Thinking differently about sustainability: experiences from the UK Open University

Systems thinking is often invoked as a panacea for dealing with issues of sustainable development. Imperatives towards being more holistic - getting the bigger picture – are often coupled with a need for greater interdisciplinarity - joined-up-thinking – particularly amongst triple bottom line disciplines of economics, social studies and natural sciences. So why are systems thinking courses not more prevalent? And how might the teaching of systems thinking enhance the value of thinking differently about sustainable development? The Open University, UK, is a recognised international leader in the provision of Systems education for over 40 years. More recent experiences with the launch of a postgraduate Systems Thinking in Practice suite of qualifications at Certificate, Diploma, and Masters level, suggest an appetite for systems thinking amongst mature-age part-time students from a variety of professional backgrounds with an interest in learning for sustainability. This paper outlines three key features of the two core modules of the programme - epistemic understanding, active pedagogy, and design praxis. Significantly, these attributes have helped to complement rather than replace existing skill-sets amongst professionals from different sectors working in the field of sustainable development

Introducing systems approaches

Systems Approaches to Managing Change brings together five systems approaches to managing complex issues, each having a proven track record of over 25 years. The five approaches are: System Dynamics (SD) developed originally in the late 1950s by Jay Forrester Viable Systems Model (VSM) developed originally in the late 1960s by Stafford Beer Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA: with cognitive mapping) developed originally in the 1970s by Colin Eden Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) developed originally in the 1970s by Peter Checkland Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) developed originally in the late 1970s by Werner Ulrich

Chapter 1: Introducing systems approaches

The five approaches covered in Systems Approaches to Making Change – System Dynamics (SD) Viable Systems Model (VSM), Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA: with cognitive mapping), Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), and Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) – are introduced. The rationale for their inclusion is described based on their (i) common historic emergence in dealing with complex situations of change and uncertainty, (ii) shared potential and actual constructivist use of the systems idea, and (iii) pedigree of adaptability and versatility of tools in working with other approaches to making change

Farmers’ perceptions of climate change : identifying types

Ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture have been set by both national governments and their respective livestock sectors. We hypothesize that farmer self-identity influences their assessment of climate change and their willingness to im- plement measures which address the issue. Perceptions of climate change were determined from 286 beef/sheep farmers and evaluated using principal component analysis (PCA). The analysis elicits two components which evaluate identity (productivism and environmental responsibility), and two components which evaluate behavioral capacity to adopt mitigation and adaptation measures (awareness and risk perception). Subsequent Cluster Analyses reveal four farmer types based on the PCA scores. ‘The Productivist’ and ‘The Countryside Steward’ portray low levels of awareness of climate change, but differ in their motivation to adopt pro-environmental behavior. Conversely, both ‘The Environmentalist’ and ‘The Dejected’ score higher in their awareness of the issue. In addition, ‘The Dejected’ holds a high sense of perceived risk; however, their awareness is not conflated with an explicit understanding of agricultural GHG sources. With the exception of ‘The Environmentalist’, there is an evident disconnect between perceptions of agricultural emission sources and their contribution towards GHG emissions amongst all types. If such linkages are not con- ceptualized, it is unlikely that behavioral capacities will be realized. Effective communication channels which encour- age action should target farmers based on the groupings depicted. Therefore, understanding farmer types through the constructs used in this study can facilitate effective and tai- lored policy development and implementation