United States Department of Agriculture

Forest 

Service

General Technical 

Report NRS-121

Northern 

Research Station September 2013

Horizon Scanning for 

Environmental Foresight: 

A Review of Issues and Approaches

David N. Bengston
Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/

Published by: For additional copies:

U.S. FOREST SERVICE U.S. Forest Service

11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution

NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073 359 Main Road

Delaware, OH 43015-8640

Fax: 740-368-0152

September 2013 Email: nrspubs@fs.fed.us

Manuscript received for publication 5 April 2013

Cover Photo

Forest ranger Bryce Ledford uses binoculars at Yellowpin lookout in Sabine National Forest, 

Texas. Undated photo used with permission of the Forest History Society, Durham, NC.

Abstract

Natural resource management organizations carry out a range of activities to examine 

possible future conditions and trends as part of their planning process, but the distinct 

approach of formal horizon scanning is often a missing component of strategic thinking 

and strategy development in these organizations. Horizon scanning is a process for finding 

and interpreting early indications of change in the external environment of an organization 

or field. Effective horizon scanning serves as an early warning system to identify potential 

opportunities and threats, enable decisionmakers to plan accordingly and take timely 

action, and foster a culture of foresight throughout an organization. This paper reviews 

and discusses the key items needed to create an effective horizon scanning system: 

conceptual frameworks, organizational approaches, design principles, techniques to improve 

effectiveness, and techniques for analyzing and interpreting scanning results.

The Author

DAVID N. BENGSTON is a research social scientist with the U.S. Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station, 1992 Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108, dbengston@fs.fed.us.
1

INTRODUCTION

Natural resource managers and policy makers are 

continually working toward a desired future within the 

context of rapid and turbulent change in the external 

environment in which they operate. To be effective 

in a complex and changing world, decisionmakers 

must look ahead to anticipate emerging trends, issues, 

opportunities, and threats. They need to develop and 

apply strategic foresight, i.e., “the ability to create and 

maintain a high-quality, coherent and functional forward 

view and to use the insights arising in organisationally 

useful ways; for example: to detect adverse conditions, 

guide policy, shape strategy” (Slaughter 1999b: 287). 

Natural resource management agencies work to gain 

strategic foresight by many means. For example, the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS) 

carries out the Resources Planning Act Assessment every 

10 years to provide a detailed look at current conditions 

and trends for the Nation’s renewable forest resources. 

National forest planners are required by the 2012 USFS 

Planning Rule to “rapidly evaluate existing information 

about relevant ecological, economic, and social 

conditions, trends and sustainability,” and to “consider 

and evaluate existing and possible future conditions and 

trends of the plan area” (USFS 2012: 21262).

These and many other existing activities for developing 

foresight are essential. But they may not be sufficient 

to meet the need for high-level strategic foresight in 

the present era of increasingly rapid, complex, and 

surprising change. Horizon scanning is one approach 

to help policy makers develop and maintain the broad 

and externally focused forward view they need. Also 

known as environmental scanning, external scanning, 

and strategic scanning, horizon scanning may be defined 

as “the acquisition and use of information about events, 

trends and relationships in an organization’s external 

environment, the knowledge of which would assist 

management in planning the organization’s future course 

of action” (Choo 2002: 84). Characteristics of horizon 

scanning that distinguish it from the typical activities 

to survey future conditions and trends carried out by 

forest planners include its emphasis on “weak signals” 

(early indicators of potential change), comprehensive 

scanning of all sectors, an emphasis on external trends 

and developments, and the inclusion of possible wild 

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

scanning encompasses a wide range of techniques and 

organizational approaches for identifying and interpreting 

the potential implications of weak signals of change. 

Ideally, horizon scanning serves as an early warning 

system to identify potential threats and opportunities. 

The goals are to find nascent indications of important 

future developments so decisionmakers can plan 

accordingly and take timely action, and more broadly to 

foster a culture of foresight in the organization.

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, 

such as human health (Douw and Vondeling 2006) and 

education (Munck and McConnell 2009). But the use 

of formal horizon scanning in natural resources and the 

environment has been limited. Rare examples include 

scanning exercises related to biodiversity (Sutherland 

et al. 2008) and global conservation issues (Sutherland 

et al. 2010), and the U.S. Army Environmental Policy 

Institute’s futures scanning on environmental issues 

(U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute, n.d.). The 

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and 

Technology recommended that the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) create an ongoing, 

institutionalized scanning system (U.S. EPA 2002), but 

this recommendation has not been implemented. Though 

widely used in many fields, horizon scanning remains 

an underused tool for natural resource planning and 

decisionmaking (Sutherland and Woodroof 2009).

Although formal horizon scanning is uncommon in 

environmental and natural resource management 

organizations, all decisionmakers scan the external 

environment. Some scan passively and informally, 

keeping their antennae up and waiting to receive outside 

signals of change that may be significant. Others scan 

actively and formally. The research literature on scanning 
2

in business clearly shows the value of active and formal 

scanning (Choo 2002). This paper introduces this topic 

to natural resource planners, managers, and policy 

makers, and reviews key considerations needed to create 

an effective horizon scanning system. The following 

section reviews two conceptual models of horizon 

scanning systems to indicate the basic elements and 

structure. This review is followed by discussions of the 

organizational approaches and design principles that need 

to be considered in different organizational contexts. 

Techniques to improve the effectiveness of scanning and 

to analyze and interpret scanning results are described in 

subsequent sections.

CONCEPTUAL MODELS OF HORIZON 

SCANNING SYSTEMS

Many different horizon scanning systems have been 

developed by futurists, business scholars, and others. 

These systems encompass a wide range of approaches and 

elements. Most include at least three main components: 

scanning, analysis, and interaction with decisionmakers. 

In this section, I describe the broad outlines of two 

typical horizon scanning systems, one developed by 

futurists Gordon and Glenn (2009) and the other by 

business researchers Day and Schoemaker (2006).

Figure 1 depicts a generic horizon scanning system 

proposed by the Millennium Project, an independent 

global futures research think tank (Gordon and Glenn 

2009). The scanning component usually consists of 

a team effort to examine diverse information sources 

to identify potential signals of change and emerging 

trends, referred to as scanning hits. Examples of scanning 

hits could include a breakthrough in nanotechnology 

reported in the research literature, a surge in permit 

applications for sand mining for hydraulic fracturing in a 

region, or a decline in participation in outdoor recreation 

activities among youth. A few common information 

sources are shown at the top of Figure 1, but a large 

number of diverse sources should be examined. 

The analysis and synthesis component involves 

identifying potential consequences of individual scanning 

hits, as well as synthesizing multiple trends or weak 

signals of change and looking at possible big-picture 

implications. A variety of techniques may be used to 

1

Figure 1.—Conceptual model of a horizon scanning system. (Source: Gordon and Glenn 2009).
3

facilitate analysis and synthesis of scanning hits (see the 

section below on techniques for analyzing, synthesizing, 

and interpreting). Information about raw scanning hits 

and the results of analysis and synthesis are entered into 

an interactive database or collective intelligence system

that can be searched for keywords to identify patterns 

and generate reports on topics of interest. This database is 

made accessible to managers and policy makers in several 

ways, such as summary pages, emails of latest scanning 

hits, and the capability to search the database. The idea 

is to give decisionmakers a window into the system. 

Finally, interaction with and feedback from management

is a key element for scanning systems, so that (1) the 

system “learns” how to produce information that is 

most relevant to decisionmakers and (2) decisionmakers 

understand the implications of unfamiliar trends and 

developments.

To facilitate the various stages in Gordon and Glenn’s 

(2009) scanning system, they developed a template to 

systematically collect information about each scanning 

hit (i.e., an emerging trend or development of interest). 

The template includes the following fields for each item: 

(1) category or domain it falls in (e.g., technological, 

economic, environmental, or social), (2) leading indicator 

(i.e., what would indicate change in this scanning hit?), 

(3) source of the information and how to access it, (4) 

other comments about the scanning hit, (5) significance, 

importance, or possible consequences of the item, (6) 

current status, (7) actors involved in or affecting the item, 

and (8) date entered and name of scanner entering the 

item. Bishop (2009) presents a more detailed template 

developed by futurist Wayne Pethrick that includes 

subjective ratings of the impact, plausibility, novelty, and 

timeliness of each scanning hit.

A more detailed horizon scanning process from 

the business world is summarized in Figure 2 (Day 

and Schoemaker 2006). This model is grounded in 

organizational learning theory and consists of five stages: 

scoping, scanning, interpreting, probing/acting, and 

feedback/adjusting. Scoping is the process of defining 

how broadly an organization should scan. If the scope 

is too narrow, the organization risks being broadsided 

by external surprises; if the scope is too broad, there is 

a risk of being overwhelmed by unimportant signals. 

Day and Schoemaker (2006: 32-47) present a set of 

guiding questions to strike the right balance in scoping. 

In general, greater uncertainty in an organization’s 

environment requires a broader scope. Given an 

appropriate scope, scanning is the process of searching for 

emerging trends and issues, and should include a balance 

of exploratory scanning (searching broadly in unfamiliar 

areas to provide a big-picture view) and “exploitation” 

scanning (searching in greater depth within well-defined 

or familiar domains). Interpreting involves developing 

hypotheses about the meaning of signals identified by 

scanning. Day and Schoemaker note that interpreting 

is strongly affected by incomplete and narrow frames 

of thinking. Confirmation bias—the tendency to favor 

information that confirms our existing beliefs (Nickerson 

1998)—also affects our ability to accurately interpret the 

meaning of scanning hits. Therefore, a shift or expansion 

of our individual or organizational mental models may be 

required to appreciate potential threats or opportunities 

(Barker 1992).

Probing and acting is about responding to the weak 

signals and their anticipated implications. There are 

three main approaches to responding: watch and wait (a 

passive approach that may be appropriate when stakes 

2

Figure 2.—Conceptual model of horizon scanning as a learning process. 

(Source: Day and Schoemaker 2006: 192).
4

are low or there is high uncertainty), probe and learn 

(a more proactive response to learn more when the 

cost of inaction is higher), or believe and lead (a strong 

commitment to respond when a convergence of signals 

indicates that a threat is imminent or an opportunity 

is very promising). Finally, feedback and adjusting is 

the process of obtaining feedback on actions related to 

weak signals and making appropriate adjustments to 

the organization’s understanding of its environment, 

including its mental models.

Other models of horizon scanning have been proposed, 

but they are fundamentally variations on the basic 

models. For example, futurists Slaughter (1999a), Voros 

(2001), and Hines (2003) focus on the importance 

of scanning a broad range of sources and draw on the 

work of integral philosopher Ken Wilber to achieve this 

breadth. The essence of this “integral futures” approach 

is a four-quadrant matrix that identifies four spheres of 

social life that should be incorporated in scanning to 

ensure the inclusion of both objective phenomena that 

are measurable (e.g., from the scientific and social realms) 

and subjective phenomena that must be interpreted (e.g., 

from the realms of art and morality).

ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACHES

Horizon scanning systems have been designed for many 

different types of organizations to accomplish an array of 

purposes and have used diverse approaches. They range 

from systems that provide a one-time or periodic scan 

in large corporations based mainly on the insights of top 

leaders, to continuous scanning processes that are tailored 

for public sector agencies and that use a participatory 

approach. Some scanning systems use a small team of 

full-time scanners, whereas others enlist many parttime scanners throughout an organization. Scanning 

may be focused on a specific set of priority issues, or 

it may involve broad scoping of the entire external 

environment. The diversity of approaches suggests that 

scanning systems should be designed to fit the context 

and information needs of decisionmakers in a particular 

organization. Yasai-Ardekani and Nystrom (1996) 

show that organizations with effective scanning systems 

align their approach with their specific organizational 

context. This section briefly describes the three main 

organizational approaches for horizon scanning activities: 

outsourcing to consultants, an in-house dedicated 

scanning team, and an in-house core team working 

with a network of part-time scanners throughout the 

organization. 

Outsourcing to Consultants

Outsourcing scanning activities to consultants is a 

common approach and a large number of firms offer 

scanning services customized to clients’ information 

needs. Organizations may purchase scanning services 

and analyses, or simply subscribe to scanning newsletters 

that are more or less tailored to their needs (Lesca and 

Caron-Fasan 2008). Using the expertise of consultants 

may be a quick and effective way to initiate scanning, 

and outside partners may provide innovative perspectives 

that can be difficult to obtain from internal efforts. But 

Day and Schoemaker (2005) note that organizations 

need to work hard to ensure that the scanning insights 

of outside consultants are relevant and incorporated into 

strategic planning and decisionmaking. A small in-house 

team typically works with the consultants to help ensure 

relevance, interpret scanning hits, and communicate 

with executives. Choudhury and Sampler (1997) 

suggest that scanning should be outsourced only when 

information specificity for the area being scanned is low, 

i.e., information can be acquired by individuals without 

specific knowledge of the area.

Dedicated In-house Team

A second approach is to form a dedicated in-house 

scanning team whose sole job is to search for, analyze, 

and communicate information about trends in the 

external environment. Dedicated scanning teams are 

widely used in corporations of all sizes (Brown 2007, 

Choo 2002). Such teams are sometimes referred to as 

a “crow’s nest” because they function like the lookout 

in a ship, signaling information about objects on the 

horizon—both opportunities and potential threats—to 

the captain and crew. The size of these teams varies 

considerably depending on the size of the organization, 

from two or three members up to dozens. To be 

effective, full-time scanning teams must work to avoid 

the trap of becoming isolated from decisionmakers (Day 

and Schoemaker 2005). A potential drawback of this 
5

organizational approach—as well as outsourcing—is that 

limiting scanning activities and responsibilities to a select 

group can make it more challenging to foster a culture of 

foresight throughout an organization.

Core Team with Network

The third main approach to organizing horizon scanning 

activities is more broadly participatory: a small inhouse scanning team (or an individual) working with 

a much larger network of part-time scanners. Choo 

(1999), Day and Schoemaker (2005), and others have 

made the case that scanning is more effective and 

produces richer insights for decisionmaking when 

it is a widely distributed activity with many people 

participating. A participatory approach is based on the 

assumption that everyone in an organization, not just 

a designated scanning team or top leaders, may have 

valid and important insights about the changing external 

environment, and a scanning system should therefore 

facilitate gathering insights from as many people with as 

diverse backgrounds as possible. The core scanning unit 

may consist of a single half-time coordinator or a team 

of several members, and is supported by a network of 

people throughout the organization who spend a small 

part of their time engaged in scanning (Conference Board 

of Canada 2008). The scanning network may consist 

of volunteers or purposely selected individuals formally 

assigned to the duty. In public sector agencies, outside 

stakeholders representing diverse perspectives could be 

recruited and trained to actively contribute to scanning.

Other Approaches

There are many variations on these three approaches to 

structure scanning activities, and they may be combined 

in various ways: Outside consultants often design and 

set up in-house scanning systems, or a consultant may 

train an internal scanning team. Additional approaches to 

organize periodic or one-time scanning efforts typically 

involve group processes relying on external experts or 

internal leaders. For example, the Quick Environmental 

Scanning Technique (QUEST) was developed for 

use in relatively large organizations (Nanus 1982). 

An underlying assumption is that members of the top 

management team have valid and insightful views of 

the changing external environment but rarely articulate 

and share these views. The QUEST process provides a 

systematic framework to bring these views to light in 

order to aggregate, examine, test, and put them to use for 

strategic planning and decisionmaking. By tapping into 

top leaders’ collective knowledge, QUEST also engages 

these leaders in the scanning process and secures their 

“buy-in” of the results (Slaughter 1990).

The QUEST process involves four main phases. First 

is the preparation phase, which focuses on creation 

of an initial notebook containing information about 

major trends and relevant issues in the organization’s 

field and the external environment. The information is 

drawn from a variety of readily available sources such 

as trade association and government publications and 

recent articles speculating about the future of the field, 

and the notebook is distributed to a group of 10-15 

top executives and managers from the organization. 

The second phase is a 1-day scanning workshop 

spent in carefully structured discussion of important 

issues that may affect the future of the organization. 

Scenario development is the third phase, in which 

the QUEST facilitator prepares a report analyzing all 

of the information generated in the preceding phase. 

The report also includes development of three to five 

scenarios describing possible future environments the 

organization may find itself in based on the major themes 

that emerged during the 1-day workshop. The report is 

distributed to participants 1 week before the final phase, 

a half-day strategic options identification workshop. 

Based on the report, participants identify and rank 

strategic options to deal with the changing organizational 

environment. Strategic planning teams are also formed to 

follow up on development of the high-priority strategies.

DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Regardless of which organizational approach is used, 

additional design issues must be addressed to structure 

scanning activities, including the degree of focus; 

continuous or periodic scanning; the time horizon for 

scanning hits; and the importance of having a diverse 

scanning team, information sources, and products. 

These design principles are discussed in the following 

subsections.
6

Focused or Broad Scanning

Day and Schoemaker (2006) emphasize that scanning 

activities should begin with scoping to determine how 

broadly to search. Horizon scanning sometimes focuses 

on a particular domain considered to be most important, 

such as emerging technologies (Douw and Vondeling 

2006), competitive or competitor intelligence (Ghoshal 

and Westney 1991), or a particular issue or set of issues. 

But scanning that is too focused will fail to detect signals 

of change in other domains, raising the risk of being 

blindsided by unexpected developments (Harris 2002). 

The other end of the scoping spectrum is to make the 

scope of horizon scanning as comprehensive as possible, 

a full-circle sweep to detect signals of change anywhere 

in the external environment. Futurists generally take 

this comprehensive or high-level approach to scanning 

(e.g., Hines 2003, Slaughter 1999a) because they have 

found that changes in seemingly unrelated external areas 

can have unexpected and profound effects. For example, 

the automobile had a transformative effect on the use of 

public lands in the 20th century, including fostering the 

creation of the wilderness system as a way to preserve 

lands from widespread road building (Sutter 2002). The 

potential downside of comprehensive scanning is the 

risk of overwhelming decisionmakers with unimportant 

signals. Therefore, careful analysis, synthesis, and 

interpretation are essential if a broad approach is taken. 

A mixed strategy of both broad, high-level scanning and 

low-level scanning that homes in on specific areas and 

analyzes them in detail may be optimal (Choo 2002).

Several trend classification systems have been used to 

facilitate scanning broadly across every sector of the 

external environment. For example, a widely used 

classification system features six broad categories with the 

acronym DEGEST: demography, economy, government, 

environment, society/culture, and technology (Kotler 

and Keller 2008). Another commonly used acronym 

for sectors in the macroenvironment is STEEP: social, 

technological, economic, environmental, and political 

(Morrison 1992). Trend classifications such as these 

are useful starting points to ensure scanning a wide 

range of topics, but organizations often build on 

standard lists and develop their own set of categories 

important to their unique context and information 

needs. For example, horizon scanning in corporations 

often includes scanning for trends related to customers, 

suppliers, and competition (Choo 2002). The public 

sector equivalent would be to include the full range of an 

agency’s stakeholders—e.g., how their attitudes, beliefs, 

values, demographic characteristics, and views of policy 

and management issues are changing and what these 

changes might imply—so the agency can be responsive to 

stakeholders’ needs in the future.

Continuous or Periodic Scanning

Many horizon scanning systems are designed to provide 

ongoing, continuously updated information about the 

changing external environment, bringing weak signals of 

change to the attention of decisionmakers as soon as they 

are spotted on the horizon. Some professional scanners 

and futurists believe a continuous approach is essential 

to avoid static scans that are unresponsive and quickly 

become outdated (Conference Board of Canada 2008). 

Other scanning efforts provide periodic assessments of 

major emerging trends and driving forces of change. 

Examples of public and nonprofit sector periodic scans 

are the United Way of America’s (1992) “What Lies 

Ahead” reports produced every 2 years from 1980 

through 1992, the Millennium Project’s annual “State 

of the Future” report (Glenn et al. 2012), the United 

Nations Environment Programme’s biennial reports 

on emerging environmental issues (United Nations 

Environment Programme 2012), and the U.S. Central 

Intelligence Agency’s quadrennial assessments of global 

trends (National Intelligence Council 2012). Which 

approach is more appropriate—continuous scanning of 

weak signals, periodic assessments of major trends, or 

some blend—depends on the purpose of the scanning 

system, users’ information needs, and the degree of 

turbulence in an organization’s external environment.

Time Horizon

Scanning systems sometimes incorporate multiple time 

horizons into the scanning framework to help planners 

and decisionmakers sort out and deal with a large number 

of trends and issues that may emerge or have an impact at 

different points in the future. For example, Brown (2007) 

describes three time horizons for different types of trends: 

Horizon 1 (“now”) includes trends and driving forces that 
7

are having an impact on an organization today, horizon 2 

(“next”) consists of emerging trends that are expected to 

have an impact in the near future, and horizon 3 (“new”) 

applies to trends and driving forces that may shape an 

organization’s environment in the longer term. The exact 

definitions of horizons 1, 2, and 3 are variable and will 

depend on the pace of internal and external change. In 

its quarterly horizon scans, the Centre for Environmental 

Risks and Futures (CERF) at Cranfield University sorts 

scanning hits into three time horizons: 1-3 years, 3-10 

years, and 10+ years (CERF 2012).

Diverse Scanning Team

Including diverse perspectives on scanning teams is 

widely viewed as essential for success. Scanning team 

members are typically limited in their ability to scan 

effectively by their disciplinary backgrounds, frames of 

reference, and other personal factors. Specialists tend 

to see what they are trained to see, a phenomenon that 

Weiner and Brown (2005: 2) have called “educated 

incapacity.” This limitation poses a basic challenge 

for horizon scanning: how to best break out of the 

paradigms and ways of thinking that limit our perception 

of potentially significant trends and developments, 

especially in unfamiliar areas. To help overcome these 

blinders, scanning teams—whether made up of a few 

full-time scanners or many part-timers—need to be as 

heterogeneous as possible, with diverse backgrounds, 

perspectives, and experiences (Morrison and Wilson 

1997). Page (2007) documents that complex problems 

are solved more effectively with diverse teams than by 

the best individual experts. To increase diversity and 

effectiveness, Day and Schoemaker (2005) suggest that 

scanning teams include an organization’s maverick 

employees – individuals who tend to reject conventional 

wisdom and think outside-the-box. The importance of 

diverse perspectives on scanning teams implies the need 

to include diverse stakeholders in public agency scanning 

efforts.

Diverse Information Sources

Scanning a wide range of information sources has also 

been shown to be critical for success. Choo (2002) 

recommends including both human and online (or 

textual) categories of information. Human sources 

should include individuals who are making the future 

or have their finger on the pulse of change, such as 

scientists and researchers, futurists, innovative colleagues, 

consultants, government officials, reporters and other 

media representatives, artists, and community leaders. 

Identifying forward-looking individuals across many 

domains is a challenging but crucial task in developing 

a network of human sources. Hiltunen (2008) found 

that human sources were ranked the most useful across 

all domain areas in a survey in which 121 futurists 

were asked about the best sources for identifying weak 

signals of change. Online sources include the Web 

pages of organizations and individuals, electronic 

databases, blogs, podcasts, discussion groups, and email 

newsletters, as well as traditional textual information 

sources such as academic and scientific journals, popular 

science and other periodicals, books, newspapers, 

fringe or underground press, doctoral dissertations, and 

government and non-profit sector reports.

Regardless of whether information sources are human or 

online, Schwartz (1996) suggests scanning nontraditional 

sources and seeking out potential trends on the edges of 

society rather than the mainstream. Some professional 

scanners recommend including speculative fiction, 

poetry, film, music, and art to develop an awareness of 

deeper cultural currents and changes in society (Coote 

2012). Schwartz’s (1996) chapter on “information 

hunting and gathering” is filled with tips for searching 

out innovative thinkers and sources of information about 

change, such as reading broadly outside your specialty 

and field, contacting the authors of challenging articles 

and books, cultivating relationships with people with 

whom you disagree but can talk cordially, and immersing 

yourself in unfamiliar and challenging environments and 

cultures through travel.

Diverse Products

Scanning may generate a variety of products, from 

continuously updated online databases to lengthy 

periodic reports. The timeframe for decisionmaking 

typically determines the most appropriate way of 

delivering scanning results. Regular electronic newsletters 

or concise periodic reports are viewed as useful in most 

planning and decisionmaking contexts according to 
8

surveys of horizon scanning practitioners in business 

(Conference Board of Canada 2008) and in the public 

sector (Pflaum and Delmont 1987). Workshops with 

users to discuss and interpret findings are also widely 

employed. To increase the use, insights, and sense of 

ownership in scanning, an interactive online database is 

often a key product. Periodic strategic planning efforts 

that require knowledge of broad trends and driving forces 

of change may benefit most from scanning products in 

the form of annual or biennial comprehensive reports.

TECHNIQUES FOR IMPROVING 

SCANNING EFFECTIVENESS

This section reviews several techniques and resources 

that can increase the effectiveness or efficiency of horizon 

scanning: meta-scanning, lookout panels, Internet 

resources and tools, wide-angle vision, and techniques 

to explore potential wild cards (low-probability, highimpact events).

Meta-scanning

A widely practiced way to scan effectively—and 

simultaneously reduce labor-intensiveness and cost—

is “meta-scanning” or “scanning the scanners.” The 

idea is to take advantage of the freely available work 

of professional scanners in the academic, public, 

private, and non-profit sectors. Most scanning output 

is proprietary or confidential, but a surprising amount 

is publicly available. Table 1 contains examples of 

meta-scanning sources, ranging from the U.S. Army 

to consulting futurists, and from daily or weekly email 

newsletters to scanning reports issued annually or every 

few years. Meta-scanning is particularly appropriate 

for identifying global and national trends and driving 

forces; original scanning will likely be needed to identify 

emerging regional issues and trends.

Lookout Panels

Panels of experts can be a valuable technique to provide 

supplemental or periodic in-depth scans of issues deemed 

to be important. Gordon and Glenn (2009) and the 

Environmental Futures Committee (1995) describe an 

example of a “lookout panel” on African futures designed 

by the Millennium Project. Lookout panels generally 

involve identifying a diverse set of creative thinkers and 

querying them about (1) potential high-impact future 

developments that may affect the topic of interest, (2) 

the likelihood and impacts of these developments, and 

(3) policies to encourage positive developments or to 

deal with negative impacts. Lookout panels are often 

conducted in multiple, interactive rounds similar to a 

Delphi exercise. Bengston et al. (2012) discuss a lookout 

panel approach focusing on the future of wildland 

fire management that uses asynchronous computer 

conferences to gather panel members’ insights. Lookout 

panels can also be used to analyze and interpret scanning 

hits.

Internet Resources

The Internet has transformed horizon scanning practice 

in recent decades with an ever-expanding array of 

information resources. Here, two examples of Internet 

resources for scanning are highlighted. First, innovative 

blogs can be a good source for early discussion of 

emerging trends and cutting-edge ideas. Blog search 

engines such as Google Blogs (http://www.google.

com/blogsearch) and Technorati.com allow the user to 

compile a watch list or create news alerts. The search 

engine automatically monitors keywords provided by 

the user and generates periodic email updates when 

relevant blog postings are found. An alternative blog 

search strategy is to compile a list of especially innovative 

and broad-ranging blogs and monitor them on a regular 

basis. Following blogs written by subject matter experts 

in key areas of interest can be an effective form of metascanning. The bloggers continuously scour the Internet 

for new developments related to the topic and often add 

interpretations about potential implications.

Another potential resource is Web-crawler or text mining 

software systems that scan the Internet automatically in 

search of emerging innovations and trends.1

 Horizon 

scanning software automates a substantial part of the 

most labor-intensive and time-consuming aspect of 

1 In addition to sophisticated Web-crawler or text mining 

software, simpler—and free—tools such as Google Alerts 

(http://www.google.com/alerts ) provide notifications of new 

information about relevant scanning topics as they appear on 

the Web.
9

Table 1.—Examples of meta-scanning sources and additional sources for identifying trends and driving forces of changea

Organization Description URLs for reports and archives

AEPI – Army Environmental Policy Institute (U.S. Army)

Conducts or sponsors monthly horizon scanning on environmental issues with discussion of military implications. The Millennium Project now carries out these horizon scans for the AEPI, although the latest reports are for June 2011.

http://www.aepi.army.mil/reports/http://www.millennium-project.org/millennium/env-scanning.html

DEFRA – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK)

Monthly horizon scanning newsletter. The DEFRA monthly horizon scan is now conducted by the Centre for Environmental Risks and Futures (CERF), Cranfield University, UK.

http://horizonscanning.defra.gov.uk/ 

Future Tense podcasts (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Future Tense is a weekly half-hour radio broadcast that examines social, cultural, and economic issues arising from rapid change. Covers a wide range of issues.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/ 

Future Trend Report (DaVinci Institute)

Part of a free weekly newsletter from the DaVinci Institute, a nonprofit futures think tank based in Louisville, CO.

http://www.davinciinstitute.com/newsletter/ 

Futurewatch (Journal of Futures Studies)

Broad-ranging horizon scan that was included as the last item in each issue of the “Journal of Futures Studies” until June 2011. This journal is freely available online.

http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/sarticles.html 

Global Foresight Books Contains abstracts of more than 5,000 futures-relevant books and 

reports on all aspects of current affairs, planning, and public policy. A free email newsletter provides a complete list of new publications on the site, the Book of the Month, and other information. The director of Global Foresight Books, futurist Michael Marien, edited Future Survey for 30 years.

http://www.globalforesightbooks.org/

Global Trends (National Intelligence Council, Central Intelligence Agency)

Global Trends 2030 is the fifth installment in the National Intelligence Council-led effort to identify key trends and drivers likely to shape world events a decade or more in the future. It uses scenarios to illustrate some of the ways in which the drivers may interact to generate challenges and opportunities for future decisionmakers.

http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/nationalintelligence-council-global-trends 

Kurzweil Accelerating Intelligence newsletter (KurzweilAI Network)

Daily or weekly email newsletter that covers science and technology innovations. Also lists new blog posts, features, events, videos, and books.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/ 

Human Development Report (UN Development Programme)

Annual review of human development trends and challenges, drivers and barriers, and measurement challenges. Provides newly available data and supplementary indices weighing the effect of income inequalities, gender disparities, and household-level poverty.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/ U.N. Development Programme, ed. 2012. Human Development Report 2012. NY and UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Outlook, Futurist Update (World Future Society)

The Outlook series is an annual roundup of forecasts, trends, and ideas drawn from articles and news stories originally appearing in “The Futurist” magazine. The Futurist Update is a free monthly email newsletter.

https://www.wfs.org/node/567 

continued
10

Pew Internet & American Life Project (Pew Research Center)

One of seven projects of the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank that examines issues, attitudes, and trends shaping America and the world. This project has produced many reports on the impact of the Internet on families, communities, work and home, daily life, education, health care, and civic and political life.

http://www.pewinternet.org/topics/Future-of-the-Internet.aspx http://www.imaginingtheInternet.org 

Pew Social & Demographic Trends Project (Pew Research Center)

Studies behaviors and attitudes of Americans in key areas of their lives, including family, community, health, finance, work, and leisure. These topics are examined by combining original public opinion survey research with social, economic, and demographic data analysis.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/ http://pewresearch.org/topics/socialtrends/ 

ScienceDaily An award-winning Web site that covers breaking news about the latest 

scientific discoveries in a user-friendly format. The site covers all fields of the physical, biological, earth, and applied sciences. Stories are linked to the original articles. Users can search the site’s archives of stories, topics, articles, videos, images, and books.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/ 

Shaping Tomorrow Newsletter (Shaping Tomorrow)

A free weekly newsletter. Shaping Tomorrow is a commercial service that scans and analyzes trends using a worldwide team. Clients can follow 75 trend topics or search for specific interests. Many custom services are offered related to foresight, strategic planning, and change management. 

http://www.shapingtomorrow.com 

State of the Future (Millennium Project)

Annual report providing an overview of the global situation and prospects for the future. It includes an executive summary and 2-page overviews with regional considerations of 15 global challenges such as energy, food, science and technology, ethics, development, water, and demographics.

http://www.millennium-project.org/millennium/2012SOF.html

State of the World (Worldwatch Institute)

The Worldwatch Institute’s annual series on critical global issues and driving forces. Topics are covered from a global perspective, with an emphasis on how to create a more sustainable and equitable future.

http://www.worldwatch.org/stateoftheworld2012 

Vital Signs, Vital Signs Online (Worldwatch Institute)

Annual report tracking 24 key trends in the environment, agriculture, energy, society, and the economy. Vital Signs Online is an interactive, subscription-based tool tracking sustainability trends.

http://www.worldwatch.org/vitalsigns2012 http://vitalsigns.worldwatch.org/ 

World Migration Report (International Organization for Migration)

Annual report covering international migration trends. Each year’s report has a different theme. The theme of the 2010 report was “The Future of Migration: Building Capacities for Change.”

http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=37 

World Values Survey The World Values Survey (WVS) network (“The world’s most 

comprehensive investigation of political and sociocultural change”) provides a 30-year time series for the analysis of social and political change. The WVS network carried out a new wave of surveys in 2010 - 2012 covering more than 50 countries. Data from all previous waves are available from the WVS Web site.

http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org 

a Several of the meta-scan resources listed in Table 1 are no longer produced, but are included because the archives of past scans provide exemplars of scanning output.

Organization Description URLs for reports and archives

Table 1.—continued
11

scanning, allowing more time for scanners to analyze, 

synthesize, and interpret scanning hits. Decker et al. 

(2005) describe a conceptual framework for a Web-based 

horizon scanning process based on information foraging 

theory, and demonstrate the advantages of this approach 

in a human-machine experiment in which a prototype 

system outperformed a group of human experts in a 

typical scanning task. The Singapore government’s Risk 

Assessment and Horizon Scanning program uses Webcrawler software to increase the efficiency of its scanning 

(Conference Board of Canada 2008). New developments 

in text mining are able to distill large volumes of text 

found on the Internet into highly readable summaries 

(e.g., Mithun 2012) or classify text into key driving 

forces of change (e.g., Halliman 2009). Most automated 

scanning software is proprietary and expensive today but 

offers a promising tool for increasing the effectiveness and 

efficiency of horizon scanning. Though a useful scanning 

resource, software systems and the Internet should not 

be relied upon as the sole means of identifying signals of 

change (Douw et al. 2003).

Wide-angle Vision

It is easy to get lost in detailed reading and close 

examination of a large number of sources and vast 

amounts of information, resulting in missed signals of 

change (Coote 2012). To avoid becoming overwhelmed 

and to scan more effectively, professional horizon 

scanners sometimes practice a technique similar to the 

“wide-angle vision” or “splatter vision” approach used by 

U.S. Secret Service agents and others (Burkan 1996, Day 

and Schoemaker 2004). The essence of this technique in 

a security context is to take in the entire scene without 

focusing on anyone in particular. Holding this wideangle gaze, the agent looks for anomalies that do not fit 

with the rest of the scene, e.g., someone who is looking 

around too much or appears restless, whose clothing is 

not appropriate for the weather, or whose demeanor does 

not fit with the cheering or expectant faces in the crowd. 

Suspicious activity triggers closer scrutiny. An analogous 

wide-angle vision process can be applied to horizon 

scanning, in which scanners view massive amounts of 

information in search of incongruities that may signal 

future change. As in security scanning, the idea is to take 

in everything as a whole and not focus too much on a 

specific area or expected future. Focusing on one area can 

lead to blindness because “change usually hits us where 

we least expect it” (Burkan 1998: 37).

Wild Cards

Potential changes in the external environment identified 

by horizon scanning can be either continuous or 

discontinuous. The most disruptive type of discontinuous 

change is low-probability but high-impact events, 

referred to in the futures literature as wild cards (Petersen 

and Steinmueller 2009), black swans (Taleb 2010), 

or STEEP surprises (Markley 2011). In the resilience 

literature, discontinuous and largely unpredictable 

change is called “back loop” change or surprise (Walker 

and Salt 2006). Wild cards are often neglected in 

scanning in favor of more tractable continuous changes. 

Given the potential importance of wildcards, however, 

horizon scanning systems should explicitly consider 

identifying and exploring them.

Potential wild cards are extremely difficult to identify 

and interpret, but several methods have been proposed. 

For example, Petersen (1997) maintains that there are 

always early warnings of impending wild card events, but 

we frequently miss them because we tend not to think 

about such events and the precursors that might signal 

their approach. By identifying potential positive and 

negative wild cards in advance through extensive and 

regular brainstorming, early indicators can be identified 

and monitored, and plans to deal with their impacts can 

be developed. Petersen identifies and briefly analyzes 78 

potential wild cards, including rapid climate change, a 

major breakthrough in nanotechnology, the development 

of self-aware machine intelligence, and a worldwide 

pandemic. Other approaches to wild card scanning often 

involve categorizing potential wild card events to make 

them easier to spot on the horizon. For example, Markley 

(2011) described a four-level typology of wild cards and 

a related method for monitoring emerging awareness of 

them and their credibility, and Mendonça et al. (2004) 

proposed a method based on the type of wild card, the 

subject area affected (e.g., economic, environmental, 

technological), and the nature and magnitude of 

potential impacts.
12

TECHNIQUES FOR ANALYZING, 

SYNTHESIZING, AND INTERPRETING

The weak signals identified by horizon scanning will be 

of little use if they are left unanalyzed. Busy planners, 

managers, and policy makers do not have the time or 

inclination to sort through and interpret large amounts 

of unprocessed information. This section surveys some 

techniques that can be used to analyze important 

individual trends and issues, as well as “connecting the 

dots” by synthesizing related scanning hits and looking 

for big-picture implications.

Nominal Group Technique

The nominal group technique (NGT) is a widely used 

structured group discussion and decisionmaking process. 

The “nominal” in NGT refers to the fact that participants 

work alone for the most part, so it involves a group in 

name only. One of the main advantages of NGT is that 

it avoids problems caused by dominant personalities 

in group interactions and decisionmaking. Originally 

developed by Delbecq and Van de Ven (1971), NGT 

can be used with groups of many sizes to quickly 

make decisions with everyone’s opinions being taken 

into account. Although there are many variations, the 

standard procedure for NGT entails five stages (Potter 

et al. 2004, Tague 2005). First, a facilitator explains the 

purpose and procedure to participants. In the context 

of horizon scanning, the purpose might be to rank or 

rate the importance or likelihood of trends and issues 

identified by scanning. Second, participants individually 

generate ideas related to the purpose (e.g., ratings of the 

most important trends) without discussing their ideas 

with others. Third, participants each share their ideas, 

which are recorded by the facilitator. All participants 

should have an equal opportunity to contribute. Fourth 

is group discussion, in which participants can seek 

explanations or details about any of the ideas that have 

been put forward and new or hybrid ideas that arise from 

the discussion may be added. The final step is voting and 

ranking the ideas in relation to the original question, 

which produces the specific outcome of the process.

Sutherland et al. (2011) used a form of NGT combined 

with a lookout panel to both identify and rank the 

importance of issues related to conserving biodiversity. 

The purpose of this scanning exercise, which built on 

an earlier effort (Sutherland et al. 2010), was to identify 

emerging “technological advances, environmental changes, 

novel ecological interactions and changes in society that 

could have substantial impacts on the conservation of 

biological diversity” (Sutherland et al. 2011: 11). The 

25 participants included specialists in various fields 

of conservation science as well as professional horizon 

scanners. Participants each identified and summarized up 

to four emerging issues they deemed to be most relevant. 

Seventy-one issues were identified and distributed to all 

contributors for scoring on a scale from 1 (well-known 

and relatively unimportant) to 10 (poorly known but 

potentially important). The issues with the highest 

mean scores were retained and assessed at a face-toface workshop. After critical assessment and discussion, 

participants individually ranked the relative importance 

of the issues on a scale of 0 to 100. The result was a 

prioritized list of often unrecognized issues with potential 

importance for global conservation.

Impact/Likelihood Assessment

This technique is a simple way to identify which issues or 

trends may be of greatest importance to decisionmakers 

(Renfro and Morrison 1983). Given a long list of emerging 

issues identified by horizon scanning, impact/likelihood 

assessment begins with a subjective rating of the likelihood 

of each issue affecting the organization. A simple high, 

medium, or low scale may be used or a numerical scale 

ranging from 1 (low likelihood) to 10 (high likelihood). The 

potential impact of each issue on various areas of concern, 

such as environmental, economic, and social impacts, is 

also subjectively rated (e.g., low impact = 1, high impact 

= 3). The ratings can then be plotted on a graph with 

potential impact on one axis and probability or likelihood 

of occurrence on the other, creating an easy-to-grasp visual 

display of issues that are high in both impact and likelihood, 

as shown in Figure 3. A variation of this technique is used 

in CERF’s scanning reports, which combine impact and 

likelihood ratings to determine “importance” and plot this 

value against the expected timing of a development (CERF 

2012). Another variation is the EPA’s (2005) system of 

rating the importance of scanning hits on a 5-point scale 

for seven criteria (novelty, scope, severity, visibility, timing, 

probability, and organizational relevance).
13

Futures Wheel

The direct or first-order impacts of trends and issues 

identified by horizon scanning may be fairly easy to 

discern. But the higher-order consequences are typically 

less obvious, often contain surprises, and may be the 

most important. The futures wheel, also called the 

Implications Wheel® or impact network, is a simple 

and practical tool that uses the “wisdom of crowds” 

(Surowiecki 2004) to explore the direct and indirect 

consequences of a trend, innovation, policy, or any 

change (Glenn 2009). The basic idea is that every 

change or potential change has consequences and these 

consequences have consequences. The futures wheel helps 

planners, managers, and other stakeholders identify and 

think through these multiple levels of consequences. 

Figure 4 shows the typical structure of a futures wheel.

The process of constructing a futures wheel begins by 

placing a short-hand description of a change or trend in 

the center. For example, the trend “growing hydraulic 

fracturing activity on private lands near national forests” 

could be expressed simply as “increased fracking.” 

Next, the possible direct first-order impacts of increased 

fracking are identified by brainstorming and branch 

out from the center. Possible first-order consequences 

of fracking would likely include increased truck traffic, 

water consumption, creation of local jobs, and possible 

groundwater contamination. An impact categorization 

system such as STEEP (Morrison 1992) can be used 

to help identify all the first-order consequences in the 

near future. It is important to identify both positive and 

negative consequences. Next, the possible second-order 

consequences of each of the first-order consequences are 

identified by brainstorming and are added to the futures 

wheel. For example, increased truck traffic may result in 

impacts such as damage to rural roads not designed for 

such high levels of traffic, increased noise levels from 24-

hour traffic, and safety concerns. Each of these impacts 

3

Figure 3.—Impact /Probability figure summarizing ratings for two hypothetical issues. Issue 

1 (indicated by circles) shows an event with a consensus rating on probability of occurrence 

(high) and a consensus on moderately positive impact. Issue 2 (indicated by triangles) shows 

an event with a consensus on probability of occurrence (low) but not on impact. 

(Source: Adapted from Renfro and Morrison 1983: 16).
14

may have third-order consequences. Once all levels of 

the futures wheel have been completed – typically not 

beyond third-order consequences – a comprehensive 

picture of the possible direct and indirect, positive and 

negative consequences emerges. Some approaches to the 

futures wheel include rating the desirability/undesirability 

and likelihood of occurrence of each implication, and 

comparing the ratings of different stakeholder groups. 

The final step is to develop strategies to manage the 

possible negative consequences and take advantage of or 

encourage the positive consequences. The construction of 

futures wheels and analysis of the implications identified 

can be greatly facilitated with computer support, such 

as the software developed for futurist Joel Barker’s 

Implications Wheel® (Barker 2011).

Cross-impact Matrix

Various forms of cross-impact analysis have been used 

to examine how multiple trends or events might impact 

each other (Heuer and Pherson 2011). The many 

approaches to this technique are based on the premise 

that events do not occur in a vacuum and other forces in 

the surrounding environment can significantly impact 

them or affect their likelihood of occurrence. Chao 

(2008: 45) notes that the usefulness of the “cross-impact 

method lies in its systematic analysis of interactions 

among possible future developments.” Some approaches 

to cross-impact analysis are complex, time-consuming, 

and expensive to implement, but a simple version of the 

cross-impact matrix can be useful to examine the possible 

interactions among selected broad trends or driving 

4

Figure 4.—Typical structure of a futures wheel.
15

forces identified through horizon scanning (Wagschall 

1983). Table 2 depicts a hypothetical 6 by 6 cross-impact 

matrix. The same set of trends is listed across the top and 

on the left side of the matrix. Each cell is filled with an 

estimation of the positive or negative impact the trend on 

the left would have on each of the trends across the top. 

The combined judgment of a group can be used to fill in 

the cells by using pluses and minuses (i.e., + + = strong 

positive impact, + = positive impact, 0 = no impact or 

disagreement, - = negative impact, - - = strong negative 

impact). In Table 2, for example, the “+ +” in the second 

cell of the first row indicates a consensus judgment that 

trend 1 will have a strongly positive impact on trend 2. In 

some cases, the matrix can also be filled in based on what 

the research literature reveals about past relationships 

between similar trends. When all the cells have been filled 

in, the columns and rows can be aggregated to produce 

insights about the interactions. For example, trend 1 

produces the strongest positive impact on the other 

trends, and trend 5 produces the greatest negative change.

Scenarios

Finally, a productive way to analyze and interpret 

emerging trends and developments identified by horizon 

scanning is to use them to create scenarios that illustrate 

a range of alternative plausible futures. The set of most 

likely and most important trends identified by the 

preceding techniques constitutes driving forces of change 

that can be used as key building blocks in scenario 

analysis. Glenn and the Futures Group International 

(2009: 2) define a scenario as “a story with plausible cause 

and effect links that connects a future condition with 

the present, while illustrating key decisions, events, and 

consequences throughout the narrative.” The output of a 

scenario analysis is a set of stories or narratives. The stories 

are not predictions but represent a range of plausible 

futures intended to help decisionmakers and stakeholders 

build adaptive capacity to make their systems more 

resilient to change by preparing for a diverse set of 

alternatives. Dozens of scenario development methods 

have been created, including qualitative and quantitative 

approaches, expert-based and participatory approaches 

involving stakeholders, and inquiry-driven and strategydriven scenario analysis (Alcamo 2008, Bishop et al. 

2007). Regardless of the scenario development method 

used, driving forces of change identified by horizon 

scanning are a key input and scenarios can be a powerful 

technique to help decisionmakers explore and prepare for 

a range of plausible futures.

CONCLUSIONS

Futurist Peter Bishop (2009: 12) succinctly observed 

that “scanning is hard, but also necessary.” It is hard for 

many reasons. Bringing diverse stakeholders together in 

participatory scanning is challenging. Identifying weak 

signals of change in a complex, turbulent environment 

is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Separating 

meaningful signals from all the noise requires the rare 

ability to see beyond prevailing mindsets and paradigms. 

Analyzing and correctly interpreting potential signals of 

change calls for creativity and insight. Acting on possible 

opportunities and threats presented by incipient change 

demands visionary leadership and careful strategy. 

Successfully achieving all of these requirements is indeed 

difficult. Some horizon scanning projects and systems 

fail to meet expectations or achieve goals, for a variety of 

reasons such as insufficient budget, lack of management 

support, and weak stakeholder participation (Lesca and 

Caron-Fasan 2008).

Table 2.—Hypothetical cross-impact matrix. (Source: Adapted from Wagschall 1983)

Trend 1 Trend 2 Trend 3 Trend 4 Trend 5 Trend 6 Sum of impacts

Trend 1 x + + 0 + + + 0 5 +

Trend 2 - - x 0 + + + + 2 +

Trend 3 0 + x 0 + + 3 +

Trend 4 - - - 0 x - - 5 -

Trend 5 - - - 0 - - x - 6 -

Trend 6 0 0 - 0 0 x 1 -

Sum of impacts 5 - 0 1 - 1 + 2 + 1 + 
16

Despite these challenges, horizon scanning is necessary. 

The rapid pace of change, increasing complexity, and 

frequency of surprise necessitate preparing for an 

uncertain future by promoting a forward view throughout 

an organization, stimulating people to think about how 

emerging trends could affect their work and the mission 

of their agency, and preparing contingency plans. A welldesigned, organizationally appropriate horizon scanning 

system with long-term support is needed to accomplish 

these objectives. Business research has repeatedly 

demonstrated that effective horizon scanning improves 

organizational performance (Choo 2002). Scanning can 

enhance discussion about future-oriented issues within 

an organization, as well as help decisionmakers anticipate 

and quickly respond to external change. A formal horizon 

scanning system is a vital but often missing component in 

the strategic planning process of public natural resource 

and environmental organizations.

acknowledgments

The author thanks Leif DeVaney, Michael Dockry, 

Robert Olson, and Lynne Westphal for many helpful 

comments on an earlier version of this paper.

LITERATURE CITED

Alcamo, J., ed. 2008. Environmental futures: the 

practice of environmental scenario analysis. 

Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier. 197 p.

Barker, J.A. 1992. Paradigms: the business of 

discovering the future. New York: HarperBusiness. 

240 p.

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

at http://implicationswheel.com/. (Accessed April 23, 

2013).

Bengston, D.N.; Olson, R.L.; DeVaney, L.A. 2012. 

The future of wildland fire management in a world 

of rapid change and great uncertainty: overview 

of a futures research project. In: Fox, R.L., ed. 

Proceedings of 3rd human dimensions of wildland 

fire conference, 17-19 April 2012, Seattle, WA. 

Missoula, MT: International Association of Wildland 

Fire: 34-40. Available at http://www.iawfonline.

org/pdf/3rd%20Human%20Dimensions%20

Conference%20Proceedings%20-%20FINAL.pdf . 

(Accessed May 1, 2013).

Bishop, P. 2009. Horizon scanning: Why is it so hard?

Houston, TX: University of Houston. Available 

at http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/thester/courses/

Emerging%20Tech%202011/Horizon%20Scanning.

pdf. (Accessed May 1, 2013).

Bishop, P.; Hines, A.; Collins, T. 2007. The current 

state of scenario development: an overview of 

techniques. Foresight. 9(1): 5-25.

Brown, D. 2007. Horizon scanning and the 

business environment: the implications for risk 

management. BT Technology Journal. 25(1): 214-

218. 

Burkan, W. 1996. Wide-angle vision: Beat your 

competition by focusing on fringe competitors, lost 

customers, and rogue employees. New York: John 

Wiley. 275 p.

Burkan, W. 1998. Developing your wide-angle vision. 

The Futurist. 32(2): 35-38.

Centre for Environmental Risks and Futures (CERF). 

2012. Horizon scan newsletter. Bedfordshire, 

UK: Cranfield University. Available at http://www.

cranfield.ac.uk/sas/cerf/horizonscanning.html. 

(Accessed May 1, 2013).

Chao, K. 2008. A new look at the cross-impact matrix 

and its application in futures studies. Journal of 

Futures Studies. 12(4): 45-52.

Choo, C.W. 1999. The art of scanning the 

environment. Bulletin of the American Society for 

Information Science. 25(3): 21-24.

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.
17

Choudhury, V.; Sampler, J.L. 1997. Information 

specificity and environmental scanning. MIS 

Quarterly. 21(1): 25-54.

Conference Board of Canada. 2008. Horizon scanning: 

gathering research evidence to inform decision 

making. Ottawa, ON: The Conference Board of 

Canada. April. Available at http://blogs.usask.ca/

SHORE/08-158%20Horizon%20Scanning.pdf . 

(Accessed May 1, 2013).

Coote, J. 2012. A simple guide to futurewatching. 

Journal of Futures Studies. 16(3): 107-112.

Cornish, E. 2004. Futuring: the exploration of the 

future. Bethesda, MD: World Future Society. 313 p.

Day, G.S.; Schoemaker, P.J.H. 2004. Driving through 

the fog: managing at the edge. Long Range Planning 

(Special issue on: Peripheral vision: sensing and acting 

on weak signals). 37(2): 127-142.

Day, G.S.; Schoemaker, P.J.H. 2005. Scanning the 

periphery. Harvard Business Review. 83(11): 135-

148.

Day, G.S.; Schoemaker, P.J.H. 2006. Peripheral vision: 

detecting the weak signals that will make or break 

your company. Boston, MA: Harvard Business 

Review Press. 248 p.

Decker, R.; Wagner, R.; Scholz. S.W. 2005. An 

Internet-based approach to environmental scanning 

in marketing planning. Marketing Intelligence & 

Planning. 23(2): 189-199.

Delbecq, A.; Van de Ven, A.H. 1971. A group process 

model for problem identification and program 

planning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 7(4): 

466-492.

Douw, K.; Vondeling, H. 2006. Selection of new health 

technologies for assessment aimed at informing 

decision making: a survey among horizon scanning 

systems. International Journal of Technology 

Assessment in Health Care. 22(2): 177-183.

Douw, K.; Vondeling, H.; Eskildsen, D.; Simpson, S. 

2003. Use of the Internet in scanning the horizon 

for new and emerging health technologies: a survey 

of agencies involved in horizon scanning. Journal of 

Medical Internet Research. 5(1): e6. Available at http://

www.jmir.org/2003/1/e6/ . (Accessed May 1, 2013).

Environmental Futures Committee. 1995. Futures 

methods and issues: a technical annex to “Beyond 

the horizon: protecting the future with foresight.”

EPA-SAB-EC-95-007A. Washington, DC: Science 

Advisory Board, US Environmental Protection Agency.

Ghoshal, S.; Westney, D.E. 1991. Organizing 

competitor analysis systems. Strategic Management 

Journal. 12(1): 17-31.

Glenn, J.C. 2009. Futures wheel. In: Glenn, J.C.; 

Gordon, T.J., eds. Futures research methodology—

version 3.0 [CD-ROM]. Washington, DC: The 

Millennium Project.

Glenn, J.C.; the Futures Group International. 2009. 

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

research methodology—version 3.0 [CD-ROM]. 

Washington, DC: The Millennium Project.

Glenn, J.C.; Gordon, T.J.; Florescu, E., eds. 2012. 2012 

state of the future [CD-ROM]. Washington, DC: The 

Millennium Project.

Gordon, T.J.; Glenn, J.C. 2009. Environmental 

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

research methodology—version 3.0 [CD-ROM]. 

Washington, DC: The Millennium Project.

Halliman, C. 2009. Business intelligence using smart 

techniques: environmental scanning using text 

mining and competitor analysis using scenarios 

and manual simulation. Rev. ed. Houston, TX: 

Information Uncover. 230 p.

Harris, J. 2002. Blindsided: how to spot the next 

breakthrough that will change your business. New 

York: John Wiley & Sons. 320 p.
18

Heuer, R.J.; Pherson, R.H. 2011. Structured analytic 

techniques for intelligence analysis. Washington, 

DC: CQ Press. 343 p.

Hiltunen, E. 2008. Good sources of weak signals: 

a global study of where futurists look for weak 

signals. Journal of Futures Studies. 12(4): 21-44.

Hines, A. 2003. Applying integral futures to 

environmental scanning. Futures Research Quarterly. 

19(4): 49-62.

Kotler, P.; Keller, K.L. 2008. Marketing management. 

13th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 816 p.

Lesca, N.; Caron-Fasan, M.L. 2008. Strategic scanning 

project failure and abandonment factors: lessons 

learned. European Journal of Information Systems. 

17(Aug.): 371-386.

Markley,O. 2011. A new methodology for anticipating 

STEEP surprises. Technological Forecasting & Social 

Change. 78(6): 1079-1097.

Mendonça, S.; Cunha, M.P.; Kaivo-oja, J.; Ruff, F. 

2004. Wild cards, weak signals and organisational 

improvisation. Futures. 36(2): 201-218.

Mithun, S. 2012. Exploiting rhetorical relations in 

blog summarization. Montreal, QC: Concordia 

University. 230 p. Ph.D. dissertation. Available at 

http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~kosseim/Thesis/

thesisShamima.pdf. (Accessed May 1, 2013).

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. 

Available at http://horizon.unc.edu/courses/papers/

enviroscan/default.html. (Accessed May 1, 2013).

Morrison, J.; Wilson, I. 1997. Analyzing environments 

and developing scenarios in uncertain times. 

In: Peterson, M.W.; Dill, D.D.; Mets, L.A., 

eds., Planning and management for a changing 

environment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Available at http://horizon.unc.edu/courses/papers/

JBChapter.asp. (Accessed May 1, 2013).

Munck, R.; McConnell, G. 2009. University strategic 

planning and the foresight/futures approach: an 

Irish case study. Planning for Higher Education. 

38(1): 31-40.

Nanus, B. 1982. QUEST – quick environmental 

scanning technique. Long Range Planning. 15(2): 

39-45.

National Intelligence Council. 2012. Global trends 

2030: alternative worlds. NIC 2012-001. 

Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency. 137 

p. URL: http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/

organization/national-intelligence-council-globaltrends (Accessed May 1, 2013).

Nickerson, R.S. 1998. Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous 

phenomenon in many guises. Review of General 

Psychology. 2(2): 175-220.

Page, S.E. 2007. The difference: how the power of 

diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and 

societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

448 p.

Petersen, J.L. 1997. Out of the blue: wild cards and 

other big future surprises—how to anticipate and 

respond to profound change. Arlington, VA: The 

Arlington Institute. 189 p.

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

Glenn, J.C.; Gordon, T.J., eds. Futures research 

methodology—version 3.0 [CD-ROM]. Washington, 

DC: The Millennium Project.

Pflaum, A.M.; Delmont, T.J. 1987. External 

scanning—a tool for planners. Journal of the 

American Planning Association. 53(1): 58-68.

Potter, M.; Gordon, S.; Hamer, P. 2004. The nominal 

group technique: a useful consensus methodology 

in physiotherapy research. New Zealand Journal of 

Physiotherapy. 32(3): 126-130.
19

Renfro, W.L.; Morrison, J.L. 1983. The scanning 

process: getting started. In: Morrison, J.L.; Renfro, 

W.L.; Boucher, W.I., eds. Applying methods and 

techniques of futures research. New Directions for 

Institutional Research, No. 39. San Francisco, CA: 

Jossey-Bass: 5-20.

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

for the future in an uncertain world. New York: 

Currency Doubleday. 272 p.

Slaughter, R.A. 1990. Assessing the QUEST for future 

knowledge: significance of the quick environmental 

scanning technique for futures. Futures. 22(2): 153-

166.

Slaughter, R.A. 1999a. A new framework for 

environmental scanning. Foresight. 1(5): 441-451.

Slaughter, R.A. 1999b. Futures for the third 

millennium: enabling the forward view. Sydney, 

Australia: Prospect Media. 366 p.

Surowiecki, J. 2004. The wisdom of crowds: why the 

many are smarter than the few and how collective 

wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and 

nations. New York: Doubleday. 320 p.

Sutherland, W. J.; Bailey, M.J.; Bainbridge, I.P. [et al.]. 

2008. Future novel threats and opportunities facing 

UK biodiversity identified by horizon scanning. 

Journal of Applied Ecology. 45(3): 821-833.

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

environmental horizon scanning. Trends in Ecology 

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

Sutherland, W.J.; Clout, M.; Côté, I.M. [et al.]. 2010. A 

horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2010. 

Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 25(1):1-7.

Sutherland, W.J.; Bardsley, S.; Bennun, L. [et al.]. 2011. 

Horizon scan of global conservation issues for 

2011. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 26(1): 10-16.

Sutter, P.S. 2002. Driven wild: how the fight against 

automobiles launched the modern wilderness 

movement. Seattle, WA: University of Washington 

Press. 343 p.

Tague, N.R. 2005. The quality toolbox. 2nd ed. 

Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press. 558 p.

Taleb, N.N. 2010. The black swan: the impact of the 

highly improbable. 2nd ed. New York: Random 

House. 480 p.

United Nations Environment Programme. 2012. 21 

issues for the 21st century: results of the UNEP 

foresight process on emerging environmental 

issues. Nairobi, Kenya. 56 p. http://www.unep.org/

publications/ebooks/foresightreport/ (Accessed April 

22, 2013).

United Way of America. 1992. What lies ahead: a 

decade of decision. United Way of America, Strategic 

Planning Division. Alexandria, VA: United Way 

Strategic Institute. 105 p.

U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute. [N.d.]. 

Homepage. Available at http://www.aepi.army.mil/. 

(Accessed April 22, 2013).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. 

The environmental future: emerging challenges 

and opportunities for EPA. Report from the 

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy 

and Technology (NACEPT). EPA 100-R-02-001. 

Washington, DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Shaping 

our environmental future: foresight in the Office 

of Research and Development. EPA 600/R-06/150. 

Washington, DC.

U.S. Forest Service. 2012. Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 

68. April 9. Rules and regulations. Available at http://

www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/

stelprdb5362538.pdf . (Accessed May 1, 2013).
20

Voros, J. 2001. Reframing environmental scanning: an 

integral approach. Foresight. 3(6): 533-551.

Wagschall, P.H. 1983. Judgmental forecasting 

techniques and institutional planning: an example. 

In: Morrison, J.L.; Renfro, W.L.; Boucher, W.I., eds. 

Applying methods and techniques of futures research. 

New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 39. 

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass: 39-49.

Walker, B.; Salt, D. 2006. Resilience thinking: 

sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing 

world. Washington, DC: Island Press. 174 p.

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

think clearly in a time of change. Upper Saddle 

River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. 286 p.

Yasai-Ardekani, M.; Nystrom, P.C. 1996. Designs 

for environmental scanning systems: tests of a 

contingency theory. Management Science. 42(2): 

187-204.
Printed on Recycled Paper

Bengston, David 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.

Natural resource management organizations carry out a range of activities to examine 

possible future conditions and trends as part of their planning process, but the distinct 

approach of formal horizon scanning is often a missing component of strategic thinking 

and strategy development in these organizations. Horizon scanning is a process for 

finding and interpreting early indications of change in the external environment of an 

organization or field. Effective horizon scanning serves as an early warning system to 

identify potential opportunities and threats, enable decisionmakers to plan accordingly 

and take timely action, and foster a culture of foresight throughout an organization. 

This paper reviews and discusses the key items needed to create an effective 

horizon scanning system: conceptual frameworks, organizational approaches, design 

principles, techniques to improve effectiveness, and techniques for analyzing and 

interpreting scanning results.

KEY WORDS: horizon scanning, environmental scanning, strategic foresight, futures 

research

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial 

status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because 

all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication 

of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 

(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of 

Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800)795-3272 

(voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
Northern Research Station

www.nrs.fs.fed.us