1. Introduction
1.1. Background and Context
Biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystems are pressing global challenges driven by complex social-ecological dynamics, including unsustainable human-nature relationships and governance failures (Reyers & Selig, 2020). In response, the need for transformative change to halt sustainability challenges, including biodiversity loss, is widely recognised (e.g. Díaz et al., 2019; IPBES, 2019). A recent assessment from the Intergovernmental Science Policy Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services defines transformative change for a just and sustainable world as fundamental, system-wide shifts in views, structures and practices that address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and nature’s decline (IPBES, 2024). Within this framing, systems thinking is an approach that has gained considerable importance in the fields of sustainability and transformative change research in recent years (Abson et al., 2017; Davelaar, 2021; Leventon et al., 2021a). Within systems thinking, many researchers have looked at leverage points as strategic intervention points within systems where small changes can catalyse transformative impacts (Abson et al., 2017; Figure 1). Identifying and targeting key leverage points can prompt essential changes to prioritise biodiversity, while also contributing to social justice and equity. The leverage points framework analyses transformative change opportunities in biodiversity positive decision-making and also emphasises the importance of integrating diverse perspectives (Riechers et al., 2021b), which is essential for the sustainable management of common pool resources.
Figure 1
Leverage points applied for the PLANET4B project (Soliev et al., 2025 building on Meadows 1999 and Abson et al., 2017).
Many authors call for a broad set of ideas corresponding to deeper leverage points that relate to changing the paradigms of the system, such as connections to nature or embodying relational values (Abson et al., 2017; Ives et al., 2018; Mattijssen et al., 2020; Riechers et al., 2021a). Abson et al. (2017) argue that sustainability research and policy efforts have predominantly focused on addressing shallow leverage points so far and suggest that research should employ systems thinking perspectives to target deep leverage points for systems transformation towards sustainability.
Despite the growing theoretical consensus on the potential of leverage points for identifying sustainability interventions, empirical understanding of how to effectively operationalise this framework across diverse social-ecological contexts, particularly in participatory settings involving multiple stakeholders, remains limited. Most existing research has focused on conceptual development or isolated case applications, leaving a gap concerning practical implementation and stakeholder engagement in biodiversity governance (Cuppen et al., 2021; Leventon et al., 2021a). Furthermore, complex issues such as biodiversity loss are embedded within social and cultural systems – yet the extent to which the leverage points framework can facilitate the exploration of inclusive, adaptable interventions in such contexts remains under-explored.
1.2. Aim of the Study & Research Questions
Building on this background, this study investigates the application of the leverage points framework through the reflections of case study leaders in five relatively diverse biodiversity and sustainability case studies across Europe – namely in Norway, Austria, the UK, Germany, and Switzerland. Each case involves engaging stakeholders facing intersections of social marginalisation, such as gender, race, religion, disability, age, and socio-economic status. The objective is to understand how the leverage points framework is utilised across diverse social-ecological settings and to evaluate its capacity to facilitate inclusive, context-sensitive approaches to systemic change. This investigation aims to generate practical recommendations for applying leverage points in complex social-ecological systems with a strong emphasis on inclusiveness and real-world relevance.
Specifically, we investigate:
i) How does the leverage points framework facilitate the integration of diverse stakeholder perspectives in these case studies?
ii) What limitations or challenges are encountered during its application in different settings?
iii) How can these insights inform the development of more inclusive, adaptable, and context-sensitive approaches to leveraging systemic change?
The study focuses on an analysis of survey feedback from case study leaders to explore their experiences and reported outcomes using the leverage points framework. These reflections capture the perceived usefulness, challenges, and outcomes of applying the framework.
In the next section, we outline our conceptual basis – we describe the leverage points framework, exploring its variations and applications, while also discussing themes of diversity, flexibility, and challenges associated with effectively implementing the framework in complex social-ecological systems. In the following sections, we detail our methodology for exploring these themes, based on case study leaders’ reflections regarding their experiences in applying the framework to plan and co-create interventions for systemic change (Methods). We discuss the findings in relation to each of our objectives and finally, we summarise the key findings and suggest avenues for future research. We highlight the need for further development of accessible, usable, and tailorable tools that support application of the leverage points framework, bridging the complexity of social-ecological systems and enhancing conceptual accessibility.
1.3. The Leverage Points Framework
Based on system properties, Meadows (1999) outlined twelve intervention points of varying depth, from tangible measures like taxes to transformative shifts in mindset. Abson et al. (2017) further grouped these into four levels – parameters, feedbacks, design, and intent – highlighting the spectrum from superficial to deeply-rooted leverage points. A growing body of research has applied the leverage points framework as a heuristic for proposing, evaluating, and guiding interventions. For example, Leventon et al. (2021b) used it to identify governance areas in need of deeper transformation to conserve biodiversity in ways that embody plural values. Similarly, Arponen and Salomaa (2023) operationalised the framework to assess conservation actions for their potential to catalyse systemic change. Several studies demonstrate that leverage points can inform context-specific recommendations within social-ecological systems (e.g., Ives et al., 2018; Mattijssen et al., 2020). Researchers also evaluate existing policies and interventions based on their systemic influence (Arponen and Salomaa, 2023; Manlosa et al., 2019; Riechers et al., 2021a). In their recent study, Arponen and Salomaa (2023) applied the leverage points framework to assess conservation actions across multiple ecosystems and evaluated their potential for catalysing systemic change. They proposed targeted interventions in urban planning policies and agricultural practices that support biodiversity, emphasising the necessity of interdisciplinary approaches. Manlosa et al. (2019), meanwhile, focused on leverage points related to gender equality and human well-being within smallholder farming systems. Their research detailed how enhancing gender equity through specific policy interventions can lead to improved agricultural practices and community resilience. The study emphasised that interventions, such as promoting women’s participation in decision-making and providing access to resources and training, can significantly impact farming productivity and household welfare. Riechers et al. (2021a) in their examination of human-nature connectedness, argued that understanding leverage points is essential for triggering transformative changes in socio-ecological systems. They highlighted specific interventions that can create meaningful shifts, such as enhancing community engagement in biodiversity conservation and fostering an emotional connection to nature. By identifying leverage points, the authors advocate for policies that integrate education and awareness initiatives, which can significantly influence public attitudes toward conservation. Similarly, Chan et al. (2020) identified interventions at different leverage points specifically for biodiversity conservation and restoration. Within this framing, levers are actions or initiatives seeking to alter system dynamics. Approaching intervention design through lenses of sustainability emphasises promoting long-term benefits and equitable outcomes. Strategies that are transformative and do not exacerbate inequalities allow societies to more effectively target leverage points for biodiversity prioritisation in decision-making processes.
1.4. Diversity, Flexibility, and Challenges
The leverage points framework recognises the importance of incorporating a diverse range of viewpoints, experiences, and knowledge for more holistic and effective system transformation (Chan et al., 2020). Research exploring its application highlights that engaging directly with diverse stakeholders – including young people, indigenous communities, forest owners, tourism promoters, businesses, conservationists, and public authorities – can lead to more comprehensive insights into leverage points and their interactions within systems (Priebe et al., 2022). Several scholars emphasise the significance of paying attention to social factors such as social status and gender, which are crucial for understanding community needs and perspectives (Manlosa et al., 2019; Rosengren et al., 2021). For example, Burgos-Ayala et al. (2020) stress the importance of involving traditionally marginalised groups, including in their case as indigenous communities in Colombia, to promote sustainable development and environmental management. Research that systematically integrates diverse perspectives – such as multi-site global studies – tends to produce a more comprehensive understanding of leverage points and their systemic interactions (Linnér and Wibeck, 2021). The choice of methodology also impacts the depth of stakeholder inclusion; participatory approaches, community-based participatory research, and multi-stakeholder dialogue are particularly effective because they facilitate meaningful contribution, reflection, and the building of trust (BeLue et al., 2012; Fischer et al., 2022; Priebe et al., 2022; Rosengren et al., 2021). Transdisciplinary collaborations that involve direct dialogue among scientists, policymakers, civil society, and local communities are recognised as especially effective in translating research insights into practical policy and action.
While flexibility in applying the leverage points framework enables adaptation to complex social-ecological contexts (Chan et al., 2020; Cuppen et al., 2021), it also presents challenges, such as potential misinterpretation and superficial application if not carefully facilitated (Horcea-Milcu, 2022). Ensuring inclusive, context-specific, and well-facilitated approaches is therefore critical for the framework’s effectiveness, relevance, and ability to harness diverse perspectives (Bolton, 2022; Horlings et al., 2020; Riechers et al., 2021a).
Despite its utility, the leverage points framework faces several critiques and challenges. Its abstract, discipline-specific language and the difficulty in pinning down profound (deep) leverage points can hinder practical application, especially in participatory and multi-stakeholder settings (Chan et al., 2020, Nguyen and Bosch 2012; Riechers e al., 2021b). Critics note a tendency to focus on superficial interventions – such as policy adjustments – due to the complexity of identifying and influencing deeper paradigms, which involve underlying values, beliefs, and power structures (Chapman et al., 2022; Korhonen-Kurki, 2024). While the inherent subjectivity in defining systems and leverage points fosters flexibility, it can also lead to confusion or inconsistencies in interpretation among stakeholders and practitioners (Abson et al., 2017; Leventon et al., 2021a). Translating abstract systemic concepts into actionable strategies that are understandable and applicable within diverse social-political contexts remains a significant challenge. Additionally, the language itself may pose a barrier, making it difficult for practitioners outside academic or disciplinary silos to effectively engage with deep leverage points. Although the framework is rooted in systems thinking, which recognises feedbacks and non-linear dynamics, it is occasionally criticised for inadvertently oversimplifying complex and subjective realities by appearing to offer mechanistic or linear solutions. Critics argue that systems, being interconnected with feedback loops and non-linear behaviours, require more nuanced approaches than those that seem implied by a purely linear application of leverage points (Meadows, 1999).
2. Methods
The findings presented in this study primarily rely on data collected through a questionnaire completed by altogether 11 case study leaders across 5 case studies (in some cases, multiple leaders contributed to the responses), aiming to capture their reflections on the use of the leverage points framework. These leaders conducted a series of co-creative workshops with stakeholders – volunteer members of learning communities working alongside academic and practitioner research partners – to understand and plan interventions for system change. The five case studies, part of the European Horizon project PLANET4B, aimed to co-create knowledge on systemic transformation for biodiversity (Table 1); more details on this process can be seen in Mendes et al. (2023). Each learning community comprised approximately 11 participants (totalling 56) from local groups including residents, businesses, NGOs, and local authorities. The responses (data collected through a questionnaire) provided insights into how the framework facilitated stakeholder engagement, the integration of diverse perspectives, and the challenges faced, serving as the main empirical basis for this analysis. To support deeper insight into the application of the leverage points framework, the study adopted a reflexive methodological stance. The eleven case study leaders – some of whom are also co-authors of this manuscript – were invited to reflect on their experiences via a structured questionnaire. While this introduces a degree of subjectivity, the analysis was coordinated by task leaders not involved in workshop delivery, providing analytical distance. Additionally, a second round of reflection was conducted, whereby initial findings were shared with case study leaders for comment and elaboration, enabling co-construction of insights and enhancing the rigour of interpretation.
Table 1
Description of case studies.
| NAME OF CASE STUDY | LOCATION | SCOPE | STAKEHOLDERS (LEARNING COMMUNITY) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nature recreation in Oslo, Norway | Norway | To advance inclusive outdoor nature recreation and protect biodiversity by identifying social and tangible factors that enable the inclusion of socially excluded groups and their engagement with nature. | Young individuals with disability and parents with disabled children that all have ties to a health-based NGO acting within the outdoor nature recreation space, representatives from (voluntary) outdoor nature recreation organisations, researchers from the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research |
| Opening nature to Black, Asian and ethnic minority communities in the UK | UK | To explore and better understand the diverse lenses through which people of colour engage with nature and understand and talk about the biodiversity agenda in its broadest sense with the goal of promoting intercultural nature dialogues within and between communities and with decision- makers. | People of colour (POC) communities, Dadima’s CIC (Community Interest Company, leading the walks and facilitating dialogues), policy actors, NGOs (Non- Government Organisations), local environmental groups, Black, Asian, and ethnic minority community led initiatives. |
| Urban Youth in Germany | Germany | To empower young people especially less privileged through various intervention methods (experiential learning and behavioural games, and creative and deliberative interventions) to influence biodiversity and nature prioritisation in decision making with the goal of fostering a sustainable future with consideration of diverse backgrounds, needs and aspirations of participants. | Youth within the age range of 22 to 27 with a migration background, youth leaders, NGOs working with young people. |
| Swiss attitudes towards agro-biodiversity and religion | Switzerland | To determine how religious beliefs affect farming and food consumption related behaviour relevant to biodiversity-promotion or preservation. | Priests and members from Mennonite community providing support services to farmers. Farmers, politicians and professionals working with farmers. |
| Edible City and inclusion in Graz | Austria | To co-create a biodiverse edible garden in a living lab with disadvantaged women and upscale experiences from the living lab to support city policy stakeholders’ efforts towards participatory designs for inclusive biodiversity and food policies. | Policy level learning community (representatives of city departments, social services, educational and environmental institutions, diversity experts and civic actors). |
Within these communities, leaders conducted a series of workshops (a total of four per case, from February to October 2024). Workshops in Norway, the UK, Germany, and Graz were conducted in person; in the Swiss case they were held online. Their primary purpose was to identify key systems and leverage points (workshop 1 and 2), assess impacts through indicators (workshop 3), and explore barriers and opportunities for broader change (workshop 4). A theoretically informed protocol was developed and further iterated with case study leaders (see supplementary material 1) to guide workshop facilitation and structure data collection. Workshops were conducted in local languages. This paper focuses on the second workshop of the series. In this workshop, the groups of stakeholders (learning communities), were encouraged to work with a leverage points framework. They were prompted to identify necessary transformations, potential interventions, and how these targeted leverage points – all explained at the start of the session, encouraging flexibility in defining systems and objectives.
The research team co-ordinating the overall task asked all case study leaders to reflect on their experiences using the leverage points framework via an emailed questionnaire (see supplementary material 2), which explored stakeholder integration, challenges, and potential limitations, especially regarding marginalised perspectives. The process, illustrated in Figure 2, involved designing and sending the questionnaire, collecting responses focused on integration, limitations and challenges, analysing responses for themes and specific examples, sharing feedback with case study leaders for further reflection, and integrating their reflections into broader research themes. The open-ended questions invited detailed responses, including examples of how the framework facilitated diverse viewpoint integration, conflicts, or insights gained. Case study leaders also reflected on challenges and suggested improvements to enhance the framework’s effectiveness. The responses were analysed for themes and trends, highlighting how the framework supported stakeholder inclusion, with specific examples and constructive feedback. These findings were shared with the case study leaders for further reflection and used by the research team to address the study’s aims and research questions. The second round of reflection (stage 4, Figure 2) involved sharing the initial findings and reflections with the five case study leaders for further input and elaboration. This was conducted through distributing the written summary of the preliminary analysis and inviting written feedback. The leaders provided additional insights, comments, and clarifications via email, which contributed to a co-constructed understanding and enhanced the rigor of our interpretation.
Figure 2
Overview of the questionnaire process with case study leaders.
The survey was aimed at the case study leaders, given their central role in designing and facilitating the workshops. Their reflections provided key insights into the application of the leverage points framework and stakeholder engagement processes. While including the broader group of 56 workshop participants could have offered additional perspectives, practical constraints limited the scope of feedback collection. It is recognised that future research could benefit from incorporating participant viewpoints to further enrich the analysis.
3. Results
Facilitating the integration of diverse perspectives and addressing the limitations
In this section, we explore the case study leaders’ experiences related to the first set of questions focused on integration of diverse perspectives within the leverage points framework, and the associated limitations. For the purposes of this study, an ‘inclusive environment’ refers to a setting where all participants feel safe, respected, and valued, and where diverse perspectives can be shared openly without fear of judgment or exclusion. Creating such an environment involves deliberate facilitation practices, acknowledgment of participants’ diverse backgrounds and experiences, and proactive efforts to encourage equitable participation from all attendees. While trust, safety, and diversity were fundamental preconditions across all workshops, they specifically contributed by creating an environment conducive to open dialogue and inclusive participation, which are essential for the meaningful application of the leverage points framework and the emergence of rich, diverse insights.
Analysing responses, we found that, beyond the importance of skilled facilitation and workshop setup, the leverage points framework itself played a key role in structuring discussions and integrating diverse perspectives. Participants appreciated the visual nature of the systems thinking, which offered a shared language for exploring complex relationships and potential intervention points. This visualisation helped participants with varying backgrounds to align their understanding of the system and contributed to more inclusive dialogue. However, some leaders noted that the abstract terminology and the complexity of the framework could also pose barriers if not carefully explained. Similarly, some case study leaders expressed struggles and a lack of clarity when applying the framework. However, others found that careful and multiple explanations during the workshop aided in bringing diverse viewpoints together, as one responded stated: “Yes, the frameworks, when explained carefully and multiple times to diverse young people, helped to bring in different viewpoints”. Other notes relate to mixed experiences with using the framework to integrate diverse perspectives, particularly in light of navigating different ideas and experiences. The exercise was reportedly helpful for individuals who are “new” to the system, but also some challenges were highlighted in maintaining flow and connectivity across different systems, particularly in online settings: “It allowed different viewpoints, but clarification took away some time”. Despite some difficulties, most case study leaders recognised the value of the leverage points framework in providing a comprehensive view and fostering discussions around interventions that strengthen connections between values and biodiversity. As one respondent pointed out, despite facing challenges in identifying different systems, participants had the opportunity to contribute meaningful perspectives.
Furthermore, the chance to integrate diverse perspectives worked well where there was trust within the group. This point relates not necessarily to the framework itself, but the set-up of the workshop and the composition of the group. The establishment of a safe space through trust-building activities and prior group bonding activities was noted as beneficial, facilitating open and honest discussions: “During the first meeting we did a lot of getting-to-know-each-other games …. the members of the group were comfortable to speak, and this helped to create a ‘safe space’…”. This emphasises that the framework is most useful when the process is well-facilitated, with high levels of trust-building among participants, and when there is time and space provided in the workshop for in-depth exploration and discussion of different perspectives. One case study leader highlighted that the integration of diverse perspectives was facilitated by intentionally inviting participants with various backgrounds to workshops. The workshop set up, ice breaker activities and a diversity of invited participants are necessary to achieve integration of diverse perspectives. The familiarity among participants, the establishment of trustful relationships, and the pursuit of a shared goal for transformative change are also critical components for success, as emphasised by another case study leader.
The summary of reflections above suggests that the framework can be particularly useful in looking beyond existing system boundaries or pulling together different perspectives when adequately explained and exemplified, and when a workshop is set up well, creating a safe space for participants to deliver diverse views. The framework can help researchers and practitioners expand their thinking beyond traditional boundaries and consider a wider range of factors or viewpoints that may be relevant to the problem or issue at hand. By pulling together different perspectives the framework can facilitate a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of systems – where consensus is not seen as a necessity but where diverse views expand the horizons and potentially uncover new opportunities.
In the second set of questions in the questionnaire – ‘limitations in inclusion of different perspectives’ – the case study leaders were asked whether they encountered situations where the leverage points framework unintentionally restricted the inclusion of diverse perspectives. Their responses indicated that they did not perceive significant challenges regarding the inclusion of diverse perspectives and were not aware of such unintentional limitations. One respondent emphasised the facilitator’s role in creating a welcoming and inclusive environment, stating: “For sure, more confident participants were ‘louder’, but even the quiet ones we managed to get engaged, as the facilitator directly approached them…”. This approach led to the successful engagement of all individuals, highlighting the importance of facilitation in mitigating potential limitations and ensuring broad participation. Some acknowledged technical difficulties in connecting various systems during the leverage points exercise, particularly in online settings (four of the five workshops were conducted in person, while one, focused on Swiss attitudes toward agro-biodiversity and religion, was held online), highlighting the need for integrated design to facilitate diverse discussions.
Case study leaders offered valuable suggestions for enhancing the leverage points framework’s utility and appeal in various contexts. One case study leader questioned the necessity of tailoring the framework to fit each unique situation, by expressing: “Does the leverage points need to be the best fit always in every situation? I am not sure… this approach has been useful in getting us thinking about many aspects of our case study which we may otherwise not have addressed equally explicitly…”. The respondent further emphasised that the benefits lay in the overarching learning process facilitated by the leverage points framework: “…Whether we always manage to squeeze every aspect of the leverage points into our case study seems to me less important than the learning process itself…”. The value of tools like the leverage points, in combination with careful and creative facilitation, is their ability to enhance understanding of systems while also maintaining adaptability for continued learning. As noted by another case study leader, it would be beneficial to translate abstract elements of the framework into context-specific characteristics to make the concepts more tangible to encourage diverse perspectives and exchange of experiences among participants, and hence to enhance its utility. Furthermore, by allowing participants to articulate their perspectives and barriers in their own language, researchers can ensure that the process remains grounded in participants’ realities. The respondents stressed that the framework should be seen as a tool for analysis and synthesis rather than a structure to be imposed during interactions. One respondent suggested, for example, that it may be more optimal for researchers to analyse participants’ lived experiences and insights through the leverage points framework after discussions, rather than introducing the framework directly to participants.
Main challenges in applying the leverage points framework in case studies
This section addresses the specific challenges identified by case study leaders regarding the practical application of the leverage points framework (the third set of questions in questionnaire). Here, the focus shifts to the facilitators’ perspectives on the operational difficulties encountered while implementing the framework in the learning communities. It also highlights the facilitators’ experiences, including issues such as academic language, contextualisation, and the need for appropriate training to ensure effective use of the framework in diverse settings.
The case study leaders identified a range of challenges encountered when applying the leverage points frameworks with the learning communities in their case studies. As already touched upon above, the most common challenges reported included the use of academic language and the abstract nature of the frameworks not fitting into their case study’s context, followed by difficulty in identifying deep leverage points by workshop participants and limited flexibility of the framework. The complexity of grasping the leverage points framework and its application was also noted by one responded stating: “Some participants couldn’t see why we presented it in the workshop and felt it was too academic. One felt it was waste of time”. This underscores the need for training of facilitators so that they are able to translate the framework into the specific context and make it easily understandable for participants. A general challenge was observed in the contextualisation and translation of the concept; “The abstract terminology needs to be translated into the context and language of the stakeholders”. The translation proved to be particularly crucial in ensuring that participants of various backgrounds could effectively engage with the tool. A respondent observed that some participants became disengaged during the workshop presentations, indicating that attention loss may have led to certain perspectives being overlooked in the learning community.
Another respondent highlighted how the “top-down” setup of the exercise made the leverage points framework feel imposed, fostering a sense of alienation both conceptually and socially. They described being tasked with engaging with unfamiliar themes and terminology in a setting where not all participants were familiar to one another. This combination of academic abstraction and the lack of a shared context amplified the divide between “us” and “them” – between researchers and participants, they explained. Another respondent underlined the time constraints (case studies were encouraged to dedicate 1,5–2 hours to the exercise) and how this risked preventing a thorough exploration of the system map (a visual representation of the system, including key components, relationships, and feedbacks) as this would have required much more time to disentangle the complexity of the topic, leading to a more superficial analysis. To address this, a system map was developed between researchers and case study leaders prior to the workshop and then enhanced with inputs from participants during the workshop – this facilitated discussions and enabled the effective incorporation of different viewpoints.
While some case leaders found leverage points that the case was unable to influence, this was not reported across all cases. Further, this realisation could help guide the focus of the cases. For example, one case study leader mentioned that while analysing system leverage points, they identified areas for change that extended beyond their case study’s scope of influence. They used this information to create a focus on inspiring change and achieving tangible outcomes within the designated time frame of the project.
Overall, analysis of the case study leaders’ responses indicates that the leverage points framework is valued for its ability to foster systemic thinking and broaden stakeholder understanding of complex social-ecological systems. Leaders noted that when the framework was carefully explained and contextualised, it helped facilitate richer discussions, particularly by translating abstract concepts into tangible, context-specific insights. However, some challenges were also reported, including difficulties in applying the framework with less familiar or time-constrained groups and the risk of oversimplification when concepts were not adequately tailored. Many leaders emphasised that the framework’s utility depends heavily on skilled facilitation and thoughtful adaptation to local contexts, highlighting the importance of combining methodological flexibility with clear communication to unlock its transformative potential.
4. Discussion
Our findings underscore that the successful application of the leverage points framework hinges on skilled facilitation, trust-building, and sufficient time for in-depth discussion – conditions consistently emphasised in both our case studies and the wider literature (Fischer et al., 2022; Otero et al., 2025). When these conditions are met, the framework can act as a catalyst for shifting participants’ perspectives, helping them identify overlooked systemic connections and deeper leverage points, thereby fostering a more systemic and transformative understanding of change. Importantly, our results highlight that this process requires translating abstract academic language into context-specific, accessible terms, as unfamiliar terminology may hinder meaningful engagement. Several case leaders reported that developing pre-workshop system maps and enhancing them with participant input helped mitigate time constraints and clarify complex concepts, though this approach raised concerns about potential bias and the representation of diverse perspectives within the system structure. Furthermore, the inherent flexibility of the framework – while a strength – presents challenges, particularly when participants struggle to grasp and apply its abstract concepts within their specific social-ecological contexts (Chan et al., 2020; Cuppen et al., 2021; Horcea-Milcu 2022). Our case studies demonstrated that effective facilitation is crucial for understanding and also for creating an inclusive environment where diverse perspectives can be shared meaningfully. Mixed experiences in integrating perspectives signal the need for adaptable techniques and methods tailored to varied stakeholder groups, learning capabilities, and cultural backgrounds (BeLue et al., 2012). Fostering trust, ensuring capacity-building, and providing adequate space for dialogue are essential for maximising the framework’s potential for societal transformation.
In the PLANET4B project, the leverage points framework was chosen due to its capacity to accommodate complex social-ecological systems by emphasising systemic structures and feedbacks, thereby enabling a holistic understanding of transformation pathways. Central to the utility of the LP framework is its inherent flexibility, which allows it to be adapted across diverse contexts and stakeholder groups. However, the integration of multiple perspectives – while critical for capturing the multifaceted nature of socio-ecological systems – poses both opportunities and challenges for this flexibility. On the one hand, diverse stakeholder insights expand the framework‘s relevance and can inspire innovative solutions; on the other hand, they can introduce conflicts, misunderstandings, or conceptual tensions, especially when terminology or system representations are abstract or technical. Such dynamics impact the framework‘s ability to catalyse systemic change, as emphasised by Otero et al. (2025), who highlight that inclusive dialogue is required to navigate these complexities effectively.
Challenges such as communication barriers and differing worldviews necessitate careful facilitation and ongoing capacity-building efforts to ensure that diverse perspectives strengthen, rather than hinder, the pursuit of transformative social-ecological outcomes. As Chan et al. (2020) discuss, empowering stakeholders by creating environments conducive to reflexivity and systems literacy enhances their ability to understand and engage with complex systems. Consequently, the relationship between stakeholder diversity, framework flexibility, and the potential for transformation hinges on deliberate strategies that foster inclusive dialogue, contextual adaptation, and shared understanding – elements that are essential for realising the framework’s promise as a tool for societal transformation. Valdez et al. (2024) further reinforce this notion, suggesting that actively engaging a broad range of secondary stakeholders not only broadens perspectives but also leads to more robust decision-making processes regarding biodiversity conservation. Therefore, the successful application of the leverage points framework in transformative initiatives must account for these dynamics, ensuring that facilitation and engagement are tailored to the specific needs and realities of the diverse stakeholder groups involved.
Our study also encourages critical reflections on whether the leverage points framework is useful as a facilitation and planning tool besides serving as an academic heuristic. This raises questions about how and by whom it is applied for sustainability transformations. Our findings instigate critical evaluations on the necessity for improved understanding of systems among participants in order to effectively utilise and benefit from the framework. Examining how the framework is utilised – either as a metaphorical concept or as an analytical tool – sheds light on its applicability and significance among stakeholders, raising inquiries about accessibility and meaningful interpretation outside academia. While the leverage points analogy seems relatively simple, and is a neat metaphor in many circumstances, when asked to imagine change in complex systems it becomes complicated. Given sufficient time, optimal facilitation (including established trust between the facilitator and group) and suitable workshop conditions (including ideally, an in-person meeting) it helps to unravel questions and differences around which systems are changing, to what, and how. However, to engage in these conversations, participants must be supported in systems thinking, understand the complexities involved, and be willing to reflexively adjust their perspectives. This support is critical for fostering effective collaboration and engagement in biodiversity positive decision-making processes, as indicated by literature on participatory systems thinking, which emphasises the transformative potential of including diverse stakeholders in meaningful dialogue (Chan et al., 2020; Otero et al., 2025). Training participants through capacity-building initiatives can create an environment conducive to reflexivity and systems literacy, necessary for navigating complex social-ecological dynamics (Arponen and Salomaa, 2023; Cuppen et al., 2021). Additionally, leveraging plural values within participatory frameworks can enhance understanding of interconnected systems and pathways for transformation Leventon et al. (2021a). While this task can be made easier through facilitation and tailoring frameworks to the context, it also points to the need for broader systems literacy and pre-training of participants in order for them to engage with the framework in a manner which achieves maximum, as well as mutual, usefulness. In this respect, to achieve application of the leverage points framework in the way envisioned within the original PLANET4B protocol circulated by the coordinating task leads, this may need to be as part of a wider, ongoing, capacity building and engagement process, with the framework acting as an iterative tool to prompt reflections on ongoing activities. On another critical note, the potential conceptual and social divide created by presenting the framework directly to participants illustrates a fundamental challenge: the framework often reflects academic priorities and structures rather than the lived realities of those it seeks to engage.
In reflecting on the geographic context of our study, it is important to note that all five case studies were conducted in Western Europe. This regional focus may have influenced the processes, stakeholder dynamics, and outcomes observed, given Western Europe’s specific socio-political and environmental landscapes. The relatively high level of institutional support, public engagement with environmental issues, and existing governance frameworks in Western Europe may have facilitated aspects of stakeholder participation and the integration of diverse perspectives. However, this context could also mean that the findings might not fully translate to regions with different socio-political or cultural dynamics, where such frameworks and support may be less established. Future research should consider applying the leverage points framework in a wider variety of geographic and cultural settings to explore its applicability and effectiveness globally, potentially highlighting variations in process and outcome that could inform more universally applicable strategies.
Further research could also focus on developing tools and strategies that facilitate the identification and understanding of the leverage points framework in diverse social-ecological systems. This can involve collaboration with stakeholders to co-create practical examples and case studies that are specific to their context, thereby enhancing the framework’s applicability as a system thinking tool that allows stakeholders to explore options for transformative interventions. For example, future research could explore strategies for developing accessible, participatory tools that enable diverse stakeholders to engage with the leverage points framework in ways that are grounded in their lived experiences, while preserving its core conceptual integrity. It is likely that such an approach would be based in a larger programme of training around thinking in systems for transformative change.
Overall, our findings highlight that the effectiveness of the leverage points framework in fostering transformative change is strongly contingent upon skilled facilitation, trust-building, and contextual adaptation – aligning with our research questions. The framework primarily helps stakeholders identify previously overlooked systemic connections, deeper leverage points, and intervention pathways. However, it may not primarily serve as a tool for integrating diverse perspectives. That integration seems to depend more on skilled workshop facilitation, effective stakeholder-specific communication, and ongoing learning processes around the framework. These insights underscore the importance of investing in facilitator capacity, stakeholder-specific communication, and ongoing learning processes to realise the framework’s full potential for inclusive, systemic resource management. Recognising these factors has important implications for practitioners seeking to apply leverage points in diverse social-ecological contexts and points to avenues for future research focused on developing supportive tools and strategies to enhance accessibility and impact.
In PLANET4B, trust, safe spaces, and diversity were pre-existing and foundational conditions within the learning communities. These conditions greatly facilitated the workshops by fostering an environment where participants felt comfortable expressing uncertainties and working through initial frustrations with the leverage points framework. The presence of varied perspectives in a trusted, inclusive setting likely smoothed over challenges related to technical jargon and complex concepts. While we do not have comparative data from less cohesive or diverse groups, existing literature suggests such conditions are pivotal for overcoming barriers to understanding complex frameworks (Chan et al. 2020). Future research could explore these dynamics more explicitly by comparing similar leverage points framework applications in less prepared settings.
In reflecting on the process of inclusion and participant perceptions, we recognise that our assessments are primarily based on case study leaders’ feedback, which may not fully reflect the wider learning community participants’ own internal experiences of safety and openness. While reports indicated active engagement and voice from diverse perspectives, these observations are inherently subjective. To genuinely understand whether participants felt safe to share their perspectives and experienced the workshop as an inclusive space, any future runnings of such leverage points workshops should incorporate more systematic and direct measures – such as anonymous feedback or in-the-moment reflection exercises – that can better capture participants’ sense of inclusion and comfort. Acknowledging these limitations underscores the importance of ongoing reflexivity and the development of more robust assessment tools to ensure authentic participation and the representation of diverse viewpoints.
5. Conclusion
The leverage points framework offers a conceptual approach for identifying transformative interventions in complex social-ecological systems. As the framework has been explored predominantly in theory, its practical applications remained limited. This paper extends the empirical experiences by providing insights from its application in five relatively diverse case studies across Europe, emphasising its usefulness, challenges, and limitations. This study was conducted to enhance the knowledge around the application of the leverage points framework in transdisciplinary settings. This has included suggesting ways to simplify academic terminology and providing context-specific examples, thereby improving its comprehension by a wider community that goes beyond academia. The study highlights that establishing inclusive environments and employing tailored facilitation methods for different stakeholder groups can increase the framework’s practical relevance. Our findings underscore the importance of applying the leverage points framework within the context of common pool resources and highlight the importance of further developing the contextualisation and practical application of the leverage points framework to better engage stakeholders in sustainability science. While refining the core framework remains valuable, our emphasis is on tailoring and implementing it effectively within diverse social-ecological contexts to enhance its usability and real-world impact. By incorporating local knowledge and developing context-specific tools and strategies, the framework’s potential to address sustainability challenges can be fully realised.
Supplementary Material
Research protocol for Workshop 2 (leverage points).
Questionnaire for case study leaders.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Maryna Bykova, Alex Franklin, Ghezal Sabir, and Barbara Smith for their input in the questionnaire. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and feedback, which greatly strengthened the overall manuscript.
Competing Interests
The authors have no competing interests to declare.