—

Critical reflection (strengths)

This mapping enables analyses of the characteristics and elements that maintain problematic states and can then be used to model and evaluate sustainable transition policy mixes—"sets of policy goals, strategies, instruments and policy processes" (Kanger, Sovacool and Noorkõiv, 2020)—that are looking to shape the directionality of socio-technical systems change.

This type of analysis enables policy problems to be thought of more broadly, from a variety of perspectives, to explore the boundaries and ‘pace layers’ of a system, moving between them to better define the definitions of, and insight into, the question as much as the solutions itself. This is an essential part of systems mapping as it allows you to identify and toy with different angles, alternative diagnoses, or evaluative criteria as they become more defined.

It is important to note that this is done in no particular order and that Meadows's "leverage points" language is a useful tool to articulate the observations of the exercise.

• Used a combination of systems thinking approaches/frameworks so that the strengths of one would compliment the weaknesses of another (and vice versa).

—

Critical reflections (struggles)

What is important to consider here is that if boundaries are too wide, understanding and creating systems change can be unmanageable, but if they are too narrow, then crucial systems information may not be considered (Foster-Fishman, Nowell & Yang, 2007).

Essentially, it is more of a craft than a science. Which means it is a difficult task to negotiate and heavily relies on the given knowledge of the people creating the maps.

• importantly, the systems mapping presented in this paper specifically, does not account for a level of depth that may be required to fully understand the intentions and behaviours of actors across a range of real-life scenarios and instead ‘abstracts’ it to manage a higher-level of analysis. This is reflected in the findings - each could be the starting point for an independent research project in its own right.
• much of the focus in this part of building a systems perspective often results in looking at the wrong levers within a system or putting a lot of effort into pushing the right ones in the wrong direction (Meadows, 2015).
• Just because something is a visual focus point, does not mean it should be what is focused on.
• An important aspect of generating this knowledge is not relying on systems mapping alone. By identifying these potential root causes, the systems perspective points the practitioner in the direction to go and build further understanding, either through modeling systems change or researching the interactions of the systems themselves.

—

Conclusions

• Systems mapping is a craft, not a science.
• The visualisations used in this paper have been abstracted and cleaned up to communicate the writing. In reality, systems mapping is an iterative back and forth process–continually adjusting as you move between the first stages to the later stages and back again–adjusting what you learn as you go to expand and refine your thinking (see appendix 1). (attach photos of my sketchbook in appendix).