Miriam Glendell, Matt Hare, Kerry A Waylen, Kerr Adams, Jean Léon Boucher, Zisis Gagkas, Alessandro Gimona, Simone Martino, Keith B Matthews, J Gareth Polhill
{"title":"支持转型变革的系统思维和建模:应用土地系统研究中社会生态系统跨学科分析的主要经验。","authors":"Miriam Glendell, Matt Hare, Kerry A Waylen, Kerr Adams, Jean Léon Boucher, Zisis Gagkas, Alessandro Gimona, Simone Martino, Keith B Matthews, J Gareth Polhill","doi":"10.1007/s43621-025-00987-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The evolving 'permacrisis' of compounding environmental and social challenges calls for transformative approaches to understanding and intervening in socio-ecological systems. Approaches to support systems thinking and understanding can be vital to achieving this goal. However, applying such systems thinking is often challenging, and we need to better reflect on the pros and cons of different approaches for building systems understanding and informing changes. In this paper, we first identify key attributes of systems thinking approaches from literature. We then use these as a framework for comparing and evaluating seven different systems thinking approaches, selected on the basis of our experience in applying them in support of the management and governance of various types of land systems. The seven approaches are: agent-based modelling, Bayesian belief networks, causal loop modelling, spatial multicriteria analysis, societal metabolic analyses, social network mapping and quantitative story telling. This framework has allowed us to appraise and reflect on our own experiences to identify the respective strengths and weaknesses of these different methodologies. We note that some of the ability to inform change depends as much on the context within which specific tools are used as the particular features of the tools themselves. Based on our appraisal, we conclude by suggesting six key recommendations that should be followed by others seeking to commission and use systems approaches, in order to enable them to support transformative change. We hope this may be useful to those working with systems approaches, since there is an urgent need for analytic efforts that can inform and enable transformative change. We also reiterate the call for sustained funding for long-term, standards-based evaluation of systems thinking approaches with respect to whether their use can demonstrate instrumental impacts leading to the kind of transformation the IPCC has called for, i.e. fundamental system change that goes beyond capacity development impacts such as network-building.</p>","PeriodicalId":34549,"journal":{"name":"Discover Sustainability","volume":"6 1","pages":"231"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11961505/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systems thinking and modelling to support transformative change: key lessons from inter-disciplinary analysis of socio-ecological systems in applied land systems research.\",\"authors\":\"Miriam Glendell, Matt Hare, Kerry A Waylen, Kerr Adams, Jean Léon Boucher, Zisis Gagkas, Alessandro Gimona, Simone Martino, Keith B Matthews, J Gareth Polhill\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43621-025-00987-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The evolving 'permacrisis' of compounding environmental and social challenges calls for transformative approaches to understanding and intervening in socio-ecological systems. Approaches to support systems thinking and understanding can be vital to achieving this goal. However, applying such systems thinking is often challenging, and we need to better reflect on the pros and cons of different approaches for building systems understanding and informing changes. In this paper, we first identify key attributes of systems thinking approaches from literature. We then use these as a framework for comparing and evaluating seven different systems thinking approaches, selected on the basis of our experience in applying them in support of the management and governance of various types of land systems. The seven approaches are: agent-based modelling, Bayesian belief networks, causal loop modelling, spatial multicriteria analysis, societal metabolic analyses, social network mapping and quantitative story telling. This framework has allowed us to appraise and reflect on our own experiences to identify the respective strengths and weaknesses of these different methodologies. We note that some of the ability to inform change depends as much on the context within which specific tools are used as the particular features of the tools themselves. Based on our appraisal, we conclude by suggesting six key recommendations that should be followed by others seeking to commission and use systems approaches, in order to enable them to support transformative change. We hope this may be useful to those working with systems approaches, since there is an urgent need for analytic efforts that can inform and enable transformative change. We also reiterate the call for sustained funding for long-term, standards-based evaluation of systems thinking approaches with respect to whether their use can demonstrate instrumental impacts leading to the kind of transformation the IPCC has called for, i.e. fundamental system change that goes beyond capacity development impacts such as network-building.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34549,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Discover Sustainability\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"231\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11961505/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Discover Sustainability\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00987-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discover Sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00987-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Systems thinking and modelling to support transformative change: key lessons from inter-disciplinary analysis of socio-ecological systems in applied land systems research.
The evolving 'permacrisis' of compounding environmental and social challenges calls for transformative approaches to understanding and intervening in socio-ecological systems. Approaches to support systems thinking and understanding can be vital to achieving this goal. However, applying such systems thinking is often challenging, and we need to better reflect on the pros and cons of different approaches for building systems understanding and informing changes. In this paper, we first identify key attributes of systems thinking approaches from literature. We then use these as a framework for comparing and evaluating seven different systems thinking approaches, selected on the basis of our experience in applying them in support of the management and governance of various types of land systems. The seven approaches are: agent-based modelling, Bayesian belief networks, causal loop modelling, spatial multicriteria analysis, societal metabolic analyses, social network mapping and quantitative story telling. This framework has allowed us to appraise and reflect on our own experiences to identify the respective strengths and weaknesses of these different methodologies. We note that some of the ability to inform change depends as much on the context within which specific tools are used as the particular features of the tools themselves. Based on our appraisal, we conclude by suggesting six key recommendations that should be followed by others seeking to commission and use systems approaches, in order to enable them to support transformative change. We hope this may be useful to those working with systems approaches, since there is an urgent need for analytic efforts that can inform and enable transformative change. We also reiterate the call for sustained funding for long-term, standards-based evaluation of systems thinking approaches with respect to whether their use can demonstrate instrumental impacts leading to the kind of transformation the IPCC has called for, i.e. fundamental system change that goes beyond capacity development impacts such as network-building.
期刊介绍:
Discover Sustainability is part of the Discover journal series committed to providing a streamlined submission process, rapid review and publication, and a high level of author service at every stage. It is a multi-disciplinary, open access, community-focussed journal publishing results from across all fields relevant to sustainability research.
We need more integrated approaches to social, environmental and technological systems to address some of the challenges to the sustainability of life on Earth. Discover Sustainability aims to support multi-disciplinary research and policy developments addressing all 17 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The journal is intended to help researchers, policy-makers and the general public understand how we can ensure the well-being of current and future generations within the limits of the natural world by sustaining planetary and human health. It will achieve this by publishing open access research from across all fields relevant to sustainability.
Submissions to Discover Sustainability should seek to challenge existing orthodoxies and practices and contribute to real-world change by taking a multi-disciplinary approach. They should also provide demonstrable solutions to the challenges of sustainability, as well as concrete suggestions for practical implementation, such as how the research can be operationalised and delivered within a wide socio-technical system.