Aligning Horizon Scanning Approaches with Differing Needs and Topics at the Science–Policy Interface on Chemicals, Waste, and Pollution

Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 60, pp. 20174–20181

Abstract

Knowledge on chemicals, waste, and pollution is shaped by geographical, financial, and disciplinary biases, which can cause blind spots for key emerging issues, including those relevant to low income countries and vulnerable communities. Scientists, practitioners, affected communities, and policy makers working in the areas of the newly established Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste, and Pollution (ISP-CWP) have interest in identifying issues of potential and emerging relevance that currently escape their attention. Horizon scanning offers a critical tool to identify such issues. Here, we provide guidance on aligning horizon scanning approaches with differing objectives, audiences, and thematic scopes. We structure this guidance around three core dimensions: the topics addressed ("what"), the actors involved ("who"), and the methods applied ("how"). Drawing on existing horizon scanning efforts and foresight practices, we outline inclusive and transparent approaches suitable for prospective assessments across diverse contexts. Emphasis is placed on correcting epistemic asymmetries, integrating local and indigenous knowledge, and ensuring legitimacy for global governance processes. Strategically designed horizon scanning can support anticipatory policy, promote equity, and help steer collective action toward a livable planet for all.

Authors 16

1. Gabriel Sigmund corresponding

   Wageningen University & Research

   Affiliation as printed

   Wageningen University and Research , , ,

2. Ricardo O. Barra

   University of Concepción

   Affiliation as printed

   University of Concepción , , ,

3. Michael G. Bertram

   Stockholm University · Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences · Monash University

   Affiliation as printed

   Fish, and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences , , ,

   Monash University , , ,

   Stockholm University , , ,

4. Miriam L. Diamond

   University of Toronto

   Affiliation as printed

   University of Toronto , , ,

5. Alex T. Ford

   University of Portsmouth

   Affiliation as printed

   University of Portsmouth , , ,

6. İpek İmamoğlu

   Middle East Technical University

   Affiliation as printed

   Middle East Technical University , , ,

7. Jinhui Li

   Tsinghua University

   Affiliation as printed

   Tsinghua University , , Haidian District , ,

8. Rainer Lohmann

   University of Rhode Island

   Affiliation as printed

   University of Rhode Island , , , ,

9. Andreas Schäffer Aachen

   RWTH Aachen University

   Affiliation as printed

   RWTH Aachen University , , ,

10. Martin Scheringer

    ETH Zurich

    Affiliation as printed

    ETH Zürich , , ,

11. Kateřina Šebková

    Masaryk University

    Affiliation as printed

    Masaryk University , , ,

12. Maria Clara V.M. Starling

    Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais

    Affiliation as printed

    Federal University of Minas Gerais , , ,

13. Noriyuki Suzuki

    National Institute for Environmental Studies

    Affiliation as printed

    National Institute for Environmental Studies , ,

14. Penny Vlahos

    University of Connecticut

    Affiliation as printed

    University of Connecticut , , , ,

15. Roland Weber
    Affiliation as printed

    POPs Environmental Consulting , ,

16. Bryan W. Brooks corresponding

    Baylor University

    Affiliation as printed

    Baylor University , , , ,