Transdisciplinary diagnostic framework for biodiversity decision-making assessment. Report No D1.7 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B

BETTER DECISIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY AND PEOPLE Horizon Europe Project PLANET4B TRANSDISCIPLINARY DIAGNOSTIC FRAMEWORK FOR BIODIVERSITY DECISION-MAKING ASSESSMENT 1.1.5 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 D1.7 Deliverable title Transdisciplinary diagnostic framework for biodiversity decision-making assessment Task leader Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) Corresponding author David N. Barton Dissemination level Public Status Final Deliverable description Systematic reviews, the multilevel intersectionality analysis, and the theory inventory and recognition/conciliation exercises are synthesised into a report on a transdisciplinary diagnostic framework. Version Status Date Authors/Reviewers 0.1 Draft 30/04/2024 Authors: David N. Barton (NINA); Agnes Zolyomi (MLU); Alex Franklin (CU); Alexander Engen Aas-Hanssen (OOF) ; Andreas Motschiunig (FUG) ; Anita Thaler (IFZ) ; Barbara Smith (CU) ; Berit Junker-Köhler (NINA) ; Blanka Loučková (CG) ; Borbála Lipka (ESSRG) ; Cristina Y. A. Inoue (RU) ; David Steinwender (IFZ) ; Elif Tugba Simsek (CG) ; Eszter Kelemen (ESSRG) ; Geeta Ludhra (DC) ; Geraldine Brown (CU) ; Ghezal Sabir (FiBL) ; György Pataki (ESSRG) ; Helene Figari (NINA) ; Ilkhom Soliev (MLU) ; Kármen Czett (ESSRG) ; Lina Tennhardt (FiBL) ; Marta Bonetti (UNIPI) ; Maryna Bykova (CGE) ; Patricia Ofori-Amanfo (CG) ; Pedro Navarro Gambín (UNIPI) ; Rafal Chudy (NINA) ; Robert 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 Home (FiBL) ; Sandra Karner (IFZ) ; Simeon Vaňo (CG) ; Subash Ludhra (DC); Vegard Gunderson (NINA); Vinícius Mendes (RU); Yennie K. Bredin (NINA) 0.2 Draft 03/05/2024 Reviewer: Helene Figari (NINA) 0.3 Draft 06/05/2024 Authors: David N. Barton (NINA); Agnes Zolyomi (MLU); Alex Franklin (CU); Alexander Engen Aas-Hanssen (OOF) ; Andreas Motschiunig (FUG) ; Anita Thaler (IFZ) ; Barbara Smith (CU) ; Berit Junker-Köhler (NINA) ; Blanka Loučková (CG) ; Borbála Lipka (ESSRG) ; Cristina Y. A. Inoue (RU) ; David Steinwender (IFZ) ; Elif Tugba Simsek (CG) ; Eszter Kelemen (ESSRG) ; Geeta Ludhra (DC) ; Geraldine Brown (CU) ; Ghezal Sabir (FiBL) ; György Pataki (ESSRG) ; Helene Figari (NINA) ; Ilkhom Soliev (MLU) ; Kármen Czett (ESSRG) ; Lina Tennhardt (FiBL) ; Marta Bonetti (UNIPI) ; Maryna Bykova (CGE) ; Patricia Ofori-Amanfo (CG) ; Pedro Navarro Gambín (UNIPI) ; Rafal Chudy (NINA) ; Robert Home (FiBL) ; Sandra Karner (IFZ) ; Simeon Vaňo (CG) ; Subash Ludhra (DC); Vegard Gunderson (NINA); Vinícius Mendes (RU); Yennie K. Bredin (NINA) 0.4 Draft 08/05/2024 Reviewers: Agnes Zolyomi (MLU); Alex Franklin (CU); Ilkhom Soliev (MLU); Torsten Wähler (MLU) (only parts that were not co-authored were reviewed) 0.5 Draft 10/05/2024 Authors: David N. Barton (NINA); Agnes Zolyomi (MLU); Alex Franklin (CU); Alexander Engen Aas-Hanssen (OOF) ; Andreas Motschiunig (FUG) ; Anita Thaler (IFZ) ; Barbara Smith (CU) ; Berit Junker-Köhler (NINA) ; Blanka Loučková (CG) ; Borbála Lipka (ESSRG) ; Cristina Y. A. Inoue (RU) ; David Steinwender (IFZ) ; Elif Tugba Simsek (CG) ; Eszter Kelemen (ESSRG) ; Geeta Ludhra (DC) ; Geraldine Brown (CU) ; Ghezal Sabir (FiBL) ; György Pataki (ESSRG) ; Helene Figari (NINA) ; Ilkhom Soliev (MLU) ; Kármen Czett (ESSRG) ; Lina Tennhardt (FiBL) ; Marta Bonetti (UNIPI) ; Maryna Bykova (CGE) ; Patricia Ofori-Amanfo (CG) ; Pedro Navarro Gambín (UNIPI) ; Rafal Chudy (NINA) ; Robert Home (FiBL) ; Sandra Karner (IFZ) ; Simeon Vaňo (CG) ; Subash Ludhra (DC); Vegard Gunderson (NINA); Vinícius Mendes (RU); Yennie K. Bredin (NINA) 1.0 Final 16/05/2024 Reviewer: Torsten Wähler (MLU) v Contributors to action/intervention directly leading to this deliverable Céire Booth (UNEP-WCMC); Julia Leventon (CG); Ammalia Podlaszewska (CGE); Zafar Saydaliev (CGE); Matteo Villa (UNIPI); Torsten Wähler (MLU) Recommended citation Barton, D. N., Zolyomi, A., Franklin, A., Aas-Hanssen, A. E., Motschiunig, A., Thaler A., Smith, B., Junker-Köhler, B., Loučková, B., Lipka, B., Inoue, C. Y. A., Steinwender, D., Simsek, E. T., Kelemen, E., Ludhra, G., Brown, G., Sabir, G., Pataki, G., Figari, H., Soliev, I., Czett, K., Tennhardt, L., Bonetti, M., Bykova, M., Ofori-Amanfo, P., Navarro Gambín, P., Chudy, R., Home, R., Karner, S., Vaňo, S., Ludhra, S., Gundersen, V., Mendes, V., & Bredin, Y.K. (2024). Transdisciplinary diagnostic framework for biodiversity decision-making assessment. Report No D1.7 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15303298 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 PLANET4B team would like to thank interviewees, workshop participants, case study learning communities, stakeholder boards, and colleagues for their time and willingness to share information, experiences, and opinions on topics herein explored. vi List of abbreviations and acronyms Acronym Definition CAP Common Agricultural Policy CG CzechGlobe – Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences CGE Culture Goes Europe CSO Civil society organisation CU Coventry University DC Dadima's CIC ESG Environmental, social, and governance ESSRG Environmental Social Science Research Group EU European Union FiBL Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FUG Forum Urban Gardening IAD Institutional analysis and development IFZ Interdisciplinary Research Centre for Technology, Work and Culture KLP Kommunal landspensjonskasse – Municipal national pension fund LC Learning community LL Living Lab LP Leverage point LPF Leverage points framework MLU Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg NGO Non-governmental organisation NINA Norwegian Institute for Nature Research OOF Greater Oslo Council for Outdoor Recreation PES Payments for ecosystem services PLANET4B understanding Plural values, intersectionality, Leverage points, Attitudes, Norms, behaviour, and social lEarning in Transformation for Biodiversity decision making RCM Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix RU Radboud University SES Social-ecological-systems TNFD The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures UNEP-WCMC United Nations’ Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre UNIPI University of Pisa WP Work Package 7 Table of Contents Key deliverable information ..................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... v List of abbreviations and acronyms ........................................................................ vi Executive summary ................................................................................................... 9 1. Introduction: the purpose of a transdisciplinary diagnostic framework to support the analysis of intervention methods and case studies in PLANET4B 10 2. Transdisciplinary Frameworks ........................................................................... 12 2.1 What is “decision-making for biodiversity” and biodiversity policy? .................. 12 2.2 What is transdisciplinary research? ......................................................................... 13 2.3 What is a diagnostic framework? ............................................................................. 18 2.4 The Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix for intervention choice ......................... 20 2.5 What are theories of change? ................................................................................... 22 2.6 Meadows’ original leverage points framework ........................................................ 23 2.7 Variations of the leverage points framework ........................................................... 25 2.8 Discussion on leverage points ................................................................................. 28 3. Methods and materials ........................................................................................ 30 3.1 Biodiversity discourse analysis ................................................................................ 31 3.2 Intersectionality analysis ........................................................................................... 32 3.3 Review of disciplinary approaches proposed by case studies and theories of change ............................................................................................................................... 33 3.4 Case study workshop on theory commonalities and conflicts and dialogues with case studies ...................................................................................................................... 37 3.5 Linkages to next steps in the PLANET4B project ................................................... 39 4. Linking the leverage points framework to intersectionality and biodiversity discourse .................................................................................................................. 40 4.1 Intersectionality analysis ........................................................................................... 40 4.2 Discourse analysis ..................................................................................................... 43 4.3 Inter-linkages with the leverage points framework ................................................. 46 5. Place-based studies’ theories of change and leverage points for policy ....... 48 5.1 Nature recreation in Oslo, Norway (OOF/NINA) ...................................................... 49 5.2 Opening nature to Black, Asian, and ethnic minority communities in the UK (DADIMAS/CU) .................................................................................................................. 50 5.3 Urban Youth in Germany (CGE/MLU) ....................................................................... 53 5.4 Edible City and Inclusion in Graz, Austria (FUG/IFZ) .............................................. 56 5.5 Swiss attitudes towards agro-biodiversity and religion (FiBL) ............................. 58 8 5.6 Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM) similarities across place-based cases ........................................................................................................................................... 60 5.7 Leverage point similarities across place-based cases ........................................... 61 6. Sectoral case studies’ theories of change and leverage points for policy .... 63 6.1 “From ego-system to eco-system” in fashion in Italy (UNIPI) ............................... 63 6.2 Agro-biodiversity management in Hungary (ESSRG) ............................................. 66 6.3 Environmental awareness in Education in Hungary (ESSRG) ............................... 67 6.4 Sectoral case – Agriculture and migration in the EU (FiBL) .................................. 69 6.5 Trade & GVCs soy/beef from Brazil to the EU/Netherlands (RU) ........................... 70 6.6 Sustainable investment behaviour Global-EU-Norway (NINA) .............................. 71 6.7 Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM) similarities across sector-based cases ........................................................................................................................................... 73 6.8 Leverage point similarities across sector-based cases ......................................... 75 7. Discussion: integrating frameworks with feedback from case dialogues, workshops, and reviews .......................................................................................... 76 7.1 Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional lenses ............................................ 76 7.2 Extensions and limitations of the leverage points metaphor ................................ 77 7.3 Leverage points about system “intent” – plural nature value typologies ............ 79 7.4 Actor and decision-types related to biodiversity policy ......................................... 81 7.5 Power in the context of policy for plural values of nature ..................................... 82 7.6 Three Spheres of Transformation framework and Conscious Full Spectrum Response .......................................................................................................................... 84 8. Conclusion: Towards a transdisciplinary diagnostic framework for biodiversity decision-support ................................................................................. 88 8.1 Draft transdisciplinary diagnostic framework for biodiversity decision-making . 88 8.2 Linkages to further work in PLANET4B ................................................................... 90 References ................................................................................................................ 93 Statement on data availability ................................................................................. 99 Statement on ethics ................................................................................................. 99 Annex ...................................................................................................................... 100 Definitions and examples of leverage points (Annex 1) ............................................. 100 A note on the status of relevant KPIs achieved (Annex 2) ......................................... 105 9 Executive summary This deliverable describes the process of developing a transdisciplinary diagnostic framework for biodiversity decision-making carried out in Work Package 1 (WP1) of the EU funded research project PLANET4B. The aim of the process was to help researchers and practitioners in our project become more conscious of the theoretical approaches and languages that may condition the interventions we study and the policy and additional recommendations that we make to societal actors. The starting proposition for this work was that we as PLANET4B partners come from a wide range of different disciplines and practices. Therefore, we needed a shared learning process of our different theoretical and practical lenses and languages. This is necessary to increase our potential as a project to design for transformational change in Work Packages to follow. We report on our testing of Meadows’ (1999) leverage points framework (LPF) as a potential shared conceptual language for transformational change across the places, actors and theories that situate both placebased and sectoral case studies in the project. We report on the opportunities and limitations of the LPF in connecting to (i) theories of change used by research partners in their cases, as well as (ii) bridging conceptually to other “integrating analytical approaches” where PLANET4B has partner expertise; namely “intersectionality analysis”, “discourse analysis” and “reflexivity-contextualisation of interventions”. The report recognises that these integrating approaches are but a subset of possible systems analysis tools in transformative change research. The process of understanding and applying Meadows’ (1999) leverage points framework achieved some shared language and understanding across research disciplines. It helped us to compare assumptions about transformative change across our different case studies. As such, we think we achieved the “process objective” of this initial stage of PLANET4B of using a common framework to diagnose our case studies. However, case studies and experts on other integrating analytical approaches identified several limitations of the LPF. Limitations include the LPF itself being a particular theoretical systems analysis lens which in some cases could exclude practitioners through its unfamiliar concepts. Furthermore, the LPF was identified as being ‘structuralist’ or ‘mechanistic’ in the particular way we tested it in our case studies, not addressing concepts such as agency, power and decision-making. It was critiqued for not being specific to decisions about biodiversity and the related nature values. To achieve the deliverable objective of a transdisciplinary diagnostic framework for biodiversity decision-making, the above critiques inspired us to review additional frameworks. We reviewed several frameworks developed by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) to address decision-making in the context of plural values of nature, and transformational leadership frameworks to address agency. We conclude that the PLANET4B suite of tools and frameworks – “leverage points”, “intersectionality analysis”, “discourse analysis” and “reflexivity-contextualisation” – have complementary purposes. We illustrate how a “conscious full spectrum response” (Sharma, 2017) can provide a conceptual framing for a transdisciplinary diagnostic framework for biodiversity decision-making, without being exclusive of other frameworks. Complex systems 16 that consider the complexities of biodiversity conservation. By fostering collaboration, integrating diverse knowledge systems, and engaging with stakeholders, transdisciplinary research can contribute to more effective and sustainable solutions for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management. The researchers at the PLANET4B partner institutions conduct science at different intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional scales (Figure 3). This research is manly located within project case studies under Work Package 3. There, Learning Communities, and Advisory Boards work to identify places to intervene (e.g. at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional scales) to leverage transformative change within their respective systems and sectors. This is work in progress aimed to test and develop a shared diagnostic framework that may facilitate interdisciplinary understanding but also better prioritisation of biodiversity within intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional decision-making. As indicated in Figure 3, interdisciplinarity is thus a necessary, but not sufficient aspect of this transdisciplinary process. Figure 3. PLANET4B partners collaborated across scientific disciplines at different intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional scales. PLANET4B’s development of a framework for diagnosing case studies has been transdisciplinary in several ways, illustrated through the framework by Fischer et al. (2024). 17 Figure 4. PLANET4B partners’ development of frameworks for diagnosing case studies is transdisciplinary in several ways. Source: adapted from Fischer et al. (2024). We have followed an interactive process between case study practitioners and researchers in reflecting on the usefulness, or in some cases – as with the intersectionality analysis – necessity, of different frameworks for the place-based and sector case studies (Figure 4), for example: • Interactive workshops between practitioners and researchers were conducted to exchange knowledge between participants within and between case studies about the usefulness of different conceptual tools and frameworks for identifying interventions and scoping policy relevance of case studies. Technical tools such as Miro boards were used to facilitate interactions (communication tools). • Intersectionality analysis addressed e.g. how cases include different knowledges and recognise discrimination or oppression of peoples’ identities (cognitive-epistemic dimensions). • The Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix addressed the type of interventions according to social and institutional context of the case studies (socialorganisational dimension) considering the situatedness of the interventions’ aspired effect on individual, community, or institutional levels along with the interventions’ reflexivity potentials. • The leverage points framework was assessed as an integrating framework spanning cognitive-epistemic and social-institutional contexts. 18 2.3 What is a diagnostic framework? David N. Barton A diagnostic framework provides a typology of system components common to a universe of cases, and a positioning of theories that explain the dynamics of the system in relation to those components. An example is Ostrom (2007) social-ecological-systems (SES) framework, originally developed to compare a wide range of common property resource management systems, which has gone on to be applied in many other socio-ecological systems (Figure 5). In the SES the generic characteristics that can be diagnosed are resource system, resource units, governance system and users. The interactions(I) – outcomes (O) between system components in Figure 5 is an example of a conceptual space in which different disciplines may invoke different “theories of change”. Figure 5. Ostrom’s social-ecological system (SES) is an example of a nested diagnostic framework that can be adapted to different levels of information in empirical cases. Source: adapted from Ostrom (2007). Ostrom’s SES framework does not prescribe what those dynamics or theories of change are. It can therefore be understood as a diagnostic framework. Its usefulness is to provide a common language for people working in the different empirical cases to self-assess, share their assessments, and learn from other empirical cases. Another aspect of “diagnostic” involves inferring interactions and dynamics causes from observing the outcomes of the case. In the diagnostic metaphor, the system characteristics represent visible symptoms, which can be explained or diagnosed using various theories about the interactions that occur. This represents one interpretation of theories of change (Figure 5). In some real-world cases, and for some analysis topics, a diagnostic framework may allow us to “go deeper”, beyond the immediately observable. Ostrom’s (2007) SES is 19 a nested or hierarchical diagnostic framework. A nested diagnostic framework provides further typologies within the higher-level concepts. This allows the diagnostic framework to adapt to different levels of detailed knowledge available for each empirical case. For example, nested within the SES framework, Ostrom (2011) has developed the Institutional analysis and development (IAD) theory. The IAD defines the interactions – outcomes in terms of “action situations”. In IAD theory the governance system defines what actions are permitted or sanctioned. The governance system is defined by “rules-in-use”. Rules-in-use provide a further typology to distinguish differences in theories of change (Figure 6). Figure 6. The Institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework – an example of a general framework for biodiversity relevant decision-making. Source: Ostrom (2011). The IAD theory is also a “diagnostic” tool. It is not prescriptive in the sense of if-then statements about which rules to use to govern action situations, given a particular biophysical and social setting. However, any diagnostic or theoretical framework has elements of “prescription” (as opposed to diagnosis) through its selection of system components deemed significant for their interactions and potential to drive change. In Ostrom’s IAD framework rules-in-use are the concepts employed to describe the institutions governing the socio-ecological system. Rules-in-use were also developed specifically from a large body of cases focused on common property resource management – resources that are rival in use but non-exclusive (Ostrom, 2011). So, the IAD diagnostic framework has been developed for a certain subset of biodiversity and socio-ecological contexts. Similarly to SES, the IAD and its rules-in-use has been tested as a diagnostic framework on other socio-ecological contexts. For example, Barton et al. (2017) diagnosed payments for ecosystem services (PES) in Costa Rica, at a different scale and for a wider set of forest biodiversity contexts than the original frameworks universe of common property resource management institutions (Figure 7). At any rate, the IAD diagnosis of what rules-in-use define the policymix governing Costa Rica’s PES programme, may then be used prescriptively in a policy design phase. At the level of prescription – theories of change come into play again, often guided by a disciplinary domain. For example, how large must payments for forest conservation (payoff rules) be to induce a change in forest management practice? For the sake of argument, this policy design question could be addressed by using only microeconomic theory, e.g. of the ratio of public/private net benefits of forest land use (see e.g. Pannell, 2008). 20 Alternatively, the institutional economic theory of change would consider the interplay of multiple rules-in-use in Figure 7 as determinant of the action taken. Other social sciences may determine whether rules are legally encoded or the social norms and social conditions that give rise to either. Different theories of change are invoked at different levels that directly or indirectly determine the conservation action. Figure 7. Example of a detailed diagnostic framework for institutions governing decisionmaking relevant for biodiversity. A typology of “rules-in-use” nested within the IAD framework, nested within the governance system variable of the SES framework. Source: Barton et al. (2017) adapted from Ostrom (2005). To understand our different theories of change and which systems elements each of us focus on with our respective disciplinary lenses we need a diagnostic approach. Developing a diagnostic framework for biodiversity relevant decision-making in PLANET4B has involved finding and testing frameworks for a language that could resonate with researchers and practitioners across a diversity of place-based and sector-based cases at different scales. 2.4 The Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix for intervention choice David N. Barton In PLANET4B case studies have been designed to include societal groups and sectors that are not typically considered in biodiversity decision-making. An assumption could be that by including more societal perspectives we may better prioritise biodiversity in decision-making at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional scales. To this end, place-based cases focus on (non-traditional) transformative interventions within framing/nudging/social norms/emotions, serious games, and creative methods. Soliev et al. (2023) developed the “Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix” (RCM) in order to categorise transformative interventions that could stem from such intervention 21 methods. The matrix is thus designed to guide practitioners and help them select (nontraditional) interventions. It categorises transformative interventions as running across deeper, conscious, and intentional change starting in the individual (i.e. intrapersonal), to more shallow, subconscious changes due to institutionally and top-down defined choice architectures of e.g. policy instruments. The authors highlight that the intervention categories are not exclusive or precise: “Understanding of transformative interventions most suitable for biodiversity decisionmaking contexts requires an understanding of 1) contextualisation of interventions and 2) how social transformations can occur in broader terms. We propose a ReflexivityContextualisation Matrix (RCM) for facilitating such understanding. Figure 8 illustrates a continuum of interventions that range from interventions in abstract contexts or contexts that emphasise relationships in a society in general to interventions highly contextualised for biodiversity explicitly emphasising relationships around biodiversity, nature, environment on the ground. The assumption [..] is that most challenges related to the prioritisation of biodiversity in society (such as those rooted in intersectionality) in some ways stem from deeper and often non-biodiversity related social issues.[..] Abstract interventions, such as continuous discussions, deliberations, events that are meant to make us re-think the prevailing and more fundamental discourses in a society at a given time (gender, religion, ethnicity, race, age, culture, disability), can be relevant for all representatives in a society and outcomes are more intangible. Highly contextualised interventions on the other hand aim to facilitate change with a very specific or close focus on biodiversity, nature, environment, with specific groups of stakeholders as participants in the decision-making processes, and often in specific locations. Here the interventions such as stakeholder workshops, joint scenario building activities, actions involving co-creation or co-transformation of space, citizen deliberations and alike, take place on the ground within the contexts where transformations are desired, and the outcomes are more tangible” (Soliev et al., 2023, p. 13). In the context of developing one, common, transdisciplinary diagnostic framework for context specific analysis for biodiversity decision-making within PLANET4B (Task 1.5), the RCM was thus chosen as one of our starting points. 22 Figure 8. The Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM). Source: Soliev et al. (2023). 2.5 What are theories of change? Berit Junker-Köhler In general, theories of change are structured frameworks that outline the causal pathways through which interventions or actions are expected to lead to desired outcomes or impacts. They serve to understand how change is anticipated to occur, the mechanisms through which interventions are expected to work, and the expected results of these interventions (Lang et al., 2012). In the context of PLANET4B we wanted to assess how changes could be triggered in decision-making to better prioritise and protect ecosystems and biodiversity. Tackling biodiversity loss requires understanding of how values, norms and behaviour are entangled with how decision making within civil society, business and public policy takes place (Nielsen et al., 2021). We therefore collected and examined theories of change and decision-making from the social and behavioural sciences. We hypothesised that established disciplinary preferences could be explained by such underlying theories of change that different practices and disciplines structure their 23 empirical research around. In PLANET4B we collected and classified from all involved researchers the underlying discipline-specific theories of change, that were linking intervention design to biodiversity impact (Aspøy et al., 2023). This inventory served as a basis for developing a transdisciplinary diagnostic framework within PLANET4B and highlight key dimensions of leverage points, intersectionality, and practice theories (RCM). 2.6 Meadows’ original leverage points framework Elif Tugba Simsek and Patricia Ofori-Amanfo The loss of biodiversity is driven by complex interactions between nature and society. To tackle this complex issue, the PLANET4B project embraces a transdisciplinary system thinking approach that can help identify the critical leverage points for promoting system transformation. Systems thinking is an answer to calls for understanding and addressing issues pertaining to complex systems which we find around us (e.g. biodiversity). In contrast to a reductionist and linear view of thinking, systems thinking acknowledges the interconnectedness or interdependence between various elements in a system to offer a holistic approach to understanding and addressing issues. To gain understanding of sustainability issues, systems thinking adopts a systemic view in favour of splitting them into a series of discrete elements to be addressed individually (Abson et al., 2017). We acknowledge that several approaches to system thinking exist, hence different framings of systems. For example, there are systems thinking approaches that view systems as realist objects with boundaries that can be steered such as social ecological systems, and there are systems thinking approaches that view the world as complex and thus uses systems thinking as a tool to unravel that complexity. Overall, systems thinking offers a robust framework for comprehending the world's interconnectedness, complexity, and dynamic nature. Central to the discussion on systems thinking are the works of the system analyst, Donella Meadows. In her original work she depicts an instrumental framing of a system as a realist object consisting of actors connected through flows of materials and information (Meadows, 1999). Within a systems thinking perspective and using the leverage points framework, Meadows emphasises that systems are not merely linear cause-and-effect chains, but are composed of interconnected elements with feedback loops and nonlinear dynamics. Meadows argues that systems have properties which she describes as leverage points where small changes could lead to large improvements in the system (Meadows, 1999). Meadows ranked these leverage points into a 12-points framework ranging from shallow points, such as parameters and material stocks and flows where interventions could easily be applied but does little to cause change in the system, to deep points of goals and paradigms that hold the greatest potential to cause transformational change (Figure 9). 24 Figure 9. Meadows’ 12-leverage points framework in order of increasing potential to cause transformation in a system. Shallow leverage points are identified as points (12–7) and deep leverage points as points (6–1). Source: Abson et al. (2017). Again, the leverage points concept serves as a boundary object to align knowledge from various disciplines and perspectives from stakeholders to each other (Riechers, Balázsi et al., 2021). Furthermore, it aids in identifying system boundaries, the actors in a system, as well as the relationship between them (e.g. J. Fischer et al., 2022; Bryant & Thomson, 2021; Jiren et al., 2021). Due to the nested, complex relationships between different systems component and systems, authors have argued for the need for greater clarity as to what system is being intervened with, how, and for what outcome (Davelaar, 2021; Leventon, Abson et al., 2021). In this regard, leverage points research is framed around interventions in place-based social ecological systems (e.g. Riechers, Pătru-Dușe et al., 2021) or in other, interconnected systems that shape what happens on the ground, for example policy and governance systems (e.g. Bolton, 2022; Leventon, Duşe et al., 2021). Some articles have drawn on Meadows’ leverage points framework in addressing issues pertaining to biodiversity (e.g. Arponen & Salomaa, 2023; Leventon, Duşe et al., 2021). Work drawing on the leverage points concept has been used to critique interventions (e.g. Arponen & Salomaa, 2023; Salomaa & Arponen, 2023; Manlosa et al., 2019) and highlight opportunities for engaging with deeper leverage points (e.g. Bolton, 2022; Horcea-Milcu, 2022). It has also helped in understanding, identifying and designing interventions for sustainability transformations (Abson et al., 2017; Dorninger et al., 2020; Ives et al., 2018; Riechers, Balázsi et al., 2021). Indeed, as Meadows proposed, the leverage points framework was “a work in progress” (Meadows, 1999, p. 3). Many studies building on her work have emerged over time, and have created variations on how leverage points are conceptualised and used. Appendix 1 provides some definitions and examples of how each leverage point may be used or understood within the PLANET4B context. 25 2.7 Variations of the leverage points framework Elif Tugba Simsek and Patricia Ofori-Amanfo Drawing on Meadows’ leverage point framework, Abson et al. (2017) synthesise four categories of leverage points, grouping Meadows’ original 12-leverage points. In order of increasing effectiveness of interventions to cause system wide changes, Abson et al (2017) identified “parameters” and “feedback” which mapped to shallow leverage points identified by Meadows with “design” and “intent” mapping to deep leverage points. "Parameters" refer to the characteristics of a system that can be modified, such as taxes, incentives, and standards, or physical elements like the sizes of stocks or rates of material flows. "Feedbacks" are interactions between components within a system that drive internal dynamics or provide information on desired outcomes. "Design" pertains to the structure of information flows, regulations, power, and selforganisation within the system. Ultimately, "intent" is the set of deepest leverage points, and encompasses the system's principles, norms, values, goals, and the fundamental paradigms from which they originate (Abson et al., 2017). Using this four points framework Abson et al. (2017) argued for the need for sustainability research and policies to address deep leverage points (design and intent) in favour of shallow leverage points (parameters and feedback) to achieve transformation towards sustainability. They highlight three realms of leverage that they believe are particularly important for transformational change: institutions and their role in systemic change, people's connection to nature and its impact on sustainability outcomes, and the production and use of knowledge in transformational processes (Abson et al., 2017). Identifying these “realms” of leverage opens up a broader range of work to draw on in understanding systems transformation. While often not explicitly labelled as leverage points research, there is a wealth of empirical research into framing people’s connections to nature (e.g. Ives et al., 2018), and finding approaches to reconnect people to nature (e.g. Klaniecki et al., 2018). Further, there is broad work on rethinking knowledge systems, particularly by framing transdisciplinary research approaches as transformative and deconstructing dominant framings of legitimate knowledge (e.g. Horcea-Milcu et al., 2024; Fazey et al., 2020). To build on existing knowledge, systems thinking and leverage points can act as organising frameworks to pull such extant knowledge together, even where it was not originally created within these frameworks (e.g. Leventon et al., 2022). Departing from Meadows (1999) and Abson et al (2017) leverage points frameworks, the IPBES Global Assessment (2019) developed an eight points leverage framework and five levers (means of causing changes in the form of governance approaches and interventions) of transformative change towards sustainability (Figure 10). This framework is adapted to complex, multi-scalar global social-ecological systems which manifests in different change agents having contesting purposes (Chan et al., 2020). Authors of this framework highlight its applicability for a broad suite of sustainability objectives and its usefulness in guiding social-ecological practice and policymaking, and explicitly state that it is a deviation from Meadows’ framework. The underlying premise of this framework is the need to prioritise and pay due attention to indirect drivers of change (such as formal and informal institutions, demographic and sociocultural factors) when designing interventions for transformation towards sustainability as indirect drivers propel direct drivers of change (e.g. climate change, direct exploitation, invasive species, pollution, etc.). 32 Key findings from the review: 1. The language that is used and communicated is intended to motivate action or inaction. 2. The absence of a common understanding of biodiversity facilitates the strategic choice of rhetoric to further the agendas of interest groups. 3. Two value domains were identified: anthropocentric (including sciencecentric) and ecocentric. Anthropocentric values are most often used when arguing both for and against biodiversity conservation. 4. The biodiversity discourse in the news outlets relies heavily on rhetoric of “warning”, “calling for action”, “informing”, “persuading”, “accusing” and “othering” to attract the attention of a wide audience. 5. Political parties attempt to gather political support, and thereby gain or hold power, by using a rhetoric that is centred on “persuading”, “accusing”, and “othering”. With this rhetoric, they place themselves as being the solution to biodiversity loss or provide justification for their actions or inactions. 6. The rhetoric of environmental NGOs includes “calls for action”, “warning”, and “persuading” their audience to engage with their issues: usually by relating consequences of action or inaction with the effects on humans. The implicit aim is to gain followers and gather support for their activities by using anthropocentric arguments to further their ecocentric ideologies. 7. The business discourse is based on a rhetoric of “persuading” and “raising hope”, as business and industry leaders present an optimistic picture in which “business as usual” is a viable and sensible option. 8. The rhetoric used in biodiversity discourse differs between countries. 3.2 Intersectionality analysis Vinicius Mendes and Cristina Y. A. Inoue To tackle the interlinkage of inequalities in the field of biodiversity in PLANET4B, Thaler and Karner (2023) review the concept of intersectionality with a biodiversity lens (Crenshaw, 1989). Intersectionality underscores how race, gender, disability, sexuality, class, age, and other social categories are interconnected, each contributing to varying degrees of power and oppression. These dynamics are further influenced by forces such as colonialism and neoliberalism (Rice et al., 2019). The concept of intersectionality does not constitute a theory accompanied by clear methodological guidelines, but rather a framework for analysis and reflexivity. Thaler and Karner (2023) provide insight into relevant theories and methods that can be fruitfully connected to the PLANET4B transdisciplinary framework and document a cocreation process of the PLANET4B consortium to facilitate a shared understanding of how to use the intersectional lens for upcoming biodiversity case studies. The report presents a co-created framework for PLANET4B case studies comprising three elements: • Using intersectionality as a starting point of reflexivity of researchers. • Considering intersectionality and positions of privilege when approaching actors. • Doing case studies with an intersectional lens. 33 Each element of this framework is introduced with a guiding principle, which stems from the co-creation workshops, and useful questions. All five PLANET4B place-based case studies explored their intersectional focus through consortium workshops, and also by undertaking supporting literature reviews. The report provides a series of tools: • Self-reflexivity questions to help researchers use an intersectionality lens to identify their prejudices and stereotypes in the case studies. • Guidance on approaching actors in biodiversity case studies and establishing Learning communities using an intersectional perspective, including alignment of different actors’ motives with the case study intervention plans, and communication of benefits for local communities of cooperation. • Guiding principles on conducting biodiversity case studies, including the identification of power relations due to dualistic thinking of humans and nature. This includes processes of "backgrounding," "incorporation," "exclusion," and "objectification.” • Using multiple knowledges offering possibilities of re-thinking and potentially changing relations between humans and nature and promoting multispecies justice (paradigm shifts). The report identified some limitations of the methodological framework, including: • Unclear identification of the case studies’ interventions at the time of writing. • Lack of analysis of systematic causes of inequalities based on intersectionality analysis in the cases at the time of writing. • Vague expectations of how the intersectionality lens can support changes in behaviour and systems concerning biodiversity, probably due to the absence of clear identification of relevant theories of change by the case study groups at the time of writing. 3.3 Review of disciplinary approaches proposed by case studies and theories of change Summarised by David N. Barton The starting proposition was that different disciplines have different interventions and policy responses in the face of global change drivers challenging biodiversity and societies (Figure 14). The review was the first step of a process of understanding the theories applied by case studies to select and test interventions. The review was aimed at starting a process of mutual understanding of how researchers in the different cases understand how we make decisions in terms of biodiversity and/or form expectations about policy and other recommendations to come out of the empirical work. The disciplinary approaches in the theory inventory were classified according to their intrapersonal, interpersonal or institutional conceptual levels, as well as their disciplinary “home ranges”. Following the review of disciplinary approaches, cases would then use a common terminology of the leverage points framework (Meadows, 1999) to identify the leverage points that each theory assumes. We expected that this would help understand the choice of interventions and theoretical expectations about their impacts on biodiversity through system change. 34 Figure 14. Identifying theories of change as part of a transdisciplinary process for mutual understanding and respect across case studies of different policy interventions and recommendations. Source: Aspøy et al. (2023). Starting from this framing of the process, Aspøy et al. (2023) carried out a systematic narrative review of the published literature on disciplinary approaches, including frameworks, theories, models, and concepts, proposed by the PLANET4B partners. Their review resulted in an inventory of theories, including behaviour and social sciences, proposed by the PLANET4B partners as potentially applicable for influencing biodiversity decision-making. The report also includes a complementary review of CORDIS database of previous European Union and global projects (grey literature) that have tested behavioural and decision-making interventions for biodiversity decision-making. The initial review (Table 1) developed by Aspøy et al. (2023) was updated based on discussions in a first workshop on case studies theories of behaviour, decision-making and change (Mendes & Inoue, 2023). As per May 2024, the updated theory inventory contains 290 theoretical approaches considered by the case studies. The extended lists of theories will be available on Zenodo before the end of the PLANET4B project, in October 2025. Table 1. Inventory of theoretical input based on PLANET4B expert knowledge from the behaviouraland social sciences that may influence biodiversity decision-making. Source: Aspøy et al. (2023). Discipline Theoretical input Intrapersonal Interpersonal Institutional Anthropology Community Action Research X Cultural-evolutionary theory X X X Ontological politics X Economics Behavioural change wheel X 35 Commons X Degrowth X Farmer decision-making and behavioural factors (“System 2” thinking) X Game theory X Institutional analysis and development framework X X Institutional change theory X X Nudging X X X Path dependency X Prospect Theory X X Human geography Epistemologies of the South X Integrating local and indigenous knowledge X X Theory of communicative action X X Interdisciplinary approaches Leverage points for transformation X Telecoupling X Transformative social innovation and grassroots innovation theory X Law Intersectionality X X Philosophy Pragmatism/Pragmatist theory of inquiry X X Political science Nudging X X X Commons X Decolonial theories X Institutional change theory X X Path dependency X Policy integration X Political ecology X Transformative research X X Transformative sustainability governance X X Worlding environmental governance X Psychology ABC (Attitude-Behaviour-Choice) framework X Behaviour change wheel X 36 BIT’s upstream-downstream model with “EAST” model (easy, attractive, social and timely) X COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation: behaviour) X Human-nature interactions (ecopsychology) X X Normative conduct (influencing)/social norms X X Nudging X X X Prospect theory X X Psychological biases X X X Psychological theories X X Psychosocial frameworks X Salience X Theory of environmentally significant behaviour X Theory of planned behaviour X Value-action gap X X X 5E Model of Environmental Engagement (positive psychology) X Scienceand technology studies Co-production of knowledge X X Ontological politics X X Post-normal science X X Responsible research and innovation X X Social Ecology Leverage points for transformation X X Sociology Community Action Research X Cultural-evolutionary theory X X X Epistemologies of the South X Feminist care ethics X X Nudging X X X Social equity X Social practice frameworks X X Social solidarities and collective identities X 37 Socio-ecological resilience theory X Theory of communicative action X X Transformative context-based social investment X Sustainability science Mode 2 knowledge production X X Leverage points for transformation X X Transdisciplinarity X X Transformative research X X 3.4 Case study workshop on theory commonalities and conflicts and dialogues with case studies Summarised by David N. Barton Mendes et al. (2023) report on the second Task 1.4 workshop, which was conducted to help participants think about the underlying theories of their case studies, the leverage points they aim to address, how they might implement policy and other recommendations, and what achieving their goals entails. The use of the leverage points framework was intended to prepare the bridging from WP1 to WP3 systems analysis with individual cases. All eleven case studies of PLANET4B were tasked with connecting their cases to a theory of change from the Inventory of theories developed by Aspøy et al. (2023) and refined in the first workshop (Mendes & Inoue, 2023). For each theory selected, case study representatives indicated which leverage points would be needed to trigger “transformation” in relation to biodiversity decision-making in the context of the respective case. The workshop was held in person in Nijmegen. Each case presented a story of change for a potential future in 2050, illustrating potential policy and other recommendations, theories of change, and leverage points that would be compatible with the goals, actions, and desired/expected research outcomes of their cases. By using a storytelling and future scenario approach, each case study was encouraged to think about how theories potentially inform research outcomes, policy and other recommendations at a scale of transformative change. The exercise prompted the consortium members to revisit the updated theory inventory. The workshop helped cases self-diagnose their own research goals and processes. It also helped case studies know more about each other’s cases and provide feedback to their colleagues. The workshop provided a first meeting of case studies with Meadows’ 12-leverage points framework. The initial purpose was for a top-down comparison of the transformative strategies across the wide range of intensive place-based and extensive sector-based case studies (Table 2). 38 Table 2. Comparison of leverage points addressed by case studies’ theories of change, policy, and other recommendations through their stories of change set to 2050 during the second workshop. Source: based on Table 1 in Mendes et al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ollowing the second Task 1.4 workshop a series of dialogues were conducted by project colleagues with case studies individually. The aim of these dialogues was to validate the cases’ own assessments of which leverage points they were working with to extend their diagnostic of their case study interventions using the ReflexivityContextualisation Matrix (RCM; Soliev et al., 2023). Additionally, to conduct a selfassessment of the potential and limitations of the LPF and RCM approaches as tools in the diagnostic framework “toolbox”. Dialogue partners summarised these discussions, and their summaries were validated through case study leads reporting them in chapters 5 and 6. The rationale behind focusing on the RCM and LPF as tools in the diagnostic framework “toolbox” was partly based on their applications within other parts of the PLANET4B project (under WP2 and WP3). Using these methodological approaches as a starting point for our case-by-case discussions thus allowed us to capitalise on ongoing efforts within the PLANET4B case studies. It also provided insights into the usefulness of these tools for evaluating context specific biodiversity decision-making. The dialogues promoted requests for clarification on the definition of each leverage point by case studies and dialogue partners. This resulted in the development of Appendix 1 providing further definitions and examples of each leverage point. 3.5 Linkages to next steps in the PLANET4B project Blanka Loučková and Simeon Vaňo The transdisciplinary framework, incorporating other methodological approaches utilised in the PLANET4B project such as "biodiversity discourse" and "intersectionality" is a valuable tool informing (not only) workshops in Task 3.2 (Systems mapping and transformative interventions). Both the PLANET4B transdisciplinary framework and Task 3.2 will facilitate a project-wide understanding of where interventions should be promoted within the systems and how to achieve broader positive effects in transformative change. The PLANET4B transdisciplinary framework will inform Task 3.2 by enabling a comprehensive exploration of systemic interventions in the involved case studies from diverse conceptual perspectives. The application of the diagnostic framework in Task 1.5 is complementary to Task 3.2, as both these tasks contain a leverage points framework as the key component. The complementarity is due to different perspectives used in Tasks 1.5 and 3.2. The transdisciplinary, diagnostic framework of Task 1.5 is a multilayer research concept, highlighting a top-down perspective based on dialogues with case leaders identifying leverage points in the respective systems represented by the case studies. In contrast, Task 3.2 complements this view by letting the Learning Communities, i.e. the stakeholders, explore places to leverage change. Task 3.2. hence applies a bottomup approach. Such design is allowing for comparative analysis between the two approaches, as well as exploring a broader information pool, experiences, and understandings, to generate a more robust knowledge base. Task 1.5 uses a 12-leverage points framework (LPF), which provides a more structured or technical approach to identifying systems features. Task 3.2, on the other hand, applies 4 LPF (parameters, feedback, design, intent) which leaves more space for 40 learning communities to explore particular leverage points themselves, without having further predetermined categories. There are two reasons for this. First, the 4 LPF is expected to be more user friendly to explore system change together with case study communities coming from very diverse backgrounds. Second, researchers’ intent in Task 3.2 is also to test the different views in which learning communities view systemic change. Applying LPFs across different dialogue platforms, from focused discussions with case leaders using a 12 LPF approach to broader engagements within learning communities employing a 4 LPF approach, will altogether provide rich material for analysis. This kind of analysis can enable comparisons and exploration of potential conflicts and complementarities among various perspectives, offering deeper understanding of systemic interventions from different angles. By examining the results of dialogues and workshops, insights will be gained into diverse understandings and potential interventions within systems, highlighting complexities and opportunities for systemic change. 4. Linking the leverage points framework to intersectionality and biodiversity discourse David N. Barton This chapter discusses the LPF in its first usage – as a “top down” transdisciplinary theoretical boundary object aimed at connecting or cross-walking to other theoretical approaches. We evaluated conceptual linkages with two other frameworks applied in PLANET4B: “biodiversity discourse” and “intersectionality analysis”. 4.1 Intersectionality analysis Vinicius Mendes and Cristina Y. A. Inoue (summarised by David N. Barton) This section synthesises findings from a review of D1.3, or “Methodological framework for intersectionality analysis” (Thaler & Karner, 2023), using an LPF lens. The leverage points framework (LPF) helps to identify where to target (which levels, which parts of the system, etc.), what kinds of policies or interventions, and which are the potential outcomes of interventions, policy, or other recommendations to interfere in a given system. At the same time, the LPF has several general limitations: 1. No evaluation criteria for outcomes in terms of equity, justice. 2. Agency of natural systems and other species are disregarded. 3. Does not consider the relationships of co-constitution between different social levels, e.g. institutions, communities, individuals. Intersectionality analysis provides a set of guiding questions that can compensate for the general limitations in the LPF – moving from “what/where” questions, to questions of “how” – contributing to a transdisciplinary framework. Intersectional analysis questions can: 1. Guide the biodiversity discourse towards environmental justice, recognising and incorporating diverse knowledges. 41 2. Help researchers and practitioners to better visualise relationships of coconstitution across different levels of change – from global to local. 3. Using self-reflection to select interventions that are better aligned with communities’ identities, values, background, and experience. 4. Help planning, and potentially assessing the impact, of interventions at the intersections of different social categories in communities. Tools and interventions mentioned in relation to “intersectionality analysis” knowledge in D1.3: Practitioner tools: • Co-creation workshops. • Development of a language/vocabulary. • Mindfulness of language in classrooms/workshop. • Sharing meals to establish relationships/alliances. General research tools: • Interview transcripts with intersectional lens. • Intersectionality-based policy analysis. • Co-constructing research question and asking participants for feedback. • Wheel of privilege exercises. • Ethnographic methods for sensing policy. • Community vignettes (narratives that move beyond case boundaries). • Storytelling. • Lived experience – actor triads. • Situated bodies of knowledge (countering extractive relations). • Multilayered analysis. Case specific tools: • Roundtable discussions. • Pilot activities in nature. • Nature walks, sharing biodiversity stories. • Role-playing games. • Framed experiments. • Multi-actor activities. • Spiritual practices. Which parts of the leverage points (1–12) framework are engaged by the tools and/or interventions identified in the intersectionality analysis? Most of these interventions target deep leverage points (functions of design and intent): • LP 6 (access to information). Interventions targeting the collection of different worldviews about biodiversity; or focusing on understanding how different knowledge systems depict Nature (e.g. Indigenous knowledge; or how youth perceive biodiversity); or, still, testing innovative ways of knowing and exchanging information about the environment (sharing stories, Nature walks, 48 Nevertheless, in the public media and political programme documents that were analysed, NGOs and political parties tended to address shallow leverage points. Neither actor group addressed the deepest leverage points in their discourse. While there is no apparent reason why discussions on the deepest drivers of transformative change cannot become part of political discourses, they may never become the discourse of mainstream political actors, given their transformative nature. PLANET4B WP1 did not do an analysis of the leverage points framework (LPF) with the same depth as intersectionality analysis and discourse analysis. It could be argued that our use of the LPF diagram as a lens on intersectionality and discourse analysis was somewhat “mechanistic” and “simplistic”. Our use of the LPF may have prompted a structural and hierarchical interpretation when the only hierarchy is in terms of whether a (leverage) point has more (deep) or less (shallow) leverage. For example, the graphical visualisation of a lever in the IPBES interpretation of the LPF suggests that if one leverage point is moved, all others move with it. In workshop discussions with case study researchers, some considered the LPF to lack interactions between leverage points. This last point may be due to the lack of specification and more easily understandable examples of positive and negative “feedback loops” in the LPF, which potentially could consider interactions. In summary, a framework is not a static concept, but depends for content on its application and practice. To use a photographic metaphor, frameworks may differ across (at least) the following aspects: standpoint and perspective (values), the lenses (methods/tools of inquiry), framing (system boundaries) and focus (parts of the system emphasised as key to action by theories of change). 5. Place-based studies’ theories of change and leverage points for policy In this chapter, and the following chapter, place-based (chapter 5) and sector-based case studies (chapter 6) self-assess their recommendations for change (in policies and other levels, such as the community level) – and the underlying or assumed theories of change. Where did case study researchers assume they would “leverage” change (through selected interventions in place-based case studies) – at shallow or deep points? What implications can this have for the kinds of policy (or other) recommendations that were expected to come out of cases? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the PLANET4B frameworks used to evaluate interventions and leverage points? To answer, and reflect on the usefulness/applicability and limitations of the LPF, and the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix, we asked case studies to elaborate on the following four questions: i) What interventions does your case study plan to use and where do they fit in the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM)? ii) What were the pros and cons of the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM) for your case study development? iii) What leverage points do the interventions and potential policy recommendations from your case study engage with? 49 iv) What were the pros and cons of the leverage points framework (LPF) for your case study development? These elaborations are based on dialogues held between case study leaders and PLANET4B partners not directly involved in the respective cases. For the first question (i) it is important to note that only place-based case studies were expected to make interventions. Some sector-based case studies may still have chosen to experiment with interventions, even though this was not required. Therefore, question (i) was retained also in dialogues with sector-based case studies (chapter 6). The work done by case studies for chapters 5 and 6 represents a first exploration and iteration of systems mapping of leverage points (WP3) and leverage points for upscaling to EU level (WP4). Hopefully, the initial exposure to the LPF, including critical thinking about the concepts and uncovering relative weaknesses in the framework, will allow the following project activities to address remaining knowledge gaps and perform deeper analyses. 5.1 Nature recreation in Oslo, Norway (OOF/NINA) Yennie K. Bredin, Alexaander E. Aas-Hanssen, Helene Figari, and Vegard Gunderson (i) What interventions does your case study plan to use and where do they fit in the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM)? The Nature recreation case plans for or engages in the following interventions from the upper end of the RCM to target conscious change: • Arts-based, creative & deliberative interventions: Photos taken by children with disabilities that illustrate important elements of good nature experiences. • Place-based deliberative interventions: Expert network meetings, a larger seminar/networking event designed to bridge the gap between two sectors that have historically been disconnected – mainstream nature recreation organisations and organisations that operate at the intersection of nature recreation and disability. (ii) What were the pros and cons of the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM) for your case study development? The RCM is theoretical and conceptual whereas our choice of activities and interventions has been bottom-up driven and experience based rather than theory driven. Other important factors in developing our case, not captured by the RCM, have been time and resources. (iii) What leverage points do the interventions and potential policy recommendations from your case study engage with? LP 4 – a significant barrier to providing quality nature recreation opportunities is the scarcity of year-round activities accessible to children with disabilities in their local areas. This issue partly appears to arise from a disconnect between the primarily voluntary nature recreation associations, which could offer regularity in activities, and the organisations and individuals equipped to make nature recreation activities 50 inclusive for children with disabilities. Our interventions therefore strive to inspire the two groups to self-organise across existing system structures to build new alliances that allow for developing regular nature recreation activities inclusive of disabilities. LP 3 – another major challenge is poor organisation or a lack of adapted nature recreational activities in Norway, potentially due to small population sizes in municipalities. For instance, in a municipality with 10,000 inhabitants, the number of children with disabilities would be relatively low. This demographic reality makes it challenging for the municipality to prioritise this group, especially as public servants are tasked with a broad array of responsibilities. Consequently, finding constructive solutions often relies on the dedication and interest of individuals within the system. Our interventions aim to empower such individuals and organisations, facilitating the development of effective solutions. LP 2 – the way a person is responded to when inquiring about arrangements or adaptations is important. A general impression is that local actors hesitate to propose solutions for including children with disabilities, possibly due to a fear of doing something wrong or a prevalent perception that people with disabilities are fragile. However, children with disabilities also possess strengths and seek new experiences. They are resilient within their limits and frequently rise to the challenges presented to them. This demonstrates that not everything must be “universally designed” or entirely predetermined. Sometimes, it is equally crucial to plan for flexible arrangements that can adapt to various needs. Through our interventions, we aim to challenge and broaden the stereotypical perceptions of disability. (iv) What were the pros and cons of the leverage points framework (LPF) for your case study development? The Nature recreational case is empirically driven, as it draws upon the knowledge and everyday experiences of the members of our learning community. The LPF has provided valuable insights for reflecting on the outcomes. However, the LPF's theoretical nature and specialised terminology make it less accessible to those unfamiliar with the framework. Consequently, familiarising oneself with the LPF can be time-consuming, and applying it in contexts where work is more process-oriented and experiential, particularly with non-academics, proves challenging. 5.2 Opening nature to Black, Asian, and ethnic minority communities in the UK (DADIMAS/CU) Geraldine Brown, Alex Franklin, Barbara Smith, Geeta Ludhra, and Subash Ludhra The UK case study is centred around its learning community (LC). The LC comprises 11 individuals, plus case study leads from the associated PLANET4B partner organisations (DC and CU). The membership is primarily from ethnic minority communities, who have participated in Dadima's walks. The LC is being engaged with on an ongoing basis (since the end of year 1, 2023) through a series of community learning spaces (both online and face-to-face). The initial main objective was to create a platform for open communication, self-reflection, and learning. Having now established a solid and sustainable foundation for this, emphasis has since transitioned towards supporting the LC in undertaking a variety of activities aimed at encouraging 51 participants to share their views and experiences regarding nature and biodiversity. Whilst to begin with the focus has been on sharing within the group, ultimately the aim is that the group will co-create outputs which can be shared with a wider audience of stakeholders. This will include a collaborative citizen science exercise and the creation of a participatory film. (i) What interventions does your case study plan to use and where do they fit in the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM)? This case study draws primarily on creative, artsand dialogue-based intervention methods, supported by more traditional qualitative research methods (namely, semistructured interviews and focus groups). The selection of individual methods is informed by the need to firstly, encourage conversations, knowledge sharing and visioning within the LC group, and subsequently, facilitate the co-creation of outputs aimed at increasing understanding and wider stakeholder appreciation of the importance of biodiversity and green space to Black, Asian and ethnic minority communities. Thus far, creative, artsand dialogue-based intervention methods, are proving effective in enabling LC members to share their individual and collective stories concerning nature and biodiversity, encourage critical reflection, and promote action. The LC is especially interested in undertaking action aimed at increasing awareness and prioritisation of the importance of intersectional and plural knowledges to achieving widespread prioritisation of biodiversity in decision-making. Through a series of participatory workshops, LC participants are being invited to share and explore issues related to the concept of biodiversity and its intersection with culture and heritage. Specifically, this includes exploring and critically reflecting on individual and shared stories relating to issues of inequality and social justice. Along with the workshops, an online space has been created where LC participants can share daily nature/biodiversity stories, information, and thoughts in text and visual forms. This community learning approach fosters dialogue and deep insights into the various ways in which nature and biodiversity are implicated in participants’ lives. A film documenting the process and key learnings will be produced and shared with key stakeholders, engaging the LC in a participatory filmmaking process. This creative and collaborative method involves working together with the LC to develop new knowledge and share existing knowledge and insights based on their perspectives and experiences. The film produced will incorporate multiple biodiversity stories, highlight key messages, and document the LC process and engagement in a Citizen Science activity. The goal is to create a film that serves as an intervention for raising awareness and information to support initiatives aimed at facilitating ethnic minority communities’ engagement with nature and biodiversity. (ii) What were the pros and cons of the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM) for your case study development? A key concern has been to select and incorporate creative artsand dialogue-based intervention methods in a manner which respects and remains open to being shaped by the views and needs of our learning community. The same applies with regards to 52 the use of such intervention techniques as a basis for co-creating a group output – i.e. the participatory film. As such, our approach has been largely inductive in intent, although informed also by the considerable previous experience of some research team members in working with minoritised communities. The RCM in this sense acts more to confirm rather than guide the selection on individual methods. However, we perceive a positive role for the matrix in how it offers a means of supporting others with less experience of research-based intervention, to align method selection with the specificities and characteristics of participant groups as well as the wider case study context. (iii) What leverage points do the interventions and potential policy recommendations from your case study engage with? LP 1 – the learning community has led to much reflection and covered areas such as the importance of education and changing mindsets to transcend paradigms. Education was seen as something beyond the UK education system, albeit that it should play a key role. The role of education within families, and communities and how that informed understanding was considered important. LP 2 – discussion around mindset identified the need to change the mindset of decision-makers, within ethnic minority communities and wider society. Opportunities for spaces that brought people together for dialogue, were deemed important alongside embedding within a wider set of mechanisms information that challenges some of the dominant negative stereotypes associated with ethnic minority communities and that ethnic minority communities may hold about nature and biodiversity. The need for changing mindsets was identified as fundamentally important. LP 3 – there is an overwhelming understanding within the group about how the system works and the advantages and disadvantages of individuals and groups. The system is viewed as primarily concerned with profit generation and establishing mechanisms that help to sustain and reproduce this goal. The group identified a need for a top-down and bottom-up approach to change in which we see a rethink of the education system and what is taught to children and young people, in tandem with community-led learning spaces that allow for an intergenerational transmission of knowledge. LP 4 – an area of significant agreement amongst the group is the belief in the power of individuals and communities to be agents of change. Participants share stories about their families, homelands and connections to nature and biodiversity. Reflections illuminate a belief and willingness to make change and a shared view about the role Dadima’s plays inspiring them to seek new ways of engaging with nature and biodiversity. LP 5 – there was a wide-ranging discussion about the role and responsibility of the government in changing rules/laws. There is some agreement amongst the group of a need for the introduction of more punitive measures to support changing the poor practices of big industry; and changing rules around production, quality, and advertising. 53 LP 6 – structure and Information flow elicited a wide discussion. Effective communication channels within communities and between communities and decisionmakers at all levels were deemed important. Participants identified the need to ensure that communication methods were diverse and involved working with communities. LP 10 – the idea of stock and flows was a little abstract, so this was not an area that led to much discussion. Areas touched on briefly included a need to address the lack of and poor maintenance of green spaces in cities and the need to work with communities to reduce households prioritising concrete over the natural environment. LP 12 – participants spoke about the role of government and the need for inclusive and socially just policymaking. Measures to improve the quality and accessibility of food were an important area of discussion. (iv) What were the pros and cons of the leverage points framework (LPF) for your case study development? The Leverage Framework can provide academic teams with a useful tool to consider various factors related to system change. However, engagement with the framework varied amongst the participants, with more than half of the LC expressing frustration and concerns regarding a potential conflict between their experiential knowledge and the framework's details. Upon reflection, the CU team believes that a context-specific interpretation of the framework and taking time to ensure its meaningful to communities is crucial. While workshops aim to create space for participants to engage with academic ideas, the Leverage Framework proved challenging for participants, they reported that it spoke a different language and reproduced certain ways of thinking and doing, which limited creative thinking. 5.3 Urban Youth in Germany (CGE/MLU) Maryna Bykova and Ilkhom Soliev (i) What interventions does your case study plan to use and where do they fit in the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM)? The Urban Youth case aims to deploy a range of methods to reach the behavioural change intended, such as: • Arts-based, creative & deliberative interventions: Hike/Night Hike, Movie Screenings/Outdoor Cinema. • Experiential games: Biodiversity-Food-Governance Game and potentially the Negotiation Game that is being newly developed. • Attention experiment: Nudging messages in supermarket carts. These interventions primarily target the reflexivity aspect by creating space for deeper and deliberate reflections about nature, fostering an emotional connection with nature, encouraging environmental identity, and preparing individuals for viewing proenvironmental behaviour as a continuum. Arts-based, creative & deliberative interventions focus on emotions, as well as social bonding around nature. The experiential games aim at decision-making experiences, reflection, and developing a sense of capacity to contribute towards environmental sustainability – understanding 54 the consequences of individual and group choices, opportunities, and challenges of dealing with market and political systems. Attention and framing experiments on the other hand are intended to influence behaviour via altering default choices, thus with less reflexivity and more choice architecture. For example, through subtle rearrangement of the choices or activation of social norms bringing forward attention to a choice that considers biodiversity better than otherwise, while not altering the choices available originally. (ii) What were the pros and cons of the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM) for your case study development? In the Urban Youth case study, we have introduced the RCM to the learning community after the intervention methods were selected. Yet, at a later stage the matrix provided the necessary theoretical lens to look at various levels addressed by interventions, from the intrapersonal reflections of individuals participating in activities like night hikes and movie screenings to the interpersonal and institutional engagements through games and policy dialogues. On the bright side, the matrix assisted in mapping out a pathway for how less conscious changes through experiential activities can gradually lead to more conscious, deliberate actions and attitudes towards better prioritisation of the environment. CGE and the learning community have encountered difficulties with the RCM's extensive applicability, which, from our perspective, renders it not merely challenging but nearly unfeasible to directly attribute changes in awareness, attitudes, or behaviours to an individual intervention. Instead, we have felt a collective suite of interventions is necessary to bring about transformative change. (iii) What leverage points do the interventions and potential policy recommendations from your case study engage with? LP 12 – the Biodiversity-Food-Governance game creates space to discuss tax and whether it is enough for a change. LP 11 – size of buffer stocks, relative to flow is somewhat too abstract for our interventions perhaps. LP 10 – structure of material stock and flows are also somewhat difficult to connect directly to our interventions or policy recommendations. LP 9 – the game for example has an element of delay – how decisions of producers, consumers, political system can affect the state of biodiversity with delay and uncertainty. LP 8 – the two sets of interventions (arts-based, creative, and deliberative; games) allow space for reflecting on “greater powers” such as markets and political systems that can reproduce both exclusion and under-prioritisation of nature and biodiversity on the one hand, and youth on the other hand from decision making. 55 LP 7 – the two sets of interventions (arts-based, creative, and deliberative; games) allow space for reflecting on “greater powers” such as markets and political systems that can reproduce individualistic and profit-oriented decision making. LP 6 – education, mainstream and social media can reproduce historical knowledge on consumption, responsibilities, etc. LP 5 – our interventions allow discussing and questioning incentives and constraints (market, profit, tax, protected areas, intensive consumption, and production) as well as test how organisation of default choices can alter this. LP 4 – as a result of testing and learning from various interventions, the case study is planning a policy dialogue which will aim to enable change in community-level decision-making through integrating lessons from the case study in the future relevant policies such as formal and non-formal education. In our case, the interventions, such as the Biodiversity-Food-Governance Game and outdoor activities like night hikes and movie screenings, are designed to resonate with the participants on both an individual and communal level. These interventions primarily operate at leverage point 4. Realisation and experiencing of the importance of biodiversity and of how people can (self-)organise to influence various levels of decision-making are part of the social learning embedded in these interventions. LP 3 – our interventions, in the short term the one that aims to alter default choices (attention experiments) and in the longer term the ones that aim to trigger deeper reflections (arts-based, creative, and deliberative; experiential games), are interested in testing whether new social norms can emerge that normalise decision-making with improved nature/biodiversity prioritisation in the society, including young people. In a way this could be a form of adjusting the goals of the system. Further, the case study aspires to influence the broader EU policy agenda. The aim is to shift the system's objectives to support and enhance the environmental awareness of its citizens, ensuring that sustainability becomes a central tenet at various individual to institutional levels of decision-making. LP 2 – this paradigm shift is not immediate but is seen as the culmination of the cascading effects of interventions at other leverage points, from altering parameters and rules to reshaping system goals and ultimately transforming the underlying paradigms. LP 1 – LC members continuously self-reflect and discuss, question many issues, potentially challenging their own paradigms and ones from others at various levels of communication (peers, policy). (iv) What were the pros and cons of the leverage points framework (LPF) for your case study development? The LPF might be useful if it is used not as a starting point (as a guide) for discussion but at a later stage as a tool supporting reflection and, perhaps, abstraction. In itself, it does not help to clarify the system, but after delineating the system boundaries, it may 56 assist in initiating another round of discussion and reflection on the systems dynamics. The LPF also can contribute (used in a later stage) to confront complexity, the complexity of systems and this might act as a learning point for young people engaged. However, time is needed to digest and embrace this complexity which eventually may end up in the ability to consciously design in the future. On a more critical note: Special efforts were needed to make sense of the LPF beyond the training CG partner has provided. More reading and watching video tutorials assisted the building up of an understanding. However, the LPF has multiple versions that might be confusing. Moreover, the LPF seems to suffer from being hierarchical, even linear, creating an either-or feeling. It seems to convey a message (an implicit assumption) that the higher the better (regarding numbers from 12 to 1). The LPF has a terminology that creates a problem of understanding; its language does not help to make sense of it in practice. 5.4 Edible City and Inclusion in Graz, Austria (FUG/IFZ) Sandra Karner, Andreas Motschiunig, Anita Thaler, and David Steinwender (i) What interventions do your case study plan to use and where do they fit in the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM)? The Graz-based case study engages two learning communities (LC): A Citizen LC, which encompasses a group of disadvantaged women, and a Policy LC that brings together representatives from municipality departments, CSOs/NGOs, and researchers. The core intervention activity is the implementation of a Living Lab (LL), where a biodiverse community garden will be initiated with women affected by intersectionality (social/economic status, education, migrant background, age). This pilot is supposed to be the starting point for a wider LL process, namely the step-by-step planning and the realisation of a “biodiverse edible park” beyond the project duration on the overall green plot (1,7 ha), where the pilot garden is located. The LL activities within PLANET4B prepare the ground for a participatory process that considers aspects of biodiversity, social justice and the urban foodscape in the planning and use of urban green spaces. The overall LL process runs from October 2023 to Autumn 2024, and it builds on several activities tailored to the specific context and participants. Various art-based and creative methods serve to undermine traditional knowledge hierarchies. Tailored activities target the co-production of knowledge by encouraging LC participants to share their knowledge, situatedness and subjective perceptions, reveal normative values, learn from each other, and relate to new knowledge in a reflexive way. The activities focus on intrapersonal and interpersonal change and start from abstract topics (relation to participants’ daily life experiences; existing practices, policies & strategies) to be narrowed down step by step to biodiversity issues. Information activities and deliberative interventions aim at making linkages from broader topics to biodiversity visible, to raise awareness for the potential benefits of integrated policy approaches, and to reflect on options for more integrated planning 57 practices. These activities address intrapersonal and interpersonal change, but also institutional change on the long run. We also plan to implement the Biodiversity-Food-Governance Game (most likely with a student group) to support reflections on the relation of food and biodiversity and raise awareness about the relevance of related decision-making. (ii) What were the pros and cons of the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM) for your case study development? The decision for activities and choice of methods for their implementation was – at least partly – taken before the matrix was set up, as the case study follows on from previous explorations and research work. However, as we aim at highly contextualised interventions, the detailed planning of activities and choice of methods is done step by step within the overall LL process along with the new knowledge we gain about the system and the context. Consequently, some of the original plans were revised and adjusted, which might be the case in the future as well. For this, the matrix represents a useful tool to reflect on what kind of changes we are aiming at, and it helps to give an orientation to which direction the planned interventions and applied methods may address change. For the Graz-based case, a transformation towards a biodiverse and socially just edible city will need to build on change on all levels. A somewhat confusing aspect within the matrix is the categorisation of “contextual”, which we would use for any aspect that is of particular relevance in our specific location, circumstances, actor constellations, power relations, etc. here in Graz. This goes beyond biodiversity aspects. As we are aiming to identify room for better policy integration, contextualisation means for us to take up those policies/strategies, which are already here, and to explore within the Policy LC how to link them with biodiversityrelevant issues. Finally, it is difficult to consider single activities as “intervention” because we see the overall LL process, which results from many individual activities, as the intervention. (iii) What leverage points do the interventions and potential policy recommendations from your case study engage with? LP 12 – by highlighting the relevance of integrating strategies, biodiversity parameters might gain more weight for land use planning, e.g. in the new Agriculture Strategy of the City, and in the subsidies programme for securing urban green spaces. LP 7 – the PLANET4B media work is benefitting the City of Graz and other local cooperation partners. Citizens benefit from the initiation of the biodiverse edible park, where they can engage. LP 6 – the LL activities mediate between different knowledge holders and engage them in co-creative settings. Moreover, we will elaborate on the potential resp. recommendations for future trans-sectorial processes of (strategic) planning. LP 5 – deliberative events that highlight the value of incorporating different types of knowledge into planning processes; the community mapping outcomes for the planning of the whole plot will serve as a showcase. 64 Excursions/Field Trips – we experienced a one-day “Textile tour” visiting companies in the Prato district that recycle natural fibres. This gave us a better understanding of the opportunities and obstacles of moving towards fashion with less impact on biodiversity. We are planning to organise more excursions/field trips and maybe get students involved. It could be seen as a creative intervention mixing lab and place and an intervention of the building capacity and motivation category. (ii) What were the pros and cons of the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM) for your case study development? The RCM could be informative for us when putting into practice our interventions. However, in terms of case study development, the selection of our interventions was not based on the RCM but on various considerations, including the accessibility of the research field, the competencies of our research group, and the opinion of the advisory group. Our interventions should be focused on promoting change at higher-level and universal issues; therefore, it is more focused on what is called “institutional” change within the RCM. However, from our point of view, the focus of the RCM is not so much on high-level institutional change (e.g. international policy changes) but on more placebased interpersonal and intrapersonal change. Currently, the theoretical approaches or tools under “institutional” seem to us rather influencing interpersonal relations and much less institutional relations. The current content of the matrix does not seem to be useful for understanding institutional change. Therefore, we do not find it very relevant for our case study. (iii) What leverage points do the interventions and potential policy recommendations from your case study engage with? LP 12 – better and more clear Indicators of biodiversity loss, reduced quantities of fashion production and consumption (e.g. mandatory production maximum), standards for sustainable and biodiversity-friendly fashion production, incentives, and tax (i.e. according to the principle the polluter pays, or the extensive producer responsibility). LP 10 – 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). Changes in fashion production and materials (i.e. eco-design; new eco-fibres such as oranges fibre; ban of oil derived fibre). LP 6 – improved transparency in supply chains, better monitoring and tracking systems to know the origin of the products. As a result, improved consumer awareness about fashion's impact on biodiversity. Changes in advocacy campaigns and education programs (also to fashion professionals and workers) to teach and raise awareness about fashion and biodiversity (e.g. teach about more biodiversity-friendly production practices, visiting fields and factories, teaching children to make their own clothes, teach about the impacts, etc.). LP 5 – introducing new principles like the polluter pays or the producer’s extensive responsibility in legislation. Introducing transformative principles in governance (e.g. participation, inclusion, adaptiveness, etc.). Balancing the rules and regulations to 65 promote break-out dynamics (i.e. phasing-out the unsustainable and not biodiversityprioritising system), e.g. constraints, prohibitions, bans, with the ones to promote buildup dynamics (i.e. phasing in the new system), e.g. incentives, subsidies, material support. Balancing mandatory and voluntary governance arrangements. Balancing international, national, and local policymaking and governance. LP 4 – 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. LP 3 – currently, a growth-driven and quantity-maximising fashion system. New system should prioritise quality. New goals of satisfying human needs and protecting and regenerating biodiversity. LP 2 – from an ego-system to an eco-system that puts nature, human well-being, and justice at the front. LP 1 – PLANET4B. (iv) What were the pros and cons of the leverage points framework (LPF) for your case study development? Pros: LPF provided us with a systematic way in which to define the boundaries and properties of our specific socio-ecological system (fashion and biodiversity). It also helped us preliminary evaluate previous policies, make us more aware of the parts of a system which are addressed by current policies, analyse them in terms of their transformative potential, and then identify aspects that needed to be changed to address the “intent” part of the system. Cons: It is difficult to use LPF without having a deep knowledge about system theory and, therefore, to use it as a common tool for dialogue with people external to the academy (i.e. our advisory board). Moreover, LPF is too hierarchical and does not satisfactorily explain the interaction between the different leverage points and the direction of cause-effect when interventions are implemented. In other words, it oversimplifies change and systems and therefore, after a first preliminary evaluation, we decided to use other frameworks and theories to explore change. Finally, LPF might not be very informative about the practice of policy change and implementation, while it does not offer sufficient insight into the institutional and interpersonal power dynamics that ultimately affect how decisions are made, why, and by whom – i.e. policy change involves power relations, agency, participation, leadership, partisan politics, etc. Since our extensive case is focused on changing policies and institutional change, this limitation is especially constraining for us. 66 6.2 Agro-biodiversity management in Hungary (ESSRG) György Pataki and Borbála Lipka (i) What interventions does your case study plan to use and where do they fit in the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM)? Feminist Care Theory seems to be the most relevant theoretical perspective to take based upon our initial understanding coming from the analysis of the expert interviews we conducted with the Hungarian seed system actors. A relational perspective on agrobiodiversity seems to provide us with the strongest explanation to critically understand and transform the seed system. Relatedly, together with our stakeholder board, we decided to apply arts-based methods for our interventions. Engaging with arts carries an intrapersonal transformative potential. Moreover, collective arts-based activities can engage a diversity of actors that might result in interpersonal transformations through their joint artistic activities and collectively lived experiences. (ii) What were the pros and cons of the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM) for your case study development? The RCM, at this point of our research, seems to provide no clear support. It seems to us that there is a risk that this framework reduces complexity. It provides too separate categorisation compared to what we feel relevant in our case story (more overlapping, fuzzy, hybrid than this matrix proposes). (iii) What leverage points do the interventions and potential policy recommendations from your case study engage with? We see a series of LPs to be relevant to act upon for the sake of systems change. These LPs were derived from our learning from the expert interviews. More specifically, we claim the following LPs to be relevant: LP12 – financial support for (i) regenerative agriculture and sustainable water management, (ii) disseminating good practices, (iii) community seed banks, on-farm programs, national seed bank, (iv) compensating farmers participating in research; increasing the number of varieties adaptable to ecological farming. LP11 – conserving and increasing of the gene pool of cultivated plants. LP10 – access to landraces, farmers’ varieties; seed production for landraces, farmers’ varieties. LP9 – less bureaucratic registration process for open pollinated varieties. LP8 – small market niche, no effective demand. LP7 – cooperative seed-saving by farmers; decreasing meat consumption and food waste; significantly reduced subsidies for conventional agricultural practices. LP6 – access to knowledge and know-how (seed saving, cultivation technology, processing). 67 LP5 – reduced administrative burden if someone uses diverse seed in one’s own farm; agricultural subsidy reform; promotion and subsidy for local, community-based solutions; integrating the agrobiodiversity topic into agricultural studies at university level and vocational training; professional forum that engages multiple representatives of local stakeholders. LP4 – country-wide network of seed banks; creation of a network of small seedproducing companies; participatory projects funded (on-farm testing, breeding, seed CSAs). LP3 – short food supply chains; diversity as primary value (e.g. diversity adapted restaurant menus); healthy, affordable, and culturally appropriate food for everyone. LP2 – experiential attitude; open mindedness; agroecology, permaculture, systems thinking; non-violent communication. (iv) What were the pros and cons of the leverage points framework (LPF) for your case study development? The LPF was very useful to analyse the expert interviews we conducted. Basically, the LP categories were used to code our interview texts and this exercise proved useful in the sense of bringing new insights and a clear structure that we will share with our stakeholder board for further reflections. We feel that a network of LPs is significant, not a couple of ones or a single one. We also feel that this complexity (the networked nature of LPs) is important and if one wants systems to change, then all – or at least several – LPs are needed to be acted upon at the same time. 6.3 Environmental awareness in Education in Hungary (ESSRG) Kármen Czett and Eszter Kelemen (i) What interventions does your case study plan to use and where do they fit in the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM)? School gardens and participatory theatre are being implemented as interventions orchestrated by established stakeholders, allowing us to trace their effects. The theories behind these methods are rooted in eco-psychology and human nature connectedness. An experiential game focusing on biodiversity is integrated into one instance due to the keen interest of a teacher, while in another, it was chosen to align better with the cognitive development of the age group compared to the theatre production. Emphasis is placed on fostering intrapersonal and interpersonal transformations, with less emphasis on affecting institutional changes. This approach considers the challenging landscape of policy alteration in Hungary, given its authoritative governance structure – however, we hope to scale out and spread best practices through school and expert exchanges. Each methodology is intricately woven around the topic of biodiversity, particularly evident in the case of school gardens, which cultivates a deeply rooted, place-based relationship. 68 (ii) What were the pros and cons of the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM) for your case study development? It helped us to narrow down the potential methods based on what kind of change we are aiming for, and to see how much we could fit into the scope of this project. However, not all methods proved feasible with this setting and our available resources, and in such cases, we had to make some modifications (e.g. we are applying participatory theatre with a partner institution instead of the role play we originally chose). (iii) What leverage points do the interventions and potential policy recommendations from your case study engage with? The interventions and potential policy recommendations from the case study engage with several leverage points within the system. They target the structure of information flows by fostering interactive classes grounded in systems thinking, promoting outdoor education, and facilitating access to external experts in schools. Furthermore, they address the power to add, change, or self-organise system structure by enhancing the freedom of choice in teaching methods and fostering cross-school learning. Finally, they aim to reshape the goals of the system by advancing biodiversity education to encompass more than just acquiring lexical knowledge, but also to deepen humannature connectedness. Through these strategies, the interventions aim to influence the culture in schools and the goals of the system towards a more holistic and interconnected approach in biodiversity education and environmental awareness. (iv) What were the pros and cons of the leverage points framework (LPF) for your case study development? We used the LPF as an overall conceptualisation of barriers and enablers identified in the expert interviews. While it helped us identify some specific nuances, it proved challenging to apply effectively in guiding our case study. Difficulty arose particularly in translating the significance of shallow leverage points, such as means of buffers, to the specific context of the case. A primary shortcoming identified is that the framework is predominantly rooted in natural science and follows an engineering logic and provides less support to grasp internal (personal) processes. This limitation hinders its applicability in addressing complex socio-environmental issues, indicating the need for a more holistic and interdisciplinary approach to leverage points analysis. 69 6.4 Sectoral case – Agriculture and migration in the EU (FiBL) Lina Tennhardt (i) What interventions does your case study plan to use and where do they fit in the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM)? This case will not employ any intervention. Selected methods include a participatory system mapping, interviews, and system analysis workshops. We are currently in the process of collecting data. (ii) What were the pros and cons of the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM) for your case study development? Not relevant. (iii) What leverage points do the interventions and potential policy recommendations from your case study engage with? Potential policy recommendations derived through this case: Promising policy interventions to address systemic barriers and enablers for biodiversity-friendly practices in (labour-intensive) farming systems across the EU, such as CAP or Sustainable food systems framework. These might address the following LPs: LP 12 – in the future, agricultural subsidies/direct payments for farmers in Europe are mostly paid according to farmers’ contribution to environmental outcomes, and conditional on social criteria, such as workers’ rights. LP 11 – better coordination between farmers to select similar biodiversity-conservation measures (e.g. improve connectivity through green belts and wildlife corridors across multiple farms within the same landscape). LP 5 – through policy integration and system thinking, the green and fair transition of the European agricultural system are integrated within European policies. LP 4 – advancements in networking (e.g. social media) allow that seasonal migrants organise, such as in workers’ unions, to improve working conditions. LP 3 – instead of prioritising production quantities and supporting exports, the goals of the European agricultural systems are efficiency, consistency, and sufficiency following transformative sustainability governance (e.g. Sustainable food systems’ framework for fair prices) (iv) What were the pros and cons of the leverage points framework (LPF) for your case study development? So far, the identified LPs under the LPF depict our – the researchers’ – views, priorities, and future visions. What a desired future which we, as a society, should work towards highly depends on the actors involved in the definition. Especially when it comes to migrant workers and sustainable agriculture, the views diverge to a large degree. 70 Once we have completed data collection and included other stakeholders, we will have a better understanding of how the LPs identified by them integrate within this framework. 6.5 Trade & GVCs soy/beef from Brazil to the EU/Netherlands (RU) Vinicius Mendes and Cristina Y. A. Inoue (i) What interventions do your case study plan to use and where do they fit in the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM)? In our case, we selected the following methods: literature review, document analysis, and interviews working on all three. However, we want to go further, and carry out (participant) observations in the field (Brazilian Amazon) (to be confirmed depending on the availability of funds – we are currently applying for grants to fund this aspect of the research). If this field research materialises, we will manage to involve local communities and use creative intervention methods (based on images/photos), besides organising one or two workshops in the field. In this context, our intervention methods (currently applied) are more aligned with the transformation through reflexivity (upper part of the RCM). In the x-axis of the matrix, our work interventions include Abstract aspects, emphasising intrapersonal change and broader relationships beyond biodiversity (also including, for example, development and justice), but also Contextual aspects, emphasising place-based relationships in the Amazon. (ii) What were the pros and cons of the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM) for your case study development? One positive aspect of the RCM is that it provides initial “food for thought”, i.e. a series of methods to reflect upon before selecting interventions for the case study. However, there are many more methods beyond those included in the matrix. For example, how can we use the RCM to guide interventions in our extensive case, which a priori uses traditional social science research methods (interviews, document analysis, literature reviews), based on the idea of “broadly defined” interventions? In this sense, it looks like the RCM is much more aligned with the work being developed in intensive cases. (iii) What leverage points do the interventions and potential policy recommendations from your case study engage with? Potential policy recommendations from our case: EU trade policies that pay attention to biodiversity, human rights & intersectionality in the sourcing countries producing commodities imported by the EU; implement degrowth in the monocultural agrocommodity sector; design and implement mechanisms to listen to the communities where commodity production take places; a broader concept of forests and deforestation/habitat loss to include other biomes and impacts like pollution and human rights threats adopted by EU Deforestation Regulation. Based on these potential policy recommendations, and the previously discussed interventions, we would engage more with the following LPs: 71 LP6 – as our case can provide more information to policymakers on the impact of soy/beef trade. Also, local communities & NGOs, instead of companies alone, could be sources of traceability/due diligence information, or at least validate it. LP5 – because our case suggests the relevance of policies and regulations that tip the power balance, reducing the power of big companies/farmers, and increasing the power of local communities, in agro-commodity trade regulations. LP4 – in this case, desirable system-wide transformations include the following two: First, the global agricultural system would adapt itself to global biodiversity loss and inequality by increasing local value chains, and degrowth in the monocultural agrocommodities sector. Second, the global trade system would tackle global biodiversity loss and inequality by adopting policies that improve sustainability & intersectional justice in international trade. (iv) What were the pros and cons of the leverage points framework (LPF) for your case study development? The LPF helps understand potential places to intervene in the system(s) connected to our case. However, because of its hierarchical nature, it provides little space for outof-the-box thinking when it comes to alternatives, innovative bottom-up solutions to the problems we are tackling (beef/soy-driven deforestation in the Amazon and other social-environmental challenges along the supply chains, including in the EU/Netherlands). Reflexivist ontologies and critical theory (power imbalances, injustices), which are central in our case study, are not easily connected to the LPF. 6.6 Sustainable investment behaviour Global-EU-Norway (NINA) Rafal Chudy (i) What interventions do your case study plan to use and where do they fit in the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM)? The case study investigates the impact of cognitive biases on sustainable investment behaviour, especially amidst the complexities of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) uncertainties. Employing a systematic literature review and semistructured interviews with stakeholder board members, the study will provide an understanding of how various biases influence decision-making in the realm of sustainable investing practices. The mix of literature review, discussions with stakeholder board members (coming from organisations such as TNFD, UNEPWCMC, KLP, Eika Group) and desk-based research aims to triangulate data from multiple sources, providing a robust foundation for understanding the influence of cognitive biases on sustainable investment decisions amidst ESG uncertainties. This analysis aims to offer valuable insights for researchers and companies relying on ESG scores in their analyses, providing an opportunity to enhance internal policies to mitigate biases in investment decisions. Additionally, it may prove instrumental for companies involved in shaping ESG standards, improving the credibility of ESG scores, particularly in areas like biodiversity, and fostering more informed and responsible investment practices. 72 (ii) What were the pros and cons of the Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM) for your case study development? No specific intervention was selected in our case, as it is an extensive case and focuses on dialogues with the stakeholder board. Consequently, this case study has not used the RCM and has no substantive feedback to this question. (iii) What leverage points do the interventions and potential policy recommendations from your case study engage with? Policy recommendations will be focused on companies’ internal policies about improving the system in place, the actors in the chain, the consideration of biases (e.g. home bias to invest in markets known for the investor) and limit these through improved decision-making. Recommendation will also include to have standardised ESG scores of biodiversity (currently many independent actors and consultant carry out the assessment with limited standardisation). The optimal outcome of implementing these policy recommendations would entail companies enhancing their internal policies to address biases in investments, elevating ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) standards, and integrating biodiversity considerations into their institutional activities. In this case study, we have selected three theories of change and connected them to leverage points (LPs). The theories include: • Prospect theory – describes how investors make decisions under risk and uncertainty; therefore, incorporating improved data and parameters (LP12) to characterise biodiversity's status, investors could shift capital away from businesses causing significant harm to biodiversity and towards those with lesser detrimental impacts. By proper monitoring of biodiversity, i.e. what is happening on the ground compared to metrics describing the biodiversity state investors can gain (LP7) by minimising the materiality and risk to their portfolios. They also push for better information flow and access to biodiversity data provided by 3rd parties (LP6). Since investors pay for biodiversity metrics/data/various ESG scores that include biodiversity evaluation in "E" – they have also negative strength on 3rd parties that should work towards improvement of biodiversity metrics (LP8). • Portfolio theory – investors want to maximise returns and minimise risks; however, up to now the risk coming from climate change and biodiversity loss has not been included in financial analyses – therefore, modern portfolio theory that includes ESG scoring and general shift of the investors mindset and inclusion of ESG scores in investment analyses may change the system (L2). In other words, modern portfolio analysis that includes ESG factors may identify knowledge gaps and challenge the model assumptions previously accepted. • Theory of Planned Behaviour – when resources become scarce, the consequences of climate change and biodiversity loss become more serious (material for businesses), and people working for these businesses are more educated regarding the importance of nature in human sustainable development goals – the transition of paradigms may take place (LP1), and different goals for financial sector can be drawn (LP3) and measured (including obligatory reporting of biodiversity materiality to the company). 73 (iv) What were the pros and cons of the leverage points framework (LPF) for your case study development? The LPF proved to be helpful to consider the case focus. In the context of sustainable investment behaviour, leverage points are critical because they highlight opportunities for investors to enact meaningful change towards sustainability goals. Nevertheless, there are several critiques and challenges associated with leverage points in sustainable investment behaviour, including its impact on biodiversity. Those include: short-term focus (many investors, particularly in mainstream finance, often prioritise short-term financial gains over long-term sustainability objectives), complexity and uncertainty (identifying and effectively targeting leverage points within complex financial systems can be challenging), trade-offs and conflicting objectives (sustainable investment decisions may involve trade-offs between financial returns and environmental, social, or governance (ESG) considerations), lack of standardisation and metrics (the lack of standardised metrics and reporting frameworks for ESG factors makes it difficult for investors to assess the sustainability performance of companies and investment products consistently), greenwashing and tokenism (certain sustainable investment practices, such as greenwashing or tokenistic ESG integration, may undermine the effectiveness of leveraging points for sustainability and biodiversity benefits). 6.7 Reflexivity-Contextualisation Matrix (RCM) similarities across sectorbased cases Ilkhom Soliev and Agnes Zolyomi Like the findings reported in the section on intensive cases, the ongoing work between the coordinators, work package/task leads, and the case study partners, as well as the dialogues on the usefulness and relevance of the RCM provided valuable insights that could help future research and action to better prioritise interventions. The experiences however have not been universal across all case studies. Due to the different nature of focus on the needed change in the extensive case studies (hence, interventions), where entire sectors are at the centre of the analysis, some cases (FiBL, NINA) stated that they have not consulted the RCM to reflect on their intervention selection. Reflections by the ESSRG case on agro-biodiversity management in Hungary highlight the potential limitation of the RCM. The matrix seems to reduce complexity with separate categorisations compared to overlapping, fuzzy and hybrid complexity experienced in the respective case. Such a reflection is however in line with the RCM’s intended usefulness – it does not aim at selecting one specific intervention (or list of detailed interventions) that fully fits the complexity of the case. It does however aim at reflecting at the higher or meta level about the type of change desired in the case study or mixes of changes, particularly given that the resources and entry points for inducing change are limited. Nevertheless, the feedback that the RCM gives such an impression is indeed helpful for its further development and description beyond this period. RU suggested the RCM could be very helpful for preliminary consideration of various methods. Nevertheless, from a rather traditional academic perspective where a task is often to analyse case studies via interviews, document analysis, literature review, or 80 Figure 19. Life frame “lenses” on plural values of nature. Source: Pascual et al. (2023). Different life frames are tied to different worldviews and knowledge systems that are tied to specific values of nature and its biodiversity. The metaphor of different “life frame lenses” (Pascual et al., 2023) may help recognise and potentially reconcile differences in these discourses. Different worldviews and knowledge lenses on nature and society can apply more broadly to any framework. The distinction between anthropocentric, biocentric and pluricentric “worldviews” and knowledge systems, broad values, specific values, and value indicators are additional useful concepts to help distinguish both the origins of different theories of change and the political discourses we relate to as researchers and practitioners. The IPBES plural values typology in Figure 19 helps detail differences in the deep “intent” related leverage points. 81 7.4 Actor and decision-types related to biodiversity policy David N. Barton Some sector-based case studies found the leverage points framework too abstract relative to the sector-specific and biodiversity-related issues they are addressing. Can a decision-making typology help compare PLANET4B policy and other recommendations from cases to the national and EU policy levels? Based on work done for the IPBES Values Assessment, and using an institutional economics lens, Vatn et al. (2024) developed a decision-making typology (DMT, Table 8) to broadly describe types of policies and types of actor interactions. Table 8. Decision-making typology (DMT), adapted from Vatn et al. (2024). PA stands for political actors. EA stands for economic actors. SCA stands for civil society actors. PD stands for political decisions. ED stands for economic decisions. SCD stands for socio-cultural decisions. The numerals (1 to 12) refer to our hypotheses about Meadows’ 12-leverage points (1999). The DMT provides another lens on the challenges of operationalising leverage points to types of decisions/actions by different sectoral actors in biodiversity policy making 82 and action. In Table 8 we have suggested some possible linkages to specific leverage points (Meadows, 1999). The following examples of quadrants in the DMT, and a crosswalk to the LPF, illustrate some of the challenges in defining a generic framework for decision-support: • Political decisions-Political actors: “Government and traditional authorities’ regulations such as allocation of rights to land, design of (dis-)incentives (pollution limits, green taxes), establishment of protected areas”. Meadows identifies “rules of the system” (incentives and constraints) as LP5, while subsidies, taxes and standards are classed as shallow “parameters” LP12. These parameters all have an incentive effect, potentially conflating the definition of LP5–12. • Economic decisions-Economic actors: “Decisions on investments, production and consumption (where to source natural resources, what to produce) by public or private firms, financial actors, collective associations or individuals”. These decisions affect the structure of material stocks and flows (LP10) but may also be based on knowledge about the size of natural resource stocks relative to planned resource extraction (LP11). • Socio-cultural decisions-Civil society actors: “Communities and social movements acting for the defence of human or territorial rights, or to protect relevant resources associated with their use or relationships with nature”. The decision to act to defend rights may refer to “rules of the system” (LP5) or “the power to self-organise” (LP4). Other quadrants in the DMT raise further questions which are not developed here. The conceptual cross-walk between decision-making types (Vatn et al., 2024) and the specific leverage points (Meadows, 1999) is challenging. While the decision-making typology is very broad it explicitly refers to different types of agents and action and decision domains. A conceptual difficulty is the LPF ambiguity about agency – the ability to decide and act. Only LP4 has language explicitly referring to agency (“the power to add, change or self-organise system structure”). The lack of an agency dimensions in the LPF, suggests that it needs to be complemented by other frameworks. 7.5 Power in the context of policy for plural values of nature David N. Barton Vatn et al. (2024) nest their decision-making typology within a generic framework for decision-making that also addresses power (Figure 20). New concepts relative to previous frameworks are “discursive power” drawing from worldviews, and “structural power” defined by norms and rules. Another novelty compared to the frameworks discussed earlier in this report, are the indications of different types of interactions and feedback between “layers of influence” in decisions represented by worldviews, broad values, and institutions (Figure 20; arrows a-g). 83 Figure 20. Generic framework to analyse the way nature’s values influence decision-making. Source: Vatn et al. (2024). Following Vatn et al. (2024, p. 4), “Discursive power in the form of producing or reinforcing Worldviews and Knowledge systems frames what values become important to different groups in society (arrow a). Values are assumed to influence Decisionmaking as ‘filtered’ through a structural layer, constituted mainly by the institutional context (norms and legal rules; arrow b). Structural power also influences the Decisionmaking process itself by defining how it should be undertaken – e.g. who participates and how decisions should be made (arrow c). There is feedback from Decision-making to Values and the other outer layers of influence: directly as decisions may change Institutions and organizations – the Structural power layer (arrow d). Over time, Decision-making and the associated institutional change may impact” The nesting of the “layers of influence” on decision-making is somewhat similar to the hierarchy of the deep leverage points in Meadows’ (1999) framework. These interactions address case study critiques of the leverage points framework that it does not elucidate interdependencies between leverage levels/points. 84 7.6 Three Spheres of Transformation framework and Conscious Full Spectrum Response David N. Barton In learning and testing the leverage points framework in PLANET4B, case study researchers commented on it being “mechanistic”. This contrast with the intention of Meadows (1999) to provide a framework that could address complex systems. In this section (7.6), we look at two further frameworks that have some commonalities with Meadows’ leverage points framework (1999), as well as the decision-making typology (Vatn et al., 2024), discussed in the previous section. However, their application is different. The following frameworks are used in training on radical transformational leadership, to help people realise their potential as agents of change. In this practice they address agency very directly. Sharma (2007) originally developed a Three Spheres of Transformation approach, based on her work in the Leadership and Capacity Development Initiative of the United Nations. The framework was later adapted by O’Brien and Synga (2013) (Figure 21). Figure 21. Three spheres of transformation (O´Brien & Sygna, 2013, after Sharma, 2007). 85 The following definitions of the spheres follow O’Brien and Synga (2013, pp. 5–6): PERSONAL sphere “where the transformation of individual and collective beliefs, values and worldviews occur. [..] Changes to beliefs, values, and worldviews can influence the types of actions and strategies considered possible in the practical sphere.” POLITICAL sphere “represents the systems and structures that define the constraints and possibilities under which practical transformations take place [..] the political sphere also involves the management of ‘natural’ systems, such as ecosystems, the climate system, water systems”. PRACTICAL sphere of behaviours and technical responses is “where outcomes have an observable and measurable influence on [..] policy goals [..]. It can be considered the ‘outcome’ sphere, where the numbers, parameters, and indicators are most often measured”. The three spheres reference Meadows’ leverage points framework (Meadows, 1999) with shallow (behaviours & technical responses) and deeper (systems/structures, worldviews) leverage points. Meadows’ leverage points framework visually suggests choosing a single leverage point, rather than simultaneous points. The three spheres’ model “recognizes that transformations involve integrated responses that simultaneously address multiple dimensions of change”, shifting from partial responses to full spectrum responses (O’Brien, 2021, p. 116). The three spheres framework may be considered a meta-level above the individual leverage points in Meadows’ framework. O’Brien (2018) discusses how the leverage points address “practical” behaviour and technological responses; “political” responses to changing systems and structures and “personal” responses to beliefs, worldviews, values and paradigms (Figure 22). 86 Figure 22. Leverage points for systems change based on Meadows (1999) and their relationship to the practical, political and personal spheres of transformation. Source: O’Brien (2018). ”The three spheres provide a simple and accessible way to think about social transformations that is generally consistent or compatible with many other theories and approaches, including the literature on the multi-level perspective, social-ecological transformations, social innovation, and social practice theory” (O’Brien, 2018, p. 157). “A more effective starting point would be to engage individuals and groups with all three spheres of transformation, such that they shift from being seen as ‘objects to be changed’ and reduced to their carbon footprints, to viewing themselves as subjects or agents of change who are capable of contributing to systemic transformations” (O’Brien, 2018, p. 157). Seen through the lens of the three spheres of transformation, the leverage points framework seems more “mechanistic” in its application as diagnostic tool for case studies. However, this impression may be due to the way we applied the LPF in case study dialogues and workshops. We asked case studies to consider whether leverage points were relevant as individual points of systems change, rather than encouraging thinking about simultaneity and interactions across a range or spectrum of shallower and deeper leverage points. The three spheres of transformation framework was developed further into the “conscious full spectrum response” by Sharma (2017). The conscious full spectrum response emphasises that the capacities required to create societal transformation are needed across a full spectrum of responses. It contrasts partial interventions with full spectrum responses (Figure 23). 87 Figure 23. Conscious full spectrum response framework, showing full and partial response across the three spheres (after Sharma, 2017). Following Sharma (2017) the following are some examples of partial – rather than full spectrum – responses in the three spheres in the context of forest biodiversity conservation could be: • Underlying factors – e.g. development of personal capacities of individual forest managers, without connecting this to strategic actions or policy instruments. • Systems and cultural transformation – e.g. introduction of policy interventions/instruments such as payments for ecosystem services for forest management, without the rules-in-use of the instrument specifying the actions and technical solutions that payments are conditional on. • Immediate causes – tree planting techniques and soil conservation management measures with no policy incentives or land manager motivations to support them. Both the three spheres of transformative change and the conscious full spectrum response frameworks help to think of transformation across leverage points, rather than treating leverage points, or their associated actions, individually. The conscious full spectrum response framework is operationalised in training practice as questions for introspection and dialogues with peers to help discover capacities, practice them and design for change in multiple spheres. It is a framework that also encompasses, nests and/or links to a number of different other tools that range from project design tools for securing funding (technical solutions sphere), through strategic operational planning (systems sphere) to conscious use of different leadership approaches (underlying factors sphere) (Sharma, 2017). Rather than discuss yet another suite of 88 methods, the intention in presenting the conscious full spectrum response framework is its emphasis on complex systems requiring multiple approaches/frameworks/concepts to be used together. Also, the emphasis is on designing strategically, i.e. using different frameworks for different purposes, adapted to the situation. 8. Conclusion: Towards a transdisciplinary diagnostic framework for biodiversity decision-support David N. Barton The social-ecological systems in each of the PLANET4B case studies need multiple frameworks and lenses to understand their complexity for the purpose of evaluating interventions and recommending policy and other actions for biodiversity prioritisation in decision-making. This heterodox conclusion is consistent with an “intersectional” approach in a broad sense – any single framework necessarily provides a limited perspective. What we strive for in PLANET4B is to combine multiple perspectives in a way that is discerning, rather than disciplinarily or professionally biased or discriminating. The aim of the process was to help us as researchers and practitioners in the project become more conscious of the theoretical approaches and languages that may condition the interventions we study and the policy and other recommendations we make to societal actors. The process of understanding and applying the leverage points framework achieved some shared language and helped to compare assumptions about transformative change across the different case studies. As such, we think we achieved the process objective of using a common framework to diagnose PLANET4B case studies. However, case studies and experts on other integrating analytical approaches identified limitations of the LPF. Limitations include the LPF itself being a particular theoretical systems analysis lens which in some cases excluded practitioners through its unfamiliar concepts. Furthermore, the LPF was identified as being ‘structuralist’ or ‘mechanistic’ in the way we tested it in case studies, not addressing concepts such as agency, power and decision-making related to nature/biodiversity. 8.1 Draft transdisciplinary diagnostic framework for biodiversity decisionmaking David N. Barton Many different theoretical and methodological lenses exist in the transformational change literature. To achieve the objective of deriving a transdisciplinary framework for biodiversity decision-making, the above critiques inspired us to review additional frameworks. In chapter 7 we reviewed several frameworks developed by the IPBES to address decision-making in the context of plural values of nature, and transformational leadership frameworks to address agency. We concluded that PLANET4B needs a suite of tools and frameworks; leverage points, intersectionality analysis, discourse analysis and reflexivity-contextualisation each have complementary purposes. 89 Below we illustrate how the “conscious full spectrum response” (Sharma, 2017) can provide a conceptual framing for a transdisciplinary diagnostic framework for biodiversity decision-making, without being exclusive of other frameworks. Complex systems require several analytical lenses and practices to lay the foundations for transformative change. A conscious full spectrum response is grounded in universal values of dignity, compassion and fairness (Sharma, 2017). Figure 24 makes the point that multiple lenses can be applied consciously (explicitly) to design for change across the personal, political, and practical spheres of change. To make this point we have placed the approaches we tested in the workshops and dialogues with cases in PLANET4B, WP1, within the framing of the conscious full spectrum response framework (Sharma, 2017). Figure 24. Draft transdisciplinary framework for diagnostic of decision support for biodiversity, after Sharma (2017). Our reviews and discussions of intersectional analysis, discourse analysis, leverage points, and reflexivity contextualisation with practitioners and researchers in PLANET4B suggest that all frameworks have the capacity to address personal, political, and practical spheres of action. Each of them represents different systems theory lenses that may complement one another in understanding transformative change, in the same way that the different “life frame lenses” complement one another in understanding the plural values of nature (Pascual et al., 2023). Figure 24 also draws on the nesting of the “layers of influence” on decision-making (Vatn et al., 2024), where universal values may influence beliefs, worldviews and paradigms, which in turn influence structures, systems and institutions, directly and indirectly influencing actions and decisions about behaviour and technical solutions for sustainability. In turn, those practical behaviours and solutions may feed back to and change political systems and personal beliefs over space and time. 96 Mendes, V. & Inoue, C. Y. A. (2023). Workshop report on key theories of behaviour, decision-making and change. Report No D1.4 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14871547 Mendes, V., Inoue, C. Y. A., Aas-Hanssen, A. E., Barton, D., Bolsø, R., Bonetti, M., Bredin, Y., Brown, G., Brunori, G., Bykova, M., Czett, K., Figari, H., Franklin, A., Gronda, R., Home, R., Hval, J., Karner, S., Kelemen, E., Lampredi, G., Lipka, B., Ludhra, G., Ludhra, S., Motschunig, A., Navarro Gambín, P., Pataki, G., Podlaszewska, A., Sabir, G., Saydaliev, Z., Soliev, I., Steinwender, D., Tennhardt, L., Thaler, A., Vergamini, D., & Villa, M. (2023). Workshop report on commonalities and conflicts across theories relevant for biodiversity decision-making. Report No D1.5 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14886840 Mendes, V., Inoue, C. Y. A., Barton, D., Binder, L., Bonetti, M., Booth, C., Bredin, Y., Brown, G., Bykova, M., Czett, K., Figari, H., Karner, S., Lipka, B., Ludhra, G., Ludhra, S., Navarro Gambín, P., Ofori-Amanfo, P., Pataki, G., Sabir, G., Simsek, E. T., Soliev, I., Steinwender, D., Thaler, A., & Zolyomi, A. (2024). Workshop report on theories relevant for biodiversity decision-making and their implications for practice. Report No D1.6 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15274503 Morton, L. W., Eigenbrode, S. D. & Martin, T. A. (2015). Architectures of adaptive integration in large collaborative projects. Ecology and Society, 20(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07788-200405 Nielsen, K. S., Marteau, T. M., Bauer, J. M., Bradbury, R. B., Broad, S., Burgess, G. … & Balmford, A. (2021). Biodiversity conservation as a promising frontier for behavioural science. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(5), 550–556. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01109-5 O´Brien, K. & Sygna, L. (2013). Responding to climate change: The three spheres of transformation. 16–23. https://www.europarc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/05/OBrien-and-Sygna_2013_Responding-to-climatechange-Three-spheres-of-transformation.pdf 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 O’Brien, K. (2021). You Matter More Than You think. Quantum Social Change for a Thriving World. cCHANGE Press. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540. https://wtf.tw/ref/ostrom_2005.pdf Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15181–15187. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104 Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x 97 Pannell, D. J. (2008). Public Benefits, Private Benefits, and Policy Mechanism Choice for Land-Use Change for Environmental Benefits. Land Economics, 84(2), 225–240. Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Anderson, C. B., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Christie, M., González-Jiménez, D. … & Zent, E. (2023). Diverse values of nature for sustainability. Nature, 620(7975), 813–823. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586023-06406-9 Penca, J. (2023). Public authorities for transformative change: Integration principle in public funding. Biodiversity and Conservation, 32(11), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02542-w Pham, L. T., Kumar, P., Dahana, W. D. & Nguyen, H. D. (2024). Advancing sustainable development through planetary health – A holistic approach to global health: A systematic review. Environmental Science & Policy, 155, 103709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103709 Pohl, C. & Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2007). Principles for Designing Transdisciplinary Research. oekom Verlag Munich. https://www.oekom.de/_files_media/titel/leseproben/9783865810465.pdf Pohl, C., Krütli, P. & Stauffacher, M. (2017). Ten Reflective Steps for Rendering Research Societally Relevant. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 26(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.26.1.10 Rice, C., Harrison, E. & Friedman, M. (2019). Doing Justice to Intersectionality in Research. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 19(6), 409–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708619829779 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 Riechers, M., Pătru-Dușe, I. A. & Balázsi, Á. (2021). Leverage points to foster human– nature connectedness in cultural landscapes. Ambio, 50(9), 1670–1680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01504-2 Salomaa, A. & Arponen, A. (2023). The role of the Red Lists of Ecosystems in leveraging sustainability changes in Finland – perceptions of the assessors. Ecosystems and People, 19(1), 2222185. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2023.2222185 Schleiffer, M., Smith, B., Frick, R., Bredin, Y., Sabir, G., Udall, D., Pataki, G., Cooke, G., Singsaas, F., Soliev, I., Czett, C., Bonetti, M., Villa, M., Fitzka, L., Loučková, B., Mendes, V., & Home, R. (2023). Perceptions of biodiversity and related concepts. Report No D1.1 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14865522 Scholz, R. W., Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Walter, A. I. & Stauffacher, M. (2006). Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: Historical framework and theory. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370610677829 Scholz, R. W. & Steiner, G. (2015). The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: Part I – theoretical foundations. Sustainability Science, 10(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0326-4 98 Sell, K., Hommes, F., Fischer, F. & Arnold, L. (2022). Multi-, Inter-, and Transdisciplinarity within the Public Health Workforce: A Scoping Review to Assess Definitions and Applications of Concepts. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(17), Article 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710902 Sharma, M. (2007). Personal to Planetary Transformation. Kosmos, 31–35. Sharma, M. (2017). Radical Transformational Leadership. Strategic Action for Change Agents. North Atlantic Books. Soliev, I., Franklin, A., Zolyomi, A., Smith, B., & Brown, G. (2023). Directory of key methods most suitable for biodiversity decision-making contexts. Report No D2.1 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15470806 Thaler, A. & Karner, S. (eds.) (2023). Methodological framework for intersectionality analysis. Report No D1.3 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14871142 Tress, G., Tress, B. & Fry, G. (2005). Clarifying Integrative Research Concepts in Landscape Ecology. Landscape Ecology, 20(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-004-3290-4 Vatn, A., Pascual, U., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Termansen, M., Arias-Arévalo, P., Balvanera, P. ... & Lazos, E. (2024). Incorporating diverse values of nature in decision-making – Theory and practice. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 379(1903), 20220315. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2022.0315 Venter, O., Hovani, L., Bode, M. & Possingham, H. (2013). Acting Optimally for Biodiversity in a World Obsessed with REDD+. Conservation Letters, 6(6), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12018 Yeung, E., Carlin, L., Sandassie, S. & Jaglal, S. (2021). Transdisciplinary training: What does it take to address today’s “wicked problems”? Innovation and Education, 3(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42862-021-00011-1 99 Statement on data availability Data used to produce this report included notes taken by the authors during general discussion meetings, workshops, and interviews with case study partners shared with the authors via the internal data repository of the project (SharePoint). Data from the workshops have been reported on separately in PLANET4B deliverables D1.4–1.6 (Mendes et al., 2024, 2023; Mendes & Inoue, 2023). Notes from case study dialogues were used directly in chapters 5 and 6 and will be made available on Zenodo before the end of the PLANET4B project in October 2025. There is no additional raw data to be reported. Statement on ethics Interviews and discussions for this report were kept among project participants who were all informed about and agreed with their purpose. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. 100 Annex Definitions and examples of leverage points (Annex 1) Vinicius Mendes To support case study discussions of Meadows’ (1999) leverage points framework (LPF; section 2.6) Meadows’ definitions of leverage points was summarised and complemented by examples in less academic language as shown below. The examples were added after feedback in the workshops that the academic leverage point definitions were challenging for some researchers and practitioners. 12. Constants, parameters, numbers (such as subsidies, taxes, standards) From the original: “‘Parameters’ in systems jargon means the numbers that determine how much of a discrepancy turns which faucet how fast. Maybe the faucet turns hard, so it takes a while to get the water flowing or to turn it off. Maybe the drain is blocked and can allow only a small flow, no matter how open it is. Maybe the faucet can deliver with the force of a fire hose. These considerations are a matter of numbers, some of which are physically locked in and unchangeable, but most of which are popular intervention points. (...) The amount of land we set aside for conservation. The minimum wage. How much we spend on AIDS research or Stealth bombers. The service charge the bank extracts from your account. All these are parameters. (...) Parameters are dead last on my list of powerful interventions. (...) Not that parameters aren’t important – they can be, especially in the short term and to the individual who’s standing directly in the flow. People care deeply about parameters and fight fierce battles over them. But they RARELY CHANGE BEHAVIOR. If the system is chronically stagnant, parameter changes rarely kick-start it. If it’s wildly variable, they don’t usually stabilize it. If it’s growing out of control, they don’t brake it” (Meadows, 1999, p. 5). Parameters are numbers that usually affect certain activities or patterns within a system. E.g. let us consider a river basin as our system. The river basin is becoming heavily polluted by an increasing number of recreational boats. To tackle the problem, the basin’s governance body establishes a new tax (considerably high compared to benchmarks) for sailing in the river. Only boat sailors paying such a tax will be allowed to navigate. This tax is a parameter that intends to improve the functioning of system by creating a disincentive for navigation, attempting to reduce pollution. Useful terms to identify this LP: subsidies, taxes, standards, rates, degrees, etc. 11. The sizes of buffers and other stabilising stocks, relative to their flows From the original: “Consider a huge bathtub with slow in and outflows. Now think about a small one with very fast flows. That’s the difference between a lake and a river. You hear about catastrophic river floods much more often than catastrophic lake floods, because stocks that are big, relative to their flows, are more stable than small ones. In chemistry and other fields, a big, stabilizing stock is known as a buffer” (Meadows, 1999, p. 7). 101 Buffers, or stabilising stocks, represent the sources of resilience of a system. Buffers can protect the system from drastic changes that might affect its functioning or wellbeing. For example, establishing green belts and wildlife corridors to connect fragmented habitats in European landscapes can promote biodiversity conservation by creating buffers against habitat loss and fragmentation. 10. The structure of material stocks and flows and nodes of intersection (such as transport networks, population age structures, flow of nitrogen through soil) From the original: “The plumbing structure, the stocks and flows and their physical arrangement, can have an enormous effect on how the system operates. When the Hungarian road system was laid out so all traffic from one side of the nation to the other has to pass through central Budapest, that determined a lot about air pollution and commuting delays that are not easily fixed by pollution control devices, traffic lights, or speed limits. (…) The only way to fix a system that is laid out wrong is to rebuild it, if you can” (Meadows, 1999, p. 7). This refers to the internal structure of a system (its flows, stocks, and nodes of intersection). E.g. consider the following system: the international soy supply chain. In this system, one flow are the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from global production and distribution (soy agriculture, irrigation, machinery use, transportation, etc.). This generates stocks of CO2 in the atmosphere. What can be done if one wants to reduce the emissions from this system globally, i.e. to change some structures of the system? In this case, emissions are flows and the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to soy supply chains are stocks. Strategy: change the structure of material flows (activities that generate emissions). How? By changing fuel types, from fossil fuels to biofuels, in transportation and delivery activities. By adopting low-carbon agriculture techniques instead of traditional practices in soy farming. By eliminating the use of nitrogen fertilisers, which lead to the release of CO2, N2O and CH4 in the atmosphere. Etc. 9. The lengths of delays, relative to the rate of system change From the original: “Delays in feedback loops are critical determinants of system behaviour. They are common causes of oscillations. If you’re trying to adjust a system state to your goal, but you only receive delayed information about what the system state is, you will overshoot and undershoot. Same if your information is timely, but your response isn’t. (...) . A system just can’t respond to short-term changes when it has long-term delays” (Meadows, 1999, p. 8). The difference between the timing of the information necessary to kickstart a system change (fast) and the timing for the actual system change to occur (slow). 102 E.g. our system is a city: Extreme climate events in cities (e.g. floods) are fast and often unpredictable. Sometimes the nature/severity of such events can be anticipated only a few hours before. This means that the information only arrives when these catastrophes are about to materialise. To act effectively to combat extreme climate events, adaptation solutions can be deployed. However, government action to promote changes in the system (e.g. create and deploy climate adaptation infrastructures) are usually much delayed relative to the rate of system change (fast jump from a non-flooded to a flooded city). 8. The strength of negative feedback loops, relative to the impacts they are trying to correct against From the original: “Negative feedback loops are ubiquitous in systems. Nature evolves them and humans invent them as controls to keep important system states within safe bounds. A thermostat loop is the classic example. Its purpose is to keep the system state called ‘room temperature’ fairly constant at a desired level. Any negative feedback loop needs a goal (the thermostat setting), a monitoring and signalling device to detect excursions from the goal (the thermostat), and a response mechanism (the furnace and/or air conditioner, fans, heat pipes, fuel, etc.). A complex system usually has numerous negative feedback loops it can bring into play, so it can self-correct under different conditions and impacts. Some of those loops may be inactive much of the time – like the emergency cooling system in a nuclear power plant, or your ability to sweat or shiver to maintain your body temperature – but their presence is critical to the long-term welfare of the system” (Meadows, 1999, p. 9). Negative feedback loops are components of a system that basically aim to regulate it, i.e. avoid that the system becomes dysfunctional. All negative feedback loops have a goal, a monitoring and signalling device, and a response mechanism. E.g. keeping deforestation in the Amazon below 20% (a tipping point for irreversible “savannisation” of the forest) by applying the Forest Code (a Brazilian regulation). In this case, the system is the Amazon rainforest, and the Forest Code is a negative feedback loop in the system. One of the goals of the Forest Code is to keep deforestation in the Amazon below 20%. The monitoring and signalling device is the Brazilian Amazon Forest Deforestation Monitoring Program by Satellite, a government system that monitors deforestation by clear cutting in the Legal Amazon and produces, since 1988, annual deforestation rates in the region. The response mechanism of the Forest Code is the application of sanctions and fines for those involved in illegal deforestation. 7. The gain around driving positive feedback loops From the original: “A negative feedback loop is self-correcting; a positive feedback loop is self-reinforcing. The more it works, the more it gains power to work some more. The more people catch the flu, the more they infect other people. The more babies are born, the more people grow up to have babies. The more money you have in the bank, the more interest you earn (...). Positive feedback loops are sources of growth, explosion, erosion, and collapse in systems. A system with an unchecked positive loop ultimately will destroy itself. (...) Reducing the gain around a positive loop – slowing the growth – is usually a more powerful leverage point in systems than strengthening 103 negative loops, and much preferable to letting the positive loop run” (Meadows, 1999, p. 11). A positive feedback loop is a self-reinforcing trend in a system. The more the positive feedback loop works/repeats itself, the more power it gains. A mathematical example is how compound interest works over time. 6. The structure of information flows (who does and does not have access to information) From the original: “There was this subdivision of identical houses, the story goes, except that for some reason the electric meter in some of the houses was installed in the basement and in others it was installed in the front hall, where the residents could see it constantly, going round faster or slower as they used more or less electricity. With no other change, with identical prices, electricity consumption was 30 percent lower in the houses where the meter was in the front hall. We systems-heads love that story because it’s an example of a high leverage point in the information structure of the system. It’s not a parameter adjustment, not a strengthening or weakening of an existing loop. It’s a NEW LOOP, delivering feedback to a place where it wasn’t going before” (Meadows, 1999, p. 13). Changing parts of the system, or modifying its architecture, to facilitate or hinder certain information flows. E.g. nudging. Our system is an environmental NGO. The NGO collects donations through its website. But it prefers donations as cash transfers rather than credit card payments. Thus, in its website, the NGO decides to increase the salience of the desired option (cash) by making it the default option in the donation page. This way, donors are now “nudged” to select the option cash transfer by default. Compared to the previous situation (without the nudge), the NGO then identifies that donations in cash are considerably higher than before. This resulted from a small change in the structure of the information in the system. 5. The rules of the system (such as incentives, punishments, constraints) From the original: “The rules of the system define its scope, its boundaries, its degrees of freedom. Thou shalt not kill. Everyone has the right of free speech. Contracts are to be honoured. The president serves four-year terms and cannot serve more than two of them” (Meadows, 1999, p. 14). This leverage point is related to the rules that govern how a system must function (what is allowed, and what is not). E.g. environmental policies, targeting certain desired behaviours (only a max of 10% of the forest might be cleared for commercial purposes), and/or punishing those who don’t follow the rules (if someone cuts more than 10% of the forest, the exceeding cleared area must be re-forested, and a fee of X Euros will be applied). 4. The power to add, change, evolve, or self-organise system structure From the original: “The most stunning thing living systems and some social systems can do is to change themselves utterly by creating whole new structures and behaviours. In biological systems that power is called evolution. In human economies 104 it’s called technical advance or social revolution. In systems lingo it’s called selforganization. Self-organization means changing any aspect of a system lower on this list – adding completely new physical structures, such as brains or wings or computers – adding new negative or positive loops, or new rules. The ability to selforganize is the strongest form of system resilience. A system that can evolve can survive almost any change, by changing itself” (Meadows, 1999, p. 14). E.g. an environmental NGO (the system) loses a highly specialised worker (part of the system); the only one capable of developing and operating an Artificial Intelligence program for checking the level of biodiversity in rural areas. The NGO managers try to hire a substitute for the worker, but don’t find one. Then the managers decide to assess the relevance of that function for the overall goal of the organisation. They find that removing that particular function would not affect the operations of the NGO in a meaningful way. As a consequence, the NGO managers stop looking for a substitute worker, and opt to run the organisation without the biodiversity function. In sum: the system self-organised, adapting itself (removing part of its operation) in response to a sudden change, but in a way that still keeps the operations running smoothly. The managers were the agents of change. 3. The goals of the system From the original: “If the goal is to bring more and more of the world under the control of one particular central planning system (the empire of Genghis Khan, etc.), then everything further down the list, physical stocks and flows, feedback loops, information flows, even self-organizing behaviour, will be twisted to conform to that goal” (Meadows, 1999, p. 16). E.g. our system is a sustainable food programme in a country. The programme aims to increase public awareness and acceptance of sustainable food, by distributing locally sourced organic food to the poorest citizens. However, after a while, the governor decides to change the goal of the system. The new goal of the sustainable food programme is to implement food gardens in the country, by incentivising people to have their own food gardens (e.g. government will cut house taxes for households with food gardens). With this new goal, the structure of incentives, information flows, feedback loops, etc. will change accordingly. 2. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system – its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters – arises From the original: “Paradigms are the sources of systems. From them, from shared social agreements about the nature of reality, come system goals and information flows, feedback, stocks, flows and everything else about systems. (...) So how do you change paradigms? Thomas Kuhn, who wrote the seminal book about the great paradigm shifts of science, has a lot to say about that. In a nutshell, you keep pointing at the anomalies and failures in the old paradigm, you keep coming yourself, and loudly and with assurance from the new one, you insert people with the new paradigm in places of public visibility and power. You don’t waste time with reactionaries; rather you work with active change agents and with the vast middle ground of people who are open-minded” (Meadows, 1999, p. 17). E.g. our system is the tax system. The current paradigm is the shared social agreement of paying taxes to the government, because according to the social norm the State 105 operates in the best interest of society. Let’s say that we/society want/s to change this paradigm. We want to originate a new paradigm, in which every person will choose to whom they will pay their taxes (e.g. to an NGO that does advocacy in the best interest of the global environment; or to a public school that does an excellent job in inclusivity and equity; or to a firm that creates products that benefit global sustainability while also having excellent labour conditions, etc.). In this new paradigm, each registered “tax recipient” will be assigned a maximum amount to receive per year. This way, social institutions that are not able to convince taxpayers about their beneficial role to society and the environment will eventually get out of funds, stop operations, and disappear. 1. The power to transcend paradigms What can we do to transform the values, opinions, and imagination of society about the benefits of this new paradigm, out of which a new tax system can arise? From the original: “There is yet one leverage point that is even higher than changing a paradigm. That is to keep oneself unattached in the arena of paradigms, to stay flexible, to realize that NO paradigm is ‘true’, that everyone, including the one that sweetly shapes your own worldview, is a tremendously limited understanding of an immense and amazing universe that is far beyond human comprehension” (Meadows, 1999, p. 19). E.g. given the previous example, how can we change from the previous to the new paradigm? Who has the power to promote that change (people, communities, governments, private sector, etc) – i.e. who are the change agents? What can trigger that change to occur? How might the change happen? A note on the status of relevant KPIs achieved (Annex 2) Under Work Package 1 we have thus far delivered the following KPIs: • 3 expert workshops (Mendes & Inoue, 2023; Mendes et al., 2023, 2024) • 1 inventory of key theories (Aspøy et al., 2023) • 1 transdisciplinary framework (this deliverable, report D1.7)