Reflections on Systems Mapping and Wicked Problems in Food Systems

On Wednesday, October 9th, I had the privilege of co-leading a masterclass at @Humboldt-Universit?t zu Berlin with my colleague @Domenico Dentoni, where we focused on applying systems mapping to address wicked problems in food systems. I’m especially grateful to @Peter H. Feindt for the invitation and the university for hosting us.

During the masterclass, we engaged with postdoctoral researchers and practitioners to explore how #SystemsThinking can help us navigate the complex, interconnected issues that characterize modern #FoodSystems. The discussions were challenging and enlightening, revealing several key insights into how we can apply systems thinking to address these multi-faceted issues.

In this reflection piece, I’ll share some critical insights from our collective exploration. These insights offer potential stepping stones toward more effective approaches to #FoodSystemsResearch and practice.

Understanding Wicked Problems

We began by discussing the nature of wicked problems—issues that are highly interconnected, resist simple solutions, and involve a wide array of stakeholders (Rittel & Webber, 1973). As Dentoni highlighted, systems thinking is key to recognizing patterns in these complex webs of interaction. It allows us to identify feedback loops that can perpetuate either negative or positive cycles within a system (Meadows, 2008). The goal is to break the negative cycles and foster more virtuous ones through well-placed interventions.

Defining the Boundaries of a System

One of the core questions raised during the masterclass was, how do we define the boundaries of a system? We've encountered this challenge in our own work within ENFASYS HEU (link). Defining boundaries is not simply a technical or structural exercise; it is inherently shaped by our epistemological stance. Our understanding of systems and how we engage with them is socially constructed, meaning that boundaries emerge through collective negotiation rather than being pre-determined or fixed (Midgley, 2000).

This process of boundary-setting requires us to critically reflect on the epistemological choices we make, as these fundamentally influence what is included and excluded in the system. In our work, we draw on a social constructivist epistemology, which suggests that systems and their boundaries are co-created by the participants involved. The very act of defining boundaries is an exercise in sense-making, shaped by the interactions, perspectives, and values of the stakeholders who are engaged in the mapping process. This means that the boundaries of a system are dynamic and adaptable, shaped by the evolving understanding of the group.

However, the importance of epistemology extends beyond the creation of boundaries—it informs how we act within the system. The pragmatist epistemological lens that guides much of our work emphasizes the need for knowledge to be actionable. Boundaries should not just serve to understand complexity but to enable intervention. From this perspective, the boundaries of a system are drawn in ways that allow us to identify leverage points, or areas where small changes can lead to significant transformation. This pragmatic stance reminds us that mapping systems aims not only to reveal how things are but also to guide collective action towards desirable outcomes (Martela, 2015).

This approach is critical because it challenges the assumption that there is one "correct" or "objective" way to define a system. Instead, we acknowledge that boundaries are contingent—they shift based on the perspectives of those involved and the specific goals of the exercise. This epistemological flexibility is particularly important in addressing wicked problems, where complex interdependencies mean that system boundaries must remain fluid, adapting as new insights and stakeholder perspectives emerge.

By adopting this critical epistemological posture, we ensure that boundaries in systems mapping are not rigid constraints but rather tools for facilitating change. This approach allows for greater inclusivity in the process of defining what is relevant, focusing on how boundaries can mobilize action rather than constrain it.

Defining boundaries is not just a theoretical exercise; it has practical implications for approaching?systems mapping?and identifying leverage points within the system. With clearly defining where the system begins and ends, it becomes easier to pinpoint the areas where interventions can have the most impact. In the next section, I’ll explore how systems mapping tools, such as Causal Loop Diagrams (CLDs) and Value Network Maps (VNMs), can help us visualize these leverage points and how the strategy of "playing the scales" further enriches this process.

Addressing Wicked Problems Through Systems Mapping and Introducing ‘Playing the Scales’

A critical question raised during the masterclass was how to engage diverse stakeholders and map their relationships in complex systems. While our discussion focused on systems mapping tools like Causal Loop Diagrams (CLDs) and Value Network Maps (VNMs) to visualize these relationships, I believe the concept of playing the scales can add depth to this conversation.

Playing the scales refers to a strategy where local actors engage across different levels of governance—local, national, and global—to influence public value creation. This approach, drawn from my work on resistance coalitions, recognizes that stakeholders can mobilize their local knowledge while strategically building alliances across scales to challenge and reshape dominant systems (Roglic et al., 2024).

This concept is especially pertinent for addressing wicked problems in food system transitions, where solutions require cooperation across multiple levels of governance. Systems mapping becomes essential here, as it allows us to visualize the power dynamics and leverage points that connect actors across these scales, helping us identify where small interventions can generate broader systemic change (Meadows, 1999; Roglic et al., 2023).

By introducing playing the scales, we bring an additional layer of strategy to systems mapping. Local actors often face constraints when dealing with top-down pressures, but by "playing the scales," they can collaborate with actors at different levels, shifting power dynamics and influencing the system as a whole. This approach highlights the multi-scalar interactions that shape food systems and offers a way for local stakeholders to engage meaningfully in global sustainability transitions.

For more on playing the scales, you can read our paper just published in the Organization, which explores how local coalitions defend public value against dominant pressures. Our?methodological brief?on systems mapping in food systems transitions is also?available here on ResearchGate.

The ability to map relationships and identify leverage points also requires an understanding of systems'?temporal nature?and the?feedback loops?that drive them. As we engage in systems mapping, we must consider not only how actors are connected across scales but also how?feedback loops—both short-term and long-term—shape the evolution of the system over time. In the following section, I’ll delve deeper into how feedback loops and temporality are essential in determining when and where to intervene for sustained impact.

The Role of Feedback Loops and Temporality

Our discussion during the masterclass revealed the central importance of feedback loops—a fundamental concept in systems dynamics (Sterman, 2000). Feedback loops can either reinforce (positive feedback) or counteract (negative feedback) changes within a system. Understanding how these loops function is crucial for identifying where and how to design interventions that align with the system's natural tendencies and avoid unintended consequences.

However, feedback loops are not static; they unfold over different temporal horizons. Temporality—the timeframe in which these loops operate—adds complexity to system interventions. Some loops may generate rapid results, while others might take years or even decades to manifest. This distinction is crucial because the success of interventions often depends on recognizing which loops will respond in the short term and which will contribute to long-term systemic change (Roglic & Dentoni, 2022).

In my thesis, I explore the concept of path dependency, where systems are constrained by historical decisions and structures, making it difficult for quick interventions to yield lasting change. Path dependency illustrates how past interactions and choices shape the future possibilities of a system.

For example, entrenched agricultural practices or policies may act as barriers to adopting sustainable innovations. Meadows (1999) emphasizes that addressing deeply embedded systemic issues requires targeting long-term feedback loops that often involve cultural or structural shifts. Effective systemic interventions need to account for both immediate and long-term dynamics, as well as the nested interactions between short-term leverage points and longer-term cycles of transformation.

Dentoni et al. (2017)?provides a practical example, highlighting the complex interplays within global food systems. The research discusses how short-term interventions, such as financial incentives for sustainable practices, can provide immediate relief. Still, the change may not be sustainable without addressing the?long-term feedback loops?of socio-political and environmental structures.

By identifying short-term leverage points, such as implementing marketing strategies to promote organic products, quick, visible results can be achieved. Marketing campaigns and branding that emphasize the health or environmental benefits of organic products can temporarily shift market demand and push for higher consumer adoption of sustainable practices (Meadows, 1999). However, addressing long-term feedback loops requires tackling the deeper tensions between profit-driven market demands and the socio-ecological urgency of sustainable practices. In the long run, it becomes necessary to renegotiate the trade-offs between market structures focused on short-term profits and the broader environmental imperatives rooted in the survival of ecosystems and human welfare. This may involve reshaping policy frameworks, redefining market incentives, and embedding socio-ecological priorities into business models (Dentoni et al., 2017; Fischer & Riechers, 2019). These structural shifts take time, but they are essential for achieving a balance between market profitability and environmental sustainability, ultimately sustaining transformation over the long term.

Just as feedback loops influence internal dynamics, external actors—those not directly embedded in the core system—also play a pivotal role in shaping its behavior. Recognizing and mapping the influence of these external stakeholders ensures that our strategies for intervention are not limited to internal actors alone but include the broader forces that impact the system from the outside. Participants in our masterclass pointed out the challenges and the importance of incorporating external actors in systems mapping if we are to understand and navigate these broader influences.

Incorporating External Actors into the System

Finally, we explored how to map external actors—those not directly embedded within the core system but who exert significant influence on it. This is particularly important in complex food systems, where external entities such as policymakers, multinational corporations, and global markets shape internal dynamics in profound ways. Our research on cross-sector partnerships (Dentoni et al., 2017) has shown that addressing grand challenges—like sustainability in food systems—requires engaging these actors, as they can either enable or hinder transformative change.

By utilizing Value Network Maps (VNMs), we can visualize how external actors interact with internal stakeholders and identify points where intervention might unlock greater collaboration. For example, in our work on systems mapping, we’ve seen how global trade policies, international environmental standards, or financial markets can create both constraints and opportunities for local actors. VNMs allow us to map these connections clearly, showing how different scales of actors—whether they be local producers or international policy bodies—are linked. This method ensures that systems change strategies account for external pressures, enabling more inclusive and effective interventions that address multi-scalar governance and cross-sector collaboration (Roglic, 2022).

Incorporating these external actors into the system not only broadens our understanding of the system itself but also highlights the multi-level interactions that need to be managed for effective, long-term change. By mapping these external influences, we can design more holistic strategies that align both internal stakeholder priorities and external actor capacities—leading to more sustainable and resilient systems.

Looking Ahead: Co-Creating Solutions for Wicked Problems

As we wrapped up the masterclass, we emphasized the importance of co-creation in solving wicked problems—a theme central to our work on participatory approaches (Roglic et al., 2023). Systems mapping provides a powerful visual and participatory framework, but it’s most effective when stakeholders engage in shared sensemaking and visioning (Checkland & Poulter, 2010).

By working together, we can begin to break vicious cycles and foster virtuous cycles in food systems—ones that support sustainability, resilience, and inclusivity. The insights from our participants underscored how valuable systems thinking is for addressing the complex challenges of food systems research and practice, aligning with our ongoing work on transformative innovations. A big thank you to Peter H. Feindt Naser M. Reyhani and for this passionate discussion, and I look forward to continuing them with Barbara van Mierlo and Philippe Baret next week at 比利时荷语天主教鲁汶大学 . If you want to learn more do join us at Systems Mapping & Co-Design Lab !