Environmental issues and security are critical to contemporary international development. As a component of nontraditional security, environmental security plays a vital role in fostering stability, prosperity, and sustainability for the future of a nation. Strategic planning and long-term policy formulation to address environmental challenges are integral to a country’s capacity for development. However, traditional methodologies and frameworks may be insufficient for effectively managing the risks and threats associated with nontraditional security. This study examines the interconnections between non-traditional security, particularly environmental security, and long-term strategic planning, while exploring the potential of alternative approaches to shape the future. Among these, the foresight approach has emerged as a promising tool for addressing the existing limitations. Techniques, such as scenario building and the Delphi method, are among the most widely used in future studies. Past experience with the application of foresight in Vietnam and other contexts may provide insights into its practical relevance. Furthermore, within the broader framework of nontraditional security, foresight has the potential to contribute to a safer and more resilient future by mitigating or preventing emerging risks and threats. Its strengths, including participatory planning and the dynamic nature of scenarios, should be explored further in the context of environmental strategy development and policymaking. A more rigorous and proactive application of foresight is recommended to address the security concerns regarding environmental policies and strategic planning processes.

1. [1] X. Y. Nguyen, D. P. Hoang, and X. K. Nguyen, “Preventing and responding to non-traditional security threats contributes to the sustainable development of Quang Ninh Province,” Public Security Publishing House, 2023.
2. [2] D. P. Hoang et al., “Management of nontraditional security for Vietnam’s sustainable development: An integrated approach,” Sustainability Science, Practice and Policy, Vol.18, No.1, pp. 696-709, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2111066
3. [3] Institute for Non-Traditional Security, “Annual report on non-traditional security trends in Southeast Asia,” INTS Research Center, 2023.
4. [4] Z. Lu, “Environmental security and sustainable development,” Social Sciences Academic Press, 1999.
5. [5] International Science Council and United Nations Environment Programme, “Strategic foresight for environment (climate security): Navigating new horizons a global foresight report on planetary health and human wellbeing,” 2025.
6. [6] International Science Council and United Nations Environment Programme, “Global climate security: Risks, responses, and resilience. ISC–UNEP Joint Report,” 2025.
7. [7] M. S. Mayer, “Using foresight for climate security: Three compelling reasons,” Knowledge for Policy, 2024.
8. [8] United Nations Development Programme, “Human development report 2007/2008: Fighting climate change – Human solidarity in a divided world,” 2008.
9. [9] United Nations Development Programme, “Strategic foresight for development: Lessons from Asia-Pacific,” 2020.
10. [10] United Nations Development Programme, UNDP Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific, “Foresight playbook: Overview of foresight tools,” 2022.
11. [11] National Assembly of Vietnam, “Law on Environmental Protection (No.55/2014/QH13),” National Political Publishing House, 2014.
12. [12] National Assembly of Vietnam, “Law on People’s Public Security (No.37/2018/QH14),” National Political Publishing House, 2018.
13. [13] D. H. Nguyen and N. S. Nguyen, “Environmental protection and sustainable development in Vietnam,” Vietnam Environment Association, 2010.
14. [14] Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, “Environmental protection strategy to 2020, vision to 2030,” 2017.
15. [15] S. A. Jacobsen and I. Hirvensalo, “Strategic foresight methods and public governance,” Springer, 2024.
16. [16] Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, “Updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) of Vietnam,” 2020.
17. [17] P. Schwartz, “The art of the long view: Planning for the future in an uncertain world,” Currency Doubleday, 2008.
18. [18] UK Government, “Foresight projects,” 2025.
19. [19] S. H. Jore, A. B. Egeli, and H. Thorenfeldt, “Strategic foresight for security: A NATO perspective,” Security Dialogue, Vol.49, No.5, pp. 392-409, 2018.
20. [20] S. H. Jore et al., “The contribution of foresight to improve long-term security planning,” Foresight, Vol.20, No.8, pp. 68-83, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-08-2017-0045
21. [21] NATO, “Strategic foresight analysis report,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 2017.
22. [22] G. Rizzo and A. J. Masys, “Handbook of foresight, strategy, and futures studies for defense and security,” Springer, 2030 (in press).
23. [23] A. Vuving, “Hindsight, insight, foresight: Thinking about security in the Indo-Pacific,” Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, 2020.
24. [24] M. Q. Nguyen, “Applying foresight methods in science and technology planning,” National Political Publishing House, 2013.
25. [25] G. Tegart, “Foresight for innovation systems in APEC economies,” APEC Center for Technology Foresight, 2001.
26. [26] V. T. Nguyen, “Technology foresight in Vietnam: Practice and potential,” Science and Technology Review, Vol.8, No.3, Article No.4552, 2001.
27. [27] T. H. Hoang, “Technology foresight: Theory, method, and applications in Vietnam,” National Political Publishing House, 2018 (in Vietnamese).
28. [28] United Nations Industrial Development Organization, “Final evaluation report: Technology foresight project in Vietnam,” 2012.
29. [29] United Nations Industrial Development Organization, “Policy advice to science, technology, and innovation strategy (STI) 2011–2020 and high technology law implementation: Final project report,” 2012.
30. [30] J. C. Glenn, E. Florescu, and The Millennium Project Team, “State of the future: 2050 edition,” The Millennium Project, 2025.
31. [31] J. C. Glenn, T. J. Gordon, and E. Florescu, “State of the future 20.0,” The Millennium Project, 2025.
32. [32] World Bank, “Vietnam: Pathway to a low-carbon economy,” World Bank Publications, 2022.
33. [33] D. M. Pham, “Building strategic foresight capacity in higher education institutions in Vietnam,” Asian J. of Public Policy, Vol.15, No.1, Article No.101119, 2022.
34. [34] V. T. Nguyen and T. H. Hoang, “Institutionalizing foresight in Vietnam’s national planning,” Vietnam J. of Policy Studies, Vol.5, No.1, pp. 33-47, 2021.
35. [35] S. L. Nguyen, “Foresight approach in environment policy and planning,” [Unpublished report], 2011.
36. [36] SITRA, “Transformation of the security environment: Overview of changes,” Foresight Review, No.3, 2024.
37. [37] K. Evans, “Participatory scenario planning in community forestry: A case from Bolivia and Vietnam,” Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), 2010.
38. [38] K. Evans, S. Velarde, R. Prieto, S. Rao, S. Sertzen, K. Davila, and W. De Jong, “Field guide to the future: Four ways for communities to think ahead,” CIFOR and ASB, 2008.
39. [39] R. H. Moss, “Scenarios as tools for international environmental assessments,” Global Environmental Change, Vol.20, No.2, pp. 357-370, 2010.
40. [40] D. P. Hoang et al., “Management of Nontraditional Security: A New Approach,” Int. J. of Engineering, Applied and Management Sciences Paradigms, Vol.54, No.1, pp.253-262, 2019.
41. [41] D. P. Hoang et al., “Policy-based water management challenges at the local level under non-traditional security perspective: The case of Hanoi City, Vietnam,” Qeios, 2023. https://doi.org/10.32388/CJB3VP
42. [42] D. P. Hoang, V. Q. Nguyen, and T. H. Le, “Non-traditional security threats and implications for policy,” National Political Publishing House, 2022.
43. [43] T. D. Nguyen et al., “Environmental forecasting methods in Vietnam’s strategic planning,” 2005.
44. [44] University of Construction, “Environmental security assessment in land use planning,” 2016.
45. [45] D. T. Ta et al., “Developing environmental security index for Vietnam,” 2017.