How pragmatism in environmental science and policy can undermine sustainability transformations: the case of marginalized mountain areas under climate and land-use change

Abstract

Global warming, land-use change, mass tourism and a deteriorating socio-economic situation pose serious threats to the sustainability of mountain areas. The future development of these areas could be an example of the Great Transition scenario. Based on iterative and collaborative discussions with 60 treeline experts, we (1) envisioned plausible futures of treeline ecosystems in Europe and (2) explored the role of pragmatism in scenario development and use. The three global change scenario classes (Conventional Worlds, Barbarization, and Great Transitions) and four European scenarios (Economy First, Fortress Europe, Policy Rules, and Sustainability Eventually) were downscaled using the drivers-pressures-state-impact-response (DPSIR) framework. The scenarios that emerged, i.e., Global Markets, Self-sufficient Economies, Tyranny of Climate Governance, and Sustainable Use of Ecosystem Services, show that pragmatism can have either a propitious role or pernicious role in scenario analysis. Instead of being truly honest brokers, scenario producers are likely to manipulate, reconstruct, and change scientific knowledge to avoid socially and politically undesired trajectories. We showed by mathematical optimization that scenario users are likely to miss the Sustainable Use of Ecosystem Services scenario if they search within the pragmatic decision space which optimally justifies the two pre-existing global policies: climate policy and economic growth. We conclude that pernicious pragmatism leads to “the trap of the day”—a tendency of both users and producers of scenarios to use pre-existing policy agendas and scientific narratives as a pretext to promote their own objectives instead of being open to transformation in science and policy.