2020
DOI: 10.1111/rec.13220
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Thinking systemically about ecological interventions: what do system archetypes teach us?

Abstract: To address the need for more holistic approaches to ecological management and restoration, we examine ecosystem interventions through the lens of systems thinking and in reference to systems archetypes, as developed in relation to organizational management in the business world. Systems thinking is a holistic approach to analysis that focuses on how a system's constituent parts interrelate and how systems work over time and within the context of larger systems. Systems archetypes represent patterns of behavior… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
(62 reference statements)
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They help shift the analytical focus from simple behavioural correlations or a limited understanding of interactions between certain goals, to a generalised knowledge of recurring patterns, causes, and consequences across case studies (98). We analysed and interpreted SDG interactions through the lens of eight archetypes, which have been mentioned and frequently used in systems thinking (95,99,100): Fixes that Fail, Band-Aid Solutions (aka Shifting the Burden or Addiction), Eroding Ambitions (aka Eroding or Drifting Goals), Downplayed Problems (aka Growth and Underinvestment), Escalating Tensions (aka Escalation), Success to the Successful, Limits to Progress (aka Limits to Success or Growth), and Tragedy of the Commons. In conceptualising SDG interactions with systems archetypes, we sometimes modified their original names from systems science to better represent them and suit their new purpose in the SDG context.…”
Section: Adopting Systems Toolsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…They help shift the analytical focus from simple behavioural correlations or a limited understanding of interactions between certain goals, to a generalised knowledge of recurring patterns, causes, and consequences across case studies (98). We analysed and interpreted SDG interactions through the lens of eight archetypes, which have been mentioned and frequently used in systems thinking (95,99,100): Fixes that Fail, Band-Aid Solutions (aka Shifting the Burden or Addiction), Eroding Ambitions (aka Eroding or Drifting Goals), Downplayed Problems (aka Growth and Underinvestment), Escalating Tensions (aka Escalation), Success to the Successful, Limits to Progress (aka Limits to Success or Growth), and Tragedy of the Commons. In conceptualising SDG interactions with systems archetypes, we sometimes modified their original names from systems science to better represent them and suit their new purpose in the SDG context.…”
Section: Adopting Systems Toolsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, the design of the selected archetypes is theoretically rigorous as it is rooted in systems thinking and has been extensively applied in systems modelling. Originally introduced by Senge (95) in the seminal work, The Fifth Discipline, the archetypes have been further popularised through a range of studies (30,96,99,100). Second, the universality and comprehensiveness of these archetypes to represent the diversity of alternative interactions in complex general systems have been successfully tested in several empirical contexts (e.g., biodiversity (100), water (60), agriculture (59)).…”
Section: Adopting Systems Toolsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Restoration ecology has been both blessed and cursed with a proliferation of terminology and frameworks that together capture the many nuances and approaches people use to improve outcomes for biodiversity and people. Process‐based restoration bundles existing concepts and practices together, such that it is allied (sensu Gann et al 2019) with other forms of restoration and concepts such as social‐ecological systems and resilience thinking (Lake 2013; Walker 2020) that considers key leverage points in broader networks of human actors and natural processes (Hallett & Hobbs 2020). Process‐based restoration provides a necessary compliment to the shortcomings of structural restoration by acknowledging that flows, interactions, and relationships in nature are not only valuable in and of themselves, but that their recovery is worth assisting with “boots on the ground” efforts.…”
Section: Conclusion and Synthesismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Success in structural restoration often relies on “balancing a ledger” through which human intervention suppresses the “too many” species and increases the “too few” species. Which species are suppressed or increased, where, and how to do so are further points of philosophical, ethical, and economic discussion (Jackson et al 1995; Gann et al 2019; Hallett & Hobbs 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation