The art of the long view: 

planning for the future in an uncertain 

world. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday. 

272 p.

University of Houston Foresight Program. 2014. 

The future of student needs: 2025 and 

beyond. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation. 

174 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2015. USDA Forest 

Service strategic plan: FY 2015-2020.

FS-1045. Washington, DC. 53 p. https://

www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/strategicplan%5B2%5D-6_17_15_revised.pdf. 
14 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

2. AN INNOVATIVE METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING FRUITFUL

SCANNING SOURCES FOR FOREST FUTURES

Bo Roe and Andy Hines

INTRODUCTION

The goal of horizon scanning is to identify early 

indicators of change that could affect organizations 

and other systems. Horizon scanning is an initial 

step toward developing strategic perspectives 

and actions to help organizations maximize 

benefits and minimize negative consequences by 

anticipating possible future changes. Scanning 

involves finding, collecting, and analyzing 

signals of change that may indicate shifts within 

a domain or topic area. The USDA Forest 

Service (hereafter, Forest Service), Northern 

Research Station’s Strategic Foresight Group, 

in cooperation with the University of Houston 

Foresight program, has designed and is in the early 

stages of implementing an ongoing Forest Futures 

Horizon Scanning system as an input into a larger 

program of foresight research. The overall goal 

is to develop environmental foresight, defined as 

a combination of insight into future social and 

environmental challenges and opportunities, and 

the ability to apply that insight to prepare wisely 

for a sustainable future (Bengston et al. 2012, 

Hines et al. 2018).

Abstract.—The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning 

project depends on volunteer scanners, who often 

have no experience with scanning. Therefore, it 

was important to find ways to help volunteers 

become productive scanners quickly and 

effectively. This paper describes a method that 

was developed for identifying a list of useful and 

relevant scanning sources for the forest futures 

domain. The table of scanning sources produced 

by this research is a valuable first step to help new 

scanners begin to identify signals of change related 

to forest futures.

This paper focuses on the specific challenge of 

identifying productive scanning sources related 

to the future of forests, forestry, and the Forest 

Service. The forest futures domain or topic 

area poses unique challenges, because forestry 

is a diverse field and it is closely connected 

with many other domains and fields, such as 

sustainable agriculture and climate change. The 

early experience with the Forest Futures Horizon 

Scanning system suggested that fruitful scanning 

sources relevant to the forest futures domain were 

difficult to identify for many scanners. Thus, a side 

project was launched to identify a list of relevant 

and fruitful scanning sources for the forest futures 

domain. This paper describes the method that 

was developed for identifying those sources and 

discusses opportunities for improving it in future 

iterations.

METHODS

The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning system 

includes a domain map: a simple visual depiction 

of the main categories and subcategories that 

are important for the domain. The domain map 

(Fig. 1) provides a set of convenient search 

parameters for scanners. The primary domainrelated search categories are ecosystems, climate, 

industry, stewardship, and institutions, and 

the traditional STEEP (social, technological, 

economic, environmental, and political) categories 

(Morrison 1992). Attached to each category are 

subcategories that further refine the search. The 

master domain map for the project included at 

least two subcategories for each category and 

occasionally more. Individual scanners were 

initially assigned one of the primary categories and 

conducted Internet searches specific to that area 

to identify signals of change within each category. 

Citation: Roe, Bo; Hines, Andy. 2019. An Innovative Method for Identifying Fruitful Scanning Sources for Forest Futures. In: Hines, Andy; Bengston, 

David N.; Dockry, Michael J., comps. The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-187. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 14-21. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-P-187-paper2.
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 15

The scanners typically drew upon a list of futureoriented keywords such as “of the future” and 

“long term” (see adjacent box). They were asked 

to scan across a range of sources including blogs, 

periodicals, news outlets, specialized industry Web 

sites, scientific and technical journals, and research 

reports. An individual signal of change is referred 

to as a “scanning hit.” The individual scanning hits 

are cataloged in a database with hyperlinks back to 

the original sources.

Figure 1.—Forest futures horizon scanning domain map.

Futures-related Search Terms

of the future, of tomorrow, implications, emerging, 

long term, trend, by the year, vision, scenario, wild 

card, sea change, the next * years, 2025, 2030, 

crossroads, dilemma, disruption
16 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

The scanning team has so far identified and 

collected more than 1,000 scanning hits in a 

private group on Diigo.com, a publicly available 

Internet bookmarking tool that provides an online 

tagging, annotating, and sharing service for Webbased content (pages or portable document format 

[PDF] files) that can be easily shared across a 

group of users and exported into multiple formats 

for further analysis. The scanning hits were all 

from publicly available Internet sources. Each 

hit is tagged by using a common nomenclature 

drawn primarily from the domain map, along 

with a keyword or two that are specific to the 

hit (Fig. 2). As part of the tagging process, the 

scanner indicates which time horizon she thinks 

that a scan hit represents. For this project, Horizon 

1 is the present to 2025; Horizon 2 is 2025 to 

2035; and Horizon 3 is 2035 and beyond (Curry 

and Hodgson 2008). See paper 1 in this volume 

for more detail on the three time horizons. The 

scanner also comments on potential implications 

for forest futures.

Steps in Creating the List of Sources

The Diigo scanning library was exported to 

Microsoft® Excel to facilitate the analysis. The 

following steps were taken to parse potential 

scanning sources to identify the most fruitful ones:

1. Isolate. The URL for each scanning hit was 

parsed to extract the root domain (e.g., “www.

usda.gov”), and duplicates were removed to 

generate a list of unique and nonrepeating root 

domain sources. The number of scanning hits 

that the team had collected for each root domain 

was noted as one initial indication of potential for 

future relevance.

2. Investigate. Each of the target root domains 

was then investigated to determine the relevance 

of the source to the forestry domain, the likelihood 

of producing additional scanning hits, and the 

degree to which the scanning hits were unique or 

intriguing. A subjective scanning hit opportunity 

rating was created, using a 5-point Likert-type 

scale (where 1 was “low potential opportunity” 

and 5 was “high potential opportunity”). The 

composite subjective scale reflected the following 

six criteria:

• Which time horizon does the source cover 

(Horizon 1, 2, or 3)?

• How many total hits from this root domain 

source were captured by the scanning group?

• How many scanners captured hits from this root 

domain source?

• What is the likelihood that this root domain 

source will produce additional hits in the 

future?

• How relevant is this source to the domain map 

categories?

• How unique are the hits from this root domain 

source?

The root domain sources were also categorized to 

indicate the type of information that the site was 

most likely to provide. The following categories 

emerged: forestry, futures, science, technology, 

environment, government, culture, mass media, 

general news, political, and design. To simplify the 

analysis, these 11 initial categories were clustered 

into 3: forestry, futures, and general scanning hits.

Figure 2.—A scanning hit with descriptive tags highlighted.
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 17

3. Abstract. To provide additional general 

information about each of the Web sources, a highlevel overview of the purpose of the organization 

or entity associated with each site was captured 

from its “about” page or from Wikipedia where 

available. A scanning hit title and brief description 

from each root domain source were then captured 

as an example. These three points (root domain 

source overview, example scanning hit title, and 

example scanning hit description) form an abstract 

that indicates what each of these sources is likely 

to provide (Table 1).

Table 1.—Sample abstracts of scanning sources

Scanning 

source title Hyperlink

About (from site’s 

“about” page or 

Wikipedia) Category

Rating 

(1-5)

Scanning hit 

title

Scanning hit 

description

The Futures 

Centre

http://

thefuturescentre.

org/

Run by Forum 

for the Future, 

an independent, 

international 

nonprofit 

organization with 

a 20-year track 

record in driving 

sustainable 

development. 

Purpose is to 

accelerate the 

big shift to a 

sustainable future 

by transforming 

whole systems.

Futures 5 A bacterial 

ecosystem 

quickly restores 

unproductive 

soils

Forest 

management 

could be 

increasingly 

about soil 

management: 

harvesting, 

inoculating, and 

encouraging 

microbiomes to 

favor specific 

biomass 

species for 

unique forestry 

roles over 

much longer 

horizons.

Kurzweil http://kurzweilai.net/ Launched in 

2000, a network 

that explores the 

radical growth 

of pervasive 

technologies—

both biological and 

machine—which 

are radically 

changing our 

world. Based on 

forecasts and 

insights originally 

articulated by 

futurist and 

inventor Ray 

Kurzweil.

Futures 5 Chemicals that 

encourage 

plants to defend 

themselves 

replace 

pesticides

Naturally 

occurring plant 

defenses could 

(if harnessed 

and activated 

by managers) 

replace existing 

pesticide 

applications to 

deter timber 

pests.

(continued on next page)

4. Sort. The 5-point rating in Table 1 is based on a 

subjective judgment of how well each root domain 

source (not scanning hit) rates relative to the 

six criteria listed in the Investigate step (step 2). 

Sources with a scanning hit opportunity rating of 

1 or 2 were eliminated as unhelpful. These scores 

did not reflect the content of the collected hits, 

but rather the potential of the root domain sources 

for future production of relevant and valuable 

scanning hits. Sources that rated from 3 to 5 

were sorted into the first three of the following 

categories:
18 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

Scanning 

source title Hyperlink

About (from site’s 

“about” page or 

Wikipedia) Category

Rating 

(1-5)

Scanning hit 

title

Scanning hit 

description

Futurity http://futurity.org/ Features the 

latest discoveries 

by scientists at 

top research 

universities 

globally. The 

nonprofit site, 

which launched in 

2009, is supported 

solely by its 

university partners 

in an effort to 

share research 

news directly with 

the public.

Futures 5 How to make 

asphalt soak 

up more 

greenhouse 

gases

A new form of 

porous asphalt 

can sequester 

154 percent 

of its weight in 

carbon dioxide.

Resilience http://resilience.org/ Supports building 

community 

resilience in a 

world of multiple 

emerging 

challenges, 

such as climate 

change and 

biodiversity loss, 

and the social and 

economic issues 

which are linked to 

these. Publishes 

news, research, 

and analysis 

in five areas 

(energy, economy, 

environment, food 

and water, and 

society).

General 4 Will Trumpism, 

Brexit, and 

geopolitical 

exceptionalism 

sink the planet?

“Indeed, the 

future pace 

of climate 

change will be 

determined 

as much by 

geopolitical 

factors as by 

technological 

developments 

in the energy 

sector.”

GreenBiz http://greenbiz.com/ Provides 

intelligent, 

focused content 

on business, 

technology, and 

sustainability 

for people from 

every industry and 

discipline. Since 

1991, GreenBiz 

has chronicled and 

been a catalyst for 

thought leadership 

in aligning 

environmental 

responsibility with 

profitable business 

practices.

General 3 What if nature 

had the rights of 

a person (or a 

business)? 

Granting 

personhood to 

forests (even 

specific forests) 

opens up new 

complexities for 

industry...weak 

signal, but very 

interesting.

(continued on next page)

Table 1 (continued).—Sample abstracts of scanning sources
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 19

Scanning 

source title Hyperlink

About (from site’s 

“about” page or 

Wikipedia) Category

Rating 

(1-5)

Scanning hit 

title

Scanning hit 

description

Forest 

Trends

http://www.foresttrends.orgWorks to conserve 

forests and other 

ecosystems 

through the 

creation and wide 

adoption of a 

broad range of 

environmental 

finance, markets, 

and other payment 

and incentive 

mechanisms. 

Forestry 5 Carbon 

marketplaces 

create a 

mechanism for 

forest carbon 

finance

Marketplace 

payments 

for carbon 

sequestration in 

forests continue 

to rise—future 

potential 

for “carbon 

farming” as 

a legitimate 

revenue 

stream...or 

carbon penalty 

for harvesting 

timber.

• Priority 1: Forestry-related sources—directly 

related to the domain in addition to having 

a high degree of future-oriented content 

(Horizons 2 and 3). These sources are high 

priority for identifying future scanning hits.

• Priority 2: Futures-related sources—

considered a subset of more general sources, 

these sources have already done some of 

the hard work of creating future-oriented 

compilations. They provide context for 

Horizons 2 and 3, which support categories 

from the domain map.

• Priority 3: General sources (high ratings)—

not directly related to forestry, but provide a 

perspective on the future context. These sources 

have high potential for future scanning hits. 

• Priority 4: General sources (low ratings)—

provided less interesting, more mainstream, or 

less domain-relevant information. While still 

worth reviewing for future scanning hits, these 

sources are less likely to produce significant, 

unique, or numerous hits, and are likely to 

remain focused on Horizon 1.

The sources were then documented in a table that 

was shared with scanners, with visual weight to 

the four priority categories just described.

5. Custom search engine—an optional fifth 

step. The purpose of the side project described in 

this paper was to create a prioritized list of sources 

to share with the scanning team. Roe (first author), 

however, thought it might be useful to take the 

work a step further and feed the output directly 

into a search engine. Therefore, the root domains 

identified as priorities 1, 2, or 3 were loaded 

into a Google Custom Search Engine (CSE) and 

prompted with the keywords “forest,” “forestry,” 

and “tree.” Though not the intended purpose for 

Google’s CSE application programming interface, 

this approach produced consistently relevant 

results (Fig. 3). Scanners can be provided a link to 

the resulting Web interface. They then have access 

to an additional scanning tool and new resources 

to leverage the existing scanning sources by 

searching for various keywords from the domain 

map.

Table 1 (continued).—Sample abstracts of scanning sources
20 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

Figure 3.—Sample output from the Google Custom Search Engine.

DISCUSSION

The approach described here makes the most 

sense for organizations with a continuous scanning 

system. The setup time is worthwhile for ongoing 

scanning, whereas it may not be worth the effort 

for a short-duration scanning project.

Anticipated Uses

This research was part of a larger project to 

establish a horizon scanning system. A goal of 

the core team is to recruit a network of volunteer 

scanners. The volunteers have their “day jobs” and 

would be scanning primarily for goodwill, so the 

team is looking for ways to make the onboarding 

process as simple and effective as possible. 

The table of scanning sources produced by this 

research—along with other tools described in the 

preceding paper—is a good first step to help new 

scanners quickly begin to identify potential signals 

of change related to forest futures.

Areas for Improvement 

and Further Research

This research project was informed by the early 

scanning work; in other words, the sources were 

the result of the initial rounds of exploration for 

the Forest Futures Horizon Scanning project. As 

a result of the use of these initial sources, future 

explorations would bring in whatever natural 

biases existed in the first phases of scanning. 

Therefore, it would be desirable for some scanners 

to scan outside the CSE and perhaps others would 

be specifically dedicated to finding new sources. 

It may make sense to revisit the sources in the 

CSE periodically and to include new sources 

identified as useful and relevant. They could pass 

through the same evaluation criteria; thus, the list 

would be a living document. It may also prove 

useful to limit the size of the list, so a “pruning” or 

elimination of the least productive sources could 

be done periodically as well.
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 21

A more rigorous rating system is likely to be 

worth the energy to create when practitioners 

are replicating this source prioritization method. 

Individual ratings for uniqueness, domain 

relevance, and the other criteria could be used 

to create a more consistent composite score. 

In this case, the root domain was isolated to 

generate distinct sources. In future replications 

of this method, this constraint might be relaxed, 

because some unique sources may originate from 

within the same root domain—as independent 

subdomain-level URLs or sources. This 

complicates the automation of the prioritization 

somewhat, but the effort may produce relevant 

information.

Though the Google CSE provides a very simple 

interface for cursory scanning, the results using 

only this tool would not be fully comprehensive. 

The tool is highly sensitive to the keywords and 

URLs loaded when constructed, and requires 

an administrator to make changes over time. 

However, the CSE does point to a future trajectory 

of simple custom scanning tools for projects that 

could bring inexperienced volunteer or client 

scanning teams into productive scanning quickly. 

While not a replacement for an active, informed, 

and skilled scanning process, the Google CSE 

output could be a beneficial introduction to 

the collection and processing of weak signals 

for new scanners. As these custom engines are 

based entirely on existing search parameters, the 

results will inherently be narrowed to previously 

identified areas. Though far from complete, it is a 

useful tool for getting new scanners up to speed.

LITERATURE CITED

Bengston, D.N.; Kubik, G.H.; Bishop, P.C. 2012. 

Strengthening environmental foresight: 

potential contributions of futures research.

Ecology and Society. 17(2): 10. https://doi.

org/10.5751/ES-04794-170210.

Curry, A.; Hodgson, A. 2008. Seeing in 

multiple horizons: connecting futures 

to strategy. Journal of Futures Studies. 

13(1): 1-20. http://jfsdigital.org/wp-content/

uploads/2014/01/131-A01.pdf.

Hines, A.; Bengston, D.N.; Dockry, M.J.; Cowart, 

A. 2018. Setting up a horizon scanning 

system: a U.S. federal agency example. World 

Futures Review. 10(2): 136-151. https://doi.

org/10.1177/1946756717749613.

Morrison, J.L. 1992. Environmental scanning.

In: Whitely, M.A.; Porter, J.D.; Fenske, 

R.H., eds. A primer for new institutional 

researchers. Tallahassee, FL: The Association 

for Institutional Research: 86-99. http://horizon.

unc.edu/courses/papers/enviroscan/default.

html.
22 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

3. CONNECTING THE DOTS IN THE FOREST FUTURES HORIZON

SCANNING DATABASE: AN INITIAL ANALYSIS

David N. Bengston, Nicole Zimmerman, and Kurt Callaway

INTRODUCTION

Horizon scanning identifies “dots on the 

horizon”—indications that change may be coming. 

But the dots need to be connected and interpreted 

if they are to be useful. A vital step in any 

ongoing horizon scanning process is periodically 

analyzing the growing database of scanning hits 

to identify emerging issues, shed light on possible 

implications of the emerging issues, and generate 

foresight. Without analysis and sensemaking, 

horizon scanning produces a large number of 

individual scanning hits but little in the way of 

valuable foresight for planning, decisionmaking, 

and policy (Könnölä et al. 2012). This paper is 

a preliminary effort to “connect the dots” in the 

Forest Futures Horizon Scanning system. Far short 

of a comprehensive analysis, the paper is an initial 

and partial assessment of selected aspects of the 

horizon scanning database.

Currently, the Forest Futures online database 

contains about 1,200 scanning hits, collected 

over the past 2 years by a team of scanners and 

stored in a cloud-based bookmarking tool. The 

scanners tag each scanning hit with descriptive 

labels and add their initial thoughts about potential 

Abstract.—A vital step in any ongoing horizon 

scanning process is periodically analyzing the 

growing database of scanning hits to identify 

emerging issues, provide insight into possible 

implications of these issues, and generate 

foresight. This paper is a preliminary and partial 

effort to “connect the dots” in the Forest Futures 

Horizon Scanning system. We examine the 

descriptive tags associated with each scanning hit 

as a way to characterize the database, and then 

describe several themes that have emerged from 

multiple scanning hits.

implications for forests, forestry, and the USDA 

Forest Service (hereafter, Forest Service). In 

this paper, we briefly examine the tags as a way 

to characterize the database, and then describe 

several themes that have emerged from multiple 

scanning hits. The emerging themes include 

(1) outdoor recreation in the age of social

media, (2) the “coming age of wood,” and

(3) urban forestry 2.0. Other papers in this

report analyze emerging issues in detail using

the Implications Wheel® method: Bengston and

colleagues examine “growing apathy toward

the environment” in paper 5, and DeVaney

and colleagues examine the issue of “growing

indigenous empowerment” in paper 6.

TIMEFRAMES IN THE 

FOREST FUTURES DATABASE

The Forest Futures database includes individual 

scanning hits that represent a wide range of 

timeframes, from trends that are happening now 

to developments that could happen decades or 

even centuries from now. Scanners tag each of 

their hits with one of three time horizons (Curry 

and Hodgson 2008). Horizon 1 scanning hits 

are about an issue or event with an effect that is 

either current or imminent. They are related to 

the current prevailing system or baseline future, 

generally occurring from the present to 2025. 

Horizon 2 scanning hits may be related to events 

happening today or in a few years, but the impacts 

are likely to be many years off. They represent an 

intermediate time of transition in which alternative 

futures begin emerging as the first and third 

horizons collide. Horizon 2 scanning hits generally 

fall in the range of 2025 to 2035. Horizon 3 

scanning hits indicate new ideas and potential 

developments so innovative and different that they 

would be likely to take decades to appear and have 

an impact. They are “weak signals” of change that 

Citation: Bengston, David N.; Zimmerman, Nicole; Callaway, Kurt. 2019. Connecting the Dots in the Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Database: An Initial 

Analysis. In: Hines, Andy; Bengston, David N.; Dockry, Michael J., comps. The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-187. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 22-28. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-P-187-paper3.
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 23

may seem marginal or far-fetched in the present, 

but which could signal significant change in the 

long term. These visions of a new system are 

usually in a timeframe from 2035 and beyond.

The decision about which time horizon to assign 

to a particular scanning hit is subjective, but the 

three time horizon tags provide a rough idea of the 

timing of the impacts or potential impacts of hits. 

At the time of writing, the breakdown of hits by 

time horizon is 44 percent Horizon 1, 44 percent 

Horizon 2, and only about 13 percent Horizon 3 

(Fig. 1). The relatively small share of Horizon 3 

scanning hits suggests the difficulties for most 

scanners in identifying innovative and visionary 

signals of change. The paucity of Horizon 3 

hits may also simply be due to an abundance of 

Horizon 1 and Horizon 2 signals of change relative 

to Horizon 3.

THE 20 MOST COMMON TAGS

In addition to the three time horizons, hundreds of 

other tags have been used by the Forest Futures 

504 502

146

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Horizon 1 Horizon 2 Horizon 3

Numberof Scanning Hits

Timeframe

Figure 1.—Frequency of the three time horizons 

represented in the Forest Futures Horizon Scanning 

database.

Horizon Scanning team to characterize scanning 

hits in the database. Some of these are from the 

“domain map” in the scanner guide (see paper 1, 

this volume), and many are additional keywords 

derived from the individual scanning hits. Of 

the 20 most frequently used tags in the database 

(not including the three time horizon tags), the 

“ecosystems” tag is used most often (Fig. 2). 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Economic

Monitoring

Water

Urban

CO2

Forest management

Political

Wildfire

Recreation

Species

Social

Disturbance

Environmental

Forest products

People

Industry

Stewardship

Technology

Climate

Ecosystems

Numberof Tags

Tags

Figure 2.—Frequency of tags used to characterize scanning hits.
24 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

That the largest share of scanning hits points to 

change about ecosystems or change that could 

affect ecosystems is not surprising for a scanning 

effort focused on forest ecosystems. “Climate” is 

the second most frequent and shows the dominant 

force of climate change in shaping the future of 

forestry. Scanning hits tagged with “climate” 

include a wide range of possible effects of climate 

change on forests, as well as the role of forests in 

sequestering atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2 ) 

and mitigating climate disruption. All five of the 

STEEP tags—social, technological, economic, 

environmental, and political—are among the 20 

most often used tags, suggesting the importance of 

external sources of change, that is, change coming 

from outside of forests and natural resources. 

External or “inbound” change is discussed in the 

following section.

INBOUND VS. OUTBOUND 

SCANNING HITS

Change and indicators of possible change can 

be inbound or outbound. As Bishop (2012: 13) 

explains: “Our personal and organizational futures 

are shaped by two sets of forces: change that 

happens to us (from the external world beyond 

our control, which we call ‘inbound’ change) and 

change that we create ourselves (based on our 

decisions and actions, which we call ‘outbound’ 

change).”

The scanning hits in our database include many 

that represent inbound change (for example, an 

article about the possible impacts of widespread 

adoption of self-driving cars: accelerating 

sprawling development, thereby increasing 

fragmentation of forests) and many that are 

outbound (for example, an article about a new 

paradigm in wildfire management proposed by 

wildfire ecologists).

Our scanners did not code their hits specifically 

for inbound (external) or outbound (internal) 

change. But the share of hits tagged with any 

of the STEEP categories could serve as a rough 

proxy for this dimension. Examination of Figure 

2 shows that all five of the STEEP categories are 

included in the 20 most frequently mentioned tags. 

A total of 611 hits have been tagged with a STEEP 

category, more than half of the almost 1,200 hits 

in the database. Technology was clearly dominant 

among the STEEP categories of inbound change, 

accounting for about 44 percent of all STEEP tags. 

The STEEP proxy for inbound change 

suggests that scanners have struck a balance in 

identifying inbound and outbound change. But 

forest policymakers may be more interested in 

inbound change than in outbound change. Many 

professionals within forestry are already aware 

of outbound change through internal information 

sources, and too little focus on inbound change 

could blindside forestry professionals.

SELECTED EMERGING ISSUES

This section describes three issues that have 

emerged from the Forest Futures database, and 

provides examples of scanning hits representing 

each of these emerging issues. The three issues are 

(1) outdoor recreation in the age of social media, 

(2) the “coming age of wood,” and (3) urban 

forestry 2.0.

Outdoor Recreation 

in the Age of Social Media

Technology and social media are changing 

where and how people enjoy outdoor recreation. 

The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning database 

contains several hits on this topic, all of 

which have implications for forests and forest 

management in the immediate future and the 

potential for significant effects in the longer term. 

These hits include:

Instagram is Loving Nature to Death

Recreationists are increasingly picking where 

to go to experience the outdoors based on areas’ 

“Instagrammability,” or picture-worthiness, and 

land management agencies have been forced 

to play catch-up to accommodate crowds. For 

example, the number of visitors to Horseshoe 

Bend in the Glen Canyon National Recreation 

Area in Arizona has exploded from around 1,000 

visitors a year to around 4,000 visitors a day. This 

increase in visitation can largely be attributed to 

the area’s popularity on Instagram—the hashtag 
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 25

#horsehoebend has been used over 303,000 times 

on the app (as of May 2018). At Glen Canyon 

National Recreation Area, the National Park 

Service has opted to build a new parking area and 

a viewing platform to accommodate the volume 

of visitors to Horseshoe Bend. Another popular 

spot on social media, Conundrum Springs in the 

White River National Forest in Colorado, has also 

seen an exponential increase in visitors in recent 

years—prompting the Forest Service to require 

permits and reservations to visit the area.

People Like to Watch Other People 

on YouTube

Similarly, a small but dedicated community of 

YouTube users watch and create videos recording 

hiking and camping trips. These videos allow users 

to experience recreation sites without leaving their 

homes and connect with other outdoor enthusiasts. 

They also serve as reviews for recreation 

areas. YouTube videos could drive potential 

recreationists toward or away from areas.

Hipcamp, the AirBnB for Camping, Allows 

Nature Lovers to Rent Land

Web sites like Hipcamp, Outrider, and Tentrr 

allow landowners to rent their land for camping 

and outdoor recreation over the Internet. Increased 

opportunities to camp on private land could reduce 

demand for campsites on national forests, but it 

could also change the demographics of people 

camping in national forests or increase the number 

of day-visitors to national forests if people are 

able to camp on adjacent private lands. Another 

variation on this idea is Trailhead Outdoor Journey 

Cooperative, a company and Web site that allows 

campers in the Washington, DC area to rent a set 

of camping gear and a car to get away for up to 4 

nights.

RVs are Back and Better than Ever

Sales of recreational vehicles (RVs) are at record 

highs. This trend is driven, in part, by young 

consumers and has been attributed to smartphones, 

which make it easier to navigate the country. RV 

road trips often involve stops in national parks 

and national forests. Some Instagram users have 

glamorized endless road trips and living in a van. 

These users track their travels with the hashtag 

#vanlife and inspire their followers to try similar 

trips and visit public lands along the way. On 

the flip side, economic circumstances have led 

a growing number of Americans to become 

“nomads”—living in RVs and working seasonal 

jobs at warehouses for Amazon.com Inc. and on 

national forest campgrounds in order to get by and 

save money. Many of these nomads learned about 

this lifestyle through blogs and online forums; 

they use social media to find and gather with likeminded people on public lands in their free time 

(Bruder 2017).

Social media is changing our relationship 

to risk in the outdoors

Social media is beginning to collapse the 

boundaries between the digital and real world, 

which can affect people’s assessments of how 

dangerous things are and result in deadly 

consequences in high-risk outdoor recreation 

activities like mountain climbing. High risk 

activities do not seem extreme or dangerous if you 

see enough Instagram photos of other people doing 

them.

Possible implications of social media for 

recreation on public lands include the following:

• Rapid and large fluctuations in the demand for 

recreation, depending on whether a location is 

trending on social media, could make recreation 

planning and management much more difficult.

• The continued growth of social media-driven 

nomadic lifestyles—among both the affluent 

and the poor—could significantly change the 

demands on public campgrounds, crowding 

out traditional recreationists and changing the 

nature of recreation experiences.

While many venture to the outdoors to unplug 

and get away from modern technology, it has 

become clear that separating the Internet from the 

rest of life—even in wild places—is increasingly 

difficult and rare. Further innovations in the way 

that people use social media are also likely to 

affect the way that people enjoy forests, and those 

responsible for managing outdoor recreation 

should take note.
26 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

The Coming Age of Wood

The idea of a “coming age of wood” and “the 

revolutionary role that it would play in our future” 

was first expressed by Glesinger almost 70 years 

ago (Glesinger 1949: 3). But many emerging 

innovations in wood products technologies suggest 

that a revolution in wood products may be finally 

getting underway. A recent report characterized 

this as “The Once and Future Bioeconomy” 

(Bowyer et al. 2017). Several wood products 

experts and the United Nations Economic 

Commission for Europe (UNECE) have declared 

that the 21st century could be the “century of 

wood” (UNECE 2016). The Forest Futures 

Horizon Scanning database includes many articles 

about significant innovations in wood products 

that could be game changers for forestry and forest 

products. Examples of these scanning hits follow.

Wood-based nanomaterials have been produced 

at a pilot plant at the Forest Service’s Forest 

Products Laboratory in Madison, WI for more than 

5 years. Other pilot plants are in operation around 

the world. There are thousands of uses for this 

renewable and biodegradable material, including 

computer chips, flexible computer displays, car 

panels, replacement human tendons, and coatings 

to keep food fresh longer.

Tall wood buildings or “plyscrapers” are 

sprouting up across the globe today, built with 

cross-laminated timber (CLT) and other “mass 

timber” technologies. CLT is made from layers 

of wood crisscrossed and held together by fireresistant glue. It is as strong as structural steel, 

greatly speeds up construction, and has a much 

lower carbon footprint than steel and concrete 

buildings. Mass timber may be in the process of 

disrupting the construction and wood products 

industries.

3D printing using cellulose from wood pulp is 

just beginning, but cellulose could be cheaper, 

stronger, and more environmentally friendly than 

petroleum-based polymers currently widely used 

in medical devices, building materials, and many 

other products. This renewable material could 

replace a large amount of plastics.

Fabric made from wood fibers could 

revolutionize both the textile and forest industry. A 

company in Finland has developed a process that 

transforms wood fibers directly into yarn. It uses 

99 percent less water and 80 percent less energy 

than producing cotton.

Wood nails offer many advantages over fasteners 

made of aluminum or steel. LignoLoc® nails 

(Beck Fastener Group, Mauerkirchen, Austria) 

are compressed with a resin to make them hard. 

Their mechanical properties allow the nails to be 

driven by a pneumatic nail gun into solid structural 

timber without drilling pilot holes.

Transparent wood that could substitute for 

glass has been produced by using a new process 

developed by Swedish scientists. The process 

chemically removes lignin from natural wood 

fibers to produce clear windows and solar cells. 

This could be a cheaper substitute for traditional 

silica-based glass. The new process is thought 

to be particularly well suited to large-scale 

applications and mass production.

Biodegradable electronics could be developed 

by using graphene made from wood in a new 

process created by scientists at Rice University. 

Graphene is usually a sheet of carbon just one 

atom thick—not practical to work with. The Rice 

researchers developed a way to make a threedimensional graphene foam by heating a piece of 

pine with an industrial laser under very specific 

conditions. They believe that someday “wooden 

electronics” could help curb the problem of waste 

from electronic devices.

Two of the many possible implications of “the 

coming age of wood” are:

• Increased demand for wood and increased 

tree planting to meet the demand, resulting in 

increased absorption of atmospheric CO2 and 

reduced effects of climate change

• Development of markets for wood currently 

lacking market value and thinning of 

overgrown forests with high fuel loads to 

supply these markets, resulting in decreased 

wildfire risk
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 27

Architect Anthony Thistleton has observed: “The 

20th Century was the concrete age, it was all 

about the dominion of [humans] over nature.” The 

coming age of wood suggests that the concrete age 

could be yielding to an era in which an ancient and 

renewable material takes center stage.

Urban Forestry 2.0

The Roman historian Tacitus recorded how Julius 

Caesar once interviewed men who had journeyed 

for 2 months from Poland to Gaul (France) without 

ever glimpsing sunlight due to the unbroken 

tree canopy. In modern times, civilization has 

seemingly been measured by how far the forest 

eaves could be pushed back from farmland and 

cities. But recent decades have begun to see a 

reversal to that way of thinking.

The idea of a next generation of urban forests 

coexistent with modern cities has taken hold and 

suggests a variety of ways to introduce significant 

greenery back into cities, not just as dedicated 

horizontal parks and street trees at ground level, 

but as an integrated approach to sustainable urban 

design. Forested stretches of old elevated rail 

lines are already a reality in New York City and 

Chicago, IL with other “high-line” parks in the 

works around the world. Forests entirely indoors 

have been proposed: In Belgium a huge abandoned 

industrial complex may become just that sort of 

multilevel, multiuse “green haven.” In Asia, too, 

the first steps of reversing the long trend of cities 

encroaching on green space are being taken as 

China (whose capital, Beijing, is severely affected 

by air pollution) plans new buildings constructed 

from the ground up as “vertical forests”.

Although the upward greening of the world’s cities 

will not happen overnight, we can still ask what 

some of the advantages of this new trend may be. 

Besides encouraging biodiversity, the ascending 

concentration of planting will help improve air 

quality, reduce the need for expensive street-level 

space, and provide a welcome, even personal, 

environment for the human residents. Cities which 

used to compete to raise the highest skyscraper 

may instead vie to offer the most verdant and 

pleasant green cityscape.

Of course, the next generation of urban forests 

may also result in unintended consequences. Some 

cities, struggling to provide enough water for their 

human population, may find themselves having to 

make difficult choices in allocating that precious 

resource. Though the forests are expected to bring 

the return of many declining species, such as 

songbirds and bees, they may also exacerbate the 

problem of urban pests: those already entrenched 

in the city (rats, mice, raccoons, and ants), as well 

as new ones, such as ticks, beetles, borers, and 

moths.

Implications of urban forestry 2.0 are wideranging and could include:

• A long-term trend of decreasing visits to natural 

areas outside cities, as people feel less need to 

get away and experience nature outside urban 

areas

• Many health benefits including fewer 

respiratory illnesses due to increased air quality 

and reduced depression due to increased 

exposure to nature

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

This paper described a limited analysis of the 

database of scanning hits produced by the Forest 

Futures Horizon Scanning project. It is a first 

step in a comprehensive approach to “connect the 

dots” contained in this rich and growing database. 

A more complete analysis could include the use 

of various methods to prioritize scanning hits 

through scoring and ranking (see paper 1). Other 

futures research tools can be used to analyze, 

synthesize, and interpret the meaning of scanning 

hits, including the nominal group technique, 

impact/likelihood assessment, the Futures Wheel, 

and cross-impact analysis (Bengston 2013). 

A goal of this ongoing scanning project is to 

produce an annual analysis of the most recent 

emerging issues, in addition to a variety of other 

outputs (e.g., blogs, newsletters, presentations) for 

communicating the results of scanning.
28 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

LITERATURE CITED

Bengston, D.N. 2013. Horizon scanning for 

environmental foresight: a review of issues 

and approaches. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-121. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. 20 p. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRSGTR-121.

Bishop, P.C. 2012. An approach to the future.

In: Bengston, D.N., comp. Environmental 

futures research: experiences, approaches, and 

opportunities. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-107. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station: 13-17. https://www.fs.usda.gov/

treesearch/pubs/42310.

Bowyer, J.; Howe, J.; Levins, R.A.; Groot, H.; 

Fernholz, K.; Pepke, E. 2017. The once and 

future bioeconomy and the role of forests.

Minneapolis, MN: Dovetail Partners. 15 p. 

http://www.dovetailinc.org/report_pdfs/2017/

dovetailbioeconomy0817.pdf.

Bruder, J. 2017. Nomadland: surviving America 

in the twenty-first century. New York, NY: 

W.W. Norton & Company. 320 p.

Curry, A.; Hodgson, A. 2008. Seeing in 

multiple horizons: connecting futures 

to strategy. Journal of Futures Studies. 

13(1): 1-20. http://jfsdigital.org/wp-content/

uploads/2014/01/131-A01.pdf.

Glesinger, E. 1949. The coming age of wood.

New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. 279 p.

Könnölä, T.; Salo, A.; Cagnin, C.; Carabias, 

V.; Vilkkumaa, E. 2012. Facing the future: 

scanning, synthesizing and sense-making in 

horizon scanning. Science and Public Policy. 

39(2): 222-231. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/

scs021.

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 

[UNECE]. 2016. The 21st century will be 

the century of wood. Geneva, Switzerland. 

October 21. https://www.unece.org/info/media/

presscurrent-press-h/forestry-and-timber/2016/

the-21st-century-will-be-the-century-of-wood/

doc.html (accessed November 10, 2018).
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 29

4. IDENTIFYING CURRENT USDA FOREST SERVICE ISSUES

TO PROVIDE CONTEXT FOR HORIZON SCANNING

Kurt Callaway, Andy Hines, and David N. Bengston

Abstract.—A key purpose of the Forest Futures 

Horizon Scanning system is to identify weak 

signals of potential future change and emerging 

issues for the USDA Forest Service and its 

stakeholders. An understanding of current issues 

facing the agency is a prerequisite for identifying 

weak signals and emerging issues. Scanners 

who work for the Forest Service generally have 

this understanding, but scanners from outside 

typically have little or no familiarity with current 

agency issues. This paper briefly describes an 

effort to develop a list of current issues for the 

Forest Service to be used by scanners in the Forest 

Futures Horizon Scanning project. Twelve broad 

current issues are identified and summarized.

INTRODUCTION

A key purpose for creating a horizon scanning 

system is to identify emerging issues. These 

are issues that have not yet been identified by 

decisionmakers as requiring attention or a policy 

response. Emerging issues can exist at various 

degrees of emergence—from just identified and 

a long way off to becoming well known and of 

imminent impact. Horizon scanning provides 

early warning of emerging issues, so that 

decisionmakers can prepare for them before they 

fully emerge and affect the sector or industry.

In order to identify what qualifies as “emerging,” 

the scanning team must first be aware of what the 

current issues are for the organization or field for 

which the scanning is intended. Without a list of 

current issues, scanners—especially those from 

outside the organization—may have difficulty 

determining whether a scanning hit represents an 

emerging issue or whether it is well known and 

already on the organization’s radar screen. It is 

not common for organizations to have a clearly 

articulated and agreed-upon list of current issues 

(never mind emerging issues). Such lists are 

sometimes prepared as part of strategic planning 

activities, or they may be developed as part of 

strategic foresight functions where these exist.

This paper briefly describes an effort to develop a 

list of current issues for the USDA Forest Service 

(hereafter, Forest Service) to be used by scanners 

in the Forest Futures Horizon Scanning project. 

The next section defines key concepts related to 

issue emergence and their relationships to each 

other, followed by a description of the simple 

method used to identify current issues for the 

Forest Service. The final list of 12 current issues is 

then presented.

ISSUE EMERGENCE: 

KEY CONCEPTS AND TERMS

The relationship between key concepts and terms 

in issue emergence can be illustrated by combining 

the public policy lifecycle curve (Bryson 2011, 

Molitor 2001) with the “Three Horizons” 

framework (Curry and Hodgson 2008) (Fig. 1). 

Key concepts in Figure 1 are:

• Weak signals: The first signs of a potential

emerging issue

• Emerging issues: Issues that decisionmakers

have not yet identified as requiring attention or

a policy response

• Current issues: “Fundamental policy

questions or critical challenges that affect an

organization’s mandate, mission and values;

product or service level and mix; stakeholders,

users, or citizens; cost, financing, organization

or management” (Bryson 2011: 55)

• Horizon 1: The near-term time period from

now until about 10 years into the future,

focusing on current issues and the current

prevailing system

Citation: Callaway, Kurt.; Hines, Andy.; Bengston, David N. 2019. Identifying Current USDA Forest Service Issues to Provide Context for Horizon Scanning. 

In: Hines, Andy; Bengston, David N.; Dockry, Michael J., comps. The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-187. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 29-33. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-P-187-paper4.
30 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

• Horizon 2: The intermediate-term time period

of about 10 to 20 years into the future; an

intermediate space of transition in which the

first and third horizons collide

• Horizon 3: The long-term time period of about

20 or more years into the future, focusing on

weak signals about the future of the system that

could indicate eventual displacement of the

prevailing system

The public policy lifecycle curve suggests that 

issues emerge gradually over time. They appear 

first as weak signals of change. These signals 

eventually coalesce into an emerging issue, 

which eventually develops into a current issue, 

typically when a significant event propels it into 

public attention and concern (Molitor 1977). 

Weak signals are associated with the Horizon 3 

timeframe, because they signal potential longterm change. As weak signals gain strength 

and coalesce as emerging issues, they move 

into Horizon 2. Finally, when emerging issues 

mature and become widely recognized as current 

issues for an organization or field, they fall into 

the Horizon 1 timeframe. An understanding of 

the current issues facing an organization is a 

prerequisite for effective scanning and the ability 

to identify weak signals and emerging issues.

METHODS

Most organizations do not have an agreed-upon 

and explicit list of current issues they are facing. 

We were unable to find a published current issue 

list for the Forest Service, and therefore we took 

the following steps to create one. We:

1. Asked key Forest Service personnel whether

an unpublished list of current issues might

be available, for example, from the Policy

Analysis Group (Washington Office) and Office

of Communications (Washington Office). We

were told that there is no formal or informal

list.

Figure 1.—The issue emergence process and the three time horizons. Sources: Bryson (2011), Curry and Hodgson 

(2008), Molitor (1977).
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 31

2. Reviewed Forest Service policy documents 

for explicit and implicit current issues, such 

as the USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan: 

FY 2015-2020 (USDA Forest Service 2015), 

Future of America’s Forests and Rangelands: 

Forest Service 2010 Resources Planning Act 

Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2012), and 

Future of America’s Forests and Rangelands, 

Update to the Forest Service 2010 Resources 

Planning Act Assessment (USDA Forest 

Service 2016). Potential current issues were 

identified and collected.

3. Reviewed the “Horizon 1” scanning hits in the 

Forest Futures Horizon Scanning online library 

for potential current issues. There were more 

than 200 Horizon 1 scanning hits in the library 

at the time of this analysis. Potential current 

issues were identified and collected.

4. Compiled a master list of possible current 

issues, after combining similar issues from the 

policy documents that were reviewed and the 

Horizon 1 scanning hits.

RESULTS: CURRENT ISSUES 

FOR THE FOREST SERVICE

Our final current issues list contains 12 major 

strategic issues (Table 1). These are all well 

known to the Forest Service and other forestry 

professionals:

• Climate change is having growing impacts 

on forest ecosystems as well as social and 

economic impacts.

• Wildfires are becoming more frequent and 

intense and taking up a growing portion of the 

Forest Service budget.

• Forest fragmentation and loss is increasing 

due to land development.

• Budget cuts are straining the ability to 

effectively manage forests.

• Maintaining a healthy forest products 

industry is increasingly vital to a balanced 

forest management approach.

• Exotic and invasive species are growing 

threats to sustainable forests.

• Biodiversity loss is a growing challenge to 

forest resource management.

• Improving forest resilience to meet a 

wide range of future demands is a growing 

challenge.

• Monitoring technologies are improving 

capabilities to monitor and forecast forest 

health, and to inventory conditions.

• Water quality protection and water supply

continue to be important.

• Recreation patterns are continuing to shift.

• Urban forestry is gaining increasing interest 

and importance.

There was some debate on a few of the issues 

on the list about whether they are current or still 

emerging. A challenge in making that distinction 

for scanning teams is that they may be more aware 

of issues than their clients. They will tend to see 

more issues as current because they have been 

trained to identify them and probably have been 

watching them for some time. In most cases, the 

issues that could be treated as either current or 

still emerging were put on the current list. This 

decision was made in part to make the scanning 

team “stretch” and identify truly emerging issues.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

This paper described the need to identify current 

issues in horizon scanning and steps taken to 

identify current Forest Service issues to be used in 

the Forest Futures Horizon Scanning system. An 

understanding of current issues facing the agency 

is required for accurately identifying weak signals 

and emerging issues that the agency may need to 

address in the future. The 12 broad current issues 

that were identified can guide current and future 

horizon scanning efforts.
32 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

1. Climate change is having growing impacts on forest ecosystems as well as social and economic 

impacts. Climate change is a major driver of other issues relevant to forestry, with wide-ranging impacts from 

influencing the growing season and enabling the more rapid spread of invasive species to larger and more intense 

wildfires. These impacts appear to be increasing and cumulative, thus threatening the biodiversity and resilience of 

entire ecosystems. At the same time, forests could play a significant role in climate change mitigation.

2. Wildfires are becoming more frequent and intense and taking up a growing portion of the Forest Service 

budget. The increasing intensity and frequency of wildfires threaten natural resources and people’s property. 

Wildfires are increasingly encroaching on the wildland-urban interface (WUI) as human settlements continue to 

expand. Responding to wildfires takes priority over other projects and consumes an increasing share of the budget. 

There is growing debate over the use or overuse of aggressive fire suppression versus a “learning to live with 

wildfire” management paradigm.

3. Forest fragmentation and loss is increasing due to land development. Forest land is being encroached 

upon by the pressure for development. These human settlements threaten the integrity and viability of forest 

ecosystems. There has been little public pressure to stop the fragmentation. 

4. Budget cuts are straining the ability to effectively manage forests. As one of many agencies continually 

asked to “do more with less,” the Forest Service is increasingly constrained by the resources allocated to it. Lower 

funding is often accompanied by greater demands. 

5. Maintaining a healthy forest products industry is increasingly vital to a balanced forest management 

approach. The Forest Service must continue to balance the competing priorities of sustainably managing forests 

and helping to support a healthy forest products industry. Major innovations in wood products and in forest 

management pose challenges and opportunities for striking this balance.

6. Exotic and invasive species are growing threats to sustainable forests. Invasive species continue to spread 

through forest ecosystems. They are assisted by human global transportation networks, as well as a warming 

climate, which allows pests to spread to areas they could not previously tolerate. The results are corresponding 

declines or changes in native species that are threatened by exotics and invasives.

7. Biodiversity loss is a growing challenge to forest resource management. The influence of humans and 

economic development on forest ecosystems is a major driver of biodiversity loss, as habitats are disrupted. A key 

challenge is that much is still not known about the role of biodiversity in maintaining healthy ecosystems. Thus, 

some losses or shifts could have surprisingly significant negative effects. 

8. Improving forest resilience to meet a wide range of future demands is a growing challenge. The growing 

range of challenges to forest ecosystem health puts a premium on resilience, that is, a system’s ability to continue 

to function, absorb change, recover, and adapt in new directions. A resilient system includes some redundancies, 

backup, and inefficiency compared to an optimized system, but is better suited for long-term health. 

9. Monitoring technologies are improving capabilities to monitor and forecast forest health, and to 

inventory conditions. Emerging technologies such as the Internet of Things, drones, robotics, and satellites 

are increasingly being incorporated into monitoring the health of ecosystems. They extend human capabilities to 

monitor remote areas, and go into greater depth. 

10. Water quality protection and water supply continue to be important. Climate change could intensify 

pressure on water quality and water yield that could in turn pose greater challenges to managing ecosystem 

services.

11. Recreation patterns are continuing to shift. Nature-based recreation continues to decline, while new 

innovative proposals for getting people back to nature emerge. Ecotourism, for instance, has continued to grow 

even as the overall use of nature for leisure and recreation declines.

12. Urban forestry is gaining increasing interest and importance. Affluent societies are increasingly and 

overwhelmingly urban. More effort is being made to integrate forests and other natural areas into the urban 

environment, which brings a host of challenges and benefits.

Table 1.—Current forestry issues, 2017
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 33

LITERATURE CITED

Bryson, J. 2011. Strategic planning for public 

and nonprofit organizations: a guide to 

strengthening and sustaining organizational 

achievement. 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: 

Jossey-Bass. 576 p.

Curry, A.; Hodgson, A. 2008. Seeing in 

multiple horizons: connecting futures 

to strategy. Journal of Futures Studies. 

13(1): 1-20. http://jfsdigital.org/wp-content/

uploads/2014/01/131-A01.pdf.

Molitor, G.T.T. 1977. How to anticipate 

public policy changes. S.A.M. Advanced 

Management Journal. 42(3): 4-13. http://

www.metafuture.org/articlesbycolleagues/

graham%20mollitor/Molitor%20how%20

to%20anticipate%20public-policy%20changes.

pdf (accessed November 11, 2018).

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Future of America’s 

forests and rangelands: Forest Service 2010 

Resources Planning Act Assessment. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. WO-87. Washington, DC. 198 p. 

https://doi.org/10.2737/WO-GTR-87.

USDA Forest Service. 2015. USDA Forest 

Service strategic plan: FY 2015-2020. FS1045. Washington, DC. June. 53 p. https://

www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/strategicplan%5B2%5D-6_17_15_revised.pdf.

USDA Forest Service. 2016. Future of America’s 

forests and rangelands: update to the 2010 

Resources Planning Act Assessment. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. WO-94. Washington, DC. 250 p. 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/53212. 
34 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

5. USING THE IMPLICATIONS WHEEL IN HORIZON SCANNING:

EXPLORING IMPLICATIONS OF GROWING APATHY 

TOWARD THE ENVIRONMENT

David N. Bengston, Leif A. DeVaney, Michael J. Dockry, 

Andy Hines, George H. Kubik, Bo Roe, and Maria Romero

Abstract.—The Implications Wheel® is a 

structured brainstorming technique to explore 

possible consequences of any type of change. 

This paper describes an exploratory application 

of the Implications Wheel method to uncover 

potential consequences of important emerging 

issues identified through horizon scanning. The 

issue “growing apathy toward the environment” 

was explored. We found that even a quick, smallscale application of the method can identify many 

useful insights: 155 implications were generated, 

including many scored as highly significant.

INTRODUCTION

Over time, an ongoing horizon scanning process 

may produce hundreds or even thousands of 

“scanning hits”—indicators of emerging issues 

that could signal future change. Out of this large 

amount of data, the most important issues need 

to be identified, analyzed, and interpreted if they 

are to provide useful foresight (Könnölä et al. 

2012). This paper describes an application of the 

Implications Wheel® method to explore potential 

consequences of high priority issues identified 

through horizon scanning. This method was 

applied to an issue that emerged from the USDA 

Forest Service-University of Houston Forest 

Futures Horizon Scanning project: the public’s 

growing apathy toward the environment.

The Implications Wheel is a structured group 

process to explore possible consequences of any 

type of change (Barker 2011). An earlier version 

of this technique was proposed by Glenn (1972) 

and is called the Futures Wheel. Since it was 

first proposed in the 1970s, the method has been 

refined and applied thousands of times in many 

different contexts (Bengston 2016). The structured 

group process of the Implications Wheel facilitates 

“cascade thinking,” that is, “how one event or 

implication leads to multiple possibilities, each 

of which in turn leads to additional possibilities” 

(Barker and Kenny 2010: 2). Cascade thinking 

helps planners and decisionmakers to proactively 

consider potential long-term, higher-order effects 

of change in order to prepare for it.

The next section describes the issue explored in 

this Implications Wheel exercise. This is followed 

by an outline of the method, and a summary of the 

main results. A concluding section discusses the 

usefulness of the method in the context of horizon 

scanning.

ISSUE ON THE HORIZON: GROWING 

APATHY TOWARD THE ENVIRONMENT

One of the salient issues that was identified in 

the initial phase of the Forest Futures horizon 

scanning project was the public’s “growing 

apathy toward the environment in the United 

States.” This issue has been observed in public 

opinion polls since the early 1990s and in various 

studies examining the connection between people 

and nature. Evidence of this issue includes the 

following:

• A 2016 Gallup Poll found that 42 percent

of Americans identify themselves as

environmentalists, down from an average of 76

percent in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Jones

2016).

• Americans express less concern about most

environmental problems now than in the late

1980s and early 1990s (Jones 2016).

• A growing body of research has shown an

increasing disconnect with nature in our

Citation: Bengston, David N.; DeVaney, Leif A.; Dockry, Michael J.; Hines, Andy; Kubik, George H.; Roe, Bo; Romero, Maria. 2019. Using the Implications Wheel in

Horizon Scanning: Exploring Implications of Growing Apathy Toward the Environment. In: Hines, Andy; Bengston, David N.; Dockry, Michael J., comps. The Forest 

Futures Horizon Scanning project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-187. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 

34-41. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-P-187-paper5.
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 35

society and less participation in outdoor 

nature recreation (e.g., Balmford et al. [2002], 

Louv [2005], Kareiva [2008], Zaradic [2008], 

Zaradic and Pergams [2007]).

• Unlike in previous campaigns, environmental 

issues were largely ignored during the 2016 

presidential campaign, especially in the general 

election, in which environmental concerns were 

scarcely mentioned by either of the major party 

candidates (Dolsak and Prakash 2016).

Kareiva (2008: 2758) asserts that if current trends 

in attitudes toward the environment and the decline 

in nature-based recreation continue, they could 

pose “the world’s greatest environmental threat” 

because people care for and protect what they 

understand and value. The long-term implications 

of growing apathy toward the environment could 

be profound, and include important consequences 

for public land management agencies such as 

the USDA Forest Service (hereafter, Forest 

Service). These implications are explored in this 

Implications Wheel exercise.

METHODS: 

THE IMPLICATIONS WHEEL

The word “wheel” in Implications Wheel derives 

from the wheel-like structure to the notes that 

emerges as the brainstorming process proceeds. 

The change of interest is placed in the center—like 

the hub of a wheel—and then participants generate 

first-, second-, and third-order implications of the 

change that emanate outward from the center in 

concentric rings.

Implications Wheel exercises are typically carried 

out as a group process, with participants gathered 

in one location at the same time. This exercise 

was carried out remotely and asynchronously 

using the Implications Wheel online software. 

Each participant contributed individually online at 

her or his convenience. Due to the small number 

of participants—the authors of this paper—this 

exercise should be considered an exploratory 

application of the method, with the intent to 

examine its usefulness and limitations in horizon 

scanning.

The online exercise included three rounds of 

generating implications (first-, second-, and thirdorders) and one round to score the likelihood and 

desirability of each implication. Participants first 

familiarized themselves with the details of the 

central issue and reviewed the Implications Wheel 

rules for generating implications. For example, 

participants are to assume that the central issue is 

occurring and will continue, generate implications 

that are a direct consequence of the preceding 

implication, include both positive and negative 

implications, and ensure that implications are 

specific and concrete.

Round 1 was open online for 3 days, during 

which participants could contribute at any time. 

Participants suggested 32 potential first-order 

implications for the issue “growing apathy toward 

the environment in the United States.” This was 

far too many first-orders to deal with in a small, 

exploratory exercise and many of the 32 proposed 

first-orders were not direct consequences of the 

central issue. Therefore, we selected the following 

five first-orders for exploration based on their 

representing broad areas of potential implications 

and being direct consequences of the central issue. 

Growing apathy toward the environment in the 

United States may have the following results:

1. Political support for the Forest Service and 

other natural resource management agencies 

decreases significantly,

2. Younger generations grow up more 

disconnected and alienated from the outdoors 

and the environment,

3. A massive public education campaign is 

launched by a coalition of environmental 

nonprofit organizations, educators, land 

managers, and others to counteract growing 

apathy,

4. Apathy in the United States spreads to public 

environmental sentiment in Europe and across 

the Americas, and

5. The private sector takes on a significantly 

greater role in environmental leadership.
36 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

Given this set of first-order implications, round 2 

was open for online submission of implications for 

8 days and produced 25 second-order implications, 

5 for each first-order. Round 3 was also open for 8 

days and produced 5 third-order implications for 

each of the 25 second-order implications, resulting 

in 125 third-order implications and a total of 155 

implications.

Following identification of implications, an 

online scoring process was conducted in which 

participants subjectively rated each implication 

for desirability and likelihood. Scoring highlights 

the most important implications and points 

out potential opportunities and pitfalls that can 

be addressed by planners and decisionmakers 

(Schreier 2005). Each of the first-, second-, and 

third-order implications was scored on an 11-point 

desirability scale from +5 (highly positive) to -5 

(highly negative), and on a 9-point likelihood 

scale from 1 (highly unlikely) to 9 (highly likely). 

Desirability scoring was carried out from the 

perspective of public land managers. In addition to 

the standard scoring categories, special categories 

were used to identify high impact implications. 

An implication deemed to have extraordinarily 

positive impacts is termed a “triumph” and 

receives a score of +50. If an implication 

is considered to have unusually negative 

consequences, it is referred to as a “catastrophe” 

and scored -50.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In the three rounds of online Implications 

Wheel submissions, participants generated far 

more third-order implications than lower-order 

implications (Fig. 1). The dominance of thirdorder implications is due to the structure and 

process of the method, which shift the focus from 

immediate, direct implications to longer-term, 

indirect consequences of change. This emphasis on 

the longer term fits with the future-oriented nature 

of horizon scanning. Without this structure, people 

tend to focus on direct and short-term implications 

(Schreier 2011).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3

Im

plic

a

ti

o

n

s

1st-order, 2nd-order, 3rd-order

Positive

Neutral

Negative

Figure 1.—Number of first-, second-, and third-order implications, and the share scored as positive, negative, and 

neutral in an Implications Wheel exercise that considered Americans’ growing apathy toward the environment.
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 37

Overall, half (78) of the implications were scored 

as negative, 67 as positive, and 10 as neutral, 

not surprising given the undesirable nature of 

“growing apathy toward the environment.” The 

large share of positive implications produced 

by a negative issue illustrates that undesirable 

change can present opportunities for policy and 

management actions that create positive change in 

the future.

Highly Significant Implications

Two types of highly significant implications have 

special relevance for planners and policymakers. 

First, likely strong negatives are implications 

scored as high on the 9-point likelihood scale 

(7, 8, or 9) and strongly negative on the 11-

point desirability scale (-4 or -5). Implications 

that are deemed both highly likely and strongly 

negative call for policies or management actions 

designed to decrease their likelihood or mitigate 

their undesirable effects. Second, unlikely strong 

positives are implications scored as both unlikely 

(1, 2, or 3 in likelihood) and strongly positive (+4 

or +5 in desirability). Implications that are both 

unlikely and strongly positive may require actions 

to increase their chances of occurring.

Participants identified 27 likely strong negatives 

and no unlikely strong positives. The large number 

of likely strong negative implications indicates the 

many ways in which the issue “growing apathy 

toward the environment” could produce a cascade 

of highly undesirable results for the environment 

and society, such as:

First-order: A significant decrease in political 

support for natural resource management 

agencies, leading to

Second-order: The sale of public lands, 

slashed research funding, privatized 

campgrounds that exclude low income groups 

with high fees, and

Third-order: Unsustainable logging and 

mining on former Federal lands (likely 

strong negative).

First-order: Younger generations become more 

disconnected and alienated from the outdoors, 

resulting in

Second-order: Growing substitution of virtual 

reality for real outdoor experiences, and

Third-order: Increasing social and cultural 

stress among 18- to 40-year-olds (likely 

strong negative).

First-order: The private sector takes on a 

significantly greater role in environmental 

leadership, leading to

Second-order: The economic elite beginning 

to purchase and manage large tracts of land as 

a symbol of status, and

Third-order: Many farmers and ranchers 

priced off their land (likely strong negative).

The preponderance of diverse likely strong 

negatives generated in this exercise suggests that 

the central issue is indeed a very serious threat for 

public lands and land managers with potentially 

profound implications.

Wild Cards: 

Catastrophes and Triumphs

Wild cards are low-probability, high-impact 

developments that may be positive or negative, 

are unexpected, and have the potential to be 

game-changers (Petersen and Steinmueller 2009). 

Wild cards often emerge in Implications Wheel 

exercises, usually as third-order consequences. 

The special scoring categories of “triumph” 

(+50) and “catastrophe” (-50) are used to identify 

positive and negative wild cards. Our participants 

identified two wild card implications, both 

catastrophes and both arising from the same firstorder implication:

First-order: Growing apathy in the United 

States spreads to public environmental sentiment 

in Europe and across the Americas 

(-4 desirability, 4 likelihood), leading to

Second-order: The acceleration of unchecked 

exploitation and neglect of natural resources 

internationally without regard for long-term 

consequences (-50, Catastrophe), and

Third-order: Widespread environmental 

collapse, causing public panic (-50, 

Catastrophe).
38 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

In addition to the two catastrophes, the 

following three likely strong negative third-order 

implications were also generated from the secondorder just listed:

• Climate change ravages coastal cities 

(-5 desirability, 8 likelihood)

• Africa bears the brunt of natural-resource 

overuse with massive mineral exploitation 

through foreign direct investment and corrupt 

governments (-5 desirability, 7 likelihood)

• Unenforceable international agreements to 

offset environmental damage become irrelevant 

(-5 desirability, 7 likelihood)

This is an example of how a negative issue has 

the potential to accelerate and spread, eventually 

resulting in dire consequences. Knowing this well 

in advance, managers and other decisionmakers 

can monitor the issue and its possible trajectories 

through focused horizon scanning. If needed, they 

can develop plans and policies to reverse the issue 

and avoid highly undesirable consequences. Put 

another way: The results of an Implications Wheel 

exercise are not given outcomes; they are potential

outcomes, allowing for early action to create a 

different, and more desirable, future outcome.

Emerging Future Themes

Finally, a thematic content analysis was carried out 

on the complete set of 155 implications to identify 

broad themes that emerged from the exercise. 

The “open coding” method of qualitative content 

analysis was used to identify major themes. 

Briefly, this method involves a process of repeated 

and careful reading of the textual data (i.e., the 

155 implications that the participants generated), 

developing an outline of recurring themes, and 

cross-referencing each theme back to the original 

text. See Strauss and Corbin (1998) for details on 

the open coding method.

We identified 10 dominant themes and examples 

of specific implications of each theme that were 

generated by participants (Table 1). The themes 

range from a dissolution of the role of the Federal 

government or the Forest Service, to a growing 

substitution of virtual reality for the natural world, 

to rising environmental activism.

This is a surprisingly wide-ranging set of desirable 

and undesirable themes to emerge from a single 

social issue, and illustrates a core principle 

of futures research: Numerous possible and 

plausible futures could unfold (Bengston 2017). 

Many of the themes, such as commodification 

and increasing conflict, exemplify unexpected 

consequences of the issue “growing apathy toward 

the environment.” Others, such as innovative 

approaches to environmental education and 

rising environmental activism, show that issues 

may create opposing forces or countertrends that 

operate at the same time (Marcus 2009). The 

future does not unfold along one straight line, but 

on many paths which may contain paradox and 

contradiction. The dynamic nature of emerging 

issues points out the importance of not viewing 

them as inevitable and instead actively looking for 

indicators of potential countervailing forces that 

could emerge and alter the direction of change 

(Weiner and Brown 2005).

CONCLUSIONS

This has been an exploratory application 

of the Implications Wheel with the goal of 

investigating its usefulness in the context of 

horizon scanning. We found that even a quick, 

small-scale application of the method can uncover 

many useful insights: 155 implications were 

generated, including many of high significance 

(i.e., those scored as likely and strongly negative, 

unlikely and strongly positive, and wild cards). 

Surprisingly diverse and wide-ranging themes 

emerged from a single issue, pointing to many 

potential dimensions of the future that are possible 

and plausible.

Conducting the exercise remotely and 

asynchronously—using the Implications 

Wheel online software—allowed us to include 

participants who were widely separated 

geographically, thus eliminating travel costs. 

Participants were able to join in the exercise at 

a time and place convenient for them. This is an 

important advantage that allows busy individuals 

to participate. A drawback of conducting the 

exercise online is a lack of direct interaction 
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 39

Dissolution: deterioration of aspects of the Federal government or the USDA Forest Service

• The Forest Service is disbanded as a Federal agency with powers given back to the States to manage existing 

Federal land resources

• The research arm of the Forest Service becomes part of the U.S. Geological Survey

Privatization: shift away from the public sector

• The Forest Service and other natural resource agencies are combined, fully privatized, and operated on a forprofit basis

• Privatized campgrounds and hiking paths impose high user fees that exclude low income groups who are unable 

to pay

Global cooperation: extension or engagement across borders

• International exchange programs significantly boost innovative approaches to sustainable natural resource 

management

• The United States increases global environmental actions and collaboration because of the global reach and 

connections of the “green party”

Virtualization: replacement of the “real” or the natural

• Virtual reality (VR) increasingly substitutes for real outdoor experiences

• A significant and growing number of people become addicted to VR, spending most of their time socially isolated 

in VR

Rebellion: opposition to dominant norms or authority

• Outdoor experiences become the counterculture, especially among rebellious teenagers

• Younger generations rebel against the environmental apathy displayed by their parents and society at large

Education: innovations in environmental learning

• Harkening back to the success of recycling programs in early childhood education, environmental 

nongovernmental organizations focus primarily on grade school intervention

• Law schools strengthen their environmental law curriculum in response to increased litigation in the area of 

environmental justice

Activism: direct vigorous involvement to bring about change

• Before the land is sold, protesters in many locations around the country create encampments on public lands to 

prevent sales

• A grass-roots coalition sues the U.S. government on behalf of children and future generations for increasing 

neglect of the environment

International conflict: clash between countries

• Existing international environmental agreements are negated, defunded, or deeply revised and plans for future 

agreements are halted

• Countries are markedly divided into pro- and anti-environmental agreements. Geopolitical powers play a key role

Solidarity: unity or agreement of feeling or action

• Local and regional solutions to immediate problems (such as sea-level rise) begin to emerge throughout the 

world

• Environmental conditions reach a tipping point that triggers a growing shift away from environmental apathy

Commodification: treating nature as a product that can be bought and sold

• Different tiers of forest membership are created, based on ability to pay for outdoor experiences

• The Forest Service commercializes water, air, carbon, wildlife, and recreation

Table 1.—Ten broad themes that emerged from the Implications Wheel exercise, and examples of 

implications related to each theme
40 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

between participants that occurs when they 

are gathered at one time and in one place. But 

we found that some of the benefits of direct 

interaction and brainstorming were maintained in 

the online context, as participants saw the ideas 

contributed by others, which stimulated their own 

creative thoughts.

Given the large number of potentially important 

emerging issues generated in ongoing horizon 

scanning, multiple rapid and small-scale 

Implications Wheel exercises similar to the one 

described here could be carried out to quickly 

generate potential implications and explore 

possibilities. Such “mini-wheels” could produce 

useful foresight in a timely and cost-effective 

manner.

LITERATURE CITED

Balmford, A.; Clegg, L.; Coulson, T.; Taylor, J. 

2002. Why conservationists should heed 

Pokémon. Science. 295(5564): 2367. https://

doi.org/10.1126/science.295.5564.2367b.

Barker, J.A. 2011. The Implications Wheel®. 

http://implicationswheel.com/.

Barker, J.A.; Kenny, C.G. 2011. Leading in 

uncertain times. Innovation. 9(2). April/May. 

http://www.innovation-america.org/leadinguncertain-times.

Bengston, D.N. 2016. The Futures Wheel: a 

method for exploring the implications of 

social–ecological change. Society and Natural 

Resources. 29(3): 374-379. https://doi.org/ 

10.1080/08941920.2015.1054980.

Bengston, D.N. 2017. Ten principles for thinking 

about the future: a primer for environmental 

professionals. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-175. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. 28 p. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRSGTR-175.

Dolsak, N.; Prakash, A. 2016. The US 

environmental movement needs a new 

message. The Conversation [Web site]. 

Dec. 12. https://theconversation.com/theus-environmental-movement-needs-a-newmessage-70247 (accessed November 14, 2018).

Glenn, J.C. 1972. Futurizing teaching vs. futures 

courses. Social Science Record. 9(3): 26-29.

Jones, J.M. 2016. Americans’ identification 

as “environmentalists” down to 42%.

Gallup, Inc. April 22. http://www.gallup.

com/poll/190916/americans-identificationenvironmentalists-down.aspx (accessed 

November 14, 2018).

Kareiva, P. 2008. Ominous trends in nature 

recreation. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences. 105(8): 2757-2758. 

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0800474105.

Könnölä, T.; Salo, A.; Cagnin, C.; Carabias, 

V.; Vilkkumaa, E. 2012. Facing the future: 

scanning, synthesizing and sense-making in 

horizon scanning. Science and Public Policy. 

39(2): 222-231. https:/doi.org/10.1093/scipol/

scs021.

Louv, R. 2005. Last child in the woods: saving 

our children from nature-deficit disorder.

Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin.

Marcus, A. 2009. Strategic foresight: 

a new look at scenarios. New York, 

NY: Palgrave MacMillan. https://doi.

org/10.1057/9780230622654.

Petersen, J.; Steinmueller, K. 2009. Wild cards. 

In: Glenn, J.C.; Gordon, T.J., eds. Futures 

research methodology. [Ver. 3.0]. [CD-ROM]. 

Washington, DC: The Millennium Project.

Schreier, J. 2005. Evaluating a simulation with 

a strategic exploration tool. Developments 

in Business Simulations and Experiential 

Learning. 32: 389-403.
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 41

Schreier, J.W. 2011. Contributing implications: 

an experiment. Research Note 2011-01-08. 

Joel Barker’s Implications Wheel, http://

implicationswheel.com/ [Contact James W. 

Schreier at: jim.schreier@strategicexploration.

com].

Strauss, A.L.; Corbin, J.M. 1998. Basics of 

qualitative research: techniques and 

procedures for developing grounded theory.

2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Weiner, E.; Brown, A. 2005. FutureThink: how 

to think clearly in a time of change. Upper 

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Zaradic, P. 2008. Confronting videophilia. 

Scientific American. 18(5): 24. https://doi.

org/10.1038/scientificamericanearth1208-24.

Zaradic, P.A.; Pergams, O.R. 2007. Videophilia: 

implications for childhood development 

and conservation. Journal of Developmental 

Processes. 2(1): 130-144.
42 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

6. EXPLORATION OF A HORIZON SCANNING TREND:

GROWING INDIGENOUS EMPOWERMENT

Leif A. DeVaney, David N. Bengston, Michael J. Dockry, and Andy Hines

Abstract.—Growing indigenous empowerment 

and recognition of rights with respect to natural 

resources was identified as an emerging trend in 

the USDA Forest Service-University of Houston 

Forest Futures Horizon Scanning system. An 

exploratory Implications Wheel® exercise was 

conducted to uncover possible future implications 

of this trend. The exercise was carried out with a 

group of University of Houston Foresight graduate 

students, faculty, and alumni. The exercise did 

not include American Indian or Alaska Native 

participants, and due to this limitation it should be 

viewed as an illustration of the usefulness of the 

method for exploring the implications of horizon 

scanning hits. A total of 175 first-, second-, and 

third-order implications were generated. Analysis 

of the implications found nine emerging themes 

and four scenarios. The findings reveal the wide 

range of significant possibilities that could result 

from growing indigenous empowerment and 

suggest the importance of monitoring this trend as 

it unfolds.

American Indian tribes and Alaska Native 

communities are vital partners of the USDA 

Forest Service (hereafter, Forest Service) and 

other public land management agencies. The 

first objective of the Forest Service Research and 

Development Tribal Engagement Roadmap (2016: 

2) is to “[b]uild and enhance existing partnerships

with tribes, indigenous and native groups, tribal

colleges, tribal communities, and intertribal

organizations.” This study examined possible

future implications of an important emerging trend

related to American Indian and Alaska Native

communities: growing indigenous empowerment

and recognition of rights with respect to natural

resources. Growing indigenous empowerment

was identified as an emerging issue in the Forest

Service-University of Houston Forest Futures

Horizon Scanning system. The goal of this system

is to find important emerging issues and trends

in the external environment of the Forest Service

and forestry, and to explore possible implications

of these early indicators of change for the agency

and for the field of forestry in the future. We report

on an exploratory Implications Wheel® exercise

to examine possible implications of growing

indigenous empowerment.

The following section describes the emerging 

issue of “growing indigenous empowerment.” This 

is followed by an explanation of the Implications 

Wheel method, and a summary of selected 

results of the exercise. A concluding section 

briefly assesses the usefulness of the method 

and discusses the need to monitor the issue as it 

develops.

INTRODUCTION 

“All or part of every national forest and 

grassland is carved out of the ancestral 

lands of American Indian and Alaska Native 

Peoples. Indigenous communities across 

the country still maintain strong historical 

and spiritual connections to the land, 

connections that have not been extinguished 

despite changes in land ownership.”

—Leslie Weldon, National Forest System 

Deputy Chief, USDA Forest Service 

(quoted in: USDA Forest Service 

Research and Development [2016: 4]).

Citation: DeVaney, Leif A.; Bengston, David N.; Dockry, Michael J.; Hines, Andy. 2019. Exploration of a Horizon Scanning Trend: Growing 

Indigenous Empowerment. In: Hines, Andy; Bengston, David N.; Dockry, Michael J., comps. The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning project. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-187. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 42-48. 

https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-P-187-paper6.
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 43

GROWING INDIGENOUS 

EMPOWERMENT

The emerging issue examined in this study 

was “growing indigenous empowerment and 

recognition of rights regarding natural resources.” 

Indigenous communities in the United States and 

around the world are increasingly demanding and 

receiving a stronger voice in the management of 

natural resources, including forest management, 

energy infrastructure, dams, environmental 

science, and other areas. This emerging trend 

could shift the debate about how public lands 

should be managed and change the way society 

approaches decisionmaking about natural resource 

management, land use, and the environment. 

Examples of signals related to this trend from the 

Forest Futures Horizon Scanning database are:

• “From the rocky, pebbled beaches north of 

Seattle, where the Lummi Nation has led the 

fight against a proposed coal terminal, to 

southern Utah, where a coalition of tribes is 

demanding management rights over a proposed 

new national monument, to the tiny wooded 

community of Bella Bella, British Columbia, 

350 miles north of the US border, Native 

Americans are asserting old treaty rights and 

using tribal traditions to protect and manage 

federally owned land” (Johnson 2016: A12).

• In a ruling with substantial importance for 

water management in the American West, 

a U.S. appeals court upheld a lower court’s 

decision that an Indian tribe in California’s 

Coachella Valley has a right to groundwater 

beneath its reservation (Walton 2017).

• The Coquille Tribe in Oregon is regaining 

control over 5,000 acres of ancestral forest land 

(KCBY 2016).

• A growing number of U.S. cities and towns, 

and the State of Vermont, have renamed 

Columbus Day as Indigenous Peoples’ Day in 

recent years (Evans 2016).

• A law passed on March 15, 2017 makes the 

Whanganui River in New Zealand a legal 

person, in the sense that it can own property, 

incur debts, and petition the courts. For New 

Zealand’s indigenous Maori, the idea of the 

river as a person is nothing new and stems 

from their deep spiritual connection to the 

Whanganui (The Economist 2017).

• The President of Indonesia recently recognized 

the right of nine indigenous groups to manage 

the forests that they have traditionally occupied 

and managed (Gaol and Dahlia 2017).

These represent a sample of the scanning hits 

related to growing indigenous empowerment in 

the Forest Futures horizon scanning database, and 

they indicate the range of signals of change for 

this trend.

The Implications Wheel

The Implications Wheel is a participatory 

‘‘smart group’’ method that uses a structured 

brainstorming process to identify possible 

first-, second-, and third-order consequences 

(implications) resulting from any type of change, 

and to score them for desirability and likelihood 

(Bengston 2016, Bengston et al. 2018). The 

structured group process of the Implications 

Wheel facilitates “cascade thinking,” that is, 

“how one event or implication leads to multiple 

possibilities, each of which in turn leads to 

additional possibilities” (Barker and Kenny 

2010: 2). Cascade thinking helps planners and 

decisionmakers to proactively consider potential 

long-term, higher-order effects of change in order 

to prepare for these changes. The findings from 

Implications Wheel exercises can be used to 

develop strategies to increase the likelihood of 

positive implications, decrease the likelihood of 

negative implications, and identify information 

needs or gaps.

The word “wheel” in Implications Wheel derives 

from the wheel-like structure to the notes that 

emerges as the group process proceeds (Fig. 1). 

The change of interest is placed in the center—like 

the hub of a wheel—and then first-, second-, 

and third-order implications of the change are 

generated by participants and emanate outward 

from the center in concentric rings. For details on 

the method, see Bengston (2016).
44 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

Figure 1.—Simplified Implications Wheel structure. A complete wheel typically has about five second-order 

implications for each first-order implication, and five third-order implications for each second-order implication.

The Implications Wheel exercise reported on 

here involved 40 participants (16 women, 24 

men). All participants were either current or 

former students, or current or former faculty 

members, in the University of Houston’s Foresight 

graduate program. This group did not include 

American Indian or Alaska Native participants. 

The Implications Wheel method requires a 

diverse group of participants to provide as many 

perspectives as possible. The participants in this 

exercise had the advantage of being exceptionally 

well versed in futures thinking and foresight 

methods. However, because this group lacked 

American Indian perspectives, the results should 

be understood as possible implications from the 

perspective of nonindigenous people. Accordingly, 

the specific results should be viewed as incomplete 

and limited. Nonetheless, the exercise is a useful 

illustration of the Implications Wheel method 

for exploring possible implications of horizon 

scanning hits.

A total of 175 implications of “growing indigenous 

empowerment” were generated in this exercise: 

7 first-order implications, 33 second-orders, and 

135 third-orders. Implications were not scored for 
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 45

desirability or likelihood due to a limited amount 

of time to conduct the exercise. We solicited 

ideas for first-orders from participants by email in 

advance. First-order implications should follow 

directly from the center issue, with no significant 

intervening events. Of the ideas submitted, the 

following seven first-orders were selected for 

exploration because they (1) follow directly from 

the center trend, and (2) encompass the range of 

issues covered in the full set of submitted firstorders:

1. An Indigenous People’s political party is 

formed to promote interests and rights.

2. Increased indigenous rights and recognition 

of ownership cascade to other areas, beyond 

natural resources and public lands.

3. Traditional indigenous spiritual values, 

emphasizing that all life is interconnected 

and interdependent, begin to grow and spread 

throughout society.

4. Natural resources and environmental science 

majors are required to take courses in 

traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) at all 

accredited environmental programs in U.S. 

universities.

5. Treaty rights are broadened and Native 

American tribes construct resorts and tourist 

facilities on some public lands.

6. Hunting, fishing, and gathering activities on 

public lands by nonnatives are significantly 

restricted to allow greater harvest by Native 

Americans, in accordance with treaty rights.

7. Political powers and economic interests 

try to stop the trend of growing indigenous 

empowerment.

Participants were divided into seven groups of five 

or six people, and each group was assigned one 

of the seven first-order implications to identify 

possible second- and third-order implications.

EMERGING THEMES AND SCENARIOS

In this paper, we focus on two aspects of the 

results: (1) major themes identified from an 

analysis of the full set of implications, and 

(2) four broad scenarios (or scenario sketches) 

that emerged.

Emerging Themes

Major themes were identified through a thematic 

content analysis carried out on the complete set of 

175 implications. These themes are not exhaustive, 

but they synthesize some of the most important 

recurring concepts uncovered in the implications. 

The themes are listed next, along with two 

specific implications identified by participants that 

illustrate each theme.

Regulation—In response to growing indigenous 

empowerment, increasing regulations affect the 

nature of activities on public lands.

• “Increased regulations for managing public 

lands”

• “Increase in taxes needed to support 

regulations”

Politicization—Decisionmaking related to natural 

resources becomes increasingly political.

• “Proliferation of single-issue based political 

parties”

• “Indigenous political party is formed”

Disruption—Significant alteration of 

governmental states of affairs occurs in response to 

rights claims.

• “Power of current political parties changes”

• “Direct military intervention on behalf of 

powers opposing indigenous empowerment”

Spirituality—Greater emphasis is placed on the 

reality and importance of a spiritual dimension to 

all of life.

• “Integration of ‘whole person’ perspective”

• “Reconceptualization of religious structures”

Academicism—The value of TEK is 

acknowledged in the academic world.

• “More indigenous students, greater ethnic 

diversity”

• “More research into indigenous knowledge—

new PhD programs”
46 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

Commercialization—Tribes seek financial gain 

from treaty rights.

• “Many tribes begin planning resorts for public 

lands”

• “Online gaming and virtual-reality gaming 

businesses are developed”

Conflict—Significant opposition to indigenous 

values and empowerment is expressed.

• “Legal and logistical barriers created to squash 

human rights and ecological groups”

• “Suppression of indigenous tribal history and 

culture”

Justice—Concerns arise over the actualization of 

fair and equitable treatment.

• “Social injustice increases due to less revenue 

available for projects supporting equity”

• “United Nations talks to define rights of 

indigenous”

Identity—Opinions regarding conceptions of self 

increasingly diverge.

• “Pan-indigenous identity develops and becomes 

widespread”

• “Future generations of indigenous tribes lose 

their cultural identity”

Emerging Scenario Sketches

In addition to the nine focused themes, much 

broader themes or scenario sketches also 

emerged from analysis of the 175 implications. 

These mini-scenarios point to broad directions 

in which the future could unfold in response to 

a trend of growing indigenous empowerment. 

The four scenario sketches were titled: Growing 

Tension and Conflict, Backlash and Declining 

Empowerment, Indigenous “Ecotopia,” and 

Indigenous “Disneyfication.”

The Growing Tension and Conflict scenario 

is characterized by increased social tensions 

precipitated by restrictions on the use of public 

land by nonnative people. This tension leads to a 

cascade of effects, including escalating conflict 

related to the harvest of game and other natural 

resources. Issues become more political and red 

tape increases as new governmental institutions are 

created to transfer management responsibilities to 

indigenous groups and adjudicate disputes. Levels 

of racism and conflict surrounding indigenous 

groups increase steadily, even as indigenous 

empowerment continues to grow.

Backlash and Declining Empowerment begins 

with the formation of an indigenous people’s 

political party to promote interests and rights. 

The hope is that this effort will attract and 

galvanize support for indigenous issues, but 

a backlash quickly develops as entrenched 

nonindigenous interest groups are threatened by 

an erosion of power. Loss of congressional allies 

leads to elimination of Bureau of Indian Affairs 

appropriations, and tribal lands begin to be seized 

by way of eminent domain. Tribal sovereignty is 

slowly worn down.

Indigenous “Ecotopia” is initially prompted 

by widespread gains in understanding and 

appreciation of native cultures and worldviews. 

This leads to large-scale questioning of 

predominantly Western societal values and 

structures and land management decisions. 

Universities add TEK requirements to curricula 

in many fields, including natural resources. 

Ecological and human rights groups align 

closely with indigenous groups. Eventually, 

stronger international bonds are formed between 

indigenous peoples across the globe. Treaties 

are universally honored and indigenous groups 

increasingly take over the stewardship of natural 

resources in many contexts.

Indigenous “Disneyfication” is characterized 

by a shift away from indigenous relationships 

to nature and toward a commercial relationship. 

Construction of resorts, theme parks, casinos, 

and other tourist facilities on public lands 

skyrockets, and many tribal investment groups are 

created. There is an upsurge in media attention 

to indigenous themes, with little emphasis on 

the accuracy or validity of the knowledge being 

portrayed. The rapid expansion of indigenous 

tourist facilities creates transportation bottlenecks, 

leading to an increase in road-building on public 

lands and stress on regional airports.
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 47

These four mini-scenarios portray different 

possible futures based on the implications and 

themes that emerged. The scenarios could be fully 

developed and used in participatory planning 

or foresight activities with tribes, public land 

management agencies, and other stakeholders. 

The use of emerging issues that were uncovered 

in horizon scanning (such as growing indigenous 

empowerment) in other foresight methods (such 

as Implications Wheels and scenario planning) 

suggests the importance of horizon scanning as the 

essential “feedstock” for many foresight activities 

(Schultz 2006).

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

This exploratory Implications Wheel exercise 

revealed the wide range of positive and negative 

changes that could emerge from growing 

indigenous empowerment. Due to the lack of 

American Indian and Alaska Native participants, 

however, the exercise should be viewed as an 

illustration of the usefulness of the Implications 

Wheel method for exploring possible implications 

of trends and issues identified through horizon 

scanning. A follow-up study with indigenous 

participants is needed to provide a complete 

exploration of this issue and its possible future 

implications. This study also revealed the ways in 

which horizon scanning can feed into other futures 

methods and analyses.

LITERATURE CITED

Barker, J.A.; Kenny, C.G. 2011. Leading in 

uncertain times. Innovation. 9(2). April/May.

Bengston, D.N. 2016. The Futures Wheel: a 

method for exploring the implications of social–

ecological change. Society and Natural Resources. 

29(3): 374-379. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.

2015.1054980.

Bengston, D.N.; Dockry, M.J.; Shifley, S.R. 

2018. Anticipating cascading change in 

land use: exploring the implications of a 

major trend in northern forests. Land Use 

Planning. 71: 222-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

landusepol.2017.11.046.

The Economist. 2017. Try me a river: New 

Zealand declares a river a person. Asia edition, 

March 25. https://www.economist.com/news/

asia/21719409-odd-legal-status-intended-helpprevent-pollution-and-other-abuses-new-zealanddeclares?fsrc=gnews (accessed November 12, 

2018).

Evans, B. 2016. Vermont ditches Columbus Day 

for Indigenous Peoples’ Day: Governor signs 

proclamation changing traditional holiday. Oct. 

7. Burlington, VT: WPTZ Television. http://www.

mynbc5.com/article/vermont-ditches-columbusday-for-indigenous-peoples-day/5068016

(accessed November 12, 2018).

Gaol, A.L.; Dahlia, L. 2017. Indonesian president 

hands over management of forests to indigenous 

people. Feb. 20. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for 

International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Forest 

News. https://forestsnews.cifor.org/48323/

indonesian-president-hands-over-managementof-forests-to-indigenous-people?fnl=en&utm_

source=People+and+Forests+E-News&utm_

campaign=d8ca0bb737-People_and_Forests_E_

News_Mar17&utm_medium=email&utm_

term=0_45977cdcf4-d8ca0bb737-266926909

(accessed November 12, 2018).

Johnson, K. 2016. Old treaties and new alliances 

empower Native Americans. The New York 

Times, New York edition, Nov. 15. https://www.

nytimes.com/2016/11/16/us/old-treaties-andnew-alliances-empower-native-americans.html

(accessed December 1, 2018).

KCBY. 2016. Coquille Tribe to regain control of 

5,000 ancestral forestland acres. July 14. Coos 

Bay, OR: KCBY Television. http://kcby.com/news/

local/coquille-tribe-to-regain-control-of-5000-

ancestral-forestland-acres (accessed November 12, 

2018).

Schultz, W.L. 2006. The cultural contradictions 

of managing change: using horizon 

scanning in an evidence-based policy 

context. Foresight. 8(4): 3-12. https://doi.

org/10.1108/14636680610681996.
48 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

USDA Forest Service Research and Development. 

2016. Tribal Engagement Roadmap highlights 

report. FS-1075. August. 44 p. https://www.fs.fed.

us/sites/default/files/fs_media/fs_document/5082_

tribalrd.pdf.

Walton, B. 2017. U.S. Appeals Court affirms 

tribal groundwater rights. Circle of Blue®. 

March 7. http://www.circleofblue.org/2017/waterpolicy-politics/u-s-appeals-court-affirms-tribalgroundwater-rights/ (accessed December 1, 2018).
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 49

7. SCENARIOS TO PROVIDE CONTEXT FOR HORIZON SCANNING:

BACKCASTING NORTH AMERICAN FOREST FUTURES 

FROM 2090 TO 2035

Andy Hines, Johann Schutte, Maria Romero, and David N. Bengston

Abstract.—A scenario backcasting project, an 

offshoot of the Forest Futures Horizon Scanning 

system, was carried out for the USDA Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station’s Strategic 

Foresight Group. The horizon scanning team, from 

the University of Houston Foresight program, 

sought to provide context for the scanning hits and 

emerging issues identified through scanning by 

linking them to a set of scenarios. Scanning hits 

and emerging issues could then be analyzed and 

understood in relation to the scenarios; the ways 

that emerging issues might develop under different 

scenarios could be explored. A baseline scenario 

and three alternative scenarios for the year 2035 

were backcast from existing 2090 scenarios. These 

2035 scenarios provide a context from which 

policymakers can track the emergence of scenarios 

and craft responses to avoid scenarios they 

consider undesirable and work toward scenarios 

they consider preferable.

INTRODUCTION

This paper reports on a scenario backcasting 

project carried out for the USDA Forest Service 

(hereafter, Forest Service), Northern Research 

Station’s Strategic Foresight Group by the 

University of Houston Foresight program. The 

project is an offshoot of an ongoing horizon 

scanning system created by the two organizations 

to identify emerging issues in forestry (Hines et 

al. 2018). The horizon scanning team determined 

that it would be useful to provide context for the 

emerging issues by crafting a set of scenarios. 

The emerging issues could then be analyzed 

and understood in terms of how they related to 

the scenarios; that is, one could explore how 

the emerging issues identified through horizon 

scanning might fare in different scenarios.

Before embarking on developing new scenarios, 

we learned that a recent project had developed 

a set of scenarios for the North American Forest 

Commission (NAFC) out to the year 2090 

(Bengston et al. 2018). While this long-term 

outlook makes sense given the generally long 

time horizon of forestry, it can be challenging for 

policymakers in the present to know what to do 

relative to this distant future. And the emerging 

issues identified by the horizon scanning system 

are likely to be influential well before 2090. 

Our experience is that a time horizon needs to 

be within the planning scope of an organization 

in order to be effective. Thus, a set of scenarios 

closer to the present would be more effective in 

terms of stimulating useful responses. The work 

of the NAFC scenario team was quite good and 

useful, but we needed a way to work the 2090 

scenarios back toward the present in order to be 

helpful in providing context for horizon scanning 

hits and emerging issues.

METHODS

The team decided to try a backcasting approach. 

Lovins (1977) first employed the method in his 

search for achieving an energy-efficient future, 

although Robinson (1982) is generally credited 

with naming and codifying the method. In 

backcasting, one looks back from the viewpoint 

of specific images of the future (Kok et al. 2011, 

Quist et al. 2011, Robinson 1990). Forecasting 

extrapolates trends from the present into the 

future, whereas backcasting starts from the 

future and works back to the present. The typical 

approach in backcasting involves identifying a 

preferred future—a future that the client aspires to 

or would like to achieve (Bezold 2009)—and then 

specifying a pathway with milestones connecting 

to the present (Government Office for Science 

Citation: Hines, Andy; Schutte, Johann; Romero, Maria; Bengston, David N. 2019. Scenarios to Provide Context for Horizon Scanning: Backcasting North American 

Forest Futures from 2090 to 2035. In: Hines, Andy; Bengston, David N.; Dockry, Michael J., comps. The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning project. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NRS-P-187. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 49-61. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-P-187-paper7.
50 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

2017). The backcasting literature emphasizes 

developing the preferred future and working 

backwards from it to identify the pathway in 

order to suggest potential policy actions in the 

present. But there are generally few specifics on 

how to develop the pathway. Dreborg (1996) even 

suggested that backcasting should be thought of 

as a general approach rather than a method. The 

essence of the various approaches to backcasting 

is developing the pathway from the future back 

to the present. For example, Kok (2011) suggests 

three steps in constructing the backcast: 

1. Select a vision used as the endpoint.

2. Indicate obstacles and opportunities.

3. Define milestones and interim objectives. 

Strong et al. (2007) suggested that the key element 

for constructing the pathway back from the future 

involves the identification of signposts. They 

define a signpost as a “recognizable potential 

future event that signals a significant change.” A 

“recognizable” event is one that reasonable people 

would agree has happened. The term “signals” 

is used because the signpost may embody the 

significant change, or it may only predict or 

enable it (Strong et al. 2007: 2). Signposts are 

identified at particular points in time to construct 

the pathway.

The literature provided only general guidance 

for backcasting and we had to craft a backcasting 

approach that fit our specific needs. Some of the 

major differences that set our approach apart were 

as follows:

• Our backcast started from three alternative 

scenarios (plus the baseline scenario) set in the 

year 2090, rather than starting from a single 

preferred future.

• Our backcast aimed at the year 2035, rather 

than backcasting all the way to the present.

• We needed to map the pathway back from 

the distant future to 2035, rather than directly 

identify specific policy actions.

To map the pathway, we used the broad drivers 

of change that were the fundamental building 

blocks of the 2090 scenarios. Each of 12 drivers 

was articulated in each of the three scenarios but, 

of course, they played out differently in each. The 

following list shows the 12 drivers of change1:

• Societal values

• Relation to nature

• Economy

• Climate change: temperature increase

• Climate change: impact on forests

• Forest agencies: wildfire and mission shift

• Forest agencies: organizational form

• Forest agencies: leadership culture

• Technology

• Ecosystems

• Industry

• Stewardship

To ensure the faithfulness of the trajectories along 

the timeline between the two scenario sets (2035 

and 2090), midway descriptions were identified 

to act as beacons in 2060. Thus, the first “stop” in 

the backcast was 2060, 30 years before 2090. The 

scenario backcast team started with the first driver 

in the first 2090 scenario. It then imagined the 

status of that driver in 2060. After that, the team 

once again imagined the history of that driver, but 

this time in 2035, 25 years before 2060. The test, 

then, was to start with the driver from 2035, move 

to 2060, and finally 2090, and evaluate whether 

that pathway was plausible.

Next, that same driver was identified in the second 

2090 scenario. The scenarios are by definition 

distinct stories, so the outcome of the driver 

would be different in this second scenario. The 

same process was followed: The team imagined 

this driver first in 2060, described its status, and 

then did the same for 2035. The plausibility of 

this pathway from 2035 to 2060 to 2090 was 

then evaluated and any needed adjustments were 

made. Finally, the first driver was identified in 

the third scenario, and worked back to 2060 and 

2035, then tested for plausibility. With the three 

1 The last three drivers—ecosystems, industry, and 

stewardship—were not specifically identified in 

the NAFC 2090 scenarios, but were added to the 

backcasting analysis. These drivers were identified in 

the horizon scanning project.
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 51

pathways for the driver now sketched out, the team 

looked across the pathways to make sure that the 

drivers were set in a manner consistent with their 

outcome in the 2090 scenarios. This process was 

repeated for each of the 12 drivers in each of the 

3 scenarios.2 Once the team was satisfied with the 

consistency and plausibility of the pathways back 

to 2035, these 2035 drivers were used to craft a set 

of scenarios for the year 2035.

2035 Scenarios

This section presents the baseline scenario and 

the three alternative scenarios for 2035. Each of 

the three alternative scenarios is positioned on 

its own distinct trajectory, exploring the possible 

impacts on forestry and the Forest Service. A 

different author prepared the first draft of each 

alternative scenario. One scenario envisions an 

increased military presence in the environmental 

and forestry context, one focuses on the utilization 

of technology (“tech”) to mitigate climate change, 

and a third scenario focuses on a radical cultural 

shift.

The three 2035 scenarios are alternative futures. 

But how do we get from the present to 2035? 

The team used the concept of the baseline future 

from the “Framework Foresight” method (Hines 

and Bishop 2013), which projects or extrapolates 

from the present situation into the future, without 

any major disruptions or surprises. The team’s 

view was that the baseline forest future could 

plausibly extend out to about 2025. By this time, 

the baseline is likely to begin breaking down; that 

is, alternative futures would start to emerge in 

part or in whole. We called this baseline Stressed 

Forests. It is projected to ultimately give way to 

one or more of the three 2035 alternative futures. 

Of course, we do not know which one of these 

futures, or which variations of them, will emerge 

and eventually become the next baseline. It should 

also be noted that the dates of 2025 and 2035 are 

rough estimates—the alternative could emerge 

more quickly or more slowly than forecast.

2 Contact the authors for a copy of tables describing the 

projected drivers for each scenario.

We wrote the baseline from the viewpoint of the 

present, because it is rooted in the present, and we 

describe the alternatives from the vantage point of 

the future. The following subsections discuss 

these scenarios: (1) Baseline: Stressed Forests; 

(2) Government Intervention: Curfew, Stay Inside; 

(3) High-tech Transformation: the Internet of 

Trees; and (4) Cultural Transformation: Nurture 

Nature.

Baseline Scenario: Stressed Forests

The prospects for North American forests for the 

next decade are not looking promising. Forestry 

decisionmakers confront a likely future of budget 

cuts and political turmoil. They are also likely 

to confront a worsening ecological situation. 

At current rates, average global temperature is 

projected to increase 2 °C (3.6 °F) beyond the 

preindustrial level by 2065, nearing 3 °C (5.4 °F)

by 2090. Instead of being a sink for carbon 

dioxide, deforestation has actually led to a net 

release of forest carbon into the atmosphere. 

Forest leaders are likely to continue to be put in 

a position of “doing more with less,” and being 

blamed for deteriorating conditions despite their 

best efforts.

Climate change is the overwhelming issue 

stressing forests. The expected steady increase 

in temperature is likely to lead to increases in 

wildland fires, the spread of invasive species, 

and a host of insect pests and pathogens. Some 

thresholds of forest adaptability are likely to be 

approached. Some say that in the more distant 

future many forests may convert to new types of 

ecosystems such as shrubland.

Growing public apathy toward forests is likely to 

continue. Forests are out-of-sight, out-of-mind, 

as visits to the forest are projected to gradually 

decline. The exception to the dwindling number of 

forest visitors is a not necessarily desirable growth 

in squatters: People increasingly desperate for a 

place to live are likely to migrate to public forest 

land in the wildland-urban interface (WUI). Even 

more challenging, they demand protection from 

wildfires; can a squatter lawsuit be far behind?

Numerous studies are warning about the looming 

trouble. Forest management agencies will almost 
52 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

certainly face a growing number of wildfires as 

funding shrinks. Fire management will be the 

biggest part of the budget, but it is also likely to 

face cuts. Threats are clearly ahead, but will there 

be political will and budget support to confront 

them? Probably not. Governments have other 

priorities and citizens are too preoccupied with 

economic insecurity, fear of terrorists, and lost 

ways of life to make forest health a priority.

Forestry agencies are not likely to escape the 

automation of the workforce in North America 

and elsewhere. Robots and artificial intelligence 

are likely to increasingly replace forestry workers 

in the field, and they will be programmed to serve 

interests concerned primarily with cost savings 

and profits. There is some hope that automation 

will increase the productivity of the forest 

products sector, and that increased profits could 

be fed back into forest management and health. 

But not many are holding their breath for that. 

More likely is a growing incursion of investor and 

corporate groups buying up large swaths of private 

timberland and lobbying to keep government 

regulators “out of the forest.”

The picture is not totally bleak. Although a 

weakening public sector role in promoting forest 

health is most likely ahead, there are positive 

signs. The forest products industry could follow a 

path similar to agriculture by taking advantage of 

developments in genetics that could allow faster 

growing species to be farmed in forest lands. This 

could accelerate fragmentation of forests into 

ecological niches—a checkerboard of remnant 

natural stands of trees, private lands open for 

development, and commercial timberlands where 

soils and plants are managed to optimize profits. 

This drive for profits does bring new technologies, 

such as sensor networks for water and fire 

management, which should subsequently become 

available to public forest agencies.

Scenario 1. Government Intervention: 

Curfew, Stay Inside

Sporadic societal insecurity due to the 

consequences of severe environmental changes 

demands permanent government and military 

intervention.

In the first quarter of the century, efforts to address 

climate change lagged. Immediately before 2020, 

the government’s main priority was job creation, 

job security, and economic growth while growing 

concerns about climate were ignored. With strong 

support from small-town populations and the 

countryside to grow local economies, government 

strategy relied on traditional industries, which 

often played a substantial role in inducing climate 

change. Generally, the petroleum industry had 

newfound favor despite the global shift—even by 

China—toward the promise that the renewable 

energy industry held.

The momentum of the United States to address 

climate change began to significantly increase 

only in the late 2020s, when citizens became more 

directly affected by frequent natural disasters and 

experienced the impact that climate change had on 

some agricultural products such as coffee. Despite 

great advances in climate policies internationally, 

global efforts were too little too late. During 

this time there was a tremendous spike in nature 

tourism and public interest in the outdoors as 

people were starting to notice radical changes in 

nature and realized what they were about to lose. 

However, this spike was a short-term phenomenon 

as technology-related entertainment increasingly 

dominated consumer markets, drawing attention 

away from nature’s transformation.

Fortunately, the growth of indoor entertainment 

did not deny nature its place on the political 

agenda. As new generations emerged in the 

mid-2020s and gained voting power, they shifted 

environmental issues and their consequent 

economic implications to the top of the political 

agenda. By then, the trajectory of climate 

change had become evident as an unseen tipping 

point had already been passed. The average 

temperature of the Earth was well on its way 

toward an expected increase of almost 2 °C in 

the 10 years that were to follow (at around 2035). 

Severe climate-induced catastrophes resulted in 

tremendous financial losses. The situation was 

aggravated when government’s initial reaction to 

climate change was to promote policies favoring 

environmental protection. These actions inflated 
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 53

the already sizable green economy bubble as well 

as local high-tech innovations and alternative food 

production methods. However, frequent bouts of 

protest erupted as the disconcerted public vented 

its anger against government for not acting sooner. 

Federal power consequently faded and the national 

ability to address climate change in a coordinated 

manner was hampered in the process.

The Forest Service itself had to deal with the 

increased intensity of heatwaves, droughts, and 

forest fires. By 2025, the government restructured 

the Forest Service to solely focus on “managing” 

and adapting to the inevitable outcome of climate 

change instead of prevention. The new structure 

effectively pivoted the whole organization around 

its newly created Climate Change Division.

Two great and ever-present threats had to be 

managed. First, frequent and massive forest fires 

proved traditional firefighting approaches to 

be inadequate and unsustainable. The National 

Interagency Fire Center and National MultiAgency Coordinating Group’s fire-suppression 

efforts now also involved permanent military 

participation and organization, with the military’s 

stake increasing every year.

A second threat was the spread of tropical diseases 

and other harmful pathogens, as insects migrated 

into new ecosystems. Protecting humans from 

potential forest-borne pandemics became an 

increasingly important mission for the Forest 

Service. A productive partnership among forestry, 

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

the Department of Health and Human Services, 

and the World Health Organization in the 2020s 

initially included paramilitary organizations. But 

later, strong military involvement was called upon 

in efforts to quickly isolate compromised zones 

and mitigate potential outbreaks. Sadly, attention 

to fire mitigation and disease control in a frequent 

state-of-emergency context redirected valuable 

resources away from traditional ecosystem 

services such as flood control, carbon storage, 

wildlife conservation, and economic resilience of 

nearby communities.

The decade leading up to 2035 was characterized 

by an increase in the magnitude of severe natural 

disasters causing havoc. Along the Gulf and East 

Coasts, one or two high-category hurricanes made 

landfall each year. In late summer, flooding in the 

Southeast was commonplace, and despite constant 

military aid, the frequent California fires were 

extremely difficult to contain. Heavy and erratic 

snowstorms in the Northeast also caused frequent 

power outages. These disasters resulted in the 

frequent declarations of states of emergency by 

State governments requesting Federal support and 

official disaster declaration on a presidential level. 

Responses by the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency increasingly required a more substantial 

military involvement to assist civilian authorities, 

in close cooperation with the Forest Service, 

with regard to wildfires and forest-borne disease 

control.

Besides the growing economic impact of natural 

disasters, the economies of many breadbasket 

states were disrupted as crops favored new 

geographical areas while production in traditional 

areas dwindled. Simultaneously, new zones were 

conducive to reforestation efforts while some 

long-established forests increasingly struggled to 

persist. The latter were often left behind, taken 

over by invasive species due to a lack of funds and 

immediate focus on disaster management.

In 2029, the National Defense Act of 2008 was 

amended to accommodate the permanent return 

of a substantial section of the armed forces 

operating internationally. These troops were to 

be permanently deployed on U.S. soil and would 

be known as the Military Task Force for Public 

Protection. They would primarily reinforce the 

National Guard in its continual activities during 

the now frequent natural disasters, while also 

protecting U.S. borders if needed.

With the Forest Service beset by the magnitude 

of climate change management and adaptation 

responsibilities, it also had to strengthen its 

corporate relationships to fulfill its mission. Wood 

products corporations utilized CRISPR (clustered 
54 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

regularly interspersed short palindromic repeats) 

genome-editing technology to modify tree species 

to be faster growing and less susceptible to fire. 

The rise in homogeneous genetically modified 

tree farms also served a carbon storage function. 

Corporate interests now demanded the fierce 

protection of forests with drones and high-tech 

fire monitoring systems, while public access was 

increasingly denied, often enforced by paramilitary 

organizations employed by corporations. By 2035, 

suburban expansion continued as the population 

generally migrated to metropolitan areas. People 

predominantly remained indoors as smart homes, 

entertainment technology, and effective global 

connectivity functioned as a shelter from the 

unforgiving and partially militarized outdoors.

Scenario 2. High-tech Transformation: the 

Internet of Trees

Technological innovation substantially mitigates 

the effects of climate change and gradually 

produces a hopeful future.

The aphorism that people mobilize only in 

response to crisis held true. Some said that 

the climate-induced disasters of the 2020s 

took humanity to the brink; regardless, these 

catastrophes provided a wake-up call and led to 

a mobilization that began to make a difference. 

There were plenty of signals that the climate was 

being seriously affected. Some saw the signals 

and raised the alarm. Some denied. Most just 

hoped that it would go away, or not be as bad 

as predicted. It took a devastating storm surge 

and sea-level rise in Manhattan, New York—as 

well as other global cities (e.g., Amsterdam, the 

Netherlands and Jakarta, Indonesia) and even 

entire countries (e.g., Mauritius)—to build enough 

consensus that something was really wrong. The 

water frequently flooded the subway and traffic 

tunnels. Some would say that when the New 

York Times building flooded, the media’s interest 

really accelerated. It may have seemed like a wild 

card, but only for those not looking. The sea-level 

rise had been taking place for many years. Each 

disruptive storm and storm surge wreaked more 

havoc. The effects of a changing climate showed 

up in forestry in many ways but especially in 

increasingly destructive megafires. The insurance 

industry, which had made some attempts to warn 

about impending disaster, tabulated a bill that 

even the most hardline “business first” folks could 

not ignore. The failure to invest in infrastructure, 

despite repeated and frequent calls to do so, raised 

the total bill due. Temporary fixes and stopgaps 

were eventually overwhelmed.

It was not exactly smooth sailing at first. 

Awareness was the first step, but organizing 

coalitions for effective response to climate change 

was not easy and was not likely to get any easier. 

By 2035, however, ad hoc regional coalitions of 

countries with strong leaders became widespread. 

Yet there was still not enough support for globalscale action. This was challenging given the 

global-scale issue of climate change, but suspicion 

toward international organizations such as the 

United Nations and the various environmental 

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) remained 

strong. The coalitions were similar to trading 

blocs; it is easier to leverage existing arrangements 

than to build new ones, after all. In the United 

States, for instance, the Pacific Northwest states 

and Canada worked together closely and provided 

a good model for climate change action coalitions.

But there were encouraging signs. For example, 

a flourishing of small-scale climate-related 

projects flew under the radar in the 2020s. Venture 

capitalists saw “green in green,” and began 

funding climate- and resource-related projects. Of 

course, the impact of crowdsourcing approaches 

reshaped the nature of being a venture capitalist—

social entrepreneurship ventures were as likely to 

get funded as standard money-making schemes. 

When the panicked calls to “do something” rang 

out, these projects were highlighted, funded, 

and perhaps a little overhyped as evidence that 

something was being done. There were some 

really exciting experiments going on. A key 

theme was land and forest restoration. Swarms of 

“farmer drones” could seed, fertilize, and water 

large swaths of remote land in a matter of days. 

Many cities had long participated in large-scale 

urban forest experiments that revealed several key 

benefits, such as stormwater mitigation, energy 
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 55

savings from shading, greater aesthetic value, and 

improved air quality. Perhaps most importantly 

they seemed to account for an increase in 

community members spending time outdoors.

The role of forests as sources of drinking water 

was recognized and became part of the overall 

revival of interest in the value of forests. The 

problem with these efforts, well intentioned and 

productive as they were, was that they were 

piecemeal and not coordinated. They needed to be 

scaled up, and that is where government came in.

Perhaps the most significant technological 

interventions were related to information 

technology. One could argue that issues relating 

to forests and climate were fundamentally 

information issues, albeit very complex ones. 

Better data were needed to understand what was 

going on and what could be done. While many in 

the Forest Service or involved in forestry preferred 

a more hands-on and boots-on-the-ground 

approach to nature, there was a cadre who saw 

the power of information tools. Some laughed at 

these geeks, and in the 2020s it often seemed that 

a lot of data were gathered and not a lot of insight 

was produced. It took time for the information 

revolution to hit critical mass, but it finally got 

there. The Internet of Things for the forest— 

dubbed “the Internet of Trees”—effectively wired 

up the forest to produce an amazing volume 

of data about what was happening. Sensors 

everywhere (some wired, some smart dust, some 

drones, some robots, some satellite) provided 

enough coverage for the collection of sufficient 

data for assessing, monitoring, and eventually 

predicting what was going to happen.

The Internet of Trees also provided inventory and 

tracking systems that dramatically cut down on 

illegal logging. “Stolen” trees could be tracked. 

The impact of providing these monitoring 

technologies to countries with rampant illegal 

logging was huge. Predictive analytics gave 

managers the tools to simulate multiple courses of 

action and make more informed choices.

This suite of smart technologies also became 

a valuable partner in dealing with the rise of 

megafires. In addition to the better remote 

sensing, monitoring, and predictive analytics for 

tracking potential wildfire movement, there were 

significant technological advances in managing 

wildfire. Sensors immediately indicated when a 

fire started so that it could be managed—allowed 

to burn, put out, or watched—as appropriate. 

The firefighters themselves would hardly be 

recognizable to their predecessors; with full-body 

military exoskeletons, it was sometimes hard 

to tell them apart from their robot colleagues. 

Technology certainly helped with managing 

fires near population centers. But the biggest 

anticipated advances would use artificial 

intelligence, Big Data, and analytics to develop 

models that would help restore more normal fire 

patterns—knowing when to let nature do what it 

knows best how to do. 

New biotech approaches to natural resource 

problems were also widely employed. The 

CRISPR genome-editing technology was used 

for creating biological responses to new pests in 

experiments carried out quietly during the 2020s, 

sometimes with overseas partners, where there 

were less public scrutiny and objection. Among the 

successful experiments were rather “simple” genesplicing activities to improve tree health. Further, 

genetically modifying insects to eat so-called 

“bad” bugs or pests was becoming increasingly 

common. Alongside these efforts, however, 

experiments were going on in synthetic biology 

to engineer entirely new life forms designed for 

specific tasks. These efforts were tightly regulated 

at the moment over fear of potential unintended 

consequences of releasing new life forms. But 

given the serious condition of the biosphere, these 

efforts were gaining more attention and funding. 

There were also hundreds of small-scale biomass 

approaches using various wood-based inputs, from 

the nano-scale (wood-based nanomaterials with 

thousands of applications) to wood skyscrapers 

that were much more environmentally friendly 

than steel and concrete.

While technology was front-and-center as the 

world furiously scavenged for technological 

fixes, the evolution of social values was also 

influential, if somewhat below the surface. Above 

all, “modern values” that support competition 
56 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

and achievement provided the motivation and 

entrepreneurial zeal to develop new technologies 

(Fig. 1). There was an immense proliferation of 

competitions, prizes, incentives, crowdsourcing, 

and open-source collaborations. Some complained 

that modern values were short-sighted, but 

they could definitely generate innovation when 

properly aligned. Postmodern and integral values 

also had some, albeit far less, influence. One way 

that this change became evident was the trend in 

diet away from meat. Vegetarians, vegans, and a 

complicated array of other dietary arrangements 

gradually became the mainstream. This reduced 

some pressure on resources, and combined with 

more effective distribution that reduced food 

waste, actually started “moving the needle,” if ever 

so slightly. The values evolution had been very 

slow and gradual. Post-crisis, people became more 

vocal about what individuals could do.

The forest world of 2035 might best be described 

as entering “rehab.” The stress of climate change 

and related impacts, such as nonnative invasive 

species, drought, increasingly intense storms, and 

more frequent ice storms, as well as inadequate 

budgets to deal with these stresses, had weakened 

the forests. Some approaches promised and might 

deliver remarkable results. Some would have 

unintended consequences. The jury was out on 

whether this approach would work. Comparing 

things to where they stood 10 or 20 years before, 

however, most people preferred this high-tech 

experiment over the alternative.

Figure 1.—Four value types that a person or organization may espouse. Source: Hines (2011).

Scenario 3. Cultural Transformation: 

Nurture Nature

The environmental crisis really gained momentum 

in the 2020s in a continual stream of natural 

disasters that wreaked havoc. Besides the 

increased frequency of forest fires all over the 

United States, coastal regions also suffered 

severely. As global average temperatures 

continued to rise and sea levels followed suit, 

hurricanes became stronger and more frequent. 

These catastrophes prompted a set of additional 

regulations regarding homes and infrastructure 

along the coast in order to prevent flooding and 

provide added protection from hurricanes. The 

increased frequency of extreme weather events 

and consequent additional regulations had a 

severe, negative effect on the real estate market 

along the East, West, and Gulf Coasts.

Grassroots support was central to the growing 

environmental crisis. A long and failed track 

record of institutional fixes, policy initiatives, and 

other mechanisms associated with the status quo, 

led to the realization that the underlying values or 

culture was key. Until people’s minds changed, 

nothing significant was likely to change.

Changing minds was not enough by itself—it had 

to translate into behavior. A sign of a new general 

cultural mindset, for example, was that people 

began generating solar and wind power at home 

and became more environmentally friendly with 

transportation. This “sustainability first” mindset 
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 57

permeated neighborhoods and cities as residents 

and planners promoted parks and small forests 

in city centers. Some cities were even rezoned as 

forests, similar to UNESCO heritage sites, as an 

official carbon capture method.

New social entrepreneurship initiatives 

blossomed. Many projects were funded through 

crowdsourcing campaigns. Even Silicon Valley 

became a venue for social entrepreneurs and 

funding initiatives for the burgeoning climatetech industry. A perhaps subtle shift in values was 

toward seeing technology as a vital ally in the 

campaign for sustainability. While most foresters 

were not anti-technology, they could be classified 

as skeptics. Indeed, many had joined the Forest 

Service because they enjoyed nature and did not 

want to be technology saturated.

Part of the values shift was recognizing that 

technology could be an incredibly useful tool, thus 

the look to crowdsourcing sites and Silicon Valley 

for tech ideas that might help. The Forest Service 

took note of these developments and, thanks to the 

cultivation of local partnerships, many innovative 

technologies developed through these initiatives 

were tested in American forests. Within the timber 

industry, wood products enjoyed a renaissance as 

part of a move away from plastics, such as wooden 

sunglass frames, watches, and external casings of 

tech devices and displays.

Early on, the Forest Service and most other 

government agencies were divided about what 

the response to the growing environmental 

crisis should be. They recognized the need 

for action, but faced conflict and a stalemate 

around exactly what to do. Whenever there 

was agreement, the predominant focus was 

on scientific and technological solutions. For 

instance, the Forest Service began a nanosensor 

trial in the Apalachicola National Forest in Florida. 

However, the test met setbacks and took longer 

than expected due to the difficulty of tagging so 

many trees with sensors. There were not enough 

employees to effectively implement the trial. 

Agencies’ commitment to this and other efforts 

was insufficient, and they abandoned the projects 

when they encountered obstacles.

An emerging wave of projects refocused attention 

on the human element. Rather than humans 

serving technology, the focus shifted to how 

technology could serve people in the field. For the 

Forest Service, this shift reinvigorated the ranks. 

They felt like their expertise was valued once 

again. After years of declining budgets, personnel 

numbers, and morale, being a forest ranger became 

cool again. Ideas that had been on the shelf for 

years were dusted off, revisited, and put into 

action. Forest Service employees would be able to 

make a difference.

This was not just an American phenomenon. 

There were also geo-regional advances, such as 

cooperative alliances. In 2031, Canada, Mexico, 

and the United States entered into a North 

American Fire Mitigation Treaty. Although still in 

its infancy, this coalition would be essential should 

a mega-wildfire threaten to expand over the border 

at locations such as the Superior National Forest in 

northern Minnesota. Since its ratification, all three 

parties had taken several preventive measures.

Native American protesters of the Dakota 

Access Pipeline through North Dakota, South 

Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois in 2017 and countless 

subsequent protests inspired many communities 

to be more active in working alongside 

environmental NGOs and government agencies. 

Initially such protesters were still in the minority, 

but a decade later, their values were at the center 

of the cultural transformation that reinvigorated 

the Forest Service and the Nation to actively deal 

with climate change.

Though climate change was the key focus, it 

was not the only problem. The high level of 

disturbance in urban and rural forest ecosystems 

alike diminished the productivity of these 

lands. It also resulted in a substantial decline 

in visitors to public lands. As a result, land 

management agencies were now highly focused on 

rehabilitating these natural habitats. At the same 

time, private companies set their goal to decrease 

waste and improve the efficiency of manufacturing 

processes so that limited availability of raw 

materials would not affect them as severely. It 

turned out that the shift in values showed up 
58 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

everywhere: in government, business, education, 

and nonprofit organizations. The shift in mindset 

enabled the Nation to turn the corner.

DISCUSSION

It was noteworthy that the first drafts of each 2035 

scenario, prepared by different authors, came 

back with a similar story of responding to a crisis. 

Whether government intervention, high-tech fix, 

or values-based cultural transformation, none 

was judged likely to emerge without first passing 

through a crisis threshold. It was clear that the 

team envisioned a common baseline heading to 

crisis, with various responses to that crisis being 

plausible.

Forestry and the forest products industry are 

particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate 

change. The analysis suggested that climate 

change—the “800-pound gorilla”—is such a big 

driver that to some degree it overshadows others. 

As a result, the scenarios explore the various 

responses to climate change-driven crisis and the 

impacts on forestry. The baseline scenario was 

tweaked slightly to emphasize the path to crisis. 

The three alternative scenarios assume the baseline 

crisis, and suggest three different responses: the 

first response, Government Intervention: Curfew, 

Stay Inside, is a worst-case scenario of policy 

failure; the second, High-tech Transformation: the 

Internet of Trees, mobilizes technology and the 

entrepreneurial spirit to get on with “fixing” nature 

and the forests; the third, Cultural Transformation: 

Nurture Nature, rethinks the approach to nature 

and rebalances the human approach primarily 

through a value shift.

These 2035 scenarios are waystations on the path 

to the long-term future. As we reprojected them 

forward—having arrived at them from a backcast 

in the first place—we slightly recharacterized the 

2090 scenarios to tell a consistent story across 

time. The dystopic Curfew, Stay Inside scenario 

carried forward evolves into “Wasteland,” a 

survival-of-the-fittest approach in the forest in 

which robots serving neo-lumber barons battle 

with squatters and scavengers for ever-scarce 

forest resources. The high-tech Internet of Trees 

scenario takes on a tech-fix mentality that sees 

no problem that technology cannot fix. In terms 

of the forest, large-scale restoration projects have 

been successfully launched and the latest move 

is into technological forest enhancement, a view 

that technology can improve upon nature. The 

values-driven Nurture Nature scenario evolves into 

“Holistic Stewardship,” in which nature is once 

again valued as sacred and worthy of protection in 

its natural state, with technology in a supportive 

role and with humans as partners and stewards in a 

Triple Bottom Line approach.

These societal responses act as drivers to establish 

three different trajectories that provide disparate 

images of the future. All three scenarios have 

practical implications for present decisionmaking 

in forestry. Among many possibilities, the 

following three implications offer some 

perspectives on how these scenarios have current 

relevance and could help guide decisionmaking 

processes: 

• How can conservation-related technological 

innovation be fostered? The forest sector 

can foster major technological innovation 

if it collaborates with entrepreneurs, tech 

companies, and venture capitalists in a timely 

manner.

• How could society be influenced toward a 

value change? The power of ideas should 

not be underestimated as the future first and 

foremost occurs in the hearts and minds of 

people. Increasing evidence of climate change 

will make it easier to leverage social media 

to influence societal values and attitudes 

for forest stewardship in a changing world. 

Technology can also be used as a creative 

gateway to nature, encouraging people to 

engage. If this route is not actively pursued, 

a dichotomy between the outdoors (which 

will increasingly be perceived as hostile) and 

indoors (increasingly high-tech and insulated) 

could grow.

• How could our policies and actions foster a 

positive relationship with nature? A reactive 

approach to climate change is increasingly 

likely to be built on fear and feeling threatened 
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 59

by the growing impacts of a changing climate. 

This approach has the potential to alienate 

humanity from nature. An early, proactive 

approach will prevent a sense of victimhood 

and increase the odds of a favorable, hopeful 

environmental future.

Using Scenarios in Horizon Scanning

The 2035 forest scenarios described in this paper 

represent a set of plausible futures for forestry 

and forests in the United States. The reason for 

developing the scenarios was to use them to 

provide context and meaning for scanning hits 

and emerging issues identified through the Forest 

Futures Horizon Scanning system. Individual 

scanning hits often lack context, and a large 

database of scanning hits may appear to be a 

random collection of disjointed bits and pieces. 

The same is true for emerging issues based on 

multiple scanning hits. Tagging scanning hits with 

descriptive terms (see the domain map of tags 

in Figure 2, paper 1 and Figure 1, paper 2, this 

volume) is a first step in providing context. The 

tags show the connection between scanning hits 

and broader themes of interest within the forestry 

domain.

A useful and often neglected second step to create 

context is to link scanning hits or emerging issues 

to plausible scenarios for the domain. Scanners 

can tag hits with the appropriate scenario, and the 

database of scanning hits can then be sorted by 

scenario and analyzed to reveal which scenarios 

may be gaining traction or failing to emerge over 

time. Linking scanning hits and emerging issues 

to scenarios can help identify broader patterns of 

change and promote sensemaking out of what was 

an amorphous database of horizon scanning hits. 

This helps foster expansive thinking about the 

results of horizon scanning and allows us to track 

the early emergence of a scenario or disconfirm it.

The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning database 

contains many scanning hits that relate to one or 

more of the 2035 forest scenarios, including the 

following examples of confirming scanning hits 

for each scenario:

Government Intervention: Curfew, Stay Inside

“Water, climate and conflict: security risks on 

the increase?” is a scanning hit supporting this 

scenario. This hit summarizes a report exploring 

the relationship between increasing water- and 

climate-related stressors, and increasing conflict 

at multiple scales. One of the main conclusions 

of the report was that “[t]he complexity of the 

climate-water-conflict interaction requires policy 

development processes integrating economic, 

mitigation, adaptation, social, and security 

policies” (p. 1). A possible implication for forest 

management agencies is the potential for military 

involvement to deal with increasing security risks 

and the need to safeguard resources and the public, 

consistent with the Government Intervention 

scenario. Also supporting this scenario are 

scanning hits related to the growth of technologyrelated indoor entertainment, the spread of 

tropical diseases and forest-borne pandemics, 

and increased intensity of heatwaves, droughts, 

wildfires, and other extreme weather events and 

natural disasters.

High-tech Transformation: 

the Internet of Trees 

Many hits in the Forest Futures Horizon Scanning 

database support this scenario. An example is 

“Report calls for national parks to get smart”, 

an article summarizing a research report titled 

“Smart Parks: Bringing Smart Technologies to 

National Parks.” The article describes how realtime information from environmental sensors 

could soon inform public land managers and 

decisionmakers about everything from the effects 

of climate change to when trash bins are full. Also 

supporting the High-tech Transformation scenario 

are scanning hits describing the development 

or application of a wide range of advanced 

technologies in forestry and natural resources, 

including drones, robots, and artificial intelligence.

Cultural Transformation: Nurture Nature

A scanning hit supporting this scenario is “A 

once and future forest”. The article discusses 

the Coquille Indian Tribe of southwest Oregon 

preparing to manage its forest land by its own 

rules. Under Federal legislation signed in January 
60 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

2018, the tribe is no longer required to follow the 

“standards and guidelines” of Federal agencies. 

This is one of many scanning hits in the Forest 

Futures database reflecting an emerging issue of 

growing indigenous empowerment (see paper 

6, this volume). Also supporting the Cultural 

Transformation scenario are scanning hits that 

describe shifting environmental values and 

behaviors, rapid growth in environmentally 

friendly technologies, and a renaissance in the use 

of renewable materials such as wood.

Tagging scanning hits for the scenarios as they are 

entered into the database may be challenging for 

many scanners. An alternative would be to have 

a team of scanners or analysts to assign scenarios 

to scanning hits after they have been posted in 

the database, as part of the analysis phase of the 

horizon scanning process.

CONCLUSIONS

As the history of our engagement with climate 

change proves, the consciousness of a society is 

akin to a bulky cruise ship that is unable to quickly 

change course. Two of the scenarios, those relating 

to technological and cultural shifts, point to strong 

leverage points useful to shift society toward a 

favorable outcome in dealing with environmental 

change. Time is needed, however. The other 

scenario provides a warning: The more delayed 

our engagement, the more difficult it will be to 

handle our climate issues, potentially leading to 

our alienation from nature, and even from one 

another and ourselves.

These 2035 scenarios provide a context from 

which policymakers can craft responses to avoid 

scenario(s) they consider undesirable and work 

toward scenario(s) they consider preferable. For 

the horizon scanning team, the scenarios provide 

further context for scanning. A scanning hit or 

emerging issue can be evaluated for how it relates 

to the scenarios. A scanning hit may be tagged 

to indicate that it suggests movement toward a 

particular scenario. In providing further context 

for horizon scanning, as well as a more useful 

planning horizon for policymakers, we believe this 

backcasting process to be a promising approach.

LITERATURE CITED

Bengston, D.N.; Peck, J.; Olson, R. [et al.]. 2018. 

North American forest futures 2018-2090: 

scenarios for building a more resilient forest 

sector. World Futures Review. 10(2): 152-169. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1946756718757751.

Bezold, C. 2009. Aspirational futures. Journal of 

Futures Studies. 13(4): 81-90. http://www.jfs.

tku.edu.tw/13-4/AE06.pdf (accessed November 

27, 2018).

Dreborg, K.H. 1996. Essence of backcasting. 

Futures. 28(9): 813-828. https://doi.org/10.1016/

s0016-3287(96)00044-4.

Government Office for Science. 2017. The 

futures toolkit: tools for futures thinking 

and foresight across UK government.

[N.p.]: 68-73. Available at https://www.gov.

uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/

attachment_data/file/674209/futures-toolkitedition-1.pdf (accessed November 27, 2018).

Hines, A. 2011. ConsumerShift: how changing 

values are reshaping the consumer 

landscape. Tucson, AZ: No Limit Publishing.

Hines, A.; Bishop, P.C. 2013. Framework 

foresight: exploring futures the Houston 

way. Futures. 51: 31-49. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.05.002.

Hines, A.; Bengston, D.N.; Dockry, M.J.; Cowart, 

A. 2018. Setting up a horizon scanning 

system: a U.S. federal agency example. World 

Futures Review. 10(2): 136-151. https://doi.

org/10.1177/1946756717749613.

Kok, K.; van Vliet, M.; Bärlund, I. [et al.]. 2011. 

Combining participative backcasting 

and exploratory scenario development: 

experiences from the SCENES project.

Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 

78(5): 835-851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

techfore.2011.01.004.

Lovins, A. 1977. Soft energy paths: toward a 

durable peace. Cambridge, MA: Friends of the 

Earth/Ballinger Publishing.
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 61

Quist, J.; Thissen, W.; Vergragt, P. 2011. The 

impact and spin-off of participatory 

backcasting: from vision to niche. 

Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 

78(5): 883-897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

techfore.2011.01.011.

Robinson, J.B. 1982. Energy backcasting: 

a proposed method of policy analysis.

Energy Policy. 10(4): 337-344. https://doi.

org/10.1016/0301-4215(82)90048-9.

Robinson, J.B. 1990. Futures under glass: 

a recipe for people who hate to predict. 

Futures. 22(8): 820-842. https://doi.

org/10.1016/0016-3287(90)90018-d.

Strong, R.; Ryan, J.; McDavid, D. [et al.]. 

2007. A new way to plan for the future. In: 

Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International 

Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’07). 

10 p. IEEE Computer Society. https://

www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/

hicss/2007/2755/00/27550230b.pdf (accessed 

November 27, 2018).
62 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

8. COMMUNICATING HORIZON SCANNING

Andy Hines

Abstract.—Horizon scanning produces a 

significant amount of information about potential 

change that may be on the horizon. To be useful 

for the intended audiences, this large volume of 

information must be sorted, condensed, analyzed, 

interpreted, and presented in formats that fit the 

needs of diverse users. This paper describes the 

various current and planned communication 

outputs of the Forest Futures Horizon Scanning 

project, including the scanning library, blog 

posts about significant scanning hits or emerging 

themes, a periodic digest summarizing interesting 

scanning hits, detailed articles and technical 

reports, presentations to a wide range of audiences, 

and input to other strategic foresight projects. 

A possible additional output would be to offer 

focused scanning services on priority issues to 

groups within the USDA Forest Service.

INTRODUCTION

The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning system is 

producing a substantial amount of information 

about the future of forestry. The core unit of 

information is the scanning “hit” stored in a 

digital library, which currently contains over 

1,200 entries. This information is being collected 

by small scanning teams from the USDA Forest 

Service (hereafter, Forest Service), Northern 

Research Station’s Strategic Foresight Group, 

the University of Houston Foresight program, 

and several volunteer scanners. Though it can be 

interesting and perhaps enlightening to browse 

through the large scanning library, it is unlikely 

that the intended audience—mainly forest 

planners, managers, and policymakers—will have 

the time or inclination to do so. Thus, from the 

beginning the project team has sought to develop 

a variety of outputs to effectively communicate 

insights from the scanning process.

The project team worked to clarify the intended 

audience of scanning, who might benefit from 

it, and provide insight for the communication 

strategy. Stakeholders for this horizon scanning 

system include both internal (Forest Service) and 

external users and partners:

• Internal stakeholders range from Forest

Service Washington Office leadership to

planners and managers on individual national

forests.

• External stakeholders include a wide range

of Forest Service partners and organizations

involved with forestry and natural resource

issues, such as wood industry associations,

urban forestry associations, professional

societies in forestry and natural resources,

international forestry organizations,

environmental nongovernmental organizations,

State foresters, and forest academics and

scientists.

The diversity of stakeholders suggests the 

need for a diverse set of outputs and a flexible 

communication strategy that can appeal to 

the differing levels of interest and different 

information needs. Currently, the following 

outputs are being produced or are planned:

• the horizon scanning library, which contains the

unprocessed scanning hits;

• blog posts that highlight individual scanning

hits or synthesize emerging themes from the

scanning library;

• a bimonthly digest summarizing especially

interesting or significant scanning hits;

• in-depth articles and technical reports that

explore emerging issues and insights gained

from scanning;

• presentations to a variety of internal and

external audiences; and

• input into other strategic foresight projects.

Citation: Hines, Andy. 2019. Communicating Horizon Scanning. In: Hines, Andy; Bengston, David N.; Dockry, Michael J., comps. The Forest Futures 

Horizon Scanning project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-187. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station: 62-66. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-P-187-paper8.
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 63

A possible additional output would be to offer 

focused scanning services on priority issues to 

groups within the Forest Service. The following 

short sections elaborate on each of these scanning 

outputs.

SCANNING LIBRARY

The scanning library is the repository for all 

scanning hits (see Figure 1). The project team 

developed a tagging system for each scanning hit 

based on categories in a domain map (see Hines 

et al. [2018] and papers 1 and 2, this volume) and 

three time horizons:

• Horizon 1 (the current system, from now to 

2025)

• Horizon 2 (the zone of transition, from 2025 to 

2035)

• Horizon 3 (visions of a new system, from 2035 

and beyond)

The tagging system provides an easy way to 

search for relevant scanning hits in the library, 

and the scanning library can be opened to 

interested participants, who simply provide 

their email address. But exploring the large and 

growing library requires a level of interest and 

effort that is unlikely to extend much beyond the 

scanning team, suggesting a need to synthesize 

and summarize the results into more user-friendly 

formats.

BLOG POSTS

The first approach to synthesizing and 

summarizing the content was to develop a series 

of short blog posts (Fig. 2). Scanners were asked 

to identify interesting or favorite scanning hits 

and elaborate on them in blog posts of roughly 

500 words (although many were longer). A key 

selection criterion for potential blog posts was 

novelty, given the goal of building interest in 

the scanning system and its outputs. The blog 

posts are currently being hosted on the Houston 

Foresight blog.

Figure 1.—Screenshot of horizon scanning library.
64 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

There are now more than 20 Forest Futures blog 

posts hosted on the site:

• The Vertical Forest

• The Coming Age of ... Wood?!

• Apple in the Forest

• Forest Futures: Economic Growth or 

Degrowth?

• Visualizing Forest Futures: Linking Traditional 

Knowledge with Modeling and Visualization

• Mimicking Mother Nature: Nudging Forests 

Toward Old Growth Conditions

• AI, the Forest, and Artisans

• Before We Let Robots Reclaim the Sahara...

Figure 2.—Screenshot of Forest Futures blog (https://www.houstonforesight.org/?cat=1216).

• A Bionic Leaf: An Unsuspecting Hero?

• Coming Home to the Forest

• Catch ‘Em While They’re Small

• Flash Towns in the Forest?

• Increasing Resiliency

• From Christmas Tree to Coffee Table: Pine 

Needles are Full of Potential

• Knowing Each Tree in the Forest

• Promising Technologies in Forest Monitoring

• Wood Skyscrapers

• Concentrated Cities amongst Wilderness

• Hotdogs Made of Trees?
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 65

• Facetime the Woods

• May I Camp on You? The Future of 

Autonomous Ecosystems

• Forests as Therapy

• 3D Printing with Wood

• Forest Recreation in the Age of Social Media

DIGEST

A newsletter or digest of scanning hits is a planned 

output, but it has not yet been implemented. 

As envisioned, the digest would cover many 

categories included in our scanning database, such 

as industry, institutions, stewardship, ecosystems, 

climate, and the general categories of STEEP 

(social, technological, economic, environmental, 

and political) forces. An interesting scanning hit 

(or two) for most categories would be included 

in each issue, with a catchy title, short summary, 

and link to the original source article. A blog post 

would be featured in each issue as well.

The digest would be kept brief and easy to quickly 

read, enabling the reader to rapidly decide which 

hits to follow up on. The logic is to entice less 

interested readers with items that may raise their 

level of interest in a quick and user-friendly way.

ARTICLES AND TECHNICAL REPORTS

The horizon scanning team is producing a series of 

articles and technical reports, which have appeal 

to several stakeholder groups. These publications 

are expected to be of particular interest to the 

academic and research community as well as 

forest planners, managers, and policymakers 

motivated to pursue foresight activities. The 

first article, “Setting Up a Horizon Scanning 

System: A U.S. Federal Agency Example,” has 

been published in World Futures Review (Hines 

et al. 2018). It outlines the process of setting up 

the system. Analyses of the possible direct and 

indirect implications of emerging issues and 

themes using the Implications Wheel® method 

have been carried out (see papers 5 and 6, this 

volume). This General Technical Report is another 

output, and a series of annual articles highlighting 

emerging issues, trends, and signals of change is 

planned.

PRESENTATIONS

The material produced by the project will also 

be used as the basis of agency and conference 

presentations. The first such presentation, “Forest 

Futures: Strategic Foresight and Horizon Scanning 

to Support Decision Making,” was made July 

24, 2017 to an audience at the Forest Service 

headquarters in Washington, DC.

INPUT TO STRATEGIC 

FORESIGHT PROJECTS

The results of horizon scanning can also be 

communicated indirectly as inputs to a variety 

of strategic foresight projects. Strategic foresight 

work based on the output of horizon scanning 

include:

• Implications Wheel analyses of scanning hits 

and trends (Bengston 2016),

• Scenario planning exercises in which horizon 

scanning informs the conception and design of 

alterative futures (Schwartz 1996), and

• Gaming methods (Milojević 2017) in which 

emerging issues identified through scanning 

are used in foresight card decks, board games, 

immersive role-playing experiences, and other 

gaming approaches.

The Forest Service’s Strategic Foresight Group 

is an ongoing research unit that will draw on the 

output of the Forest Futures Horizon Scanning 

system as an important input to many foresight 

projects in the years ahead.

FOCUSED SCANNING SERVICE

Finally, a possible additional output of the Forest 

Futures Horizon Scanning system is to provide 

focused scans on priority issues upon request. To 

date, the effort has been limited to broad scanning 

of the entire external environment for forestry 

and the Forest Service, but it would be possible to 

offer focused scanning services on priority issues 

to groups within the agency. Horizon scanning 

sometimes focuses on a particular topic or domain 

considered to be most important, such as an 

emerging technology, a specific social or cultural 

trend, or an important issue.
66 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

The strategic approach to communicating the 

output of horizon scanning is to produce a variety 

of outputs—from the library of “raw,” unprocessed 

scanning hits to highly synthesized products—that 

appeal to varying levels of interest. The true 

test, of course, will be in the marketplace. As the 

products are rolled out, the team will have a better 

idea of what is working and what is not, and can 

make the appropriate adjustments.

LITERATURE CITED

Bengston, D.N. 2016. The futures wheel: a 

method for exploring the implications of 

social-ecological change. Society and Natural 

Resources. 29(3): 374-379. https://doi.org/10.10

80/08941920.2015.1054980.

Hines, A.; Bengston, D.N.; Dockry, M.J.; Cowart, 

A. 2018. Setting up a horizon scanning 

system: a U.S. federal agency example. World 

Futures Review. 10(2): 136-151. https://doi.

org/10.1177/1946756717749613.

Milojević, I. 2017. Introduction by the 

special editor to the symposium on 

gaming futures. Journal of Futures Studies. 

22(2): 1-4. http://jfsdigital.org/wp-content/

uploads/2017/12/00Introduction.pdf.

Schwartz, P. 1996. The art of the long view: 

planning for the future in an uncertain 

world. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday. 

272 p.
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 67

9. FOREST FUTURES: A GUIDE FOR SCANNERS

Adam Cowart, Andy Hines, Kurt Callaway, David N. Bengston, and Michael J. Dockry

Abstract.—A clear and concise guide for 

volunteer scanners is essential for creating a 

rigorous, consistent, and sustainable horizon 

scanning system. The scanner guide written for 

the Forest Futures Horizon Scanning system 

is presented in its entirety. The guide includes 

an overview of the USDA Forest Service; an 

explanation of horizon scanning and its goals, 

uses, and stakeholders; a “how to” guide for 

installing and using the Web-based system for 

collecting scanning hits; a description of the 

domain map used in tagging scanning hits; and a 

quick guide to getting started in scanning.

INTRODUCTION

A “scanner guide” is a prerequisite for establishing 

an ongoing and internally consistent horizon 

scanning system. The goal is to provide guidance 

to support rigor and ensure consistency in the 

horizon scanning process. For the Forest Futures 

Horizon Scanning project, an important benefit 

of the scanner guide is to assist in building the 

volunteer scanning team: Horizon scanning is 

not part of anyone’s official job description at the 

USDA Forest Service (hereafter, Forest Service) 

and the project therefore depends on volunteers. 

Volunteer scanners are drawn primarily from 

current and former Forest Service employees, and 

during the start-up period also include University 

of Houston Foresight program (hereafter, Houston 

Foresight) student interns. With volunteer 

scanners, a clear and concise scanner guide is 

needed for scanner training and engagement, and 

is essential to the success of an ongoing horizon 

scanning system.

A challenge in developing the guide was to make 

it relevant to the diversity of scanners: Forest 

Service scanners have more in-depth subject 

and technical knowledge, while the Houston 

Foresight students are already familiar with 

horizon scanning. For scanners associated with 

the Forest Service, the agency information in the 

scanner guide serves only as a general reminder, 

and the information about what scanning is and 

how to effectively scan is the focus. For Houston 

Foresight students, the main focus is on learning 

more about the Forest Service and forestry, while 

the scanning material is a refresher.

The scanner guide that follows is a living 

document that is updated as new insights into 

improving horizon scanning effectiveness are 

gained and horizon scanning processes are 

clarified. The project is already on version 9 of 

the guide, although many of the updates were 

minor. Contact the authors for the most current 

version. The guide includes a brief introduction; 

an overview of the Forest Service; an explanation 

of horizon scanning and its goals, uses, and 

stakeholders; a “how to” guide for installing 

and using the Web-based system for collecting 

scanning hits; a description of the domain map 

used in tagging scanning hits; and a quick guide to 

getting started in scanning.

Citation: Cowart, Adam; Hines, Andy; Callaway, Kurt; Bengston, David N.; Dockry, Michael J. 2019. Forest Futures: A Guide for Scanners. In: Hines, 

Andy; Bengston, David N.; Dockry, Michael J., comps. The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-187. Newtown Square, 

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 67-80. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-P-187-paper9.
68 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 69

Forest Futures

A Guide for Scanners

USFS Strategic

Foresight Group

[Version 9.4]

April 2018

Andy Hines; ahines@uh.edu

 University of Houston, Foresight Program Coordinator

The University of Houston, Foresight program student interns

Michael Dockry; mike.dockry@usda.gov

 USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Strategic Foresight Group

David Bengston; david.bengston@usda.gov

 USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Strategic Foresight Group
70 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

INTRODUCTION Welcome to the USDA Forest Service Forest Futures Horizon Scanning 

project!

This project is a partnership between the USDA Forest Service (“Forest 

Service”), Northern Research Station’s Strategic Foresight Group (http://

www.nrs.fs.fed.us/units/foresight_response/) and the University of 

Houston’s Strategic Foresight Department (http://houstonfutures.org/). It 

is an effort to uncover emerging trends and issues, as well as to identify 

and analyze early indicators of potential change that may have important 

implications for forests, forestry, the Forest Service, and all forest 

stakeholders in the future.

We assume that you have some familiarity with the Forest Service, 

its mission, and its responsibility for America’s national forests and 

grasslands. But if you would like more information, refer to The U.S. 

Forest Service—An Overview (https://www.fs.fed.us/documents/USFS_

An_Overview_0106MJS.pdf) or visit the Forest Service’s public Web 

site (https://www.fs.fed.us).

This document provides you with all the materials necessary to begin 

operating as a “scanner” to contribute to this exciting project, including:

• A brief introduction to the Forest Service

• A brief introduction to horizon scanning and how it supports other 

foresight work

• Stakeholders for this scanning project

• A “how to” guide for using Diigo (an online system for archiving 

scanning hits)

• A forestry domain map with categories for “tagging” your scanning 

hits

• Some pointers and tips from other Forest Service and University of 

Houston scanners

Let’s get started!

INTRODUCTION 

TO THE USDA 

FOREST SERVICE

(Based on: http://www.

fs.fed.us/about-agency/

meet-forest-service)

What is the Forest Service?

• We are a Federal agency under the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

that manages and protects 154 national forests and 20 grasslands in 44 

states and Puerto Rico. The national forests cover 193 million acres of 

land, roughly the size of Texas.

• In addition to managing the Nation’s national forests and grasslands, 

we provide technical and financial assistance to State and private 

forestry agencies and make up the largest forestry research 

organization in the world.
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 71

When and why was the Forest Service established?

• Congress established the Forest Service in 1905 to provide highquality water and timber for the Nation’s benefit.

• Congress later directed the Forest Service to broaden its management 

scope for additional multiple uses and benefits and for the sustained 

yield of renewable resources such as water, forage, wildlife, wood, 

and recreation.

What is the Forest Service mission?

• The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, 

and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the 

needs of present and future generations.

• We help people share and enjoy the forest, while conserving the 

environment for generations to come.

What is the Forest Service motto?

The Forest Service motto, “Caring for the Land and Serving People,” 

captures the spirit of our mission, which we accomplish through five 

main activities:

• Protection and management of natural resources on lands we manage

• Research on all aspects of forestry, rangeland management, and forest 

resource utilization

• Community assistance and cooperation with State and local 

governments, forest industries, and private landowners to help protect 

and manage non-Federal forest and associated range and watershed 

lands to improve conditions in rural areas

• Achievement and support of an effective workforce that reflects the 

diversity of the American people

• International assistance to formulate policy and coordinate U.S. 

support for the protection and sound management of the world’s forest 

resources

What is the Forest Service Horizon Scanning project?

• The Forest Service’s Northern Research Station organized a small 

strategic foresight research unit in 2014 to bring futures research into 

forestry and natural resource management.

• The Horizon Scanning project was developed to identify and analyze 

early indicators of potential change that could impact natural resource 

management in the future.

• The goal of the Horizon Scanning project is to support Forest Service 

and natural resource decisionmaking, communicate with stakeholders, 

and form the foundation for additional futures research.
72 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

More information about the Forest Service:

• Agency organization: http://www.fs.fed.us/about-agency/organization

• Mission, vision, guiding principles: http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutagency/what-we-believe

• History: http://www.fs.fed.us/learn/our-history

• Strategic plan: http://www.fs.fed.us/strategicplan

• By the numbers: http://www.fs.fed.us/about-agency/newsroom/bythe-numbers

USDA Forest Service national forests and grasslands:

http://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/other_fs/docs/guide_to_national_

forests_20060117.pdf

HORIZON SCANNING Horizon scanning is the process of searching various sources for 

emerging issues in the internal and external environment of an 

organization or field. Distinctive characteristics of horizon scanning 

include an emphasis on “weak signals” (early indicators of potential 

change), scanning broadly (rather than focusing only on changes internal 

to the forest sector), and the inclusion of possible wild cards (lowprobability, high-impact events or developments). The overall goal is to 

find emerging indications of important future developments that no one 

else has noticed yet, so that planners, managers, and policymakers can 

plan accordingly and take timely action well before those impending 

changes can become problems.

Scanning sources could include blogs, specialized Web sites, trade 

magazines, scientific journals, online videos, and many more. Since 

scanning is typically focused on new and emerging issues, scanners 

tend to focus on more alternative, atypical, non-mainstream sources 
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 73

of information, although mainstream information sources (such as a 

newspaper or a leading scientific journal) may report on important 

emerging issues as well.

Your goal as a scanner is to contribute to a database of new, exciting, 

disruptive, or even strange ideas that could at some point have important 

impacts or become drivers of change in forestry. In your role as scanners, 

your primary task will be to seek out these emerging ideas and issues and 

to post them to Diigo, an online collection database which this project 

uses to aggregate and share the interesting “hits” that its scanners have 

found. Detailed information about installing and using Diigo is provided 

in a later section of this document.

One of the main uses for scanning results is to help shape and improve 

the crafting of alternative future scenarios. The Forest Service and the 

University of Houston have already created sets of possible forestryrelated scenarios as part of an examination of where current conditions 

and trends might take us. The horizon scanning project can help 

significantly in this work. Each scenario typically identifies key drivers 

(values, events, trends, and issues) which would need to occur for the 

scenario to develop and continue to be plausible. Horizon scanning looks 

for the weak signals which can tell us how these drivers may be playing 

out. The hits that you find can be used by the foresight experts to support 

or confirm an existing forecast scenario. Or the hits may disconfirm a 

scenario, making it less plausible to occur. Best of all is when scanning 

hits provide a basis for creating a new scenario—in effect, signaling a 

possible future we hadn’t considered before.

For additional information on horizon scanning, see:

Google Docs under “Framing and Scanning Basics” link: 

https://docs.google.com/presentation/u/0/

Bengston, D.N. 2013. Horizon scanning for environmental foresight: 

a review of issues and approaches. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-121. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station. 20 p. https://doi.org/10.2737/

NRS-GTR-121.

People and groups who may benefit from the results of horizon scanning 

are the stakeholders. They may use the scanning database to aid in 

their own foresight work or they may be the consumer of other teams’ 

completed foresight products which used this scanning collection. The 

stakeholders for this horizon scanning system include both internal 

(Forest Service) and external users and partners:

• Internal stakeholders range from Forest Service Washington Office 

leadership to planners and managers on individual national forests.

STAKEHOLDERS 

FOR THE HORIZON 

SCANNING PROJECT
74 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

• External stakeholders include a wide range of Forest Service 

partners and organizations involved with forestry and natural resource 

issues, such as wood industry associations, urban forestry groups, 

professional societies in forestry and natural resources, international 

forestry organizations, environmental nongovernmental organizations, 

State foresters, forest academics, and scientists.

Diigo is a Web-based system that we will use to collect horizon scanning 

hits. It’s very easy to use—just follow these steps:

1. Go to https://www.diigo.com

2. Press the “Get started” button

3. Choose the “Free” plan

4. Create an account (username and password)

5. They will send you an email to confirm your account—in the email, 

click “activate your account”

6. This takes you to the “install extension” screen:

DIIGO “HOW TO”

We recommend you select “diigolet,” which is the simpler form of the 

Diigo user interface.

7. Then you literally drag the icon onto your bookmarks toolbar:

It will look like this (the other two icons are not related to Diigo):

That’s all to get it installed! When you find an article or Webpage 

you want to capture as a scanning hit, you click on the diigolet icon. 

(You may be asked the first time to sign-in to Diigo with your ID and 

password, but it will remember you from then on.) Here’s what pops 

up:
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 75

Click on “Bookmark” and a screen will appear similar to the one 

here where you can enter the information about your article—a brief 

description and tagging terms. You then select the option to “share to a 

group,” which will be the “Forest Service” group. If you don’t see that in 

the list, you should contact the project administrator (on either the Forest 

Service or University of Houston side) and request access to the “Forest 

Service” group. You can still save the bookmark to your “My Library” 

and then share with the group later.

If you find the “diigolet” app doesn’t work in your browser, you can also 

choose to install a browser extension that provides the same ability for 

you to tag, save, and share interesting scanning hit articles. Diigo even 

has Apple and Android cell phone apps!

The following image is of a Google Chrome browser with the Diigo 

browser extension installed. Note the blue Diigo icon in the address bar, 

and the drop-down menu (with “Save Bookmark” as the first choice) 

displayed when the icon is clicked.
76 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

THE FOREST 

FUTURES HORIZON 

SCANNING DOMAIN

Domain Map

A domain map provides some loose boundaries of what is “in” and what 

is “out” in terms of the subject and content of a horizon scan, as well as 

categories used for “tagging” scanning hits.

As a scanner, you should tag your scanning posts based on the 

domain map hierarchy shown below. This will help keep scanning 

organized and easily searchable.

For example, if you find an innovative new use for paper,1 then 

you would tag it with “Industry”, “Forest Products”, “Paper”, and 

“Technology”. This is not an exact science, but the more precise we 

are with our tags, the more efficiently the entire team will be able to 

search for relevant topics. If you think an article is relevant but does not 

logically fit into this domain, please do your best and create new tags 

where necessary.

The forest futures domain map is shown below. The full domain map is 

also available on Coggle at Forestry domain map.

1 For example, fuel cells made of paper (http://www.ozy.com/rising-stars/aretomorrows-fuel-cells-made-of-paper-this-engineer-thinks-so/83354).
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 77

Major categories in the domain include Ecosystems, Industry, 

Institutions, Stewardship, Climate, and STEEP (an acronym for the 

broad external change categories: Social, Technological, Economic, 

Environmental, and Political). The STEEP categories represent 

dimensions of the broad context for forestry and forest institutions that 

could have significant implications for the field and the Forest Service 

in the future. For example, an article about a breakthrough in wood 

nanomaterials could be tagged “Technological” and “Economic”, as well 

as “Industry”, “Forest Products”, and “Nano/Chemicals”.

We also tag each post according to which of three time horizons it 

indicates. If the piece suggests a change happening around 2030, for 

example, we add the H2 tag for Horizon 2.

Another way to interpret the “horizons” is to think of Horizon 1 as 

“now” (the post is about something with an effect that is either current 

or imminent); Horizon 2 as “next” (the thing could be related to events 

happening today, but won’t really start impacting things for some years); 

and Horizon 3 as “new” (ideas so fresh and different—but relevant—it 

would probably be decades before we experience the change they could 

cause).
78 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

Some search strategies to try:

1. Use general search engines (e.g., Google, DuckDuckGo, or 

Bing): Pick a domain map topic and combine it with one or more of 

the following terms: “of the future”, “of tomorrow”, “implications”, 

“emerging”, “long term”, “trend”, “by the year”, “vision”, “scenario”, 

“wildcard”, “wild card”, “sea change”, “the next * years”, “2020”, 

“2030”, “crossroads”, “dilemma”, or “disruption”.

2. Set up a daily or weekly Google Alert to automatically send you 

notices of relevant articles. See: https://support.google.com/alerts/

answer/4815696. You may need to tune the alert if it doesn’t deliver 

useful scanning hits.

3. STEEP and general sources: There are many specialized Web sites 

that report on new developments in the STEEP categories or emerging 

developments in general. For example:

READY TO 

START SCANNING?

STEEP 

categories Examples of Web sites

Social

(includes 

demographic, 

cultural, etc.)

Population Reference Bureau (prb.org), UN Population 

Information Network (un.org/popin), US Census (census.gov), 

Arts & Letters Daily (aldaily.com), Variety (variety.com), Brain 

Pickings (brainpickings.org)

Technology TechCrunch (techcrunch.com), Digg (digg.com), Wired (wired.

com), Slashdot (slashdot.org), Science and Technology 

Daily (scitechdaily.com), Fresh Patents (freshpatents.

com), KurzweilAI.net (kurzweilai.net), Singularity Hub 

(singularityhub.com), EurekAlert (eurekalert.org)

Economic OECD Statistics Portal (stats.oecd.org), Innovation Daily 

(http://www.innovationamerica.us/in-the-news/innovationdaily-99998), The Economist (economist.com), IMF World 

Economic Yearbook (https://www.imf.org/en/publications/

weo), UN Statistics Division (unstats.un.org), FastCoLabs 

(fastcompany.com), Venture Beat (venturebeat.com), RealWorld Economics Review Blog (rwer.wordpress.com)

Environmental Greenbiz (greenbiz.com), Resilience.org, Natural Resource 

Defense Council (nrdc.org), WorldWatch (worldwatch.org), 

Green Car Reports (greencarreports.com), The Watchers 

(watchers.news), Treehugger.com, NextCity.org, World 

Resources Institute (wri.org)

Political CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/

publications/resources/the-world-factbook/), Center for 

Responsive Politics, OpenSecrets.org, US Government 

News (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/news.

php?id=D000022300&cycle=2018), Change.org, Project 

Censored (projectcensored.org), Technocracy (technocracy.

news)

General Reddit (reddit.com), FutureSeek (futureseek.wordpress.com), 

Shaping Tomorrow (shapingtomorrow.com), Trendwatching.

com, FUTUREdition (futuredition.org), Futurity (futurity.

org), World Future Society (wfs.site-ym.com), FutureAgenda 

(futureagenda.org), Flipboard (flipboard.com), Tumblr (tumblr.

com), Futurists’ Blogs (vernewheelwright.com/id14.html), 

Google Trends (trends.google.com), TED Talks (ted.com)
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 79

Over time, the Forest Service and University of Houston team found 

the sites on this example list to be consistently useful. However, sources 

on the Internet come and go. Be sure to also scan less well-known 

publications and sites. Review topics and discussions on social media, 

too, for trends, ideas, what-ifs, and other interesting possibilities.

4. Next level: As you start to get the hang of it and want to move to the 

next level, check out this Scanning Sources Overview.

Some Tips from the Team on Horizon Scanning

1. Recent developments: Focus on recent developments—within the 

past year or so—rather than things that happened years ago (which may 

be interesting, but scanning hits should focus on new developments that 

signal potential future change).

2. Commentary: After the description of your scanning hit, please add 

an additional comment explaining its possible implications or relevance 

to forestry and the Forest Service. For example, a possible implication 

for forests and forest management of self-driving cars is that their 

adoption could encourage more sprawling development patterns (as long 

commutes are no longer wasted time) and increased fragmentation of 

forests.

3. Outside-in: Focus mostly (but not entirely) on “outside” issues and 

change, that is, things that are originating outside of the field of forestry 

and natural resources but could impact the field in the future, such as 

drones adapted for monitoring forests or fighting fires. Many leaders and 

policymakers within the field are already aware of emerging issues and 

change originating within the sector.

4. Wide-angle vision: To scan more effectively, read broadly and 

generally, and do not expect to discover a good scanning hit in every 

article from every source.

5. Check the library: Please check recent additions to the Forest Service 

Diigo library before posting, in case someone has beat you to that really 

great article you found. You can do this by searching for the article’s 

headline. Always keep in mind that helping to scan isn’t a contest or a 

race. Even if someone else found it first, go ahead and add a comment to 

that post, if you’ve noticed some implication or connection that the other 

person didn’t.

Quick Strategies for Getting Beyond “Horizon 1”:

One of the issues we found in the early phases of the project was a 

tendency to focus on change and scanning hits that were close to the 

present and near-term future, that is, Horizon 1. That’s a natural approach 

to take, but indicators of more-distant change are more useful in horizon 

scanning. The following additional tips are provided to help you stretch 

beyond Horizon 1 into Horizons 2 and 3. 
80 The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187

1. Don’t start with articles listed at the top of page 1 of a Google Search. 

Try going straight to page 2, or 5, or 10, and see what comes up. 

These are more outlier posts: less relevant, but also more likely to be 

“outside the box” ideas on your search topic, or a related topic.

2. Try different (but related) words. Instead of “future of trees” try 

“future of plant life” or “future of vegetation”. 

3. Try including multiple words or terms that don’t at first appear to 

have any relation, such as: “artificial intelligence forest management”, 

“wood products and climate change”, or “tourism and virtual reality”.

4. Finally, most articles contain highlighted, underlined links to other 

sources that are referenced in the article. Clicking on these links can 

often lead to richer source materials which your original article only 

hints at.

Please contact the authors for any questions you have about scanning and 

contributing to this project. And thanks very much for your participation!

QUESTIONS?
The Forest Futures Horizon Scanning Project GTR-NRS-P-187 81

About the Authors

DAVID N. BENGSTON is a social scientist and environmental futurist with the 

USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station in St. Paul, MN and an adjunct 

professor in the Department of Forest Resources and the Conservation Sciences 

Graduate Program at the University of Minnesota. david.bengston@usda.gov.

KURT CALLAWAY is a futurist based in Houston, TX. He can be reached at 

glc@prodigy.net.

ADAM COWART is a writer and strategic foresight professional based in 

Vancouver, BC and an Emerging Fellow with the Association for Professional 

Futurists. Adam.Cowart3@loblaw.ca.

LEIF A. DeVANEY is currently an intern with the Copenhagen Institute 

for Futures Studies, a futures think tank in Copenhagen, Denmark. 

deva0052@umn.edu.

MICHAEL J. DOCKRY is a research forester and social scientist with the Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station’s Strategic Foresight Research Unit in 

St. Paul, MN. He is also an adjunct assistant professor in the Department of 

Forest Resources and American Indian Studies at the University of Minnesota. 

mike.dockry@usda.gov.

ANDY HINES is assistant professor and program coordinator for the University of 

Houston’s graduate program in foresight in Houston, TX. He also speaks, holds 

workshops, and consults through his firm Hinesight. ahines@uh.edu.

GEORGE H. KUBIK is a strategic futurist and president of Anticipatory Futures 

Group, LLC in Eagan, MN and President Emeritus of Minnesota Futurists, an 

association for the study of alternative futures. kubik005@umn.edu.

BO ROE is a senior manager, strategic foresight at North Highland, based in 

Atlanta, GA. He can be reached at designshuffle@gmail.com.

MARIA ROMERO is a strategic foresight consultant with Cofutura, located in 

Minneapolis, MN. maria@cofutura.com.

JOHANN SCHUTTE is a strategic foresight consultant with the School of 

International Futures (SOIF), Cape Town, South Africa. johannjschutte@me.com. 

NICOLE ZIMMERMAN is a master’s student in environmental science and policy 

at Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC. Nzimmer7@jhu.edu.
Page intentionally left blank
Printed on recycled paper

Hines, Andy; Bengston, David N.; Dockry, Michael J., comps. 2019. The Forest Futures Horizon 

Scanning project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-187. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 81 p. https://doi.org/10.2737/

NRS-GTR-P-187.

Horizon scanning is a method for detecting and interpreting the implications of emerging issues and 

other signals of change, both within and outside of an organization or field. Anticipating possible changes 

that may affect an organization is a first step toward strategic thinking, planning, and actions that can 

help prepare it for an uncertain future. Developing insight into emerging possible futures—or strategic 

foresight—can help decisionmakers respond proactively to seize opportunities and mitigate potential 

threats. Decisionmaking in forestry and other natural resource management fields has underutilized 

formal horizon scanning. 

The USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station’s Strategic Foresight Group recently worked 

with the University of Houston Foresight graduate program to design and implement a formal horizon 

scanning system for the agency, with the goal of increasing strategic foresight. The nine papers in 

this report summarize the early phases of this process and lessons learned. Among the topics are the 

development of a method to identify useful scanning sources pertinent to forest futures, ways to analyze 

scanning hits, and distinguishing between current and emerging issues for the Forest Service. Also 

discussed is the range of communication products generated to date by the project. The report contains 

the complete guide written for those volunteering to do the scanning. This collection will acquaint forest 

planners, managers, and policymakers with horizon scanning as an integral step in anticipating the 

consequences of potential change and making better decisions in a rapidly changing environment.

KEY WORDS: horizon scanning, strategic foresight, futures, emerging issue

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating 

in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national 

origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, 

marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, 

or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by 

USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program 

or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information 

(e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible 

Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the 

Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in 

languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint 

Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA 

office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in 

the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or 

letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or 

(3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. 
Northern Research Station

www.nrs.fs.fed.us