Solution-oriented Systems Thinking Archetypes; les from the River,
New Zealand
Van den Belt, M., Forgie, V., M. Scott, A. Frampton and A. Obeidat
Abstract
Most representations of Systems Thinking Archetypes explore problematic systemic
causalities. Policy or management guidance from Systems Thinking Archetypes is generally
directed toward understanding new and delayed feedback loops, exposing critical
connections and revealing invisible underlying structure. This paper explores Systems
Thinking Archetypes from a solution-oriented perspective. Instead of identifying problems the
focus shifts to solutions generation to achieve a higher level at which to intervene ina
system (Meadows, 1999). Recognizing that problems and solutions are interconnected, we
argue that language may be important, especially when the goal is to move beyond
incremental improvements towards generating a level playing field for more courageous,
vision inspired changes (Senge, 1990). For the Manawatu River Catchment, examples of
eight archetypical behaviors and a solution-oriented adaptation of the archetype decision-
tree (as proposed by Goodman and Kliener (1994)) are presented. The desired outcome is
to support on-going multi-stakeholder dialogues with a positive frame and move beyond
incremental problem solving catchment management to a higher level of solutions
generation.
1. Introduction
Systems thinking and its conceptual tools, such as causal loop diagrams (CLDs) provide a
means for decision-support. The aim of these conceptual tools is to deepen the
understanding of interdependencies, difficulties of implementation, impacts of assumptions,
and to provide further insights into organisational behaviour (Bardoel & Haslett, 2004). While
the generally accepted ‘archetypes’ are primarily geared toward a business context to
overcome managerial challenges, we propose solution-oriented archetypes for a multi-
stakeholder context for the management of a watershed.
Systems archetypes are generic CLD structures which show intended actions, unintended
consequences and delays in reaction time (Wolstenholme, 2003). They reveal reoccurring
often counter-intuitive patterns of behaviour (Senge, 1990, 1994; Wolstenholme, 2003).
They can be used as a diagnostic tool to provide insights into the underlying structure which
determines behaviour or to test prospective policies and new configurations (Braun, 2002)
and intervene at a higher level of leverage in a system (Meadows, 1999). Currently, systems
thinking archetypes are used by some business administrators and practitioners to explore
system causalities in a problematic context (Goodman and Kliener,1994). Our paper
explores the benefits of, and the rationale for, applying the same systems thinking archetype
structure in a solution-oriented context, but re-worded and shifting from the management of
one organization to that of a watershed. Examples for how this could work come from the
Manawati River Catchment (MRC). The solution-oriented archetypes are then combined
into an archetype decision tree (Goodman and Kliener, 1994) to provide a positive narrative
for the MRC. Senge et al., (1994) describe an archetype decision tree as a diagnostic tool
that sets out how archetypes are strategically related to each other.
Many studies that focus on solutions generation highlight the benefits of creative envisioning
as a means for moving from problems to solutions. Research shows that identifying
appropriate leverage points is an important means of influencing decision-making at both the
individual and organisational level (Meadows, 1999). It is at this level we argue that a
solution-oriented archetype decision tree has the potential to illustrate the combined benefits
of multi-stakeholder solutions for environmental problems. The generation of a shared vision
between individuals creates a shared mental model and cognitive frame of reference, thus
increasing a social unit's ability to absorb new external information, as well as strengthen the
ties within the group.
1.2 Rationale
1.2.1 Systems Archetypes, Mental Models and the ‘Fifth Discipline’
When Senge (1990) identified systems archetypes, he identified patterns of causal loops
that generate the same types of behaviour, which consistently appear throughout various
types of systems (Bardoel & Haslett, 2004). These archetypes serve as a language for
communicating complexities and interdependencies and to clarify and summarise complex
issues, as well as clearly identify the key elements involved in a situation (Braun, 2002;
Wolstenholme, 2003; Senge, 1990) further stated that systems archetypes are mental
models, and defines these as “deeply ingrained assumptions, generalisations, or even
pictures of images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action”
(p.8). A mental model will affect how administrators see the world and, therefore, how they
will act within any environment. Scholars have also shown that individuals cannot recognise,
understand, and exchange unique knowledge without some shared cognitive frame of
reference such as a mental model. Arguments commonly emphasise that shared (or
common) knowledge is a key dimension of relationships to facilitate learning (Kang, Morris &
Snell, 2007) and the findings of such studies indicate that the process of envisioning by
stakeholders, through the use of a solution-oriented archetype decision tree, could allow for
a shared mental model and cognitive frame of reference, thus allowing for exchanges of
unique knowledge within a group. Senge (1990) outlined five disciplines that lead to a
capacity of generativity —a quality important for innovation, as it is the ability to adapt and to
create alternative futures — rather than just adaptive capacity (Watkins & Marsick, 1992).
These five disciplines include: developing personal mastery with an emphasis on clarifying
personal vision; having mental models which distinguish data from assumptions and which
test assumptions; building shared visions; understanding the power of team learning; and,
the fifth discipline, which is systems thinking. The utilization of these disciplines allows
people to connect to the whole picture, rather than to analyse and dissect information and
the world into fragmented and distanced pieces (Watkins & Marsick, 1992). These
disciplines are also grounded in the philosophy of ‘creative tension’, which evolves from
envisioning, and is described as the ability to clearly see where one wants to be, whilst
telling the truth about the current reality. The creative tension results from the distance
between the truth of the present reality and the vision with which one is aligned with (Mento,
Jones & Dirndorfer, 2002).
1.2.2 The Effects of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivati in Decision-Making
Studies conducted on human creativity also support the potential of a solution-oriented
archetype decision tree, as they have shown that human creativity is a good predictor of
invention, and that intrinsic motivation is conducive to this creative performance (Amabile,
1979, 1982b, 1983; Amabile, Hennessey & Grossman, 1986; Reeve & Deci, 1996; as cited
in Selart et al, 2008). An intrinsic motivation denotes the personal aspects of motivation that
originate within an individual and which are subject to the individual's volitional control to
some degree. The other known form of motivation is that of extrinsic motivation, and this
denotes the external aspects of motivation which originate outside of the individual and
which are not subject to the individual's volitional control (Brewer, Dunn, Olszewski, 1988).
A solution-oriented archetype decision tree would focus on the internal factors influencing
decision-making, as the motivation to achieve the desired outcome would be borne from
alignment with an internal and shared goal, or vision. It has also been shown that strong
intrinsic motivation is important for the development of new ideas, persistence of effort which
enables step by step elaboration of the implications of a new idea, correction of possible
errors, willingness to take risks, testing the validity of hypotheses and foreseeing the
practical consequences and the ethical implications of novelty (Krippendorff, 2004). Utilising
intrinsic motivation, through the use of a solution-oriented archetype decision tree could,
therefore, allow for greater invention and innovation within decision-makers.
1.2.3 It’s All About The Narrative: The Benefits of a Solution-Oriented Archetype
Decision Tree
A solution-oriented archetype decision tree also offers a group a tool that can be used to
create a narrative about the situation in question. It has been shown that stories appear to
enable “knowledge-sharing experiences, through narratives that build trust, cultivate norms,
transfer tacit knowledge, facilitate unlearning, and generate emotional connections” (Sole &
Wilson, 2002, pp. 3-4; as cited in Dalkir & Wiseman, 2004). This concept has been further
extended upon with the argument that while all stories are narratives, not all narratives are
good knowledge-sharing narratives (Dalkir & Wiseman, 2004). The use of a solutions-
oriented archetype decision tree could give participants the opportunity to collectively create
a narrative that has positive outcomes, whilst also facilitating the transfer of tacit knowledge
and the generation of trust between those involved. The process of creating and determining
the narrative for a situation then has the ability to change existing problem-oriented
paradigms to ones that are solution-oriented because this process would involve the creation
of new paradigms through volition, rather than conforming to pre-existing paradigms
associated with the narratives of problem solving.
1.2.4 How to Intervene in a System
The solutions oriented archetypes and decision tree are intended to provide a way of
intervening in the system at a higher level by integrating information and challenging the
business-as-usual approach to change. Contemporary institutional research (Vasi, 2007)
shows that the uptake of environmental organisational practices is influenced by the rules
and structures that are built into the wider environment. Other studies (Campbell & Lindberg,
1990; Dobbin & Sutton, 1998; as cited in Vasi, 2007) conceptualise that the State is the most
important level of nested organisational fields, as it plays the role of institutional actor, and
defines and encourages the perception of practices and “natural order of things.”
Kuhn (1970) studied the way in which scientific knowledge is acquired and the process by
which an older theory is replaced with a new one. At the core of his analyses, was the idea
of paradigms, initially defined as “universally recognised scientific achievements that for a
time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners” (Kuhn, 1970, p.
viii). Given the current state of environmental and ecological health, the need for effective
action and direction from organisations and decision makers from all hierarchal levels is
necessary. One such way to achieve this is by moving to positively framed goals rather than
reacting to negatively framed problems.
Donella Meadow’s “leverage points” publication sets out the different points within a complex
system, where a small change in one part can produce substantive changes throughout.
Leverage points are the ‘power points’ in a system but seldom intuitive (Meadows, 1999). As
a result, there is a tendency for people and institutions to put effort into things that have least
impact as they only make marginal adjustments rather than questioning the rational for the
system as it currently exists. The solutions oriented archetypes and decision tree are
intended to provide a way of relooking at the system and moving up the hierarchy towards
more effective leverage points such as driving positive feedback loops. This is at least at
level 7 for Meadows (1999, 3) who formulated the following leverage points listed in
increasing order of effectiveness:
12. Constants, parameters, numbers (such as subsidies, taxes, standards)
11. The sizes of buffers and other stabilizing stocks, relative to their flows
10. The structure of material stocks and flows (such as transport networks, population
age structures)
9. The lengths of delays, relative to the rate of system change
8. The strength of negative feedback loops, relative to impacts they are trying to
correct against
7. The gain around driving positive feedback loops
6. The structure of information flows (who does and does not have access to what
kind of information)
5. The rules of the system (such as incentives, punishments, constraints)
4. The power to add, change, evolve, or self-organise system structure
3. The goals of the system
2. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system — its goals, structure, rules,
delays, parameters — arises
1. The power to transcend paradigms
1.2.5 The Manawatu River Catchment
The Manawatu River Catchment drains a watershed of 5,944km? (594,400ha) in the lower
North Island of New Zealand (Figure 1). The main land use activity in the MRC is agriculture.
Over the last 10 years sheep and beef farming has declined and dairying increased. The
catchment also has a number of urban settlements located alongside the river, the largest of
which is the city of Palmerston North (population 80,000). Discharge from the city’s
wastewater treatment plant, as well as many other small urban settlements goes into the
river or its tributaries.
Since a major national newspaper published a negative story (Morgan & Burns, 2009) about
the level of pollution in the Manawatu River, there has been a surge public interest in
cleaning up the region’s waterways. Several key contributors to the water quality problem
have been clearly identified in the catchment area.
Tagend [Locafion map) Legend (Manawatu Pre-1840) Legend (Manawatu 2001)
est
Nzcoastine | rs
Figure 1 The Manawatu River Catchment
Arguably one of the most important issue to the MRC is nutrient leaching, which comes from
two main sources. The first is nitrogen run-off from farms in the catchment. This problem is
particularly acute on farms where cows are allowed to walk in waterways to drink, because
their effluent is deposited directly into the water and washes downstream. The second
source of nutrients is from inadequately treated sewage from town and city treatment
facilities discharging to waterways. Both of these sources, farm run-off (non-point sources)
and town wastewater treatment (point sources), are adding excessive amounts of nutrients,
particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, into the Manawatu. In a process referred to as
eutrophication, these cause algal-blooms that, especially during the night-time respiration
cycle, can starve the river of oxygen, killing some river species and driving others elsewhere.
Waterborne pathogens from both farms and towns are also an issue. Dangerous levels of e-
coli and faecal coliforms have led the councils to issue hazard notices warning against
swimming and fishing on the river. The Council periodically issues warnings of toxic algal
blooms related to eutrophication.
Another issue that affects water quality is erosion in steep areas of the catchment. Removal
of forest cover has resulted in erosion being a problem in the Manawatu watershed. Erosion
is accelerated by the geology and topography of the region and the fact that 62% of the hill
country area is used for pastoral farming. According to the Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry (2010), 274,000ha of the total 594,400ha are prone to high rates of erosion and
another 76,000 ha (12% of the watershed) have the potential for severe erosion. Erosion not
only removes fertile soil from slopes but also damages aquatic ecology: it increases
suspended matter in the water; it raises the level of the riverbed, and; the sediment washes
into the space in the rocks, depriving invertebrates and river-fish of a habitat. The Manawatu
river currently washes downstream an average of 3.8 million tonnes of sediment per year
(Schierlitz, Dymond & Shepherd, 2006).
There has been a great deal of public interest and political will to improve river water quality
and habitat. People involved with policy and advocacy around water quality are aware of the
issues on the river, and some positive steps are being taken. A Mediated Modeling process:
i.e. model building with rather than for stakeholders (van den Belt, 2004) was pursued during
3 workshop days (van den Belt et al, 2013a). However, the political nature and speed of the
stakeholder interactive process prompted graduate students of the 2012 Applied Ecological
Economics course (Massey University 132.705) based on interactions with the faculty and
stakeholders, to take a step back from System Dynamics and instead develop CLDs for the
MRC. The following section explores how the new archetypes can help identify, and
demonstrate to stakeholders, the dynamics of positive CLD based stories for the catchment.
2. Method
The envisioning process of solutions-oriented systems requires the reworking of eight of
Senge’s archetypes. Wolstenholme (2003) restructured archetypes that have problem
behaviour into new archetypes that have solutions behaviour by incorporating a solution link.
In this paper we rename the archetypes, identify how the causal loop diagrams could be
used in a solution-oriented manner, by looking at the dynamic Senge’s original archetypes
were expressing. We then used the same dynamics to harness positive, solution-oriented
outcomes.
In most cases, the original dynamic was avoiding negative outcomes; either unintentional
effects of a decision (Fixes that Fail, Escalation, Success to the Successful and Tragedy of
the Commons) or a failure to understand the changes in behaviour that happen over time
(Drifting Goals, Shifting the Burden, Growth & Underinvestment, Limits to Success and
Addiction). To use ‘Success to the Successful’ as an example, the dynamics in this
archetype express a situation where energy or attention is directed at one of two options and
the momentum of that energy is such that the favoured option becomes dominant to the
detriment of the alternative, which may have equal potential.
We then looked at how those dynamics could help us in the field that we were studying
(water quality in the Manawatu River Catchment area) and affect positive change in the
area. As an example the dynamics of ‘Success to the Successful’ were applied to a solution
to use price signals to phase out a source of river contamination.
A similar process was followed with other archetypes. In some cases, the new archetype
was quite similar to the original (Long-term Investment in Natural Capital, for example, is
very similar to the Growth and Underinvestment archetype that it is based on), while others
were quite different. In one case, in order to reflect the positive effect of collaboration, the
dynamics themselves needed to be reassessed. This is explained further in the discussion.
3. Results
This section describes the solution-oriented archetypes, developed by graduated students
and faculty. These are transformations of the original problem-oriented archetypes. For each
archetype the original Senge (1990) version is identified in brackets in the heading.
Following a description of the solution-oriented archetype, an example is given to show its
value for providing solutions to water quality problems in the MRC.
1.1 Internalising an Externality (Success to the Successful)
This archetype describes the dynamics involved in including the cost of a negative
externality in the product, thereby “internalizing” it. A negative externality is an adverse effect
not borne by the producer or user of a product or service. An example is waterway pollution,
which has a negative effect on the wider environment and community.
Per unit cost of
clean-up / disposal
Sales of Polluting
cl Sale oftonPoltng
NI \
Price satay
4ri) Product
ie purses MA |
Poy Product Public purchases
nomPolluting Product
Figure 2 Internalising and Externality
With the ‘Internalising an Externality’ archetype a value is assigned to the clean-up cost of a
polluting product, and that cost added to the product at the point of sale. The money
generated can be used to pay for the clean-up and in addition the higher price will
encourage consumers to buy less-polluting alternatives. As consumers move away from the
polluting product, it may also become more expensive due to the loss of economies of scale.
This also makes the non-polluting alternative more attractive and if sales increase sufficiently
economies of scale will allow prices to be maintained at a price less than the polluting
product. Supermarkets might also decide to stock a range of the alternatives and phase out
the polluting product. Figure 2 shows the dynamics of the new archetype.
In the Manawatu Catchment area, this model could be applied to phosphate detergents. As
part of its consent to discharge wastewater into the river, the Palmerston North City Council
must remove a large proportion of the phosphorus in wastewater, much of which comes from
household detergents. To do this the council spends NZ$3000/day on aluminium sulphate
treatment (Horsely, 2012). It is, therefore, possible to assign a value to the amount of
aluminium sulphate required to neutralise the phosphates in detergents and to add that cost
to the total cost of the product at point of sale.
1.2 Incentivising Innovation (Shifting the Burden)
Senge’s archetype “Shifting the Burden” is already somewhat solution-oriented, though it’s
other title, “Addiction”, perhaps less so. Here we have renamed it “Incentivising Innovation”.
This CLD describes the effect of shifting the burden of clean-up from an “externality”, borne
by the community, to the source. The source could be an industry that produces a polluting
product or one that contributes to pollution as a by-product of its operations.
In this scenario, the manufacturer is asked to pay the total cost of pollution. This additional
cost encourages the manufacturer to become more innovative and either clean up waste on
site, or invest in less polluting alternatives. If this is not done the polluter must compensate
with pay for the degraded ecosystem. In the archetype (Figure 3) the incentive of payments
for ecosystem services eventually leads to the producer minimising their pollution, and in the
short-term the community has an income to carry- out waterways clean-up.
Se
Payments for
Incentive to teat syst Services
water on ste
Figure 3 Incentivising Innovation
In the MRC, this archetype could apply to industries in the catchment area that contribute
substantial amounts of phosphorus to the city’s wastewater treatment plant. In 2011, the city
introduced a monitoring system and a charge for industries that contribute higher than
domestic levels of phosphorus (Rankin, 2011). Over time, if the charges are substantial, we
expect to see industries looking to change their processes or invest in on-site phosphorus
mitigation as a result of the burden of waste treatment being transferred back to them. If this
is done using wetlands which have the potential to absorb excessive nutrients there are
additional benefits such as habitat for local wildlife.
1.3 Cleanup Competition (Escalation)
Another way that Senge’s archetypes can portray a solution for pollution control is based on
the dynamics of the “Escalation” archetype. The original archetype shows how two balancing
loops can “feed” off each other to produce a counter-productive escalation (such as an arms
race). However, two balancing loops can also “feed” off each other to produce a positive
outcome, such as lower levels of pollution.
This dynamic can be transformed into a positive, solution-based archetype by looking at how
effectively-directed public attention can lower pollution levels in an area. Figure 4 below
looks at two or more towns (or companies) that are contributing to pollution in a given
catchment or region. When public attention is directed to the issue, there is pressure on the
biggest polluter to eliminate or mitigate their contribution. As their proportion to the total
amount goes down, another town or company becomes the biggest polluter and they in turn
feel public pressure to reduce their contribution to total pollution. If sustained, this
“competition” between towns or businesses has the effect of considerably reducing pollution.
fo WK
A'seffortsto yyy). A's impact/ (RA B's efforts to
improve image Combined impact improve image
Public perception #4 Public perception
of A's impact of B's impact
B's impact
Figure 4 Cleanup Competition
This clean-up dynamic is already evident in the MRC. Considerable public attention has
been focussed on the Manawatu River water quality since the 2009 report. Public scrutiny
directed at key polluters in the catchment has seen gradual improvements in water quality as
each town or industry makes upgrades to their waste management facilities or changes their
practices.
1.4 Benefits of Collaboration / Many Hands Make Light Work (Tragedy of the
Commons)
Senge’s Tragedy of the Commons archetype describes the dynamics of individual actions for
private benefit resulting in an undesired collective outcome, such as the loss of a common
asset. This is shown as two reinforcing loops (representing individual effort and gain) on the
outside, and two balancing loops (representing collective effort and gain) on the inside. The
archetype effectively describes many of today’s social issues, from overfishing to global
warming. However, an adjustment to this model can show another, equally useful scenario,
wherein the benefits of working collectively are greater than the sum of individual private
benefits.
In the adapted archetype the balancing loops are on the outside, describing individual effort
and gain, and the inside loops are reinforcing. With the Benefits of Collaboration archetype
(Figure 5) collective investment provide greater returns than individual investment due to
scale.
Collective
Investment
:
Potential for \ Potential for
tetera \ fuer pate
| gainto A \
Bseffort (rap neat @) }
t
Retumto B of |
| Retum to A of
pee \ 's share of, | A's share of, + private gains
ee Fi }
_colbetve gins
Collective
relums
Figure 5 Benefits of Collaboration
One solution for improving water quality in the MRC involves farmers fencing off streams
and planting trees to prevent fertiliser and effluent washing into the waterways. If one farmer
in an area does this, it has some effect on water quality. If all farmers in a given catchment
area fence off and plant trees, it has a very dramatic impact on water quality in that
catchment area. As well as the improvement in water quality there is increased biodiversity
and wildlife. Streams become recreation areas for fishing and swimming. Areas with good
water quality and forested areas usually have higher real estate values. There are also
potential business opportunities for farmers to jointly provide walking tracks and lodging, as
has been done in other parts of New Zealand, for example the Banks Peninsula Track
(Hargreaves, 2002). Many farms have small blocks of native forests, some of which cross
boundaries between farms. Those forests may qualify for carbon credits collectively, but may
be too small to qualify as individual private forests.
1.5 Finding the Appropriate Scale (Drifting goals)
Senge’s archetype ‘Drifting Goals’ demonstrates the unwanted tendency of organisations to
lower their goals as they become more difficult to meet. A similar diagram can be used to
express the dynamics of balancing natural capital and built capital. Natural capital, which
provides habitat, water regulation, water purification and many other services, supports
economic activity. Built capital is necessary for productive enterprise. Both require a land-
base in order to function.
10
Incentive to Retire Land [+
for Ecosystem Services Natural C: apifal
Payments for
Ecosystem.
Services
ere Used a, ae Invested in
Natural Capital
Figure 6 Finding the appropriate scale
Figure 6 shows a system in which farmers (or other producers) in a given area receive a
payment for the ecosystem service for waste assimilation through for example riparian
planting. The less pollution contributed to waterways, based on land use, the more they
receive in payments for ecosystem services. Farmers with high ecosystem services
payments will retire land which lessens their payments and increases natural capital. Over
time, farmers will find the balance between profitability and sustainability.
1.6 Breaking the Investment Trap (Limits to Success)
The “Limits to Success” archetype is most often used to describe something that is
constraining a company from achieving growth. We are using similar reinforcing and
balancing loops to describe the breaking of a vicious cycle of investment and reinvestment
(Figure 7). The investment trap is a reinforcing loop of investment in the protection of assets
which ignores the underlying causes of the need to invest. Once the protection is in place,
people feel secure and make additional investments. The subsequent increased value of
investments requires further investment to protect. The balancing loop in this archetype
represents the identification of leverage points elsewhere in the system to break that cycle,
resulting in similar levels of protection without the need for on-going investment.
11
Investment in natural
capital to mitigate cause
of hazard
@
Investment in Bu
Flood protection
f+
Feeling safe (RA +)
\ sg investment ait |
Built assets
ax
Figure 7 Breaking the Investment Trap
Built capital in Palmerston North is protected by stop-banks, constructed by the regional
council, and periodically raised to mitigate the flood danger. This leads to land-owners in the
city feeling secure and investing in more buildings and infrastructure as the population and
economy of Palmerston North grows. Erosion from higher in the catchment has increased
the height of the river bed and there is pressure on the council to increase the height of the
stop-bank further, to protect the built capital in the city. This has become an investment trap
(van den Belt et al., 2013b). A way to break this trap is replanting on hill country to prevent
erosion. The effect would be to stop further sediment from washing downstream and allow
sediment currently on hills to be washed away, allowing the level of the riverbed to stabilize,
or recover. In this way the city would no longer need to spend a large portion of its annual
budget on flood protection.
1.7 Long-term Investment in Natural Capital (Growth and Under Investment)
The change to the classical “Growth and Underinvestment” archetype is one of perspective.
Senge’s model warns about underinvestment and a business being too dominated by short-
term decisions. The solutions-oriented archetype focusses on the long-term benefits for real
gains. This is especially relevant for dealing with the intersection of business and ecology, as
business decisions are often based on shorter-term returns and ignore the long-term
implications of their business or land-use practices, affecting long term return on
investments. By acknowledging and meeting long-term objectives and investments, the
business or region can safe-guard themself for the future while also meeting short-term
objectives.
12
Figure 8 Long term investment in natural capital
As reported, water quality in the Manawatu River Catchment is poor and badly in need of
improvement. There is little recreational use of the region’s waterways, traditional Maori food
harvesting is greatly diminished and there are very few opportunities for commercial
enterprise based on the waterways. All of that would change significantly if there was an
acknowledgement of the importance of natural capital to the region and the need to invest in
it, as outlined in Figure 8.
1.8 Unexpected Dividends (Fixes the Fail)
One of the most often used of Senge’s archetypes is “Fixes that Fail’. These dynamics, from
a solution-oriented perspective, can also reflect indirect benefits of an investment. For
example, with forest restoration, there can be many benefits, some of them unexpected and
only identified in retrospect, after land has been converted to natural capital. Similar to the
Benefits of Collaboration archetype, this structure highlights the fact that the returns on
investments often come in more than one form. Making potential positive side-effects explicit
to stakeholders can help to convince them to commit to undertaking an alternative approach
to their business or waste disposal practices.
In the transformed archetype (Figure 9), damage containment (e.g. better water quality) has
led to a more desired location for housing (and more rate income) and more recreational
activities. Both these outcomes have the flow-on effect of increasing support for more
environmental restoration.
Appreciation
forVabve of +
Natural Capital
ttopancar (BS
damage
Property values!
tyr (as Opportunities)
Environmental Payments for ES
+
13
Figure 9 Unexpected Dividends
In the MRC, farmers are being encouraged, under the Sustainable Land-Use Initiative (SLU!)
to fence off and plant riparian strips to protect rivers and to plant hilly terrain to protect
against erosion. Farmers that take part in SLUI are often looking for other positive effects
that it can bring. Some of those positive effects that have been identified are: windbreaks to
help pasture growth; shelter for livestock; supplementary income from forestry; a source of
free firewood; a more attractive landscape; easier farm management; a better place to play
for children and grandchildren; real estate values. These additional benefits, when taken into
consideration, can make the possibility of riparian protection and hill stabilisation more
feasible.
1.9 Solution-oriented archetype decision tree
The solutions-oriented archetype decision tree (Figure 10) for the MRC allows stakeholders
to create a narrative using the archetypes to work their way towards the generated vision.
Improving water quality
in the MRC requires
Economic Ecosystem
development services (ES)
Reinforcing loop: Balancing kop
Vicious a Virtuous
spiral
Efficient
allocation of
Appropriate scale
Social and environmental Breaking the
costs of economic activity | —— investment trap
y counted
Incentivising Clean up
innovation competition
| Long term investment
in Natural Capital
Business and community
work to improve water
een business
promotes jobs
Benefits of
and investments collaboration
Unexpected
dividends
Figure 10 A decision tree linking arct ical CLD fora d
14
“Improving Water Quality in the Manawatu River requires ..”. The solutions-oriented
archetype decision tree tells the story that both ‘Economic Development’ and ‘Ecosystem
Services’ are required to achieve good water quality in a watershed as the MRC.
The right type of economic development can provide a virtuous reinforcing loop for
ecosystem services and the basis for enhanced economic development. Internalising an
eternality encourages more efficient allocation of resources as the full cost of production is
taken into account (be it, economic, social or environmental). When the market place
allocates resources to the most efficient use it maximises the scope for Incentivising
innovation. If this innovation is directed towards technology that promotes good water quality
(green technology) this can be sold elsewhere and provide Unexpected dividends to the
local economy. Full cost of production accounting draws attention to the real costs
associated with pollution. This can lead to Clean-up competition as improvements by one
party highlights the extent to which others also pollute. As business and communities work
together to improve water quality the Benefits of collaboration allow more to be achieved
than could be done individually.
The ecosystem services part of the solutions-oriented archetype decision tree is a balancing
loop as depletion constrains economic development. To ensure ecosystem services are
maintained economic development has to be at an appropriate scale. Investing in natural
capital to provide ecosystem services reduces the need for man-made infrastructure (for
example flood banks and water treatment plants to replace wetlands). This is a way of
Breaking the investment trap that requires continuous maintenance of, and investment in,
man-made infrastructure. An appropriate level of Long term investment in natural capital
means that the scale at which the economy operates (extended recreation, tourism
provision) will increase as ecosystem services grow.
Discussion
The paper restructures archetypes focussing on problem behaviour in organizations, into
solution-oriented archetypes for management of a catchment, investing in natural capital,
from which ecosystem goods, services and benefits are derived.
The straight forward conversion to solution-oriented archetypes raises several challenges
that warrant further exploration. Some challenges are related to the modelling, and some to
the application of the models to the real-life scenario in the Manawatu River Catchment.
2.1 Challenges with the CLDs
Although most of our archetypes are based on Senge’s archetypes, and have the same
configuration of reinforcing and balancing loops, it was necessary to change the
configuration for “Tragedy of the Commons”. The idea was to change the model into
something that showed the benefits of groups working together. In the modelling, it became
clear that Senge’s “Tragedy of the Commons” can only tell the story of the failure of
collective ownership, an appealing idea for decision-makers who seek to privatize common
15
assets. That model prescribes a balancing loop to common effort and a reinforcing loop to
individual effort and gain, which makes collective success under that model impossible.
However, there are systems and examples, such as riparian planting, in which collective
action achieves outcomes impossible for the individuals alone. The modelling revealed that
the way to portray the positive effects of collaboration was to reverse the reinforcing and
balancing loops.
2.2 Assumptions reflected in the examples
In Clean-up Competition (1.3), we are making the assumption that public scrutiny will be
maintained over a long period. In some cases this may not be true. Without an interested
public, local governments are likely to lack the political will to make difficult decision to deny
consents and issue fines.
In Breaking the Investment Trap (1.6), the main barriers to this solution are convincing
landowners to reforest part of their land, although the Sustainable Land Use Initiative (SLUI)
(Dymond, 2010) is expected to generate a solid step in the right direction. See also van den
Belt et al (in press 2013) describing a rudimentary system dynamics model of ‘flood
protection: an investment trap between natural and built capital’.
2.3 Practicalities
The intention of these models is to extend visionary, inspiring ideas; stories of a desirable
future for the watershed. Of course there will be many more factors that will need to be
considered when actually implementing these (or similar) policies. Some of these
considerations are discussed here.
The idea of Internalising an Externality (1.1) is simple and has been around for a long time. If
the cost of clean-up can be added to the product and recovered to pay for the clean-up, it
will incentivize customers to buy non-phosphorus-containing detergents. In reality, it faces
several obstacles. Firstly, a local ordinance to add and recover a tariff on certain products
may not be legal or enforceable as people could buy the products out of the region.
Secondly, current laws in New Zealand do not require ingredients of non-food items to be
labelled so identifying products containing phosphorus would be difficult. Thirdly, the cost of
tariff collection might exceed the return.
Likewise, Incentivising Innovation (1.2) would certainly require councils to make adjustments
to land-use plans. Local councils may need to change district plans to provide suitable land
for conversion to waste treatment. It may also be more feasible for several manufacturers to
share a facility, which would require an agreement over costs and management.
Finally, for Long-term Investment in Natural Capital (1.7), there is the question of who makes
that investment. In the MRC, efforts to improve water quality often face issues of
affordability. Town and city councils, especially smaller towns where the rate base is
dwindling, have limited funds and are unlikely to have the luxury of taking the long-term view,
although they clearly need to update their waste water treatment facilities. It may be
necessary for the national government to support the long-term future of these towns and
help to fund wastewater infrastructure.
2.4 Other possibilities
16
The example used for Finding the Appropriate Scale (1.5) involved charging farmers for
waste disposal. In practice, this approach, in order not to be overly punitive on land-users
who have farmed in a certain way for decades, could be used in conjunction with one-off or
annual payments for farmers who have riparian areas, and subsidies for planting (an
initiative currently being promoted in the catchment) and possibly carbon credits for carbon
sequestration if strips are wide enough to qualify.
2.5 A Critique of Systems Thinking Archetypes
System dynamists are not all in agreement as to the usefulness of archetypes. They have
been challenged on the basis that they are not capable of displaying the behaviour claimed
(Homer 1996; Forrester, 1994). Sterman (2000) believes their use can lead to premature
recognition of a problem, thus leading to thoughtless creation of counter-measures in a
system. Concern has also been expressed that causal loop diagrams can be problematic in
that they do not account for accumulations within a system (Sterman, 2000, Richardson,
1986). This criticism has not taken into account the use of delays in a causal loop diagram,
which will offer insight into where accumulations may occur in a system. Whether or not a
causal loop is moving in a clockwise or anti-clockwise direction, and the interaction between
different loops of different directions in a systems archetype will give one an understanding
of the speeds at which parts of the system will move in relation to the other parts, and the
whole of the system; a reinforcing loop off the central loop will denote a quick system (as the
reinforcing loop is acting like a ‘catalyst’) and a balancing loop will denote a more stable and
slower system. It is necessary for the users of systems archetypes to understand, or at least
attempt to gauge, the temporal scale of the system in question, so as to allow a system to
reach equilibrium and avoid premature interference.
On the other side Lane (1998) argues that they can provide compelling insights. The fact
that archetypes are the synthesis of much qualitative and quantitative modelling effort makes
them a useful mechanism for accelerating learning and an effective device to share dynamic
insights (Wolstenholme, 2003). Archetypes used in a collaborative / participatory context
may elicit conversations crucial to align mental models (Vennix, 1999; van den Belt, 2004;
Rouwette et al., 2002). This paper presents a qualitative systems thinking approach. To say
the CLD’s presented cannot be rejected would require quantitative system dynamics model
to be built and run.
Conclusion
Given the great wealth of literature and research describing the mechanisms behind
effective collaboration and decision-making processes, there is substantial reason to adopt
the use of a solution-oriented archetype decision tree. Solutions generation, through the use
of solution-oriented archetypes, in group settings may increase the exchanges of knowledge
between individuals, as well as activate long-term intrinsic motivation.
Systems Thinking tools, particularly Causal Loop Diagrams have been praised for helping to
make patterns and complex systems overt, enabling people to better manage the way they
17
organise themselves and resources over which they have control. These tools are usually
used to identify problems but the dynamics may be more powerful in the creation of a
positive vision through the exploration of stories and reflect innovative, solution-oriented
planning. The reframing of Senge’s archetypes to reflect those dynamics offers a qualitative
difference to systems thinking diagrams that would otherwise need to draw the problem and
then fit the solution around the described problem. There is more interest in and less
resistance to a positively-framed story than a fix for a negatively-framed one (personal
experience, van den Belt). The solution-oriented archetypes can be more suitable for
watershed management and encouraging than the classic archetypes, showing dynamics
that environmental planners and innovators at times want to portray visually, such as
identifying secondary benefits, balancing patterns of land-use and discouraging negative
behaviours. As presented in this paper, solution-oriented archetypes can describe potential
solutions of known problems, such as the pollution of the Manawati River Catchment.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the funding made available by the New Zealand Ministry for Business,
Innovation and Employment for the Integrated Freshwater Solutions project (MAUX1002),
through which the graduate course Applied Ecological Economics is possible. This course
provides an opportunity for students, stakeholders and faculty to jointly explore ‘solutions’ in
different ways. This course would not be the same without the in-kind contributions from
various stakeholders in the MRC.
References
Bardoel, E., & Haslett, T. (2004). Success to the Successful: The Use of Systems Thinking
Tools in Teaching OB. Organization Management} ournal, 1(2), 112-124.
Braun, W. (2002). The System Archetypes The Systems Modeling Workbook: Published
online at: http:/Awwwu.uni-klu.ac.at/gossimit/pap/sd/wb_sysarch.pdf.
Brewer, E., Dunn, J., & Olszewski, P. (1988). Extrinsic Reward and Intrinsic Motivation: the
vital link between classroom management and student performance. J ournal of Education
for Teaching: International research and pedagogy, 14(2), 151-170.
Dalkir, K., & Wiseman, E. (2004). Organizational Storytelling and Knowledge Management.
A Survey, Storytelling, Self, Society: An Interdisciplinary J ournal of Storytelling Studies,
1(1), 57-73.
Forrester JW. 1994. System dynamics, systems thinking and soft OR. System Dynamics
Review 10:245-256.
Goodman, M. & Kliener, A. (1994) Using the Archetype Family Tree as a Diagnostic Tool.
The Systems Thinker, December 1993/] anuary 1994.
Hargreaves, B. (2002, J an). The Banks Peninsular Track: A Case Study in Rural Tourism.
Paper presented to the Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Christchurch.
Retrieved from http://www.prres.net/P apers.
Homer JB. 1996. Why we iterate: scientific modelling in theory and practice. System
Dynamics Review 12: 1-19.
18
Horsely, E. (2012, Sept 20) River cops city pollution. Manawatu Standard, Retrieved from
http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard.
Kang, S., Morris, S. & Snell, S. (2007). Relational archetypes, organizational learning, and
value creation: Extending the human resource architecture. Academy of Management
Review, 32(1), 236-256.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Intrinsic motivation and human-centred design. Theoretical Issues in
Ergonomics Science, 5(1), 43-72.
Lane, D. (1998). Can we have confidence in Generic Structures? The Journal of the
Operational Research Society, 49(9), 936-947.
Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage Points. Places to Intervene in a System. Hartland VT: The
Sustainability Institute.
Mento, A., J ones, R., & Dirndorfer, W. (2002). A change management process: Grounded in
both theory and practice. J ournal of Change Management, 3(1), 45-59.
Morgan, J., & Burns, K. (2009, Nov 26) Manawatu River ‘among worst in the West’.
Dominion Post, p Al.
Rankin, J. (2011, J uly 18). Deterring the use of detergents. Manawatu Standard. Retrieved
from http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard.
Richardson, G.P. 1986/1976. Problems with Causal Loop Diagrams. System Dynamics
Review, 2 (2),158-170.
Rouwette, E., Vennix, J., Mullekom, T (2002) Group Model building effectiveness: a review
of assessment studies. System Dynamics Review, 18 (1), 5-45.
Schierlitz, C., Dymond, J., & Shepherd, J. (2006, Sept). Erosion/sedimentation in the
Manawatu catchment associated with Whole Farm Plans. Contract Report: 0607/028,
Palmerston North, New Zealand: Landcare Research.
Selart, M., Nordstrém, T., Kuvaas, B., & Takemura, K. (2008). Effects of Reward on Self-
regulation, Intrinsic Motivation and Creativity. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 52(5), 439-458.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organisation. New
Y ork: Doubleday Currency.
Senge, P. M. (1994). The Fifth discipline fieldbook : strategies and tools for building a
learning organization / Peter M. Senge ... [et al.]: New York : Currency, Doubleday,
1994.
Sterman, J.D. (2000). Business dynamics: systems thinking and modelling for a complex
word. Boston, USA: Irwin/McGraw.
van den Belt, M., Schiele, H. & Forgie, V. (2013a). Integrated Freshwater Solutions - A New
Zealand Application of Mediated Modeling. J ournal of the American Water Resources
Association.
van den Belt, M., Bowen, T., Slee, K., & Forgie, V. (2013b). Flood protection: Highlighting an
investment trap between built and natural capital. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association.
van den Belt, M. (2004). Mediated Modeling - a system dynamics approach to environmental
consensus building. Washington: Island Press.
Vasi, |. (2007). Thinking Globally, Planning Nationally and Acting Locally: Nested
Organizational Fields and Adoption of Environmental Practices. Social Forces, 86(1),
113-136.
Vennix, J. (1999) Group Model-building: tackling messy problems. System Dynamics
Review, 15 (4), 379-401.
19
Watkins, K. & Marsick, J. (1992). Building the learning organisation: a new role for human
resource developers. Studies in Continuing Education, 14(2), 115-129.
Wolstenholme, E. F. (2003). Towards the definition and use of a core set of archetypal
structures in system dynamics. [Article]. System Dynamics Review (Wiley), 19(1), 7-26.
doi: 10.1002/sdr.259.
20
