Report on the system mapping and leverage points for case studies. Report No D3.2 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 - PLANET4B

BETTER DECISIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY AND PEOPLE Horizon Europe Project PLANET4B REPORT ON THE SYSTEM MAPPING AND LEVERAGE POINTS FOR CASE STUDIES 2 PLANET4B receives funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101082212. This project is funded by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) under the UK government’s Horizon Europe funding guarantee. This work has received funding from the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI). Views and opinions are of those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union, European Commission, the government of the United Kingdom, or the government of Switzerland. The European Union, the European Commission, the government of the United Kingdom, or the government of Switzerland cannot be held responsible for them. iii Key deliverable information Deliverable number D3.2 Deliverable title Report on the system mapping and leverage points for case studies Task leader CzechGlobe – Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences (CG) Corresponding author Blanka Loučková Dissemination level Public Status Final Deliverable description This report compiles all case studies’ system and leverage points analysis and the transformative interventions applied in each case study to address these. Version Status Date Authors/Reviewers 0.1 Draft 02/12/2024 Authors: Blanka Loučková (CG); Elif Tugba Simsek (CG); Patricia Ofori-Amanfo (CG) 0.2 Draft 09/12/2024 Reviewer: Julia Leventon (CG) 0.3 Draft 11/12/2024 Reviewer: Simeon Vaňo (CG) 0.4 Draft 13/12/2024 Reviewer: Agnes Zolyomi (MLU) 1.0 Final 18/12/2024 Reviewer: Torsten Wähler (MLU) 1.1 Draft 25/10/2025 Authors: Agnes Zolyomi (MLU), Geraldine Brown (CU), Amelie Dakoure (CU), Alex Franklin (CU) 1.1 Final 31/10/2025 Reviewer: Blanka Loučková (CG) 1.1 Final 21/11/2025 Reviewer: Edit Hunyadi (MLU) Project acronym PLANET4B Project title understanding Plural values, intersectionality, Leverage points, Attitudes, Norms, behaviour and social lEarning in Transformation for Biodiversity decision making Starting date 01st November 2022 Duration 36 months Website https://planet4b.eu/ Project coordination and scientific lead team Ilkhom Soliev; Alex Franklin; Agnes Zolyomi; Torsten Wähler iv Contributors to action/intervention directly leading to this deliverable David N. Barton (NINA); Lindy Binder (CU); Marta Bonetti (UNIPI); Yennie K. Bredin (NINA); Maryna Bykova (CGE); Rafal Chudy (NINA); Kármen Czett (ESSRG); Helene Figari (NINA); Robert Home (FiBL); Cristina Y. A. Inoue (RU); Berit Junker-Köhler (NINA); Sandra Karner (IFZ); Eszter Kelemen (ESSRG); Borbála Lipka (ESSRG); Geeta Ludhra (DC); Subash Ludhra (DC); Mariana Matoso (CGE); Vinícius Mendes (RU); Pedro Navarro Gambín (UNIPI); György Pataki (ESSRG); Ghezal Sabir (FiBL); Zafar Saydaliev (CGE); Barbara Smith (CU); Ilkhom Soliev (MLU); David Steinwender (IFZ); Lina Tennhardt (FiBL); Anita Thaler (IFZ); Matteo Villa (UNIPI); Torsten Wähler (MLU) Recommended citation Loučková, B., Simsek, E., Ofori-Amanfo, P., Zolyomi, A., Brown, G., Dakoure, A. and Franklin, A. (2025). Report on the system mapping and leverage points for case studies. Report No D3.2 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15479511 Rights and license This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The Creative Commons Attribution license allows re-distribution and re-use of a licensed work on the condition that the creator is appropriately credited. Read more. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all contributors for their time and efforts in supporting Task 3.2 activities related to the completion of this report. Special thanks are extended to the case study leaders for conducting workshops with their learning communities and stakeholder boards. v List of abbreviations and acronyms Acronym Definition CAP Common Agricultural Policy CG CzechGlobe – Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences CSRD Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive DC DADIMA'S CIC ESG Environmental, Social, and Governance ESRS E4 European Sustainability Reporting Standards ESSRG Environmental Social Science Research Group EU European Union EUDR EU Deforestation Regulation FiBL Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FPIC Free, Prior, and Informed Consent FUG Forum Urban Gardening GRI Global Reporting Initiative GVC Global value chain IFZ Interdisciplinary Research Centre for Technology, Work and Culture IPBES Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services IPLC Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities LC Learning Communities LP Leverage Points MLU Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg NINA Norwegian Institute for Nature Research PLANET4B understanding Plural values, intersectionality, Leverage points, Attitudes, Norms, behaviour and social lEarning in Transformation for Biodiversity decision making RU Radboud University SB Stakeholder Board SM System Mapping TNFD Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures UNEP-WCMC UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre UNIPI University of Pisa WP Work Package WS Workshop 6 Table of Contents Key deliverable information .............................................................................................. iii Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... iv List of abbreviations and acronyms .................................................................................... v Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... 6 Executive summary ............................................................................................................ 7 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Conceptual background – the importance of system mapping and leverage points in transformative process .............................................................................................................. 8 1.2 Main aim of task T3.2, linkages to other tasks in the project ............................................... 10 2 Methodological approach ............................................................................................. 13 2.1. Intensive (place-based) case studies ................................................................................... 14 2.2. Extensive (sector-based) case studies ................................................................................. 18 2.3 Impact assessment of cases ................................................................................................. 19 3 Results .......................................................................................................................... 22 3.1 System mapping – intensive case studies ............................................................................ 22 3.2. System mapping – extensive case studies ........................................................................... 33 3.3 Transformative interventions and leverage points in intensive case studies ........................ 48 3.4 Transformative interventions and leverage points in extensive case studies ....................... 58 3.5 Results of the impact assessment ........................................................................................ 70 4 Discussion of findings .................................................................................................... 85 4.1. Reflection on system properties: insights from cases ......................................................... 86 4.2. Reflection on transformative interventions and leverage points: insights from cases ......... 93 4.3. Comparison of tasks T1.7 and T3.2 ..................................................................................... 97 4.4. Understanding impacts in PLANET4B .................................................................................. 98 4.5. Limitations of the work .................................................................................................... 100 5 Conclusion and outlook ............................................................................................... 101 References ..................................................................................................................... 104 Statement on data availability ....................................................................................... 106 Statement on ethics ....................................................................................................... 106 Annex ............................................................................................................................ 107 Annex 1: Description of intensive case studies ........................................................................ 107 Annex 2: Description of extensive case studies ....................................................................... 109 Annex 3: Workshop protocol for intensive case studies .......................................................... 112 Annex 4: Workshop protocols for extensive case studies ........................................................ 125 7 Executive summary • This report presents the findings from the analysis of system mapping and leverage points across all case studies within the PLANET4B project, aiming at enhancing biodiversity decision-making processes. • Participatory workshops engaged diverse stakeholders, facilitating collaborative dialogue to identify key systems and leverage points and enabling transformative interventions tailored to specific contexts. • Identified leverage points and interventions have shaped “the narrative of change” in this report, offering insights into potential future transformative change. • The findings highlight that targeting deeper leverage points – such as intent, design, and processes – may facilitate shifting societal values towards prioritising biodiversity over short-term gains. • Community engagement and knowledge sharing were identified as essential, emphasising the importance of inclusive dialogue, which fosters commitment to sustainable practices among diverse stakeholders. • Additionally, this report provides an overview of the PLANET4B case studies’ impacts. 1 Introduction This report summarises the results of system mapping and leverage points along with the impact assessment from all case studies conducted within the PLANET4B project, which aims to foster transformative change in biodiversity decision-making. It begins with an introduction to the PLANET4B project, highlighting the importance of concepts of system mapping and leverage points in driving this transformative progress. The methodology section details the approach taken in both intensive and extensive case studies to assess interventions that can prompt profound shifts in societal attitudes and behaviours prioritising sustainability and biodiversity. It also describes the methodology of the impact assessment of the PLANET4B case studies. The results section presents findings from the system mapping, identifying core systems and factors affecting each case study, as well as transformative interventions and leverage points that cater to these fundamental changes in mindset and values. The discussion compares the system properties and leverage points across cases, emphasising common themes and the potential for generating substantial progress towards resilience and social equity. An additional section showcases the cumulative impacts of the case studies. Finally, the conclusion summarises key insights and provides recommendations for future action, while the annexes offer supplementary materials to support the report's content. 8 1.1 Conceptual background – the importance of system mapping and leverage points in transformative process Systems mapping The challenges of sustainability facing our planet are deeply complex and intertwined, far beyond simple solutions. Understanding and effectively addressing these challenges necessitates a comprehensive and holistic "systems" approach, which is still absent from most mainstream strategies used by various sectors such as science, government, business, and education. The PLANET4B project adopts a transdisciplinary system thinking approach, which enables the identification of leverage points – key positions within a system where targeted interventions can catalyse meaningful transformation. Using Donella Meadows’ (1999) foundational work on leverage points and subsequent expansions by other scholars, this section briefly discusses how systems thinking, combined with leverage points analysis, can foster holistic, sustainable transformations. Meadows, in her work (2008), described a system as "a set of things – people, cells, molecules, or whatever – interconnected in such a way that they produce their own pattern of time." (p. 2). This highlights that there are no isolated systems; all systems can be influenced, driven, or constrained by external forces. Thus, from a systems thinking perspective, solving problems involves not only a deep understanding of each component within a system but also an insight into how the interactions between these parts can influence outcomes or behaviours (Meadows, 2008). System thinking tools like onion diagrams have proven effective in identifying influencing factors at different levels within a system (e.g. Bothma, Lloyd, & Khapova, 2015; Shpigel, 2016) and have been utilised in various contexts, including communitybased participatory research, education, and public health. These levels form layers around the subject akin to the layers of an onion, hence the metaphor. The approach involves peeling back these layers from the inside out to reveal factors and connections between them. This process begins by identifying barriers and enablers as experienced by individuals (individual actors or a group of actors), such as farmers, and then 'zooming out' to uncover deeper underlying motives and factors. This method provides a comprehensive view of how elements are interlinked within a system, offering valuable insights for addressing complex issues. The use of systems thinking tools has also extended into community-based participatory research, offering a broad perspective to describe complex adaptive systems. Most importantly, systems thinking tools have played a pivotal role in visualising system structures, patterns, or feedback loops, and they have helped capture the complexity of successful interventions by depicting interrelated elements within the system (BeLue et al., 2012). Leverage points and the adaptations of the framework Leverage points are one of the systems-oriented framings that represent strategic places within a complex system where a small shift can lead to significant changes. Identifying and targeting key leverage points can prompt essential changes to prioritise biodiversity, while also ensuring social justice and equity. Based on system properties, Meadows (1999) originally outlined a series of twelve points to intervene in a system 9 to create change. The core argument is that each of these twelve points create change at a different ‘depth’ of leverage. Shallow leverage points, like parameters and material stocks, are easier to alter but produce limited systemic impact. Conversely, deeper leverage points, such as the goals, paradigms, and principles of a system, hold greater transformative potential but are more challenging to change. Understanding these leverage points enables researchers, stakeholders, and policy makers to design interventions offering the possibility for sustainable change rather than temporary fixes. Figure 1. Meadows’ 12-leverage points framework aggregated into four broad categories of system characteristics for targeted interventions, ranging from shallowest to deepest: parameters, feedback, design, and intent (Source: Abson et al., 2017). Conceptually, Abson et al. (2017) aggregated Meadows’ twelve leverage points into four broad types of system characteristics (Fig.1). Listed from shallowest to deepest, these are parameters, feedback, design and intent. Each of these characteristics is connected to various leverage points where specific interventions can be targeted. As mentioned earlier, the ‘shallow’ leverage points are places where interventions can be relatively easy to implement and are tangible but have minimal impact on the overall functioning of the system. For instance, “parameters”, or the characteristics of a system that can be modified (such as tax rates, incentives, or resource flows), and “feedback” mechanisms, which indicate internal dynamics and responses, fall into shallow leverage points. In contrast, deeper leverage points include “design,” which pertains to the structure of information flows and self-organisation, and “intent,” encompassing the system’s values, norms, and ultimate purpose. 16 key information on an A4 sheet, including who instigated the intervention and who participated in it, using concise bullet points for clarity. After this initial discussion, participants were given four A4 sheets, each labelled as one of the leverage points: materials, processes, design, and intent. The group collaborated to delineate how the selected intervention targeted each leverage point, noting also leverage points that were not applicable. The name of the intervention was recorded on the bottom right of each sheet to maintain clarity. Participants then arranged the identified leverage points on a table or wall in the order in which they believed the changes would occur, thus outlining their narrative of change. A final A4 sheet was then added to describe the overall narrative of change, characterising the transformation resulting from the intervention as delineated in the leverage points. A similar process was done for each of the selected interventions. The session concluded with a debriefing, during which the facilitator summarised the narratives of change created by the participants, allowing them to correct any misinterpretations. For more detailed information on Workshop 2, see Annex 3 Workshop protocols (Methodology guide for intensive case studies). It is important to emphasise that for purposes of this report (Report on system mapping and leverage points) only outcomes from Workshop 1 (systems mapping) and Workshop 2 (Leverage points) were used. Results from Workshop 3 (Indicators of change) and 4 (Broader change) will feed into other project tasks (Tasks in WP4 on policy). Workshop 3 (Indicators of change) In the third workshop, participants identified and developed indicators of change by building on the systems maps from Workshop 1 and the narratives of change from Workshop 2. This process aimed to establish a set of indicators to measure the success and impacts of interventions and monitor desired changes in the case study systems. The workshop began with an introduction where the facilitator explained the rationale behind the session, followed by a brief recap of the system onion diagram and the narratives of change to provide context for the day's activities. Participants were then introduced to the concepts of indicators and monitoring using a short presentation (provided by the CG research team). Equipped with templates of the narratives of change, participants discussed and selected one specific change to focus on. They wrote this change at the top of the A4 paper and brainstormed indicators (quantitative or qualitative) to measure it (e.g. a percentage increase in ethnic minority communities engaging with nature). Participants subsequently discussed the purpose of these indicators, noting why they are necessary and useful. They also considered how data would be collected for each indicator (e.g. surveys, interviews, focus groups) and determined the frequency of data collection, such as quarterly or annually. Subsequently, they revisited the systems map to identify potential obstacles or challenges within the system that might affect the indicators’ effectiveness or validity and then returned to the narrative templates to select another desired change and briefly repeated the previous steps for indicators and data collection strategies. The workshop concluded with a facilitator-led review of the selected indicators. Participants assessed whether each indicator met the criteria of a good indicator as outlined in the final presentation slide, making any necessary adjustments based on group 17 feedback. For more detailed information on Workshop 3 see Annex 3 Workshop protocols (Methodology guide for intensive case studies). Outcomes from Workshop 3 (Indicators of change) will be used in later stages of project to measure impacts of interventions in project. Workshop 4 (Barriers and opportunities for broader change) In the last workshop, participants focused on identifying barriers and opportunities for broader impact arising from interventions beyond the initial systems' boundaries. This session aimed to explore ways to enhance the effectiveness of interventions applied through specific leverage points, as identified in previous workshops. The workshop commenced with the facilitator introducing this exercise and revisiting the systems map (onion diagram from WS1) along with leverage points and narratives of change. These materials were displayed in a manner visible to all participants. An example was provided through a brief presentation to clarify the exercise objectives and methodology. Participants began by selecting the first intervention from WS1 and WS2, writing it on a post-it note, and placing it in the relevant system layer on their maps. They then explored potential broader impacts, opportunities, and barriers by addressing a series of questions: • Broader Impacts: Participants described potential broader impacts of the intervention in their case, recording these on yellow post-its. These were placed strategically on the systems map, with more detailed descriptions written on A4 paper. • Affected Systems: They identified other systems or entities potentially impacted by the initial intervention, tapping into “neighbouring” systems to extend the systems map. These were noted on blue post-its and positioned appropriately on the map, with further elaboration provided on A4 paper if relevant. • Opportunities: Participants identified factors, actors, or processes facilitating broader impacts, recording these opportunities on green post-its. These were added to the systems map with additional notes on A4 paper if necessary. • Barriers: Similarly, they identified barriers hindering broader changes, wrote them on pink post-its and placed them within the systems map, using A4 paper for detailed descriptions if appropriate. This process was repeated for up to three key interventions, ensuring post-its were used to maintain clarity and organisation. Participants engaged in discussions to refine the identified impacts, barriers, and opportunities, highlighting the most prominent ones. The workshop concluded with a group debriefing session, where participants reflected on the results and considered additional insights or questions that arose from the exercise. This structured exploration provided a comprehensive understanding of the broader impacts of interventions, helping to inform strategies that maximise positive outcomes and address potential challenges. For more detailed information on Workshop 4 see Annex 3 Workshop protocols (Methodology guide for intensive case studies). 18 The outcomes obtained from Workshop 4 will be used in later stages of project PLANET4B for creating 5 roadmaps for sectoral system changes and for 5 sectoral pathways upscaled of EU and global context. 2.2. Extensive (sector-based) case studies The methodology designed for intensive (place-based cases) was adapted and tailored specifically for extensive sector-based cases. The primary distinctions between intensive and extensive cases lay in the number of exercises conducted and the method of execution of these exercises. For extensive sector-based cases, participants were required to undertake three key exercises: • Exercise on Leverage Points: to identify the leverage points within the system that can be utilised to influence change • Exercise on Indicators: to determine the indicators necessary to measure the impact and success of the interventions • Exercise on Broader Impact: to explore the potential wider effects of the interventions beyond the initial scope While systems mapping, including the development of an onion diagram, was mandatory for intensive cases, it was optional for extensive ones. This distinction arose because accurately capturing all elements and interactions in extensive cases proved difficult, given the numerous actors, transactions, and regulations involved, such as in the complex global financial system examined in the Sustainable Investment Behaviour case study led by NINA. However, extensive case studies’ leads may have chosen to undertake the systems mapping exercise as it could facilitate the subsequent exercises. In terms of execution, leads of extensive cases and their advisory boards convened in two online or offline workshops. Before these workshops were conducted, the leaders of extensive cases completed the exercises on leverage points, indicators, and broader impact independently by themselves and then presented the outputs to stakeholders during workshops. This form was selected due to the potential limitations posed by a small group of participants (advisory group members). The workshops then served as a platform to discuss and review the outputs, incorporating feedback and insights from the advisory board. For more detailed information on workshops in extensive case studies see Annex 4 Workshop protocols (Methodology guide for extensive case studies). Descriptive analysis of the qualitative material collected from the various case studies was conducted. This involved synthesising information and insights gathered during participatory workshops, where stakeholders and case study leaders collaboratively engaged in system mapping and identifying leverage points. By examining the relationships, the analysis highlighted key factors influencing biodiversity decisionmaking, drawing connections between interventions and their potential impacts. 19 Table 2. Dates of workshops – extensive cases. Case study WS1: System mapping WS2: Leverage Points WS3: Monitoring and Strategy WS4: Barriers and Opportunities for Broader Change Agro-biodiversity management in Hungary (ESSRG) 24.06.2024 24.06.2024 31.10.2024 31.10.2024 Trade & GVCs of soy/beef from Brazil to the EU/Netherlands (RU) 25.06.2024 (Portuguese) 28.06.2024 (English) 25.06.2024 (Portuguese) 28.06.2024 (English) 25.06.2024 (Portuguese) 28.06.2024 (English) 25.06.2024 (Portuguese) 28.06.2024 (English) “From ego-system to eco-system” in fashion in Italy (UNIPI) November 2023, March 2024, Sustainable investment behaviour GlobalEU-Norway (NINA) 1.11. 2023 4.10.2024 Environmental awareness in Education in Hungary (ESSRG) 25.04.2024 13.05.2024 25.04.2024 13.05.2024 24.09.2024 04.11.2024 24.09.2024 04.11.2024 Agriculture and migration in the EU (FiBL) October 2024, November 2024 2.3 Impact assessment of cases (Agnes Zolyomi, Geraldine Brown, Amelie Dakoure and Alex Franklin) This section introduces the impact assessment framework developed to complement the system mapping and leverage points analysis. While Sections 2.1 and 2.2 identify where change occurs within systems and how interventions activate leverage points, the impact assessment focuses on what kinds of change were actually observed across social, institutional, and biodiversity dimensions. It translates the narrative of change emerging from case studies into a structured evidence base, capturing both immediate and emerging outcomes. The section therefore connects the qualitative insights of systems mapping with the evaluative dimensions of transformation, providing a bridge between interventions and their broader societal and policy significance within the overall PLANET4B learning process. The impacts described in relation to the impact assessment of cases are drawn from the systematic coding and validation process, which aims to categorise impacts across impact types and levels, rather than the detailed narrative descriptions of impacts provided within each case study’s narrative. 20 Creating the database template To assess impacts across the eleven PLANET4B case studies, we adopted a methodology grounded in contemporary research impact and transformation literature, recognising that impacts are multi-dimensional, relational, and often unfold over extended timescales. Rather than viewing impact as a linear transfer from research to decision-making, we understood change as iterative and distributed across policy arenas, practice settings, communities, and cultural domains (Bozeman & Sarewitz, 2011). Aligning with recent biodiversity impact scholarship emphasising the importance of relational values, emotional attachment, and social meaning-making in shaping action (Zolyomi et al., 2023), we moved beyond examining only formal policy uptake to include impacts on everyday practices, governance processes, public narratives, knowledge cultures, and value-based relationships with biodiversity. Accordingly, we created an online database template where impact categories were identified drawing on Nutley et al.’s (2007) typology, and Edwards and Meagher’s (2020) refinements, including categories of instrumental impacts (changes in policy, strategy, and management), conceptual impacts (shifts in understandings and problem framings), capacity-building (skills, organisational learning, and network strengthening), enduring connectivity (sustained collaborations and knowledge exchange relationships), and cultural/attitudinal change (shifts in norms, identities, care and shared narratives). To capture the depth and locus of change, we mapped impacts across PLANET4B’s theoretical framework’s levels (interpersonal, intrapersonal and institutional) aligned with O’Brien’s (2018) three spheres of transformation - the personal (meanings, identities, values), the political (governance, institutional arrangements), and the practical (behaviours, routines and implementation) - and assessed their positioning along leverage points ranging from shallow system adjustments to deep shifts in system goals and paradigms (Meadows, 1999; Abson et al., 2017). Impacts were also coded as social and/or biodiversityrelated, by intersectionality dimension, and categorised by sectoral domain using the markers of: economy (E), public policy (PP), society, culture and creativity (SCC), health and welfare (HW), environment (EN), and practitioners and services (PS). To understand conditions shaping outcomes, we assessed enabling and hindering factors, such as institutional fragmentation, policy coherence, funding, engagement breadth, and knowledge brokerage capacity, drawing on Lenti et al. (2023) and Zolyomi et al. (2024). Finally, we coded each case study’s contribution to the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), allowing cross-case comparison of where impacts clustered. This integrated methodology enabled a practice-sensitive understanding of how biodiversity research generates change, making visible not only policy effects but also the cultural, relational, and structural shifts required for longer-term transformation. Populating the database To operationalise this framework, impacts were identified and coded through a structured process drawing on various project documents. Materials generated within the case studies themselves, including case factsheets, intervention documentation, case study dialogues, and reflective narratives produced by partners, were assessed 21 and coded according to the categories noted above. Impact-focused meetings were further organised with case study teams to enable the research team to discuss changes with those directly implementing or affected by the interventions, ensuring that interpretations remained grounded in lived experience. Additional sources provided supplementary contextual and corroborating evidence. These included project-level deliverables (D1.5, D1.6, D1.7, D2.2, D3.1, D3.2), internal reporting streams (Communication, Dissemination and Exploitation (CDE) reporting, mid-term reviews, and periodic reporting), and other documentation generated throughout the project lifecycle. While these materials did not directly address impacts, they were particularly useful in tracing changes at organisational, network or governance levels, and for identifying slower-forming or system-level effects. All identified impacts were then coded into the impact database, using the predefined categories on type, sphere, leverage depth, sectoral domain, enabling/hindering factors, and contribution to the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030 and relevant SDGs. This coding was iterative and reflexive: impacts frequently spanned multiple dimensions, and the coding framework allowed such complexity rather than forcing reduction to single categories. Validation of coding and interpretation To ensure the robustness and credibility of the coding, the database underwent a participatory validation process with case study partners. Two validation workshops were organised: the first (8 May 2025) with the five intensive case studies, where closer collaboration throughout the project enabled more detailed reflection on pathways of change; and the second (12 June 2025) with the six extensive case studies, where impacts were more diffuse and often embedded in broader institutional or value chain contexts. In each workshop, partners reviewed the coded impacts and collectively discussed three questions: (1) Does the current coding accurately reflect the changes observed in your context? (2) Are there additional or overlooked impacts that should be included? (3) What concrete examples or documented evidence support or refine the listed impacts? These discussions led to the clarification of impact descriptions, the addition of new instances of change (particularly cultural and capacity-building impacts), and the strengthening of evidence links. Through this iterative and dialogical process, the final database reflects not only analytical rigour, but also the situated knowledge and lived experience of those directly engaged in designing and implementing the interventions. To further assess impacts, we have also used the additional deliverable of PLANET4B (D3.3 – Compendium of 11 Transformative Change Stories) for our analysis to provide a more holistic picture of the overall outcomes and impacts of PLANET4B’s case studies. 22 3 Results 3.1 System mapping – intensive case studies This subchapter explores the systems of each intensive place-based case study, outlining the factors that impact the core system. Each case study begins with a brief description of its focus, followed by the identification of the core system. Next, the key components influencing the case system are identified and briefly described. Some case studies offer a detailed differentiation between direct and distal factors based on their level of influence. Each case study section concludes with an overview of the main relationships among these factors within the system. The format employed in this subchapter is more structured and less narrative, facilitating a clearer presentation of the complex relationships within each system. This approach enhances comprehension by breaking down complex systems into components, providing insights into the interconnected dynamics that drive systemic change. Nature recreation in Oslo, Norway (OOF/NINA) This case study focuses on improving access to outdoor nature recreation for children with disabilities in the Greater Oslo area. Core system: Access to positive outdoor nature recreation experiences for children with disabilities. System's factors (components): Children with disabilities: the target group, whose needs and preferences shape the system. The diversity within this group (age, type of disability) is a crucial consideration. Outdoor recreation spaces: the natural environment (forests, parks, etc.) providing opportunities for recreation. The quality, accessibility, and biodiversity of these spaces are key factors. Stakeholders: various actors who influence access and experiences: • Parents, schools and educators: their knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers significantly affect children's participation in outdoor nature recreation. • Organisations: voluntary outdoor nature recreation organisations and health organisations play crucial roles in providing organised activities in nature and facilitating access to outdoor nature recreation. • Municipalities and national government: policy decisions on land use planning and resource allocation significantly impact availability, physical design, and access to outdoor nature recreation areas, e.g. by safeguarding blue-green spaces in land use planning or providing specialised aid. • Healthcare professionals: their knowledge and support are important for addressing specific needs. 23 Existing knowledge and information: lack of information about accessibility of outdoor nature recreation areas, existing organised outdoor nature recreation activities, and their nature limits the participation of children with disabilities in organised (and potentially also unorganised) outdoor nature recreation. Accessibility and inclusivity: • Physical accessibility: a mix of ‘universally designed’ outdoor nature recreation spaces and access to appropriate aids (e.g. specialised terrain bikes, sitskies, etc. and appropriate exemptions from the law that regulates use of motorised vehicles in nature) could make a greater range of outdoor nature recreation areas and experiences accessible to children with different needs. • Organised activities: few existing organised outdoor nature recreation activities for children with disabilities limit their participation in outdoor nature recreation. Designing or adapting organised outdoor nature recreation activities to be inclusive of a diversity of needs (e.g. by allowing for more flexible programs/schedules or the possibility to withdraw for periods of time) is therefore important. • Information about accessibility: providing clear information about existing organised activities, the flexibility in activities and programs, accessibility to different nature recreation areas (e.g. by public transport, parking availability, or if you need to be able to climb stairs), and available resources (e.g. availability of benches and toilets in nature recreation areas or availability of specialised equipment for organised activities) could make positive nature recreation experiences more widely available to children with disabilities. • Social inclusivity: support for parents and caretakers that grant them the extra energy and time needed to engage in outdoor nature recreation activities with their children, creating safe spaces where children are allowed to be children, creating opportunities for adapting and adjusting activities or the use of space according to needs would enable more children with disabilities to engage in outdoor nature recreation. Biodiversity: securing different types of blue-green spaces for different kinds of outdoor nature recreational needs (e.g. aquatic and terrestrial, more or less managed or wild, closer and further away from urban centres, etc.) safeguards different types of natural and semi-natural habitats and species for both nature recreation and conservation purposes. Relationships within the system: Human and economic resources: parents of children with disabilities often need to spend more time at home to care for their children’s needs. Subsequently, the financial situation of such families may be negatively affected. At the same time, children with disabilities may require more resources such as specialised equipment, or extra help, to be able to engage in outdoor nature recreation activities, which incurs extra costs. In small municipalities, in particular, the number of children with disabilities are limited and municipality officials are often responsible for many disparate sectors for which they have limited expert knowledge, economy, and time. Combined these factors 24 make it difficult for municipalities to prioritise the needs of children with disabilities. Time, money and capacity are thus limiting factors at both the individual / family-level and at the municipal / community level. Strong social networks may be key for (families with) children with disabilities to engage in outdoor nature recreation. Lack of knowledge and insecurity: inadequate understanding of the needs of children with disabilities, fear of doing something wrong and insecurity about legal responsibilities can result in resistance or unease to accommodate for the needs of children with disabilities, e.g. when voluntary groups organise outdoor nature recreation activities. Mindsets and attitudes: willingness to accommodate for alternative solutions, flexibility in activities, and opportunities to adjust can make big differences and allow for children with disabilities to participate in outdoor nature recreation and learn how to handle new and unexpected situations. Clear information: knowing what to expect is important for (families with) children with disabilities to feel confident about engaging in organised and unorganised outdoor nature recreation activities. Having a support system and someone to ask can be crucial. Figure 2. The three-layered system map indicating obstacles or places in need of change (red) and enablers of access to good nature experiences for children with disabilities (gold) (Source: NINA). Urban Youth in Germany (CGE/MLU) This case study explores how to empower young people, particularly those from marginalised groups, to influence biodiversity and nature prioritisation in decisionmaking processes. Core system: Youth empowerment for biodiversity decision-making. Direct factors (components): 25 Young people (target group): this encompasses a diverse group, including those from various backgrounds (age, migration status, socioeconomic status) and different levels of prior engagement with environmental issues. Their feelings of empowerment, existing knowledge, and access to resources are crucial factors. Education: the existing educational system's role in fostering environmental awareness and engagement among young people. Urban planning and policy: local policies and urban design that influence access to and quality of green spaces. Social and economic factors: socioeconomic disparities, citizenship, migration status, and other factors influencing access to resources and opportunities. Social media and networks: the role of social media and networks in shaping perceptions and facilitating communication around environmental issues. Biodiversity and nature prioritisation (emotional bond and personal relationship with biodiversity and nature): this represents the overarching goal, encompassing the values, policies, and actions related to protecting and enhancing biodiversity in urban environments. Decision-making processes: formal and informal processes through which decisions about biodiversity and nature are made at various levels. The degree of youth participation and influence within these processes is a key factor. Mental health: positive mental health fosters empowerment, engagement, and a sense of agency, while poor mental health can lead to disengagement, apathy, and feelings of powerlessness. Available urban infrastructures and green transportation: access to green spaces (parks, forests, community gardens) and convenient, sustainable transportation options (walking, cycling, public transit) are essential for fostering a connection with nature, promoting physical and mental health, and facilitating participation in decisionmaking. Distal factors (components): Global context: overarching global trends affecting biodiversity and climate change. Regional and EU policy: this includes specific environmental policies and regulations at the regional levels in Germany, as well as European Union levels (The EU's Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, EU Urban Agenda). NGO’s and civil society – various non-governmental organisations, community groups, and other civil society actors that are involved in biodiversity conservation, youth empowerment, and social-ecological transformation. Transparent democracy: this component relates to the extent to which decisionmaking processes related to biodiversity are open, inclusive, and participatory (youth participation in decision-making processes and access to Information). Relationships within the system: Empowerment and participation: increased empowerment among young people can lead to greater participation in decision-making, resulting in more biodiversityconscious policies and actions. Experiential learning and environmental awareness: experiential learning can increase environmental awareness, motivating young people to become more involved in decision-making processes. 32 religious institutions regarding stewardship of creation and the environment significantly affect farmers’ perspectives and actions. Sustainability concerns: broader societal concerns about sustainability are influencing agricultural practices. Growing awareness of the environmental and social impacts of agriculture is increasing pressure on farmers to adopt sustainable practices. Businesses: businesses involved in the food supply chain exert influence on farmers' decisions. Market forces, pricing, and the demand for specific products shape farmers' choices. Businesses’ commitment to sustainability can influence farmers’ choices. Relationships within the system: Religious/spiritual beliefs and farming practices: strong religious beliefs emphasising stewardship of the land can lead to more sustainable and biodiversityfriendly farming practices. Conversely, beliefs that prioritise short-term economic gains can lead to practices that harm biodiversity. Financial needs and incentives and sustainability: Financial incentives (subsidies) that reward sustainable practices encourage their adoption. Conversely, lack of incentives or incentives that reward unsustainable practices discourage biodiversityfriendly farming. Knowledge and farming practices: Increased access to education and training promotes the adoption of improved farming practices, including those that protect biodiversity. Demand from consumers and marketability of products: increased consumer demand for sustainably produced food enhances the marketability of biodiversityfriendly products, providing economic incentives for farmers. Political and community support and farming practices: positive political and community support can create a favourable environment for the adoption of sustainable farming practices. Conversely, lack of support can hinder their adoption. Industry influence and farming practices: the food industry's influence on market demands and pricing can either support or hinder biodiversity-friendly farming practices. 33 Figure 4. The onion diagram of case study Agro-biodiversity and religion (Author: FiBL). 3.2. System mapping – extensive case studies This subchapter explores the systems of each extensive sector-based case, describing the main components (factors) that influence the core system. It aims to capture key relationships, illustrating the complex interplay within the systems across diverse sectors (financial, agriculture, education, trade, labour and migration). Although the system mapping exercise, including the creation of the Onion diagram, was not mandatory for extensive cases, it was encouraged to enhance understanding of system processes and to facilitate the identification of leverage points in the next steps. Half of the cases (3.2.1.-3.2.3.) developed their systems maps in the form of Onion diagrams. These case studies also offer a detailed differentiation between direct and distal factors based on their level of influence. For the remaining cases (3.2.4.- 3.2.6.), which had a clear understanding of their systems, the information was gathered from other project materials, including case study fact sheets, to construct their systems maps. We then reached out to these cases to validate and refine the process of mapping their systems. Agro-biodiversity management in Hungary (ESSRG) The case study offers insights into the important conservation efforts for agrobiodiversity by amateur gardeners and small-scale subsistence-commercial farmers operating in alternative food networks. Their local practices can significantly 34 influence seed-saving practice and agricultural biodiversity in Hungary. Gendered practices of care constitute the intersectionality perspective of this case. Core system: the system of open-pollinated vegetable seeds. Direct factors (components): On-farm conservationists: these farmers are dedicated to preserving agricultural biodiversity through on-farm practices, such as maintaining varieties and traditional farming methods. They play a crucial role in safeguarding genetic diversity directly in their agricultural environments. They mostly come from one of the following two groups. Gardeners (amateurs): typically engaging in gardening as a hobby, these individuals contribute to biodiversity by experimenting with and preserving a wide range of plant species. Their practices often emphasise variety and sustainability over commercial output, making them vital players in local seed systems. Farmers (subsistence-commercial): this diverse group includes those who farm for personal sustenance and those involved in small-scale commercial efforts. Their knowledge and use of diverse crop varieties are essential for maintaining agrobiodiversity, often influenced by traditional practices and local knowledge. Chefs: chefs create demand for diverse and high-quality ingredients, influencing the types of crops that farmers grow. Their focus on unique flavours and nutrition supports the maintenance of diverse crop varieties, encouraging farmers to cultivate noncommercial species. Short food supply chain consumers: these consumers prioritise fresh, local products, often valuing biodiversity and sustainability. Their purchasing decisions can drive demand for conservation-oriented farming practices, promoting the cultivation of a richer variety of crops. Seed producers: the opportunities and choices determine what varieties are available for gardeners and farmers to grow. Seed retailers: as the bridge between seed producers and the market, these actors determine which seed varieties are readily available for cultivation. Their choices can significantly impact the conservation of diverse genetic resources. Non-human actors (living, non-living): elements of the natural ecosystem, such as pollinators, soil organisms, and climate conditions, play a vital role in the success of seed germination and crop growth, directly affecting the outcomes of biodiversity efforts. Seed banks: institutions that systematically collect and store seed varieties, seed banks are crucial for preserving genetic diversity and making seeds available for research and restoration projects. Seed control: this includes regulations and measures that oversee seed quality and distribution, ensuring both safety and adherence to standards, which can sometimes limit or support biodiversity efforts. Seed legislation: national and international laws governing seed use, trade, and protection can either facilitate or hinder the conservation and proliferation of diverse seed varieties, influencing how seed systems operate. 35 Distal factors (components): Consumers and Food Retailers: they both significantly influence market demand and the types of agricultural products that are prioritised. Consumers’ preferences for diverse and sustainably produced foods directly affect market dynamics and can support biodiversity by fostering demand for heirloom varieties. Retailers influence consumer choices and can drive demand for specific types of agricultural products, affecting which seeds are sown by farmers and gardeners. Values, food culture, and cultural conditioning: these factors all pertain to the societal norms and traditions that dictate dietary choices and agricultural priorities. They collectively shape perceptions around agrobiodiversity and influence consumer and producer behaviour. They play a significant role in determining priorities in agriculture and biodiversity, potentially favouring conservation and traditional practices. Power Structures and Social and Care Structures: both impact access to resources and decision-making processes, especially concerning gender roles and the dynamics within agricultural communities. These structures influence individual participation and opportunities in seed management. The distribution of power within political, economic, and social systems affects who has access to resources and decisionmaking in seed management, influencing the overall seed system. The paradigm of modernity: the current market-based society and the paradigm of modernity can limit the initiatives trying to empower diversity by institutionalising our societies and food supply chains along the principles of growth, productivity, and efficiency. The paradigm of ’small is beautiful’ emerged as an alternative and became popular thanks to the work of Ernst Schumacher, an early ecological economist. Research, Education, and Health Sector: these areas collectively contribute to raising awareness, providing knowledge, and shaping attitudes towards biodiversity and sustainable agricultural practices. Academic and practical research provides insights and innovations that can support or challenge existing practices in seed management and agrobiodiversity. Educational systems and health initiatives can raise awareness about the importance of biodiversity and its relations to health, influencing public attitudes and policies regarding agricultural practices. European and National Agricultural Legislation and Land Use Regulations: these policies provide the legal framework that governs agricultural activities and biodiversity management. They influence how land is used and what practices can be adopted to support seed diversity. Relationships within the system: Gender and agrobiodiversity: the involvement of women in seed saving and management provides a gendered perspective that influences both biodiversity and social dynamics. As awareness of this role increases, policy and practice may evolve to further empower female seed savers, validating and potentially expanding their contributions. Gender roles are also present on the systemic level: instead of the current productivity – cantered practices, a care-focused system – which recognises the value of reproductive work as well as the interconnectedness among human and non-human actors supports agricultural biodiversity better. 36 Market dynamics and seed varieties: the demand from chefs, consumers, and short food supply chains for diverse and heirloom varieties can encourage seed producers and retailers to prioritise these seeds, thereby fostering greater agrobiodiversity. Policy and practice: interactions between national/EU policies and local practices can create either barriers or support systems for biodiversity-focused agriculture. Successful grassroots initiatives can inform policy changes, which in turn can provide more robust support for local agrobiodiversity efforts. Community and institutional interaction: the development of community seed banks and networks can create resilience and innovation in local seed systems. These networks act as feedback mechanisms that inform regional and national policy, further integrating into broader agricultural frameworks. Education and awareness: increased awareness through education and participatory research methods can lead to changed perceptions and actions regarding seed saving and biodiversity, reinforcing community-based practices and influencing broader cultural values. Figure 5. Onion diagram of case study Agro-biodiversity management in Hungary (Author: ESSRG). Trade & GVC of soy/beef from Brazil to the EU/Netherlands (RU) This case study explores the complex interplay of factors influencing the trade and environmental management of soy and beef supply chains between Brazil and the Netherlands, highlighting opportunities for regulatory and grassroots-driven improvements in sustainability and intersectional environmental justice. Core system: The telecoupled Beef and Soy Trade between Brazil-EU-Netherlands. 37 Direct factors (components): Technical, diplomatic, and environmental justice challenges for the Regulation on Deforestation-free Products (EUDR) Implementation: the complexities in enforcing the EUDR, ensuring compliance across borders, and addressing justice concerns in supply chain practices. Threats to Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC): expansion of soy farming and cattle ranching encroaches on IPLC territories, threatening their livelihoods and cultural heritage. Soy infrastructure impact in the Amazon: infrastructure development related to soy cultivation (e.g. roads, railways, ports) alters landscapes, affecting local ecosystems and communities in the Amazon. Animal habitat loss in the Cerrado: deforestation and land conversion for soy lead to loss of habitats, causing wildlife to migrate to urban areas. Chemical pollution: use of pesticides in farming results in pollution, impacting human health and ecosystems in extensive agricultural regions. Dependency on Brazilian soy imports: Europe's intensive farming systems rely heavily on soy imports from Brazil, fostering continued environmental degradation in source regions. Environmental racism in soy and beef agribusiness: disproportionate environmental harm to marginalised populations in the Amazon and the Cerrado due to intensive agricultural practices and related infrastructures. Pollution from beef production: residues from beef production in Brazil pollute water bodies, affecting aquatic life and increasing pest populations. Trade agreements and CAP influence: free trade agreements and the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reinforce intensive farming at the expense of sustainable and more socially just practices. Transparency in sourcing information: obligations for trading companies to disclose sourcing details aim to enhance accountability in the soy and beef supply chains. Distal factors (components) Consumer behaviour and retailer influence: the shift in consumer preferences towards reducing animal protein consumption can be reinforced by retailers demanding more sustainable and ethically sourced products. Together, they can significantly impact market dynamics and drive producers towards sustainable practices. Local production systems and value chains: this includes the entire structure of local economies and interconnected value chains, influencing both the sourcing of soy and beef and the sustainability of farming practices. Activism and advocacy efforts: collective actions by NGOs, farmers’ alliances, and civil society to mobilise for more sustainable and socially just trade agreements to promote sustainable agricultural practices and advocate for fair trade policies, impacting supply chain practices across borders. Financial system and institutional support: the influence of financial institutions on agricultural practices, coupled with institutional support aimed at transitioning farmers towards agroecological methods, plays a critical role in shaping sustainable production. 38 Indigenous peoples' rights and environmental justice: policies advancing Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) alongside broader environmental justice initiatives can ensure that local communities are recognised and empowered, contributing positively to biodiversity conservation. Threats to ecosystems: this encompasses threats to peatlands and other critical ecosystems (such as wetlands and savannahs) that are impacted by intensive farming practices, highlighting the broader environmental implications of intensive agricultural expansion. Relationships within the system: Regulatory compliance and biodiversity conservation feedback: effective EUDR implementation can promote better environmental practices in sourcing regions, leading to biodiversity conservation and reduced habitat loss. Consumer awareness and market dynamics: increased consumer awareness about sustainable practices can shift market demand, influencing production systems towards biodiversity-friendly methods. Financial system and farming practices: shifts in financial incentives can encourage farmers to adopt sustainable farming practices, reducing environmental degradation. Public pressure and policy change: activism and advocacy can pressure governments and corporations to enact stricter environmental policies, improving sustainability and human rights in global value chains. Indigenous rights and environmental justice: strengthening FPIC and other rights mechanisms can empower Indigenous peoples and local communities, ensuring they play a pivotal role in conservation efforts. 39 Figure 6. Onion diagram of case study Trade and global value chains of soy/beef between Brazil-Netherlands. (Author: RU). Environmental awareness in education in Hungary (ESSRG) The case study seeks to enhance biodiversity education within Hungary's public education system by addressing existing challenges, promoting experiential learning, and fostering environmental awareness among youth. Core system: Hungary's public education system. Direct factors (components): Supportive school environment: a supportive school environment is characterised by a culture that encourages creativity, collaboration, and hands-on learning experiences. This includes providing safe spaces where students can explore their interests in biodiversity and environmental issues through practical activities, fostering an atmosphere of curiosity and engagement. Teachers' skills and freedom for creativity: teachers equipped with strong pedagogical skills and the freedom to innovate play a crucial role in delivering effective biodiversity education. Continuous professional development and training can enhance teachers' ability to implement interdisciplinary methods, adapt lessons to meet diverse student needs, and inspire critical thinking about environmental challenges. 40 Educational Resources: access to various educational resources, such as school gardens, participatory theatre, and outdoor camps, enriches the learning experience by allowing students to engage directly with nature. These resources provide opportunities for experiential learning, enabling students to connect theoretical knowledge with real-world applications and fostering a deeper understanding of ecological interconnections. Intersectionality Dimensions: the intersectionality dimensions – age, gender, and social status – shape students' experiences and access to educational opportunities. Understanding the unique perspectives that different demographic groups bring to biodiversity education allows educators to tailor their approaches, ensuring that all voices are heard, and that education is inclusive and equitable. Values of family and friends: the attitudes and values that students acquire from their families and peers greatly influence their perceptions of nature and environmental issues. Positive reinforcement from social circles can enhance students' commitment to sustainability, while negative attitudes can hinder their engagement. Hence, involving families and community members in educational initiatives can foster a collective commitment to biodiversity. Distal factors (components): Political environment: the political environment plays a pivotal role in shaping educational policies and priorities regarding sustainability. In contexts where education is not prioritised, or where there are power asymmetries, biodiversity education may be sidelined, limiting opportunities for impactful initiatives and systemic changes in schools. Societal values: societal values reflect the broader community’s attitudes toward the environment and sustainability. Public perception of environmental issues affects policy decisions and funding for educational programs, as well as the motivation of educators and students to engage with biodiversity topics meaningfully. Access to nature and quality: access to natural spaces and their quality is crucial for experiential learning opportunities. Environments that are rich in biodiversity encourage exploration and education, while areas lacking green spaces can hinder students’ experiences and connections to nature, leading to a disconnect with ecological concepts. Curriculum and position of teachers in society: curricular content often influences how subjects are integrated and taught within the education system. When curricula promote a siloed approach, biodiversity can be inadequately addressed, leading to a lack of interdisciplinary learning that is essential for understanding the complex relationships between different natural systems and human societies. Relationships within the system: Educational environment and teacher creativity: a supportive school environment fosters teachers' creative approaches, leading to more effective biodiversity education initiatives, which in turn further enriches the school environment through student engagement and innovative projects. Teachers and student engagement: skilled and motivated teachers inspire greater student participation, which enhances learning outcomes in sustainability and biodiversity, ultimately positively influencing teachers’ perceptions and methods. 41 Access to resources and societal values: increased access to educational resources (like gardens) can foster positive societal values toward biodiversity, leading to community support for systemic changes in education. Political context and educational practices: the political landscape directly impacts the prioritisation of biodiversity in education; meanwhile, grassroots initiatives can lead to shifts in political interest by demonstrating successful educational models and their social impacts. Intersectionality and educational outcomes: the intersectionality dimensions, such as age and gender, influence student engagement and outcomes, impacting teachers’ approaches and curricular development, which can circle back to enhance inclusion and representation in biodiversity education. Figure 7. Onion diagram of the Hungarian environmental education case (Author: ESSRG). Agriculture and migration in the EU (FiBL) This case study examines the complex interplay between agricultural labour shortages, migration, and biodiversity-friendly agriculture in the EU. Core system: EU Agriculture and migration. Key factors (components): • Labour shortages – this is a central driver, which is influenced by: o Demographic changes: aging population, urbanisation leading to fewer people working in agriculture. o Working conditions: low wages, poor working conditions, and safety concerns deterring local workers. 48 • Understanding of ESG impacts: many investors struggle to grasp the complex and often indirect impacts of ESG factors, particularly nature-related risks. Communication of ESG information: the way ESG information, especially regarding complex nature-related risks, is presented significantly impacts investor understanding and decisions. Financial models and investment strategies: traditional financial models focus on maximising expected utility, often neglecting the complexities of ESG factors. Some institutional investors use algorithmic trading strategies based on standardised ESG disclosures, potentially leading to unforeseen consequences. Policy and regulation: regulations like the EU NFR Directive aim to improve transparency and encourage sustainable investments. However, the effectiveness of regulations is limited by the quality of ESG data and investor understanding. Biodiversity and natural capital: natural capital depletion represents a systemic risk to financial markets, but its complex impacts are not always effectively communicated through ESG metrics. Relationships within the system: Poor ESG data and investor scepticism: inadequate or inconsistent ESG data can lead to investor scepticism and a lack of confidence in ESG metrics, hindering the effectiveness of regulations designed to promote sustainable investment. Cognitive biases and misallocation of capital: cognitive biases can lead to suboptimal investment decisions, potentially directing capital away from truly sustainable investments and toward those that appear sustainable but are not. Algorithmic trading and unintended consequences: algorithmic investment strategies relying on standardised ESG data without considering context or cognitive biases may lead to unintended environmental consequences (e.g. investments channelled into areas of low nature risk but high biodiversity loss). Communication strategies and investor behaviour: effective communication strategies can improve investor understanding of nature-related risks and promote more sustainable investment choices. 3.3 Transformative interventions and leverage points in intensive case studies This subchapter explores the various interventions and leverage points identified in the five intensive case studies, highlighting how learning communities have tailored specific strategies to address their unique contexts and challenges. All the interventions outlined in this chapter (intensive case studies) are those that have been or are currently being implemented within the respective case studies). This chapter provides insights into how these targeted approaches can drive systemic change and foster resilience various environments. In the five intensive (place-based) case studies, learning communities were generally encouraged to select up to three interventions from the PLANET4B project (according 49 to the methodology), allowing them to reflect on specific contexts and priorities and, at the same time, ensure focused analysis across cases. As a result, the number of interventions identified varies significantly from case to case. Some focused on a singular, impactful intervention (for example, Oslo), while others chose to explore multiple interventions concurrently. This variability highlights the diverse challenges and opportunities present within each case study, providing an understanding of how different interventions can leverage systemic change. However, three intensive cases diverged from this methodology, selecting more than three interventions. To maintain consistency in our cross-case analysis, we chose to focus on three key interventions from these cases for detailed exploration. The remaining interventions were acknowledged as additional options but were not analysed in-depth due to their higher numbers and varied contextual relevance. This approach allows us to provide a more nuanced understanding of the most impactful interventions while still recognising the broader scope of potential strategies identified in the other case studies. It is also important to note that not all leverage points are targeted simultaneously by a single intervention. Some interventions may effectively address two, three, or even four leverage points, while others might focus on just one. This variability is a natural aspect of the dynamics within leverage points and underscores the diversity of interventions. Each intervention plays a unique role in influencing the system, and the targeted leverage points will depend on the specific goals and context of the intervention. Nature recreation in Oslo, Norway (OOF/NINA) Intervention: Expert network meetings, bridging the gap between historically disconnected mainstream nature recreation organisations and health organisations focused on disability. Instigator: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) and the Greater Oslo Council for Outdoor Recreation (OOF). Participants: NINA, OOF, young peer mentors for children and adults with acquired disabilities and parents of children with disabilities. Occasionally members of voluntary outdoor recreation organisations and a health organisation focused on disabilities joined our meetings. Targeted Leverage Points: Material: Sharing of knowledge among the actors of our system could help mitigate insecurity and help make information available through improved flows of information. Increased knowledge would equip individuals to navigate the system more effectively, reducing the challenges involved in seeking support from for example the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration. With increased knowledge, efforts could be made to enhance the availability of inclusive recreational options to reduce travel distances and increase opportunities for all children to participate in outdoor nature recreation activities. 50 Processes: Increased availability of inclusive outdoor nature recreation options would support the development of children's skills in nature-based settings through experiential learning. By raising awareness of the benefits of hands-on experiences, educators can create opportunities that facilitate skill development, fostering growth, help children face challenges and adapt to new situations. Design: Improved knowledge and information flow among the actors within our system could improve support and visibility of individual needs, foster more flexibility in rigid institutions, and enhance available resources and expertise focused on children with disabilities. Intent: Education plays a crucial role in changing perceptions around disabilities, promoting strengths and capabilities. The initiative encourages a proactive and inclusive attitude, nurturing a supportive environment, solutions oriented, positive mindsets, and belief in children's abilities, thus promoting greater opportunities and confidence for both children and their parents. Narrative of Change: Potential transformative change may occur through enhanced knowledge and information flows, and improved accessibility and inclusivity of outdoor nature recreational options. This would support skill development in nature-based settings, facilitate better navigation of the support system, and foster a proactive mindset toward disabilities. Overall, such efforts could lead to improved support, improved resource use, and a notable shift in attitudes, nurturing a more flexible and empowering environment for children with disabilities to engage in nature recreation. Urban Youth in Germany (CGE/MLU) Intervention: Pathbreak: A Biodiversity-Food-Governance Game Instigator: NGOs Participants: young people, adults Targeted Leverage Points: Material: The game introduces participants to the intricate dynamics of food governance through interactive gameplay, educating them about the interdependencies within markets, ecosystems, and human societies. This initial engagement fosters an understanding of biodiversity's critical role and the systemic challenges it faces. Processes: Participants are encouraged to reflect on their insights and newfound perspectives, motivating them to translate these insights into real-world actions, such as lobbying or pressuring policymakers. Design: By assuming the roles of various stakeholders, including those from marginalised communities, participants develop empathy. This empathetic understanding allows them to appreciate the multifaceted nature of biodiversity prioritisation, recognising the ecological, social, economic, and political dimensions involved. Intent: The strategic decisions and trade-offs required during the game lead participants to realise that preserving biodiversity necessitates significant shifts in how 51 we approach food governance. This includes moving beyond profit maximisation to embrace cooperation and collective well-being, highlighting the need for a paradigm shift in real-life decision-making processes. Narrative of Change: The narrative of change for participants in the Pathbreak: A Biodiversity-Food-Governance Game is a journey from awareness to action, characterised by an educational awakening, empathetic understanding, and a profound paradigm shift. This intervention not only informs participants about the complexities and challenges surrounding the production-consumption balance but also empowers them to become advocates for systemic change in their personal lives and broader societies. This case study also proposed two additional planned interventions – Night hike and outdoor movie night. While the Night hike aims to transform nature into a space for collective learning and engagement, emphasising the importance of community connection with the environment, the Outdoor movie night seeks to bridge entertainment and advocacy, inspiring communities to view their role in the world through a new perspective. Both activities are positioned as opportunities to act and nurture the seeds of change. Swiss attitudes towards agro-biodiversity and religion (FiBL) Intervention 1: Interviews with farmers, where the topic of linking religious and/or spiritual beliefs and biodiversity-related farming behaviour was explored and reflexive thinking on the part of farmers, regarding agrobiodiversity-related farming behaviour, induced. Targeted Leverage Points: Intent: This intervention works at the level of “intent” according to the leverage points theory. The specific lever is the “mind-set” located within the “intent” leverage point category. The objective of the study was to explore the beliefs and values of Swiss farmers regarding biodiversity. Engagement in this dialog was expected to trigger a mind-set change about how farmers engage in farming connecting biodiversity to their religious/spiritual beliefs. Narrative of Change: Change occurs through engagement with farmers on a personal topic of religious and/or spiritual beliefs and biodiversity. Participants talked about how their beliefs influence their practices. This conversation triggered reflection for some farmers, ignited interest in others, and potentially supported the beliefs of farmers who had already connected biodiversity to their religious/spiritual beliefs before this intervention. 52 Intervention 2: Photo-exhibition: Photos and short films shared by farmers as part of the interviews are being used to set a series of photo exhibitions in Switzerland. The target audience is farmers, but also the general public. Targeted Leverage Points: Intent: This intervention can be placed at the “"intent” leverage point, where the connection between agro-biodiversity-related farming behaviour and religious/spiritual beliefs is displayed. The objective of the intervention is to create reflexivity among the audience (farmer and general public) about how their religious/spiritual values connect to their farming behaviour with implications for biodiversity. Narrative of Change: Change occurs through self-reflection and the triggering of dialogues among farmers and the general public about not only faith-based farming but about connecting religious/spiritual values to various behaviours that can impact biodiversity. Intervention 3: Strengthening the discourse on valuing biodiversity Targeted Leverage Points: Intent: Communication about the study via various channels and engagement of stakeholders in workshops were done to bring the relevance of biodiversity to religious/spiritual beliefs to public’s attention. This is expected to work at the ‘intent’ level of the leverage points framework as the photo-exhibition is aimed to trigger personal reflection and induce changes at the behavioural level. Narrative of Change: Communicating about the study using different media channels has triggered positive reactions in the community. Communication channels used to date include: a podcast, two magazine articles, a community newspaper article, presentation at a community church event in Switzerland, information about the study on Planet4b.eu website and upcoming academic publications and presentations at the European or broader than that level. Photo-exhibition (described above) is also part of this communication activity contributing to the strengthening of the relationship between religious/spiritual beliefs and biodiversity-related behaviour. Additional future (planned) interventions in this case study were proposed by learning communities. They encompass a variety of initiatives aimed at fostering community engagement and promoting sustainable agricultural practices. These include solidarity farming through Community Supported Agriculture, offering farmbased vacation accommodations, and recognising farms that adhere to environmental and ethical criteria. Additionally, the following was proposed: to emphasise the empowerment of women in agriculture, integration of spirituality into agricultural 53 education, and the celebration of traditional events to strengthen the connection between farming, community values, and biodiversity. Collectively, all these interventions aim to target the leverage point intent, fostering a deeper understanding of and commitment to sustainable practices and values among participants. Opening nature to Black, Asian, and ethnic minority communities in the UK (DC/CU) Intervention 1: Enhancing Education and Knowledge Share. This intervention aims to educate individuals to make informed decisions regarding biodiversity, food, consumption, and travel. In the case study, two methods were/are being employed to promote education and knowledge share: 1) Biodiversity-in-your-Cupboard method and 2) Biodiversity walks led by DC including an educational component. Targeted Leverage Points: Materials: This intervention can influence materials by increasing awareness of the resources (both natural and human) involved in food production and consumption. By critically examining their kitchens and the biodiversity implications of their food choices, participants are encouraged to make more informed purchasing decisions, potentially affecting local markets and encouraging the adoption of sustainable products. The materials involved in food consumption become a focal point for broader discussions about biodiversity and sustainability. Processes: Through educational activities, participants engage in new processes that promote critical thinking and informed decision-making related to biodiversity. The combination of hands-on activities and reflective discussions helps establish ongoing dialogues about food consumption and its environmental impact. These processes stimulate community engagement, allowing members to share insights, exchange ideas, and collaboratively develop strategies for sustainable practices. Design: The intervention alters the design of knowledge-sharing by integrating community-building as a central focus. A key outcome of this intervention has been community-building; as well as the knowledge that the focus on educating individuals needs to be adjusted to place greater emphasis on fostering community-building strategies. By utilising methods like the Biodiversity-in-your-cupboard approach and Biodiversity walks, the intervention encourages collaboration and relationship-building among participants. This creates a supportive network that not only enhances learning but also promotes shared accountability and action regarding biodiversity conservation within the community. Intent: This intervention shifts the intent by fostering a deeper understanding of the connections between everyday choices – such as food consumption – and biodiversity. By emphasising critical reflection on the ecological impacts of these decisions, it encourages individuals and communities to adopt more sustainable worldviews and practices, ultimately inspiring a collective commitment to environmental stewardship. Narrative of Change: Change occurs as community members gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between their choices – such as food consumption – 54 and biodiversity. This knowledge fosters critical reflection and encourages individuals to make more sustainable decisions while simultaneously strengthening community bonds through collaborative learning experiences. Intervention 2: More autonomy for local communities to have agency in biodiversity issues. This intervention aims at building capacity of local communities to start leading their own walks, either as part of the DC walk series, or as additional separate activities within their own communities of residence (i.e. acting as DC’s ambassadors). Targeted Leverage Points: Design: The focus on building the capacity of local communities to lead their own walks and initiatives alters the design of the system by redistributing roles and responsibilities. This intervention creates a structure where local community members act as ambassadors, promoting their own biodiversity initiatives. This design promotes collaboration, local leadership, and the integration of community-specific knowledge into biodiversity efforts. Intent: By enabling local communities to lead their own biodiversity walks, the intervention establishes new processes for participation and engagement in biodiversity issues. Community members learn to share their insights, facilitate discussions, and educate others, thus creating feedback mechanisms that enhance collective knowledge and responsibility toward biodiversity. This participatory approach can foster ongoing dialogues and collaborations, driving continuous improvement in community-led biodiversity initiatives. Narrative of Change: Change occurs as community members gain the confidence and skills to lead their own biodiversity walks and initiatives, fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility. This empowerment enhances collaboration and facilitates the integration of community perspectives into biodiversity issues, promoting sustainable practices that are aligned with the community's unique needs and values. It stimulates wider involvement and support for conservation initiatives, enhancing the community's involvement in preserving biodiversity. Intervention 3: Participatory film depicting LC own personal relationships with nature (currently in final editing stage). This intervention is a tool for intra and inter-cultural dialogue, supporting individual, community, and organisational learning about factors shaping communities' connection with nature and/ or biodiversity. Targeted Leverage Points: Processes: Focusing on personal relationships with nature facilitates essential dialogue and reflection within the community about biodiversity and sustainability. This can lead to the establishment of new processes for ongoing community engagement 55 in environmental decision-making. As participants share their experiences, the resulting conversations can create feedback loops that deepen understanding and foster collective action towards local environmental issues. Additionally, the filmmaking process itself becomes a platform for cooperative learning and sharing of best practices, strengthening community ties and encouraging proactive measures to protect and celebrate their natural surroundings. Design: The emphasis on learning community members depicting their personal relationships with nature allows for an exploration of their experiences and values. This collaborative approach empowers participants to share their narratives and also fosters a stronger connection between the community and their environment. By cantering the film around these personal stories, it reflects the community's own values and insights, legitimising their voices and interests within the broader system. This can lead to a more authentic representation of the community in discussions about biodiversity and environmental policies. Narrative of Change: Change emerges from community members sharing their personal relationships with nature, fostering a deeper connection and collective identity around environmental stewardship. This shared storytelling empowers the community to advocate for sustainable practices and influence local policies, promoting a culture of environmental care. This case study also proposed several additional aspirational interventions, including a symposium planned for June 2025. This event will feature invited speakers and an audience focusing on increasing access to the countryside for Black, Asian, and minority ethnic communities. It will target key stakeholders from NGOs, public and third-sector conservation organisations, and governmental bodies. The aim is for the event to contribute to triggering long-term systemic change across multiple levels. Edible City and Inclusion in Graz, Austria (FUG/IFZ) Intervention 1: Funding. The effective management of these areas requires various resources, including water, spaces with optimal light and soil conditions, nutrients, plants, and tools or equipment. These resources are being funded by the City of Graz. Targeted Leverage Points: Material: Funding is being increased both for each garden individually and for the total number of (new) gardens to cover the costs of resources and personnel expenses (maintenance, support, consulting). In order to reduce the administrative effort, resources are also provided in the form of material contributions (e.g. soil and green waste from the municipal yard). Targeted personnel support (e.g. for heavy work) is provided through an employment project. Narrative of Change: The change occurred through increased funding by the City of Graz, which allocated more resources for individual gardens and the total number of 56 gardens, covering costs for resources and personnel. Additionally, material contributions from municipal sources and targeted personnel support through an employment project facilitated the management and maintenance of these areas. Intervention 2: Learning from Examples. Both successful examples from Graz and other locations, as well as lessons learned from failed practices, can guide the effective establishment of new gardens. The presence of existing gardens and the enthusiasm for creating new ones naturally inspire the development of additional gardens in the vicinity. It is essential for these stories to be shared, and – if necessary – that learnings are incorporated into support/consulting activities, potentially by organisations like FUG. Targeted Leverage Points: Processes: There is increasing public outreach sharing both success stories and stories of failure. These stories need to be prepared in a way that makes them accessible to many. An organisation equipped with appropriate resources takes on this responsibility. A buddy system among community gardens is being established, in which established gardens support new ones. Narrative of Change: The change happens through the dissemination of both successful and failed gardening practices, inspiring the creation of new gardens by sharing accessible stories and experiences. An organisation with the necessary resources takes on this responsibility, and a buddy system among community gardens has been established to enable established gardens to support new ones, fostering a collaborative community network. Intervention 3: Access to the information. Project organisers often need comprehensive information to address various needs, such as legal, financial, and informational requirements. This includes details on potential sites, funding options, maps, expertise, and contacts. However, this information is frequently dispersed and varies in quality, making it challenging to access. The complexity and lack of centralisation can further hinder the ability of organisers to obtain the necessary resources efficiently. Targeted Leverage Points: Design: Information is increasingly made accessible in a clear and barrier-free manner. Information on legal aspects (such as construction law), on funding (deadlines, funding amounts, funding criteria, etc.) and specific services (such as mediation, process moderation) can easily be found. Decision making processes on funding, usage possibilities of areas and other find greater transparency. Existing procedures will be enhanced in doing so. 57 Narrative of Change: The change occurs by making critical information about legal, financial, and informational needs more accessible and transparent, allowing project organisers to easily find details on potential sites, funding options, and services. This was achieved by simplifying and centralising the information, ensuring clarity, and enhancing existing procedures to foster better decision-making processes. The case study highlights several additional interventions, including the promoting and implementing community gardens in residential areas, establishment of biotopes and gardens in residential areas that collect rainwater and serve as infiltration zones, particularly important during heavy rainfall. It emphasises other interventions, such as networking among gardening initiatives for mutual support and improvement, as well as the modular approach to both organisational structures and garden infrastructure to promote flexibility. Composting initiatives also play a crucial role by reducing waste and promoting sustainable practices within the community. Together, these interventions contribute to the overall resilience and ecological health of urban environments. Table 3 bellow summarises the interventions along with the targeted leverage points for each case. Table 3. Intensive cases – key interventions and the targeted leverage points (source: Authors’ own work; M – material, P – processes, D – design, I – intent). Case study Key interventions Targeted Leverage Points Nature recreation in Oslo, Norway (OOF/NINA) Expert network meetings M, P, D, I Urban Youth in Germany (CGE/MLU) Pathbreak: A Biodiversity-FoodGovernance Game M, P, D, I Swiss attitudes towards agrobiodiversity and religion (FiBL) Interviews with the farmers Photo exhibition Strengthening the discourse I I I Opening nature to Black, Asian and ethnic minority communities in the UK (DC/CU) Enh. education + knowledge share More autonomy for local comm. Participatory film M, P, D, I D, I P, D Edible City and Inclusion in Graz, Austria (FUG/IFZ) Funding for community gardens Learning from examples Access to information M P D 64 Narrative of Change: Change from fragmented and globalised fibre and fashion supply chains to more local-placed based production and consumption. Changes in the chains of telecoupled impacts (with a more connected consumption and production, the impacts of biodiversity are felt in the same places where consumption takes place). Change in fashion production and material (i.e. eco-design; new ecofibres such as oranges fibre; ban of oil derived fibre). Processes: • Identified elements (Length of delays, relative to rate of systems change): time it takes for water basins to filter the chemicals disposed and regenerate biodiversity. Time needed for soils to regenerate their life and fertility after transitioning from conventional to regenerative agriculture. The time it takes for forest to grow after land has been left to restore. Narrative of Change: time is left for biodiversity to regenerate in the ecosystems affected by fashion activities. • Identified elements (The gain around driving positive feedback loops): the availability of many different fashion products giving consumers the possibility to consumer more, which encourages companies to produce more clothes and make them available for consumers. Narrative of Change: A cultural shift towards a post-growth, nature-positive paradigm (as referenced in the aforementioned leverage points) encourages reduced consumerism, resulting in lower production levels and a more limited variety of products offered by companies. This transition promotes extended usage of clothing, prompting companies to prioritise repairs and fostering increased consumer awareness regarding repair practices. Design: • Identified elements (The structure of information flows (access to information): the availability of information giving the opportunity to choose more biodiversity-positive products: certifications about types and origin of fibres, digital product passport, education campaigns, consumers awareness initiatives. Narrative of Change: Improved transparency in supply chains, better monitoring and tracking systems to know the origin of the products. As a result, improved consumers awareness about fashion impact on biodiversity. 65 • Identified elements (The rules of the system such as incentives and constraints): market-based voluntary arrangements, multistakeholder agreements, corporate social responsibility, limited public policy, etc. Narrative of change: Introducing new principles such as the polluter pays, and the producer extensive responsibility in legislation. Introducing transformative principles in governance (e.g. participation, inclusion, adaptiveness, etc.). Balancing the rules and regulations to promote break-out dynamics (i.e. phasing-out the unsustainable and not biodiversity-prioritising system). • Identified elements (The power to add, change or self-organise system structure): the power of multinational corporations to rule the system dynamics. Inequality between Global North (consuming countries) and Global South (producing countries). Narrative of change: reconfiguration of North-South dynamics. Reduction in the power of companies to control the supply chain. More empowered civil society (NGOs), workers’ unions, and consumers. Intent: • Identified elements (The goals of the system): growth-driven and quantitymaximising fashion system. Narrative of change: New system prioritising quality and the reduction of volumes in consumption and production. • Identified elements (The mindset/paradigm out of which the system arises): dualist vision of humans and nature as separated and nature as something that can be possessed. Ideology of growth and accumulation as something natural and desirable. Power and inequalities as something normal and natural in societies. Narrative of change: from an ego-system to an eco-system that puts nature, human well-being, and justice at the front. 66 Environmental awareness in Education in Hungary (ESSRG) Intervention: School gardens: this intervention encompasses a variety of aspects, including the creation of green environments and the enhancement of biodiversity, integrating a school garden module into the curriculum and incorporating outdoor education through interactive and experiential learning. Targeted Leverage Points: Material: Harvesting of produce from the garden and its processing in schools (i.e. the combination of gardening and nutrition, with the associated positive health and material effects) encourages and promotes students' awareness about the sustainability in resource management. Processes: Teaching various subjects outdoors in a school garden, using interactive methods, can create a dynamic learning environment that encourages experimentation and collaboration. This approach helps break down social cliques among students and fosters a cooperative relationship between students and teachers. Garden-based activities also allow children to experience subjects in an integrated, multidisciplinary way, making it easier to embed concepts like biodiversity deeply into their understanding. Such pedagogical approaches not only enhance cognitive development but also build an emotional connection to the environment. Design: The addition of a school garden module alters the educational design of the curriculum by including practical, hands-on learning experiences that connect students with nature. It creates a structured space for learning that combines various subjects Intent: Transforming the education system along the above lines would also mean a shift in emphasis in education towards experiential and hands-on learning, rather than the current highly knowledge-focused, competitive and performance-based approach. This would mean a shift in core values, for which there is little sign at the level of education policy. At the same time, experiential and collaborative education as a core value would have a positive impact on all other intervention points (curriculum integration, the transfer and use of interactive and collaborative teaching methods, and the conscious care of the green environment in schools). Narrative of Change: The emphasis on designing school gardens to prioritise children's learning experiences over production can change the education system by fostering environments that are tailored to the diverse needs of all students, including those with special educational needs or disabilities. By finding a balance between structured, regulated garden spaces and more relaxed, natural areas, schools can create inclusive environments that facilitate engagement, exploration, and playfulness, enhancing the overall educational experience. This experiential approach promotes hands-on learning and critical thinking, encouraging students to actively engage in responsible resource management and community involvement. Ultimately, this shift can lead to broader societal changes, as empowered students become advocates for 67 sustainable practices, influencing their families and communities and paving the way for more resilient and environmentally conscious societies. Sustainable investment behaviour Global-EU-Norway (NINA) Intervention 1: Improving the quality and use of biodiversity metrics by adopting more comprehensive and transparent data points, which would allow for a better assessment of biodiversity impacts. Enhancing double materiality assessments to ensure biodiversity is factored in beyond mere compliance, making these metrics more actionable for both companies and investors. Targeted Leverage Points (including narrative of change): Material: This refers to tangible aspects of the system, such as biodiversity metrics (= parameters; datapoints as defined by ESRS E4). An example is the assessment of biodiversity double materiality and its datapoints listed under the ESRS E4 or any other compliance or voluntary guidance (e.g. TNFD, GRI). This LP is classified as shallow as companies may report on various biodiversity metrics and the impact of their activities on biodiversity. Change is therefore unlikely with a single leverage point; shallow and deeper leverages must be combined synergistically. Another example can be an ‘availability bias’, i.e. how investors perceive the importance of biodiversity datapoints on their operations. Intervention 2: Integrating biodiversity metrics into decision-making processes within financial institutions (enhancing nature-risk screening tools could better inform loan assessments or investment evaluations, embedding biodiversity considerations into financial practices). Ensuring greater accountability and transparency in how financial actors report on biodiversity impacts by reducing the ability to opt out of reporting or exploiting loopholes, encouraging more thorough due diligence processes. Targeted Leverage Points (including narrative of change): Processes: biodiversity metrics are carried out in reporting by the financial actors in practice. This may closely relate to “materiality” and “due diligence” processes incorporated by financial institutions and their approaches, for instance, in using minimal efforts just to comply with regulations, delaying reporting due to legal loopholes such as opting out from reporting under ESRS E4 due to company size, or using tools that are not publicly available and therefore challenging to verify the outcomes by interested stakeholders. Nature risk screening tools fit into process leverage as they might influence how decisions are made by improving the quality of information and facilitating more sustainable decision-making processes. These tools are typically integrated into environmental risk assessments, project planning, and investment analysis processes. Various nature risk screening tools do not directly change the fundamental rules of the financial system, but they may influence practices 68 and processes within that system. For example, banks might use such tools and their underlying data to assess the environmental risk of a loan to a development project, thereby embedding biodiversity considerations into their lending process. Intervention 3: Pushing for regulatory reforms that mandate biodiversity considerations within financial institutions. Laws such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and natural capital accounting frameworks should be strengthened to ensure that environmental outcomes, including biodiversity, are factored into core financial structures. Creating stronger incentives for sustainable finance by integrating biodiversity-related goals into financial regulations and investment standards, ensuring that environmental and social outcomes are prioritised alongside profits. Targeted Leverage Points (including narrative of change): Design: This includes how financial systems are regulated, the rules by which they operate, and the broader structural arrangements that guide decision-making and power distribution. Example of design leverage points may include transforming the structure of the financial system by enacting new regulations that make companies legally obligated to consider environmental and social outcomes alongside profits. Such regulations include the CSRD, natural capital accounting frameworks, or trade agreements preventing biodiversity exploitation in supply chains. However, true transformation at this level still depends on the underlying intent of the system and its actors. Intervention 4: Shifting the purpose of financial systems from profitmaximisation alone to a broader focus on ecological stability and social wellbeing. This would involve promoting long-term investment strategies that value biodiversity, perhaps through the development of alternative economic models like the circular economy. Cultivating cultural and societal shifts that place higher value on biodiversity and ecosystem health. Encourage financial actors to adopt paradigms that prioritise planetary health, redefining success in terms of sustainability rather than short-term financial gains. Targeted Leverage Points (including narrative of change): Intent: A deep shift in the financial system would mean redefining its core purpose from investors aiming to maximise not only shareholder value and profit and minimising climate and nature risks for themselves, but also minimising impact on biodiversity and ecosystems, promoting long-term planetary health and social wellbeing. This could involve moving away from growth-based economics to systems that prioritise regeneration, ecological stability, and equitable resource distribution. Examples include developing alternative economic models like the circular economy 69 or degrowth, which inherently value biodiversity and ecosystem health as fundamental to economic stability and prosperity. If the system's purpose is reoriented towards sustaining natural ecosystems and valuing biodiversity, then all decisions – from investments to consumption patterns – would align with this goal. This would shift not only financial flows but also societal and investor behaviours and policies in ways that protect and restore biodiversity. In other words, such changes represent a paradigm shift, where profit is no longer the only objective, but rather a means to achieve broader ecological and social goals. Table 4 below summarises key interventions and targeted leverage points of all extensive cases. Table 4. Extensive cases – key interventions and the targeted leverage points. (Source: Authors’ own work; M – material, P – processes, D – design, I – intent). Case Key intervention Targeted leverage points Agro-biodiversity management in Hungary (ESSRG) Building/supporting a national network based on local seed hubs M, P, D, I Trade & GVCs of soy/beef from Brazil to the EU/Netherlands (RU) Reform of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Incorporating historical perspectives on soy-based agriculture Tackling air pollution caused by agrotoxins in Santarém (Amazon) M, P, D, I M, P, D, I M, P, D, I Agriculture and migration in the EU (FiBL) CAP legislation for a Just Transition based on Transformative Change Framework Trainings with migrant farmworkers on biodiversityrelated topics and rights M, P, D, I M, P, D, I “From ego-system to eco-system” in fashion in Italy (UNIPI) No specific interventions detailed (identification of leverage points and narrative for system transformation) M, P, D, I Environmental awareness in Education in Hungary (ESSRG) School gardens integrating green environments into the curriculum M, P, D, I Sustainable investment behaviour Global-EU-Norway (NINA) Improving the quality and use of biodiversity metrics Biodiversity metrics in decision-making processes Pushing for regulatory reforms Shifting the purpose of financial systems M P D I 70 3.5 Results of the impact assessment (Agnes Zolyomi, Geraldine Brown, Amelie Dakoure and Alex Franklin) Across the 11 PLANET4B case studies, we observed a broad and diverse spectrum of impacts, ranging from personal and cultural shifts to practical changes in everyday practices, to institutional adjustments and emerging policy influence. We documented over 150 distinct outcomes and impact instances, with each case demonstrating a number of documented changes. While some impacts manifested as tangible outcomes - such as the establishment of a new community garden, or teaching practices - others were less immediately visible, emerging in the form of new relationships, strengthened agency, shared narratives, cultural belonging, or shifts in mindsets regarding biodiversity (Table 5). These findings align with non-linear and layered understandings of transformation (O’Brien, 2018), where personal and cultural shifts often create the enabling ground for later practical and political change. 71 Table 5. Impact summary of PLANET4B’s eleven case studies Case Study Main Social Impacts Main Biodiversity Impacts Intersectionality Dimensions Impact Types Level of Impact (Personal / Practical / Political) & Scale (Individual / Interpersonal / Institutional) Graz Edible Community Garden (AT) Increased belonging, cooperation and confidence among migrant and low-income women; stronger collective voice. Creation and comaintenance of a biodiverse edible garden; pollinatorsupporting and edible plants; new microecosystems. Gender, migration, socio-economic background. Cultural/Attitudinal Change (CA); Capacity Building (CB); Instrumental (I); Enduring Connectivity (EC) Personal → Practical → emerging Political; Individual → Interpersonal → early Institutional Urban Youth Learning Community (International) Empowerment, increased agency and leadership; several youthinitiated biodiversity projects independently. Indirect: behavioural shifts and biodiversity-related initiatives; no direct habitat change. Youth intersecting with migrant background in some contexts. Conceptual (C); Cultural/Attitudinal Change (CA); Capacity Building (CB); Enduring Connectivity (EC) Personal + Practical; Individual → Interpersonal (transnational youth network) Dadima’s CIC (UK) Strengthened sense of cultural belonging and intergenerational connectedness; new emotional relationships to biodiversity. Indirect biodiversitysupportive gardening at home (e.g., bird-attracting plants) and behaviour and lifestyle changes Race, cultural identity, gender, age. Cultural/Attitudinal Change (CA); Conceptual (C); Enduring Connectivity (EC) Personal + Interpersonal (relationship-centred) School Garden (HU) Strengthened cooperation among students and teachers; ecological learning integrated into daily school life. New micro-habitats (flowering meadow patches, nesting boxes, bug hotels); biodiversity monitoring embedded in routines. Age (children). Capacity Building (CB); Instrumental (I); Cultural/Attitudinal Change (CA); Enduring Connectivity (EC) Personal → Practical, embedded into Institutional routines (school) 72 Outdoor Inclusion & Disability (NO) Increased confidence, participation and agency among children with disabilities; stronger collaboration among service organisations. No direct habitat change; repeated inclusive engagement with nature. Age, disability. Conceptual (C); Cultural/Attitudinal Change (CA); Capacity Building (CB); Enduring Connectivity (EC) Personal + Practical; Individual → Interpersonal → early Institutional Agrobiodiversity & Seed Networks (HU – ESSRG) Renewed community ties; strengthened seed knowledge exchange; re-valuing local varieties. Preservation and circulation of diverse local seeds; continuity in biodiversityfriendly cultivation practices. Rural identity; gender and class dimensions present. Cultural/Attitudinal Change (CA); Capacity Building (CB); Enduring Connectivity (EC) Practical + emerging Political; Interpersonal → Institutional (network stabilisation) Religion & Agrobiodiversity (CH) Seeds and cultivation reconnected to cultural and spiritual meaning; renewed collective care. Maintenance of heritage seed diversity; biodiversityfriendly land care practices. Religious identity. Conceptual (C); Cultural/Attitudinal Change (CA); Enduring Connectivity (EC) Practical; Interpersonal → early Institutional Brazil–EU Soy & Beef Value Chains (EU/BR) Increased transparency, awareness and critique of power in supply chains; shared vocabulary across actors. Indirect: biodiversity considerations in sourcing and monitoring (traceability, standards). Indigenous peoples, class, global South– North inequalities. Conceptual (C); Cultural/Attitudinal Change (CA) Political (discourse + agenda); Institutional (emerging) Finance & Biodiversity (EU/UK) Emergent shared conceptual framing of biodiversity risk; early cross-sector dialogue. Indirect: biodiversity framed in financial risk and valuation practices. Not primary. Conceptual (C) Political + Institutional (system-level awareness) Sustainable Fashion (EU/UK) Cultural critique of fast fashion; emerging networks of alternative practice. Indirect: biodiversity integrated into sustainability narratives and sector critique. Gender and labour justice occasionally foregrounded. Conceptual (C); Cultural/Attitudinal Change (CA) Political (discursive) + Interpersonal Migration, Labour & Agriculture (DE/UK/PL) Visibility of migrant labour conditions; biodiversity understood together with social justice concerns. Indirect: conceptual integration of labour and biodiversity in agri-food transitions. Migration, class, labour precarity. Conceptual (C); Cultural/Attitudinal Change (CA) Political + Practical (discourse and coalitionbuilding); Interpersonal → emerging Institutional 73 Overall, the cases show that impact is not singular nor linear, but rather distributed, cumulative, relational and unfolding over time. This is consistent with the perspective that deep leverage points for transformation lie not only in new technologies or practices, but in shifts in values, worldviews and social relations (Abson et al., 2017). Many impacts also demonstrated durability and legacy, especially where Learning Communities continued activities beyond the project, secured independent funding, or embedded alternative practices into routines and institutions. These impacts serve as “seeds” (Westley et al., 2017) that may grow beyond the project lifetime. As PLANET4B’s Deliverable 3.3 (henceforth D3.3) on the cases’ transformative stories highlights it “little actions… accumulate into broader transformative change”. Scope and level of transformation Evidence of change could be observed across O’Brien’s three spheres of transformation. All cases demonstrated personal-level change, where participants reported increased self-recognition, agency, and emotional connection to biodiversity. In the Urban Youth case, for example, participants moved from tentative involvement to initiating independent biodiversity projects: “they gradually began to recognise their own capacity to influence change… Some members even secured funding… and are now leading international youth projects” (PLANET4B case study partner (D3.3). Practical-level transformations, evident in ten cases, included new pedagogical methods, the development of shared community gardens, and co-created stewardship practices. Political-level impacts emerged in nine cases, often in the form of increased participation in governance processes or changes in agenda-setting. In Graz, for example, women moved from participants to active contributors to urban planning debates: “they moved from users of a green space to advocates for it, voicing their perspectives in discussions with municipal representatives” (PLANET4B case study partner D3.3). These developments suggest a progression pattern where personal and cultural shifts enable practical experimentation, which may in turn support political influence over longer time horizons. Social impacts Social impacts were present across all eleven PLANET4B cases and represent the most consistently observed form of change in the project. The database identifies a recurring cluster of outcomes centred on increased cooperation, strengthened networks, enhanced access to participation, expanded opportunities for engagement, and improved circulation of information and knowledge. Many cases reported the formation or strengthening of community or learning networks, which facilitated ongoing knowledge exchange and collaboration. These networks often enabled participants not only to access new forms of information, but also to feel more entitled and confident to express their perspectives and contribute to decision-making processes. 80 experience, cultural identity and memory. These cultural shifts played a foundational role in enabling subsequent engagement and motivation to act. Significant impacts were also observed in the education sector, both formal and informal. In the Hungarian school garden case, ecological engagement practices became part of everyday learning routines, contributing not only to environmental literacy, but also to changes in relationships within the school community. The Swiss agro-biodiversity and religion case similarly integrated biodiversity into communitybased learning. These impacts fall primarily under education (within SCC), with some cases also leading to the stabilisation of new practices at the practitioner and services (PS) level, particularly where educators or facilitators adapted their pedagogical approaches. In the public policy (PP) domain, impacts were mostly indirect, taking the form of increased dialogue between communities and public actors rather than formal policy change. In Graz, ongoing exchanges between municipal staff and community gardeners influenced how the urban green space was approached and maintained, and ultimately integrated into key documents. In the Oslo case, practitioners within welfare and education services adjusted their expectations and programming around children’s participation in nature-based activities. These shifts indicate that policyrelevant cultural and relational change occurred at the practitioner interface, rather than through high-level policy drafting or legal reform during the project’s timeframe. Impacts in the economy and value chain (E) sector appeared primarily in the Brazil– EU soy and beef case and in the fashion case. In the former, transparency in supply chain sourcing supported new forms of critical engagement with production conditions, even if this did not lead to immediate regulatory change. In the fashion case, the primary impact was a shift in how sustainability was framed within professional and consumer cultures among the participating actors, challenging norms that typically position biodiversity outside the remit of design and production values. These changes are consistent with early-stage sector reframing. Environmental impacts (ENV) were primarily located in the place-based cases, where new habitats, increased plant diversity and biodiversity-supportive land management were introduced or reinforced. These changes occurred in both formal (school grounds) and informal (community gardens) settings, with effects on local ecosystems as well as human-nature relations. The health and wellbeing (HW) sector was less consistently impacted, though emotional and wellbeing benefits were noted in cases where nature engagement contributed to sense of belonging, stress relief or community support. Taken together, the sectoral impacts indicate that the most substantial changes occurred in the cultural and relational foundations of biodiversity engagement, with spillover effects into education and service provision. These cultural and relational shifts form necessary preconditions for more systemic economic or policy change to occur, though such longer-term impacts extend beyond the immediate timeframe of the cases. 81 Type of impacts Across the eleven cases, the most frequently observed impact types were conceptual (C) and cultural–attitude change (CA), followed by capacity building (CB). Instrumental impacts (I) and enduring connectivity (EC) occurred less frequently but were critical where present, as they supported the stabilisation or continuation of change beyond the project period. Based on the coding in the database, approximately two-thirds of all recorded impacts fall into conceptual and cultural–attitude categories, indicating that the strongest immediate outcomes of the interventions related to how participants understood, valued and related to biodiversity. Conceptual impacts (C) were present in nearly every case, appearing in around 80% of all recorded impact entries. These included shifts in how biodiversity was framed – from a distant environmental concern to something embedded in daily practices, cultural memory or local identity. For instance, in the Urban Youth Learning Community, participants reported coming to see biodiversity as something they could meaningfully influence. In the Swiss agro-biodiversity and religion case, biodiversity was reconnected to heritage, taste and intergenerational transmission. Cultural and attitude change (CA) occurred in around 60% of recorded impacts. These changes shaped belonging, legitimacy and emotional connection to nature. In the Graz community garden, stewarding the garden together enabled women from migrant and low-income backgrounds to renegotiate their presence and visibility in public space. In the UK case, cultural identity and narrative belonging redefined who is “allowed” to be seen as caring for biodiversity. Capacity building (CB) was recorded in over half of the cases, especially where participants or professionals gained new skills, confidence or pedagogical methods. In the Hungarian school garden case, teachers and students learned to work collaboratively with living materials, while in Oslo, professionals developed greater confidence in facilitating nature-based participation for children with disabilities. These capacity-building impacts frequently supported cultural and conceptual change, rather than occurring independently. Instrumental impacts (I) were relatively rare appearing, primarily those involving tangible ecological or learning environments. These included the establishment of the Graz garden as a shared biodiverse space and the introduction and integration of new practices (e.g., sowing native flowering plants, installing nesting boxes) in the school garden case. Instrumental impacts tended to act as entry points that enabled deeper cultural and conceptual change, rather than operating as endpoints in themselves. Enduring connectivity (EC) was less common in the database (present in around onethird of cases), but where it occurred it was central to the persistence of impacts. These included continuing stewardship in Graz, ongoing peer networks in the Urban Youth case, and the integration of school garden practices into routine school life. In these cases, impacts were more likely to be sustained after the end of direct project funding, suggesting that enduring connectivity is a key indicator of long-term transformation potential. 82 Overall, the pattern suggests that transformation tended to begin with conceptual and cultural shifts (C, CA), reinforced through capacity building (CB), occasionally materialised in instrumental forms (I), and sustained where enduring connectivity (EC) emerged. The cases showing the strongest long-term potential are those in which identity, practice and organisational support moved in alignment over time. Enabling factors for impacts The enabling factors identified across the eleven cases point to the importance of aligning material support, relational processes and institutional context to sustain and deepen biodiversity-related impacts. A recurrent theme in our findings are the significance of stable resources, including funding, land access and infrastructural support. For example, both the Graz community garden and the Hungarian school garden cases highlight that biodiversity-positive spaces can only be maintained if included within municipal or school budgets and strategic plans. This reflects the broader observation that gardens and similar micro-habitats require explicit recognition in food, education and biodiversity strategies to avoid dependency on short-term project funding. Cross-sectoral collaboration also played a key enabling role. Cases where schools, municipalities, cultural organisations, community groups or NGOs worked together are seemingly more likely to sustain engagement beyond the project period. Such collaborations provided continuity when project activities ended — for instance, the involvement of teachers, local NGOs or municipal environmental staff meant that garden care, outdoor learning or stewardship practices could continue irrespective of PLANET4B’s presence. In line with Lenti et al. (2023), collaboration functioned not only as resource-sharing, but as a form of collective problem framing, with this particularly visible in the Graz and Oslo cases. A further enabling factor was embeddedness in everyday practices, where biodiversity engagement was integrated into routines, rather than framed as an additional or exceptional activity. In several cases, participants emphasised that actions such as walking, gardening, or storytelling were meaningful because they were already familiar and valued practices. When biodiversity is made part of what people already do, rather than a specialist or technical domain, it becomes more likely to endure. This was evident in the UK case, where everyday storytelling and intergenerational exchange formed the basis for continued engagement, and in school settings where gardening aligned with hands-on and collective forms of learning. Relatedly, peer learning and exchange among PLANET4B case studies and participating actors, especially where groups travelled, shared experiences or hosted visits from others (e.g. during consortium events, internal and also external workshops and online exchanges). These exchanges provided both validation and practical knowhow: seeing that similar initiatives had succeeded elsewhere strengthened confidence and motivation, while also providing concrete organisational strategies for replication. Finally, institutional and policy conditions influenced whether impacts could stabilise or expand. Where policies such as biodiversity, food strategy, outdoor learning or 83 education frameworks provided authorising environments, the interventions were more easily maintained. Conversely, where institutional recognition was weak or policy priorities focused on efficiency and standardisation, sustaining biodiversity-positive practices required significantly more labour from those involved. Overall, the enabling factors suggest that durability of impact depends on the convergence of material support, relational trust, everyday relevance and institutional recognition. When these align, cultural and conceptual shifts are more likely to translate into continued practice and organisational embedding, forming the conditions under which transformative change can deepen over time. Hindering factors for impacts Despite the range of positive impacts, several structural and contextual barriers limited the depth, continuity or expansion of the PLANET4B project interventions. A recurrent hindrance across the place-based cases was the labour and time intensity required to maintain biodiversity-supportive spaces and practices. Gardens, outdoor learning areas and stewardship networks depend on ongoing care; without stable institutional support, this labour risks falling disproportionately on a few motivated individuals, making sustained engagement difficult. In some contexts, the absence of additional financial resources or land access further restricted the ability to consolidate or expand these spaces. Issues of access and inclusion also shaped the feasibility of participation. For example, distance from natural areas, the cost of transport or outdoor clothing and broader socio-economic barriers limited some communities' access to nature. In cases involving Black, Asian and ethnic minority communities, experiences of rural racism and unfamiliarity with predominantly white environmental spaces acted as deterrents to participation. Similarly, in the disability-inclusive outdoor recreation case, the lack of accessible infrastructure and limited coordination between mainstream outdoor organisations and disability organisations restricted opportunities for regular outdoor experiences. Several cases highlighted misalignment between case studies processes and institutional systems. Formal administrative or planning procedures did not always accommodate participatory and iterative approaches, leading to tensions between project timelines and bureaucratic requirements. Situations in which project frameworks were perceived as externally imposed, overly theoretical or insufficiently adapted to local context created resistance or disengagement from participants. This was particularly evident where groups expressed the need to “keep things bottom-up” and resisted pressures to conform to predefined conceptual models. In the sectoral cases, hindering factors were associated with structural power and market dynamics. In the soy–beef case, the absence of international standards, weak enforcement mechanisms and the influence of large agribusiness actors limited the scope for biodiversity-positive supply chain reform. In the migration and agriculture case, economic pressures, price volatility and dependence on flexible labour arrangements constrained farmers’ capacity to improve labour conditions or adopt 84 biodiversity-friendly practices. Across these cases, political sensitivities - particularly surrounding migration, land, labour and sovereignty - made stakeholder engagement more difficult and limited opportunities for open discussion and collective problemsolving. Cultural and institutional inertia also presented barriers. Established practices, routines and pedagogical expectations limited the introduction of experiential or ecological learning approaches in some school settings. In fashion, dominant norms of overproduction and fast consumption persisted despite growing awareness of sustainability issues, illustrating the difficulty of shifting paradigms grounded in consumer culture and global competition. Finally, data limitations and knowledge asymmetries hindered transformation in cases tied to finance systems. The lack of spatially specific biodiversity data, cognitive biases in financial decision-making and limited expertise among institutional actors made it difficult to assess risks and justify biodiversity-positive investment strategies. These factors reflect broader systemic challenges in integrating biodiversity into decisionmaking frameworks that are traditionally oriented towards economic optimisation. These hindering factors demonstrate that transformative change is constrained not only by resource limitations but by institutional logics, market structures, cultural norms and political sensitivities. They also indicate that interventions that seek to advance biodiversity-positive futures must engage not only with individual behaviour and local practice but with the broader systems of value, governance and economic organisation within which these practices are embedded. Importantly, in several cases the very barriers identified also acted as leverage points: recognising and addressing these constraints informed subsequent interventions and enabled further engagement. Contribution to European and global policies Across the eleven cases, impacts aligned with several priority areas of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 (BDS 2030), particularly those relating to restoring ecosystems, mainstreaming biodiversity considerations across sectors, and strengthening participation and equity in environmental action. The most frequently engaged actions1 were those supporting community-led restoration and nature-based solutions (e.g., Action 12), visible in the establishment and ongoing care of biodiversity-supportive gardens and outdoor learning environments. Several cases contributed to Action 82, which promote integrating biodiversity into education and local planning, through the embedding of ecological learning, stewardship and cocreation practices in school, municipal and community contexts. In cases linked to food systems and value chains, contributions were aligned with Actions 22, 23 as well as 89 and 90, which encourage more seed varieties and conservation of traditional seeds and integration of biodiversity into trade policies. Finally, where cases 1 Actions are numbered according to the EU Biodiversity Strategy Actions Tracker. https://dopa.jrc.ec.europa.eu/kcbd/actions-tracker/ 85 supported multi-actor collaboration and forms of exchanges, they aligned with Actions 80, which call for knowledge exchange among science, citizens and policymakers. The cases also contributed to broader global policy frameworks, particularly the SDGs2. The strongest and most consistent contributions were to SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), stemming from enhanced ecological learning, place-based stewardship and urban green space comanagement. Many cases advanced SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality) by explicitly addressing barriers to participation and creating culturally or socially inclusive pathways for engagement. Biodiversity-focused gardening, seed care, habitat restoration and sustainable consumption interventions supported SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and SDG 15 (Life on Land), while climate–biodiversity linkages were reflected in contributions to SDG 13 (Climate Action). Cases involving health, wellbeing and outdoor participation connected to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), particularly where nature engagement supported belonging, resilience and emotional connection. In the policyand market-oriented cases, contributions aligned with SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), where shifts in awareness, transparency and collaboration suggested emerging pathways towards more sustainable governance arrangements. These contributions indicate that the cases predominantly influenced the social and cultural foundations of biodiversity transformation – education, participation, equity, meaning, belonging, and everyday practice. These shifts provide the conditions under which more systemic policy and economic changes may later occur, aligning with the BDS 2030 emphasis on mainstreaming biodiversity into society, and with SDG principles of integrated, inclusive and collaborative action. 4 Discussion of findings This chapter aims to explore the key similarities and differences in system properties, transformative interventions and leverage points observed across the intensive and extensive case studies of the PLANET4B project. By examining the unique contexts and challenges of each case, we seek to identify common themes related to biodiversity. Through a comparative analysis of both place-based and sector-based cases, this section will explain how various interventions and leverage points contribute to the broader goals of sustainability and effective biodiversity decisionmaking. It is important to note that all the interventions identified in the intensive (placebased) case studies are those that have been or are currently being implemented, whereas the interventions listed in the extensive (sector-based) case studies are desired initiatives that have not been implemented due to the complexity of these extensive systems. 2 https://sdgs.un.org/goals 86 4.1. Reflection on system properties: insights from cases Similarities and differences in systems properties – intensive cases Despite their diverse geographic and cultural contexts, place-based case studies reveal common themes while differing in specific focus, system boundaries, and methods of intervention. Biodiversity is a common theme in all these cases, with each initiative highlighting different aspects. Biodiversity aspects include planning for accessible nature recreation, recognising the importance of natural areas for both recreation and conservation in Oslo, Norway; influencing the prioritisation of biodiversity and nature in decision-making processes in Germany; fostering both biodiversity and social inclusion through urban gardens in Graz, Austria; developing intercultural nature dialogues through nature walks in the UK; and understanding practices and attitudes of farmers toward nature and biodiversity in Switzerland. This shared commitment reflects a widespread recognition of biodiversity's crucial role in building sustainable and resilient communities. Another significant aspect among the case studies is the emphasis on community engagement. Indeed, intensive cases are supported by Learning Communities (LCs). LCs help co-design the research process and reflect on the usefulness of the tested methods. The common thread is a commitment to inclusivity, ensuring that underrepresented groups play an important role in shaping and benefiting from biodiversity initiatives. However, whereas all studies engage communities, the target groups vary widely: The Oslo case targets children with disabilities, highlighting accessibility; the German case emphasises youth empowerment, particularly marginalised young people; the Graz case’s "Bio-diverse Edible City Graz" initiative takes a broader, multi-actor approach that includes stakeholders at multiple societal levels; the UK case focuses on intercultural dialogue, bringing together racially and ethnically diverse participants; the Swiss case narrows its focus to farmers, influenced by their religious or ethical beliefs. This variation reflects differences in context, objectives, and system properties, such as societal structures and cultural values. The community engagement of the intensive cases also reflects the intersectionality aspect of their approaches. The intensive cases reveal how various systems of oppression and privilege intersect, shaping access to biodiversity, nature, and related opportunities. Each case highlights the importance of addressing multiple and overlapping social categories, such as ability, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and belief systems, to promote equity and inclusivity. Together, these cases illustrate the importance of recognising and addressing intersecting identities and systemic barriers to create inclusive and equitable biodiversity practices. Relatedly, while all the cases integrate social, economic, and political fields to a certain extent, the degree and approach to this integration vary. The case from Germany emphasises social and economic factors, such as socioeconomic disparities, citizenship, and migration status, influencing access to resources and opportunities. Similarly, for the Swiss case, economic factors, such as subsidies, market prices, and access to credit, strongly influence farmers’ decisions regarding 87 biodiversity-related actions. Also in Norway, access to or lack of economic subsidies and social support are key enablers or barriers for children with disabilities to engage in outdoor nature recreation. Institutional and personal perspectives, addressing both the dynamics of institutions and actors, are key components in the Graz case that directly influence its system. These actors and frameworks influence the project’s ability to achieve its goals. The case from Oslo, Norway, similarly highlights the importance of perspectives or attitudes with which parents and children are met in dealing with institutions and other actors to gain access to outdoor nature recreation. Policy decisions on land use planning and resource allocation significantly impact this access for children with disabilities. The UK case emphasises social and intergenerational aspects of their project that the walks in nature foster interactions across generations. The multigenerational aspect of the walks strengthens the sense of community, facilitates knowledge sharing, and promotes understanding across different age groups. Ultimately, education emerges as one of the key factors strongly influencing various case systems. This includes the existing educational system's role in fostering environmental awareness and engagement among young people in the German case, and the significance of knowledge sharing and education in enhancing food literacy and raising awareness about biodiversity in the Graz case, as well as for making outdoor nature recreation accessible to children with disabilities in the Oslo case. Additionally, the UK nature walks provide both educational value and contribute to participants’ well-being. Access to education and training is also a significant determinant of farmers' practices and decision-making in the Swiss case. Eventually, PLANET4B's intensive case studies showcase various strategies for enhancing biodiversity stewardship. Although all share a commitment to biodiversity and inclusivity through community engagement, they differ in their approaches. This variation reflects the complex interplay of local contexts, community needs, and systemic priorities. Opportunities and challenges Every case presents unique opportunities and challenges based on the key components within its system and the relationships among them. The case from Oslo, Norway, led by NINA, emphasises positive experiences of accessible nature recreation that can lead to greater investment in inclusive infrastructure and programs for children with disabilities, promoting a wider appreciation of natural areas and biodiversity. Moreover, effective collaboration among stakeholders (parents, organisations, government) can lead to improved accessibility and inclusivity of recreational spaces. On the other hand, the case also highlights potential barriers that arise from a limited understanding of the needs of children with disabilities. This can result in ineffective planning, which may limit their access to appropriate recreational spaces. Consequently, this could hinder their connection to nature and reduce their appreciation for biodiversity. 88 The case study from Graz, Austria, highlights the importance of successful pilot projects and increased collaboration among stakeholders that can create momentum, attracting further support and leading to the expansion of edible landscapes and urban gardens. Additionally, promoting social inclusion and ensuring equitable access to green spaces and healthy food contribute to increased biodiversity through broader participation and engagement. On the other hand, political and institutional actors and frameworks such as municipal laws, strategies and regulations can be decisive in strengthening or weakening community initiatives. They can, for instance, influence the community project's ability to achieve its goals and shape its development and implementation. Therefore, these actors and frameworks are considered essential in the core system of the case. Furthermore, while factors such as media promotion of outdoor activities, collaboration with other organisations, and education can significantly enhance outreach, impact, and knowledge, modern lifestyles – characterised by busy schedules and increased screen time – can limit the time available for outdoor activities according to the UK case, DC. Additionally, the UK case highlights the potential for racism as the walking groups grow too large. Therefore, it is essential to implement measures for inclusivity and equity. The distance and cost of travel also pose significant barriers. Strategies to address these obstacles, such as providing transportation or financial assistance, are crucial for promoting inclusivity. The case study of Switzerland illustrates the significance of positive political and community support in fostering an environment conducive to the adoption of sustainable farming practices. In contrast, a lack of support can hinder such adoption. In Switzerland, increased access to education and training also presents opportunities for implementing improved farming practices that protect biodiversity. Moreover, strong religious beliefs that emphasise stewardship of the land can promote more sustainable and biodiversity-friendly farming approaches. However, beliefs that prioritise short-term economic gains may lead to practices that are detrimental to biodiversity. Similarities and differences in systems properties – extensive cases The sector-based cases explore diverse yet interconnected approaches to addressing biodiversity and sustainability across various systems, ranging from agriculture and trade to education, fashion, and finance. While each case reflects a unique context and focus, they collectively highlight the complex relationships between human activity and biodiversity, emphasising the need for systemic and inclusive solutions. Each case investigates how biodiversity intersects with a specific sector or societal system. In Hungary, the case study on agro-biodiversity management offers insights into how gender roles and local practices can significantly influence seed-saving practices and agricultural biodiversity. Similarly, agriculture takes a central stage in the EU agriculture and migration case, which examines how labour shortages and migration patterns affect agricultural practices and biodiversity across European nations. These cases, while the focus varies, demonstrate how agricultural practices are embedded within biodiversity conservation efforts. 89 On a broader scale, the case of trade between Brazil and the EU explores the global value chains of soy and beef, highlighting the social and biodiversity implications of telecoupled systems. Thus, this study illustrates the complex interplay between market forces, regulation, and grassroots movements and underscores the global responsibility for biodiversity decision-making in interconnected economies. Education emerges as a critical area for change in Hungary’s public education system, where enhancing biodiversity awareness and experiential learning among youth serves as a foundation for long-term sustainability. Meanwhile, Italy’s investigation into the global fashion system seeks to understand the fashion sector with a focus on nature-positive transformative change. This case emphasises the transformative potential of rethinking the textile, apparel and fashion industry and cultural mindsets from an "ego-system" to an "ecosystem" perspective. While these cases differ in focus, they all share commitment to find solution of the systematic problems through paradigm shifts and values change, that may become evident in certain instances. For instance, the Hungarian agrobiodiversity and management case highlights a paradigm shift from the current market-based system, which prioritises growth, productivity, and efficiency, to a model inspired by Ernst Schumacher's philosophy of "small is beautiful." Furthermore, the cases focusing on trade, agriculture and migration, and fashion operate at broader scales, addressing the systemic nature of global industries and supply chains. The sustainable investment behaviour case bridges these approaches, suggesting that individual behaviour and institutional change are both essential for fostering biodiversity and sustainability. On the other hand, geographic scale shapes the approaches of these cases, as the localised practices of Hungarian farmers differ from the global dynamics of Brazil-EU trade. Yet, the underlying interdependence of these systems reinforces the importance of addressing biodiversity challenges across all levels – local, regional, and global. The cases also highlight the diversity of stakeholders involved, from farmers and educators to investors, industry leaders, and grassroots movements. Their inclusion underscores a critical theme: the path to better decisions to biodiversity requires the active participation of all actors within these systems. Whether through enhancing youth education, involving indigenous knowledge to decision-making, or influencing global trade and investment, each case contributes a unique perspective to the collective effort of integrating biodiversity stewardship into societal structures. This also reflects the intersectionality aspect of their cases, as in the intensive cases. The agrobiodiversity and management case emphasises the intersection of gender and agricultural practices. In the case of trade and global value chains, the intersection of Indigenous knowledge and environmental justice is critical. The education case focuses on fostering environmental awareness among youth, where intersections of age, gender, and social status shape access to resources and opportunities. The EU agriculture and migration case reveals the interplay of migration, labour, and biodiversity. The "From ego-system to eco-system" case exposes the unequal dynamics between the Global North and South regarding the global fashion system. 96 Resilience building Many interventions proposed by extensive cases aim to restructure existing systems to enhance resilience. In the Agrobiodiversity Management case in Hungary, the initiative to create seed networks exemplifies systemic change by decentralising seed management. This approach builds resilience by allowing diverse, locally adapted seeds to thrive, ensuring communities can better respond to environmental changes. The “From Ego-system to Ecosystem” case also aims for systemic change by reconfiguring fashion supply chains to be more local and responsive to ecosystem needs, which bolsters resilience against environmental degradation caused by fast fashion. Building resilience in systems often involves making them more adaptable to local conditions and less reliant on centralised control. Integration of environmental and social dimensions A significant theme is the integration of environmental and social considerations into traditional economic and policy frameworks. The intervention to reform the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the Trade and Global Value Chains case integrates environmental considerations by promoting agroecological practices, while also addressing social justice by supporting small-scale farmers and reducing reliance on industrial agriculture. The EU Agriculture and Migration case emphasises social dimensions by linking biodiversity-friendly farming subsidies to improved working conditions for migrant workers, indicating a blend of ecological and social goals within agricultural frameworks. Policy and regulatory reforms Many interventions across extensive cases focus on changing policy and regulatory frameworks to better integrate sustainability objectives. This includes pushing for agricultural policy reforms, enhancing biodiversity considerations in financial systems, and promoting just transitions in agriculture. Regulatory changes are seen as key levers for inducing broader systemic changes. In the Sustainable Investment Behaviour case, interventions are aimed at integrating biodiversity metrics into financial regulations, encouraging accountability and environmental stewardship among financial institutions through policy reforms. The Trade and Global Value Chains case also proposes significant policy changes by aiming to reduce agrotoxins imports and highlighting the need for a more sustainable approach in international trade policies. Paradigm shifts toward sustainable practices A shift in mindset is frequently emphasised, moving away from conventional growthoriented paradigms to models that prioritise ecological health and sustainability. This is evident in initiatives advocating for agroecology, circular economies, and sustainable investment practices focused on long-term environmental and social outcomes. For example, the education intervention in Hungary’s education case encourages a paradigm shift in teaching by transforming education from knowledgefocused to experience-based, fostering environmental consciousness among students. In the Sustainable Investment Behaviour case, the shift is towards redefining financial system goals from profit maximisation to ecological stability and social wellbeing, promoting long-term sustainability. 97 Interconnections between local and global dynamics Several interventions address the connections between local actions and global impacts, recognising the importance of local adaptation as part of a global sustainability strategy. Cases often highlight how changes at the local level can influence and contribute to broader global sustainability goals, fostering solidarity and cooperative approaches across regions. The “From Ego-system to Ecosystem” case exemplifies this theme by addressing globalised supply chains and advocating for local production that reduces global ecological impacts, connecting local actions to global sustainability efforts. In the Agrobiodiversity Management case in Hungary, the establishment of local seed hubs not only impacts regional resilience but also contributes to global biodiversity conservation, recognising the role local solutions play in the broader environmental agenda. 4.3. Comparison of tasks T1.7 and T3.2 Both tasks T1.7 and T3.2 investigated leverage points within the PLANET4B project, but they differed significantly in their objective, approach, focus, and some findings (Table 5). Task 1.7 provided a broader, comparative overview of leverage point preferences, setting the stage for Task 3.2. Task 3.2 then delved deeper into the specifics of interventions and leverage points within the case studies, providing more data. The findings of Task 1.7 are partially supported by Task 3.2's findings (the frequent targeting of multiple, including deep, leverage points). However, Task 3.2 adds significant detail by specifying which leverage points were targeted by which interventions and shows the diversity of approaches to achieving change. Regarding T1.7 and extensive cases, the initial assumption about sector-based studies prioritising deep leverage points was refined. The analysis demonstrated that deep leverage points are not exclusive to sector-based or institutional levels; they are "scale neutral" (Barton et al. 2024, p. 75) and can operate across intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional scales. These findings were supported by T3.2 results, where a diverse range of leverage points were identified across interventions, including both shallow and deep leverage points (see Table 3 and 4). The analysis demonstrated the importance of addressing root system goals ("intent") and fundamental structures ("design") for long-term systemic change. The findings of T3.2 shows that the targeting of both shallow and deep leverage points, are consistent with and build upon the scale-neutral nature of leverage points identified in T1.7. Together, they provide a more robust understanding of how leverage points can be effectively used to achieve potential transformative change and contribute to a more complete understanding of leverage points within the PLANET4B project. 98 Table 5. Comparison of tasks T1.7 and T3.2 (source: Autor’s own work). Task 1.7 Task 3.2 Approach Top-down (dialogues with case leaders) Bottom-up (participatory workshops with communities) LP framework used Meadows’ 12-point scale Abson’s 4-point scale Focus Type of leverage point (shallow vs. deep); level of transformation Specific leverage points targeted by interventions; diversity of approaches Level of Detail Broad comparison of case study types; limited specific data Detailed analysis of interventions and targeted leverage points for each case Findings Place-based cases prioritised deep leverage points Diverse approaches; multiple leverage points often targeted simultaneously 4.4. Understanding impacts in PLANET4B (Agnes Zolyomi, Geraldine Brown, Amelie Dakoure and Alex Franklin) The analysis of impacts across the eleven PLANET4B case studies illustrates that transformative change for biodiversity unfolds through multi-layered, relational and iterative processes rather than through linear pathways from intervention to outcome. Across diverse geographical and socio-cultural contexts, the most consistent and immediate impacts observed were conceptual, cultural and relational: changes in how participants understood biodiversity, how they perceived their own capacity to act, and how they experienced their connection to others and to the living world. These forms of change correspond to what O’Brien (2018) describes as transformation within the personal sphere, where shifts in emotion, identity and meaning provide the basis for later practical and political transformations. They also align with recent work in biodiversity governance and learning that highlights the importance of cultivating agency, belonging and identity as preconditions for longer-term structural change (Masterson et al. 2019 and West et al., 2018). The distributed nature of impacts in PLANET4B resonates with non-linear theories of transformation (Abson et al., 2017), which emphasise that meaningful change rarely occurs through direct transfer of knowledge into policy, but through accumulative shifts in practices and worldviews. Many of the most meaningful impacts documented here emerged from seemingly small, situated actions: planting or tending a garden, sharing stories in intergenerational spaces, engaging in youth-led dialogues, co-stewarding a neighbourhood park, or collaboratively observing insects, seeds or birds. Such interventions acted initially at shallow leverage points (new practices, tools or methods), yet over time enabled deeper leverage, reconfiguring how participants valued themselves and their relations with others and the more-than-human world. This dynamic reflects findings across the transformation literature indicating that shifts in values, narratives and identities are often the enabling conditions through which 99 practical and institutional change becomes possible (Ives et al, 2019; Masterson et al. 2019). Durability of impacts was strongest where interventions became embedded in everyday routines or organisational practices. In the Graz and Hungarian school garden cases, garden stewardship and outdoor learning became regularised into ongoing community and school activities. In the Urban Youth Learning Community, participants extended biodiversity-related action beyond the project, initiating new, independently funded initiatives. These cases exemplify what Edwards and Meagher (2020) describe as enduring connectivity: the formation of social and relational infrastructures that sustain transformation beyond the project period. This is particularly important in biodiversity contexts where continuity of care, observation and collective engagement is crucial to both ecological and societal outcomes. Direct biodiversity impacts were observed primarily in place-based cases where land, vegetation and habitat management formed the basis of engagement. These included the creation or enhancement of biodiverse gardens, seed exchange and preservation practices, and the establishment of micro-habitats. In contrast, sectoral cases in finance, trade and fashion produced indirect biodiversity impacts by reframing how biodiversity is valued and interpreted within professional and governance systems. These reframings represent early-stage conceptual and cultural leverage, which may require longer time horizons to manifest in ecological or regulatory outcomes. Intersectionality proved foundational in shaping who was able to participate meaningfully and how biodiversity care was experienced and understood. Cases engaging migrant women, Black and Asian communities, youth, children with disabilities, Indigenous peoples and small-scale farmers showed that addressing inequity, recognition and belonging is not peripheral but central to enabling transformation. Participation and agency emerged when individuals were recognised as legitimate actors within biodiversity spaces and when interventions were attentive to cultural identity, social position and the historical dynamics of exclusion. Structural constraints nonetheless limited the scale and pace of change in several cases. Time and labour intensity, institutional inertia, funding precarity, bureaucratic misalignment and entrenched market logics formed significant barriers. In sectoral cases, power asymmetries in global supply chains, regulatory fragmentation and limited access to spatial and ecological data further constrained transformation. These hindering factors illustrate that transformative change requires engagement not only with practices and identities but with the wider political-economic systems that organise food production, land use, education, labour and consumption. A further insight across the cases relates to the relational ontology of biodiversity engagement. In several Learning Communities, participants did not only gain knowledge about biodiversity; they reconfigured how they understood themselves in relation to the living world. Encounters with plants, soil, insects, rivers and seeds were experienced as relational events that reshaped emotional and ethical orientations. Participants came to see themselves as acting with nature rather than for nature, 100 recognising co-agency and interdependence. This aligns with D3.3 observations that co-presence, care and shared attention became sources of meaning and motivation. These shifts are consistent with the argument that the deepest leverage points for transformation lie in worldviews, identities and meaning-making processes (Abson et al., 2017; Westley et al., 2017). They also align with impact scholarship showing that conceptual and cultural shifts, changes in interpretive frames, and the building of relationships and networks are key dimensions of research impact (Nutley et al., 2007; Edwards and Meagher, 2020; Zolyomi et al., 2023). In this light, the relational, cultural and affective transformations observed in PLANET4B are not secondary outcomes but constitute the foundation upon which practical and political transformations depend. Together, these findings suggest that transformative biodiversity action is most promising where social, cultural and ecological dimensions are approached together. Transformation appears strongest where three conditions are present: meaningful participation and local ownership; alignment of everyday practices with shared values; and institutional recognition that sustains and legitimises new practices. These shifts form the conditions under which more systemic policy and economic changes may later occur, aligning with the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the SDGs emphasis on mainstreaming biodiversity across society and sectors. In this sense, the impacts documented in PLANET4B represent the emergence of seeds of transformation—small, situated, relational practices with the potential to grow into broader change over time. 4.5. Limitations of the work Despite the comprehensive approach taken in this research report, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the diversity of geographical and cultural contexts across the case studies may limit the generalisability of findings. Each case study is embedded within unique local conditions, which may not be applicable or replicable in different settings. This diversity also presented challenges in standardising methodologies or outcomes across the project. Also limited number of case studies means limited number of 'topics' covered. Secondly, the reliance on participatory methodologies, while fostering community engagement, implies certain constraints. Participant bias or varying levels of stakeholder engagement could influence outcomes, particularly in cases where community interest or understanding of the project's aims varied significantly. In some cases, logistical limitations such as language barriers or limited facilitator availability might have affected the depth of participant involvement. Thirdly, the timeframe allocated for each case study was relatively short compared to the often longer-term nature of systemic transformations. As a result, capturing the immediate impacts and dynamics of leverage points might not fully represent the longterm changes and adaptability within the systems studied. Delayed or underestimated systemic impacts might emerge after the observation period. 101 Furthermore, the complexity of leveraging points in interconnected systems sometimes made it challenging to attribute changes to specific interventions. The cascading effects of interventions across leverage points were often interdependent, complicating the assessment of the distinct impact of each intervention. Finally, there may be limitations in the data collection process. Translating data from local languages to English could result in nuanced information loss, impacting the overall analysis. Addressing these limitations would require extended research duration, increased standardised training for facilitators, more robust data verification mechanisms, and possibly the integration of longitudinal studies to better understand the long-term impacts of changes initiated within the project’s framework. These enhancements would contribute to more comprehensive insights and practical applications of the research findings across diverse contexts. The findings concerning the impacts assessment are based on a diverse set of sources (case documentation, interviews, workshops, field notes), which varied in depth and detail across the eleven cases. As a result, some impacts are supported by multiple forms of evidence, while others rely more on reported experiences. The coding of impacts, particularly conceptual, cultural and relational changes, involved interpretive judgement. Although shared coding protocols and validation workshops improved consistency, the categorisation of impacts cannot be regarded as fully objective. The relatively short project timeframe also limited our ability to identify long-term or systemic impacts, especially those unfolding at institutional or ecological scales. In several cases, what we were able to observe were conditions enabling future change rather than fully realised impacts. Attribution is also inherently complex: many developments occurred within broader social and organisational contexts, meaning that PLANET4B was one contributing factor among others. Finally, direct biodiversity outcomes were harder to document than social outcomes, given that ecological change typically requires longer monitoring periods. In such cases, we recorded changes in practices, awareness and stewardship as precursors to potential future biodiversity benefits. These limitations highlight the importance of longitudinal follow-up to assess how early shifts continue to evolve beyond the project period. 5 Conclusion and outlook The research report effectively addresses the objective to compile all case studies’ system and leverage points in each case study. The report achieves this through the analysis of intensive (place-based) and extensive (sector-based) case studies. The comparative analysis across these cases reveals both commonalities and divergences in the factors driving potential transformative change, providing a comprehensive understanding of the complexities involved in aiming to achieve transformative change across different levels and contexts. The findings presented in this report reveal significant insights into the interconnection of systems and leverage points within the 102 transformative processes targeting biodiversity and sustainability. Through an analysis of intensive and extensive case studies, we have demonstrated how a systemsthinking approach can provide a holistic understanding of complex issues, allowing for targeted interventions that engage key stakeholders. Our research highlights several significant insights derived from the participatory systems mapping workshops conducted across both intensive and extensive case studies. Firstly, the application of systems thinking allows for an understanding of the interactions among various components within ecological, social and economic systems. This perspective is essential for recognising the interconnected challenges that influence sustainability efforts. The identification and engagement of key leverage points – areas where small changes can yield substantial impacts – emerged as a vital strategy for enabling systemic transformation. The analysis revealed that many interventions targeted deeper leverage points (related to intent, design, and processes). These leverage points not only facilitate immediate changes but also promote long-lasting shifts in societal paradigms, encouraging stakeholders to adopt values that prioritise biodiversity and sustainability over short-term gains. The importance of community engagement and inclusive dialogue was key throughout the case studies. By involving diverse stakeholders – including marginalised voices – each initiative fostered ownership, leading to improved acceptance and implementation of sustainable practices. These insights contribute to subsequent project activities, particularly in the areas of policy formulation (WP4). The findings can provide directions to inform policy makers about the necessity to target certain deeper leverage points, promoting policies that align with community values while addressing biodiversity objectives effectively. Across the eleven cases, PLANET4B demonstrated that meaningful biodiversity transformation begins with shifts in values, relationships and everyday practices, which can create the foundations for wider institutional and ecological change. While many impacts observed are emergent rather than final, the cases show clear pathways through which agency, belonging and stewardship can become sustained and shared over time. Continued support, follow-up and alignment with enabling policy and organisational structures will be essential to ensure that these early seeds of transformation can grow and consolidate in the years ahead. Based on the findings and analysis, several recommendations emerged: • Active involvement from community members, particularly marginalised groups, should be encouraged to ensure that diverse perspectives are involved in proposed interventions. The use of participatory methods may facilitate this engagement, supporting continuous improvement of strategies. • Targeting deeper leverage points: interventions that address intent and design within systems should be prioritised. This includes the advocacy for policy reforms that emphasise sustainability, equity and justice, along with the promotion of educational programs aimed at shifting societal values toward biodiversity. 103 • Leveraging local knowledge: existing local initiatives and knowledge systems could be leveraged to create tailored interventions. This approach may involve supporting community-led efforts and integrating local ecological practices into broader sustainability goals. The findings of this report emphasise the significance of adopting a systems-thinking approach to effectively tackle the complex challenges of biodiversity and sustainability. By targeting deeper leverage points and promoting inclusive stakeholder engagement, potential transformative change may be triggered that aligns community values with sustainable practices. 104 References Abson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., Von Wehrden, H., Abernethy, P., Ives, C. D., Jager, N. W., & Lang, D. J. (2017). Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio, 46(1), 30 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y Arponen, A., & Salomaa, A. (2023). Transformative potential of conservation actions. Biodiversity and Conservation, 32(11), 3509-3531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02600-3 Barton, D.N., Zolyomi, A., Franklin, A., Aas-Hanssen, A.E., Motschiunig, A., Thaler A. … & Bredin, Y.K. (2024). Transdisciplinary diagnostic framework for biodiversity decision-making assessment. (Report No D1.7). Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. BeLue, R., Carmack, C., Myers, K. R., Weinreb-Welch, L., & Lengerich, E. J. (2012). Systems Thinking Tools as Applied to Community-Based Participatory Research: A Case Study. Health Education & Behavior, 39(6), 745–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198111430708 Bolton, K. A., Whelan, J., Fraser, P., Bell, C., Allender, S., & Brown, A. D. (2022). The Public Health 12 framework: Interpreting the ‘Meadows 12 places to act in a system’ for use in public health. Archives of Public Health, 80(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-022-00835-0 Bozeman, B., & Sarewitz, D. (2011). Public value mapping and science policy evaluation. Minerva, 49(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-011-9161-7. Chan, K. M. A., Boyd, D. R., Gould, R. K., Jetzkowitz, J., Liu, J., Muraca, B., Naidoo, R., Olmsted, P., Satterfield, T., Selomane, O., Singh, G. G., Sumaila, R., Ngo, H. T., Boedhihartono, A. K., Agard, J., De Aguiar, A. P. D., Armenteras, D., Balint, L., Barrington-Leigh, C., … Brondízio, E. S. (2020). Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability. People and Nature, 2(3), 693– 717. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10124 Davelaar, D. (2021). Transformation for sustainability: A deep leverage points approach. Sustainability Science, 16(3), 727–747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00872-0 Dorninger, C., Abson, D. J., Apetrei, C. I., Derwort, P., Ives, C. D., Klaniecki, K., ... & von Wehrden, H. (2020). Leverage points for sustainability transformation: a review on interventions in food and energy systems. Ecological Economics, 171, 106570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106570 Edwards, D. M., & Meagher, L. R. (2020). A framework to evaluate the impacts of research on policy and practice: A forestry pilot study. Forest Policy and Economics, 114, 101975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.101975. Horcea-Milcu, A.-I. (2022). Values as leverage points for sustainability transformation: Two pathways for transformation research. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 57, 101205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101205 IPBES (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (pp. 1-1082). Brondízio, E. S., Settele, J., Díaz, S., and Ngo, H. T. (eds). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673 105 Ives, C. D., Abson, D. J., Von Wehrden, H., Dorninger, C., Klaniecki, K., & Fischer, J. (2018). Reconnecting with nature for sustainability. Sustainability Science, 13(5), 1389–1397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0542-9 Ives, C. D., Freeth, R., & Fischer, J. (2019). Inside-out sustainability: The neglect of inner worlds. Ambio, 49, 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-01901187-w. Leventon, J., Duşe, I. A., & Horcea-Milcu, A. I. (2021). Leveraging biodiversity action from plural values: transformations of governance systems. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 609853. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.609853 Manlosa, A. O., Schultner, J., Dorresteijn, I., & Fischer, J. (2019). Leverage points for improving gender equality and human well-being in a smallholder farming context. Sustainability Science, 14(2), 529–541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0636-4 Masterson, V. A., Stedman, R. C., Enqvist, J., Tengö, M., Giusti, M., Wahl, D., & Svedin, U. (2019). Sense of place in social–ecological systems: From theory to empirics. Sustainability Science, 14(3), 555–566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00695-8. Mattijssen, T. J. M., Ganzevoort, W., Van Den Born, R. J. G., Arts, B. J. M., Breman, B. C., Buijs, A. E., Van Dam, R. I., Elands, B. H. M., De Groot, W. T., & Knippenberg, L. W. J. (2020). Relational values of nature: Leverage points for nature policy in Europe. Ecosystems and People, 16(1), 402–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1848926 Meadows, D. H. (1999). Places to Intervene in a System. Hartland: The Sustainability Institute. Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Bristol: Policy Press. O’Brien, K. (2018). Is the 1.5°C target possible? Exploring the three spheres of transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.04.010. Riechers, M., Balázsi, Á., García-Llorente, M., & Loos, J. (2021). Human-nature connectedness as leverage point. Ecosystems and People, 17(1), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.1912830 Unkelos-Shpigel, N. (2016). Peel the onion: use of collaborative and gamified tools to enhance software engineering education. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops: CAiSE 2016 International Workshops, Ljubljana, Slovenia, June 13-17, 2016, Proceedings 28 (pp. 122-128). Springer International Publishing. West, S., Haider, L. J., Masterson, V., Enqvist, J. P., Svedin, U. and Tengö, M. (2018). Stewardship, care and relational values. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.008. Westley, F., Tjornbo, O., Schultz, L., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Crona, B., & Bodin, Ö. (2013). A theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 18(3), 27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05072-180327. Zolyomi, A., Chinweuba, E., Wilson, K., Barritt, J. and Brown, C. (2024). Knowledge synthesis report of existing and ongoing projects and initiatives (and its update). Report No D3.2 of the Horizon Europe Project BioAgora. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. 112 Annex 3: Workshop protocol for intensive case studies Methodology Guide for Task 3.2 (Systems mapping and transformative interventions) Intensive (place-based) case studies CzechGlobe (Blanka Loučková, Simon Vaňo, Patricia Ofori-Amanfo, Julia Leventon) December 2023 (a revised version) WORKSHOP 1: SYSTEMS MAPPING WHAT WILL BE DONE Case coordinators/workshop facilitators with the learning communities will collaboratively develop a systems map (using a native language) which will be visualised in a form of onion diagram (= a chart that helps to visualise the different system layers and their relationships). 1-1.5 hour GOAL Main aim is to map the system of your case study. This means to identify the main factors (or other systems) influencing the key system and to organise them according to the degree of influence. (Optional: to identify key relationships – negative, positive – between these factors) OUTPUT A systems map in the form of an onion diagram with 3 circles: - the core circle: your case study - second + third circles: factors influencing your case study which is at the core (based on level of influence) 113 –> second circle: direct factors (e.g. these have direct influence on your case, such as local community-level factors, local policy or economic drivers etc.) –> third circle: distal factors (e.g. these have indirect effect, these broader drivers such as socioeconomic drivers, demographic, or factors at national level) TOOLS NEEDED § a template of an onion diagram (A1 format ideally) that will be used for mapping (can be drawn by hand on a large format paper) § post-it notes and markers of different colours § a short ppt on systems mapping (can be downloaded here) THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Systems mapping is a process of visual depiction of a particular system in order to provide a simplified understanding of system and to visualise the relationships among its component (e.g. actors, flows, ...). The onion metaphor is used in systems mapping to imagine systems in a way that they are split into layers, which makes it easier to think about and understand its different parts and relationships. In WS 1 we will be using an onion diagram with 3 circles (layers), which will contain one inner circle, representing the core concept (= your case study), and two circles (layers) that surround the core concept. You with your learning communities will together identify the most important factors influencing your core concept (case study) and place them into these two circles according to the degree of influence: direct factors (e.g. community-level factors or other direct drivers) will be placed in second circle, distal factors (e.g. national-level factors or other indirect drivers) will be placed in the third circle (see figure below). Further reading: Yanniek Schoonhoven & Hens Runhaar (2018) Conditions for the adoption of agroecological farming practices: a holistic framework illustrated with the case of almond farming in Andalusia, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 16:6, 442454, https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2018.1537664 Leventon, J., Buhr, M., Kessler, L. et al. Processes of sustainability transformation across systems scales: leveraging systemic change in the textile sector. Sustain Sci (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01436-8 114 Example of onion model (based on Leventon et al. 2023): In this onion model there is a visualisation of the production system of textile sector in Germany (= core system, in the centre) and the most important factors (systems) influencing this system. 115 Examples of factors (based on Schoonhoven and Runhaar 2018): Economic Economic system (wholesalers, retailers, consumers) Cost-benefit ratio Subsidies Finance and investment Market Demand … Social Values (cultural, religious, …) Social norms Education Gender Community support Public opinion .. Political Political system Legislation, policy and regulations Support from government Spatial planning … Other Species conservation Monitoring and awareness Food production Tourism Land-use changes Resources overexploitation Innovativeness Communication Skills Responsibility for future generations Unsustainable behaviour … INSTRUCTIONS 1. Introduction (5 mins): allow participant to introduce themselves if they are unacquainted, make a quick ice-breaker activity (optional). 2. Set context for the systems mapping exercise (5 mins) Explain to the participants what will be done – see section Theoretical background above + you can display ppt slide made by CzechGlobe (can be downloaded here) You can ask your participants these questions: What is the core concept in your case study? (This should be the key idea of your case study – e.g. Local food production and biodiversity conservation, Engagement of migrants, Strengthening nature connectedness, etc …) 116 3. Identify key factors (20 mins) Encourage your participants to brainstorm what factors they think influence the core concept/key idea – either directly or indirectly. They ideally write these factors down on a post-it notes so it is possible to move these across layers as the discussion develops, or directly into layers of onion. Each post-it should represent only one factor. Populate the layers as accurately as possible. 4. Check the systems map (10 mins) Ask your participants to check and reflect the map (onion diagram) after it is completed. If some factors are very similar or represent the same thing, try to cluster them. OPTIONAL: 5. Identify key relationships between factors (20-30 mins) In case there is time, participants can describe how the components (factors and core concept) in onion model influence each other. Participants (or you – facilitators, according to the participants’ instructions) mark influence arrows into the onion model. Examples of guiding questions you can ask participants: Where in the system are the flows of knowledge, information, influence, money, people? Which components are related to which other components in the system? How are the components interrelated? Do they influence each other either positively (+) or negatively (-)? Are there any outside influences that shape the system? REPORTING REQUEST After the workshop, please, translate the onion diagram into English and send it to the CzechGlobe team ([email protected]) Also please provide a brief audio or video description of your onion diagram in English. Lastly, please do not forget to take pictures during the workshop! NOTES: WORKSHOP 2: LEVERAGE POINTS WHAT WILL BE DONE Participants will use their systems maps from WS1, combined with selected interventions being trialled in the PLANET4B project. Using a Leverage Points framework, they will identify which systems properties are targeted by the interventions and will create a narrative of how that change happens (the narrative of change). Textile production in Germany 117 Through the workshop, one or few interventions (the levers) will be chosen to explore which layers of the system they target. You will be then asked to consider how these interventions could lever changes through the materials, processes, design and intent of those systems and in what order. Key questions: 1. What intervention(s) do you identify in your case? 2. Where in your system map (WS1) do they intervene? (i.e. in which layer of your onion diagram)? 3. How does the intervention target the leverage points (materials, processes, design, intent)? 1–1.5 hours GOAL To outline narratives of change as to how specific interventions create change, in which layer of the system, through which leverage points may interventions create desired systems transformation. OUTPUT A narrative of change TOOLS NEEDED § systems map that was developed in WS1 § A4 papers § Pens and markers § a short ppt on leverage points (can be downloaded here) THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Leverage points framework Systems are interconnected networks of actors and organisations, connected via flows of materials, information and power. Within a system thinking perspective, we can understand systems to have properties of materials, processes, design and paradigms. These properties are leverage points at which we can intervene to change the system towards more sustainable outcomes. We use the following four categories that characterise leverage points: 1) materials 2) processes 3) design and 4) intent. Starting from the deepest, intent relates to the worldviews and paradigms that are being embodied and enacted by the system. Design refers to the structures, actors and organisations in the system and how they 118 interact with each other. Processes refer to the feedbacks or procedures that move materials around the system, and materials are the flows of matters within the system, such as money or fabrics and other resources. The Leverage Points framework says that a change can be created in a system by targeting leverage Points. Shallower leverage points are usually easier to see and create change, but they do not change the system very far initially. Deeper leverage points are harder to see, but will create more fundamental change. They do so because changing e.g. intent necessarily requires change in all the shallower leverage points. Further reading: Abson DJ, Fischer J, Leventon J, Newig J, Schomerus T, Vilsmaier U, von Wehrden H, Abernethy P, Ives CD, Jager NW, Lang DJ, (2017) Leverage points for sustainability transformation. AMBIO 46 (1):30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y Fischer J, Riechers M (2019) A leverage points perspective on sustainability. People Nat 1 (1):115–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.13 Leventon, J., Buhr, M., Kessler, L. et al. Processes of sustainability transformation across systems scales: leveraging systemic change in the textile sector. Sustain Sci (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01436-8 (examples of interventions targeting specific leverage points) Examples of leverage points (from Fischer and Riechers 2019): Material Constants, parameters, numbers Average fuel consumption of a car Size of buffer stocks, relative to flows Amount of total standing timber in a production forest Structure of material stocks and flows Run-off dynamics of nutrients from agricultural fields into adjacent water bodies Processes Length of delays, relative to rate of system change Time it takes for the ozone hole to close after harmful emissions seize Strength of negative feedback loops The extent to which a lake can absorb nutrients and thus remain clear Gain around positive feedback loops The extent to which poverty leads to population growth, which may further exacerbate poverty Design Structure of information flows Consumer knowledge about where certain products come from Rules of the system (incentives, constraints) Policies governing natural resources, including among others taxes and regulations Power to change system structure or self-organise Ability of farmers to organise the sustainable use of a communal pasture Intent Goals of the system Organisation of global institutions to support free trade versus global equity Paradigm underpinning the system A ‘green revolution’ paradigm underpinning agricultural policies Power to transcend paradigms The conscious shift from a growth-based economy growth to a steady-state economy 119 INSTRUCTIONS FOR FACILITATORS 1. Present the systems map that was developed during WS1 (a quick recap) (510 mins) 2. Set context for the LP framework (10 mins) Explain to the participants what will be done. Present the outline of Leverage Points (see section Theoretical background above) + you can also use the ppt slides provided by CzechGlobe (can be download here) 3. Ask the group to select the intervention(s) they would like to explore in depth as first. These can be interventions they are already trialing, or interventions selected from the PLANET4B directory of methods. They should select 1 most important intervention to start with, and maximum 2 other interventions (5 mins). 4. For the first intervention, ask the group to discuss and write on an A4 paper (in big letters): i) who instigates the intervention, and ii) who participates in the intervention. Encourage your participants to write notes in a way that you can easily translate to English – e.g. notes/bullet points not a long text (5-10 mins). 5. Provide the group with 4 pieces of A4 paper – each piece should be labelled as one of the leverage points (materials, processes, design, intent). Ask participants to complete an A4 sheet for each of the 4 leverage points, exploring how the intervention would target each LP (Perhaps some leverage points are not included if the group feels they aren’t targeted by the intervention). Write the name of the intervention on the bottom right of each paper (20 minutes). Example: 6. Participants then put the identified Leverage Points on the table/wall, in the order in which the change take place, to describe their narrative of change (next step). (5 minutes) 7. A final A4 paper will be added at the end of this ‘leverage points path’ to describe the narrative of change. This means to characterise the change that has occurred as a result of the intervention (as described in the LPs). (5 minutes). 8. Briefly repeat steps 4, 5 and 6 for each of selected interventions. Make sure the name of the intervention is always included on the bottom right of each LP so we don’t lose track (20 mins). Materials: ……………….. ………………. ……………….. Intervention Processes: ……………….. ………………. ……………….. Intervention Design: ……………….. ………………. ……………….. Intervention Intent: ……………….. ………………. ……………….. Intervention 120 9. Voice record this step to help your write-up! To conclude and debrief the workshop, the facilitator should summarise the narratives of change that the participants have created, allowing participants to correct interpretations. (10 mins) (DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS FOR PARTICIPANTS) 1. For your chosen intervention, write in big letters on an A4 paper, which system layer it intervenes in, who should instigate the intervention, and who should participate in the intervention. Put this on the left-hand side of your table. 2. Discuss, and fill out how the intervention targets the 4 leverage points. Try to keep it specific to the system layer you are targeting, and the people participating. It is ok to decide that some LPs are not changed. 3. Arrange the leverage points in the order to which they change, next to your intervention paper (left to right) – e.g. does the intervention target materials first, and then shift structures? Try to narrate the change across LPs. 4. What does the system look like after the intervention has been done? Summarise the change on a final piece of paper, and put it at the end of your LPs. Collectively, you now have a narrative of change for your chosen intervention. 5. Select other 2-3 interventions that might be useful for intervening. 6. Briefly repeat steps 1, 2 and 3 for each of these interventions. If you have time, you might want to explore how the different interventions interact with each other through the leverage points. Play around with the leverage points papers to map that change process. REPORTING REQUEST After the workshop, please, translate the A4 papers into English and summarise them in a document, in the order they were written (e.g. from left to right on intervention 1, then down to desired system, then left to right on next selected interventions). Send a picture of them to the CzechGlobe team ([email protected]) Also please provide a brief audio or video description of your narrative of change in English and send it to the CzechGlobe team. NOTES: 121 WORKSHOP 3: MONITORING AND INDICATORS WHAT WILL BE DONE Participants will use their systems maps from WS1 and theory of change from WS 2 to create a monitoring strategy and identify indicators of change. 1-1.5 hour GOAL To identify a list of indicators of change which will be used to measure success or impacts of interventions implemented and monitor desired changes in the system after the project has run its course. OUTPUT A list of indicators and their characteristics (how they will be measured, their purpose, …) TOOLS NEEDED • A system onion diagram created in Workshop 1 • A narrative of change created in Workshop 2 • Flipchart or whiteboard and markers • A4 papers • Pens • A short ppt on monitoring and indicators (can be downloaded here) INSTRUCTIONS FOR FACILITATORS 1. Introduce yourself and rationale behind the workshop (why are we here?). You can engage participants in a quick ice-breaker activity. (10 mins) 2. Briefly recap and remind participants of system onion diagram created in Workshop 1 and summary of narratives of change outlined in Workshop 2 to set context for the day’s activity. (10 mins) 3. Present indicators and monitoring concepts to participants using the slides provided. (10 mins) 4. Provide the group with a template of the narratives of change created in WS2 and an A4 paper and ask them to discuss and choose one specific change from the template to start with. (10 mins) 128 Examples of leverage points (from Fischer and Riechers 2019): Material Constants, parameters, numbers Average fuel consumption of a car Size of buffer stocks, relative to flows Amount of total standing timber in a production forest Structure of material stocks and flows Run-off dynamics of nutrients from agricultural fields into adjacent water bodies Processes Length of delays, relative to rate of system change Time it takes for the ozone hole to close after harmful emissions seize Strength of negative feedback loops The extent to which a lake can absorb nutrients and thus remain clear Gain around positive feedback loops The extent to which poverty leads to population growth, which may further exacerbate poverty Design Structure of information flows Consumer knowledge about where certain products come from Rules of the system (incentives, constraints) Policies governing natural resources, including among others taxes and regulations Power to change system structure or self-organise Ability of farmers to organise the sustainable use of a communal pasture Intent Goals of the system Organisation of global institutions to support free trade versus global equity Paradigm underpinning the system A ‘green revolution’ paradigm underpinning agricultural policies Power to transcend paradigms The conscious shift from a growth-based economy growth to a steady-state economy INSTRUCTIONS 1. Select the intervention(s) you would like to explore in depth as first. These can be interventions they are already trialling, or interventions selected from the PLANET4B directory of methods. Select 1 most important intervention to start with, and maximum 2 other interventions. In case there is no intervention in your case study, try to brainstorm what things (action, processes) can be done in your case study to produce better biodiversity outcomes. 2. For the first intervention, discuss and write on an A4 paper (in big letters): i) the brief description of intervention, ii) who instigates the intervention, and iii) who participates in the intervention. Put this on the left-hand side of your table. Write notes in a way that you can easily translate to English – e.g. notes/bullet points not a long text. 3. Use another 4 pieces of A4 paper and label each piece as one of the leverage points (materials, processes, design, intent) – see example below. Complete an A4 sheet for each of the 4 leverage points, exploring how the intervention selected would target each of the leverage points (perhaps some leverage points are not included if you feel they aren’t targeted by the intervention). Write the name of the intervention on the bottom right of each paper so you don’t lose track. 129 Example: 4. Put the identified leverage points (= A4 papers) on the table in the order in which the change take place, to describe the narrative of change – e.g. does the intervention target materials first, and then shift processes? Try to narrate the change across LPs. 5. Summarise the change on a final piece of A4 paper and put it at the right end of your leverage points. Try to briefly describe the change in this last A4 paper – to characterise the change that has occurred as a result of the intervention (as described in the LPs). What does the system look like after the intervention has been done? 6. Briefly repeat steps 2-5 for each of selected interventions. Make sure the name of the intervention is always included on the bottom right of each LP so you don’t lose track. 7. Once you have completed these exercises by yourself, take the outputs of this exercise and present them to your stakeholders (advisory boards) in your workshop. Discuss and review these outputs with them. Revise outputs based on discussion with your stakeholders. REPORTING REQUEST Once you revise the outputs of this exercise based on the discussion with your stakeholders, please, translate all A4 papers into English and summarise them in a document, in the order they were written. Send a picture of them to the CzechGlobe team ([email protected]) altogether with a brief audio or video description of your narrative of change in English. NOTES: Materials: ……………….. ………………. ……………….. Intervention Processes: ……………….. ………………. ……………….. Intervention Design: ……………….. ………………. ……………….. Intervention Intent: ……………….. ………………. ……………….. Intervention 1 EXERCISE 2: MONITORING AND INDICATORS WHAT WILL BE DONE A narrative of change from exercise 1 will be used to create a monitoring strategy and identify indicators of change. 1 hour GOAL To identify a list of indicators of change which will be used to measure success or impacts of interventions (actions, processes) implemented and monitor desired changes in the system after the project has run its course. OUTPUT A list of indicators and their characteristics (how they will be measured, their purpose, …) TOOLS NEEDED • A narrative of change created in exercise 1 • A4 papers • Pens • A short ppt on monitoring and indicators (can be downloaded here) INSTRUCTIONS 1. Read the short ppt on monitoring and indicators provided. 2. Look at the narratives of change which were created in exercise 1. 3. Write the selected change on the top of an A4 paper and brainstorm all the indicators of change (quantitative or qualitative metric) that could be used to measure this change (example of indicator: percentage increase in ethnic minority communities engaging with nature and the outdoors). 4. Discuss and write the purpose of the chosen indicators and why they are needed and useful. Write notes in bullet points that you can easily translate to English. 2 5. Discuss and write how data will be collected to measure the chosen indicators for the change selected (example: survey, interviews, focus groups) and how frequently data would be collected (for example quarterly, annually, bi-annually). 6. Try to write potential obstacles that may have an impact on the use of the indicator (its accuracy or validity). 7. Return to the narratives of change (Exercise 1) and choose another change. Briefly repeat steps 3-6 for this change. 8. Once you have completed these exercises by yourself, present the indicators you selected to your stakeholders (advisory boards) in your workshop. Discuss and review these outputs with them. Decide together with your stakeholders if each indicator meets the checklist of a good indicator as described in the last ppt slide provided. Allow your stakeholders to make any additional inputs or changes. REPORTING REQUEST After the workshop with your stakeholders, please, translate your A4 papers into English and send them to the CzechGlobe team ([email protected]). Lastly, please do not forget to take pictures during the workshop! J NOTES: EXERCISE 3: BARRIERS & OPPORTUNITIES FOR BROADER CHANGE Topic for discussion: 1. What the advisory board sees as successful and failed efforts to make biodiversity a bigger priority in their sectors? Do they identify any past attempts to scale-up or scale-out biodiversity prioritisation? (*Scaling-up means e.g. to adopt biodiversity in higher policies, scaling-out means e.g. spread practices or management to other sectors/places.) 2. Looking at the proposed interventions from exercise 1, what opportunities and barriers do they identify to make broader impact? WHAT WILL BE DONE Identifying broader impact means that we need to look at the potential effects of interventions (see Exercise 1) that go beyond the boundaries of the initial systems where we expect change to take place. Suggest what opportunities and barriers you see in respect to potential broader changes that arise from the interventions in your systems map. 3 1 hour GOAL To think about ways to increase the impact of proposed interventions that were implemented through specific leverage points (i.e. the system properties, see results of Exercise 1) in the identified systems in your case study. OUTPUT Building on exercise 1 Leverage points (the points in the systems where intervention take place), exercise 3 will generate potential broader impact of the intervention(s), barriers to and opportunities for broader impact in your sector. This will be done by writing a narrative of broader impact, opportunities and barriers on A4 papers on a flipchart, or by using large-format paper (flipchart) and post-its. The description will include what the broader impact is, how it manifests, and what the opportunities and barriers are. TOOLS NEEDED § Pens or pencils § Optional o Post-it notes in multiple colours o Markers (multiple colours; at least black, blue, red and green) o Flipchart § A set of A4 sheets – for a narrative per broader impact, opportunity, and barrier. § A short ppt on barriers and opportunities for broader impact (can be downloaded here) INSTRUCTIONS 1. Revisit leverage points including the narratives of change (from exercise 1). 2. See the example in provided ppt slides for a better idea of this exercise. 3. Pick the first intervention and explore potential broader impacts and the related opportunities and barriers. Ask the following questions one by one to execute the exercise: a. How would you describe potential broader impacts in your case? Identify all relevant impacts that may occur and write them down on e.g. A4. Write down a more detailed description on an A4 paper – a narrative b. Which other sectors or policies are potentially affected by the intervention? Here you will tap on “neighbouring” or related sectors and policies. Identify and 4 write them down on e.g. A4. Write down a more detailed description on an A4 paper – a narrative c. Which factors, actors, or processes enable broader impact? Here you will identify opportunities linked to your interventions and initial sector. Identify all relevant opportunities and write them down on e.g. green post-its and place them on A4. Write down a more detailed description on an A4 paper – a narrative d. Which factors, actors, or processes halt broader change? Here you will identify barriers linked to your interventions and initial sector. Identify all relevant barriers and write them down on e.g. pink post-its and place them on A4. Writes down a more detailed description on an A4 paper – a narrative 4. Pick another intervention (from exercise 1) in your case and continue the exercise in a suit described in the 3rd point. Repeat this with maximum 3 most important interventions 5. Finally, debrief and discuss results. Is there anything to add regarding the broader impacts, barriers and opportunities? If several opportunities and barriers per interventions were identified, please highlight the most prominent ones. You can ask any other question that arises from the workshop. 6. Once you have completed these exercises by yourself, present the outputs of this exercises (barriers, opportunities, etc…) to your stakeholders (advisory boards) in your workshop. Discuss and review these outputs with them. Allow your stakeholders to make any additional inputs or changes. REPORTING REQUEST After the workshop, please translate post-it notes and the descriptions (A4 papers) into English and summarise them in a word document, e.g. in the order they were written or otherwise so we are able to identify their place in the template. Make a short video, in English, to briefly summarise the information in the template and on the A4 papers. Send document and video to the CzechGlobe team ([email protected]) NOTES: