Systems Thinking is Crucial in Creating the Solutions to Sustainability Challenges - Essay Example

Systems’ Thinking is Crucial in Creating the Solutions to Sustainability Challenges Name Professor Institution Course Date Systems’ thinking is crucial in creating the solutions to sustainability challenges Even though systems thinking can be regarded as an old idea, it is gradually being considered as a fresh mode of thinking in understanding and managing complex challenges both at the domestic and international arena (Bosch et al. 2007, p.221). Maani and Cavana (2007) used even the concept of an iceberg conceptual model which has “Four stages of thinking’ to explain system thinking as a model for the systemic interventions. It is the same reason why some risks and management experts claim that system thinking is crucial in creating solutions to the sustainability challenges. The use of systems’ thinking has increased broadly and cover many other diverse fields such management, natural resource management, business, decision making and consensus building, human resource management, population policy and environmental conflict management among others (Nguyen & Bosch 2012). Drawing an assessment on climate change, this essay will argue that systems’ thinking is vital in creating solutions to the sustainability challenges. Blakely (2007, p.4) described climate change as the major and long-standing change in the weather patterns distribution over a longer period of time. Some of the causes of climate change are biotic processes, plate tectonics, volcanic eruptions and differences in solar radiation reaching the Earth. However, Ramanathan and Carmichael (2008, p.224) claimed that particular human activities and actions have been determined as considerable causes of the climate change usually called "global warming". In fact, in the most cases, global warming has been regarded as the major cause of climate change. Therefore, climate change causes are categorized into two including natural and human. Climate change bears a widespread negative impact on urban places. Climate change is more often portrayed as one of the major challenges the human race is experiencing today. Gleeson (2008, p.2654) argued that climate change is predictable to have a major damage on human being and a natural system if critical action is not taken. Even though activities in the rural areas also contribute to climate change, activities in the city are to blame for the large degree of contribution to climate change. D'Cruz and Satterthwaite (2005) opined that cities and urban areas are typified by highest density and mass of people and the built infrastructure. The majority of the cities and countries are still lagging behind in the effective and efficient planning on how to mitigate on climate change. Rosenzweig and Solecki (2010) posited that lately, lots of manuals, documents and reports have been prepared to guide and provide flow of information and ideas on the same issue. System thinking concept holds that most cities and towns planners need to consider the significance of planning and how it can reduce the negative impacts of the climate change (Betsill & Bulkeley 2007, p.448). System thinking is crucial in creating solutions to sustainability challenges of climate change the issues are still present and affecting human beings as more industry are built and more volcanic eruptions are felt. As stated earlier, system thinking follows a model which provides solution to major problems. Hung (2008, p.1104) stated that within this model, the symptoms or events are represented by the noticeable place of the iceberg model of system thinking. It is in such level, that majority of interventions and decisions happen and are just ‘quick fixes’. It is considered that in this part, policy makers are just dealing with symptoms and not the lasting solutions. Nevertheless, there are also the fourth levels which are considered deeper which rarely appear on the surface (Jackson 2003). Thinking here is influenced by the mental models of a persona or an organization and impacts why entities behave the manner in which they do. According to Maani and Cavana (2007, p.15), the mental frameworks mirror the values, assumptions and beliefs that people hold and underlie their reasons for acting the way they do. This perspective is highly related to the human cause of climate change. Betsill and Bulkeley (2007) argued that in order to understand on how to manage climate change sustainably, policy makers ought to understand what makes human beings to cause the phenomena. As decision makers move along the model, the third phase of thinking becomes very important towards comprehending how the mental models are incorporated within the systems structure which determines how the dissimilar frameworks are organized and impacts each other (Nguyen & Bosch 2012). Therefore, systemic structures untangle the complex lace of the relationships in the systems. On this point, systems thinking is majorly focusing on the relationship between the causal factor and climate change. Creating a sustainable solution thus calls for dealing with causal factor. Another level is the second phase of systems’ thinking is to identify and explore patterns which are obvious when a big collection set of occurrences are connected to develop a chronology of past actions and to link the correlation between the constituents of the whole system. Therefore, Maani and Cavana (2007) stated that system’s thinking methodology and paradigm adopts the four thinking levels by taking a decision or policy makers from the event (first) level to four (deeper) thinking levels and offering systemic concepts to manage complex problems. It is apparent that critical action is desirable and that the scale or scope of such vital action ought to be massively varied but sustainable. Owing to the importance of systems thinking, UN Assistant Secretary-General Aisa Kirabo Kacyira in 2014 contended that that the battles for reduction of climate change and sustainable development can primarily be won or lost in urban areas of cities (Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate 2014). Luckily, the governments and some environmental conflict policy makers have woken up to the reality and are putting up planning apparatus in the re-allocation of resources in the reduction of climate change. It is the moment to propose a study and strategy paradigm to formulate an enhanced urban planning framework in response to the climate change. Greenhouse gas emission is regarded as the primary basis for the climate change and considerable growth in GHGs emerge a result of human activities from the era of the industrial revolution. Condon, Cavens & Miller (2009) argued that owing to fact that most jobs are found in the city centers, the majority of the population of the world presently works and lives in the urban areas and such trend is increasing. Several industries are also situated in urban areas where people work. According to Betsill & Bulkeley (2007, p.451) the report by the United Nations suggest that by 2030, more than 60% of the population of the world will be living in the urban areas, a situation which could increase climate change unless proper planning is conducted. While people go to work in the morning and leaving in the evening they use cars which smoke and emit greenhouse gas into the air, causing climate change (Byrne & Jinjun 2009, p.38). In urban, many industries have been built in the last decade, most of which smoke into the atmosphere. Therefore, the government now implements green house emission standards in quest of minimizing the level of emission into the atmosphere. System thinking particularly at level four which provides solutions for complex problems recommends making and selling of vehicles which are energy-efficient and environmental-friendly. In the same argument, Hunt and Watkiss (2011, p.15) posited that that citizens should also be encouraged to adopt cycling to work to minimize the number of vehicle that pollutes the air. Individuals who work in towns can opt to use public transport instead of private to reduce number of vehicles on the road which produces greenhouse gases into the environment. Despite of being a quick fix, such strategies create a platform for finding sustainable solutions. Further, some of these large firms have poor drainage system, hence drains waste products to water sources like lakes, oceans and rivers. Rosenzweig and Solecki (2010, p.15) claimed that structure and residential house in cities are also built without proper planning in rush for business interests without thinking at the outcomes of poor planning. The building industry is regarded as one of the major contributors to the carbon emissions; with about 40 percent of overall energy consumption, it uses 12 percent of all water and produces 40 percent of the total waste (Condon, Cavens & Miller 2009). For instance, in Australia, the ACT Climate Change Council has formulated policies that can be recommended for urban planning for climate change. The Council has developed the most effective legislation targeting to mitigate emissions in Melbourne. D'Cruz and Satterthwaite (2005) contended that the legislation is customized towards reducing the housing sector and the non housing sector emissions, including transport industry emissions, the waste industry emissions, and changing to renewable energy and adapting to climate change. In the recent years, adaptation has been proposed by environmental experts as a sustainable solution to dealing with climate change. The adaptation is categorized in the third thinking level which is concerned with comprehending how the mental models are incorporated within the systems’ structure. Hunt & Watkiss (2011, p. 24) claimed that adaptation is broad plan and is incorporated into infrastructure design and plays a vital role in adapting urban frameworks and effecting their flexibility to climate change prevention. Cases of adaptation phases comprise of using scarce water resources well, executing building codes and standards to the future climatic and severe weather changes (Rosenzweig & Solecki 2010, p.15). Hunt and Watkiss (2011, p.21) posited that the approach of adopting adaptation for the climate change is an inclusive assessment of climate change risks in various cities. For instance, in Melbourne the process started 2010 and ends in 2070. The recent research done by D'Cruz & Satterthwaite (2005) indicated that poor planning of the houses has resulted in poor drainage systems leading to the flow of sewage and waste which in turn pollutes the air. Therefore, proper planning of structure is needed in Melbourne city because of its economic and social importance to Australia. In addition, Gleeson (2008, p.2657) stated that fires have increased in cities resulted by poor planning of house, industries and electricity power lines. It means that should fire started in one factory or houses, it is likely to raze down several premises owing to their proximity. The situation can cause complexity for the fire rescue engines to get to the scene due to poor access. Systems concept and decision practices have advocated for building of smart and planned infrastructure, including roads and housing with spaces and access points to stop the situation where fire can destroy many houses or factories (Gleeson 2008, p.2661). The process is sustainable because once conformed to, situations of resulted by climate change is averted forever and safety is restored. According to Nguyen and Bosch (2012), Systems’ thinking is also vital in creating solutions to the sustainability challenges of planning on how build factories to reduce the effects of climate change. Systems’ thinking, hence provides that authorities need to regulate the number of the industries to be set within a particular place. It sounds like a quick-fix or level one form of thinking, but adoption is actually sustainable in curbing the situation. Presently, there are numerous factories existing in the city and emitting green house gasses into the air. Rosenzweig and Solecki (2010, p.14) asserted that high emissions of greenhouse gases have created urban heat island in such cities resulting into increase of temperature, hence precipitations and floods. Should be the situation be left to prevail, cities and even rural areas will face increase of the intensity and frequency of the heavy rain, storms, heat-waves and droughts. A sustainable solution can be achieved in renewable energy in industrial and home operation so as to avert greenhouse gas emission into the atmosphere (Ramanathan & Carmichael 2008, p. 224). Use of solar and wind energy to drive machines and for lighting are rated as some of sustainable solutions to curbing climate change. Most environment risk experts and governments highly recommend this strategy based on its effectiveness in cities and places where it has been used such as California. Use of the green roofing approach is another sustainable solution which has never been accepted in many places. Byrne and Jinjun (2009, p.37) opined that in this approach, roofing systems have vegetation and plants growing numerous on top of buildings in both commercial residential and industrial. The strategy minimizes effects of the urban heat island and facilitates urban cooling. In conclusion, the essay has met its objective of demonstrating that systems’ thinking is indeed crucial in creating solutions to the sustainability challenges and in this paper it is the climate change. The climate change has been there for decades and the effects have been severe on human beings as it causes health and economic risks. System thinking has provided several solutions which, if adopted can be of great help to humanity. Adaptation, production of fuel efficient cars, use of renewable sources of energy, green roofing, proper drainage and reducing deforestation form the major solution provided in curbing climate change. All these intervention falls under a specific level of system thinking and all are important in achieving sustainability. Some can be thought to be a quick fix and not lasting but the truth is that they should not be ignored by policy makers because they form a step to a lasting solution. References Betsill, M. M & Bulkeley, H 2007, Looking Back and Thinking Ahead: A Decade of Cities and Climate Change Research, Local Environment, Vol. 12, No.5, pp.447-456 Blakely, E.J 2007, Urban Planning for Climate Change, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, pp.1- 25 Bosch, O. J. H., C. A. King, J. L. Herbohn, I. W. Russell & Smith, C. S 2007, Getting the big picture in natural resource management - systems thinking as 'method' for scientists, policy makers and other stakeholders, Systems Research and Behavioral Science Vol.24, No.2, 217-232. Byrne, J & Jinjun, Y 2009, Can urban greenspace combat climate change? Australian Planner Vol. 46, No.4, pp. 36-43 Condon, P. M, Cavens, D & Miller, N 2009, Urban Planning Tools for Climate Change, Cambridge, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy D'Cruz, C & Satterthwaite, D 2005, Building Homes, changing official approaches: The work of Urban Poor Federations and their contributions to meeting the Millennium Development Goals in urban areas, Working Paper 16, IIED, London, 80 pages Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate (ESDD) 2014, Climate Change Council, Viewed 3rd September 2015 from http://www.environment.act.gov.au/cc/climate_change_council Gleeson, B 2008, Waking from the Dream: An Australian Perspective on Urban Resilience, Urban Studies, Vol. 45, pp. 2653-2668. Hung, W 2008, Enhancing systems-thinking skills with modeling, British Journal of Educational Technology Vol.39, No.6, pp. 1099-1120. Hunt, A. & Watkiss, P 2011, Climate change impacts and adaptation in cities: a review of the literature, Climatic Change, Vol. 104, pp.13-49 Jackson, M. C 2003, Systems thinking: creative holism for managers, Chichester, UK, John Wiley & Sons Maani, K. E and Cavana, R. Y 2007, Systems thinking, system dynamics: Managing change and complexity, Prentice Hall, Auckland Nguyen, N. C & Bosch, O. J. H 2012, A Systems Thinking Approach to identify Leverage Points for Sustainability: A Case Study in the Cat Ba Biosphere Reserve, Vietnam, Systems Research and Behavioral Science Ramanathan, V & Carmichael, G 2008, Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon, Nature Geoscience, Vol.1, No.4, pp.221–227 Rosenzweig, C. & Solecki, W 2010, Introduction to climate change adaptation in New York City: building a risk management response, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1196, pp.13-17 Read More