ReviewDiscover sustainability2025
Systems thinking and modelling to support transformative change: key lessons from inter-disciplinary analysis of socio-ecological systems in applied land systems research.
Review in Discover sustainability, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How are African livestock farmers responding to climate variability and change? A systematic review.Environmental research letters : ERL [Web site] · 2026Review
- How will climate change influence phosphorus systems? An expert elicitation approach.Journal of environmental qualityArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.