Skip to main content
Log in

Transformation for sustainability: a deep leverage points approach

  • Special Feature: Original Article
  • Leverage Points for Sustainability Transformations
  • Published:
Sustainability Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Change and transformation of human systems are increasingly seen as the fundamental solution space for treating the root causes of unsustainability. What does transformation of human systems for sustainability exactly mean and entail, and how to effectively transform human systems? This paper addresses these essential questions in a holistic, systems thinking approach following and extending the leverage points tool for systemic change proposed by Meadows (Thinking in Systems: a primer. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, 2008). The paper focuses on the often unquestioned, largely unconscious, systemic realm of mental models and human intent. It targets Meadows’ deepest leverage points of purpose and paradigm; beyond, it deals with worldview, core metaphor, and human thinking. The fundamental outcome of this conceptual study is that unsustainability roots in a cognitive illusion coupled to a lack of teleological thinking. Transformation needs us to see and reconceive the human–world bond through the systemic lens of dynamic inclusion, aliveness, purpose and value. Learning to think in terms of living systems, physical and mental, and substituting the iceberg metaphor-in-use in conventional systems thinking with a holistic metaphor of nested leverage points are the first transformation steps toward a new sustainability paradigm. Practical evidence and ecological content come from the transformative design discipline of biomimicry, which consciously turns to nature as the source of its conceptual system. The paper concludes that transformative practice for sustainability will gain momentum by braiding together systems thinking in practice and biomimicry thinking. In sum, this transdisciplinary approach opens up exciting research horizons in ontological, epistemological, methodological and teleological directions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

adapted from Capra (1983)

Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abson DJ, Fischer J, Leventon J et al (2017) Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46:30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur WB (2009) The nature of technology. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson G (1972) Steps to an ecology of mind. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister D, Tocke R, Dwyer J, Ritter S, Benyus JM (2014) Biomimicry resource handbook: a seedbank of best practices. CreateSpace Ind Pub Platform, United States

    Google Scholar 

  • Benyus JM (2002) Biomimicry: innovation inspired by nature. HarperCollins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Benyus JM (2014) A biomimicry primer. In: Baumeister D (ed) Biomimicry resource handbook: a seedbank of best practices. CreateSpace Ind Pub Platform, United States

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry T (2000) The great work: our way into the future. Broadway Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosch O, Maani K, Smith C (2007) Systems thinking—language of complexity for scientists and managers. In: Harrison S, Bosch A, Herbohn J (eds) Improving the triple bottom line returns from small-scale forestry. The University of Queensland, Gatton, pp 57–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Buller DJ (2002) Function and design revisited. In: Ariew A, Cummins R, Perlman M (eds) Functions—new essays in the philosophy of psychology and biology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 222–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Capra F (1983) The turning point—science, society, and the rising culture. Bantam Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Capra F, Luisi PL (2014) The systems view of life—a unifying vision. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceschin F, Gaziulusoy I (2016) Evolution of design for sustainability: from product design to design for system innovations and transition. Des Stud 47:118–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.09.002

    Google Scholar 

  • Crutzen P, Stoermer E (2000) The Anthropocene. IGBP Glob Change Newslett 41:17–18

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLuca D (2016) Re-aligning with nature—ecological thinking for radical transformation. White Cloud Press, Ashland Oregon

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicks H (2016) The philosophy of biomimicry. Philos Technol 29:223–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-015-0210-2

    Google Scholar 

  • Feola G (2015) Societal transformation in response to global environmental change: a review of emerging concepts. Ambio 44:376–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0582-z

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson M (1980) The aquarian conspiracy—personal and social transformation in the 1980s. Tarcher Inc., Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorentino C, MontanaHoyos C (2014) The emerging discipline of biomimicry as a paradigm shift towards design for resilience. Int J Design Objects 8:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer J, Riechers M (2019) A leverage points perspective on sustainability. People Nat 00:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.13

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasser H (2019) Toward robust foundations for sustainable well-being societies: learning to change by changing how we learn. In: Cook JW (ed) Sustainability, human well-being, and the future of education. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, pp 31–89

    Google Scholar 

  • González-Márquez I, Toledo VM (2020) Sustainability science: a paradigm in crisis? Sustainability 12:2802. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072802

    Google Scholar 

  • Göpel M (2016) The great mindshift—How a new economic paradigm and sustainability transformations go hand in hand. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman J (2013) The Shark’s paintbrush. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Henning BG (2016) From the anthropocene to the ecozoic. Philos Glob Clim Change. https://doi.org/10.1111/misp.12061

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin T (2018) The emerging transition design approach. DMA. https://doi.org/10.21606/dma.2017.210

    Google Scholar 

  • Ison RL (2016) Transforming nature-society relations through innovations in research praxis: a coevolutionary systems approach. In: Hubert B, Mathieu N (eds) Interdisciplinarités entre nature et Sociétés: colloque de cerisy. Peter Lang, Bern, pp 47–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Ison RL (2017) Transdisciplinarity as transformation—a systems thinking in practice perspective. In: Fam D, Palmer J, Mitchell C, Riedy C (eds) Transdisciplinary research and practice for sustainable outcomes. Routledge, London, pp 55–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Ison R (2018) Governing the human-environment relationship: systemic practice. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 33:114–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.05.009

    Google Scholar 

  • Ives CD, Freeth R, Fischer J (2020) Inside-out sustainability: the neglect of inner worlds. Ambio 49:208–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01187-w

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerneck A, Olsson L, Ness B et al (2011) Structuring sustainability science. Sustain Sci 6:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0117-x

    Google Scholar 

  • Kajikawa Y (2008) Research core and framework of sustainability science. Sustain Sci 3:215–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-008-0053-1

    Google Scholar 

  • Kates RW (2011) What kind of a science is sustainability science? PNAS 108(49):19449–19450. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1116097108

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim DH (1992) Systems archetypes I: diagnozing systemic issues and designing high-leverage interventions. Pegasus Communications Inc., Waltham

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim DH (1999) Introduction to Systems Thinking. Pegasus Communications, Waltham MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1996) The structure of scientific revolutions. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar S (2013) The ecozoic era—we are not in the anthropocene epoch, but entering into the ecozoic era. Resurgence 279:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Laininen E (2019) Transforming our worldview towards a sustainable future. In: Cook JW (ed) Sustainability, human well-being, and the future of education. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, pp 31–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff G, Johnson M (2003) Metaphors we live by. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Macy J, Brown MY (2014) Coming back to Life. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathews F (2011) Towards a deeper philosophy of biomimicry. Organ Environ 24:364–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026611425689

    Google Scholar 

  • Max-Neef M (2010) The world on a collision course and the need for a new economy. Ambio 39:200–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0028-1

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows DH (2008) Thinking in systems: a primer. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller TR (2013) Constructing sustainability science: emerging perspectives and research trajectories. Sustain Sci 8:279–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-012-0180-6

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D et al (2014) The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain Sci 9:239–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0224-6

    Google Scholar 

  • Monat JP, Gannon TF (2015) What is systems thinking? A review of selected literature plus recommendations. Am J Syst Sci 4:11–26. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ajss.20150401.02

    Google Scholar 

  • Naudé P (2018) Can we overcome the anthropocentricism bias in sustainability discourse? Afr J Bus Ethics 11:56–67. https://doi.org/10.15249/11-2-189

    Google Scholar 

  • Odum EP, Barrett GW (2005) Fundamentals of ecology, 5th edn. Thomson Brooks/Cole, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  • Purvis B, Mao Y, Robinson D (2019) Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins. Sustain Sci 14:681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramage M, Shipp K (2020) Systems thinkers, 2nd edn. The Open University, Milton Keynes

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse M (2002) Evolutionary biology and teleological thinking. In: Ariew A, Cummins R, Perlman M (eds) Functions—new essays in the philosophy of psychology and biology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 33–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell P (2002) From science to god. New World Library, Novato

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders EBN, Stappers PJ (2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-Design 4:5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidler R, Bawa KS (2016) Ecology. In: Adamson J, Gleason WA, Pellow DN (eds) Keywords for environmental studies. New York University Press, New York, pp 71–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge P, Scharmer CO, Jaworski J, Flowers BS (2004) Presence—human purpose and the field of the future. Crown Business, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Skene KR (2018) Circles, spirals, pyramids and cubes: why the circular economy cannot work. Sustain Sci 13:479–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0443-3

    Google Scholar 

  • Spangenberg JH (2011) Sustainability science: a review, an analysis an some empirical lessons. Environ Conserv 38:275–287. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000270

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffen W, Grinevald J, Crutzen P, McNeill J (2011) Review—the anthropocene: conceptual and historical perspectives. Phil Trans R Soc A 369:842–867. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0327

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J et al (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347:736. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Steffen W, Broadgate W, Deutsch L et al (2015) The trajectory of the anthropocene: the great acceleration. Anthrop Rev 2:81–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614564785

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffen W, Rockström J, Richardson K et al (2018) Trajectories of the earth system in the anthropocene. PNAS 115:8252–8259. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sterling S (2003) Whole systems thinking as a basis for paradigm change in education: explorations in the context of sustainability. PhD Thesis, Centre for Research in Education and the Environment, University of Bath

  • Sterling S (2010) Transformative learning and sustainability: sketching the conceptual ground. Learn Teach Higher Educ 5:17–33

    Google Scholar 

  • van Peursen CA (1974) The strategy of culture—a view of the changes taking place in our ways of thinking and living today. North-Holland Pub Company, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bertalanffy L (1968) General systems theory—foundations, development applications. George Braziller, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahl DC (2016) Designing regenerative cultures. Triarchy Press, Axminster

    Google Scholar 

  • WCED (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiek A, Lang DJ (2016) Transformational sustainability research methodology. In: Heinrichs H, Martens P, Michelsen G, Wiek A (eds) Sustainability science. Springer, Berlin, pp 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_3

    Google Scholar 

  • Zweers W (2000) Participating with nature—outline for an ecologization of our worldview. Int Books, Utrecht

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank Julia Leventon and David Abson for supporting me as editors of the Special Issue on Leverage Points for Sustainability Transformations as well as two anonymous reviewers for their critical and constructive comments which helped substantially improve the manuscript. Many thanks to Frederiek van Lienen for discussing and commenting on the article, to Luisa Burgers for carefully reading the manuscript, and to Paula Davelaar Burgers for her helpful suggestions and professional assistance in drawing the figures which are an essential part of the article. This work was not funded.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danielle Davelaar.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Handled by Julia Leventon, Leuphana University, Faculty of Sustainability, Germany.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Davelaar, D. Transformation for sustainability: a deep leverage points approach. Sustain Sci 16, 727–747 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00872-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00872-0

Keywords

Navigation