Systems Thinking and Sustainability Challenges - Essay Example

SYSTEMS THINKING AND SUSTAINABILITY CHALLENGES (Student Name) (Course No.) (Lecturer) (University) (Date) As stated in Young et al. (2006), the critical state of an environmental, social and economic system is reinforced by increasing complexity, uncertainty, and velocity. However, despite the trendiness and popularity of the term ‘sustainability’ in the current global development agenda, it has been hard to achieve the required sustainable development in the global arena. As such, one would wonder how these interconnected, complex sustainability challenges could be captured in a way that is more practical and solution-based. In Australia, policies have taken central status in academics and complex government systems that study and aim to eliminate homelessness (Minnery & Greenhalgh 2007). Homelessness is a sustainability challenge that has brought the society into the realization that instability of housing is the culmination of various intersecting and underlying issues including poverty, addiction, mental health and domestic abuse (Baldry et al., 2006). A systemic approach to the solution of these issues, therefore, calls for a trans-disciplinary framework capable of seeing the interrelationships and patterns rather than parts and static snapshots as the defining contexts and solution to this complex problem of homelessness (Heinrich et al., 2015). This is systems thinking. This paper, therefore, aims to analyze the significance of system thinking in developing solutions to the sustainability challenge of homelessness in Australia. The researcher applies participatory system dynamics modeling (SDM) method (Beall & Ford 2010) to involve community, industry, policy stakeholders and academics in a process that explores the dynamic impacts of realistic housing policies in Australia. SDM is based on the following major elements of a complex system; the interacting variables that change systematically over time. The interaction is characterized by reinforcing loops that enhance the system’s behavior patterns and feedback loops. The major elements include information, people, and resources. The rationale underlying the choice of this method for the study is its ability to allow comprehensive and causal understanding of homelessness in Australia in relation to the five characteristics of a complex system. Further, the SDM method allows dynamic simulation for exploration of the impacts of the proposed housing policies over a given time scale. In their analysis, Ulli-Beer (2011) together Eskinasi, Rouwette and Vennix (2011) finds that SDM method has for long been successfully applied to improve decision-making in a range of disciplines including uptake of energy efficiency in housing, housing markets policy making, and land and transport use planning. Homelessness is a serious problem Australia. Currently, nearly 105, 000 experience the housing problems every night and many more stay in insecure houses, just a single step away from being homeless (ABS 2012b). It is not their choice, but they experience this problem due to emotional and financial hardship. The government has for long endeavored to end this problem, but just a little success tracks have been realized. For instance, in Calhoun County, Michigan, the Battle Creek Homeless Coalition combined system thinking with an extensive multi-sector community organizing strategy (Stroh & Goodman 2007) to come up with a ten-year plan to end homelessness. Eliminating homeless is more than lack of knowledge regarding practices. It encompasses people’s motivation to act what they know to develop a solution based on a strategy that creates a shared picture of a complex system dynamics of homelessness in the country. This system, therefore, establishes goals depending on a common understanding of leverage points of transformation. Systemic dynamic modeling perspective’s analysis reveals that Australian Government housing policy and practice roots in the economic rationale and history of English traditions. They have been antithetical to the elimination of homelessness in the country’s populations. The discourse linked to the housing policy seems to be tangentially associated with homelessness. Based on this assumption, it can be concluded that Australia has a long-standing history of commitment to home ownership. Currently, the home ownership rate stands at 60 percent (ABS 2012a) suggesting that nearly 40 percent experience the problem of homelessness. As a market-driven industry, there is increasing demand for rental markets accompanied with constantly rising costs of renting a house due high populations. This has led to the broadening of the gap between the marketplace and the need for housing. The government’s housing policy responses have remained embedded in economic and philosophic rationalists’ belief that private sector is the key housing vehicle of populations ((Minnery & Greenhalgh 2007). This has furthered the experience of homelessness among populations. The unraveling of Australia’s national housing technologies and policy is, therefore, needed to visualize the schism between the needs of those who are not housed and the objectives of nation-based home ownership. Systems thinking of the problem of homelessness in Australia capture the extent of the problem and its interconnectedness, clarify the disincentives for change and enable each group or elements understand their responsibility for the situation and risk factors. Homelessness risk factors can be categorized into structural factors, personal circumstances, and system failures (Ravenhill, 2016). Common structural factors include poverty, unemployment and lack of affordable housing. Personal circumstance on the other hands may include discrimination, family and relationships, domestic violence, gambling, intellectual disability and drug abuse. Common system failures alluding to homelessness include discharge system for people leaving hospitals, prisons, rehabilitation centers and care systems. All these factors operate in an integrated manner resulting in housing problems among the population. For instance, the current unemployment in Australia is 5.7 percent (Ratha, Eigen-Zucchi & Plaza 2016). This indicates that a huge bulk of people face a financial problem, thus, unable to balance the basic requirements such as food and clothing with housing needs. One would wonder where such groups of people end up. If not living in severely crowded dwellings, these people end up staying in temporarily with other households, in lodging, supported accommodations for the homeless or living in impoverished sleep outs, tents and dwellings (ABS 2012a). These poor dwelling areas may impact badly on one’s social behaviors and perception. As others end up in drug abuse, some start to develop a feeling of being socially disowned resorting to criminal activities, drug abuse, rapes and other anti-social forms of conducts. Therefore, understanding the context of homelessness in Australia needs to appreciate the series of stages people passes from facing the risks of being homeless to securing a permanent house that is safe, affordable and supportive of an individual’s housing needs. These stages include people becoming at risk of losing homes, the actual loss of home and living on streets, finding a temporary shelter off the street and moving from the temporary shelter into a permanent housing facility. The movement from one stage to the next is propelled by the homelessness risk factors such as vulnerabilities to scams, inadequate support for minors, limited permanent jobs, aging, and immigrations. The impact of these risk factors may vary for individuals depending on their demographics, locations, and landlords. People living in regions where it is difficult to find ethical landlords and affordable housing are the ones greatly affected by these factors. Faced with the dilemma of leasing their properties to those at risk of homelessness, well-intentioned property owners worry about their livelihood. They often respond by leaving the properties vacant, selling their properties to developers for gentrification purposes and not investing in their houses. As a result, three implications are observable. These includes low-quality rental stocks, abandoned housing regardless on striking demands for affordable housing, and increasing costs of housing due to gentrification thus increasing the likelihood of homelessness among the Australians. One other primary factor contributes homelessness in Australia. The country has many Veteran Administration (VA) psychiatric hospitals especially in Calhoun County and Melbourne (Rota‐Bartelink &Lipmann 2007). All the veterans from other states come for in-patient and treatment services. This leads to flopping of the regions as most of these veterans end up staying without proper housing resorting to streets. Regardless of the challenge of losing homes, some organizations and government agencies have been so protective helping people avoid homelessness risk factors through emergency responses and housing subsidies. Unfortunately, this assistance has never been enough to cater for the overall problem of homelessness. Many individuals and families are still subjected to the homelessness cycle and getting to streets remain as the only option. Case management is another limited resource in the country. Most people often move from one state to another in search of better housing services, but the consequences are ironic. When these people return in case of failure of the intended mission, they often find their houses taken up because high population and increased housing demands. As such one's determination becomes an adversely crucial factor in overcoming the adversity although it must be accompanied with sufficient structures to secure permanent housing that is safe and affordable. From the housing systems point of view an individual or a family’s ability to fix homelessness problem is limited by a number of factors. Some of these factors include government’s ability to create permanent, living jobs, barriers to homelessness and time delays a solution’s implementation and seeing the results (Pinkney & Ewing 2006). Therefore, to complete its bid to move the homeless people from their impoverished dwelling places to permanent homes, the government needs to consider the barriers resulting from homelessness itself. These obstacles include but not limited to poor credit history, previous evictions, problems establishing legal identity, criminal record, negative stereotyping of the homeless as well as the inherent consequentiality caused homelessness that compounds the risk factors of a family (Pinkney & Ewing 2006). These barriers often translate into hardship as people literally become unable to take advantage of the available or create more resources to enable them to move into stable housing. For instance, limiting individuals to practice life skills makes landlords and employers to relax on their part of giving an individual a chance. This, in the end, resists affordable housing in most states in the country. Though it may appear extensively life-saving, temporary housing has effective consequences. Temporary shelters blur the visibility of homelessness as a public challenge (Félix, Branco & Feio 2013). As such, many citizens become reluctant to notice homelessness as national disaster that requires close attention, thus, reducing pressure on the government to solve the problem. The invisibility factor is reinforced by the lack of sufficient data on homelessness. For efficacy, it is important the government work with temporary shelter organizations and potential donors to reinforce the funding of public housing projects and organizations for the betterment of the current housing situation. As a result of such reinforcements there can be increased funding, time and willingness of housing service providers to innovate and collaborate with those at risk of homelessness. This may lead to reduced competition for the existing fund, shelter mentality, and broader knowledge of best practices and defragmentation of both private and public housing services. Based on the analysis of the possible constraints involved in moving from temporary to permanent homes, there appear to be nearly seven leverage points for change or areas of intervention that can be used to achieve a sustainable housing in Australia. Progressing from inflow to outflow of the country’s housing system, these leverage points include people becoming at risk of homelessness, number of those at risk, people becoming homeless, number of people resorting impoverished dwelling places, people moving into temporary housing, people moving into permanent housing and at the point where people are moving back to the streets. Therefore, the primary intervention strategy in this system should aim at increasing the number of people moving to permanent housing from temporary shelters while reducing the number of those at risk of becoming homeless. There is a need for the country to design a system to prevent homelessness. This can be one of the least expensive intervention strategies. Within the Australia’s context, this systemic change should centralize on increasing job opportunities, affordable housing, and essential services that can enable those at risk of homelessness to maintain their homes. Some of the systemic approaches that can enable people to keep their homes include encouraging ethical property bosses to rent to those at risk of losing homes. This would encourage the landlords to maintain or amplify the stock of affordable housing facilities. Also, if the government creates adequate living wage jobs people will be able to make their rent payments in time preventing the possibility of homelessness (Buckingham 2009). Therefore, based on these findings, analyses, and explanations, it is evident that systems’ thinking is critical in developing solutions to sustainability challenges. The government of Australia its aim to eliminate homelessness to achieve sustainable housing and public welfare should embrace the system thinking approach. However, like other methods of solving problems in the current global arena, the effectiveness of system thinking can also be questioned. The method appears to be too fundamentalist in its nature. Essentially, it epitomizes a technocratic view of the global problems. Systems thinking depend so much on models (such as Systems Dynamics Models) thus lacking actual solutions (Heinrich et al., 2015). This threatens it legitimacy management education and corporate boardrooms. But based on the fact that systems thinking allows for proper diagnosis of courses, causes, impacts and order among other elements of a problem (homelessness) to figure out how it can be fixed and the fact that it implements solutions with known results, systems thinking is essential in developing a solution to sustainable challenges. References Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) .,2012b. Census of Population and Housing: estimating homelessness. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Catalogue No. 2049.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).,2012a. Information paper—a statistical definition of homelessness. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Catalogue No. 4922.0 Baldry, E., McDonnell, D., Maplestone, P and Peeters, M., 2006. Ex-prisoners, homelessness and the state in Australia. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 39(1), pp.20-33 Beall, A.M. and Ford, A., 2010. Reports from the field: assessing the art and science of participatory environmental modeling. International Journal of Information Systems and Social Change (IJISSC), 1(2), pp.72-89 Buckingham, H., 2009. Competition and contracts in the voluntary sector: exploring the implications for homelessness service providers in Southampton. Policy & Politics, 37(2), pp.235-254 Eskinasi, M., Rouwette, E. and Vennix, J., 2011. Houdini: a system dynamics model for housing market reforms. In 29th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Washington, DC, US: System Dynamics Society Félix, D., Branco, J.M. and Feio, A., 2013. Temporary housing after disasters: A state of the art survey. Habitat International, 40, pp.136-141 Heinrich, W, Habron, G, Johnson, H, & Goralnik, L 2015, 'Critical Thinking Assessment Across Four Sustainability-Related Experiential Learning Settings', Journal Of Experiential Education, 38, 4, pp. 373-393, Professional Development Collection, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 August 2016. Minnery, J. and Greenhalgh, E., 2007. Approaches to homelessness policy in Europe, the United States, and Australia. Journal of Social Issues, 63(3), pp.641-655 Pinkney, S. and Ewing, S., 2006. Costs and pathways of homelessness: developing policy-relevant economic analyses for the Australian Homelessness Service System Ratha, D., Eigen-Zucchi, C. and Plaza, S., 2016., Migration and Remittances Factbook 2016. World Bank Publications Ravenhill, M., 2016., The culture of homelessness. Routledge Rota‐Bartelink, A. and Lipmann, B., 2007. Causes of homelessness among older people in Melbourne, Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 31(3), pp.252-258 Stroh, D.P. and Goodman, M., 2007. A systemic approach to ending homelessness. Applied Systems Thinking Journal, 4, pp.2-8 Ulli-Beer, S., 2013. Dynamic Governance of Energy Technology Change Young, O.R., Berkhout, F., Gallopin, G.C., Janssen, M.A., Ostrom, E. and Van Der Leeuw, S., 2006. The globalization of socio-ecological systems: an agenda for scientific research. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), pp.304-316 Read More