Exploring mechanisms for systemic thinking in decision-making through three country applications of SDG Synergies

Abstract

Increased systems thinking capacity—that is, the capacity to consider systemic effects of policies and actions—is necessary for translating knowledge on Sustainable Development Goals’ (SDGs) interactions into practice. Various models and tools that seek to support more evidence-based policy-making have been developed with the purpose of exploring system effects across SDGs. However, these often lack integration of behavioral aspects and contextual factors that influence the decision-making process. We analyze three applications of a decision-support approach called SDG Synergies, which aims at building capacity in systems thinking among decision-makers and implementing agencies. Our objective is to explore how behavior and context influences whether and how knowledge is taken up and acted upon when making decisions. Drawing on empirical material from Mongolia, Colombia, and Sri Lanka, we identify three sets of mechanisms that appear important for enabling more systemic thinking: system boundaries (time, scale, and space), rules of engagement (ownership, representation, and purpose), and biases (confirmation biases and participation biases). Results highlight some key challenges for systemic thinking that merit further attention in future applications, including the importance of localizing SDGs and incorporating this knowledge to national-level assessments, an unwillingness of stakeholders to acknowledge trade-offs, the challenge of addressing transformational as opposed to incremental change, and striking a balance between the flexibility of the approach vis-à-vis scientific robustness.

Situating Health Within the 2030 Agenda—A Practical Application of the Sustainable Development Goals Synergies Approach

“…Importantly, the focus is only on the direct effect of the goal or target, and that the interaction should be scored uniquely in each direction since there can be a positive influence in one direction at the same time as a negative one in the other direction. Further, it is important to explicitly define the boundaries of the assessment in terms of time horizon (e.g., from now until 2030) and geographical context (global, regional, national, or sub-national level) or other relevant dimensions as such factors are critical for assessing how the interaction play out (see Barquet et al [ 24 ] for a longer discussion on the issue of defining system boundaries for the interactions assessment).…”

The Sustainable Development Goals Psychological Inventory: A Network Analysis in Italian University Students

“…The SDGs that fell in the fifth occurrence are those that require more effort to be increased and to achieve a trustworthy psychological self-perception of the SDGs through interventions. Lastly, the most central SDGs could be promising for interventions that aim to have an effect on increasing the overall self-perception of SDGs [ 24 ], fostering a general self-perception in the framework of the seventeen sustainable goals.…”

“…From this perspective, this inventory permits an in-depth evaluation of the three components (interest, motivation, and self-efficacy), allowing one to acquire more accurate data to develop successful actions related to the seventeen SDGs [ 23 , 24 ], tailoring the interventions in relation to specific targets and contexts. According to the authors, these tailor-made actions could better cope with peculiar needs concerning different realities, people, areas, and countries, taking advantage of refining them on the basis of findings that emerged from the SDGPI [ 18 ].…”

Sustainable Development Goal interactions through a climate lens: a global analysis

“…The tool applies a seven-point scale to better capture the intensity and character of target interactions. This approach simplifies the complexity of dealing with large numbers of target interactions and captures how progress towards one target could affect progress in a broad range of targets and associated policies, in a specific setting (Barquet et al, 2021;Hernández-Orozco et al, 2022;Weitz et al, 2019b).…”