2.1. What is it that needs to change? Different perspectives on systems
2.1 What is it that needs to change? Different perspectives on systems
In the following, we provide an overview of the three most relevant systems research perspectives for sustainability issues: socio-ecological, socio-technical, and socio-economic systems research. The different aspects of systems research can be thought of as different maps with different applications: just as a navigator needs a detailed terrain map, a tourist needs a route map highlighting roads and intersections, and an urban planner needs a zoning map. Similarly, different perspectives in systems research respond in slightly different ways to the questions of what needs to change in systems or how systems need to change in order to achieve sustainability goals.
The perspectives also overlap: they paint a partly similar picture of the situation, and by borrowing elements from each other to broaden their own perspectives, they have also become closer to one another (for example, the more technological perspectives have been joined by a social perspective). No single readable “map” or perspective can capture everything essential at once, and only a diversity of perspectives can attempt to take into account, for example, the different scales at which people and the planet operate.
Following this overview, we will take a closer look at two of the most influential frameworks of thought on systems change and transformation: the leverage point theory and the MLP perspective.
In socio-ecological systems research (including most studies on resilience and planetary boundaries), the focus is particularly on the big picture: the links and interactions between human processes and those at the Earth and ecosystem level. Scientific research done from this perspective has provided insights, above all, into the alarming changes within and between different processes, such as climate change and biodiversity loss, and the mechanisms that influence them. Socio-ecological systems research also describes what is likely to happen to Earth systems and ecosystems if harmful human activities are not changed. The information produced is therefore a kind of a pathway analysis, identifying and naming the changes in the state and processes of systems – such as the carbon cycle – that produce or sustain problems. The information generated can also provide a set of parameters, that is, variables that should be changed (or, in many cases, actually stopped changing) in order to mitigate or prevent problems. Such parameters include, for example, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, the proportion of areas in their natural or relatively natural state of the Earth's total surface area, and the number of species that have already been lost or that are endangered.
Examples of processes that have a significant impact on the prospects for planetary well-being
The Earth should be understood as one big system, consisting of many smaller interconnected systems and their processes, as described in the course Systems and planetary well-being. It is therefore of the utmost importance to understand that none of the Earth's systems is actually independent, but each of them is influenced by many other systems, and influences many other systems.
The need for a sustainability transition has arisen from the powerful effects of human activity on Earth system processes. There are many processes that are essential for planetary well-being, and they could be classified in many different ways. One way is to look at the processes of abiotic and biotic nature related to energy and changes of matter (remembering that abiotic and biotic nature interact in many ways).
Processes related to the flow of energy
The various forms of life on Earth are virtually all dependent on the Sun's radiant energy, which plants, algae, and certain bacteria (producers) are able to convert into chemical energy. This process is called photosynthesis. It can be thought of as the single most important process contributing to planetary well-being: the energy consumed by animals also originates from photosynthesis. In the food chain, energy is lost in the form of heat produced by organisms. Before the chemical energy generated by photosynthesis is finally converted into thermal radiation, it runs the whole process we call life.
Humans use more than a third of all terrestrial photosynthesis output for their own use in the form of food, fuel wood and materials acquired from cultivations and other utilized land areas such as pastures and forests. Since a third of the output of photosynthesis goes into the root system of plants, humans actually use more than half of all the chemical energy available to organisms, which of course greatly affects the ability of all other organisms to survive (let alone thrive) and thus causes biodiversity loss.
Only a small fraction of the solar energy that reaches the Earth is converted into chemical energy during the process of photosynthesis. Most of the solar radiation that reaches the Earth is converted into thermal energy. This thermal energy heats the atmosphere and causes winds, rains, and ocean currents. These abiotic natural processes of energy flow determine conditions (such as temperatures and freshwater availability) across the globe and are therefore essential for creating suitable living conditions for all organisms. Human activity alters these conditions, in particular by affecting the atmosphere's ability to retain solar radiation energy (causing climate change). The effects are pervasive, ranging from changes in rainfall to increased extreme weather conditions, melting glaciers and ocean acidification.
Processes related to the matter cycling
All life also depends on the availability of certain substances, such as water and various nutrients. Humans influence the processes of matter cycling. For example, a reduction in water evaporation due to deforestation can cause droughts in other areas due to reduced rainfall. The melting of mountain glaciers will reduce the availability of fresh water in many areas important for agriculture. Humans also influence water movement and availability by damming rivers and pumping groundwater for their own use.
The cycling of nutrients essential for plant growth, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, in the Earth's system are also very important processes for planetary well-being. These processes are too broad to describe here, but in agriculture, for example, intensive tillage of soil and the use of artificial fertilizers undermine the soil's own nutrient cycling processes (such as nitrogen fixation and decomposition) and thus reduce the soil’s fertility. Nutrient run-off into water bodies and groundwater causes eutrophication and other adverse changes in these systems.
Addressing the symptoms is a superficial and short-sighted tactic unless the real causes of the “disease” are understood. That is why social sciences (and human sciences more broadly) provide the socio-ecological systems research with a perspective that could be thought of as research on the deeper causes of the disease. For example, knowing that climate change is caused by an increase in the amount of certain greenhouse gases in the atmosphere does not yet tell us why greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere. The answer that they are increasing in the atmosphere because of fossil energy use and land use is also very superficial, as it does not answer why fossil energy is being used, why forests are being cleared and why peatlands are being drained. To find the causes, systems research looks at those human processes and behaviors that lead to the identified harms. From a social science perspective, the problems lie in human systems. The characteristics of these socio-ecological systems – such as legislation, policies, infrastructures, and prevailing everyday practices and values – need to be changed in order to reduce the adverse environmental impacts of human activities to acceptable levels. In this course, we will delve deeper into these characteristics that need to be changed.
Socio-technical systems research is grounded in the study of technological transitions but oriented towards issues of sustainability transition. This research looks at the processes that produce the things that human communities need or value: energy, food, housing solutions, transport facilities and services, and so on. In particular, attention is paid to changes in the technologies and practices and to understanding the reasons behind these changes. Why and how did the transition from sailing boats to steamships happen, how did petrol cars become the norm in road transport, or what triggered Germany’s transition in energy production, called Energiewende? The interest is both in the major systems changes that have already taken place and in promoting future sustainability transition through a better understanding of the changes and the ways of change. Initially technology-driven socio-technical systems research has since then taken a more social perspective to study and explain transitions, and political, economic, and power-related factors are included in the research. However, the technological perspective determines this perspective's response to what needs to be changed: the intertwining of prevailing technologies and practices in production and consumption. We will explore this perspective further later.
In socio-economic systems research, the spotlight is on economic systems. This perspective’s roots are in the examinations of the industrial revolution by the Austrian economist and social scientist Karl Polanyi, which formed a base for his influential book called The Great Transformation (1944). The socio-economic perspective examines, in particular, the effects that capitalism, various market processes, and the marketization of social activities have on people's identities, values and lifestyles. Driven by a strong critique of the market economy, the answer to the “what needs to change” question is clear: we must change the economic system that is dependent on the pursuit of continuous growth and too poorly regulated.
A team play between three fields
Society is a rich weave of social systems and, from the planetary well-being perspective, a very important subject to examine. It is this vast complex of systems that largely determines what we as individuals do and in which ways we pursue well-being and other things we value. The weave of social systems has often been conceptualized in terms of three fields (often called sectors or circles): the state (public sector), the market (private sector) and human communities – and at the intersection of these, civil society. We will return to the actors in these fields in more detail in the fourth section of the course, called “Key drivers of the transition”, but at this point we discuss briefly why each of these three sectors need to act to change systems.
Avelino and Wittmayer (2016) have applied research on civil society to the analysis of actors and power relations in sustainability transition. In the model portrayed in the picture, civil society is a "mediating sector" that combines features of the other three sectors and links actors across different sectors (see section 4.1.1). Can you think of an example of a third sector organization that can be described as both public and private or both formal and informal? In which cases does civil society follow market-typical practices?
Tackling climate change, biodiversity loss and global inequalities will require contributions from all sectors. Given the scale and nature of the problems they face, systemic transitions in production and consumption cannot be achieved through local action or “consumerism” alone. First, changing the behavior of the whole consumer population is often very frictional. Changes in consumer behavior can be hindered by individuals' own values. Environmental issues can be perceived as insufficiently interesting, unmotivating, or lacking importance – or their existence can even be denied.
A change in prevailing values is necessary for transition, but even that is often not enough to change individuals' behavior significantly. One of the reasons for this is the gap between values and action: people often do not live according to their values. This is explained by a number of factors. Internal barriers can include a lack of knowledge or a strong desire for comfort and easy choices that make it difficult to change one's behavior and routines. As for external barriers, acting according to values may be complicated by the socio-material systems of society, whose characteristics determine what kinds of actions are profitable, easy, or possible.
Collective decisions can change exactly such features of the everyday environment: for example, bicycles and buses are an easier way to get around town than a car, lower room temperatures are rewarded with a significant difference in the final electricity bill, and nutritious vegetarian food is the first thing you see at the workplace canteen. Influencing the choice environment is also important in terms of equity. More sustainable choices can be hampered by concrete constraints (it may be impossible for a renter to change the heating system in their home), money or time (a person is not able to take the bus to work or to pick up their child from nursery after work) or other everyday constraints (finding enough time and skills to cook food in everyday life to make dietary changes and to make them in such a way that the whole family is satisfied). Sustainable consumption is easily reduced to the responsibility of the well-off in society, which does not address the deeper structural causes of problems and often ultimately does not even reduce environmental damage. At the same time, less well-off groups can feel guilty or marginalized by cultural divisions if the general climate becomes one of expecting responsible actions that are difficult or impossible for them.
Consumer-driven systemic transition is also highly unlikely and can only send insufficient signals to the market. For example, the significant increase in sales of plant proteins, which are easy substitutes for meat, has had little impact on meat consumption. As the purchasing decision is based on the product as a whole, it is sometimes impossible to support climate and other sustainability measures at the same time when making consumption choices. For example, electric cars and solar panels require critical materials, many of whose current production chains are of questionable sustainability (e.g., mining). At the same time, the rapid growth in demand for critical materials on the global market can easily allow companies that supply materials cheaply and quickly, regardless of the social responsibility of their production chain, to operate. For these reasons, a purely business-led transition to, for instance, a low-carbon society and production is also highly problematic from the perspective of social sustainability. Governments and international organizations are in a very important role when it comes to supervising the enforcing of human rights and legal compliance by businesses. Additionally, we can’t buy a product that has not yet been invented, even if it were important to support its invention.
On the other hand, waiting for the transition to happen first through states – or just by led by states – is too slow a way to go. Political systems in states are often slow and rigid, and changes take a long time – which is, on the other hand, one of the cornerstones of a democratic society (and in dictatorships decision-making can be much faster). Extensive and sufficiently binding (coercive) guidance from public sector may also exclude solutions that agile companies and inventive citizens’ groups could produce, if there are sufficient incentives and freedom to experiment in order to innovate and disseminate sustainable solutions.
Ultimately, we as individuals collectively reproduce and reform all the social systems that constrain and enable our choices. A challenge as huge as the sustainability transition will require team play between different sectors of society. In this course, we will also learn how those fields offer many different roles for each individual to play their part in building pathways to planetary well-being.
Would you like to comment something on this section? Voluntary.