Three Horizons

Provide Feedback on this Article
Method Categorisation:
Quantitative - Qualitative
Deductive - Inductive
Individual - System - Global
Past - Present - Future

In short: The Three Horizons model (also referred to as Three Horizons framework or practice) is a helpful tool for visualising complex development patterns, connecting the current state with radical and innovative trajectories towards envisioned futures.

Background[edit]

SCOPUS hits per year for Three Horizons until 2019. Search terms: 'Three Horizons' in Title, Abstract, Keywords. Source: own.

In response to increasingly complex problems and the uncertainty of the future in the light of climate change, biodiversity loss, and political crises, there has been a rise of methods and approaches focusing on the future. Scenarios, for example, are used to deal with high degrees of uncertainty. However, they do not focus on the agency of actors with regards to bringing about change and shaping the future. The Three Horizons model has been developed to address both the uncertainty of the future, as well as the agency of individual actors in shaping it (Sharpe et al. 2016). It is a helpful tool for visualising complex development patterns, connecting the current state with disruptive and innovative trajectories towards envisioned outcomes. Originally, the Three Horizons model was used in business analysis and planning and was first published in "The Alchemy of Growth" (Curry & Hodgson 2008). However, it has also been used to analyse long-term social change and transformation and has for example been applied in envisioning the future of education (Sharpe et al. 2016). Currently, it is also increasingly applied in social-ecological systems research (Hichert et al. 2022). The Three Horizons framework is commonly used in a participatory workshop setting to engage a variety of actors (Hichert et al. 2022). It can help people to think creatively, constructively and systematically about the future and to advance the understanding of change and uncertainty in complex social-ecological systems.

What the method does[edit]

The Three Horizons Framework is a graphical approach to think about the current dominant system, desired futures and emerging changes. Essentially, it maps the development of a system over time, connecting envisioned futures with present activities (Hichert et al. 2022).

The model depicts three timelines (horizons) from now into the future: an established first horizon, a second horizon depicting transitional activities, and an emerging third horizon (Sharpe et al. 2016). The central idea is that all three horizons exist in parallel, but with different amounts of influence. So-called “pockets of the future”, such as new business models, prototypes or activist groups may already exist in the presence and offer a glimpse into possibilities for the future (Curry & Hodgson 2008).

Three Horizons Model: The x-axis depicts the time and the y-axis shows the dominance of the horizons. Source: Sharpe et al. 2016.
  • H1: Business-as-usual: The business-as-usual horizon describes current states and developments of the dominant system. These developments are keeping the system stable, but in changing environments may not align with the envisioned viable future, and therefore need to partly phase out, or be redesigned. The goal is not to abolish this horizon entirely, but rather to work towards a smooth transition and to avoid collapse, keeping elements of H1 that are desirable and replacing those that are not “fit” for the future (Sharpe et al. 2016).
  • H3: Viable future: The viable future horizon is the shared vision and goal, emerging as the long-term successor to H1. It is partly based on sustained patterns of the old business-as-usual, and partly redesigned with disruptive innovations (Sharpe et al. 2016). In reality, there may be multiple, competing visions of the future (Curry & Hodgson 2008).
  • H2: Disruptive innovations: The disruptive innovations horizon collects activities and interventions that connect the old business-as-usual and the viable future over the timeline. A distinction can be made between innovations that get captured by, and then prolong the dominant system (sustaining innovations, also referred to as H2+) and those that work towards the desired future (referred to as transformative innovations, H2-) (Sharpe et al. 2016).

Three Horizons as Three Voices[edit]

"In the heuristic there is no judgement about whether one Horizon is better than another other than whether it is more or less viable in a changing wider context or landscape. The current H1 was once an H3 pattern of aspiration and vision in the past and the emerging H3 will become an H1 pattern in the future." (Fazey & Leicester 2022, p.5)

Each horizon can be associated with a certain mindset. Therefore, a Three Horizons exercise essentially becomes a dialogue between different perspectives and attitudes towards the future. The first horizon represents a “managerial” mindset, where the goal is to maintain the current system; the second aligns with an “entrepreneurial” mindset with the goal of seizing opportunities; and the third horizon is linked to a “visionary” perspective (Sharpe et al. 2016). Between these three perspectives (or voices), tensions as well as synergies may arise. Acknowledging these different attitudes towards the future may help to foster understanding and constructive dialogue (Sharpe et al. 2016).

Patterns of system transitions[edit]

In reality, transitions are rarely smooth. Lock-ins may keep the old system in place and a transition requires substantial effort. New H3 systems may emerge partially, and sometimes, transition is only visible in hindsight (Curry 2015). Therefore, in addition to the ideal-typical model, three common patterns of system transition have been developed based on the Three Horizons framework.

Source: Fazey & Leicester 2022.
  • Smooth transition: This is the ideal-typical model. Transition occurs as a managed and gradual process without any major shocks. In reality, this is rather rare, as dominant and powerful actors may suppress innovation and favor reliability and profit over sustainability. A smooth transition therefore requires adequate regulatory, governmental and institutional support (Fazey & Leicester 2022).
  • Capture and extension: In this archetype, H2 innovations get captured by the dominant H1 pattern, delaying transition. Existing systems are improved rather than transformed. While an extension of the current system can sometimes be useful to buy time, this archetype highlights the need to maintain the transformational intent and to be careful about incremental improvements being favored over actual transformation (Fazey & Leicester 2022).
  • Collapse and renewal: If resources keep being poured into the current system instead of being invested into creating a sustainable future, the dominant system may eventually collapse. This may open up space for a new system to emerge, but can also cause substantial damage. When e.g. species go extinct, this will be irreversible. Possibly, no transformation takes place and the old pattern is being rebuilt. Therefore, it is advisable to make sure that resources are available for renewing the system and that a range of alternatives are kept alive, rather than putting everything on one card (Fazey & Leicester 2022).
  • Investment bubble: This archetype is characterised by a steep increase in H2, followed by its collapse when it fails to meet expectations. This pattern may emerge if a “hype” occurs that is driven by perception rather than by actual outcomes. This may delay transition and cause undesirable effects (Fazey & Leicester 2022).

To manage transitions, Fazey & Leicester (2022) therefore recommend to maintain transformational intent, to keep the different archetypes in mind (which may occur in combination), to establish active modes of governance, and to actively build capacities for transformational stewardship.

Step by step[edit]

Material:

  • a print-out or drawing of the horizon’s timelines on a paper or board big enough for your model,
  • sticky notes or cards,
  • enough pens,
  • or use a digital board

Preparation:
All participants need to be familiarised with the framework. Further, the scope of the exercise needs to be clarified. This involves defining boundaries to the system of interest and setting an approximate time frame for investigation. In principle, the model can be used at any scale - from individuals to nations - but setting boundaries to define what is included and what is not is key to successfully applying the model (Fazey & Leicester 2022). The appropriate time frame will depend on the system you are looking at, for developments in technology maybe ten years are sufficient, but when considering social-ecological systems, the time frame will likely be multiple decades (Curry & Hodgson 2008).

Steps:

Source: Fazey & Leicester 2022.

Once all participants are familiarised with the framework and the scope of the exercise is clear, aspects of the individual horizons are discussed. Ideas can be written down on the sticky notes and attached to the respective horizon. To facilitate the discussion, it has proven useful to ask the participants some guiding questions. It is important that the horizons are not assessed in numbered order, but starting with the first horizon, then moving onto the third and eventually the second horizon (Sharpe et al. 2016):

  1. Examine the problems associated with H1 (business as usual): Why is it not viable in the future?
  2. Explore desirable futures and collect visions for H3.
  3. Highlight concrete examples of inspirational practices already happening in the present (”pockets of the future in the present”).
  4. Identify H2 innovations that occur in response to the shortcomings of H1.
  5. Discuss which features of the current dominant system (H1) should be maintained as parts of the future (H3).

In her introductory video to Three Horizons framework, Kate Raworth proposes some additional questions, that may be helpful to assess the different aspects of each horizon:

Guiding questions for building a Three Horizons model based on Raworth's video
Horizon Guiding Question Additional Aspects
1 What is dying and how can we help it to let go and leave well? What is business as usual?
How did we get there?
Why do we think it's failing?
How fast should it decline?
Is there something valuable about the old system that we want to keep?
3 What is being born and how can we help it to arrive well? What is the future we want? What would it look / feel like to be there?
What are seeds of that future already visible in the presence?
On whose work and values / cultures do they built up?
How to scale and spread those seeds?
What competing futures are different actors trying to bring about? Can we collaborate?
2 What is being disruptive and how can it be harnessed (+), not captured (-)? What is being disruptive (technological, economical, cultural, ecological, political etc.)?
Where are the roots?
H2- or H2+ ?
If you are a disruptive actor, what kind of guidance can you set for yourself to help influence H2+ or - , what allies will you seek, what actions can you take?

Further steps, depending on the goals and context of the project, may examine trade-offs and dilemmas, or focus on identifying actions to help facilitate the transition (Sharpe et al. 2016).

Strengths & Challenges[edit]

Combining current state analysis with Visioning and Backcasting, the Three Horizons model works with tracking the timeline of potential and necessary actions towards envisioned future goals in a structured way. The graphic is simple and can easily be explained to people who have not used it before. Since it links present activities with desired futures, it can be used to identify necessary actions for change, while distinguishing between innovations that are transformative and those that reinforce the current system in place (Sharpe et al. 2016). Viewing the horizons as lenses that can be changed may help to foster understanding between actors with different mindsets towards the future (Sharpe et al. 2016). Additionally, the framework can be adapted to different contexts and goals, as well as combined with other methods for more in-depth analyses.

To apply the model successfully in a workshop setting, skilled facilitation is needed to make sure that everyone understood the task and to navigate potential power imbalances (Hichert et al. 2022, Felardeau et al. 2019). Especially when working with marginalised communities, trust needs to be built first and local norms and priorities need to be respected (Felardeau et al. 2019). Another challenge is the choice of participants which will significantly influence the outcomes of the workshop. Participants may be chosen to represent diverse perspectives or to increase the potential for change being implemented by including e.g. community leaders and local change agents (Schaal et al. 2023). The choice of participants must also take into consideration the comfort levels of different participants and may be restricted by availability (Felardeau et al. 2019). Additionally, it can be challenging to narrow down the topic so that the model does not become too complex. Multiple futures will need separate models to create tangible action plans.

Normativity[edit]

The Three Horizons framework is not necessarily a scientific method, but rather a tool developed by practitioners (Hichert et al. 2022). It does not directly produce strategies and actions, such as e.g. backcasting does, and is therefore often combined with other approaches which should be carefully chosen and adapted to best suit the needs of the project. For example, Schaal et al. (2023) have highlighted that it can be challenging to integrate structural and political challenges, over which the participants may have little control, which is why the Three Horizons approach is sometimes preceded by a scenario approach that reflects key uncertainties (Felardeau et al. 2019).

Outlook[edit]

Future analysis approaches have evolved away from technocratic approaches towards focusing more on social and cultural aspects (Schultz 2012). Formerly dominated by the global North, there is now a shift towards decentralised, distributed and inclusive approaches that include diverse types of knowledge, as well as towards communities of practice (Hichert et al. 2022). As a part of participatory workshop settings and combined with other methods, the Three Horizons framework can help to structure the dialogue around desirable futures and how to get there.

Some Examples[edit]

Source: Fazey et al. 2020.
  • Fazey et al. (2022) used Three Horizons to explore how knowledge systems should change to support societal transformation with participants from both academia and practice. They identified key challenges of the current system, such as fragmented knowledge production in disconnected disciplines (H1), and what a new system should look like, e.g. it should be more collaborative and inclusive with more creative modes of knowledge production (H2). Then, they developed actions that need to be taken, such as the creation of safe spaces to experiment with new methods and ideas (H2). They highlight that the Three Horizons approach was useful to combine different kinds of knowledge, such as expertise, and anticipatory, normative and creative forms of knowledge.
  • Schaal et al. (2023) have used the Three Horizons framework to explore opportunities for biodiversity conservation with farming communities in South-Eastern Australia. Combining the framework with a storytelling approach in a two-day workshop with local stakeholders, they found that it was useful for fostering creativity and imagination.
  • Pereira et al. (2019) present the combination of novel visioning tools, including Three Horizons, to engage stakeholders to envision positive and inspiring narratives of the future. The approach is based upon so-called seeds, which are existing innovations that are still small, but serve as a source of inspiration. The SOGA (seeds of a good anthropocene) project collects such seeds in a database.
Source: Lundquist et al. 2017.
  • Lundquist et al. (2017) report on the outcomes of a five-day workshop organised by the Scenarios and Models Expert Group of the IPBES , where 73 participants from 31 countries developed global visions for human relationships with nature. They used a seeds-based approach as described above, in combination with World Cafés, Futures Wheels, and Three Horizons. In addition to developing a 3H model for every identified theme, they also focused on pathways for achieving the visions and compared the outcomes across topics and regions. They hired graphic illustrators to create visualisations of the envisioned futures.
  • Falardeau et al. (2019) have conducted a two-day scenario-planning workshop with Inuit people in the Canadian Arctic. After an extensive preparation phase in which they built trust und gained understanding of the social-ecological system, they decided to adapt the 3H framework using the additional element of “pockets of the past” to acknowledge the important role that the elderly play in the local culture. As local people have little control over some global drivers of change, they built scenarios based on critical uncertainties and then used the 3H approach to develop pathways to desirable futures.
  • Jiren et al. (2021) have used scenario planning and 3H in a workshop setting with locals, NGOs and government authorities in the Zambezi Region in Namibia. They developed scenarios and strategies for human-wildlife coexistence based on a social-ecological framework for ecosystem disservices and services (SEEDS).

Key Publications[edit]

References[edit]

  • Curry, Andrew. 2015. “Searching for systems: understanding Three Horizons." APF Compass, January, 11-13. https://www.triarchypress.net/uploads/1/4/0/0/14002490/curry-3hsystems-compass-01-15.pdf.
  • Curry, Andrew, and Anthony Hodgson. 2008. “Seeing in Multiple Horizons: Connecting Futures to Strategy.” Journal of Futures Studies 13 (1): 1-20. https://jfsdigital.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/131-A01.pdf.
  • Falardeau, Marianne, Ciara Raudsepp-Hearne, and Elena M. Bennett. 2018. “A Novel Approach for Co-producing Positive Scenarios That Explore Agency: Case Study From the Canadian Arctic.” Sustainability Science 14 (1): 205-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0620-z.
  • Fazey, Ioan, and Graham Leicester. 2022. “Archetypes of System Transition and Transformation: Six Lessons for Stewarding Change.” Energy Research & Social Science 91 (June): 102646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102646.
  • Fazey, Ioan, Niko Schäpke, Guido Caniglia, Anthony Hodgson, Ian Kendrick, Christopher Lyon, Glenn Page, et al. 2020. “Transforming Knowledge Systems for Life on Earth: Visions of Future Systems and How to Get There.” Energy Research & Social Science 70 (September): 101724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101724.
  • Hichert, Tanja, Reinette Biggs, and Alta De Vos. 2022. “Futures analysis.” In The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods for Social-Ecological Systems, edited by Reinette Biggs, Alta De Vos, Rika Preiser, Hayley Clements, Kristine Maciejewski, and Maja Schlüter, 148-62. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003021339-10.
  • Jiren, Tolera Senbeto, Maraja Riechers, Ruth Kansky, and Joern Fischer. 2021. “Participatory Scenario Planning to Facilitate Human-wildlife Coexistence.” Conservation Biology 35 (6): 1957-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13725.
  • Lundquist, C. J., Pereira, H. M., Alkemade, R., den Belder, E., Carvalho Ribeiro, S., Davies, K., Greenaway, A., Hauck, J., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S.,…Lindgren-Streicher, P. 2017. “Visions for nature and nature's contributions to people for the 21st century”. NIWA Science and Technology Series Report No. 83, NIWA, New Zealand. https://niwa.co.nz/sites/default/files/IPBES-Nature-Futures-report_2017.pdf.
  • Pereira, L., Bennett, E., Biggs, R., Mangnus, A., Norstrom, A. V., Peterson, G., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Sellberg, M. & Vervoort, J. 2019. "Seeding Change by Visioning Good Anthropocenes." Solutions Journal, 10(3), pp. 1-14. https://thesolutionsjournal.com/2019/08/19/seeding-change-visioning-good-anthropocenes/.
  • Schaal, Tamara, Michael Mitchell, Ben C. Scheele, Paul Ryan, and Jan Hanspach. 2023. “Using the Three Horizons Approach to Explore Pathways Towards Positive Futures for Agricultural Landscapes With Rich Biodiversity.” Sustainability Science 18 (3): 1271-89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01275-z.
  • Schultz, Wendy Lynn. 2012. “The History of Futures.” In The Future of Futures, edited by Andrew Curry, 3-7. Association of Professional Futurists.
  • Sharpe, Bill, Anthony Hodgson, Graham Leicester, Andrew Lyon, and Ioan Fazey. 2016. “Three Horizons: A Pathways Practice for Transformation.” Ecology and Society 21 (2). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-08388-210247.

Further Information[edit]

Websites

Videos

The author of this entry is Hannah Metke.